15 votes

Jack Hunter's response to Rand's Israel comment

I was interested to hear what Jack Hunter thought about Rand's Israel comment, so I asked him a question about it on Facebook. Here is his response:

"I think in the liberty movement we have a tendency to eschew mainstream news and only read liberty stuff, which is fine, but it means we don't always understand what we're really up against. That's why I post mainstream stories like these. Here's Sen. Paul's foreign policy record/comments just recently:
Antiwar grilling of Kerry
Bringing up unconstitutional war in Libya
Comparing dropping bombs in Cambodia to Libya (to Kerry)
Pushing foreign aid cuts to Pakistan again to Kerry
Bringing up cutting foreign aid while in Israel
Being on TV against the use of drones this week
Getting FOX to cover, ad naseum, not selling arms to Egypt, from the non-interventionist point of view
Being the sole vote against Iranian containment language"

"Everything I've listed here, contrasted with the occasional diplomatic comment some might not like, is important to remember when passing judgment. Foreign policy is my number 1 issue. Always has been and always will be. And I see, finally, a Republican willing to take the more sane, non-intenventionist message into the mainstream in a way that can stick and possibly become policy. Ron started this whole thing. Rand is taking it to the next level, and he is not alone (Amash, Massie, etc."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ain't got JACK SQUAT...

Hunter who???

Jack Hunter

was part of the pro-Rand, anti-Ron faction of the past campaign. A true "Bentonite", and a mouthpiece for the group we fought in our efforts to get Ron Paul elected. He's slick, but his agenda is neo con.

AD in NV

I'm not a fan of Jack

He's become an apologist for Rand, much like Rush during the Bush years.

Don't get me wrong: I support Rand. But I think Jack should just point out when Rand is wrong. He shouldn't beat around the bush.

A real friend will show you when you're wrong, but in the right spirit. (e.g. Tom Woods)

I've made a transition from

I've made a transition from liking Jack to not appreciating him now. Even though I pretty much agree with his post, it seems a bit ...well, I would prefer for someone to be straightforward and say that while they don't exactly agree with the rhetoric and don't like that policy that they do understand the game of politics and the need to overcome some voter hesitancy ...or some such. Yet Jack goes overboard and also always attacks, in a way, the people who he seems to think are politically unsavvy and fringe. Personally, I don't think Jack is so polished himself and by shedding that raw edge and criticism of the game he once had, he does himself a disservice.

Honestly,

...Does anyone consider Jack Hunter relevant anymore? As far as I'm concerned he's floating in the same boat as Jesse Benton- opportunists of the liberty movement.

nah...

Jack Hunter just grew up. I understand his message and he has been down with us since day one. He has taken Lindsay Graham to the woodshed. He wants to win and so do I.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Interesting aside on the use of the word liberty

Our country is now following admiralty law, not common law as our founding documents demand. This is why you see the gold fringe on our flags in all federal offices and courts. This comment to follow is from a FB friend of mine who has studied legal documents extensively, and he makes a very good point and considering his observation I submit we should be referring to the freedom movement rather than a liberty movement:

"Admiralty has always claimed jurisdiction everywhere that's why we won “liberty” and not freedom. Liberty is a privilege granted to crew members by the captain of a ship, that's also why the statue is in the ocean, not on the mainland.

Even though we were allowed to make our own rules, their rules have always covered anything ours left out. You can find that in writing in a publication titled, “The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts."

Blessings )o(

In other words, using foreign

In other words, using foreign policy to score political points against democrats. Rand recently voted to increase sanctions, Jack forgot that too

Ventura 2012

I finally realized

It makes a lot of sense now why some of you don't like Rand. You can't believe that he is trying to gain acceptance in the mainstream because you think the mainstream is run by powerful overlords who have perfect knowledge. In your worldview, it would be pointless for Rand to play this game because the people he's trying to fool would know that they hadn't put him up to it. In your view, he knows this already and thus must be working for the overlords.

Makes my head hurt.

Makes my head hurt.

SteveMT's picture

Translation: Stop asking questions you Liberty Movement-ers!

Just accept that we know more than you do. We know the right way, so just follow our lead and stop complaining.

The character 'Squealer' from Eric Blair's book "Animal Farm" comes to mind.

Where does he say that???

?????

SteveMT's picture

The condescending way he communicates with us.

"...we [People in the Liberty Movement] don't always understand what we're really up against."

He insinuates by his way of spinning that Ron Paul must have not understood anything about political games that Jack Hunter believes must be played in order to get ahead.

and he has a valid point.

Ron Paul ran for POTUS three times. Ron Paul spread a message. If Rand plays this game right, he can win.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

SteveMT's picture

The message spread because Ron Paul didn't play this game.

We wouldn't be here had Ron Paul played that game. There would be a lot less of us now if Ron Paul's rhetoric did not match his actions.

I knew what Jack's response would be

before I read it.

How? Because he's an establishment hack and their rhetoric is easy to predict.

Hey Jack!

Tap dance much?

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

oh, I guess I just don't understand

the complexities of the "real world. In the "real world" you have to lie.

and I'm just a simpleton who can't understand that...

what is the logic again???

because the masses won't believe you or like you unless you lie???

hmmmmmm...

"Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies"
-Ron Paul

I'm sorry...what did Rand lie

I'm sorry...what did Rand lie about again?

"an attack on Isreal is an attack on the US"

I believe the propaganda is a lie. When Jack Hunter tells me that I don't understand what we are up against as an excuse for someone perpetuating and reinforcing a propaganda line, I consider that a lie too.

It does not help the cause of liberty to say things like this. It confuses it. And at what point is Rand going to stop and correct these lie's? Is he planning oh somehow tricking people into accepting liberty? I really don't get the point.

socratic hint:

Q: Why are Bill Kristol and Netanyahu so pleased with Rand now?
A: Because Rand is either lying about his support for zionism... or, even worse, he's not.

And no matter what you think of Kristol or Netanyahu they aren't stupid or easily bamboozled. And neither of them really care if Rand is lying or not. They only care if they can use it against him politically. And Kristol and Netanyahu are world-class when it comes to wielding political gangsterism skills globally...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Jack is employing a method of

Jack is employing a method of coping with denial that involves deflection and distraction from the issue at hand. He doesn't address the main issue, just like a Politician would. You wouldn't catch a statesman like Ron dancing around a question like this gang of Rand politicians.

The key difference between Ron and Rand is this...

Ron Paul never really wanted to be President, and Rand Paul really does. That is not a criticism of either man(Although personally I have tremendous respect for someone like Ron Paul who rejects power and ego). IMO this is what can account for most of the differences between Ron and his son. Rand is more strategic and willing to compromise, and he will be less popular among our core group because of that. However, Rand is much more likely to be elected President. There are people like Ron and Rand in every movement, pragmatists and idealists. IMO they are both vital and necessary to the success of any movement like ours.

Look at the pragmatic Reagan

Look at the pragmatic Reagan and see how that went.

I didn't say I was in favor of all pragmatsits,

only pragmatists who share my ideals. Reagan talked a lot about liberty but ultimately proved to be a con. Maybe you think I'm naive for believing Rand is different, but I really don't believe the apple could have fallen far from the tree in Rand's case.

Ron did want to be president.

Ron did want to be president.

I don't think he did.

Or at least he knew that the PTB would not stand for it. That's why he didn’t play ball. What would be the point?

I think his main goal was to educate a critical mass of people on the theory of Liberty in order to jump-start a new Renaissance. And he accomplished his goal in spades. We're now living in the very beginning of a new age of enlightenment.

i agree..

I got ALOT of heat here because I said it a while back. Ron wanted to win in 08. He didn't have the same fire in 12. I agree.. He wanted to educate. Plant the seeds for his son.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Like I said before......

Rand is a Flip Flopper like his buddy Romney.....

Flip Flop?

When? Where? How?