5 votes

The Great 2010 Prophecy: There's something about an Aqua Buddha man …

-------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: This recent new post on Daily Paul makes the prophecy even more prescient and somewhat ominous:

Rand Paul says preemptive war with Iran should be on the table
http://www.dailypaul.com/273049/rand-paul-says-preemptive-wa...

Rand really needs to stay away from tables! :p
-------------------------------------------------

excerpt from a highly prophetic editorial from 2010 that predicts and explains recent behaviors and what the cost to our movement may be...

(link to article at the end)

"Ron Paul, in addition to his extreme views on the federal government, has been a harsh critic of the Republican Party’s ‘military adventurism,’ and in the past Rand has faithfully echoed his father’s views. He opposed the war in Iraq, once characterized the September 11 attacks as ‘blowback for our foreign policy,’ and scoffed at the threat of Iranian nukes. And yet here he was in Washington, seeking out a secret meeting with some of the Ron Paul Revolutionaries’ biggest bogeymen. At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who’d been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. ‘He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic,’ Senor says of their two-hour encounter. ‘He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn’t confrontational, and he wasn’t disagreeable. He didn’t seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode.’"

Let’s unpack this bit of news, and mine its implications – which are many, and not at all favorable to Rand. First, it wasn’t the neocons who were courting Rand: Zengerle explicitly says it was Rand who was "seeking out" the meeting, and he wanted it "secret." So he was slinking around drumming up support, like any ordinary run-of-the-mill politician – so what?

Sure, he’s a politician, and they all (with one exception, as far as I know) suck up to everyone and anyone, but these three – Kristol, Senor, and Donnelly – aren’t just anyone. They are the three most anti-libertarian figures on the American Right, with King Kristol being the godfather of the neocons – a position he inherited from his father — and the other two his consiglieri. Not only that, but Kristol has a long history of not only attacking libertarians, but of smearing Rand’s father as an extremist who represents the "wooly fringe," a "crank," and, if not an outright anti-Semite, certainly the sort of candidate who welcomes and naturally attracts them.

This is the man Rand sought out, which raises a question: if the Rand Paul campaign wants us to give them money to fight the "libelous" attacks of the "leftist media," then why in the name of all that’s holy is Rand chasing after someone who libeled his own father?

Yes, this is about Rand’s foreign policy views, but it’s also about his character. The GOP is supposed to be committed to "family values": it’s been their shtick for years. Yet what kind of family values is it when a Republican candidate has no compunctions about stabbing his own father in the back? Faced with the crew that relentlessly slandered Ron Paul at every opportunity, Rand, we are told, went into "absorption mode."

It was a personal and ideological betrayal on a scale that’s painful to contemplate, and it was repeated the following month, when, we are told by Zengerle,

"He met with officials from the powerful lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has frequently clashed with Ron Paul over what the group views as his insufficient support of Israel. Paul, according to one person familiar with the AIPAC meeting, ‘told them what they wanted to hear: ‘I’m more reasonable than my father on the things you care about.’ He was very solicitous.’"

Does it get any slimier than this? I’m sure it does: after all, who knows how many other secret meetings he’s had with what sorts of creepy lobbyists, foreign or domestic? And I’ll bet he was just as solicitous as he was with the AIPAC crowd.

I can see that any politician, who is out there seeking support, would do well to neutralize his harshest critics, short of winning them over. That’s not what’s going on here.

You’ll notice that Paul the Lesser isn’t trimming his sails uniformly, that is, moderating his voice on all the issues: he’s still denouncing Obama’s economic program in rather strident terms, even comparing him to Hitler without mentioning the German dictator by name, and he’s still going strong on the tax-and-spend front, all of which comports with the views of his nation-wide network of libertarian supporters, who are largely funding his campaign. Where he consistently goes off the rails is on the crucial foreign policy front, and that’s what the meeting with Kristol entailed – reassuring the neocons that he’s not a chip off the old block when it comes to endless war and persecution of Muslims.

The New York City mosque issue came up, I’ll bet, and on that score Rand did not disappoint his newfound neocon friends. Indeed, the Weekly Standard has been crowing about the familial split on this question, mocking the elder Paul for the apostasy of his errant son. Noting that Ron had taken an unequivocal stand against the neocons’ anti-Muslim hate campaign, and that the Texas congressman specifically named the neoconservatives as the prime agitators, Michael Goldfarb jeered in Kristol’s rag:

"So, is Rand Paul just another neocon stooge to his father?"

Well, yes, it looks like Rand Paul is indeed a neocon stooge, although his father is hardly likely to say so.

So why – you ask — am I making such a big deal about this? After all, Rand Paul is just another opportunistic politician, who is maybe playing it "smart" by keeping his "real" opinions to himself and hoping to fly in to his target – a Senate seat – under the radar. What’s so wrong with that?

What’s wrong is that it eviscerates the moral core of libertarianism – opposition to mass murder by an ever-expanding State – and leaves only a hollow core, an "economic" shell that allows him to "pass" as just another right-wing Republican. Which is what Rand Paul will be if and when he’s elected.

When he assures AIPAC he’s more reasonable than his father about the things they care about, what exactly is he saying? That he’ll keep the billions in "aid" to Israel flowing? That he won’t make a fuss about Israel’s brutal occupation of the West Bank and its endless provocations in Lebanon and the "settlements"? That, and much more: for what AIPAC cares most about, these days, is ginning up a war with Iran.

So we have to ask: how much "more reasonable" will Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) be about bombing Tehran than his "unreasonable" antiwar father? When it comes time to vote on going to war with Iran, libertarians have good reason to worry about the prospect of Senator Paul voting "aye."

What’s wrong with Rand Paul is what’s been historically wrong with an entire wing of the libertarian movement, one that seemed to have died off after being defeated in the internal battles of the Libertarian Party during the 1980s: the so-called "liberventionists," who oppose the expansion of the American state on the home front, but heartily endorse the "liberating" expansiveness of the American Empire overseas.

This retrograde trend was a holdover from the days when the libertarian movement was organizationally (and ideologically) bound hand and foot to the Goldwater-Buckley-National Review-generated conservative movement of the 1960s. Its influence largely diminished in the 1980s, after a determined struggle waged by Murray N. Rothbard and the Radical Caucus of the Libertarian Party, and due to the influence of the Kochtopus, which, by the end of the decade had become the dominant trend in our movement.

The liberventionists came back with a vengeance, however, in the wake of 9/11 – when all the worst aspects of everyone and everything came to the fore. "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes," wrote "libertarian" columnist and Reason magazine contributing editor Cathy Young, "perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks," in the course of advising us to not fight the "inevitable" post-9/11 attack on our civil liberties (thanks, Cathy: you should go back to Russia). It was then that Reason writer Ron Bailey invented libertarian Trotskyism in rationalizing the Iraq war, positing that the US government is the ideal agency for exporting "liberty" worldwide, and that we can’t have "liberty in one country." Over at Cato, foreign policy analyst Ted Galen Carpenter proposed that we get right to the heart of the problem and invade Pakistan – a suggestion taken up by President Barack Obama nearly a decade later – but, hey, better late than never, right? (Gee, how come Cato isn’t touting this as a victory in the policy wars?)

In short, people fold under pressure. They give up their ideals, or, rather their professed ideals, and go with the flow. It’s too hard to stand up, virtually alone, and say what’s right. Let someone else do it. After all, the price truth-tellers pay is often quite steep – as steep as not being a US Senator.

That’s the argument Rand’s apologists will no doubt utilize in defense of his blatant betrayal. He has to do this to get elected. Everybody does. But do they really?

Ron Paul didn’t sell out, and yet still got elected to Congress – and reelected many times. Is Rand really unfamiliar with the elder Paul’s electoral history – how Ron triumphed over every effort to smear him and sideline him as a "kook," as Kristol would (and has) put it? Is it necessary to point to the example of his own father to disprove this facile and paper-thin rationalization for the worst sort of pandering?

What gets me mad is that it isn’t even pandering to a discernible purpose. Kristol and his gang are completely discredited, along with the neoconservative clique that dragged the GOP down to electoral defeat and ideological bankruptcy. Oh, and they bankrupted the country along the way.

These are the people Rand is turning to for help with his campaign?

Rand Paul has declared, from the start, that he’s the "tea party" candidate, and yet Kristol’s Weekly Standard has been viscerally hostile to the tea partiers from the very beginning, because anti-populism is a key plank in the neoconservative platform, unless – of course – it’s anti-Muslim populism. The very phrase "big government conservatism," which the tea partiers justifiably detest, was invented by the Weekly Standard, along with the fiscally imprudent variety of "national greatness conservatism" Kristol and Co. have been peddling for years. Why, if he’s riding the wave of tea party activism, is Rand forging an alliance with their worst enemies?

He’s way ahead in the polls. He doesn’t need Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard, he doesn’t need the neocons – who aren’t known to exist in any great numbers in Kentucky – and he doesn’t need AIPAC either. In short, there was no good reason for him to run after and appease his father’s nemeses. So why did he do it?

You can ask him, but I’ll save you the trouble. Rand Paul has no principles: he’ll do or say anything to get into that Senate seat – yes, even give up his faith in Aqua Buddha. Or his loyalty to whatever values he once pretended to hold. He’d even betray his own father – and, indeed, he has done precisely that, giving Kristol’s gremlin-bloggers a choice opportunity to once again mock the elder Paul.

Yes, but once he gets in office, he’ll stand up for principle and it’ll all be worth it: the kowtowing to the neocons, the groveling before AIPAC, the capitulation to religious and ethnic prejudices in the case of the mosque issue. Just you wait and see.

Balderdash!

In Paul’s case we’re talking about a winning candidate, or at least one whose victory is highly likely: if he’s selling out at this point, one can only wonder what he’d do if he were behind in the polls. I shudder to think about it.

If he’s already selling out for no good reason, and this before he even gets into office, ask yourself what he’ll do to stay in office. There’s no end to this daisy chain of betrayal-and-rationalization, no logical cut off point for the "temporary" adjustments supposedly necessary for electoral success.

The great danger is that the election of Rand Paul to the US Senate will change the ideological complexion of libertarianism, as it is perceived by the public, and quite possibly succeed in derailing the ongoing work of his father and the Campaign for Liberty in challenging the neocons’ hegemony in the GOP when it comes to foreign policy. The recent release of the House GOP caucus "Pledge to America," which repeats this same neocon litany of endless war and extravagant "defense" expenditures, shows that this fight is far from over – and Rand Paul is on the wrong side.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/23/the-hollow-man...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

so trite

nothing more

As Predictable as Flies on Fresh Poop

The 'Cult of Rand' Acolytes are coming out of the woodwork to rationalize, justify, divert, misdirect and otherwise 'explain' away any potentially negatives about Lil' Rand.

And these are the folks who wrap themselves in the liberty-mantle and purport to be the solution to globalist-collectivist government....

Yeah, right.

So I wanted to know what "Aqua Buddha" was

and googled it.

I tip my hat to whomever wrote the page I read 5/5

A signature used to be here!

Ron and Rand

are both opposed to Pre-emptive/ Bush doctorin war.

Rand isn't selling out, the cowards who never went to a GOP meeting, make excuses to do nothing but complain about the chump change they contributed to Ron, don't have the brains to understand Rand are the sell outs. They sold out the rEVOLution to form a PROGRESSIVE Liberty Movement. You can fool yourself, but you are not folling anyone who is walking the Ron and Rand Paul talk of RESTORING THE REPUBLIC! Why not read Rand?

Raimondo is who sold out to the progressives and some so called self identified "Libertarians" who are really progressives.

YOU FOLKS ARE FINISHED so whine away.. that's what you've always done best anyways. Find a candidate that can beat Rand. I dare you.. Rand is not yours.. so go and find one.. LOL you can't. You don't have anything going for you but conspiracy theory and whine.

Granger...

I won't insult your intelligence by believing that you believe what you just said.

A signature used to be here!

Believe it

Experience my dear. I've been around a long long time.

I think you may fear insulting your own intelligence by debating me. GO FOR IT!

You're on!

PEACE

Hahahaha!!

You just called Raimondo progressive!!! :D

Either you are just intellectually shallow or lack character (dishonest). Nobody could be further from a progressive than Raimondo.

Please elaborate on how Raimondo is in any way a progressive. Name one single issue Raimondo and Ron Paul disagree on. Name a progressive personality or organization that Raimondo sold out to? Name a single progressive philosophy that Raimondo has adopted, moved towards or suggested any degree of capitulation with.

Do you even know what a progressive is? Do you even realize that the neocons Rand is sanitizing himself for CLAIM PROGRESSIVE TRADITION as their own? Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Wilson?

Raimondo could not be more opposite of a progressive. The only people less govt interventionist with regards to the economy. social and cultural issues, and foreign policy than Raimondo are libertarian anarchists.

Do you even know what a libertarian is?

Twelve Steps to Admitting Neoconservatism is Progressivism
http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/twelve-steps-to-admitting-neo...

Neo Conservatives: A Progressive Wolf in Conservative Sheep's Clothing
http://www.theenlightenedconservative.com/2010/05/neo-conser...

The Neoconservative Mind
"This change was not the decline of traditional conservatism but the rise of neoconservatism – which is not really conservatism at all, but the jingoistic mirror image of progressivism. The neoconservatives support spending massive and unnecessary amounts of money on the military, engaging in useless foreign wars, and the erosion of individual rights and the expansion of government via state security apparatuses."
http://orangecatholic.com/2012/10/07/the-neoconservative-mind/

It is Rand that is selling out to the progressives!

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

When I supported anti-war.com

And I have a nice little collection of bumper stickers from supporting anti-war.com, when they used to give bumper stickers as a THANK YOU, and they only asked for under $10K to operate, and Raimondo lived in San Francisco, and had a picture of himself trying to either look like James Dean or Hunter S, Thompson, cigerette dangling from his mouth, the Brandon Institute and Raimondo, were far more Libertarian, standing for "Each their own", they were the best anti-war blog anywhere, Counter Punch/ Alexander Cockburn, was the more progressive of the two. Then Op-Ed News started, and Rob Kall worked very hard to draw from both.

When Bush was elected into office, and began the Bush doctorine, that hurt anti-war because the progressives grew very powerful on the anti-war side, and since many people see the Libertarian Party as an extention of the GOP, because the LP nominates REPUBLICAN LOSERS for president, the readership would go to antiwar.com for the list of dead and wounded soldiers, and Paul Craig Roberts. Then Counterpunch started paying Paul Craig Roberts and many antiwar, like Nader, while Op Ed News was developing writers.. they would start at Op Ed and move to Counterpunch as they improved.

Antiwar was losing business BIG TIME, and their expenses were going up.. $15K, $20K, 25K, 30K is it still at $30K or is it past that?

Then to compete, antiwar began employing progressive voices, like Nader, Sheehan, Benjamin.. so you had a choice, antiwar, counterpunch or Op-Ed, all had the same writers, and OpEd was more like DP, giving people room to write.. Counterpunch was still in the lead because they expanded to other progressive issues with great writers, and antiwar lagged with Raimondo, who moved inland from SF, began writing about being gay, seemingly to attract the progressive reader.. and frankly, Raimondo lost his edge, much of his audience and from what little I read from him on DP, I'm not impressed by his angry, slams on those on the right.

He had the opportunity to grow when Ron Paul began running for president, instead, he attacked, or tread carefully to not displease his progressive readers, and now he attacks Rand.

So Raimondo has lost my support and until he makes Ron and Rand Paul's case, he won't get my support. If I saw him in person I would say the same thing. I have met Alexander Cockburn, Rob Kall and many of their writers as they come here to speak.. Raimondo does not live that far and has never made the trip. We have 26 registered anti-war and pro-peace groups who continue to rally and protest every friday.. not once has he bothered.

The Neoconservatives are going OUT OF BUSINESS. My committee they have all quit. So going on about Neoconservatives is about as pertnant to today's GOP as going on about hippies.. we still have them and they are all in their 60s and 70's now.. at least the ones who came here in the 60s and lived off the land, in communes.

Why doesn't Raimondo go off on NEOLIBERALS? My guess is it would hurt his readership.

Now saking me if I know what a Libertarian is.. I joined the party in 1976, under the influence of NORML ads in Playboy.. "This is my beautiful body and I have the right to do what I want with it", and "This is my hard earned money and I have the right to do what I want with it". I have known and worked with Steve Kubby (who joined my Ron Paul meet up in 08), has run for the nomination of LP president and like many of us SICK AND TIRED OF BEING CO-OPTED by the GOP.

Jack Herer was a very good friend of mine.. I collected nearly 10K signatures for CA Proposition 215 in 94, which we lost, and then passed in 96 with 56% of the vote. I voted NO.. convinced the word marijuana was a part of the problem, furthemore, LIKE RAND, I have been a cannabis hemp activist since 1992.

I went to trails in 5 counties where my Libertarian friends who opened dispensary's spent 10 years mandetory minimums, a few died in prison.. and Jack and Dr White and a group of us used to meet in Apple Valley where we pulled together the CA Cannabis Health and Hemp Inniative.. we've been working on that a long time because progressives want to give medicinal cannabis to the state in legalizing, and we want to keep it free in decriminalization.

Rand is liberating the GOP rom the Neocons and you are jealous because you and your progressive frauds have NOTHING and NO ONE represnting you. So wail away whiner.. that's about all you're good at.

you might want to

give lew rockwell's recent interview with raimondo a listen. it's short, but i think you will find it enlightening if you're willing to listen.
"I"m Sick and Tired of Neocons"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2013/01/14/340-i...

the audio won't play for me

I siuggest to MN he take Lews idea to sell books with the AMAZON link .. good idea.. shame the audio would not play.. had it, I would ahve responded.

Scoot Jackson? No Scoot Libby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

CIA was Bush Sr materializing the Intel coupe of our government.

Focusing on the USSR is completely washing out Nam and the global war against communism, which we lost, and why we are being sold out to China.

And he never mentions the Neoliberal..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo_liberal

Who isn't influenced by Money? He sounds JEALOUS

Raimondo makes Rand's case for visiting Israel.

He says the Neocons over reached, but the Neocons were only HALF because the Neoliberals and Neocons work together, being each other fall guys and supporters in Wash and MSM.

Ron Paul saved the Libertarian movement? LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT? There is NO SUCH THING.

Ron Paul's campaign is not to "save some so called libertarian movement", it's to RESTORE THE REPUBLIC by building a YOUNG conservative movement and outting the liberal neocons in the GOP.

We have to protect the "BRAND" Libertarian.. WATCH ME RAIMONDO WATCH ME AND THOSE WHO HAVE THE GUTS TO JOIN THE GOP and ESTABLISH Libertarian values!

Here we go again about his being gay.. RE Pasture Giglio

NO SPECIAL RIGHTS TO ANY GROUP RAIMONDO!!!!!!!

It's like he really doesn't get Ron Paul.

Sorry Lew, but Raimondo is boring, pandering and part of the problem.

Thank you for the link davyC.

??? o_O

What are you on about?

Scooter Libby has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. He was just a neocon lackey and scapegoat for the Bush admin.

"Scoop" Jackson was the last great neoconservative in the Democratic party before the neocon rats jumped ship over to the Republican party in the 1970's.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to get at with your comment on communism. It was the Kissinger/Nixon nexus that sold us out to China in the name of "mutual interdependence" involving transfer of industry and technology to China to make us dependent on each other. The neocons, being derivative of TROTSKY, have fully supported Kissinger's plan as the Trotsky and the neocons both hated the USSR. They both love big communo-fascist governance but they didn't appreciate the USSR's competition with them for power.

"Neoliberal" is a meaningless meme with a wide variety of definitions contextually and temporally and is not even in common usage and therefore rendered useless. The Austrian School, which Ron Paul certainly agrees with, used the term for a while to mean support for free markets and the government butting out. The Chicago School used the term to imply that free markets were artificial abstractions that need government interference to work properly. Democrats like to use the word to smear those against the welfare state. The word is garbage.

As far as Raimondo and your critique of his supposed lack of referencing the word "neoliberal", there is no one more anti-govt intervention in the economy and against any kind of welfare than Raimondo. Period.

You said:

"Ron Paul's campaign is not to "save some so called libertarian movement""

To try and claim that libertarianism is not fully on the radar and the prime focus of Ron Paul's career and efforts is just -- inane. He is a long time member of the Liberty Caucus whose goal is openly libertarian. The Campaign for Liberty is widely recognized as distinctly libertarian and every C4L event is advertised as a gathering of libertarian-oriented speakers and guests. Ron Paul spent decades hanging out with and praising Rothbard. Ron Paul just finished a Mises Circle with Rockwell and Woods entitled "The Future of Libertarianism" where Ron talks about his future plans to aggressively promote libertarianism on a global basis.

Finally, an equally inane comment by you:

"NO SPECIAL RIGHTS TO ANY GROUP RAIMONDO!!!!!!!"

What planet are you on? Raimondo, although gay, is RENOWNED for his abhorrence and objection to government interference in cultural issues, specifically with respect to anything to do with gay people. Consider the following quotes and links:

"As he is openly gay,[12] his support of the social conservative Buchanan attracted considerable attention.[13]"
"Raimondo believes the government should refrain from adopting laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays.[12] He also is against gay marriage,[24] both mocking the idea that gays should adopt a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, and noting that as a libertarian he opposes "State incursion into such private matters."[25] He also has written that after years of persecution by the state, gay rights activists want to "use the battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of homosexuals."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Raimondo

The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage - Raimondo
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertar...

Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf - Raimondo
http://www.anti-state.com/raimondo/raimondo1.html

Again, I repeat my earlier assertion that either you are a confused intellectual simpleton or you are just being dishonest in an attempt to fling smears hoping they will stick on those who are unfamiliar with Raimondo.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

We don't agree

Raimondo lost my support and you're not helping him get it back from me.

I have no need to insult you with name calling to let you know, I don't agree with you.

Have a good posting day.

Awwww... :>

You said:

"I have no need to insult you with name calling"

Then what was this?:

"YOU FOLKS ARE FINISHED so whine away.. that's what you've always done best anyways. Find a candidate that can beat Rand. I dare you.. Rand is not yours.. so go and find one.. LOL you can't. You don't have anything going for you but conspiracy theory and whine."

and this:

"Rand is liberating the GOP rom the Neocons and you are jealous because you and your progressive frauds have NOTHING and NO ONE represnting you. So wail away whiner.. that's about all you're good at."

Seems like you are calling the names "whiner", "conspiracy theorists", "progressive frauds", "useless", etc.. :)

Nearly every claim you have made is easily demonstrably incorrect and blatantly nonfactual. Pointing out that you are either 1) intellectually uninformed/confused or 2) have a nefarious dishonest purpose is merely an observation. It must be one or the other.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

when you get your computer

behaving right give it a listen. i listened to it again. just brilliant, and will answer many of your questions.

Mucho excellente!

thanks :)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Please realize what it is that Rand is doing.

You might not like it, and yes it is distasteful, but.... Rand is learning from his fathers mistakes. Yes Rand is meeting with the neocons, and doing a bit of a charm offensive. he has maybe two years to get them to possibly accept him at least enough to not come out strongly against him. The same thing with AIPAC, and the trip to Israel. Like it or not, when AIPAC would not even consider Ron as a canidate thast cemented the "anti-Israel" label the neocons had laid on him. That label is what made sure that Santorum supporters would not flip and support Paul after Snatorum dropped out. Heck, that label is why Santorum had a surge in the first place. It is a horrible thing to have to say, but Ron was too principled to win. Rand is tryign to telegraph to these groups that he could be their man. That is not to say that he is, but rather that he needs them if not as allies then at least not as enemies. The average voter is a low information voter. Please realize that Rand is trying to plant the "I'm not anti-Israel" seed in peoples minds ahead of time so that when some talking head comes out in the heat of a primary to accuse him that it will not have the same effect it had for his father. The Liberty movement is not big enough to win the nomination all by itself, not is the Evangelical group. However if the two groups were to combine they would represent close to, if not an outright majority of primary voters. Rand knows this is the coalition he has to build to win a primary, and he is workign toward it now while no one is paying attention. Luckily anti-Rand articles like this actually work in his favor by helping plant the seed in people minds. Far more evangelicals will give hiom a look based on this negative article than Liberty folks who will abandon him. 2016 will be a big year for liberty indeed when Rand goes up against Hillary, let's get him a congress to work with first in 2014....

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

I agree with what you have

I agree with what you have written but why would the establishment EVER let him win the presidency? They won't. It will be a hand picked stooge just like Mitt.

you've already lost but we're

you've already lost but we're still playing.

LoL. Aqua Buddha. Still

LoL.
Aqua Buddha. Still running with this main stream media fad are we?

Southern Agrarian

Raimondo gets it

and hits the nail bang on the head, although i doubt he'll open the eyes of the rand apologists here who like their leader will do and say anything for the whiff of a possible victory. the denial with the rand supporters is so thick it's staggering and frightening, and makes one want to walk away from the whole political world of corruption
and slime completely, but you know what? ron is still with us, and his ideas & message in spite of betrayals continue to spread, and there remain good men and women of principle. hats off to raimondo, woods, the judge, rockwell and johnson for keeping their eye on the big picture, the one that allows us to look into the mirror.

RON PAUL 2016

you're such a drama queen

you're such a drama queen sometimes

that's it?

"you're such a drama queen sometimes"

i get more intelligent discourse from my 12 year old sister.

lol I bet she says the same

lol I bet she says the same thing though...

i glad you're laughing out loud

i glad you're laughing out loud

Wow, this is so true. I

Wow, this is so true. I hope everyone will read this s that we can come to terms with exactly what is driving the wedge within the movement. We need another standard bearer like Ron Paul to support. It isn't going to be Rand.

It will be us. We don't need Kristol or Rand, we just need people who only strive to uphold the Constitution.

I've begun to look

in the black community. Not on purpose, I just stumbled across a couple of "liberty" themed videos recently that were done by black men. They have a way of explaining our current "slave" status that is hard to ignore.
And I don't mean for "a leader." For inspiration. We don't need another Ron Paul, we need about 5 or 6 million Ron Pauls.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is man born before his time.
100 years before his time.
When he reaches 100 years of age it will be his time.
Just like mlk and all the greats like tesla.