The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
-35 votes

Rand Paul interview regarding Iran and immigration

Published on Feb 2, 2013
Senator Rand Paul discussed immigration reform, the Iranian nuclear situation and the Benghazi terrorist attack on WMAL.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The Great And Most Evil Erasure

This is not about erasing Iran or Israel from the surface of the globe - this is about A MUCH GREATER AND MOST EVIL ERASURE - Refresher:

"Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing."

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.


When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by ONE MAN OR ONE CLASS of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.


It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, IT ERASES from everyone's conscience THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE.[...]"


1. do we STILL know what is JUST and what is UNJUST - indeed, do we STILL know TODAY?

2. is it JUST to do "PREEMPTIVE ATTACKS" against other INDIVIDUALS? Against other NATIONS?


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Not only does every sovereign country

Have an inherent right to any and all aspects of nuclear technology,
it is a simple, logical conclusion that EVERY country will eventually have nuclear weapons

It is inevitable.

I think that is why Neo-Cons are in such a rush to sucker us into invading every country they can. Even they know that this is true, and that time is against them.

The person who gave the

The person who gave the interview agrees with my interpretation of what Rand said. Maybe I should've kept the title the way it was.

Michael Nystrom's picture

It was my interpretation as well

You can change it back if you want to.

Thank you...


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

This thread needs to be done.

This thread needs to be done. You guys are despicable.

decent on immigration

neoconish on Iran. At least its not over the top.
but neoconish of any level is still garbage

Why are you all worried about

Why are you all worried about a preemptive war with a president who is willing to be diplomatic? I always figured diplomacy works in these kinds of situation. Isn't that how we dealt with Russia during the Cold War? Diplomacy works. Therefor no need to go to war. And if we are being diplomatic but they are not...then what?

deacon's picture

that prez is not a diplomat

do sanctions mean diplomatic?
does sending a virus to them mean being diplomatic?
was he diplomatic when he sent troops to Libya?
is it being diplomatic to send drones to kill americans?
BTW,there was no real cold war with russia,that was false,just to scare americans,why do i say this? we rebuilt their country
we loaned them money through our banks,and GM was building plants over there(all the while we were told to cower under a table at school
because of the faked nuke threat,they were never our enemies

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

Really? Ron Paul said during

Really? Ron Paul said during one of the debates that we got out of the Cold War by talking to them. Was he lying?

deacon's picture


we were already talking to them,all the while
the cold war was in effect,our banks loaned them money
our auto industry was building over there
so yes we were talking to them
GM owns and operates the biggest truck plant in russia built during the cold war
but do sanctions work? or is that an act of war?
sanctions work against the innocent peoples,not the governments
but a question deserves an answer
who was bothered by the cold war? was it the russian gov,or was it the peoples,the peoples of america and the people of russia,who were lied to?

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

You know honestly...I wasn't

You know honestly...I wasn't around during the C W. I was really young when we were coming out of it. I vaguely remember Reagan's speach when he said " Gorbachev...tear this wall down"

deacon's picture

i will not lie to you

i have no reason to do that
life is just too short for that
I want more and more to see the truth
this is one of them
you can google what i have mentioned
my only desire is to be known as an honest
man,tis all that is left,and i want people to know truth
it is all that matters

Leave an indelible mark on all of those that you meet.
OH... have fun day :)

That Is Why...

... I don't understand why people bash Rand Paul? He knows diplomacy will work, and he says that. But in order to sound politically correct and not be slayed by the media he has to say "but all options are on the table". Again however he knows that Iran will and could be reached diplomatically.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

I support a diplomatic

I support a diplomatic foreign policy. I have not seen one in my lifetime.

Weebles is a true patriot.

Weebles is a true patriot.

Ventura 2012


thanks man.. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

<3 haha

<3 haha

Ventura 2012

Weebles lies, as usual

Funny how hyenas like acting in a pack. Their collective thumb-work is dignifying, their outrage is honest, their logic seems decent.

Weebles: "Iran has every natural right to have nuclear weapons!"

But groups do NOT have rights, only demands....

Mr. Jefferson would beg to disagree...

"We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle whereon our government is founded, that every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson

"Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we presume not to prescribe or censure their course, happy could we be permitted to pursue our own in peace, and to employ all our means in improving the condition of our citizens." --Thomas Jefferson

"It is the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty from being exercised by any other within its limits" --Thomas Jefferson

"How easily we prescribe for others a cure for their difficulties, while we cannot cure our own." --Thomas Jefferson

And for your perusing pleasure, an entire web page of Jefferson discussing the Rights of Nations:

Have a nice day! :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

All this...

defending Rand because he mumbled something about "use diplomacy first to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons then if that fails all options on the table(attack Iran)" is just neocon nonsense!

Ron Paul said Iran has every natural right to have nuclear weapons! He said it DURING A NATIONAL DEBATE! Boldly!

Who the hell are we to tell them what weapons they can't have???? Are we EXCEPTIONAL god-like beings? We are just bullies earning all the hate against us.

We have no moral ground whatsoever to attack them to prevent them from developing technology even if we ask nicely first(diplomacy). NONE.

And further it is IMPOSSIBLE for Iran to prove they don't have or are not developing nuclear weapons. So this diplomacy first then all options on the table is a GUARANTEED WAR. Our Govt swore up and down Iraq had WMD's. They made up a series of lies about it. Millions of innocent people were killed and displaced!

You people make me want to go all Alex Jones! Raaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!! :D

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

at the RNC

rand was told that he wasn't allowed to mention his dad's name in his speech, not even "my father".
rand followed orders like a good little gop soldier. this is the man you want to lead the liberty movement?

He DID mention his dad in his

He DID mention his dad in his RNC speech.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out:


Perhaps then, when he says at the convention in Tampa (I was there) "A certain congressman from Texas who ran for president" the caption under the screen could say; "RON PAUL" or "My Dad". And when he is asked (during the subject interview which started all of this), if when diplomacy fails there should be a military option, and he answers; "all options should be kept on the table" the closed caption could read "I think we could then bomb them back into the Stone Age" Another thought; maybe among the Rand loyalists there is an interpreter who could follow Rand and tell everyone what he really meant, or what type of chess move we just saw.
Just saying....

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

he was not allowed to

say Ron Paul or My Father.

he did say "a certain congressman" you good with that? weak, dude, weak.

Yes. He gave a nod to his

Yes. He gave a nod to his father and followers during Mitt Romneys "coronation" when he was told not to. Good for him!


Even though I just said it, I'll say it again.

Randroids are sounding more and more like the hacks they supposedly despise with each passing day, by trying to rationalize the actions of their newest shepard while demonizing those who stand on principle.

When I say Randroid, I'm *not* referring to those who merely support Rand, just the ones who act as if he's the second coming.

A signature used to be here!

Interested to hear what you will call...

the good Doctor when he endorses and votes for Rand. Its to hate on Rand from the sidelines. Get in the game.

Screw your "game"

I don't care who Ron supports, because unlike SOME people here, I'm not looking for someone to blindly follow.

Also, I find it funny how all you Randroids keep acting as if you know what others are going to do before they do it. Apparently, supporting Rand gives one precognitive abilities!

How do you know that he's going to endorse Rand? Why, because it's his son? That's like me saying "Rand will definitely support his dad" and we all know how that turned out.

And no, I don't "hate" Rand, just annoyed by the supporters who think everyone should blindly follow a surname. Do try to understand the difference.

A signature used to be here!


the classic excuse of Kissingerites and NeoconArtists.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~