-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.

I have never liked the LP...

not for one hour of my so far five decades of life. Ancaps call me statist all the time. :)

The thought of Ayn Rand and her egoism makes me ill. And always has. Even in my yoot.

I'm a jeffersonian Old Right minarchist somewhat akin to anti-Federalists. No one was more virulently anti-Gary Johnson on this website than I. Search it.

I respect a lot of Rothbard's ideas and writings and his desire to form a coalition with the Old Right. I think anarchy is a utopian fantasy and that anarchy has zero power over organic local society.

I voted for Reagan. Neener neener. :p

Reagan didn't turn out as good as I hoped but he used the military the least of any prez in the 20th century and he gave mean speeches about smaller govt and govt getting out of our lives. He gets my props for all that.

The only significant issue I have ever disagreed with Ron Paul is "Audit the Fed". I believe it would be too wonky for the average person, their eyes would glaze over and they would not understand what it all meant. They wouldn't know that sending trillions of $'s overseas to foreign central banks is just a bad idea.

I have deep respect for the Constitution, local self-governance and State's Rights.

I am anti-abortion and pro-life.

I am for "politicians" who speak truth to power boldly without pulling punches and that gaining political offices without the critical masses of hearts and minds focused on the concepts of liberty to support the said office is a useless effort and would most likely just get Rand JFK'ed.

Bite me! :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Pssss....it was a loaded

Pssss....it was a loaded question. Lets be fair here.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Correct. Good point. Ergo, sanctions over what?

He supports sanctions, which are just an act of war by another name.

He's the man.

And flipping it around...

we've overthrown their govt, assassinated their leaders, and have been funding a MEK terrorist insurgency within their borders for decades. :\

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Michael Nystrom's picture

Yes, and those are good points as well

And now we put sanctions on them and threaten preemptive war.

This is just part of American foreign policy for the past 100 years, basically to go funk with every country that looks like it could potentially be powerful enough to threaten our hegemony. The US has done it for decades in the middle east, asia, central and south America. It is our M.O. Funk with everyone. Destabilize the whole world. Don't let anyone get strong enough to challenge our power. The U.S. did it to Japan as well, in the late 80's, early 90's.

I just wish we could, as Ron Paul has advocated, have a humble foreign policy and mind our own business.

He's the man.

Best book I've ever read...

on America's military adventurism:

A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson & Roosevelt

Is there a way to post amazon links that support DP financially?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Yes they are and what's wrong with that?

You've got plenty of readers here MN who have guns and are more than willing to have a civil WAR over the second amendment. Where's your comment against that MN????

Civil war is OK?

But placing sanction on a nation that is burning the US flag selling oil to China and Russia and India WARRRING NATIONS, that's A OK???

Michael Nystrom's picture

I didn't realize that selling oil to China was a crime

And I'm one of those dummies who thinks that burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment - at least in this country. What people do in their own countries is their business. I hardly think a few yahoos burning our flag is cause for sanctions or war. Silly me I guess.

Readers ready for a civil war? I guess I haven't seen any of those.

Look Granger, I know you support Rand, that he says these things because he's "playing the game." I understand that, and it is fine. Rand is going to do just fine in his 2016 bid for president. Frankly, I don't think he needs the support of the Daily Paul.

You have to remember, when I started the DP in 2007, Ron Paul was hardly a household name. He needed the publicity. Rand? No. He knows how to work the machine.

My problem is that I'm a very simple man. I can only go by what people say. Maybe I'm dumb like that - I expect people to say what they mean, and mean what they say. Ron Paul's answer would have been much different.

And I know that Rand is not Ron, but as much as that was his blessing, it is also his curse. He rode into the senate with a big boost from Ron Paul supporters, who thought he was a clone of his dad. But now that he's there he's going to have to put up with our ire as well. It isn't a one way street; the street runs both ways.

Again, Rand will get plenty of support. But I think it is important that there is some group of people working to keep him honest.

The Daily Paul is not, as I have said many times, going to be the Rah-Rah Rand Paul Central site. I did that for Ron, and I'm not going to do it again -- for anyone.

He's the man.

Trading oil for Uranium when it's for nuclear weapons

When trading oil for uranium from China and Russia, with the intention to break the deals Americans made (the good deals, not our shameful mistakes whcih we have made too many) when American people shared their technology, equipment and labor, lifting the ME out of the dark ages, (breaking treaties and deals to steal from Americans is illegal) and then we have to police the world just so we can drive our cars and eat Monsanto, least we become like rural China for the sake of the UN Agenda.

Militas are for what purpose MN? Taking up arms against the government is not an act of war even if for the constitution?

I don't see any "game" Rand is playing. I see Rand as a bridge between what Ron Paul taught us, and what politics is today. We all here acknowledge that we have serious problems with America exchanging our constitution for a UN Agenda.. and yes, people here talk of civil war.. not in those words, but by their actions in collecting guns and ammo to fight the LAO, over constitutional government being lost. That is an act of war too.

Ron Paul did not "work" the machine. He minded his own business and was ignored for years, and how he survived.. that, and he accepted pork. For that was re-elected. He picked the GOP, not me. And his son is bridging the gap diplomatically. He is a great study, no dummy.. and he is what is keeping many of us in the GOP from being cruxified by those who want pre-emptive war and nothing else, constitution be damned.

I completely respect your stand to NEVER made this a Rand Paul blog. I'll even hold you to it. I have no argument with you on that. But I don't appreciate it when you allow and add to Rand bashing that is not honest. Rand did not say Pre-emptive. That is a lie. Rand made it very clear his option is diplomacy and trade, just like his dad.

PS: KNOW my LOVE for you, DP, Liberty, Freedom and Justice will not fade away.

Michael Nystrom's picture

We don't have to police the world

Where did you get that idea?

We're "allowed" to have uranium. Pakistan is. Japan is. Israel is. England is. France is. India is. Who else am I missing? But Iran isn't? Who makes that arbitrary distinction that America is to enforce with our guns and blood?

Militias are for what purpose? Well, let's check the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Apparently, according to our Constitution, they're necessary for the security of a free State.

Do we have a free state now? And someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the only place that the word necessary appears in the Constitution.

Anyway, in spite of our differences on this, I love you too Granger.

He's the man.

It wasn't that we were allowed

It was that we had the technology to enrich it before anyone knew what we had.

The fact that we are dependent on the oil industry we created, until we have developed alternatives, we can't just walk out without becomming like Rural China.

REGULATED Militia.. we don't have that, we have threats of unregulated militias forming to fight in the name of the constitution and second amendments. I think we should get back, but it's like climbing a mountain.. we've done that in the oil and military.. so being on top, we become the target.. and people are tired of it, I'm tired of it, and want peace.. but like any mountain, no matter how hard it is to climb, it's how you climb down that is the hardest.

Stunt men are trained to fall, and Ron and Rand are training us how to fall.. or rather climb down so we don't get hurt.

Since the title of the post was changed I'm calming down now. LOL

And I will keep you abreast of what I see as pro civil war posts.


Please link me...

to these supposed agitations to civil war.

Plans and pronouncements to engage in civil disobedience through non-compliance with gun confiscation by States, sheriffs, and individuals is NOT civil war. You are trying to shame people into to not engaging in protest and non-compliance/civil disobedience.

It is the US Govt who has been announcing and labeling groups pre-emptively while constructing a police state infrastructure. Not the liberty movement. Every single last video and article I have seen on the subject has said we must wait for the Govt to make the first move and to cross the first line. Akin to the Boston Massacre. And that first the people must be unified in philosophy. Spread the message first. Disengage from the system and let it collapse of its own weight.

Your scary monster is imaginary....

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

sharkhearted's picture



Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

"I expect people to say what they mean, and mean what they say."

You said that in the Ron Paul recut video. When I heard that, I have gained incredible respect for you.

You are correct. Rand is not his dad. Rand may or may not need my support or the support of this site. I will vote my conscience when the time comes.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


I have one question Michael, that I was hoping you would answer honestly.

I know you never saw Rand Paul coming in 2007 when you made the site, and I know you did not get permission from Ron to use his name for your publication, or even make him aware it was coming during his presidential bid- but in all honesty, knowing what you know now do you regret using the "Paul" name for the publication? Or stated differently, if you had to do it all over again, would you still use the Paul name?

To me, it seems like youre damned if you do and damned if you dont.
To change the name this far in would be a huge cut in traffic and profits,
not to change it forces you to live with the original choice.
Thats one hell of a catch 22.

Personally, I think, maybe you would not use the Paul name if you had a do over, But if you had the chance to do it all over, would you name it something different or keep Rons family name?

and one correction I would like to make about your statement above, Rand rode into the senate by Tea Party support and gave a message from us on election night. His father, nor his fathers supporters were ever mentioned by Rand throughout his campaign, only the Tea Party was.

I doubt I will get an answer on the question above but I always wondered about how you felt now, on using his name for your site.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Michael Nystrom's picture

If I had to do it again ...

I wouldn't even have done it at all! Ha ha ha.

Ok, that is not completely true, but in every joke, there is a grain of truth. The Paul name definitely presents a problem now. It is, like I said above, a two way street.

I don't think I can answer that question, because it is not how I think. I can't go back in time, so for me there is no point in even going there. I have tried to move the site towards a generalized, non-partisan, non-candidate specific educational resource.

But if I have to put up with all this Rand arguing for the next 4 years... Geez. I'm going to have to figure something out.

and one correction I would like to make about your statement above, Rand rode into the senate by Tea Party support and gave a message from us on election night. His father, nor his fathers supporters were ever mentioned by Rand throughout his campaign, only the Tea Party was.

This is true. And in the preface to his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington, he thanks Jesse Benton, but never mentions the Ron Paul Rabble.

I don't think he needs our support, and based on that bit of evidence, I think he's known that for a long time. He's smart. A veritable political calculator. No question about that.

He's the man.


It was a question Ive always had and probably knew the answer to-
but agreed rand doesnt need some of his fathers supporters.
In fact like his dad, rand doesnt seek out support.
Some in fact, supported ron blindly on one premise which was his foreign policy but ignored more important issues to ron and they are Life, and the proper role of the gvt. even monetary policy.
But I didnt view my question as going backwards as far as undoing anything, I asked it because it always bothered me and I have seen your latest "bans" and foot pounding on Rand supporters while others who disagree with rand, not on votes- but only on his rhetoric get a pass and even blessings.
Rand, like his dad, seeks out no support. He votes and says how he feels and if people like it, then they should know what to do and he will run and win. If not he wont. so you are right, rand doesnt need anyone here or at the American Conservative or anywhere else because he does not seek the presidency, he thinks it should seek him.

But Thank You for answering my question, as you saw fit.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016


you're scraping way down at the bottom of the innuendo rubbish bin. :p

States, sheriffs and citizens making it known they will engage in civil disobedience and refuse to comply with gun confiscation is not "civil war". What is your position? To just give up our rights without even a whimper of protest?

Also, is Nystrom required to denounce some arbitrary other opinion because you disagree with his opinion on some other unrelated topic? :>

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

you should know

you live in a garbage bin of a party that has done NOTHING to advance the principles or issues it claims. Rand is taking those and leaving you do nothings in the dirt.

Just because MN owns this site does not mean I'm going to pander to him. I support his site and I support what he writes that I agree with, and we have not agreed over Rand, and that is fine. But just because he owns this site is not a reason I can not ask HONEST questions?

Why is civil war ok? Antiwar excludes civil war? Educate me.

Civil war

Would civil war be morally justified if you were fighting in defense of your liberties?

If you shoot someone is that an act of aggression? It depends, did you shoot in an act of aggression or did you shoot for self defense? There is a big difference, morally speaking.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Yes, you support the site

And I appreciate that very much Granger. Don't for a minute think that I don't.

I appreciate your candor, your honesty, and your passion. I'm very glad your here, and I'm glad you don't pander to me (even though you pander to Rand - wink, wink - ha ha, just kidding).

Asking honest questions is fine. It is how we learn. We definitely have a disagreement over Rand, but I still consider you a friend. I consider everyone here a friend, for the record.

And I have not seen any posts advocating civil war. I would be indebted to you if you would point them out.

He's the man.

Diplomacy with ALL! Yeah!

Diplomacy with ALL! Yeah!


i think :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

No..it's ok! I do have a

No..it's ok! I do have a sense of humor. And I'll + 1 you for laughing.


back at ya! :D

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Right on,Right. The Granger!

It's not time to be dullards or busy holding a pity parties.

Its time to "PIG PILE".

Kick them, bite them, gnaw them, bash them. In any civil way available.

The bloodthirsty war mongers must not be heard above the hew and cry!

Free includes debt-free!

Rand said that we should

Rand said that we should consider pre emptive military action if diplomacy fails. That's what I disagree with.

You are lying.

He did not say "pre-emptive war should be on the table."

That is a BLATANT LIE.

Those words did not pass his lips on the clip you attached nor were they to be heard ANYWHERE in the clip.



IF IF IF THAT FAILS.. what do you think should happen?

Why shouldn't all options be on the table IF DIPLOMACY FAILS?

Could you cue to when on that interveiw he said PRE-EMPTIVE? I didn't hear that.. I heard him say IF DIPLOMACY FAILS all options, (and that includes pre-emptive) But he is not saying that we need pre-emptive war to settle our issues with Iran. These jokers tried to set him up and instead they were schooled.

It was a loaded question. If

It was a loaded question. If he says no...than he is "soft" like his father. His father lost because of his foreign policy. Period.