The Daily Paul has been archived.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!
29 votes

Rand Paul on Situation Room 2/6/2013

Wish I had the video...just wanted to give you guys a heads up that he was on talking about foreign policy. Good interview.

Thanks for the vid link, eduardo89

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Oh Granger :)

I did not want you to feel sad. I know those were not the words you were saying to me. I suppose my mind plays tricks with words and that was the trick and it was funny to me. So I shared it with you, but not ver well. No, I in now way thought you were saying I was a gold digger. I was joking about digging out gold in Josf.

You are right my friend, the church and the boy's family failed him as well as society. But he also made choices. When he stole the church offferings the church did not press charges. The church allowed him to pay the money back, several hundred dollars, no questions asked. His father was livid that people would accuse his son...but when the video recorder played, it was undeniable. The boy has had opportunity after opportunity and continues to choose wrong. I don't think he is a drug addict. When his mom asked my husband whether she should go back to work during his teen years my husband advised here that this was the time when her son needed her the most even though he was more self sufficient. It is a very sad story. He even denied stealing from his neighbors, but the prints in the snow told the truth. He is not very smart about his crimes. I agree though that the church, me, I, didn't do enough to help. I could have perhaps made a difference by taking him into my home during his mother's working hours and spending time with him and helping him to develop correct life choices. But I am too busy with my own life...

I heard Rand’s name this morning on a talk radio. It was in context with Marco Rubio being the choice of the mainstream (those were not the words, but I cannot think of them right now, kind of like the meaning of the mainstream political machine) but that Rand Paul was making a name for himself!!!

I agree that there are people here who hate the GOP. I think there are a lot of forces at work including those who will only vote Libertarian. Some of it is confusing to me.

Your words:

“I thought the reason we were getting into the GOP was to replace the criminals and work to build a party based on integrity, the golden rule, conservative values as outlined in Ron Paul's books.”

Are correct, and if we would all just do that it would make a difference. Thank you, Granger, for making a difference. You are an inspiration to me. We are so busy chasing kids to basketball games…6 games in one week…that I do not dare think about trying to join something else. I am sure that is a big part of the problem. We trade basketball for 3rd and 5th graders for the future of our country. Talking about traitors, the finger points at me.


The wonderful thing about God

Well, there are many wonderful things about God. I can sing praises to God all day with JOY, so I don't mean to isolate, but I believe in God's WILL. When God wants something for us.. THERE WE ARE. poof! It's like majic.

I know God wanted me exactly where I am, and that my purpose is unfolding..all the things in the past, things that made no sense.. things that I asked God, "Why me Lord?"

Well, here I am, and I see.. "Oh I see now." I never dreamed I would be a repukagain. NEVER NEVER NEVER.. Here I am Lord.

Perhaps, the young man who has stolen from your Church will wake up one day and repent, and his life will be one that saves young men tomorrow that were like him today?

Let us pray! (((((((((((((((bear)))))))))))))

Yes, Granger

Let us pray!

:) Blessings :)

On the subject of governing power

"I do think we want to to drill, but there are forces at work to keep us from drilling and some of that is propaganda that other suck up and then they don't want to drill. It is all about the money IMO. There are probably better sources of fuel than oil, but they may be snuffed so that the power remains focused on oil. I can't back that up so probably shouldn't have said it."

Open a Search engine and type in Oil Boom.

Power has to be governed in such a way as to keep the victims powerless to defend themselves while at the same time the victims have to be empowered to a point at which the governors (so called) are happy.

The Pursuit of Happiness (up-side-down).

Take too much, and we can't show up to the fight for a good show, even if we are supposed to lose - using "we" loosely.

How about a little boom to get the victims fired up for some real war?

Who knows.

I don't.

But history does have a way or repeating itself, as if following some script.

Gerald Celente knows the script, and so I'm not alone.

Boom, Bust, Trade Wars, Real Wars.

The general trend is down here in U.S.A., and that is odd, since never before in the history of Central Banking the home team is basically broke while the Central Bank borrowed at least quadruple the entire money supply for some purchase of some kind.

Why have the home team (frauds/extortionists/traitors/invadors/occupiers/criminals/criminals/criminals/with badges they gave themselves and told us to shine, quickly, and without objection, or question) doubling, tripling, quadrupling, the amount of their legal fraud notes, which gives them as much power to purchase as 4 entire United States Economies combined, or much more, who knows, they lie, and that Loan they took out on us is their official account of how much they borrowed from us, to buy something.


What are they buying now?

What do they need to buy with as much money as at least 4 entire United States Economies COMBINED into one big fat welfare check?

I don't know, but they allowed some people to go ahead and add more POWER to the oil supply that is home grown.

I've heard too that the pipeline deal is going through, so good times folks, boom baby boom.

See, folks, see how good those guys are, saving us from nukes, and all that good stuff.


I'm so happy I can just about, ahhhh, sit down.

"Criminals are also let loose on society during revolutions. That concerns me as I see we have such a large prison population. What if they are being radicalized. What if we are disarmed and they are let loose during a civil uprising?"

Can I offer a not easy to realize competitive viewpoint on this prison thing?

You can skip past if it is not welcome.

There are codes in prisons. One has to do with people guilty of harming children. Those types of criminals, according to most of the criminals, Mob Rule, or so I hear, those children raping, torturing, murdering, harming, criminals don't do so well in prison.

That may be why the so called "governors" pardon each other for being pedophiles, getting their hands caught in the pants of children, often enough for the so called "governors" would be hell to pay, if those types of criminals ever had to face real prison time.

Pardon me, please.

The ungovernable, so to speak, tend to be governing themselves, so the term ungovernable is misleading.

Another thing, and I've asked, and the answers are typically the same answer, most, a large, very large, majority of those vacationers, or prisoners, or whatever word works best, are in prison for supposed drug crimes.

This harkens back to what has been called, in not so distant past American History, as Prohibition. How did that work?

It worked great, why, well, because that was designed, that so called Prohibition, to crush competitors, like farmers, who were local producers of alcohol used in competition with oil as fuel for cars.

No, Joe, you are such a numskull.


So what is the drug angle now? How do you think all those secret police armies fund their operations? They have to first outlaw certain drugs so that those certain drugs become very scarce and therefore the price goes very high, and then they corner the market, and then they keep the drugs flowing, and then they collect the money.

Which money?

The One money of course.


No not that money.


What was Afghanistan before it started exporting opium?


Natives who were not happy about occupiers occupying their sand?

Oh, Joe, funny boy, there you go again.

Not me.

Here is a start:

Oh and the pedophile ring thing?

Not me. Leave me out.

Here is a terminal case:

So, all those criminals, in all those prisons, bad, bad, bad, every one of them, and what, what, what, is the final solution?

Hire worse criminals to make what they do pay really well while they use the money they earn (raping, torturing, and mass murdering for their exclusive fun and profit) to lock up anyone daring to do anything competitive, or for merely failing to obey without question.

That is the Final Solution. It is a terminal solution too.

"But I do think Josf has a point about the Criminal Power in charge."

So now they (legal criminals using our power borrowed from us) hire prisoners (but not just any prisoners) to work for them when they have a particularly insubordinate subject to terminate on reality television?

Is that a surprise to anyone?


Futile endeavors on purpose?

"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

My purpose (distance myself from the above type of thinking).


Because I don't think that way, and because any sense of anyone thinking that I many be NOT ANTI RAND PAUL may be someone thinking I am pro whatever is meant by:

"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

That, in my opinion, aught to be called out as being false.


My purpose (distance myself from the above type of thinking).


I don't like false things.

How does one, anyone, recognize something false?

How about competition?

"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

"I believe the most powerful people keep themselves in power by remaining hidden and employ puppets such as Obama and Biden."

Question (relevant to my twice now stated goal): How can they be puppets and be held accountable for such a thing as "not prioritizing a strtigy [sic]"?

If they are puppets then, by that exact measure, whatever that means exactly, they are not as powerful as the puppet masters pulling the strings.

How deep does the tar go?

"War is spoils."

War is good for the economy?

I now have even more reason to get as far away as possible from any false connection between me, someone who appreciates the good things done by Rand Paul (with qualifications) and someone who produces communications like this:

"War is spoils."

War is massive torture and massive murder with a false front claiming that it is good.

Spoils is what, what happens to flesh when it is left out in the sun for days?

This is getting more rotten as I read:

"Ok so central banks,, printing monopoly money.. are buying peace, and why you don't have a nuke exploding over your head right now."

If the accounting is accurate then that can be proven. Which central bank, which purchases, and then, knowing those facts, the measure of exactly what is this "peace" can be understood.

Why don't I have a nuke exploding over my head right now?


I'm supposed to believe, let me get this right, please, I'm supposed to believe that the reason why a nuke isn't exploding over my head right now, or before I type the next letter, is "central banks,, printing monopoly money.. are buying peace,"


"Ron Paul wanted us to join the GOP, become delegates, take committee seats, get elected into office and be the change you want.. that's what I've done. That's what I'm doing."

My thinking on that is such that the number 12, as in a randomly picked number of people in this country, sitting on a jury, and what are the odds that all of them think that the central bank, printing money, and buying peace, is the reason why I don't have a nuke exploding over my head right now.

What are the odds?


Could be fultile endeavors be on purpose?

Obama is using pre-emptive Bush doctorine with drones.
Biden wants to use diplomacy as of two days ago.

Is this the same stratigy? Is this the same page? What is false about what I posted? I provides two links above.

Why are you making your goal my business?

My goal is to educate myself. I'm not afraid to be wrong, I just don't accept your ideas as proof.

Please, if it suits you, get as far away from me as possible, go in peace, be happy. Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it.


"Why are you making your goal my business?"

I stated my goal. I'm distant now. Thanks. I do not want to have anything more to do with you, at all. If you write something that is false, I will call it.


"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

"I believe the most powerful people keep themselves in power by remaining hidden and employ puppets such as Obama and Biden."

My goal is to distance any support I have for the good things done by Rand Paul with contradictions like that above. If you do not see the contradiction, then I'm done.

I've had enough.


"Please, if it suits you, get as far away from me as possible, go in peace, be happy. Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it."

Not so fast.

Now I'm making threats?


Now I'm making excuses?


If I am making a threat, then that threat can be quoted.

If I am making excuses, then that excuse can be quoted.

If you write this:

"(Obama and Biden are all over the map as if they don't agree, don't have a plan, are not prioritizing a strtigy)"

Then this:

"I believe the most powerful people keep themselves in power by remaining hidden and employ puppets such as Obama and Biden."

That is contradictory: "they" are not a factor if "they" are mere puppets, so how can "they" who are mere puppets be held to account for "being all over the map", or "they don't agree", or "they" "don't have a plan", or "they" are "not prioritizing" anything, since they are puppets. So who, then, is held to account if not those two people who are told to be "all over the map", and told to not "agree", and told to not "have a plan", and told to "not" prioritize whatever; certainly not them, since they are puppets.

But that isn't scratching the surface of what I see as a need to reject completely as anything having anything to do with my viewpoint since there was then, after the above QUOTED contradictory viewpoints, IN YOUR WORDS, after that contradiction there is now this:

"Ok so central banks,, printing monopoly money.. are buying peace, and why you don't have a nuke exploding over your head right now."

Is that threatening? If I try to understand that message, I get the idea, foreign as it may be to my own sense of reality, but I get the idea that it is a good thing that "central banks" are "printing monopoly money" so as to buy "peace" and so that I don't have "a nuke exploding over" my "head right now".

So, logically, if I can employ reason, am I supposed to thank those same "central bankers" for keeping those nukes off my head, or am I supposed to be fearful of anyone who may threaten those central bankers since anyone threatening those central bankers with a competitive money, a better money, will cause nukes to go off over my head?

Now I'm asking, for clarification, since someone claims that someone is threatening someone.

Who is making those claims?

I can cut and paste.

"Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it."

Perhaps a misunderstanding is happening, and therefore it might be a good idea to restate what has already been stated twice?

My purpose (distance myself from the above type of thinking).

Actually I made my stated intentions clear 3 times, or more.

How can I distance myself from misunderstanding if the flow of "information" continues?

Like nukes exploding over my head I see this:

"Please, if it suits you, get as far away from me as possible, go in peace, be happy. Don't make threats or excuses, Just do it."

Tar baby anyone?


Problem Solution

I read the comments then I watched the video.

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul, and the bar was set very high, but that does not mean, necessarily, that the bar can't be set higher.

If the problem is such that there is too much power concentrated in the hands of too few people, then the solution is not to find a special, benevolent, dictator to save us from ourselves.

So...I don't follow that stupidity.

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

Then few people no longer have as much power.

Then, OK, now what does a competitive president do, with less power,compared to a less competitive president?

Problem: Too much power in the hands of too few people.

Solution: Stop paying so much power to those few people and they won't have so much power, and those people who actually produce that power have more power.

Then what are the other problems?

I appreciate Rand Paul's use of the concept of scale, who can think without such devices?

I have to find a scale, a way of measuring, or forget about any sense of accuracy, so I like that, and to make this a little more personal I can offer an experience.

My wife and I paid for a few seats at the Liberty Convention in Nevada not long ago. We were at the hotel eating breakfast. Rand Paul and a couple of big guys in suits sat nearby.

I told my wife that that was Rand Paul.

She said really.

I said yup.

Later during the days of the event I heard Rand Paul, and Ron Paul, speaking, good information, precise information.

I can't get in their shoes, no way, but I can guess.

Rand Paul reported specific cases of federal law enforcers doing very bad things to specific people in Tennessee. Warning those willing to listen,as to how bad things are already. That type of message, from that federal law man, is significant,and not generally heard on any Monopoly Entertainment Television Show hosted by a Piers Morgan Propagandist parading as an Entertainer,or a Wolf Blitzer actor, a good actor, making all the appearances of sincerity.

So what about Rand Paul?

If the current power struggle does not change, at all, then there is no way that Rand Paul will be "elected" as the next president of The Dollar Hegemony. Who counts the votes?

Which votes count?

If Utah, Virginia, and who knows how many other States reestablish their power in opposition to a federal government power that is dictatorial, tyrannical, and criminal, then what?

Is it then more important to make sure the Governor is not a stooge for the criminals?

Friend or Foe?

I saw Rand Paul,in person, and my guess is that he is seriously working for Liberty. That is not entertaining.


"Friend or Foe?

I saw Rand Paul,in person, and my guess is that he is seriously working for Liberty. That is not entertaining."

In your competitive estimation, is someone who is seriously working for Liberty worth voting for President?

i.e. there are some who are purists and because Rand isn't perfect in their estimation, they would not vote for him.

I read your words about the Criminals not letting us vote for him...but if were were able to, what are your thoughts in those regards?

Dangerously close

As with the events that occurred during the Ross Perot campaign awhile back the events occurring with the first and then the second Ron Paul campaigns, in my opinion, were measures of the power struggle between productive forces IN Liberty and destructive forces of Legal Crime where, in those events, the shift of power came dangerously close to tipping in favor of Liberty.

In other words, Ross Perot nearly exposed the fraud well enough that the Legal Criminals had to count the votes accurately and give up The Presidential Power office to a, what, maverick?

An ungovernable governor?

Someone who isn't reading from the script?

I don't see the same thing happening with Rand Paul, but if it does, then we will know it, that won't be the first time in our lives that things get that dangerously close to tipping the wrong way.

Of course I'm not using English well, or accurately, as the "side" I am speaking from tends to suggest to the reader that I want to subsidize, or pay for, Legal Crime, as an investment, and therefore it is dangerous to think in terms of an individual taking over that power and doing other things with that power, things other than crimes made legal.

"I read your words about the Criminals not letting us vote for him...but if were were able to, what are your thoughts in those regards?"

The thin veil of legitimacy shrouding Legal Crime is thinning, and that to me is why the Legal Criminals are so hard at work pumping all they can get into World War III, because the thin veil is their only protection from their victims WORLD WIDE.

Talk about fear.


The more Rand talks the less

The more Rand talks the less I like him.

We all know the great troubles facing countries like Switzerland, Brazil and China are all founded in the fact that they are isolationists, i.e. don't have 900 military bases covering the world!

It is a shame, Rand has had the best teacher anyone could have, yet he has not learned much in the realm of foreign policy. What a waste.


you learned absolutely nothing in the defeat of 2012.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Rand was sounding good, until

he brought up Israel as a major factor in the Syrian atrocity created by the US. Let's see, he wants to audit Rothschild's Fed to end it, but supports much of the military interventions benefiting the Fed's interest, and supports protecting Rothschild's state of Israel at all costs? Rand can't 'have his cake and eat it too'! If Rand would of demanded to take a 'real' tour around Israel, instead of just going on the tourist scripted illusion, he wouldn't have such a illusionary view about Israel. The media makes a big deal out of the Muslim countries laws agaisnt prostelyzing, but fails to mention it's also a prison sentence in Israel if Christians prostelyze. In Israel, the Muslims and Christian Palestianians unite together to support each others religous beliefs against persecution by the Israeli's. Rand continues to dig himself deeper into the hole where blackmail will soon decide his political beliefs. Also, with his claim to be a Christian, he will face Judgement for his ignorance of the teachings of Christ, especially what is clearly stated in Rev 2:9 and 3:9. Myself, being a former Zionist Christian, and knowing what these people believe, not just from a religous point, but their almost encouragement of a One World Government creation, so they can be, what is entirely a deceptive hoax, 'raptured', my support for Rand is almost nil. If you would like to learn more about why these evangelical Christians support war and Israel, so you can get a better perspective, watch this video.

He said Israel?

No he didn't. He begins talking about the million Iraqs who came to Syria and are being targetted by radical Muslims, and that the US was making a HUGE mistake sending arms, when what Humanitarian groups, an maybe the government, would provide aid.. but sending weapons is the WRONG move.

What Rand is talking about has NOTHING to do with Israel. I'm not saying that Israel is not a factor. I am saying Rand was not talking about Israel.

SteveMT's picture

Rand: It's not always easy to choose sides when things are murky

Choose the side of the Constitution, and you will always be clear. We shouldn't be choosing sides. The Constitution reads as clear as a bell about war. It's not murky at all.

WTF Rand, Containment?

Golden rule. That's the foreign policy.

2016 here we come!


What did I just hear?

I had to backtrack the interview to make sure I heard him correctly.

He said we're everywhere all the time (true) and that the other extreme is being no where any of the time and that's "isolationism."

This nigga has gone full neo-con.

Sorry..Not voting for him in 2016

Sorry..Not voting for him. He's too Republican for my taste. He talks like a neocon and talks like some pro-Israeli fundy politician.


Better than most, but that isn't saying much.

Did He Say

that not being anywhere any of the time is isolationism? Rand PAUL said that?



the comment below about Rand Paul being a better politician than his father. I think that's accurate. Politicians are good at getting elected. The majority of Americans don't think like us. Probably far from it. I think we have to admit that. Can we change enough of their minds by 2016? I doubt it. So....

At the end of the day would we want to have Rand Paul elected? I think so.

I disagree

A compromise on one of the worst aspects of American policy, just to garner neocon support, is a slippery slope. I don't think it's just lip service. I think he either believes in foreign intervention or he thinks he can wield the military industrial complex to better ends. Neither can end well.

We've seen how far not

We've seen how far not compromising can get us in 2008 and 2012. If Fox News suddenly became Libertarian News and actually presented our ideas as rational then someome like Amash, Judge Nap, or Tom Woods can run. Or we can continue as we are and push our ideas for several decade and maybe, just maybe we'll get the American public to accept us through all the media BS. It's a long road following the dogma path.

I think it HAS gotten us far.

The liberty movement has grown (from nothing to something), but more importantly the people waking up to it are fervent promoters of it. This wouldn't happen if the movement was founded on shakier ground. I speak a bit metaphisically here, but what I mean is, how can we support a liberty minded representative (like Rand) if he has a foreign policy that ultimately undermines people's sovereignty in their countries? You wouldn't want a foreign country occupying your soil or exercising "containment" over you. It's the golden rule. I didn't start watching Ron Paul because he was wishy-washy with liberty. He had sound consistent principles (even when it wasn't popular with the mob). And guess what? It is becoming mainstream. And if this was founded on BS rhetoric, this movement would have burnt out long ago.

Where's the compromise?

You didn't listen to the vid, and only making it obvious you have an opinion you think applies anywhere.

Just to be clear

That comment was obviously not a compliment.

How about No?

Rand is a terrible human being and I don't say that lightly.

You Rand supporters are more delusional than obama supporters

Oh My....

Very Spiffy Senator Paul.

The Libertarian Party, irrelevant since 1971.

Exactly, we're not just mowing

down Muslim terrorists, threats to Israel - this is 'scorched earth' warfare. We're mowing down the Muslim countries period, indiscriminately: men, women, and children...Muslims, Christians and Jews, mostly innocents who have been living peacefully, side-by-side for millenia.

Really, what Christian doesn't see that?

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina