14 votes

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz could be heroes, they choose not to be


I wanted to provide some clarification about what I meant by what I originally posted. I genuinely appreciate everyone's comments.

I don't believe Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are bad people, I believe that they are doing what they think must be done to effect the best change. It is my opinion that there are influences upon these Senators, the two who might be some of our best current hopes, to do what is "politically necessary" to gain power, which will, in turn, once they have the power they seek, allow them to make the right change.

I would like to know, though, at what point do the political maneuvers end, or do they ever end? When will the excuses for political maneuvering ("strategy") stop; when will this deception be replaced with expressions of true belief?

I suppose that I am of the opinion that as long as there are politicians who want to pander, there will be bad results. I don't excuse from this judgment those who I like most.

All I wish to do is ask that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, my two favorite Senators, the two who give me most hope, I want to ask that they stand up against those who want to violate me. If we are to have representatives, then what else should they focus on?

If they think there is a better path than exclaiming what is right, then I hope that I am wrong. I hope that their method, using politics to fight politics, is right; I hope that it helps get us somewhere closer to freedom. It is just that I, someone who doesn't see the wisdom in using deception to fight deception--I think that political maneuvers are the wrong strategy.

I wish Rand Paul and Ted Cruz the best as far as their individual actions help the causes of liberty (non-violence) and I wish them the worst as far as their individual actions defeat liberty (violence). I don't know where the line is, I can only make my own judgments.

Original post:

​People like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie are who I think we ought to be putting most effort behind, they understand what it means to stand up for what is right, no matter the opposition. I know others may feel differently, but I want someone who will exclaim what is right at every opportunity.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul could join together and stand for what is right, they could start espousing the true characteristics of freedom at every turn, and they would be heroes for it. By doing this, by standing up for what is right, they could literally save lives. The world doesn't need another politician, it needs a paradigm shift. Minds must change.

Rand Paul is thinking of being President. Do you have any idea what kind of effect that could have on a person, the thought of being one of the most powerful and famous figures in world history? It will cause a person to refocus their goals, from a concentration on what is right to an obsession with winning.

If a few noble Senators get together and start unexpectedly speaking out for freedom people will listen. I know that Rand Paul understands the principles of liberty, his attention is just diverted, and Ted Cruz is a student of Mises. Ted Cruz is a smart man, I know that he didn't misunderstand Human Action. I say we load on the pressure to these men. I think that we should be insistent that they do and say and vote for what they know is right. Of course we can never agree on everything, but there are some very basics upon which any knowledgeable person can agree.

Violent offensive wars are wrong, and that includes sanctions which are no different than telling me I can't make a voluntary and mutually beneficial deal with my nextdoor neighbor. How can people come to understand the truth if they never hear it, if they are always being manipulated by the political game?

I'm asking Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to stand up for me, to do thier jobs. It is wrong to give my money, my productivity, my labor, to people in Egypt for the same reasons it is wrong to give a piece of my effort to Israel; the thing which makes it wrong is that you must first take from me, even if it is against my will. No one will understand if we don't start clearly describing the very basic principles of peaceful and prosperous coexistence.

This should start with the people who claim to represent us. No excuses for supporting theft in the name of escalating war are acceptable, there is no good reason to support war, or theft, or occupation, or sanctions. It doesn't only violate foreigners, it violates me, and it violates the very basic principles of freedom.

If the young Paul and Cruz don't start saying the right things then their cries for "freedom" are shallow and in vain.

Comment viewing options

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

And with your logic Ron Paul

And with your logic Ron Paul would be president.

Not would but

Not would but "should"...
Compromising the liberty message because we have not penetrated the indoctrination fast enough is not an excuse for Rand's abandoning behavior.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

According to your logic,

According to your logic, George Bush never would have won, twice.

Well Said


No one knows the future

We are winning. You don't know if Rand will become the next POTUS or not. All you're going is exposing your apathy.

We are changing the GOP, in that we are working to restore the republic to constitutional government, while we still can, in the Republican party, but there is a loberty movement for thiose who would rather not be a republican.

Rand's judgement is based on priorities and libertarian values which many here feail to see the huge strides Rand is making, Industrial Hemp, Diplomacy over pre-emptive war, states's rights (his iron dome idea was brilliant).

Those if us in the GOP are not sitting back. I'm elected and preparing to go to the CA State convention to support and vite in liberty candidates, which my committee is a liberty committee.. two years ago I was alone. Just because it's not in MSM doesn't mean it's not happening.

Ron Paul's legacy will be restoring the republic.

excuse me

granger your headline says no one knows the future, and you end it saying what the future will be. that's called a contradiction. IMHO the only way the republic will be restored is with a president ron paul. although someone could come along (amash?) who will carry that kind of integrity, draw voters from all parties, and take the helm of the rEVOLution
but from everything i've seen it is not rand.

I end it saying what Ron Paul's legacy will be

If you are suggesting that Ron Paul is going to come out of retirement, you have no idea how happy he is to be FREE to speak to people, party or not. What will emerge from this, I don't know.

What I do know is what I'm working on from my perspective. Others can see what I am doing differently, after all.

For decades my major issue was hemp. Rand is leading the way, and fortunately for me, because I was a LP and Indy activist for decades, I see how Rand is advancing MY issue, and how he is prioritizing and addressing issues, and what I hear is, I'm sure, very different that what you hear.

Intergrity is keeping an oath you didn't want to take, but took because you wanted to put a man with integrity into the white house.

I kept my oaths, even when the other side, lied, cheated and stole. I know what they did, but instead of freaking out, I take my ques from Ron and Rand. Rand is for those of us who came into the GOP and took seats because we wanted to be Ron Paul delegates.

So, what I'm saying is it's fine by me that you don't like Rand, and you think no matter how old, it has to be Ron Paul or bust, and maybe Amash, who has a hard fight, that maybe he'll get out if the GOP and run Indy or LP for you? Then you can continue to avoid the GOP, because MSM and everything you've studied about the GOP makes you sick. I'm sorry about that, but it gives you no excuse to beat up those of us who are in the GOP, as Ron Paul wanted, by asking us to become delegates.

I see no one better than Rand Paul for president that can win. I'm not saying Rand will win, Rand can win and that's what I'm working on. Seems all your working in is undermining the work of the rEVOLution because 1. you don't like the GOP and 2. you don't like Rand.

you ask for debate

yet when you get it i continue to hear (with others as well) accusing critics of undermining, and beating up folks like yourself working within the criminal organization the GOP. i don't dislike you for trying, but yes, even though i'm a member i loathe both parties. (and as ron paul has pointed out time & again. there's really only one party. it's all a charade)

i don't know rand. i do like some of his work in the senate but he's made a lot more people than me
not trust him as far a POTUS run

Why are you a member in the name of loathing?

Join the rEVOLution and get in because you LOVE the bill of rights and intend to restore the republic.

Your criticisms are not about the Neocons or specific republicans and THEIR lack if principles, but it is of RAND, and us, because we are participating is what you are calling a charade. And why it may be a charade, while claiming to being a member, one would hope that you would work within to materialize Ron Paul's message, which Rand is doing, and if you don't understand his moves, and even disagree with how I see them, that's a fair debate. But slamming the party you claim to be a member, calling it a charade, only leaves me wondering why you are a member? You don't have to be a member to weild that kind of general criticism.

You don't know Rand. Rand Paul is brillant, politically, at this point, I believe Ron Paul ran to set the stage for Rand, and I'm glad he did. Both Ron and Rand take learning curves, some pretty big ones, which is why so many people say they, "woke up".

Rand is not protesting the GOP. That is not how we win the GOP. Rand is teaching the GOP how to restore the republic by taking them back to conservative values.

What has he done to lose your trust? He endorsed Romney. If you were a national delegate for Ron Paul, and you thought the loyalty oath you signed didn't mean anything, you would have been booted from the GOP, which is happening. So what Rand did, is he spared many Ron Paul delegates the boot and enabled them to go to Tampa, stealth. But you have to had been a delegate to know that or even understand it.

Rand has my trust, for perhaps the exact opposite he does not have yours?

the rhetoric is getting pretty tired

i've posted long lists of my complaints and concerns with rand as POTUS, but generally one item is cherry picked and boo hoo'd
like his continual "respect" for rombama.

i am a staunch ron paul supporter. im not for a watered down version that has a foreign policy not far from the neocons.

i was apolitical and then like a lot of people i read about this ron paul guy. i joined the party in 08 to work for him. i simply haven't gotten around to switching to the LP, which to my way of thinking is the only party that makes ANY sense.

That only means you losing the debate

Since you cherry picked his continue respect for rombama, let me remind you of all those posts about tptb, 911, conspiracys, documentaries about tyranny and oppression, the fed, the international corporations and their lobbiests and government shills, that who who has the power and they didn't invite usinto their party for a cake walk. They are not going to look at Ron Paul, the rEVOLution or Liberty Movement as anything but a PROTEST, which they will ignor, as they have been for decades, drunk on the money and power, and they really don't want a civil war or armeggeddon, but they feel a lot more secure about surviving it, if that should happen, so to get a message to them, Rand or anyone is going to have to go to where they are coming from, to turn this ship around. You damn him for that, I celebrate that because he is doing this in a principled way, and you have to understand politics on a matrix level to understand, still, he is delivering a message to the republican party, which Ron Paul FAIED.

So Ron Paul will continue to reach out to all, while Rand continues to grow the GOP with supporters who get the politics.

Rand and Ron have both put diplomay and trade first. Saying ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE, after diplomacy, eliminates pre-emptive war entirely from the table.

The LP is division of the GOP and why they nominate republicans, and remain marginalized by design. It's why RP joined for all of 6 months to run as a Libertarian.. he was being vetted.

here's the real debate

not nit picking with with concerned liberty minded individuals.

Commentary's Neocons Want To Save The GOP
Posted by Christopher Manion on February 21, 2013 12:21 PM LRC
... they never mention the Constitution, of course. It gets in the way of their wars.


They were running a shell game for the most part

Ron Paul invited us in, the article you linked me to is by, of and for a Neocon. Clinton didn't win any election, he the "New Democrat" sold us out. Your article doesn't even consider ending the fed and returning to a sound money policy, instead, it says we should do what Cliton did.. this is New- Neocliberal Clinton and New Neoconservative New NeoGlobal Order talking about what to do in the GOP. The thing is.. the gig is up.

For truth to prevail truthful people need to make a stand for the truth. RP picked the GOP, I'm in the GOP and today. it's like DP on real life, and I'm looking forward to meeting people and passing out Randwatch cardds, and flyers about other Republicans who have a place in the Liberty Movement like Amash.

Of course they never mention the constitution.. they held us to a loyalty oath over Romney, and we're going to hold them to the loyalty oath to the constitution.

How to save the Republican Party.. LOL riiiight. We will not be ignored, we are not going away. WE ARE WINNING.

it's the war party

ron paul used it because you have to, but to spread his libertarian message of liberty. war is a racket and the GOP would cease to exist without it. these days the dems are no different since it's obama's wars. we need a peace candidate. the majority of the people want out of war.

"I think people want a party that's a little bit less aggressive on foreign policy"
rand paul

really? that's it?

You're taking Rand out of context to his quote

Rand and Ron agree diplomay and trade first. Having congress declare war. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

it's EXACTLY what he said


try and stay focused. your diversion tactics are SO obvious.

Put it in context

"Sen. Paul also noted some of the problems facing the GOP, noting that they’re no longer a national party. “I think people want a party that’s a little less aggressive on foreign policy — still believe in a strong national defense, but less aggressive,” Sen. Paul explained. “The young people want politicians who don’t want to put them in jail for 20 years for a non-violent drug possession charge.”"

Strong Nation Defense is not a global offense which we now have.

all of those

sentences stand on their own. everybody believes in a strong national defense, but ron paul's statement of "we just marched in and we can just march out" is light years away from "a LITTLE less aggressive" why is the US aggressive at all? why is the US policemen, regime changers and busy bodies of the world? because of neocon policy.

It's still in the right direction

The US is agreessive because we developed and made trade agreements globally to advance the technology we've been blessed with, but it not sustainable, especially as it advaces globally and in amrs races. So, we fight over natural resources we are dependent upon, oil, uranium, water, and some agreements were made offering imports of American goods, and some exports, and people, free slaves..

Rand understands there are many people in the GOP who appreciate the second amendment, so it's like talking to a house that's armed and depends on those arms, to disarm.

Rand has planted a seed. I will water that at my GOP meetings. That's how we are trying to grow peace in the GOP.

kinda like his

cutting aid to israel "won't happen in my lifetime"

well, i will say that is a very long term goal too, and like israel remark not likely.

this reaffirms my effort to spread ron paul's libertarian message of restoring real peace, sound money, & civil liberties; also a long term goal but more appealing to myself and others.

good spot to end this methinks, but feel free to make any final comments.
i'll be interested to hear your report from sacramento.

then why do i see nothing

but anti-GOP articles at the best libertarian site LRC?

something to note: i've never heard you give one inch, or concede to even the smallest point. that's a big red flag for me. it hints that the person has caught the right virus. you MUST be right.
not cool in any field.

Because they are a machine

And they need subscribers and have a party to back the ideas. That is fine with me, because not everyone is ready to go major.

I went from being LP/Indy to GOP, so I have conceded quite a bit, it's just the opposite direction you're going in.

I have plenty of issues with the GOP, and why I got in to change it to more Libertarian, which hurts the LP machine because I'm no longer there, and don't care about their protests, only in restoring the republic, with, or without them, in the GOP.

As I mentioned in our debate

As I mentioned in our debate that you shut down......

You can not change the gop without cutting off its head and firing everyone down to atleast the state level and probably below.


You will never replace everyone that needs replacing.

I seriously doubt there will even be another election.

But, yet, it is happening

I was once alone on my committee and now Ron Paul Republicans are taking the seats and establishing a majority, even cintributing $200.00 for my delegate trip to the convention.

That wouldn't have happened, matter of fact, I went through hell, even voting Romney to keep my loyalty aith to get this far. I'm not alone, and we are winning!

I Respect Your Views...

... but I have to point out two parts in your article that are big contradictions.

I cannot say this for Thomas Massie, but for Justin Amash let me point you to two positions and votes that he took that you have reprimanded Rand Paul for supporting.

Sanctions: Justin Amash - "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a serious threat to our country's security, and I support economic sanctions against Iran."

... and here is the bill that he voted in support of: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll928.xml

And now for foreign aid: He voted for H.R. 4133 which you can read more about here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4133/text

All this is not to bash Justin Amash. I really like him. I really like Rand Paul too. But you shouldn't say Justin Amash is better than Rand Paul when their voting record is nearly IDENTICAL. We need to stop holding Rand Paul to a higher standard than other politicians like Amash.

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



"there is no good reason"

How about staying alive? Or keeping your family alive? Or at least to avoid being gerrymandered out of your job until you have enough support to actually affect change?

Do you really believe the penalty for not playing ball is just being called a mean name or might it be something greater?

When you consider the apathy of the average American or the "wisdom" of the typical Obamney voter, do you think that brings much reassurance to the Pauls that America will have their back if they decide to be that hero?

Very well put! My thoughts

Very well put! My thoughts almost exactly.

Who would you rather have for

Who would you rather have for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton or a Rand Paul who has made a few compromises along the way to remain electable? I'll take Rand . Ron Paul, Rand Paul or anybody else can not make any real change unless they first get elected!

You see thats the real problem about elections

The Rothschild bank mafia chooses clinton or rand then gives us only the options of their choices.

Rand is not ever ever my choice the ultimate back stab when he endorsed Mittens. No excuses acceptable NO NOT NONE not even one.

So as I see it Hillary or Rand who cares a dictator is a dictator and neither ever will have my consent.

So who this or that ,, no ,, none.


The bankers will never choose

The bankers will never choose Rand. My only point was that he would be way better than hillary even if he is not perfect.