13 votes

"Meet the Rand Paul Super PAC Founder Who Wants to..."

...Purge ‘Statists, Do-Gooders, Planners, and Neoconservatives’"

"The 2016 election cycle may be years away, and the Republican party may still be reeling from the aftershocks of 2012, but some of Rand Paul’s supporters aren’t waiting any longer to press their case for his presidential candidacy.

Even though Paul hasn’t officially declared his intention to run for president, and won’t for at least a year, a fledgling pro-Rand Paul super PAC is aggressively pushing for the Kentucky senator to lead a revolution within the GOP, calling for the expulsion of what they call “statists, do-gooders, planners, and neoconservatives.”

This new super PAC, called Human Action PAC, describes its mission in the starkest possible terms:"

Read the rest of the article at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/19/meet-the-rand-pau...

(I find it curious that the mission statement as described by the writer at The Blaze doesn't match up with what is actually on the website - http://www.humanaction.com/about )



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Apparently, the PAC founder wants

to eliminate Rand Paul, since he is moving towards the neo-com Trotskyits and statist groups by supporting sanctions on foreign countries and states he will commit our money, lives, and sovereignty to defend Israel. I believe Paul Craig Roberts lays it out very well! As much as I dislike the social safety nets, I believe the foreign interventions and all foreign state funding must end first, the Bankster/Wall St/Corporate criminals tryed for Justice and recover their thefts second, the borders closed and the welfare to foreign invaders eliminated third, then we can work to reform the welfare/ safety nets on the American citizens. Of, course the Fed's end could be entered in anywhere in the top three, but I doubt without a complete economic crash it's not very realistic with the Coporatist collectivist Congress. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/02/17/america-shamed-ag...

Rand is not Ron

I understand some of the dissatisfaction some of you have with Rand, but I think we need to understand something...Rand is not Ron. Ron Paul has spend decades sharpening his views, building his character, defending that which he'd come to see as true and indisputable ways toward peace and prosperity. Rand may not be perfect, but if you think he is 80% on the ball, is that not better than what we've had for generations? We need to keep the pressure on him, we need to explain where Constitutional Conservitives stand with regard to foreign policy, gay rights and so on. But I ask those of you Rand haters, is there a better option? Are you gonna go with Rubio? Ron Paul is the standard bearer, and those who demand excellence as Ron does will be better for it, but Rand is not Ron. This does not mean that Rand would not make an excellent POTUS. Remember, if Rand gets in there, we are moving in the right direction...and that is what I think we all want. Thank you for your time.

Enonesoch

I think Ron Paul, Andrew

I think Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, James Grant, Peter Schiff, Justin Amash and Jesse Ventura are better options than Rand Paul, in that order.

Washington DC has changed Rand Paul

During his campaign for senate, stated he would not support McConnell for minority leader. Now he is in bed with McConnell and Jessie Benton is running the McConnell campaign.

Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney - nuff said

Rand Paul joined with the neo-cons to filibuster Chuck Hagel

Rand Paul abandoned libertarian principles and mocked Obama on gay rights.

Has no principle to stand alone like his father

Rand Paul used to be a thorn to Karl Rove, now Rove praises Rand Paul.

When neo-cons like Glenn Beck praise Rand Paul, you know how much he has changed

And how exactly do you think he got onto..

The Senate Foreign Relations committee?

The Chuck Hagel vote was a procedural vote, if he votes against Hagel's confirmation when it comes down to it, I will marry a llama.

Rand has never said he was an all out libertarian, not sure why you are expecting him to abide by your "libertarian principles" but you should probably stop.

There is a difference between standing alone on policy and on politics. Rand never stood alone? NDAA? Patriot Act? Ringing any bells?

Rove praises Rand because Rand has taken over the party and Rove is desperately trying to remain relevant.

Your use of the term "neo-con" shows you are just another lazy individual who is unable to think or do research for him or herself, and instead just relies on parroting talking points.

That website's color scheme

That website's color scheme is hideous and seizure inducing.

Southern Agrarian

Rand Has to Put Down the Dangerous Flat Tax & Obey Constitution

The reason the federal government is out of control, is because it has stepped outside it's limited delegated powers that limit taxation to ENUMERATED taxes "BEFORE" it is collected.

The income tax, is an UNENUMERATED FLAT percentage tax on income; The Flat Tax (or FairTax) is no different; It guarantees government a percentage of income or sales that will increase with increases in the private sector, WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, to be spent as the federal government sees fit AFTER IT IS COLLECTED.

It also allows the Federal government into your state laws to determine what is and what is not a business!(read the FairTax) i.e. your business, your home, your computer!

Unless the Constitution is obeyed as it was written, the invasiveness of a Flat Tax will be the LAST NAIL in freedom's coffin. Rand Paul Simply Doesn't follow the Constitution as he attempts to present himself as doing. (see his video promoting the Flat Tax: http://youtu.be/5mIXI9u1Ya8)

Here is the Original Constitution:

Article 1 Section 9: "...No Capitation, or OTHER direct, Tax shall be laid, UNLESS in "Proportion" to the Census or "ENUMERATION" herein >>>"BEFORE" directed to be TAKEN."

Amended by a "ARROGATED POWER" - which is "EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED":

Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have (ARROGATED) "POWER" to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and >>>"WITHOUT REGARD" TO ANY CENSUS OF "ENUMERATION"."

See this fact in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Changing from a ENUMERATED Tax (a delegated power for only 2 things), to a UNENUMERATED Tax; is in fact an ARROGATION of POWER.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,(N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at large....

With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a >>>"SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers".

What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the >>>"DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it ONLY EMPOWERED Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public DEBTS and provide for the common DEFENCE; >that this "GENERAL WELFARE" was united, >>>>"NOT" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >PARTICULAR power> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the "PURPOSE" of paying the DEBTS and providing for the "common DEFENCE", that is, that they could raise (ONLY) as "MUCH" MONEY as would pay the DEBTS and provide for the "common DEFENCE", in "CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POWER". The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping (SUPREMACY) clause contained "NO new grant of power". To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant "NO" new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL well-regulated communities (States or Counties), determines the "EXTENT" of "legislative" powers. If they EXCEED these powers, the"JUDICIARY" will declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID"....

If I understand it right, >>>"NO" "NEW" power can be exercised."

Be careful that you do not vote for those (RAND PAUL) that "say" they promote the Constitution on One Hand (or in insignificant ways)... and totally undermine it with the other.

The amendment and ratifying process is for making changes WITHIN the delegated powers; NOT to ARROGATE NEW POWERS!

A Flat Tax or FairTax or any Un-Enumerated Flat percentage tax, in whatever form, Empowers Government, Not Freedom.

Let Rand Paul KNOW to PUT it Down. and follow the Constitution as it was written.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate yourself, Educate Others.

Feel free to re-post elsewhere.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

First, Beck is a poor

First, Beck is a poor source.

I for one am a "wait and see" on Rand. So far I do not believe he is headed in the right direction in his compromises. Is there a better choice if I had to vote (if it would even count until computers are banned and GOP rule 12 repealed) for the 2016 election today? Maybe not, but I do have a small luxury of time to look for better than what I have seen since his endorsement of Romney and further slides on freedom.

This revolution is not looking for "The Great Compromiser". We are looking for a fundamental shift in direction away from government. Each new person that awakens to the plight of the US understands this. Our challenge is not compromise it is education. Sadly, the anti-freedom crew has a hell of a head start.

Demand more of Rand. Demand more of any of these leaders who seek out support and sink the rest. They are the domestic enemy warned of in our Constitution. They are to be exposed not appeased.

“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.

NEWSFLASH, Rand!

You are a statist. You endorse Bilderberg candidates, you support sanctions in Iran as an act of war, and, most of all, you believe in the power of the state. If you didn't, you wouldn't be in office.

How people here continue to justify Rand's policy decisions on Iran makes me believe that certain liberty-minded individuals are either not principled at all, or don't remember history. And by history, I mean the MILLIONS of dead men, women, and children that sanctions brought about when wrought on Iraq during the Clinton administration, smoothly paving the way for the Boys in Blue to stomp into Baghdad.

Were you people just joking when you said you believed in the non-aggression principle? In the axiom of peace and prosperity with all neighbors? Compromising on your principles is deadly, and Rand Paul is, if nothing else, compromise.

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

As I wrote mine you posted

As I wrote mine you posted yours... In any case, I second your post! "Nail on the Head"

“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.