28 votes

My Disconnect with Rand Paul

One does suppose that in the end, most things in life are one's personal interpretation; however, there seems to be a widening disconnect between my understanding of what is and what is not constitutional when juxtaposed against the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul's "Liberty-Lite" view.

The most recent case in point, Senator Paul's statement following his interview regarding the use of domestic drones:

Sen. Paul (R-KY) said:
"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

source:U.S. Senator Rand Paul's Website

Really, Senator Paul, "constitutional protections" were appropriately preserved during the search for the Boston Marathon Bomber?

  • No vehicle Traffic allowed in or out
  • Persons sequestered in homes
  • Door to Door warrantless searches
  • Columns of Heavily Armed soldier-like police
  • tank-like vehicles rolling down the streets of America

To me all the above add up to what is in effect, Martial Law. Sure officials can call it a "Public Safety Lock Down,” but as they say a rose by any other name...

It remains my hope that perhaps with age, Senator Paul will see the obvious hypocrisy in his political philosophy and move towards the clear unyielding dedication as displayed by Dr. Ron Paul, although it does grow more and more difficult as we witness his "go-along-to-get-along" attitude.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Law enforcement...

has until recently been forbidden to have military grade equipment beyond what the average citizen possesses. For a reason. In extraordinary circumstances the national guard is called in.

You don't realize what you are saying suggesting a federalized MILITARY as local law enforcement is peachy keen...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

that is exactly it. You

that is exactly it. You people think its ok now for drones (military grade utilities and war machines) to be equated to same weapons we the people can posess and so does Rand. There is no way this should be allowed and he (Rand) did say he didnt care if it was a drone killing or a cop. So yeah, its the wording. Wording is a huge problem because changing the wording almost changes and ok's the meaning as well.

I think Rand is being a Neocon. I been watching this stuff for 13+ years since my eyes were first opened and them blinders removed, and he looks like a good guy and all on the outside, but he sure is sucking right up the neocon butt apperatus to get elected. bahh...no principals.

For Liberty!!!

So, are you telling me that anytime a policeman finds an armed

criminal the police is allowed to shoot the criminal?

Because that is how I read your words: "The police are allowed to shoot armed criminals."

What is a criminal?
What does armed mean?
What does innocent until proven guilty mean?

To me you just did the same thing Rand did. So, I happen to be an armed criminal walking down the street minding my own business and the police are allowed to shoot me?

You did not set your context. In what CONTEXT are the police allowed to shoot an armed criminal?

Dorner was an armed criminal. He killed people.

Dorner said some LA police were criminals.

Dorner was burned alive.

Does a badge make someone not a criminal?

Context please.


Police are allowed to use deadly force

Against armed criminals where there is a clear danger to the public.

If the police have the opportunity, they may warn the suspect. That cannot always happen.

It's been this way for decades. Why are people acting surprised?

Rand is a Neocon

and promotes the Neocon positions. His support of Rombama over Ron Paul disconnected me a year ago. If it talks like a Neocon, votes like a Neocon, and gets lots of media attention....


not going further

Yeah, it's hard

to refute the truth.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Rand is not a Neocon. You are sloppy with your words

That being said, he is hard to pin down as to what he is.

Rand is the consumate politician. He is building upon, and refining what he learned observing Pa.

What his intentions are, I have no idea. 65-35 that he's mostly just/mostly after power is the odds I give at this point.

He might do some good things, but he might be just as ineffectual as Obama was for the left. Obama crushed a lot of people's souls. They had such high expectations...

I know some of them. I live in Massachusetts for God's sake! The place is teeming with disappointed Obama supporters.

So I understand how Rand supporters might wind up in the same boat. Such high expectations that will only be dashed. Even if he becomes president - whatever hopes you had will ultimately be dashed. This is what I have learned from the disaffected Obama supporters. But the interesting part is: They don't blame him! They say, "He had to do it to play the game."

In the end, he was able to pass the fascist directive (universal heath purchasing requirements by the American public) under the guise of 'democracy.'

Can Rand slay the machine?

Doubtfully, but it will sure be fun watching!

He's the man.

Rand endorsed NEOCON

Romney over RON PAUL...forget that Ron is his own father. He toadied to the GOP crooks who cheated his own father, allowed them to use him to try to make it appear Ron supported NEOCON Romney as well. He is all over the "save our great ally Israel" mantra of the Neocons, never mind the sops he is throwing out there to make it appear he is "libertarian". I've seen Rand when it counts and he went with the NEOCONS.

It's bigger than Rand

No way can Rand slay the machine, he needs people like me, who understand what his father was saying about restoring the republic, and he knows what he's up against better than most of us (conspiracy aside). What Rand is doing is fighting for us to get a liberty platform in the GOP and that takes more than one man..

The power Rand is after is the power we are seeking to materialize the message, restore the republic.. it's not to be achieved without a fight, and the GOP is a great place for this fight.

It's not just what Rand does, but what we do with what Rand does. I've got so much going on right now.. well, one of the big homchos in the state sent out an email.. he's wanting to fight medical marijuana.. he just wrote his CAGOP obit as far as I can see because those of is in the CAGOP are not going to let him win. This is a great fight.. because we can also interoduce a cultivation for cannabis hemp.. THANKS RAND!

Obama supporters... (((((MN)))) I polled Slate asking who was voting for Obama and why. I wanted 10 answers. I got 7.

1) cute
2) good speaker
3) black/mixed race
4) Not Hillary
5) not GOP
6) tells the truth
7) studied constitutional law

Number seven is where the "blue republicans" would come from.

Other than that ((((MN)))) Many of those who voted for Obama are the kind of people who say things like, "I went to bed with a black man so I am not racist". Racism played a huge role in Obama's popular vote.. people voted for Obama because they wanted to be seen as non racist.. and racism is what they attack us with the most.

And you toadied to Rombama and the GOP

crooks as well. Going to "take it over", you and all the other "GOOD" Neocons who are somehow going to suddenly have fair and open elections. I'm not holding my breath. This site is going down the tubes when people who supported ROMNEY are lauded. Sickening.Ugh. Oh, and here's some ((((((((((()))))))))))for you.

Thank you ((((((AllPaul)))))

I never supported Romney.

I voted Romney because I heard Ron paul say WE ARE THE FUTURE and Romney wasn't going to stop me.

You voted

for Neocon RINO Romney. That says it all. Ron Paul never told you to vote for Rombama, nor was your vote intended to "stop" Rombama in any way. You are unprincipled...but a "good" GOP member, which is worth exactly squat.

We don't agree on what is principle

You've made it very clear that you have NO appreciation for my efforts.

To me, you have the principles of the Robama crowd, if you signed a loyalty oath, you would break it, you don't have any vison for the future just sheer klust of power and getting your way. You aim to HURT those ho you don't agree with. I'm not impressed with your principles either.

Your "EFFORTS"??!!

You vote for ROMNEY and view yourself as some kind of power brokering
back room strategist for falling in line behind the Neocon agenda?? Nooooo, sorry, that is not any kind of "effort" (snort) that I would EVER "appreciate"!
You sign an oath to be "loyal" to a lying, flip flopping tool of the globalist cabal (who pulled evry dirty trick in the book to destroy a truly good AND principled man) and you think that makes you PRINCIPLED???!! Uh, no, it does not. It makes you a toady to the tyrants.
Guess what? It is not MY job, NOR YOURS, to "envision the future" of OTHER PEOPLE and take on the noble "white mans burden" of running their lives.
And that is what you state worshipping Neocons do not understand. You cannot grasp the need that people have for liberty, not more power grasping pols to "envision the future". You FEAR liberty. And PLEASE support your LIE that I "lust for power" and "getting my way", etc. On what do you base this lie?

FOR Romney? No dear, to keep my seat because WE ARE THE FUTURE

Let's get something straight, I worked very hard to get Ron Paul the GOP nomination. If you think I wanted to join the GOP, you would be incorrect. If you believe that it was easy for me to register to vote Republican, you would be incorrect. If you think that I was not afraid to go to a GOP committee meeting, you would be incorrect. I did all of that, and walked my prescinct, got my petition signed, qualified, and was seated on my county GOP for Ron Paul. I had NO help (and this may mean nothing to you, but the GOP had a party, everyone showed up and signed each others petition. I did not go to any party. I did not sign any of their petititons.. I promoted RON PAUL. And I won).

I led the Ron Paul campaign as a district leader for four counties; Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino County, where my district had more votes FOR Ron Paul than any district in CA. My County placed third behind San Francisco and Santa Cruz (far more populated). While you may not appreciate MY EFFORT, which cost me thousands of dollars, tons of time, it's OK because I KNOW I am appreciated here, because where I was, the ONLY Ron Paul Republican on the committee for a year, now there are four of us and (2 about to be seated) We are the majority (and to be very honest, my committee is better than DP when it comes to being around LIBERTY MINDED ACTIVISTS).

There are some states, like Nevada, that do not have LOYALTY OATHS (which like ALL candiates, YOU MUST SIGN.. loyalty Oath, Oath to the Constitution, and a 470 Will Not commit purgery).

You are so way far off base about assuming that I would join the GOP to join a neocon agenda.. I joined the GOP to remove the Neocons from their seats and we have succeeded in my county. Was it worth it? YES!!!

Romney means far more to you than me. To me, Romney ran to lose. Meanwhile, because I have to SIGN MY NAME to the envelope of my ballot (and the past treaurer worked as ballot inspector.. so if I walked in and handed her the ballot, she would have opened it and seen who I voted for.. and if she saw anying besides Romney.. I would have been removed from the committee and charged with purgery). I'm well know locally and at the county recorder's office where I know the clerk and she me.. she's a Republican.. think she would have looked? (She did, chair told me they did not trust me to vote Romeny).

My Loyalty Oath was signed IN THE COUNTY CLERKS's OFFICE, and ALL ELECTED in CA sign,. or you don't get the seat/office. That's the law.

I think that signing a loyalty oath to take a committee seat, to become a national delegate for Ron Paul, and keeping that oath when Ron Paul didn't win, is principled. Had I not, my community could rightfully call me a liar and a cheat, charged me with purgery and what good what that do me personally? It wouldn't.

Seems to me you don't understand what is principle. Principle means even when you LOSE (as Ron Paul did) you don't run away..

If Ron Paul had won the nomination and the neocons broke the oath and voted Romney because they didn't want Ron Paul? You think that would be OK? That is what you are chastizing me for, and you think you are principled by damning someone who did exactly what Ron Paul would have done?

I have removed the tyrants from my committee, replaced them with Ron Paul Republicans, and you're crying about that?

I have no idea what you are talking about running other's live? Not interested in running your life or anyone elses.

At the CA GOP Spring convention I made a point of meeting Karl Rove and I confront him, very kindly.. I told him the gig is up, the people are catching on and oppose the Neocon agenda. Rove said, "Who do you want?" I said, "Rand Paul". He said, "I gave rand $2 million. I siad, "It's not enough Karl. We're here and not backing down".

Karl Rove did not expect to meet a Ron Paul supporter face to face. Frankly, I think it worried him, because he saw Ron Paul supporters as grunts working the convention floor.

Thanks to DP members who supported me to the events at the convention, I broke through.. and I will not be the last.. and Karl knows it.

As for this idea that you have that I'm on some power trip.. I don't know where you get that. I believe that controlling MY LIFE is a big enough job for me. Control your own.

I joined th Libertarian Party in 1976 and fought to legalize marijuaana and end the war on drugs until 1993, when I went Indy (because the LP SUCKS.. they did NOTHING to help us pass Pro 215 in 94. It passed in 96. The National LP threw every LP hard working member under the bus.. REPUBLICAN Bob Barr? REPUBLICAN Gary Johnson.. why do they nominate REPUBLICANS?

I was registered Indy (Decline to state party, now known as No Party Prefered) until Ron Paul made his second GOP presidential run. I absolutely REFUSED to join the GOP in 07/08. In 2011.. I KNEW RP was not going to leave the GOP, so I joined him. It was an effort.

I don't regeret it.

Beside bashing Ron Paul Republicans, what effort did you make.. you voted for Ron Paul on election day? Good for you. If I did not intend on keeping my committee seat and ridding my county of Neocon control, I would have too. As it is, I made the better choice, for me, my committee, my community, my county, my state.. and now.. RAND PAUL 2016!! FULL STEAM AHEAD.

My "efforts"

would not please Neocons and statists so I am not about to blather them all over the DP. Only you would name drop Karl Rove. Enjoy your hobnobbing with the statists and king makers. How on earth do you figure Rombama won the nomination with all the cheating and bullying going on, from Iowa onward? I'll still expose your toadying Neocon statism and plotting every chance I get.
So you have no support for the other lies you spread on this forum about me? Switched tactics to attacking me for not being an active enough statist in the Republicrat "party"? As far as I can tell, judging from your actions you appear to have been a plant in the Paul camp in the beginning. You weren't the only one who had no difficulty ditching their libertarian principles to become a Neocon "player", "dear".

DP should KNOW what a great person AllPaul is.

Romney won because of the cheating.. matter of fact, June 7TH, the CA Sec of State named Romney as THE GOP nominee.. Election was months away. I wrote three times asking Bowden (Sec of State) HOW Romney was named THE GOP nominee before the NRC. No answer.
I look forward to the day I can , what did you call it, hobnob.. with Bowden to ask her personally.

I don't know you, and have no interest in you to lie about you.

What you do is up to you. I just don't see where you get off on attacking me for doing what Ron Paul and the campsign said THANK YOU!!!

Your lies

"you don't have any vison for the future just sheer klust of power and getting your way. You aim to HURT those ho you don't agree with".
Add to that your excuse for supporting Rombama was that he "won" when the GOP appointed him illegally and blatantly helped him cheat. Yes, you are the future all right.

Power for what?

Who am I hurting?

I voted Romney.


You don't recognize

your own lie quoted back to you??
""you don't have any vison for the future just sheer klust of power and getting your way. You aim to HURT those ho you don't agree with".
Support it.

Lust of power for what purpose???

you seem to know me WAY better than I know myself.

Could you please do me a BIG favor and EXPOSE ME COMPLETELY, so I can find out who I really am?

God Bless you and THANK YOU SO very very much for being THE person I have been waiting for my whole life. I'm so excited to meet YOU.. the person who really KNOWS me, even better than me.

Tell me about this power trip I'm on.

THANK YOU (((((((((((AllPaul)))))))))) I LOVE YOU!!!

I bet you could run a damn good site Granger

If Nystrom is gonna give up on this thing, you should consider it.

(((((((((((((Jungleboogie)))))))))) I love you

That is the kindest thing anyone has ever said to me on DP. Truth is, there are five year olds that would do a better job than me, and on a personal level.. LOL I just had a funny thought..

OK, I'll do it, ((((MN)))) can train me, which would convince him it's just easier to keep doing what's he's doing.

TY for the LOVE (((((((((jungleboogie))))))))))))

(((the Granger)))

I agree with Jungleboogie. You are one of the most level headed folks here.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


Thank you. I'm glad you found the Andrew Jetton thread, well written, essay I thought. I asked him to make it a top post so I could over lay my UN theory on it.. he declined..

I wish I could write.

Thank you (((((Libra_me)))))) Be well!

I get what y'all are saying

I get what y'all are saying but I think Rand is a giant step in the right direction. We're not going to get a "Ron Paul" in the White House in 2016. But Rand is someone I think everyone in the GOP can get behind plus a lot of independants and perhaps disappointed Obama supporters. He brings good debates to the table. And if elected, we can still focus on getting good people in the senate and then perhaps by 2024 we America will be ready for some real change. Or we can divide our support into 16 different 3rd party candidates and indirectly elect Hillary for 8 years. Yay Hillary. Could you imagine???

ConstitutionHugger's picture

My guess is he's a libertarian in neo-con's clothing

My neo-con friend thought it was just peachy that Boston was in lock down. Afterall, she didn't want some terrorist running around planting more bombs in crowded places. Some people were asking why the city wasn't in lock down since Monday? For Rand to seem credible to these sheeple, he must say how great the police effort was in Boston. Otherwise he alienates all the people he is trying to trick, I mean, guide to more sensible policies. I am NOT going to worry about every thing he says. Even if it sounds stupid. Why? Because he's speaking to the rest of Amerika, not us. I'm just watching what he does when it counts.

About a year and a half agp

We had a guy accused illegal pit grows, of murdering two high profile people, who were just doing their jobs, ran into the illegal grows. We have legal medicinal cannabis here.. some folks say the medical cannabis industry is the economy here.. well the accused escaped and for a month we had a man hunt.. for a month this area was occupied, and living in fear that there would be a shoot out near them.. and the shoot out happened.. but a month was a long time.. we were not under Marshall Law.. but it seemed like it with the occupation of state and federal LAOs.

What do you want the government to do when a dangerous suspect is loose (and I mean seriously dangerous, not a flase flag.. but what do you want to heppen if for example a person came to your neighborhood armed and looking to spill blood?

Well, I'll ask the same question I always ask

In these anti-Rand threads...

So what potential candidate are you throwing your support behind then?

I already know the answer - you can't yet say for some reason.