46 votes

Please Stop Attacking Rand Paul

Rand Paul is right.

I see so many posts in the Libertarian community who seemingly disapprove of Rand Paul and his position on many subjects—most recently Edward Snowden.

Are we so blind that we can’t see that he is on our side? Do we not realize that in order to have a chance at restoring liberty in this country that it has to be a slow—calculated process? There must be small course corrections, not major course reversals. It seems to me that we are smarter than that. To think that all that has been done over the course of many years can be reversed all at once is a fantasy. Just because there are many of us who know how off course we really are, doesn’t mean we can effortlessly convince the rest of society to get on board with our way of thinking—no matter how natural it feels to us.

Take into account the recent attacks on Senator Paul by the WSJ, and his response to the opinion. Senator Paul is being attacked from all sides. Some say he is calling Edward Snowden a hero. On the Libertarian side, some say he isn’t “one of us” because he stated Snowden should be tried in court for breaking the law.

It is a matter of opinion whether or not Snowden is a hero—Snowden is a true American hero in my opinion—However, Senator Paul does not have the luxury of stating his opinion without alienating voters who don’t agree with him based on their current level of political understanding. He does however, have the duty and obligation of following the law and upholding his oath of office.

Senator Paul has stated that Edward Snowden should be tried in a court. He also has stated that Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, should also be tried for his false testimony during a Congressional hearing—Senator Paul has been attacked for both statements. What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly are Senator Paul’s statements based on? I believe they are based on a respect for the law and respect for our constitution and way of life.

If we as a society are to prosecute law-breakers, then is it not a requirement that the law be applied equally to all, or are we to only prosecute select individuals based on their status or position in society? Senator Paul is simply bringing to light the hypocrisy of the current system of justice. In a nation of laws-how can it be that an admitted perjurer (under oath to congress no less) is not being subject to the same scrutiny as Mr. Snowden?

It has been stated by some, that the issue of whether or not the government has broken laws in this matter is far from settled. I disagree wholeheartedly—and most reading this will most likely agree that the US Government has blatantly broken the law of the land.

The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. According to Wikipedia, the amendment was adopted in response to the abuses of the “writ of assistance,” which was a general search warrant issued by the British government.

Does the NSA, or government in general have probable cause to “seize” or “search” the phone or internet records of 400 million of its citizens? Does the NDAA or the Patriot Act supersede the US Constitution?

The answer is no, they do not.

The programs are not “perfectly legal and overseen by the courts and Congress,” as some have said. The "programs" as they are called, are overseen by a secret court—the FISA Court, whose hearings are closed to the public, and whose members are appointed. The Court subverts the US Constitution and all legitimate courts for the sole purpose of “rubberstamping” search warrants that would otherwise not be granted by a standard court.

Furthermore, the secrecy—and for that matter the very existence of the court—is in direct conflict with the Supreme law of the land. No amount of legislation passed by a congress (who, might I add, also does not abide by their oath of office) can legitimize or make legal, spying on the American public.

If we are to make spying on Americans legal, then the correct course of action would be to amend the Constitution through the proper channels, not passing legislation to get around it. Just as Senator Paul has suggested that Edward Snowden stand trial in a legitimate court, constituting a jury of his peers—so too should the US Government and those individuals representing it.

It seems to me that Senator Paul knows exactly what he is doing. He has learned how this all-too-serious game must be played in order to have a chance at restoring constitutional government to its former glory. He must appeal not just to Libertarians, but to establishment Conservatives as well if he has a chance to win the Presidency.

A nomination is not enough and he understands that.

It is up to us to see the bigger picture and get on board with him. We need to realize that we allowed our constitutional republic to be stolen from us (and by us, I mean ALL Americans (black/white, conservatives/liberals, gay/straight, male/female) over the course of many years, and it will be a painful and lengthy process to get it back.

Regarding the specific example cited in this article, of trying Snowden or Clapper…

Until such time as the corrupt justice system returns to its constitutional—and lawful roots, there should be no trial for either Edward Snowden or James Clapper. Not for fear of injustice though, for in the end, Snowden would most likely be vindicated in a legitimate court of law, and James Clapper would be convicted of Perjury.

In a United States of America, with Rand Paul as president, I would be comfortable knowing the law would be applied justly and correctly. This should comfort the Edward Snowden’s of America and strike fear in the individuals who corrupt and subvert our constitution and way of life.

--------
The preceding was a "Tangential" response to Rand Paul's editorial submitted to the Wall Street Journal, and various comments posted in response to it...

Comment viewing options

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

Am I the only one to find the irony...

Its the DailyPaul... but sure as hell wont be the DailyRand.

hahahaha....

Whats Rands last name? Oh. the. irony.

The guy taking more heat from this movement than his father would in a lifetime. The same guy that has worked harder to advance his fathers message than anyone other than his father....

but hey.. lets nitpick the hell outta him, exclude him from the future, ridicule any menial difference and exclude him from the future process.

Gotta love Libertarians. Willing to eat their own to advance 1% of their belief.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Michael Nystrom's picture

Why does everyone just assume he's the heir apparent?

Just because he's the Chosen Son?

Chosen by who? Who gave it to him? Who wants to hand it over without giving the guy a good close once over? You Rah-Rah-Randers give the benefit of the doubt to him because of who his dad is.

I don't think that is right. I think each man is an individual, and needs to stand on his own merits, not ride the coattails of his dad.

Yes, I see the irony, and I see the pickle that I am in. But look at it this way Nicholson, and everyone.

Would I have ever started the Daily Paul for Rand? Does Rand move me to action the way his father did so effortlessly during his presidential run? The answer to that is clearly, and easily no. I would have never been moved to action to create what I have created here for Rand.

That being the case, why should I continue to run it for that purpose? Because the Rah-Rah Randers want it that way?

The heir apparent...

is advancing his fathers message greater than anyone else Ive personally seen.

Its not that I believe the DailyPaul should become the DailyRand. Its just that you are pushing back so hard against it. Where do you suppose we go? Some of us, like me, are behind Rand 100%. Ive been posting/visiting here for over 6 years. I love this community and see Rand as the future of our movement. Whether anyone likes it or not... he is the best shot we have at advancing our cause.

Rand is playing the politician that his father refused to do. Will it get sticky? Yup. Will Rand have a serious chance to make a difference? Yup. I spent thousands of dollars and hours supporting Ron and I would like to see our side continue to win. The thing I do like about Rand is that he is trying his best to be a principled moderate. He reaches out to the other side and tries to build coalitions (like his father).

This is your website and what ever you choose to do is your business. I would humbly suggest not cutting your nose off to spite your face. The purists are going to refuse to see the benefits of having a politician on our side. If we want to win.. and I surely do.. then compromise is going to have to take place. As long as the compromise doesn't run afoul of our core beliefs then Im all for it. Id rather get 80% of what I want than 100% of what I dont. In order for Rand to be effective he is going to have to play the game.

Take his stance on Snowden. Some on our side attacked him viciously because he didn't take a position of flat out clemency. Instead, he made a brilliant political move. If we are going to hold Snowden accountable then the law should apply equally to Clapper. Yet, some on our side refused to see the point he was trying to make and attacked him.

Mr. Nystrom, I have nothing but love but love for you. Whatever you decide to do is your decision and I respect it.

In Liberty,

P.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I really dont think anyone wants you to.

I think the rah rah randers want to post material they feel is in the best interest of liberty.

I don't remember the last time you weighed in on Cruz, amash, Massie, Brannon, TMOT, etc...

I'm not saying you didn't, I'm just saying that they all have made quite a few appearances here. They have all been vetted. They have all raised money through this site. They all have their faults. Some more than others. Cruz maybe the most.

Cruz is a neo-con. Yet you did not make an opinion about him, and start changing original content because of your personal opinion about him. You let the daily Paul vet him. Like they vetted everybody else. Now the community won't suffer to hear anything about him.

Why do you react do differently to stuff like this? Stuff that has to do with Rand Paul? Why do you feel like when someone writes a post defending Paul against his skeptics, do you take a position the way you do?

Why not let one of the other mods deal with this post? Why are kept being drawn back into it?

Listen Michael, I am nobody, and I am well aware. And you can do what ever you want to with your site, and I am well aware. And I love this site, and this community. I am trying very hard to see where you are coming from. I read ever post on this page. I am also the guy who noted on your "Rands Challenge" post that it was an interesting shift in attitude towards rand(whose question you didn't answer by the way). I have been interested by your opinion of rand since I got here.

Do you think that this post was a burden to you? Is this site about the liberty movement? Is rand a part of that?

Séamusín

Hey Michael...

I get where you are coming from and you are right that Rand has to earn the respect of the liberty movement. I agree with you 99% of the time bro.

Ron Paul is a purist, a statesman, but not a good politician, and that is why he lost in '04 and '08.

Do politicians get elected President by being purist and telling the whole unvarnished truth? I can't think of any that have.

Rand is a politician, and a pretty good one. Can't we give Rand the benefit of the doubt?

If Rand is elected President and he turns out to be just another con-man then I will eat crow and admit that you were right. Rand does say things sometimes that perplex me but look at his voting record...pretty solid.

Ron Paul

was cheated every step of the way by the establishment of both parties, the MSM, MIC and God knows who else. They even made a film about how a concerted effort was put into play to black out Ron Paul's Revolution. Even when he won they snatched it from him. No, he wasn't a politician and that scared them too.

When I saw Rand lie on national TV at the RNC I said to myself. Yep, he's a politician. A prerequisite is one must be a liar. No thanks.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Can't we give Rand the benefit of the doubt?

You can. I'm all set.

Clinton was supposed to be the Savior, then Bush, then Obama. Obama was supposed to be the biggest Savior.

It is like a reality show: Who will be the Next Biggest Savior?

I'm sorry if those comments cut too deeply, but that is what I see from my particular perch, on this branch of the tree called the Daily Paul.

You're comparing Rand to Obama, Clinton, and Bush?

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

If I were Mayor...

"...I would have never been moved to action to create what I have created here for Rand."

I would have never been moved to action to create what You have created here for anyone other than Ron Paul, for that matter.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Michael Shrugs

What is at the center of this whole movement? Self interest.

Who did I make this for? I made it for myself. I was basically doing the same thing at Bull! Not bull. This site got bigger because of the new technology, and the fact that Ron Paul was a national sensation for a while.

But look at the ride I got on this site! That was a freaking rush! I learned so much. I met so many people. I had so many new experiences. I had my heart touched, and I had it broken. I met one of my best friends, who lives in East Boston. I love Renato. How else would our paths have crossed? Renato has enriched my life so much.

But I'm ready to get off this ride. Not the Daily Paul per se, but the Daily Paul as it is. All this politics, spinning wheels. I'm ready for the next thing, and it is just clear to me that it isn't Rand Paul.

I hate to disappoint people, but it comes back to self interest. I do like this place. I like the people, and I don't want politics to ruin it.

A smaller Daily Paul is almost a certainty. But it will be nice not to have it spinning so fast, and not to have the intrusion of politics. Some people think sports is a diversion, but what about politics? For me, for the time being, and the foreseeable future, I'm sick of politics. I would like to turn my focus and attention to things that are more meaningful to me personally.

This has been building, but I'm finally moved to action. Seeing Samantha's sister dying of cancer probably has something to do with that. You've only got one life, no point in doing what you don't want to be doing.

I'm sorry to disappoint a bunch of people here, but at the bottom of it, the only thing I know how to do is follow my heart.

"Take care of your heart, and everything else will take care of itself."

Burdensome responsibilities. What should Atlas do, according to Ayn Rand's book?

Atlas shrugs.

"Funk it," says Atlas. "Not my deal. This is your gig. Deal with it."

And when it comes to carrying the weight of the Rand Paul movement on the back of the Daily Paul...

Michael shrugs.

Michael shrugs.

Bravo! Love you... Love it!
Cheers,
G.

Please let this thread die

.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

You can't trust Rand

I remember when he was first elected to the Senate, and the general attitude of him and from him was that more or less he would follow in his father's footsteps.

However, in the months since the end of the primaries of 2012 (nearly two years now), it has become more apparent than ever that Rand apparently has no desire to follow his father.

"To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

First and formost, he endorsed Romney before the RNC even met to make their nomination, giving at most 30 minutes warning to his parents.

Second, he did not speak out against the unseating of his father's delegates. Instead saying nothing, and so watching as the RNC stuffed scores of seats with their puppets, even when the Governors of those state delegations refused to participate; breaking their own rules in doing so.

Rand has supported the use of drone warfare, both at home and abroad.

If ever there was hope for Rand it was dashed in my eyes long ago. When I run for my State Assembly some time in the future I will seek to be a bigger man than him, for I would never be able to think well of myself if I bent over so often as he.

Ron Paul 2016

*yawn*

Why don't you take a hint from Ron...

Did Ron get upset about Rand endorsing Romney? If Ron didn't get upset... why is anyone upset? Its politics.

Ron is a the leader of a message. Rand is a political leader. Ron never tried to gain power but wanted to open minds. Rand wants to win and follow in his dads footsteps.

Im gonna support Rand. He would have to do something pretty vile for me to abandon him. The amount of effort he has put in is above and beyond what any other person in our Liberty movement has done.

Get over yourself. He's more of a politician than his dad and thank God for it. Rand has done fine by me and Im sure Im not alone.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Why does your Subject have words of Command?

Clearly you have reasons why your won't trust.

Maybe you hoped to convince me, but backed it up with a Command.

His votes in the Senate is all I care about.

Ron said politics was a dirty rotten game.

We went and we learned first hand that the whole GOP was rotten and controlled, not by delegates, but by creditors (aka bankers) through their agents and mouthpieces.

I've went in 2008, and 2012 and nothing changed except when push came to shove, they shoved. New rules are designed to diminish the role of delegates in the future.

But, I'm going again in 2016 to take a stand for liberty and prosperity and reject government interventions that destroy both.

Personality politics is boring and unproductive.

Free includes debt-free!

I agree with you

and I have come to the conclusion that Rand does this to stay alive, and to keep his pops alive. That's my belief at this moment in time anyway.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Bases loaded, Ninth Inning, Rand at bat.

Ron loaded the bases in terms of the intellectual re3volution. The stands are full.

Ron was one of 435, Rand is 1 in a 100 as a Senator.

A political revolution will follow the intellectual revolution. That's a whole new ballgame, as yet unscheduled.

Their central planned economy has no foundation, right down the line.

My economy is also on shaky ground and too dependent on factors beyond my control. I've got work to do.

Free includes debt-free!

I'd feel a whole lot better with Ron at bat. And besides

isn't Rand supposed to be a chess player?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

It's an intellectual r3volution.

Ron, and Carol, Rand and his brothers, and Wayne, Lew, Tom, Peter, Walter, Michael, Mark and thousands even millions of others round the world are still in the lineup.

Like baseball this is a game of numbers.

Unlike baseball, the goal is not winning.

Rather, liberty for all!

Who loves to be free?

For some, leaving people free is a vocation.

It's all voluntary born of anarchy and common sense.

Hey Ira, do you think Nystrom ranks as heavy hitter or a consistent hitter: A Carlton Fisk or Ted Williams.

Should he get the Silver Slugger Award or MVP?

Free includes debt-free!

I think Nystrom should be Commissioner

At least in this league

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

He proven himself a capable manager of cat herds ;-)

I like the way you think.

Free includes debt-free!

Sifting the chaff.

I think Rand Paul is the best chance we have. I listen to Webster Tarpley and think he has assembled a lot of great information. I just can't understand his disdain for Rand. I think maybe he has a problem with the libertarian idealology and simply just throws Rand in that bucket without considering the man. It's said you'll know them by their fruits. I am very much of the libertarian mindset, especially when it comes to my own nullification of control that doesn't apply to me by my choice. I look at Rand as the fruit of Ron Paul. Ron has more integrity than almost anybody I know of. If I have to pick a ruler, I want to pick one that believes in returning as much rule to the citizen as possible. And I believe that is Rand.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on Webster Tarpley.

Agreed

You are witnessing the #1 reason the Libertarian movement cannot accomplish anything. We eat our young! I believe this has mostly to do with the inherit contrary nature of the individuals attracted to the Liberty Movement.

Its kinda like when a great band "sells out" and goes commercial (Green Day). Contrarian fans who loved Greed Day when they were underground abandon them when they get too popular because its no longer unique to like Green Day.

In many ways this is what I believe we are witnessing inside the Liberty Movement.

Anyway moral of the story is to pay them no mind at all. In the end Green Day is more popular today than ever before.

Same will be said for Rand Paul...

a wise old libertarian

told me he thinks the movement is in shambles and nobody knows what to do without Ron Paul at the helm. Rand is pretty much business as usual and does not excite the youth or a revolution. Do you really see him attracting the crowds at campuses like his dad or green day? Granted he may end up being as popular, but with regular republicans and social conservatives. He would like to be the next Reagan but does he have that kind of charisma or even fire in his belly? Gary Johnson puts him to shame on that front.

Back to the wise old libertarian. What to do I asked. Simple, he said: keep spreading the liberty message of Ron Paul. It's a long-term intellectual revolution

GJ has the charisma of a wet noodle

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

show me a clip

of rand with half as much passion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NtGxdwnlbc

i'm waiting....

That is too long for this dog to listen to

Can someone please summarize?

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

Um, a summ mum mumm...

A summary wouldn't capture the spirit of what is there, but what I will do is isolate the Rand commentary. It's about twelve minutes worth. Click on this and listen as long as you fancy...
http://splicd.com/8F3ZamKDftU/105/887

Stated beautifully. I just

Stated beautifully. I just don't get the blindness of so many around here. Rand Paul is a cancer to this movement because it's sapped the radicalism from so many. They're willing to commit a little murder here and there for Rand's crumbs. Ron Paul offered revolution. Rand offers merely a slowing of the tide. It ain't gonna solve a damn thing. Not even close, because in the end, it's all just crumbs.

Ignore the federal system. Work locally. Pray for the dissolution of the Federal Government by means of peaceful secession.