38 votes

Justin Raimondo: Rand Paul playing a very smart game on foreign policy, "isn’t getting the credit he's due"

excerpt from Raimondo's latest piece regarding Rand Paul's "Stand With Israel" Act that some libertarians have sharply critized Rand for:

Senator Paul is playing a very smart game when it comes to foreign policy: his latest venture is very much like his Ukraine plan, which involved not "letting Vladimir Putin get away with it" – and also cutting off all aid to Ukraine. Seems like only Jonathan Chait caught on to that one, but so far I’m the only one who seems to have caught on to Sen. Paul’s latest curve ball: his "pro-Israel" bill that would wind up costing the Israelis a pretty penny.

...

Very clever – the "Stand With Israel" Act satisfies practically every constituency important to the Senator’s presidential prospects. The very name is enough to fool the snake-handling yahoos whose pastors liken standing with Israel to standing up for Jesus. Hey, they’re cutting off aid to those terrorist heathens! Yippee! You got a problem with that?

Informed that Israel may wind up paying the tab, this same yahoo might very well look you in the eye and ask: Well, what’s wrong with that?

No wonder AIPAC is opposing the "Stand With Israel" Act.

Another key constituency the bill should satisfy: libertarians. In calling for an end to aid, it fulfills a central requirement of libertarian orthodoxy in that it cuts government expenditures – and lessens US involvement in a matter that is none of our business. In this it also satisfies another key constituency: the overwhelming majority of Americans who, if polled, would support the Senator’s bill overwhelmingly. Foreign aid being the least popular government program imaginable, these same Americans would also end or at least severely curtail aid to Israel. But that will come later, after the ground has been prepared.

This is a replay of Sen. Paul’s memorable campaign to end aid to Egypt – which, in retrospect, was a prescient move, one for which he isn’t getting the credit he’s due. While he promoted it by declaring that not one penny ought to be going to "countries that burn our flag," it’s one of history’s little ironies that the current flag-burners are also military autocrats – and the aid keeps flowing on account of that presidential waiver.

more here:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/05/01/showdown-at-th...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

END the FED!

END the FED!

Lying and pandering to get yourself elected is no great

accomplishment. We have got 500+ venal fools in Washington who have managed to do that. Bringing about real change in people's minds and hearts - THAT'S an accomplishment.

Leges sine moribus vanae

Which amounts to nothing without ability

if power brokers control the avenues of change.

Why didn't Ron set up public speaking events, why did he ever run for president? He said himself he wouldn't have ran if he didn't think he could win. So why did he want to win? Because anyone knows that the power inherent in the executive office is too powerful and from the pulpit of the president you can create more change than you can as someone speaking truth on a street corner.

It takes both.

edit:
Oh and if i could report you for spamming this comment thread to push down positive posts I would. Pretty disgusting tactic at worst, at best you don't know how to use the edit button.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Oh and if i could report you for spamming this comment thread

WTF are you talking about? Edit button? Pushing down positive posts? It seems like every week Rand hands us another shit sandwich that you guys eagerly gobble up, burp and praise Rand for his cleverness. This disturbs me. Pardon me for commenting.

Leges sine moribus vanae

Instead of editing your damn

Instead of editing your damn post you just keep posting over and over with new comments. Three in a row now on top. This pushes everyone other person's comments down the chain making them less visible, it's spamming.

This is done typically by trolls who want only their point of view seen or people who don't know how to use the damn edit button to edit their own post to include new thoughts.

Yes, you know more than Justin Raimondo about foreign policy and the effects of new policy. LOL please. The truth is no matter what the man does he's wrong because you got your feelings hurt over the Romney thing. Your better off sign waving than doing politics.

Could it be you are so hopelessly lost in your own delusions that you see everything the man does is terrible? That maybe you aren't the sole authority on how to regain our liberties?

No, of course not, everyone else is an idiot but you. Everyone else but YOU, is a sheep. Everyone else but YOU is being trapped by Rand's "insidious behavior". You are the penultimate judgment of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, good strategy and bad.

Ever heard of egomania?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Well, thanks for the explanation of edit and spamming

I was under the impression that one either 'replied' to a post, or put one at the top (where it says "add a commemt"). While I sometimes edit a post and add new material, that new material might get missed by someone who has already read the original, so I only edit when the original post is relatively new.

Now regarding delusions, I think you are projecting a bit. I admitted that Rand is the best we got in the senate. The only problem is, that is like the being the best baseball player in Siberia.

What you refuse to recognize is that 'fooling them for their own good' is EXACTLY the Straussian neocon philosophy, and the deceit is dishonorable. YOU say that once in, Rand will deliver for liberty. What makes you so sure? Because he is Ron Paul's son? Sorry, but that is not good enough for me.

Leges sine moribus vanae

Now regarding delusions, I

Now regarding delusions, I think you are projecting a bit. I admitted that Rand is the best we got in the senate. The only problem is, that is like the being the best baseball player in Siberia.

This is a red herring. A baseball player in siberia doesn't get a chance to run to be the MLB chairman or AL president. He doesn't have to throw sly pitches because he's irrelevant. Rand isn't irrelevant, even major name neocons are scared he's going to get he nom.

What you refuse to recognize is that 'fooling them for their own good' is EXACTLY the Straussian neocon philosophy, and the deceit is dishonorable. YOU say that once in, Rand will deliver for liberty. What makes you so sure? Because he is Ron Paul's son? Sorry, but that is not good enough for me.

No, i realize that's their philosophy and so does everyone else. We figured that shit out years ago, we thought Ron could beat it with truth. He failed, that's what people don't want to realize, it's the hardest truth i've ever had to swallow. He did not win, he did not change the government or the situation we're in. Sure, Ron influenced an insane amount of people, he literally changed my life forever, but that didn't change the system. That's just a sad fact people have to accept. Without power itself, the philosophy shit won't ever win. EVER.

Gandhi didn't win either, he too failed. His ideas spread throughout a generation of people but his people's values waned and India today even has slavery and has completely adopted European nanny state. Why? Because Gandhi and his followers failed to ever attain power and their influence died and fell to the state.

Hell, this goes back to Paine and before that Locke. Both of which were exiled. Hell, look at Galileo. It's a recurring theme in human history for goodness sakes. You need ideology and you need someone willing to implement it. Philosophers don't fight revolutions, they never have. It has always taken someone else to do the work, to see it through, to do what needs to be done to see Liberty brought to bear.

You talk about honor, an antiquated idea for the dead. This is the real world not some fairy tale, you fight or you die.

YOU say that once in, Rand will deliver for liberty. What makes you so sure? Because he is Ron Paul's son? Sorry, but that is not good enough for me.

I'm not sure, I wasn't sure of Ron Paul himself. No one can be sure, and only fools are ever sure. His actions spoke for him, as do Rand's. Neither of their voting records can be used to prove your neocon propaganda bent. I put my trust in someone who i know has read the philosophy, someone who grew up with it. A man who saw his father dedicate his entire life to the ideals and bore witness to the unwarranted treatment of his father by his peers. Calling him names and trying to discredit him with lies. If that was me I would do whatever it took to see them pay. I would lie, i would cheat, i would steal support and i would shove it so far down their throat when i won that they would shit blood until they were dead.

I see someone who can win without blood, someone who can bring about the winds of change without warfare. But it's all faith. That's all it ever is in the end, you know, faith.

And if it is misplaced so be it, but i will not conduct myself in such a manner as to disgrace the idea that we can win, or the ideals themselves can persevere with our help. I will not sink so low as to cause divisiveness in a time where we need to stick together. I will not stand in the way of good men and women who have given up so much of their time, money, and skill trying to change that god forsaken party for me. I will not see their efforts lost without good cause.

That's why i support Rand Paul.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

When you give up honor, you become the enemy

and your victory becomes meaningless, just another triumph of force or deceit over principle. In the final analysis, that's why we all loved Ron. Not because he won elections, but because he did NOT abandon his principles for expediency. He did NOT talk out of both sides of his mouth. He did NOT cozy up to neocons. He did NOT try to deceive voters. I'm sorry Verrater, but your man don't measure up.

and (I'm editing here) Ron Paul was the only one among that collection of venal assholes on The Hill who deserved the title 'The Honorable'.

Leges sine moribus vanae

If that's all you have to say after that long and detailed

post, than I think you've made my point quite well.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

What? You get paid by the word? All you are interested in

is 'winning'. I get your point.

“Another such victory and we shall be utterly ruined.”
--King Pyrrhus of Epirus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

(editing here again) How does one "disgrace the idea that we can win"?

Reagan seduced many liberty lovers with flowery speeches to smaller government and liberty. He 'won'. Did we get smaller government? Did we get more liberty? These are rhetorical questions because we all know what we got: An increase in size of the fedgov. A ratcheting up of the war on drugs. The packing of the federal judiciary with 'Law and Order' appointees who proceeded to dismantle the Bill of Rights. The tying of our social security numbers to EVERYTHING. Zero tolerance. Asset forfeiture (only for drug kingpins, of course) AND a huge increase in the national debt.

Some 'victory'. I hear Rand likes to identify himself with Reagan. It figures (sometimes they tell the truth by accident).

(editing again)
"Winning is not the most important thing. It's the ONLY thing"
--Motto, The Vince Lombardy School of Ethics

(editing yet again) In anticipation of "Reagan won the cold war"
What did we 'win'? Communism fell in the USSR and now we got it right here at home. Some victory.

"I can prophesize that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism"
--Nikita Khrushchev

As I said, when you abandon honor, you BECOME the enemy.

Enough words for you?

Leges sine moribus vanae

TwelveOhOne's picture

By the way, the order the comments appear in is configurable

I have it set to show oldest comments on top. That way when I load a post, I can read it "like a book" instead of reading from the bottom up (or, reading it in reverse chronological order, which is somewhat jarring as I often see a reference before I see the source comment, because some comments aren't under the comment they refer to, e.g., a comment that refers to two comments on the page is only under one of them).

When I load a post I've already seen so I can read the new comments, I just search for "new!" and it finds them. And having it sorted the other way wouldn't help here, as sometimes there are new comments that are replies to comments I've already read.

I realize what you're saying is the general case, and for those outsiders who don't have accounts, they can't customize the view (I think). So I'm not at all disagreeing with your main point, about the spamming. I just wanted to let others know about the ability to change the order, as after I had done so it was much easier to consume.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

thanks for pointing that out

for people that did not know. I think the majority of folks keep the settings at default (as I do) and as you mentioned people who are not logged in can't save the settings (as far as i know) but they could technically sort them in every single post, but i doubt anyone does that. Beyond that this was really just a side point.

+1 to you.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

A is A

Don't all you Rand groupies realize you are advocating the Straussian (neocon) philosophy of 'fool 'em for their own good'?

Leges sine moribus vanae

As much as I like Justin Raimondo

Let us not forget that Obama fooled him in 2008.

Leges sine moribus vanae

Perhaps, but.......

Okay, I’m coming out of the closet, and admitting I’m one of you. There, I can say it, at last, out loud and proud: I’m a conservative-paleo-libertarian with a man-crush on Obama.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/03/07/confessions-of...

Leges sine moribus vanae

What kind of idiot would vote down proof of an assertion

?

Leges sine moribus vanae

ChristianAnarchist's picture

#StandWithRand ! ! !

#StandWithRand ! ! !

Beware the cult of "government"...

Rand is Smart

Rand Paul has watched his father's career and knows all the games. He has a different personality than his dad, perhaps takes after Carol, more, but he has the benefit of all that education and wisdom one gets at the dinner table from both parents, plus his time working in his father's congressional office and on his campaigns.

Ron Paul's bluntness is what I love about him; Rand is playing a different game (to win). But that doesn't change the fact that if you lined up all the members of congress in order of their value to preserving freedom, Rand would be at the head of the line. I'm not worried about Rand.

My goal is to have 3 or 4 libertarians running against each other for every office. Rand is good enough to be one of them.

My main fear, as with Ron, is that he'll get elected in time to be blamed for all the excess stupidity of those who came before when the financial system finally implodes. Let's hope we have a leader who knows how to lead when that happens, because it will be quite a turning point in our history.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

hmmm . . .

or--

oh.

Not sure what to think; I am afraid this is why I have never been 'good' at politics.

I have tried, believe me, but I have never been able to play all the games.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

If we are going to start with

If we are going to start with any nation, it should be the one responsible for 9/11, the apartheid state of Israel.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

#StandWithRand ! ! !

#StandWithRand ! ! !

Beware the cult of "government"...

Raimando prasing the only guy

He ever praises. Funny thing about Raimando is he's a real fairwether. Just wait for the elections. By the way what the fuckskdfk happened to the southern avenger.

I noticed ever since Rand one the southern avenger just went into the ether. Anyone know?

Yep,

Raimando [sic] is a real "fairwether" lol. Gawd. Your computer/mobile device wouldn't have auto-correct misspelled those, what is wrong with you? His last name is Raimondo.

Pardon Entrenched Alliance, it is a 6 year old alt account

Just started getting used a few months ago for some reason. Probably uses a translator and too cheap to upgrade the software.

This is a prime example of why the establishment

fears Rand Paul. Simply brilliant :)

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rand-paul-aipac/2014/05/01/...

Ron Swanson

Please Post in its own thread!

!

Séamusín

Sorry

I have to admit, I don't know how :/

Ron Swanson

Hit the + Post button

on the right hand side, just above Top Recent Topics

My account
Bookmarks
✚ Post
Top posts
Newest
Active
Log out

I am tired of Raimondo praising Rand

Lets hear the rest of the liberty movement's intellectual "Leaders"!

Where are Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Sheldon Richmond, Walter Block, etc...

Where is the support for what this young man is doing? Its easy enough for them to be critical of him and others when they are messed up. Why no support when he could actually produce change?

Murray Rothbard was very clear. There will be no political change if we don't take part in the political process.

Séamusín