-10 votes

"Now I know the establishment is behind Rand Paul."

EPJ opines:

I am not making this up.The elitist, establishment, insider Washington Post as just come out with its list of 30 of Washington’s ‘Most Beautiful’ people. The list includes these beauties:

And, oh yeah, Rand made it on to the same list.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Blue eyes and curly hair. I

Blue eyes and curly hair.

I think Rand is better looking than JFK or any other American president.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

egapele's picture

So he's "beautiful" but not a "front runner"

just like his dear old Dad

We are lucky we have Rand

Thank you for putting up posts that allow me a chance to remind people. A man of Ron Paul's degree of integrity may never be seen again, but don't feel defeated, because his son is trying one of our only available options/tactics to get in the White House. As the governor of New Jersey, C. Christie once said, " You have to get elected first". So if the best representative of freedom, I have known of in my lifetime, was unable to get there going against the grain of Washington, then I don't see it working now. We can wait for enough bad to happen, for the masses to come around to our way of thinking, but that will likely be too late to save things. I will support the next person who convinces me they are truly working for the people, which I see Rand is.

It is hard to say exactly what we face, when the campaigns get rolling, but my heart is in it for Rand.

Rand is going to make MOST of us proud.

BTW, I don't like Chris Christie, he just made a solid point.

Agenda 21, PNAC, CODEX ALIMENTARIUS and UN biodiversity study. Help me understand why I shouldn't think there is a big agenda against the wishes of the masses.


How hard do you really think it is to make that list. The "Most Beautiful" is simply a list of people on the far end of a spectrum where only a specific sample is placed.

If we all pooped in a pool we can find the most beautiful turd.

Besides, what other beef cakes does he think should have been included?

Here's the actual list:


NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

My guess would be that the

My guess would be that the level of corruption/control over Presidential appointments, dictate a level of participation. Just like any game, knowing how to play, using strategy, can win the overall game.


Have a little faith.

Heck, I'm an atheist.

And I HAVE FAITH that nobody raised by Ron Paul is going to turn out to be a total idiot!

So stop being so cynical, and have some of that faith people.

They'll attack him from every angle

While's it's remotely possible, I find it hard to believe that Rand is that much different than his father. Imagine if you had a principled, educated father like Ron Paul, and you had a lifetime to see and verify that the things your dad said were true, would you discard that and sell out?

I think we all know that the establishment is going to attack him from every angle possible. Accusations of racism, misquoting him, misrepresenting his policies, saying he's dangerous, and even pretending to embrace him (to scare off liberty minded voters).

Rand may not appear to be his father, but he's got a legitimate shot right now and I'll take his legitimate shot over a candidate that may appear more "pure" but has no chance at all.

Wenzel fails to understand

Wenzel fails to understand even the most basic economic principles: When you put Rand Paul in an article, you sell more.

Thomas Jefferson 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Rand Paul 2016, 2020.

No, I think Wenzel understands that quite well actually.

I don't think it is only hatred that is behind his obsession with attacking Rand Paul, I also think it is a case of getting more people to visit his website, which does not get much traffic to begin with (look how many people typically leave comments on his posts). In regards to his motivations for the over-the-top attacks Robert Wenzel is very similar to Jennifer Rubin actually.

I think it's becoming more and more clear

Robert Wenzel has a delusional hatred for Rand Paul, just like his buddy Scott Horton who rants deliriously about Rand. I hope people stop taking these clowns seriously, at least what they have to say about Rand, it is not very objective opinion.

Rand paul is for the war in Afghanistan

is against closig guantanamo bay, wats to nuke iran for isreal supports sanctions and said war against iran is not of the table. Before anyone sais that this is not his views he said all of this a week ago in a interview which he posted on his facebook page and i follow him on facebook. it is like the old saying listen to what your enemy is saying so you can combat him. Economic sanctions are an act of war – Ron Paul: http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/sanctions-war-ron-paul-769/ Ron Paul: Iran Sanctions = Act of War : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc

Is Rand Paul Just Another Neocon Republicrat Masquerading As A

Libertarian Rebel? “When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide?”
- Rep. Ron Paul, May 22, 2007

“I don’t think you take [nuclear weapons] off the table.”
- Rand Paul on Iran, The O’Reilly Factor, May 19, 2010

“Rand Paul believes in a strong national defense, opposes closing Guantanamo Bay, and believes that Iran is a serious threat….”
- Text of Rand Paul campaign ad, March 2010 (removed from YouTube “by the user” in the last 72 hours): http://exiledonline.com/is-rand-paul-just-another-neocon-rep...

why rand paul is a warmonger

There are plenty of pundits and activists willing to make excuses for Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Some suggest that he is behaving strategically, knowing that he must lock in support from certain GOP constituencies if he is to have any chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Others have adopted a wait-and-see attitude, anticipating the Senate vote on the nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense as a test of how far Paul will go to do what is right rather than what is expedient. Finally there are supporters who follow Rand out of reverence for his father, former congressman Ron Paul, who challenged the political orthodoxy in a number of areas where his son is now mending fences.

I am among those who believe that Rand Paul has already revealed what he is made of, at least in terms of foreign policy. To suggest that he says and does things strategically just to make himself more acceptable to certain special interests demeans him, and to determine whether the other accounts offered on his behalf are viable, it is necessary to review the senator’s foreign-policy record over the past two years.

On the plus side of the ledger, while running for the Senate Rand Paul criticized America’s inclination to enter into overseas wars and Washington’s worldwide military footprint, though he supported the war in Afghanistan and urged against too hasty a withdrawal from Iraq. He has since said that he would have voted against the Iraq War if he had been in office at the time. He has advocated strictly controlling the Mexican border against illegal immigration. Shortly after his election in 2010, he called for an end to all foreign aid. And he has opposed any language in sanctions legislation directed against Syria or Iran that might authorize military action. He has rejected any direct U.S. role against the Assad regime in Damascus.

Paul has consistently opposed extension of certain provisions of the Patriot Act expanding police powers, which—though not part of foreign policy per se—have been driven by the so-called War on Terror. But he supports trying all terrorism suspects before military tribunals at Guantanamo, not before civil courts in the United States. At the end of 2012, Paul co-sponsored with senators Dianne Feinstein and Mike Lee an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that appeared to prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the military, though in reality it did precisely the opposite by excluding those cases in which “an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.” Such acts of Congress already exist in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and last year’s NDAA, which included the infinitely elastic “material support of terrorism” as a charge that could be dealt with by military detention. The Feinstein-Paul amendment did not make it into the final bill that went to President Obama, leading Paul to slam the entire NDAA as “unconstitutional.”

Last June, Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney for president and followed the endorsement by saying he would be “honored” to be Romney’s choice for vice president. Regarding Mitt’s foreign-policy views, Paul told Sean Hannity that “[we] had a very good and I think honest discussion about a lot of these things; and I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible commander-in-chief, I don’t think he’ll be reckless, I don’t think he’ll be rash, and I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort and something we don’t rush willy-nilly into, and I came away feeling that he’ll have a mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy.”

But Rand was wrong about Mitt, whose foreign policy would have been a repeat of George W. Bush’s—except it might be even worse. While Senator Paul was endorsing Mitt, a key Romney foreign-policy adviser, Richard Williamson, was in Israel telling an audience that “Iran will see that there’s a new sheriff in town” if Romney is elected. Williamson promised credible military threats against Iran—including using force to stop the Iranian weapons program—recommended arming the rebels in Syria, and reiterated extremely dangerous arguments that Russia is America’s “number one geopolitical foe.”

Romney, who did not accept the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Iran has no weapons program, was the only Republican presidential hopeful proposing an increase in the Pentagon budget. He frequently extolled American Exceptionalism to support his belief that the United States should both dominate militarily and lead the world. Rand’s endorsement of Romney, which explicitly included his foreign-policy positions, sent the signal that working one’s way through the system is everything and that the details don’t much matter. Rand’s father refused to endorse Romney.

Senator Paul has supported sanctions against Iran while contending that such actions should not be construed as a license to go to war. He was the only senator to vote against a resolution last fall maintaining that Iran cannot ever acquire a nuclear weapon; he said: “A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war.” But his essentially constitutional position on war powers has not stopped him from arguing that “The Iranian regime is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe.” That Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon is incorrect according to the CIA.

After the November election, Paul joined 99 other Senators in voting unanimously for increasingly harsh sanctions on Iran designed to cripple the country’s economy. His father Ron had a different view back in August, slamming a similar bill in the house and voting against it, calling the measures an unconstitutional “act of war.”

Since that time Senator Paul has been working particularly hard to dispel the notion that he is anti-Israel because he opposes foreign aid. He recently returned from a week-long visit to the Middle East, most of which was spent in Israel, that was paid for by an evangelical group called the American Family Association.

The Jerusalem Post reported that during the Rand Paul family visit, the senator said that Israel’s settlement policies are “none of our business” before backing away from any suggestion of cutting aid any time soon by noting that a bankrupt America would not be a good ally for Israel and then explaining, “This does mean that we have to reassess who to give aid to, and when we do reassess that, I would begin with countries that are burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to America.’ No one is accusing Israel of that.”

Regarding the settlements, Rand seems uninterested in or unaware of the damage being done to U.S. interests due to Washington’s continued substantial funding of Israel’s defense budget, support that frees up money for the illegal settlement expansion. Settlements are very much Washington’s business, as U.S. citizens are paying the tab and taking much of the blame.

The senator also visited Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas during his trip. The meeting was not covered by the U.S. media, but Xinhua news service did describe it as follows: “U.S. Senator Rand Paul informed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of his country’s opposition to the Palestinian intention to join United Nations agencies, a well- informed Palestinian sources said Monday. The source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity the Republican Senator told Abbas after a meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah that the United States will impose sanctions on the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) if it decided to join UN agencies.” If the account is accurate, Paul has joined the chorus demanding that the Palestinians be punished for seeking statehood.

On January 24 Senator Paul confronted outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the events in Benghazi in September 2012, when four Americans were killed. Paul called Benghazi somewhat hyperbolically “the worst tragedy since 9/11” and insisted that if he had been president he would have relieved Clinton of her post for not personally responding to the incoming cables from Libya as the situation was developing. Paul’s comments might appear to be scoring points in support of his own personal ambitions, projecting himself as a president in shaping his response. But they are also unfortunately reflective of his failure to understand how overseas embassies operate. The secretary of state receives millions of messages every day, many of which are completely contradictory as officers on the ground attempt to describe evolving situations. The secretary is head of a large bureaucracy and has an experienced staff that handles developing crises. The situation in Beghazi was only clearly understood long after it was over.

Rand has stated that the United States government should publicly declare that “any attack on Israel will be treated as if it is an attack on the United States,” a position that would tie Washington’s policy to that of Israel—with the Israelis able to dictate developments. Rand, together with a number of American politicians and pundits, seems to believe that the United States has an alliance with Israel. It does not. Israel has resisted any restraint on its behavior that a formal alliance would entail. It is not possible to imagine how an alliance would even be defined, as Israel has no fixed borders and is constantly expanding its definition of how and where it is threatened. Israel is a Middle Eastern superpower well able to deter any aggression against with responses up to and including its own nuclear arsenal, while the definition of “attack” is itself elusive—does it imply war with another nation-state or rockets fired from Gaza?

That Rand could make such a suggestion, apparently unaware of the problems it could create for the United States, might be due to the advice he is getting. Rand has reportedly received briefings from former Romney foreign-policy adviser Dan Senor and other neoconservatives, including meetings with Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.

Judging based on how he has voted and what he has said and done, Rand Paul insists on adherence to the Constitution for going to war but is not necessarily against interventionism and does not appear to have well-defined views on what measures are appropriate in counterterrorism. He opposes some infringements on constitutional liberties as part of the War on Terror. He favors cutting foreign aid for “unfriendly” countries first and friends like Israel sometime after that, advocates punishing Muslim countries that do not fully support our policies, and promotes an Israel-centric foreign policy in the Middle East. He relies on neoconservatives for foreign-policy guidance and is willing to support the demonization of countries like Iran in spite of the lack of evidence that they constitute a threat.

Rand hasn’t revealed whether or not he will vote to approve the nomination of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. As the Hagel nomination has been strongly opposed by various components of the Israel Lobby, Paul could further burnish his pro-Israel and pro-evangelical credentials by voting “no,” or he might reassure libertarians and traditional conservatives by voting “yes.” The uncertainty about the vote highlights the central enigma of Rand Paul: how will he act if his eye is on 2016?

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Ok got it!

You don't like Senator Paul. Geeez.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant

lame article

Lame site.

The game hasn't even begun...

Once it does, the establishment will come out full guns blazing to defeat Rand. I guarantee it. Remember Rand's Senate bid? Did they come out for him then? I think you need a new crystal ball.

Shocked but not for this

I'm shocked at how much lip service is given to Rand on this site. Considering that he has yet to show any hint of being anything like his father and is clearly catering to the bought and paid for in DC, especially criminal Israhell, what is everyone's infatuation with him??

Rand sold his soul and people here still seem to think he is some kind of possible choice or savior for liberty??? I thought the crowd here was smarter than this.

Sad, really really sad.

Just as with this corrupt and defunct Federal Government, the more attention you give them the longer it takes to for them go away.

egapele's picture

Four days here on the DP and you

say what?

I apologize

if I seemed offensive to the majority here.

Those who know and are awake enough to realize Rand is a shill and the game is rigged then you wouldn't have been offended in the first place.

If I'm a problem then Micheal can boot me and I will go away.

But, just like Ron Paul, you know your speaking the truth when you are offending people and making them angry. It's only when you lie and sugar coat things that most people will agree with you.

If your not stirring the pot then your doing it wrong. IMHO.

The establishment

is not backing Rand. Why do people hate this guy so much? Face it! He is running for President and the media is going to do the same exact thing they did to Ron. The Convention will be even worse because they passed the rules last election. Rand will not win the GOP and if he does, it will literally be a miracle.

You people just wait when the election comes close. Rand will no longer be a front runner. He really will be but they will say some one else. My guess is Ted Cruz.

Rand will win the GOP slot...

...and lose to Hillary!

This is their steam valve approach to fixing elections...they know the nation is pissed, but they really don't care; and, our anger and fervor will need to be "managed"...and it will be by the Republican kingmakers and the media...don't get sucked into it; you'll get just as frustrated as you were when Ron got bounced although we had the delegates, beat them by their own rules, and were steady and prioritized.

Only one course of action, not one elected representative, will throw off tyranny...I am not advocating violence, I just know eventually it will spontaneously combust!

Truth will NOT set you free; but rather action based on truth will set you free!

If Rand wins the GOP Slot

It is game over pal. Hilary has no shot against RAND.

Why do you care?

After what happened to Ron Paul here in Texas at the GOP Convention, and what happened to him in Tampa, why even care about the next elections. THEY ARE RIGGED!!! If that is not completely obvious by now...?

Besides the fact that RAND is not RON and he has obviously sold out. Rand is part of the club in DC now get over it and move on we have bigger fish to fry in the local elections where we can hopefully make a difference.

"Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Are people that addicted to their politics that they can't stop?

Rigged? Yes

It is but it is not a 100 percent rigged. If you worked for Ron Paul's campaign you would know that you actually have a shot at beating the system. We just need more people willing to fight.

Were you a Delegate?

I was and after the 2012 Convention I had my eyes thrust WIDE open.

It is wishful thinking that you could get that many people to even begin to change this rigged system of voting. Voting machines guarantee that any Liberty minded candidate won't get that far beyond MAYBE a congressman's position where they will be sucked into the establishment in DC so far that they won't be able to accomplish anything.

What was Ron Paul able to do during his service in congress? How many of his bills was he able to get passed in the house?

Just ask yourself how it is that these obvious crook incumbents are able to stay in office for 15-30 years?? It isn't for lack of people trying to get them out I can assure you.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

Altering it is a failed concept, so the next step is to abolish it. Not through violent revolution, but by simply withdrawing our CONSENT to it.

If you continue to support it and consent to it by attempting to alter it through an obviously corrupted voting system and political establishment then you take responsibility for it's deeds and are just as guilty.

I no longer consent!! They do not represent US they work for their financiers the Corporations and Israel. In fact most of the people who were there as Delegates are way above most of our Tax brackets and they have the money to burn to even begin to be able to engage in the process. The voting system itself caters to the wealthy who can afford the travel time and effort to even begin to support a candidate.

My wife and I both were delegates and we went into debt just to be able to attend and that was staying at a friends house in Fort Worth to avoid paying for a hotel. The only reason I agreed to be nominated for a State Delegate position was due to some very generous people at the convention pledging their monies to make sure I could afford the thousands of dollars it took to go to Tampa if I even got elected. Which that was a lost cause in and of itself due to the Romney hacks being so prolific.

Hell the outfit for State delegates was almost $500 to start with!

With the economy being what it is today there is no chance even with the right numbers to get enough people involved. How many are willing to give up their hard earned money to help pay those others way? Most are too busy trying to keep their jobs if they have one and to feed their families.

Why do you think there are so few protesting and attending rallies? They can't afford it!

I'll say it again "Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Stop trying to tell me how it is if you haven't seen it for yourself first hand.


I was a Delegate for NJ but we didn't win. Chris Christies slate won but I knew many friends and family who were delegates for Ron Paul so I went to the Convention anyways. It was a double whammy for me because I have family who lives in the Tampa area.

It is wishful thinking that you could get that many people to even begin to change this rigged system of voting?

I kind of disagree with you on that. Ron Paul could have won. We almost pulled it off. The GOP went in all out panic mode and had to pass the rules in Tampa.

I am in my 20s. This was my first time getting involved with campaigns. I only tried it once so I don't consider it stupidity.

What is your Solution? Revolution? Not many will attend either and will lose.

Or do you want to just sit it out and hope for a collapse? It might never happen and will continue to be free roaming slaves.

We probably met in Tampa.

Cyril's picture

"Most beautiful"? ... Right. Nero, also, was turning himself on

"Most beautiful"? ... Right.

Nero, also, was turning himself on with his poetry while watching the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Per some accounts anyway.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius