12 votes

If Rand Paul is elected president, he'll probably bomb someone

That's just part of the job description. He's already talking about it:

In an emailed comment ... Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

I know, I've heard the arguments. It's a game of chess, not checkers, blah blah blah. He's the best shot we've got, blah blah blah. He's just 'playing the game' blah blah blah.

But if he's just 'playing the game,' when does the game end? After the election? After the midterms of the first term? After the first term? Maybe it is so much fun that the game never ends.

In 2007, with very little data, my gut spoke to me about Ron Paul and his intentions. In 2014, it remains hazy on Rand.

While Rand criticizes Obama's lack of strategy on ISIS, Ron praises it:

A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!

But for the sake of argument, let's say you guys who want me to join your group are right. Maybe he will be like our last president who didn't bomb anyone:

"We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But still we achieved our international goals. We brought peace to other people, including Egypt and Israel. We normalised relations with China, which had been non-existent for 30-something years. We brought peace between US and most of the countries in Latin America because of the Panama Canal Treaty. We formed a working relationship with the Soviet Union."

Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt Rand wants to be remembered like Jimmy Carter. But as President, unless you bomb someone, history shows that that's how you'll be remembered. Roosevelt was a bomber; Truman was a bomber; Ike was a bomber; Kennedy - who did he bomb? Speaking of which, who would Jesus bomb?

Johnson was a bomber; Nixon was a bomber. Ford - who did he bomb? Carter wasn't a bomber, apparently. Reagan was a bomber; Bush I was a bomber; Clinton was a bomber; Bush II was a bomber; and Obama was the ultimate O-bomber.

What does the future hold? Cannot predict now.

I'll continue to watch.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I really liked this.

.

While I generally agree with you...

"Who would Jesus bomb" isn't really applicable to government. It has a responsibility to keep citizens safe by stepping outside of the bounds we as individuals should maintain for ourselves.

Other than that, yes.

100% with you, Michael

Michael,

I am with you 100%. What's worse is: with no one left in Congress to oppose war, it will come with a vengeance. Soon we will spend trillions, and commit unspeakable evil. Even our allies will turn against us. I bet that ISIS is shocked that we are so easily provoked to destroy ourselves.

‘Each individual is separated from others by a "taboo of personal isolation"...this "narcissism of minor differences"'
--Sigmund Freud

Ron Paul Voted for Chuck Baldwin

Just a reminder... When it came down to it, Ron Paul voted Constitution.

Come to think of it, since Ron wasn't running anymore that year, so did I.

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

On Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-National-Headquarters/174074706883

Suggested Reading: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

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.

Debbie's picture

Yep, so did I.

Thanks Richard.

Debbie

Michael, Rand knows that his comments today, are ...

...hypothetical impossibilities! But, as a sad testimony to the idiocy of the couch potatoes, those comments will lead to victory! Notice how he parses his words. There is no way the globalists want the USA blowing their puppets out of existence, not without more full blown continuance of the warfare and welfare state! It is the same as Ron amending the committee bill to make declaration of war on Iraq! He had no intention to make war, but was exposing their perfidy! He had no intention of even voting for the declaration of war! There was of course no just, lawful, moral, cause!

There is no doubt in my mind that a true Rand Paul presidency would disable the CIA created "ISSissis...name-it-what-you-wish", simply by shrinking government, it's fiat/theft money source, and most alphabet soup agencies including the spawn of most bombing and it's erstwhile victims, the CIA! An appeal to Letters of Marquee would become as rare as it was for the last two centuries, without the flow of theft money from the Fed!

The core of bombing and all it's ramifications, the core of plans for the future of the Middle East as envisioned by the 'Zillionaires' who have been dreaming themselves into a Godzilla-like status of imagining they own/rule the world... all of what the Ron Paul run stood against and proclaimed anathema, is fueled by the FED!

The heart of the hydra, which animates all those evil heads, would no doubt be imperiled by a Rand Paul presidency! Of that, knowing the family, I have no doubt!

The methods necessary to securing at last, the nomination, which as many considered in 2008 could result in a landslide against the Quigley establishment, are obscure at the moment, and I mean obscure of necessity! Very very obscure!

To that end, all the controversy surrounding Rand versus Ron, Rand and liberty principles, Rand and the establishment, is serving a very important end!

An old party hack, ex-military, long time PCO for the establishment, woefully un-informed 'liberty loving', 'big government conservative' (yes there are those in such a state of mindlessness), asked what we thought of Rand?! He was informed that Rand was a good candidate, loved all the things he loved, but that the Ron Paul folks have problems with him maybe betraying his father! Mr. establishment smiled and for the first time really thought about looking into Rand as his candidate, for the first time actually listening to issues and arguments, rather than top down orders! He had never actually heard Ron Paul speak, of course, just like all the other bottom feeders in the party who believe they are there to serve the kings and queens at the top!

That is the message we want him to take back to the smokey rooms! At least until it is too late for the party bosses to undo the damage and carry out their obligatory Quigley defeat in favor of the status quo Fed!

So keep up the controversy!

Wouldn't You?

I mean there are a lot of good targets out there. Start thinking upholding the constitution by waging war on "domestic enemies"

These enemies have been neglected for a long time in favor of foreign or even fabricated enemies.

agreed, mostly, but a correction on Carter: he too was a killer,

like the rest. Or, a "bomber" more apropos of your narrative flow.

It's a 100% myth that Carter was some humanitarian POTUS (and that link is from a Lefty site).

Got Zbieggie much?

Carter's foreign policy is what literally paved the way for the current slate of false flagged, state-sponsored terrorists like alCIAda/IsIs. It's just Mujahadeen 3.0.

Several African dictators have been practically de facto funded by Anglo-American banksters, via Carter's admin. Not to mention: US govt's Latin American intervention bloomed under Carter's Admin, as well.

Hey, when both neoCons and actual leftie commie progressives agree that Carter's presidency was baddie bad bad... lol... er.. .o/

Granted, we all know (well...at least I hope most here do know...) ALL POTUS-es are puppets, but that said, Carter certainly didn't stop any of the real visible faction of the proverbial 'shadow govt,' aka National Security Council, from continuing the agenda.

The Secret Government: Bill Moyers (1987)

http://youtu.be/28K2CO-khdY
ConspiracyScope
Published on Aug 4, 2012

Govt is just what it is: Evil, that all evil men & women naturally gravitate to.

Even IF... were Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul to be elected the POTUS in 2012, let alone in 2008 (was NEVER going to happen as long as blackbox voting persists), he'd have been able to certainly put a full stop to any and all Federal govt funneling of policestate toys, gear, and training-protocols from filtering into local policeforce. And possibly guide a 'cushioned' collapse of an inevitable currency collapse. And, as CIC, be able to recall all the military from foreign soil, or at least shut down various fed depts via vetoing funding, or via attrition, at least Constitutionally speaking.

But beyond that, Dr. Paul would till be fighting two centuries plus, of entrenched interests; short of some overnight voluntaryist catharsis let alone a true minarchist one, in the minds of all 310million-ish American populace, it's hard to see a lasting change happening, IMO.

I personally have no illusions as to which way this ship is going.

IMHO, the only real solution is "between the ears."

There's no "restoring" anything. This Titanic has long left the drydocks; it's on a mathematically assured sink trajectory.

The only real solution is local, voluntary, agorist parallel economies, self-defense coalitions/committees of safety, learn all the 'civilization re-boot'-know-how as much as you can, find like minds who'd be able to do the same, and frankly, simply outlive & out-breed the bastards.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Brzezinski

Brzezinski was Carter's Dick Cheney.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

yup. and he continues to be oBUSHma's

Dickhead DarthVader Cheney, too.o/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

There are Bigger Issues

Rand Paul needs to indicate he will follow the Constitution.

Bomb or No Bomb. He needs to say he will get the federal government and unenumerated taxation out of the states permanently and follow the constitution as it was INTENDED.

The difference between Ron and Rand show the stark contrast.

1.) Ron Paul wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing - Which is Constitutionally correct.

Rand Paul wants to maintain exorbitant federal spending by establishind a unenumerated unconsensual unlimited unconstitutional national "flat tax" which will guarantee a increase to government with increase in the private sector and create a new IRS under a different name that will allow the federal government to dictate state tax law and determine "what is and what is not" a "business" i.e. "Everything including your labor, trade, barter, and your computer in your house i.e. a FEDERAL - STATE "BUY, SELL AND TRADE TAX".

----

2.) Ron Paul wants to get rid of federal laws and bureaucracies and allow states and local communities to decide.

Rand Paul wants to maintain federal powers in areas they have no constitutional business; Instead of getting rid of Roe vs Wade and give it to local communities to decide where what he wishes to occur would occur, he keeps it in the federal powers with a FEDERAL right to life clause where it HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY;

***The federal government can only Constitutionally define and prosecute FOUR (COUNT THEM "4" Crimes) and cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC !

READ IT! :

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

So before people "rubber stamp" Rand they need to seriously look at these two OTHER points that are Far more Serious to your freedoms.

Though the point you make is good, because continuing to shovel bodies into an area so that we can have the "experience" of being injured, is not the way.

This is STRIKE THREE (four, five, six, seven etc.) for Rand Paul.

Stop listening to the freedom banter and look at what Rand Paul really represents in these areas which will empower the federal government and the military complex.

Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul.

I will vote for Rand when he publicly opposes the above issues that he presently wants to implement; that if he did implement, would put us in a far worse position; especially with his insane proposal of a unenumerated flat tax that will greatly empower the federal government over everyone.

What can Rand not understand about enumerated consensual Constitutional taxation that he would choose to promote the opposite!

Rand doesn't want to follow the Constitution on the major issues(ok end the fed), so it will be business as usual; Worse, the majority of liberty minded will be put back to sleep thinking they won something when they have actually lost badly.

Better that the fervor and education continue; and wins in the senate, house, judicial, both federal and state continue, and more importantly Governorships by those that know the Constitution continue in the turmoil.

It is healthy that idiots in the White House stir education of the masses toward learning the real meaning of the Constitution...

It is a good reason for not settling for second best (when there is no first)... Which, if Rand implemented a "flat tax" would place us in a far worse condition

There won't be a need for the Federal Reserve because they will have a chair in your living room and will be taking money directly from your labor, trade, business and home computer.

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

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

Founders Documents for your Phone:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf
Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

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.

Rand will never be President

The stars are not in alignment with that. These days in America starting with the baby boomers. Its about what I can get for free . Even to give up freedom for false security and government handouts. Most independent voters now wear depends. Earning something by work, cooking, gardening, is to complicated. Waiting for the reset caused by the fourth turning and turning the clock back.

Money talks and dogs bark

Ron should support Rand and

Ron should support Rand and then a month or so before the convention go onto Hannity and endorse another candidate.

SteveMT's picture

LOL. Excellent comment.

Ron Paul should also only refer to Rand as "my son."

Good one!

Hit the nail on the head.

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.

As antiwar as I am...

As antiwar as I am, the compassionate humanitarian side of me couldn't help but wonder how much "ethnic cleansing" could be accomplished by ISIS if they had shut down the power and water for a few months at the Erbil Dam? The whole of Iraq absolutely depends on this dam for survival. At what point should compassion for humanity come into play in all this?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I'm a bit confused by all the hair pulling

"If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."

Isn't this almost exactly what Ron Paul said should have been done in Iraq? Call a joint session of congress. Lay out the reasons why Iraq is a threat to OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. and seek CONGRESSIONAL authorization for the war.

Isn't Rand simply saying he would follow the Constitution???

Frankly, I have no dog in this fight, but despite the neocons jumping for joy at Rand's latest statement, I don't see it as being anything other than a pledge to follow the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs

Before you can stop the bombing we must end the FED!

The criminal banksters run this country, not any of the puppets you mentioned. The last I heard Rand was for ending the FED, he did try to get his dad's "end the FED" bill into the senate.

If Rand doesn't win, then we'll most likely have shillery, who openly is a member of the CFR.

I am wondering if we'll even get to the end of Obama's reign, he just might be our last President. I am much older than most here, and I have seen many changes that were unthinkable 50 years ago.

If you or anyone wants real change we need to end the FED, we the sheeple must demand it, from our law breakers. Maybe we should all pull a Gemany and start demonstrating against the FED.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

One thing is certain

If he'd agreed with his father and said we should do nothing about ISIS, he'd 100% not win the Republican nomination.

Regardless, he advocated following the Constitution. If the people don't lobby their representatives to vote against this future war, then it is the citizens to blame not President Rand Paul.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

He advocated following the War Powers Act,

not the Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Notice that he said "seek congressional authorization". That's just an Authorization to Use Military Force, not an actual Declaration of War. WW2 was the last declared war we had, and when we declare war, we fight all out and win in less than 5 years. His father pointed this out on several occasions. Not 11 years and lose. (Just sayin when we declare it we kick ass and end it fast.)

On your first point, I think if Rand wins the nomination, the neocons vote Hillary. That's the "Transformation" he referred to.

Upvoted ya.

If I were Rand I would say...

"If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would ask congress, "Is ISIS a threat?" and provide them all of the information I am being provided, in order that they may make an informed decision. If Congress determined that "ISIS is a threat to our national security", then I would seek a Congressional Declaration of War to destroy ISIS militarily."

"However, if congress refused to declare war, then I would pursue no military action against Isis in Iraq or Syria. It's either "Declare it, or Forget it!""

Alert! Alert! *siren whooping noise* Free Thinker in Sector DP!

But if he's just 'playing the game,' when does the game end? After the election? After the midterms of the first term? After the first term? Maybe it is so much fun that the game never ends.

Ron & Rand Both Lie.

Ron lies about 9/11 because he's "afraid" to tell the truth. He lies about a lot of things. Rand does as well. That's a part of the game and you're splitting hairs. Rand is Ron's son. Ron will support Rand, and so will I.

Regarding Carter

Don't forget his immortal words: ""Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.""

He wasn't the peacenik that Republicans try to label him as.

Carter's "Noninterventionism" started it all

Reagan picked up the ball and ran with it, but Carter and the CIA started the ball rolling in the middle east :

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CI...

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Correct

President Carter was an Annapolis graduate. He served for 7 years as a nuclear submariner during the height of the cold war.

Carter was a Christian - not a wear it on your sleeve type, but someone who incorporated it into his thoughts & actions. He was not an aggressor. But that doesn't make him a wimp.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Isn't that exactly what the republic is for?

If the President believes an act of war has been taken against the US, then he makes a case to the United States people to declare a state of war. If it's convincing and people feel genuinely threatened, then we respond in kind. This response is about 1,000,000x better than Obama's "I'll do what I want in Syria, but congress can have their vote if they want it," which is exactly the attitude he's expressed.

Note: I'm advocating neither for nor against military action, I'm simply describing the process. Looks to me as if that's what Rand was doing. I noticed both you and the HuffPo used the exact same quote-clip to make this case.

Good point.

Good point.

my gut says..

you say:
"In 2007, with very little data, my gut spoke to me about Ron Paul and his intentions. In 2014, it remains hazy on Rand."

Like many of us, Ron Paul was somebody that I stumbled upon by chance.
It was the first time I was listening to an old politician that was saying EVERYTHING that I felt.

Ron ran for president twice since 2007, and failed miserably each time.

and now there is Rand...
I was wondering if you now set your expectations too high for Rand.
do you compare him with his father, or with the rest of the potential candidates?
Is the goal of the "liberty movement" to educate only? Or do we actually want someone in the white house?
Is it best to be idealistic, or realistic?

My gut tells me that Rand is the real deal.
THE BEST choice.
is the best choice an ideal choice? Probably not.

If Rand runs for prez, he has a good chance to win.
If he wins i think this country will be a better place to call home.

"probably"

The evil scumbag neocon who gets elected WILL bomb many countries.

Rand is Ron's son and will NEVER bomb other countries.

I do not see Ron saying to his son:.....

Michael why don't you phone Ron?

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15