-20 votes

Rand Paul has jumped the shark

Rand Paul wants to re-invade Iraq? I defended him for a while, but this is the last straw. According to the media he is the leader of the non-interventionist movement, so they're gleefully treating this like the non-interventionists are admitting they've been wrong all this time.

Rand no longer even attempts to articulate the non-interventionist message in regards to the current situation in Iraq. He's clearly been influenced by his establishment advisors, who are trying to turn him into just another brain-dead Republican, indistinguishable from the others. Unfortunately it's working.

He stabbed us in the back. I thought the son of Ron Paul could resist the temptation of selling out for at least one presidential campaign. I was wrong. Ron Paul must be disappointed.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Why is anyone surprised

Rand, like any other mainstream politician can't afford to have "principles". Ron's success was an aberration to the extent that running 4th in the Republican primaries can even be considered a success. He even, to me, forfeited a lot by caving in to the establishment to protect Rand. Understandable but Rand is not my son.

Once someone sells out there is no going back. Would Rand be "better" than Mitt (or Perry god help us) Probably. But I believe that he has made a calculation that we, his "base" will support him no matter what he does and that compared to the advantages of mainstream treatment and support our disaffection doesn't matter. Just as despite the GOPs treatment of Ron most of us (excluding myself) voted for Mitt anyway.

This is the classic "lesser of two evils" con. No doubt it will work again

So if that's ok go for it and quit complaining.


Why is anyone surprised?

Rand said he is a republican with libertarian leanings - that means he is a republican first. Republican means nothing and is just a group of establishment people.

Just because Rand is Ron Paul's son does not mean anything. Ron Paul likes him - that should be expected. But as we saw with Jesse Benton, Ron Paul has blinders on when it comes to family members and those in his innermost circles.

And if Rand Paul is just saying all these things to get elected and is trying to be a covert libertarian - screw him. The battlefield is right now and supporting anything other than liberty makes you an enemy of liberty.

Same subject line

I guess great minds think alike.


Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose

Two things.

That could make me distance myself from Rand....

The first would be a complete bowing down to AIPAC/ADL/Israel, Mind you he has done some of that already but I can also see him calling them out.

The second would be backpedaling on true economic change and the way we see The War Machine, I'll admit I haven't been following Rand as closely as I did his Father but I hear some good things coming from him.

(Stand with Israel Act removed funding to Palestine... AIPAC tried to shoot this down... Why? Because Israel decides where the Aid(Money) to Palestine goes... So the Stand with Israel actually removed funding from Israel and he did it in a subversive way)


The Ayes have it!

Confusing compromise with obediance.

Could it be that Rand isn't compromising? Could it be that he knows that if he wants to be president that the "chosen people" rule Washington? Could it be that he is doing what he had to agree to to be a serious presidential candidate? Could it be that Romney made the same deal and then he too, became the media's favored RINO.

History does repeat itself when it is directed by the lobbyist power brokers.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

Another "last straw" thread.

Another "last straw" thread. I said it months ago, will say it again, all those who still have a straw for Rand Paul, save yourself the strife, the disappointment, the anguish, the work of writing a last straw thread... he will disappoint you during a tough campaign, why not get it over with now?

Rand's going to have to start throwing puppies off rooftops before I give the election to President Christie or President Clinton. Fence-sitters, please bail on Paul now, save us all the time.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

"The lesser of two evils is still evil."

We used to say that a lot in the 2008 campaign.
Truth be told, I will probably wander to town and cast a vote for Rand if he gets on the ballot. I will not try to get anyone else to vote for him, I cannot assure them I believe he is an honest man, or that he will stand tall for peace and liberty.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Well Said

I'm sticking with Rand for the distance. No matter how bad Rand seems to be, he has a real shot of getting elected. I know he is 1000 times better than anyone else who has a chance of winning.

"If you want to change government, you have to become government" Ron Paul

For Freedom!

No Way!

That's like me saying I support Romney, or Jeb Bush, or McCain because I "think" they are better than Obama.....

Re-invade Iraq? Thats a

Re-invade Iraq? Thats a pretty bad one. I suppose I would still opt for him over most, but I'm not feeling encouraged that this is going in a good direction. I think it will ultimately cost him politically if he compromises too much, which in my judgment he's probably already done. I still hope it works out, but I'm allowed to vent my frustrations to my fellow liberty lovers.

that you are

and i wish more saw it like that. i dropped him back at the RNC where he was caught lying. he followed that up with the romney endorsement. since then i've been back and forth with him, but this: repeat the same idiotic foreign policy that has created this mess is the final straw for me, not to mention the ukraine. and of course the realization that he is a lot different than his dad which is fine for him and his supporters, it's just not my cup of tea. i'm glad ron is still around to insert some sense into this isis hysteria and war propaganda. the msm is beating the drums and a good number of folks even here are falling in line.

If ISIS is a threat then shut it down.

According to articles I have read the ISIS is a creation of the CIA, Mossad and MI6. They were trained in Jordan and funded by the usual funders, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. slush fund for black ops.

If this is indeed true then perhaps Rand Paul should be informed of it and he can then point the finger at the real culprits and shut them down, for which he as President would have the authority without asking for it.

In cases like this it is best to clarify the real situation before getting bogged down in a debate about principles that may be irrelevant. Peel away the obfuscations to reveal the truth about the truly evil foreign policy and actions of the U.S. government and the only intervention required is to put an end to most of what the U.S. State Department, Department of Defense and the multitude of nefarious agencies employed in subverting countries around the world, actually do as their day job.

This at least is what I am confident Ron Paul would have done. He was actually more perceptive and more informed about the real situation than his son who seems to me to be much more of a middle of the road American, steeped in the mythology of his country and committed to serving this myth to the best of his ability. I believe he is an honest man and an intelligent one but has not yet broken out of the Matrix.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

You are

just being an apologist for Rand's lack of courage to stand up to the Corporate Collective. You try to make claim, that Rand doesn't know ISIS is a creation by Washington and it's Agency Collective? Rand, has made statements about Washington arming 'elements of al Qeada', so that's a false narrative. The 'problem' Rand has is, that he can't 'take the heat' when attacked by others in his party or the MSM, and usually compitulates his original stance, and flips to the 'stautus quo' position. In other words, he lacks the courage or the leadership to be a serious Presidential candidate, and definitely the honor of a 'statesman' his father clearly represents. Yes, he may fear for his life, but by chosing to become an elected Senator, he took oath to the Constitution, and many of 'true statesman' have given their lives to protect it. The statement made by many Rand 'idolators' are so protective of the hope of Rand, they throw out all the principles of Liberty, that drew us to support Dr Ron Paul, and the future of the Republic. Rand, is a decent Senator, who seems to make a stand for personal liberties on some issues in Amreica, but, besides his Zionist support of Israel, he fails to fight for these same principles in the rest of the World and somewhat sides with the same Liberty destroyers at home.

We Get the Government We Deserve

Quit blaming the politicians, Government act this way because the people dont give a damn. We are paying for the sins of our past.

Clearing the board and

Starting over with perfect, libertarian principals would be great, but it isn't an option. That means that most solutions aren't going to be pretty and a libertarian can almost always find fault with them.

For instance, a libertarian might suggest that, had we stayed out of foreign entanglements and didn't have vast entitlements, we wouldn't have issues on the boarder, but that's not what happened and that's not what is, and the public won't accept that for an answer.

Anything short of starting over can be picked apart. Speak for yourself, but Rand did not stab me in the back. Rand can't be his father and he shouldn't try to be. His job is to connect with a different mindset of people.

It's going to take even more than Ron Paul to undo all of this and I'm thankful that Rand is doing his part.

I don't get it...

...Now all of a sudden we want a king as long as it is a libertarian king? What is wrong with saying that if you deem someone a threat, you will take the case to congress and the people to decide as a nation what to do about it? I like the stance that only the people have the power to decide to go to war. Would you rather he said that he would have his attorney's tell him what he should unilaterally do? Should he have said that he would discuss the matter with our allies in NATO, to come up with a consensus before we bomb? Does non-interventionist really have to mean pacifist, as the corporate war mongering media tells everyone?

I guess I'm not alone

Rand goes full neocon


First he says:
"Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?"

And then later he says:
"If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.

This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it."

So, let me get this straight. The US foreign policy has caused this mess. So let's keep it going! A failure of logic, in my eyes.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

that's Hillary's campaign for 2016!!!


It's not gonna be hard to throw Barrack under the bus all during the 2015 campaign season, and he don't give a shit, and he won't even defend himself; he got his, and he OBEYED his masters....so, crank up the war machine, and just lambaste every last American who doesn't want these wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine in order to secure or prolong the dying dollar hegemony; hell, round them up as enemy combatants, fuel a civil war inside our borders...Get ready folks, the banksters are still in charge of our politics...get ready to SACRIFICE ALL for our posterity...Rah Rah Rand is NOT going to save this Republic, so don't get under that umbrella for hope or protection...Rand has to say what we're saying, what his Dad has already said; this isn't a popularity contest, this is a Liberty contest that will DEFINE our nation going forward...We've been kept in check thus far!!!


and so obvious you had to have poured a vat of kool aid down your throat to see it as anything else. i always felt that eventually he'd go pro war/aggression in the middle east (and now ukraine too), and i often wondered when he did what the reaction here would be.

Presidential war action shouldn't be decided by preference

The President's job is to enforce, FIRST, the Constitution and -- secondarily -- those laws which were legally enacted ... in compliance with the Constitution.

A President shouldn't be selectively enforcing laws based on personal biases (religious or otherwise).

It's a tough job to put on a "hat" and wear it, setting aside your own preferences. But it IS key to the job of the executive branch. Anyone who can't enforce lawful laws and responsibilities lawfully AND consistently has NO business in the office of the President.

One responsibility of the President under the Constitution is, in fact, to be the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces and to lawfully USE FORCE in defense of the nation.

I am not aware that Rand Paul has taken a firm stand on ANYTHING which is AGAINST the lawful purview AND RESPONSIBILITY of the President ... under the Constitution and oath of office.

Indeed, if I am correct, then Rand Paul would be UNFIT FOR OFFICE if he wasn't prepared to conduct a legal war in defense of the nation...REGARDLESS of "personal preferences".

I think Rand Paul has taken a reasoned and measured and LEGAL position .. AS ANY ONE FIT TO OCCUPY THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

holy crap, it gets much worse

Check this out:


Someone should photoshop Rand's head on Fonzie:

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Rand Paul, my regret in supporting Ron Paul

By supporting Ron Paul we brought ourselves Rand Paul. How sad it is.



That's the most idiotic statement I've heard in a long time.

Lots of ass-u-me-ing going on around here


The only war we need

is against the corrupt criminal scumbags claiming to be government.

They are already levying a drug war and war on terror on We the People which is Treason.

McCain heads up Iran Contra 2.0 and now we need to do something??

How about we bring justice to the criminal traitors inside all branches of 'government' along with their military industrial complex criminals scumbags levying war on us?

America you are about to lose everything for not bringing justice to criminals who have intentionally created this nightmare. The enemy is inside the gates but Rand seems too immature to understand this.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Facts about Rand Paul's war talk

Rand Paul said that:
1. He would call a joint session of congress.
2. He would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to the US national security.
3. He would seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.

Rand Paul's statement appears to be in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, and specifically Clause 11, that only Congress has the power to declare war. Also, his statement appears to be correctly interpreting Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

What Ran Paul did not say is that he would seek Congressional consultation, or that, as an Executive, he already has the Constitutional authority that empowers him to declare a war alone, and therefore he would have sent troops without the proper authorization from Congress, without a clear goal, without a clearly defined and realistic exit strategy, and that Congress was to find out about the new war from the news outlets.

That comment should be a post itself

That comment should be a post itself. The original was carp.

Agreed - new topic created

To increase the visibility, new topic was created:

Facts about Rand Paul's war talk


1)Call the People's Representatives together to declare war.
2) The people will say, "Hell no!"
3) Rand says "Gosh darn, but the people have spoken".

He gets to pose as a war hawk for the crazies AND a Constitutionalist for the not-so-crazies AND he can BE a non-interventionist for the 5% of the sane people.