Sen. Rand Paul (and dad Ron Paul)

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Crafty_Dog]

I've not heard anything from Rand about ISIL and what, if anything, to do about it.

[bigdog]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/why-washington-should-declare-war-on-isis-20140820

but,

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140708/CONGRESSWATCH/307080028/Sen-Rand-Paul-Warnings-ISIL-Threat-US-Conjecture- and http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidadesnik/2014/06/20/rand-paul-sees-no-threat-from-terrorist-safe-havens-in-iraq/

[Crafty_Dog]

As usual, good work BD.

Worth noting that there are six weeks between those two pieces.

[Crafty_Dog]

Sen. Paul yesterday called Hillary a "war hawk" and called for a new coalition in American politics.

[Crafty_Dog]

There are some fairly made points in here IMHO.

=========================================

How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS
Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little regard to consequences.
By Rand Paul
connect
Aug. 27, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET

As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally important that we examine how this problem arose. Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been.

Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example.

In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?"

The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Assad's government recently bombed the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Raqqa, Syria.

U.S. President Barack Obama Getty Images

To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.

This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.

Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy.

Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a "Munich moment."

Some now speculate Mr. Kerry and the administration might have to walk back or at least mute their critiques of Assad in the interest of defeating the Islamic State.

A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has neither.

But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.

Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on.

But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.

Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for the London newspaper, the Independent, recently reported something disturbing about these rebel groups in Syria. In his new book, "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising," Mr. Cockburn writes that he traveled to southeast Turkey earlier in the year where "a source told me that 'without exception' they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S." It's safe to say these rebels are probably not friends of the United States.

"If American interests are at stake," I said in September, "then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war."

Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S.

The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.

Mr. Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/08/28/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-attacks/

So much for that.

[Crafty_Dog]

What do we think of Rand's article?

[G M]

What do we think of Rand's article?

If we had taken out Assad like Buraq like wanted to before Putin linked him out, IS would own all of Syria by now.

[Crafty_Dog]

So, you are agreeing with Rand?

[G M]

So, you are agreeing with Rand?

In that case, yes.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya.

The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo, the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.”

In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News:

    I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war.

While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?

    Sometimes people are trying to say I don’t have enough concern for this. Well, actually, I have a great deal of concern—and not thinking through the consequences of intervention has caused Islamism and radical jihadist groups to proliferate. So I think Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein were both secular dictators who were awful, and did terrible things to their people, but at the same time were also enemies of the jihadists. Assad is the same way. What we’ve done in Libya, and now what we’re doing in Syria, is we have armed groups that are commingled with jihadists.

For instance, in Syria, Paul says, by arming the “rebels” against Assad, America “degraded Assad’s capacity to wipe out the rebel groups in his country.”

A year ago, Obama sought approval from Congress to engage militarily in Syria, as Paul urges, but Congress balked. Facing stiff resistance from lawmakers of both parties, the matter never even came up for a vote.

According to Paul, that's how the system is supposed to work.

“Think what would have happened had we seriously degraded Assad to the point where he was overrun, think who would be in charge of Syria right now?” Paul asked before answering his own rhetorical question: ”ISIS.” In conclusion, Paul said:

    So we are very lucky that the American people are much wiser than Hillary Clinton, and much wiser than the president. We got the president and Hillary Clinton to slow down, but Hillary Clinton was widely reported to be the chief person proposing that we get involved in Syria. But really the only person directly involved in bombing ISIS’s bases right now is the Syrian government—so for all their wrongs, we’re actually quite lucky we didn’t have regime change, because I think it is a very realistic prediction that, had we had that happen, that ISIS would be in charge of Syria. Really, Syria, with Assad and all this war, is somewhat of a counter to the power of ISIS.

Paul's critics in the GOP are increasingly agitated by his stances, especially what they see as him positioning himself to the left of Clinton on foreign policy, even while the Middle East is becoming ever more volatile.

“The last thing the Republican Party needs is its own version of George McGovern,” Yoo told me. “More than 50 percent of the American people now disapprove of Obama's isolationist foreign policy, whose disastrous effects we now see in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Asia. Paul's views will have the same bad consequences, both for the Republican Party, the United States, and the world.”

On a panel on Meet The Press that followed Paul's interview, Michael Gerson, the former Geroge W. Bush speechwriter and one of the architects of “compassionate conservatism,” criticized Paul for opposing foreign aid.

“He’s called for the gradual elimination of all foreign aid,” Gerson said. “I’ve seen its effect in sub-Saharan Africa and other places. This would cause misery for millions of people on AIDS treatment. It would betray hundreds of thousands of children receiving malaria treatment. These are things you can’t ignore in a presidential candidate. This is a perfect case of how a person can have good intentions, but how an ideology can cause terrible misery. He will need to explain that.”

However, James Carafano, a generally hawkish foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, said Paul is tapping into real currents of discontent with the American public.

Paul is “onto something,” in that “in a sense that people are looking for something other than reflexively send in the bombs or reflexively do nothing,” Carafano told this reporter.

“It’s not just Sen. Paul, but I’ve heard several of the people who might be Republican candidates offer different versions of the same thing,” Carafano said. “Rick Perry was here the other day and was a little more aggressive on Iraq than Paul, but in their own way, what everybody is trying to say is we need to be prudent as opposed to somebody who just says we’re going to go do this.”

Paul describes himself as “a foreign policy realist like the first George Bush, like Reagan, like Eisenhower.” He elaborates:

    They did intervene on occasion. It was not their first choice—but they did intervene when there were American interests involved, and I think really it’s not one extreme or the other. I often tell people in speeches one extreme goes nowhere all the time and that’s isolationism. The other extreme goes everywhere all the time. Many of the foreign policy sort of establishment in Washington, they're so used to being everywhere all of the time, that anyone who backs away from everywhere all of the time is considered to be an isolationist.

Paul said that in many cases, “there is no good alternative”—and that much of the time, each foreign policy choice by a president has negative consequences and positive ones. But the best decision, he said, is the one that acts in the best interest of America and her allies like Israel—even if that means a bad dictator remains in power.

“I think one of the biggest threats to our country is radical Islam and these radical Islamist groups—they are a threat,” Paul said.

Paul is currently leading the GOP field in 2016 GOP primary polls a few months out from the 2014 midterm elections. He said Americans are looking for someone they can trust to do the right thing when a foreign policy crisis arises. Paul went on:

    When people are looking at choosing someone to be commander-in-chief, I think first and foremost they’re looking at whether that person has the wisdom and judgment to defend the country and make those decisions—when that 3 a.m. phone call came for Hillary, she didn’t bother to pick up the phone. In Libya, they were calling—they needed reinforcements for six months. It wasn’t just the night of the attack; for six months leading up to the attack there were repeated calls for reinforcements, for security teams, for a DC-3 to fly people on a plane to be able to leave the country. So I think the compilation of mistakes leading up to Benghazi really do preclude her from consideration to become commander-in-chief.

Regarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek authorization before using America’s armed forces there. Paul said of ISIS:

    We need to do what it takes to make sure they’re not strong enough to attack us. That means sometimes perhaps continuing the alliance with the new Iraqi government. Perhaps it means armaments, or perhaps it means air support, but frankly if I were in President Obama’s shoes at this time, I would have called Congress back, I would have had a joint session of Congress, and I would have said ‘this is why ISIS is a threat to the United States, to the stability of the region, to our embassy, to our diplomats, and this is why I’m asking you today to authorize air attacks.’ I’m betting if he would have done that to a joint session of Congress, he would have gotten approval. When you don’t do it through Congress, and you do it yourself, then you really have not galvanized the will of the nation. As a true leader, what I think we need to do is galvanize the nation when we go to war.

But since Clinton and Obama have “a disregard for the rule of law,” which generally requires congressional authorization for such military action while giving the president considerable latitude for short-term action, the administration did not seek congressional authorization for action in Libya—and probably won’t for action against ISIS, if it’s taken. Paul concluded:

    Americans do want strong leadership from the president. They do think that President Obama is not being a strong leader. They do want a strong leader, something more akin to the public persona of Reagan. But they also don’t want somebody who is reckless in engaging in war; they don’t want somebody to put troops back in the Middle East. That was my point with Hillary Clinton—her eagerness to be involved in Libya and to be involved in Syria, in Libya led to very bad, probably unintended consequences and in Syria unintended consequences also. But I think you have less unintended consequences if you come to the American people through Congress and have a full-throated debate. It’s frankly difficult to convince Congress to do things—and that way, if you do it that way, you’re unlikely to go to war unless there is a consensus among the American people.

[DougMacG]

What do we think of Rand's article?

[How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS]

The timing of the rise of ISIS matches the timing of the election of Barack Obama, and the start of a new US policy of non-intervention, along with the abandonment of all gains made at great cost before him.  It was built by prisoners released instead of being sent to the closing of Guantanamo.  9/11 (and WWII too) arose out of a period and policy of non-intervention and reduced preparedness.  Both Pres. Obama and Rand Paul need to stand up and recognize evil and the threat of letting it grow, spread and prosper.


"Al Baghdadi even served four years in a U.S. prison camp for insurgents, at Bucca in southern Iraq -- a time in which he almost certainly developed a network of contacts and honed his ideology."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/

Rand Paul will not make us safer.  And he will not be electable (IMO) running on the foreign policy of Barack Obama.  He says that will bring independents and liberals to him, which I doubt, but it certainly will distance him from much of the conservative base.  The world is not going to be safer, nor are the threats going to get smaller in the last two years of this administration coming into the next election, and facing the next President.

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/08/28/ron-paul-government-had-foreknowledge-of-911-attacks/
So much for that.

Rand Paul needs a Sister Souljah moment pretty soon with his father to tell him publicly he is wrong, it is not helpful, so stop it.

[Crafty_Dog]

Rand Paul: 'I Am Not an Isolationist'
By SEN. RAND PAUL

Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.

I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.

As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. "Peace through Strength" only works if you have and show strength.

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 why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?

This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.

And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.

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.

Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.

The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.

There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.

The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.

The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.

We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.

Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.

We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.

Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for.

This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.

We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.

Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.

ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.

This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.

To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.

Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.

Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.

Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leave few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/09/17/rand-paul-responds-to-critics-my-position-is-the-same-as-it-always-has-been/

Rand is making some sense here , , ,

[DougMacG]

John Hinderacker at Powerline (excerpted, link below):
Rand Paul and the Foreign Policy delusions of libertarianism
...
Rand Paul began his speech today by saying that “there is one theme that connects the dots in the Middle East.” He was wrong. The Middle East, and more broadly the Islamic world, are complex places. There are many causes of their dysfunction, but the most important one is the cultural heritage of Islam. ...  In that region, as elsewhere, different situations call for different remedies. The idea that there is only “one theme”–that terrorism is the result of chaos, which is the result of overthrowing otherwise-stable and benign secular dictators–is false.
...
The number one sponsor of terrorism over the last thirty years has been Iran. Did the mullahs take control because of an ill-advised American intervention? No. The Shah was, perhaps, the paradigm of the benign Middle Eastern dictator, and he was our ally. While one can argue–I certainly do–that the Carter administration should have done more to support him, it wasn’t U.S. intervention that overthrew the Shah, it was a fundamentalist Muslim revolt.

How about the Taliban, which took over Afghanistan and harbored al Qaeda? Was the Taliban’s takeover the result of America’s toppling of a secular dictator? No, not unless the dictator was the Soviet Union, back in the 1980s.

No groups have contributed more to chaos in the Middle East than Hezbollah and Hamas. Does either organization owe its existence to some foreign policy mistake on the part of the U.S.? No.

A great deal of chaos in sub-Saharan Africa, especially Somalia and Nigeria, has been caused by radical Muslim groups (including, in Somalia’s case, al Qaeda). In either instance, was the cause of the chaos or the rise of terrorist groups, American intervention? No.

Rand Paul offers Iraq as an instance where the “prime source” of chaos that breeds terrorism was our “intervention to topple [a] secular dictator.” But is that really what happened in Iraq? Put aside for a moment the assumption that Saddam–who had a Koran written in his own blood and sponsored terrorism by Muslim extremists–was “secular.” Likewise, forget that Saddam was a bitter enemy of the United States, so that, when George W. Bush took office as president, there was one place on Earth where American servicemen were routinely being shot at–Iraq. We certainly did topple Saddam, a feat of which, in my view, we should be proud. Was chaos the necessary result? No. As of last year, Barack Obama and Joe Biden were hailing a stable, prosperous Iraq as one of their administration’s greatest achievements. Chaos and the ascendancy of ISIS in Iraq was the result of our needless abandonment of that country.

And where did ISIS come from? Syria. Here, Paul’s words are mystifying. He includes Assad as a secular dictator who was mistakenly “toppled” by U.S. intervention. But that is ridiculous: rightly or wrongly, America hasn’t intervened to overthrow Assad, nor has any other Western nation. The rebellion against Assad arose from two distinct sources: popular dissatisfaction with his dictatorial rule, largely on behalf of the Alawite minority, and radical Islam as embodied in ISIS. Syria disproves Rand’s implicit assumption that “secular dictators” will be secure and will maintain the sort of order that precludes terrorism, if only we leave them alone or support them. Saddam, ruling on behalf of a Sunni minority, would not have been able to preserve order (such as it was) indefinitely in Iraq, for the same reasons that Assad couldn’t in Syria.
...
The second major problem with Paul’s approach is the way he characterizes those who disagree with him. ...  completely over the top. No one wants “perpetual war,” no one wants “boots on the ground everywhere,” no one believes that “war is the answer for every problem.” To the extent he is talking about members of his own party, Paul is choosing a peculiar path to the presidential nomination.

Much of what Rand Paul said today was sensible. ...  But Paul could have made those points without asserting his overarching claim that the “prime source” of Middle Eastern turmoil and terrorism is America’s actions.
...
Paul is right, I think, about Libya. That is a case where the West overthrew a dictator that, while once a sponsor of terrorism, had been de-fanged, and what followed was much worse. The Libyan venture was a serious mistake by the Obama administration.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/rand-paul-and-the-foreign-policy-delusions-of-libertarianism.php

[Crafty_Dog]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/29/rand-pauls-become-acceptably-hawkish-for-a-prospective-gop-nominee-says-john-mccain/

[DougMacG]

McCain is definitely a hawk, but not a steady indicator of anything, especially judging Republican nominees. 

The source of that is Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker with an extensive background piece on Rand Paul, a very worthwhile read IMO:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/revenge-rand-paul

[Crafty_Dog]

I'm intrigued , , ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc&list=UUy6kyFxaMqGtpE3pQTflK8A

[DougMacG]

I'm intrigued , , ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc&list=UUy6kyFxaMqGtpE3pQTflK8A

Rand Paul is a very talented and thoughtful guy.  However, I don't agree him on these points in question nor do I like the way he frames his arguments on them.  See the current Oval Office occupant, any bozo can have opposed the Iraq war from the start and be consistent in that now.  But then what?  Do nothing in Iraq in light of the 23 reasons given in the military authorization in Iraq?  Allow a rogue regime to gas its own people, support terrorism, shoot at American planes and attack 4 neighbors with no consequence?  Stick with the failed consequences of sanctions that empower the regime and weaken the people?  There is a burden is on opponents of war at this level to say what is the other way.  Open dialogues with murderous dictators to change their ways?  Just hope for the best?  At the least we could have toppled Saddam and left the place in chaos a lot earlier with more of our own resources intact.  Or we could have greatly weakened Saddam, without toppling his regime, if leaving regimes like this in place is the policy.  But to say no consequence for complete violation of Iraq's surrender terms a decade earlier is to make the word of the US, UN and coalition utterly meaningless.

Dropping the entire 'war on drugs' is not a of action from here.  We haven't yet digested the data coming from cannabis edibles and we want to legalize meth?  What else, wouldn't we also end FDA and the entire prescription and pharmacy process if illegal drugs are legalized?  End medoical licensing too, let people be responsible for their own choices.  I might prefer all of that, but it would be last on the list of basic freedoms lost that I want back first.  Keeping the fruits of our labor, dismantling coercive government and ending the welfare state would come first.  You need to bring back personal responsibility before making all dangerous choices legal.  On those points with Bill Maher and the reachout to the left, Rand Paul is silent.  

Federal decriminalization of personal quantities of pot is what can be done right now with majority support and then expressly leave that jurisdiction to the states.  If you favor full legalization, that is your first step.  If you favor keeping laws in line with acceptable behavior of the times, that is the logical step.  If you favor moving power out of Washington, that is one move you can make right now in the right direction.

Releasing all non-violent criminals is not the best course or the best rhetoric for a politician.  See posts by our ccp, perhaps we are imprisoning too few of our white collar criminals, not too many.  Laws need teeth, and enforcement.  Laws we don'[t want to enforce should be repealed.  Aren't theft and fraud non-violent crimes, and bilking the public and taxpayers?  We want no meaningful consequence for those?  Repeal the unhelpful laws and release the people being held on those repealed laws, but to trade reckless rhetoric for popularity is what sank so many other up and coming politicians - like Obama.

[Crafty_Dog]

Intelligent, thoughtful comments Doug.

[DougMacG]

I tried to read this carefully to see if it is a spoof.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-demands-obama-go-to-war-with-isis/article/2556587

Rand Paul demands Obama go to war with ISIS
BY PAUL BEDARD | NOVEMBER 24, 2014 | 4:52 AM

TOPICS: CONGRESS WASHINGTON SECRETS BARACK OBAMA NATIONAL SECURITY RAND PAUL CHUCK HAGEL ISIS

Likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul today released his draft of a “declaration of war” resolution against ISIS, expanding his foreign policy efforts.

“When Congress comes back into session in December, I will introduce a resolution to declare war against ISIS. I believe the president must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act. Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,“ Paul said.

The release came as news leaked that President Obama was firing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in part for a weak effort against ISIS.

TEXT OF RESOLUTION:

Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ‘‘The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war’’;

Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’;

Sign Up for the Washington Secrets newsletter!
More Stories
Obama's 203rd round, 7 hours at 'one of the most exclusive golf courses in the world'
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/23/14 7:51 AM

President Obama in Las Vegas played his 203rd round of golf at one of the top course in the world.
Zogby Report Card: Score two for Obama, immigration, Keystone XL
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 1:52 PM

John Zogby: Give Obama credit for showing leadership on immigration and the Keystone XL pipeline.
Obama fundraises off immigration speech, seeks $1,000 contributions
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 12:53 PM

President Obama is using his immigration speech to seek donations up to $1,000.
Bill Gates joins bid to promote, restore House page
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 8:21 AM

New effort to promote, restore House page program features Bill Gates, a former page.
TV ad: Obama finally builds Reagan's 'shining city on a hill'
BY PAUL BEDARD | 11/21/14 8:10 AM

A new TV ad says President Obama is fulfilling Ronald Reagan's pro-immigration agenda.
WEX TV

Rand Paul demands Obama go to war with ISIS


Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.’’;

Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ‘‘In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.’’;

Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State’’.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.—The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

RELATED: Obama extends U.S. combat role in Afghanistan

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization—

(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or

(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except—

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.

(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

RELATED: Attention: 105 admirals, two generals warn that U.S. safety threatened by spending cuts

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.

SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.

The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/18/rand-paul-opening-up-cuba-probably-a-good-idea/

[DougMacG]

Having large national issues decided by one man (or 5 justices) is not what the founders intended.  

That said, we have tried opposite policies in different places, a trade embargo against Cuba for 50+ years and a trade opening with China since 1972 to end oppression in both places and neither worked.  Shaking up a failed policy is tempting, but this is not the answer.

What is Rand Paul's answer to Rubio's point?  If this is the policy that the regime of Cuba has wanted and needed all these years, what did President Obama get in return for surrendering our principles?  As usual, nothing.  

This isn't surrendering principles to Obama; it is the gaining of a new friend.  Coercive, oppressive government that uses the agencies of power like the IRS and DOJ to shut down opposition is not offensive to this administration.

Libertarians including Rand Paul have a foreign policy history of not giving a rip about liberty outside our borders.  They forget that at least a couple of foreign powers helped us gain ours.

[Crafty_Dog]

Would love to have your thoughts on the Cuba thread on the Noonan piece I posted there.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dickmorris.com/can-rand-paul-win-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.randpac.com/response/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/19/rand-paul-doubles-down-on-anti-isis-strikes.html

[Crafty_Dog]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/03/rand-pauls-alex-jones-problem-vaccines-and-mart/202396

[G M]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/03/rand-pauls-alex-jones-problem-vaccines-and-mart/202396

He is his father's son.

[Crafty_Dog]

It will be interesting to see how Rand plays Baraq's request for AUMF.

[DougMacG]

It will be interesting to see how Rand plays Baraq's request for AUMF.

Didn't Rand propose this?  However, it is written in a way to offend both sides.  I assume Rand will be out front and active in the amendment process in the Senate.  As will Rubio and Cruz in a different direction.  The Senate debate and process, while ISIS keeps expanding, could be a defining moment for the Presidential campaign.

[Crafty_Dog]

Rand most certainly, and quite correctly, said that to war or not should be brought to the Congress.

My first impression is that what Obama is looking to do here is to have the Reps sign on to his incompetent dithering.   My first impression is that the Reps should give him far more than he asks so that he cannot later stain them with his not doing what needs to be done to win.  Also, front and center is the matter of Iran's nukes and what to do about them (e.g. hardcore sanctions).    Reps and Dems alike are letting ISIS distract them from this-- and in the big picture in the long term I suspect that this is more important.   Rand seems quite willing to try to evade this issue..

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/13/rand_paul_caught_lying_about_his_college_record/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152868860841107

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/rand_paul_on_why_republicans_s.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/rand-paul-slams-voter-id-its-offending-people/

[G M]

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/rand_paul_on_why_republicans_s.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/rand-paul-slams-voter-id-its-offending-people/

The dead and illegal aliens are deeply offended at being denied their right to vote.

[Crafty_Dog]

WSJ


Partnership
By
Janet Hook
March 8, 2015 7:18 p.m. ET
50 COMMENTS

When Rand Paul first ran for the Senate, he faced a powerful home-state antagonist in Sen. Mitch McConnell. Now, as Mr. Paul prepares to run for president, a five-year effort to bury the hatchet has forged an odd-couple partnership that is an unseen force in both the 2016 presidential campaign and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Paul used his clout among conservatives to help Mr. McConnell, his fellow Kentucky Republican, win re-election last year and fulfill a long-held goal of becoming Senate majority leader.

Now Mr. McConnell is helping to advance Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and contributed to an important victory for him Saturday. The state GOP’s executive committee endorsed Mr. Paul’s request, backed by Mr. McConnell, to establish a presidential caucus, despite concerns about financial and political costs. This would allow Mr. Paul to circumvent state law that bars him from appearing on the primary ballot both for the White House and re-election to the Senate.

“I thought it was important to show my support,’’ Mr. McConnell said in an interview. “We’ve developed over the last four years a very close and good working relationship.”

Political couples don’t get much odder. Mr. Paul is a maverick and tea-party champion who last year derided “Chamber of Commerce” Republicans. The disciplined, buttoned-up Mr. McConnell is beloved by that business group, whose Kentucky chapter last month held a banquet to honor him.

Mr. Paul, a physician with a libertarian streak, has said that—although he believes vaccination is a good thing—parents should have the freedom to not vaccinate their children. For Mr. McConnell, a polio victim as a child, vaccination is a no-brainer. On foreign policy, Mr. McConnell is a hawk; Mr. Paul, about as dovish as any Republican in the Senate.

“Sen. McConnell and I are not exactly alike: He’s a little more Henry Clay, and sometimes I’m a little more Cassius Clay,” Mr. Paul said recently, referring to the 19th century U.S. statesman known as the “Great Compromiser” and his cousin, an uncompromising abolitionist.

Their close relationship masks some very different goals. Mr. McConnell’s priorities are to hold on to the Republicans’ Senate majority and show the GOP can govern in an orderly fashion. Mr. Paul is laying the groundwork for 2016, taking potshots at potential GOP opponents and taking more provocative positions. In the latest round of budget brinkmanship, Mr. Paul opposed Mr. McConnell’s plan to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, siding with those who wanted the bill to block the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Their alliance has been tested by Mr. Paul’s desire to run for both president and for Senate re-election next year, which is driving his proposal to have a March presidential caucus, separate from the state’s May primary. Some Republicans have worried his dual-track plans could make it harder for the party to hold the Senate seat.

“Now that McConnell has become majority leader, his next objective is to keep the Senate majority,” said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky. “Rand Paul is a complicating factor, because his running for president runs the risk of losing the Senate seat.”

Mr. McConnell, whose initial reaction was described by an aide as “respectful skepticism,” met with Mr. Paul in Washington and agreed to back the caucus after winning assurances that it would be a one-shot deal and that Mr. Paul would help raise money to cover its cost.

“I had a good conversation with him,” said Mr. McConnell. “I want to help him as much as I can.”

That helped overcome the reservations of others, and the GOP executive committee endorsed the idea Saturday after meeting with Mr. Paul. Details of the caucus will be worked out in the coming months.

Speaking about their relationship at the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce tribute, Mr. Paul commented on how far the pair had come since they first met in 2010, after Mr. Paul beat the GOP primary candidate whom Mr. McConnell had backed.

“I don’t think he knew what to make of me—or me of him at that point,” Mr. Paul said. Now, he calls Mr. McConnell a “great partner.”

Mr. McConnell worked to help secure Mr. Paul’s election that November. Four years later, Mr. Paul returned the favor and helped Mr. McConnell win his primary and a tough general election.

What is more, Mr. Paul, a son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Ron Paul , threw his weight behind Senate candidates in other states where Republicans were in danger of losing support to libertarian, third-party candidates. “He was a big asset to everyone in 2014,” said Scott Reed, senior political adviser for the Chamber of Commerce.

For Mr. Paul, the alliance with Mr. McConnell now is helping him win trust, backing and financial support from establishment figures.

Mr. McConnell’s former national finance director, Laura Sequeira, is working for Mr. Paul. Mr. McConnell himself last month dropped by a Paul fundraising dinner of insurance industry officials, sending a message of support to a group that knew him better than Mr. Paul.

“He’s very much putting his hand on Rand’s shoulder and telling the vast financial network that supported him in the past, ‘Rand is OK. He should be taken seriously,’ ” said Jesse Benton, a longtime Paul family friend and political aide who also worked on Mr. McConnell’s 2014 campaign.

The partnership with Mr. McConnell, however, carries a political downside for Mr. Paul among his base voters. Some activists were enraged when Mr. Paul supported Mr. McConnell last year over his tea-party primary challenger, Matt Bevin.

“He seems a little too comfortable with the establishment,” said Heather Stancil, co-chairman of the Madison County GOP in Iowa.

Mr. Paul could regain favor with those voters, however, were Mr. McConnell to bring to a Senate vote the “Audit the Fed” legislation that is a marquee issue for libertarians. Many Federal Reserve officials worry the measure could undermine the central bank’s independence.

Mr. McConnell said he hadn’t yet decided whether to bring the bill to a vote but noted that it could easily be brought up as an amendment.

Write to Janet Hook at janet.hook@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ

[Crafty_Dog]

Of course with the snarkiness of CNN worked in , , ,

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/rand-paul-kurds-kurdistan-country/index.html

Washington (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul wants to give the Kurds their own country.

The Kentucky Republican, who is inching closer to a bid for president, said Tuesday in an interview with Breitbart that he believes the U.S. should not only directly arm Kurdish fighters, but also promise the Kurds "a country." Paul acknowledged that turning the Kurdistan region into a country would be easier said than done, but touted the benefits of his proposal.

"I think they would fight like hell if we promised them a country," Paul said, adding that a Kurdish country would also end the longstanding feud between the Kurds and Turkey.

The Kurds are an ethnic minority who primarily live in a region that spans Iraq, Turkey and Syria and various Kurdish factions have called for -- and sometimes fought for -- an independent, sovereign Kurdistan for more than 100 years.

The rise of ISIS in the region has also bolstered the Kurds' stature on the international stage as Kurdish fighters proved to be the most effective ground force in repelling ISIS's advance as Iraqi government forces collapsed in the north. With air support from the U.S.-led coalition and American weapons funneled through the Iraqi government, the Kurds retook the city of Kobani in Syria, which was nearly entirely under ISIS's control at one point.

Paul has joined the chorus of Republicans calling for the U.S. to directly arm the Kurds without passing through the Iraqi government, but he has now taken a step further by calling for Kurdish independence. It's a move that would certainly upset Iraq's government in Baghdad, which is struggling to hold together a fractious and complex coalition of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to keep the country in one piece.

But Paul's call for the Kurds to get their own country also comes two weeks after the the libertarian-leaning senator called at CPAC for a U.S. foreign policy "unencumbered by nation-building" -- indicating a departure from the neoconservative foreign policy that defined George W. Bush's presidency.

It's just another sign Paul is still trying to find his footing in his high-wire act of foreign policy.

Paul began distancing himself from his more isolationist foreign policy positions as 2016 neared and as a reinvigorated security and terrorism threat emerged in the guise of ISIS. Now, Paul is pushing a more stronghanded foreign policy that would rely on a robust military and project strength abroad.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/15/rand-paul-amasses-influence-at-south-by-southwest-in-austin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/14/standing-ovation-rand-paul-blows-away-liberal-black-audience-with-conservative-message-at-bowie-state/

[Crafty_Dog]

The Rand Paul Difference
He’s sound on domestic reform, but worrying on national security.

 
Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) formally announces his presidential campaign at the Galt House hotel in Louisville, Ky., on Tuesday. Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News
April 7, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET
 
Rand Paul on Tuesday became the latest GOP candidate to formally announce his campaign for President, promising to be “a different kind of Republican.” That can be a good or bad difference, depending on whether the first-term Kentucky Senate is talking about smaller government or some of his nostrums about national security.
In virtually every area of domestic policy, Mr. Paul is a fresh, energetic voice enriching the public debate. Most corners of the Republican Party these days have an appetite for “a return to a government restrained by the Constitution,” as the first-term Kentucky Senator put it in Louisville Tuesday.

That is a much-needed message after two terms of an Obama Presidency that has bent or broken traditional restraints on the raw use of executive power. With his libertarian pedigree, Mr. Paul brings more credibility than some of his competitors to this cause.

Mr. Paul also understands that Republicans can’t regain the White House without doing better among young voters and minorities. His instincts on such things as criminal-justice reform are a good start.

But his decision to court the race-baiting Rev. Al Sharpton, as he did with a meeting in the Senate dining room, is counterproductive. Mr. Sharpton is invested in the old politics of racial division and will knee-cap Mr. Paul when it serves his purposes. Mr. Paul would do better to engage and elevate a new generation of black leaders.
Senator Paul says he will run on a flat tax, a good idea that could also set him apart from some of his competitors who will be more cautious. The flat tax isn’t a new idea but it is a good one that would increase economic growth and reduce the sort of favoritism that lets the rich and powerful use politicians to game the tax code.

Mr. Paul’s views on national security aren’t nearly as consistent. He began his Senate tenure arguing for cuts in defense spending, but these days he’s promising “a national defense robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests.” For those generalizations to mean anything, it takes money.

Senator Paul’s turnaround on defense spending no doubt reflects a recognition that President Obama is likely to bequeath his successor a world of disorder. If so, the Senator needs to tell voters how he would handle the world differently than Mr. Obama.

His public statements suggest strongly that he has an a priori aversion to U.S. intervention, a belief independent of what is happening in the world. At times some U.S. intervention is essential when no other option exists to quell growing threats.

It isn’t clear the Senator understands this, as when he distorts the history of Syria as an example of intervention gone awry. He said in a Senate floor speech last September that U.S. support for anti-Assad rebels was responsible for arming Islamic State and the al Qaeda offshoot al Nusrah. The truth is that the Syrian civil war exploded into a regional and global threat after Mr. Obama chose not to intervene while also leaving Iraq.

On surveillance by the National Security Agency, Mr. Paul is to the left of Mr. Obama. In his announcement Tuesday, he said as President he would end Mr. Obama’s “vast dragnet by executive order” and “on day one” end “this unconstitutional surveillance.” But the surveillance is constitutional and the “dragnet” is a myth, as we assume his competitors will point out in Super PAC ads.

Senator Paul has real political skills and an interesting mind that have helped him gain a hearing from voters. We expect he’ll enliven the debate and force his competition to sharpen their own views, and we’ll see how much difference GOP voters want in their 2016 nominee.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/09/why-rand-paul-is-unwelcome-at-nra-gun-rights-convention/?mod=capitaljournalrelatedbox

[DougMacG]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/09/why-rand-paul-is-unwelcome-at-nra-gun-rights-convention/?mod=capitaljournalrelatedbox

Rand belongs to a groups that is more supportive of second amendment rights than the NRA and the NRA doesn't like the competition to their monopoly over money, members and power. (?)  He isn't going to lose gun owner votes based on that.

His standoff with this powerful group of mostly men refutes the false narrative that he only stands up to females.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/10/chris_hayes_rand_pauls_beef_with_nra_cuts_against_narrative_that_hes_a_jerk_to_female_journalists.html

-----------------------------------------

The way Rand Paul turned the abortion question back on the liberals was brilliant.  Do you support killing a 7 pound, 8 pound, 9 pound baby that happens to still be in the uterus?

A subtle difference, but the old lingo of talking weeks and trimesters is too abstract where the weight of the baby is something every mother, father and reader of a successful birth announcement can relate to.  My daughter was 7 pounds.  The average in the US is 7.5 pounds.  Yes, she had a beating heart, pain receptors and all those things in place when she was born, and also had all that the moment before she was born.

The left has had this debate framed on other extreme, what to do with pregnancies from rape and incest which are not national issues in any way.  They won some key elections by watching conservatives slip and fall in that.  Yet the left supports policies on the other extreme far beyond what voters support.  Not just this but support for killing the baby after a botched abortion. 

The 7 pound baby question hits that head on.  If we are going to find middle ground for public policy, it will not come by either forcing rape victims to carry the rapist's child or by striking down all protections for innocent, unborn human life.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://aattp.org/ron-paul-black-lawmakers-oppose-war-because-theyd-rather-spend-the-money-on-food-stamps/

Note that the interviewer was long time associate and sometimes bigot Lew Rockwell.

[G M]

I agree with Paul on Kurdistan. The Turks can go pound sand.

[DougMacG]

While Rand Paul was blaming Republicans for ISIS and shutting down the NSA, somehow we let his thread drift down to page 2.

Rand Paul has made himself a niche player, using NSA grandstanding for his Presidential fundraising.  Further, acting like an establishment politician, he got his own election rules changed so that he could run for both President and reelection - unlike a competitor I have mentioned from Fla.

The federal government over-reach on NSA has not been egregious.  They know what phone numbers have connected and have use for that only when one of them is connected with terrorism.  There have been no abuses of the program that we know of so far.  They are not listening to your conversations.

Meanwhile, this God-awful administration used the IRS to put down opposition groups to get reelected in ways that would make Richard Nixon blush.  WHERE IS RAND PAUL'S OUTRAGE ON THAT?  

I get sick and tired of these Republicans who try to advance themselves by attacking other Republicans. Who is your adversary here Rand, the Republicans whose vote you will need to win or the Democrats who you will run against if you win the nomination you say you are seeking.

Taking the Obama administration down a notch based on their own lies, corruption and failures is necessary to win the next election along with taking down their nomine.  His approval rating is a key factor in the outcome of the election of his successor - according to every election expert.

If you are serious about running for President as a Republican defeating Democrats - then start acting like it.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/videos/10152902809244117/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/videos/10153136164121107/

[Crafty_Dog]

By
Rand Paul
June 17, 2015 7:09 p.m. ET
862 COMMENTS

Some of my fellow Republican candidates for the presidency have proposed plans to fix the tax system. These proposals are a step in the right direction, but the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.

So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”
Assistant Editorial Page Editor James Freeman compares presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul’s tax proposals. Plus, the Fed’s latest fumble. Photo credit: Getty Images.

President Obama talks about “middle-class economics,” but his redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families. Here’s what I propose for the middle class: The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years.

Here’s why we have to start over with the tax code. From 2001 until 2010, there were at least 4,430 changes to tax laws—an average of one “fix” a day—always promising more fairness, more simplicity or more growth stimulants. And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.

Polls show that “fairness” is a top goal for Americans in our tax system. I envision a traditionally All-American solution: Everyone plays by the same rules. This means no one of privilege, wealth or with an arsenal of lobbyists can game the system to pay a lower rate than working Americans.

Most important, a smart tax system must turbocharge the economy and pull America out of the slow-growth rut of the past decade. We are already at least $2 trillion behind where we should be with a normal recovery; the growth gap widens every month. Even Mr. Obama’s economic advisers tell him that the U.S. corporate tax code, which has the highest rates in the world (35%), is an economic drag. When an iconic American company like Burger King wants to renounce its citizenship for Canada because that country’s tax rates are so much lower, there’s a fundamental problem.

Another increasingly obvious danger of our current tax code is the empowerment of a rogue agency, the IRS, to examine the most private financial and lifestyle information of every American citizen. We now know that the IRS, through political hacks like former IRS official Lois Lerner, routinely abused its auditing power to build an enemies list and harass anyone who might be adversarial to President Obama’s policies. A convoluted tax code enables these corrupt tactics.

My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.
Opinion Journal Video
Assistant Editorial Page Editor James Freeman compares presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul’s tax proposals. Plus, the Fed’s latest fumble. Photo credit: Getty Images.

I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.

The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.

Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.

And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.

The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.

The challenge to this plan will be to overcome special-interest groups in Washington who will muster all of their political muscle to save corporate welfare. That’s what happened to my friend Steve Forbes when he ran for president in 1996 on the idea of the flat tax. Though the flat tax was surprisingly popular with voters for its simplicity and its capacity to boost the economy, crony capitalists and lobbyists exploded his noble crusade.

Today, the American people see the rot in the system that is degrading our economy day after day and want it to end. That is exactly what the Fair and Flat Tax will do through a plan that’s the boldest restoration of fairness to American taxpayers in over a century.

Sen. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, is running for his party’s presidential nomination.

[Crafty_Dog]

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

    Sen. Rand Paul @RandPaul

June 28, 2015
Rand Paul Carlos Barria—Reuters Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul waits before addressing a legislative luncheon held as part of the "Road to Majority" conference in Washington on June 18, 2015.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

It seems some rights are more equal than others.

Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.

Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.

So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow?

Thomas goes on to say:

    To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in — making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse — without governmental interference.

The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word “marriage.” State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected.

So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?

And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?

We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives.

Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives.

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.