Why Rand Paul can beat Hillary Clinton

March 9, 2014

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky may be the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.

Paul decisively won last Saturday’s CPAC straw poll with 31%, his neo-Libertarian sidekick, Senator Ted Cruz, was second at 11%.  Jeb Bush and the Karl Rove faction of the party registered 1%.  According to a recent column in The Washington Post, Rand Paul is now leading the Republican field.  This is showing up in some recent presidential preference polls. It is puzzling to many political pundits.
 .
Polls don’t usually mean much this early in an election cycle. It’s usually all about name recognition. Former Secretary of State and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton obviously leads among Democrats, with Vice President Joe Biden trailing far behind.  In the GOP contest, former Governor and FOX television star, Mike Huckabee polls well, so does former governor Jeb Bush and so does former vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.  All the other candidates who ran for president last time register small numbers too.  But why Rand Paul?
Yes, his father, former congressman, Ron Paul, ran for president three times but in a career that spanned a whole generation he never led the GOP in a national poll. 

.
Part of the reason lies in the fact that, if he wins the nomination, Senator Rand Paul will be the first nominee since Ronald Reagan to lead a political Movement.  In this case, the “Constitutional Movement”, which includes conservatives, libertarians and others across the whole left to right spectrum. In fact, it represents more than a movement it represents a new political re-alignment, the first of its kind in several generations.  
.
During most of our lifetime the debate was about the role of government in the lives of the people.  Liberals wanted a “liberal” use of government involvement, conservatives wanted a “conservative” use of government, relying more on free markets.  But the point of reference was always the role of government in meeting peoples needs, it was in relation to that point that one was liberal or conservative.
.
The U.S. Constitution was a factor, but mostly over the issue of the Second Amendment and in understanding the politics of the Cold War where conservatives were actually more liberal about spending for defense and liberals more conservative.  Conservatives said providing a common national defense is Constitutional. Liberals said all of this military spending was robbing the poor of this country and hurting our own people.
.
Liberals accused conservatives about not caring for the poor.  Conservatives accused liberals about being soft on communism and flirting with national destruction.
.
In the past, candidates were touted as liberal or conservative but only Reagan and Goldwater were considered to be actual leaders of an ideological Movement.  Liberal Movement leaders?  FDR?  Later, Adlai Stevenson?  Hubert Humphrey?  Maybe?  But not really.  All were successful politicians and thus too involved in the process to have the ideological purity of a movement leader.
.
Today the old liberal – conservative argument is almost obsolete.  The end of the Cold War has been a big factor.  There is no life and death struggle about left and right.  We have settled on a range of responsibilities that government should be able to assume and are now quibbling over details. “You said I could keep my own doctor, you’re a liar.”
.
Foreign observers can hardly tell a difference between Republicans and Democrats.  It is the Red team versus the Blue team, not really much of contest over ideas. Just a contest over power between two societies. Oh, it is passionate, like all internecine conflicts. And the public is emotionally invested, like they are with their favorite college football team. They may shed real tears or not eat for days if their side loses.
.
A good illustration of how irrelevant the philosophical argument has become was the recent presidency of George W. Bush.  In his last year in office, facing a worldwide depression, this Republican president nationalized American banks.  It took Socialist President Francois Mitterrand to do that in France.  And yet we call George W. Bush a “conservative Republican.” Meanwhile, liberal Democrats build no statues to him and conservatives still defend him.  It’s two teams with bitter past histories.  Liberals never applaud conservatives when they do something liberal, such as George  H.W. Bush extending the first White House invitations to Gay activists.  And conservatives never applaud a liberal, like John Kennedy or Bill Clinton, for doing something conservative, like balancing the budget
.
The Constitutional Movement represents a new realignment of the political landscape.  It includes a variety of voters from the left to the right and everything in between.
.
The argument is less about liberal and conservative and more about getting back to the Constitution. It is about ending corruption.  The special deals.  It is less about left and right or even, up and down, the rich and the poor, and more about in and out. Insiders are seen to be gaming the system, taxes, Wall Street, the regulatory agencies, banking.  There is great cynicism about this and even despair.  It’s as if only suckers depend on a free marketplace.  The American dream is over.
.
It is not lost on many that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer on a massive scale under Barack Obama.
.
While many poor people and certainly all people of color celebrate the rise of Obama, now that he is passing, some on the left are wanting to get serious about doing what they thought a person of such humble origins would do, namely, reform the system. Stop the looting.  End the cycle of corruption.
.
Hillary – as a woman – represents a dynamic cultural moment and that will be hard to resist.  The media will be transfixed by the idea of a woman following an African American into the White House.  But no one seriously believes that this woman, who in 1979 miraculously turned a $1,000 commodities investment into $100,000 within ten months, is going to do anything about reversing the corrupt system that has clogged our economic arteries. She can only win a Red-Blue contest.  It will only be an argument about who gets the power and which insiders get the taxpayers’ money.
If 2016 become a contest of significant ideas on how to end the corruption Rand Paul will win.  He is the only candidate who has any.
 .

(Clip from 2012, when Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA.)


NSA tapes reveal White House sex scandal

June 19, 2013

So what are we to make of the NSA data gathering?  Is it okay for the government to snoop on us?  Does it keep us safer?  And what juicy secrets have they now found from a previous White House administration?

The government says, “Yes, the program is a necessary evil.  It will help us catch terrorists.”

But then, this is the same government who denied they were snooping on us in the first place.

Senator Wyden, ” Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

CIA Director Clapper answered, “No, sir.”

If they lied about what they were doing, at the risk of perjury, why should we believe them now?  When any answer could be very subjective?

And if spying on more than a hundred million phone calls and emails couldn’t help the NSA detect that one of its own employees was about to leak its secret snooping operation, how can we expect then to efficiently find terrorists?

As Ronald Reagan often said, “Remember, these are the same people who run the post office?”

What about the competence of a government that employs 4.2 million persons with security clearances while 43% of the American people believe we should be cutting back on programs that threaten privacy and only 20% think we should be doing more to fight terrorism, even at the expense of privacy?  Isn’t that a disaster waiting to happen?  If the leaker wasn’t Edward Snowden wouldn’t it have been someone else?

In an exchange between CNN’s Erin Burnett and former FBI counter-terrorism agent Tim Clemente, we are told that the content of all our phone calls is being recorded and stored, even if it is not audited.

Now we learn that “the National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.”

Then there is this from the chief technology officer at the CIA. “We fundamentally try to collect everything and hang onto it forever.”

Only days after the NSA story broke we learned that there is tracking of emails in real time.

The terrorists are not idiots.  If they hide behind civilians from drone attacks, why wouldn’t they hide behind civilians in the cyber war?  Implicating innocent others by false flag emails and phone calls?

Then there is the question, what will the government do with all of this information?  And what should it do?  Hunt for terrorists?  Find Edward Snowden? Purge its own “top secret clearance” list?

What about solving murders?  Locating abducted teenagers caught up in the sex slave traffic?

Most agree that it shouldn’t be used to go after “Joe the plumber?”  Remember him?  The average citizen from the 2008 election?  Surely not.  We shouldn’t go after the parish priest for sex abuse without first clearing the Bishops and the Cardinals.   What hypocrisy to prosecute or punish the little guy and ignore the sins of the powerful?

So let’s start at the top.  Think of all the problems we can solve?  We now have phone calls, letters and emails to show any link between the  IRS offices in Cincinnati to the White House. Why not reconstruct what happened?  We could exonerate or implicate the president and others?

First order of business? Have transcribers compose the massive conversations of the rulers of our country.  The Supreme Court, the Senate, the Justice Department, starting with the Attorney General, the Cabinet and the President.  Even past presidents.  No one should be in a position to pass judgment if they, themselves, are guilty of crimes.

There is the new scandal in the State Department, where their own whistleblower, Aurelia Fedenisn. is being intimidated for reporting sex crimes with minors, even an Ambassador involved.

Are there big shots accessing child pornography sites?  Why leave that task to Chris Hansen of NBC’s Dateline?  First let’s clear the people at the top.

Let us suppose that a presidential aide calls a friend of the president about a donor who wants to give a million dollars in soft money to a campaign?  And the aide tells him that the presidential candidate wants that million dollars in soft money to go to the NRA or some Catholic voter registration program.  And let’s suppose that the presidential aide is getting indirect kickbacks from the Catholic voter registration program?   And let’s suppose that the presidential candidate affirms his desire in later conversations.  It’s illegal right?

And let us suppose that the presidential candidate, worried about his crime, makes calls to destroy the career of the witness, let’s say he talks to a major network president and gets him banned from TV appearances which dramatically impacts his income.  Shouldn’t we know those kind of things first, before we go after  Joe the plumber?

And after clearing the top government officials, shouldn’t we clear the media too?  How hypocritical for them to hold the subjects of their reports to a higher standard.  Let’s know their own habits and words and crimes and biases?  We hear what they say in public, influencing millions, what do they say behind close doors?

How many stories are out there?  Waiting to be told?  And now we have the evidence to find them all.  Now we can apply equal justice.  If we persecuted Bill Clinton for his infidelity, now we can learn about the marital affairs of other more beloved presidents who weren’t so unlucky.  They had no Linda Tripp recordings but perhaps the NSA can fill the gap.

Shouldn’t someone know what the NSA knows?  Couldn’t the agency use its information to blackmail its superiors?  What about the Freedom of Information Act?  Doesn’t a US Senator, a Federal Judge, a President, have the right to know what conversations the NSA has and what is in them?  Things taken out of context can be dangerous.

If the existence of this program can be leaked to the public by a concerned citizen, when can the demographics of the program be leaked to a political campaign?  Has it already happened?  When can the details or content be leaked to companies or employers?  Wouldn’t you want to run a check before hiring?  Would you want to hire a  baby sitter who talks dirty on the phone?  Or an accountant who does  a Google search on how to embezzle money without being caught?  Or a chauffeur who is an alcoholic?

Cardinal Richelieu supposedly once wrote, “Give me six lines written by any man and I can have hung as a criminal”  Imagine what he could have done with the NSA?  He could have killed France.

Can you see the nightmare?  The injustice?  The conflict?  Can you see why the Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment?

Welcome to America, in its post constitutional drift.  When you start to violate your own Constitution, step by step, you become a nation without laws, where the ends justify the means.  It is survival of the fittest.  The powerful rule and will take from you what they want.

You can be sure of one thing.  The massive information collected by the NSA will not be used to hurt the rich or powerful.  Don’t hold your breath to learn what really happens in the lives of the people at the top.  They will continue their crimes and the flow of riches from the weak to the powerful will continue uninterrupted.

But Joe the plumber?  You, my friend, are in big trouble.

.

.
(If you want to learn more about Rand Paul’s Fourth Amendment Restoration Act S.1121 click here.)


Rand Paul: “Stop the killing of Christians!”

June 14, 2013

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has become the first public figure to openly declare what Christians have been  bemoaning for the last generation, that there is a war against Christianity.

Speaking this afternoon before a gathering of the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington D.C., Senator Paul said, “There is a war on Christianity, not just from liberal elites here at home, but worldwide.”

Said Paul, “It saddens me to see countries that are supposedly our allies persecute Christians.”

Catholics and born again Christians have talked about the danger for years.  In the 1990’s, during my stint in the White House, as special assistant to the president, I was constantly called on to help Christians who were thrown into prisons or slated for execution all over the world.

Meanwhile, Christian ministries in the USA visited the White House complaining that they had been targeted by the IRS, a fact that the agency actually confirmed to us at the time, without shame.  When we tried to find an Evangelical Christian who worked in a top position at the agency who could help us understand the nature of the complaints we learned that there was only one known, born again Christian in the top 300 positions at the IRS.  At the time 38% of the nation claimed to be born again.

It turns out that the token “born again” Christian at the IRS was a regional director in the non-profit division and a Catholic Charismatic by personal faith.  He tried to help the agency understand that it could not dictate doctrine or discriminate against groups based on their faith.  We had two meetings with him at the White House and kept the president apprised.  I think back to that moment as I now try to grasp the fact that top IRS officials visited the White House more than 300 times under Barack Obama and supposedly never discussed with the president their illegal bias against conservative groups including their questions of what applicants said in their prayers

In his speech Senator Paul offered a litany of abuses by American allies.

“In Pakistan, Asia Bibi, a Christian, sits on death row. Her crime, according to her, is that she dared to drink from a glass that belonged to a Muslim co-worker.

“Recently, in Pakistan, a 12-year-old with Down syndrome was imprisoned and charged with a death penalty crime for burning the Koran.

“After weeks she was released after a local Imam was accused of actually sprinkling pages from an Arabic book into a fire near the little girl.”

Senator Paul is the first public official to suggest a legislative solution.  “My bill said that Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan would get no more foreign aid from the US taxpayer unless they turned over the assassins that killed our ambassador, pledged and verified that they CAN and WILL protect our embassies, and in the case of Pakistan they must release Dr. Afridi.”

Afridi is the man who helped us identify Osama Bin Laden.  He was tortured and in chains for a year without being charged and is even now in prison in Pakistan.

As obvious as it may be to stand up for Christians (25% of the USA are Catholic, 48% claim to be born again Christians) Senator Paul is practically alone in his work.  90% of the Senate voted against his bill that would have placed restrictions on foreign aid to nations that execute Christians.

“It angers me to see my tax dollars supporting regimes that put Christians to death,” he said today.  “And your government, or more correctly, you, the taxpayer, are funding it.”

Senator Rand Paul warned against a foreign policy that sometimes has good intentions that backfire.

“Before the Arab Spring, Christianity flourished in small outposts, like the Coptic Christians in Egypt. I had hoped that the Arab Spring would bring freedom to long-oppressed people throughout the Middle East, but I fear the Arab Spring is becoming an Arab winter.

“Today, Christians in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria are on the run—persecuted or under fire—and yet, we continue to send aid to the folks chasing them.

“The new leader of Egypt is Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Recently, he stood by when a radical cleric said a prayer for the destruction of Israel and her supporters in his presence.

“Actually, it is worse, he did not just stand by, he was seen to mouth the word ‘Amen’ as the cleric said these words of hatred.

“How does your government respond?

“The bipartisan consensus in Washington vows to increase Egypt’s funding. The President is currently requesting a billion dollar increase in aid to Egypt.  This is an outrage!”

Senator Paul admitted that his bold stand had made him unpopular in Washington and while his famous filibuster and other stands on civil liberties have given him exposure that his father never had, his concern about the torture and execution of Christians in allied nations has been panned by the media.

Says Paul, “It is clear that American taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on Christianity in the Middle East and I believe that must end.”

Back in February 2011 Doug Wead warns about the Arab Spring, “Not so fast.”


Behind the IRS Scandal and the attacks on Obama

May 20, 2013

In what must totally confuse the public, the left leaning, liberal media is now daily hawking a news story that the IRS has been purposely targeting applications for conservative charities and educational non profits.  What?  This is news?  The liberal media has been targeting conservative organizations and personalities for years, so why should they blame the government for doing the same?  Ah, but you see, there is a very good reason.

The media is run by big corporations that count on interest free money from the Federal Reserve and burdening regulations to keep out small business competitors and complete freedom to run their fiefdoms without interference.   In return they pay the politicians, Republican and Democrat, big money to help them get re-elected and they provide priceless air support, by promoting their candidacies of choice on national television and marginalizing anyone who dares to challenge the corrupt arrangement.

Take for example, the Associated Press, a “non-profit” owned by a cooperative of newspapers and television companies, which are owned by big corporations.  The A.P. virtually led the national media in their censorship and misreporting of the Ron Paul campaign in 2012.  (See here The Great Hudsonville Cover-up.)

Now, there is a great irony here for Ron Paul was the one candidate who was ringing the warning bells about our abandonment of the US Constitution.   (By the way, in addition to conservative groups, the IRS was also targeting any non profit that had the word “constitution” in its name.  The IRS can never be too careful in fulfilling its constitutional duty.)

What happened at the A.P. is only an example of what Dr. Paul feared and warned would happen.  The government asked that the A.P. hold back a news story about a terrorist bomb plot planned on the anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The Associated Press complied.  But when White House officials then lied to the American people, saying that there had been no threats on the anniversary, well, that was too much.  It was a replay of the Benghazi attack on the anniversary of 9-11, which the government had contended was a spontaneous reaction to an American anti-Islamic movie and had nothing to do with terrorists or 9-11.

The Associated Press ran their story and the government began their spying campaign against them.

Now it may be tempting for Liberty Lovers to let the A.P. stew in its juices but with Rand Paul, now making a serious effort to save the U.S. Constitution and end the culture of corruption in Washington, DC we should stand up for our old antagonist, the Associated Press.  Maybe, just maybe, they will learn that having masses of people supporting the U.S. Constitution is not such a bad thing.  Maybe, just maybe they will make room for Rand and when there are 2,000 at his events they will not say there are 40.

It is amusing to see the A.P. wringing its hands over the issue.  Since 9-11, the millions of intercepts of ordinary citizens have not even warranted a peep from many in the national media.  The drone killing of a US citizen with no connection to terrorism was passed over in a single day.  But listening on the AP?  Well, that apparently violates the “honor among thieves” arrangement of the New World Order.

There are some in the Liberty Movement who will say that this is not our fight.  They will say that the oligarchy is now obviously piqued at Obama and are bloodying his nose a bit to show him whose boss.  And that may be the case.  But the fact that they are using a bias against conservatives in the IRS as the weapon of choice is pure comic theater at its best and should be enjoyed to the hilt.

Just to look into the faces of those serious news anchors as they solemnly tell us that the IRS is biased against conservatives, implying that all good folks, themselves included, are scandalized by this outrageous an unfair behavior, is better than watching Cersei outmaneuver the court in the Game of Thrones.  Enjoy it while you can.  The House of Rand Paul is coming.

The attack on Vandersloot.


Rand Paul out front in Iowa and nobody’s laughing now!

May 8, 2013

He won the CPAC straw poll, he is second in the latest national poll, he leads in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary and now he is the favorite among likely voters in the first in the nation Iowa Caucus.

Senator Rand Paul must be doing something right.

There are still a few of the snubs his father used to get.  Policymic ignored him as a GOP contender, insisting with a straight face that he does not break into the top five contenders.  (Condoleezza Rice who polls 3% in Iowa apparently meets the stringent Policymic threshold.)   But no matter how the power brokers want things to be, Rand Paul, is proving to be popular with the masses, representing the first real political movement since Ronald Reagan.

While the views of the son, Rand Paul and the father, Ron Paul are sometimes different, both represent a strong sentiment against corruption.  The poll in Iowa may show Rand’s campaign picking up right where his father’s campaign ended.

By the way, don’t let anybody tell you that Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign of 2012 was for naught.  Dr. Paul showed great appeal to Independents, Youth and Hispanics.  It was the very crowd that eventually went to Obama and sealed the fate of the doomed GOP ticket.  And it is the group that the GOP now needs for any resurgence.

Astonishingly, in 2012, the smug power brokers in the Republican Party ridiculed and broke their own rules to marginalize and hurt Dr. Paul and his followers.  While publicly proclaiming a “big tent” to Youth and Hispanics, the GOP security guards cut off microphones to Ron Paul Hispanics at State Conventions and escorted duly elected young Ron Paul delegates off the floor of the RNC in Tampa.  During the campaign, Governor Mitt Romney openly laughed at him.  No one’s laughing now.

A recent poll conducted by the McKeon & Associates for Freedom to Choose PAC, found Dr. Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, with a commanding lead over all other possible GOP, presidential contenders in the first in the nation contest in Iowa.

Here are the results of voters most likely to vote in the 2016 Iowa Caucus.

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul      39%

Florida Senator, Marco Rubio      20%

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie   11%

Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush          10%

La. Gov. Bobby Jindal                   3%

Condoleezza Rice                         3%

Support for Rand Paul among Independents likely to vote in the GOP Caucus was striking and bodes well for a general election contest. 67% favored the Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul.  30% favored Governor Chris Christie, all other candidates failed to muster any showing at all among these voters.

In 2012, the New York Times and all of the national network media declared Mitt Romney the winner of the Iowa Caucus.  Only months later did they reverse themselves to say that Senator Rick Santorum had won.  This blogger was told that it took threats from the Governor’s office and from fellow GOP leaders, before the Iowa State GOP Chairman would finally release the votes from selected counties that put Santorum over the top.  The Chairman, a Mitt Romney supporter, resigned shortly after.

For the rest of the year, the New York Times, the Associated Press and all the major networks continued to show that Ron Paul had only 3 delegates from the Iowa Caucus.  Meanwhile, national polls showed him doing better than all other GOP contenders – except for Romney – in a head to head face off with President Obama, and tied within the margin of error with Romney.  These were ignored as the national media continued to marginalize Dr. Paul.

In fact, the Paul supporters openly declared that they, not Santorum, had won the Iowa delegation.  They contended that if the news had been reported truthfully and the following contests had been allowed to take place according to GOP rules, Dr. Paul would have arrived as a force at a brokered RNC.

The final Iowa vote on the floor of the Republican National Convention was 22 for Dr. Ron Paul and 6 for former Governor Mitt Romney.  In a final irony, Dr. Paul’s Iowa state co-chairman was voted in to replace the disgraced Romney operative who had been running the State GOP and had withheld votes to assure that his man would get media credit for a win he didn’t earn.

Most people want fairness and despise the expanding corruption that pervades American society from its food supply, to its national media, to its monetary system to its government relationship with Wall Street and K Street and yes, to the corruption of its two major political parties.  What good is an election if the only two candidates to choose from are produced by a corrupt process?  How is that really democratic or free?

This recent poll in Iowa is a good sign.  It shows that the mood of the people is beginning to reach the flood stage.  It shows that the corruption that has bankrupted this nation and made a very few, very rich at the expense of all the rest of us, has finally been exposed for what it is.

It shows that Rand Paul commands a following much bigger and much wider than his father ever had.  But it also shows that his father’s campaign was more than Quixotic.  Dr. Paul did not run in vain, and all of those thousands of people who were shut out or whose votes were thrown away, or whose bones were broken or whose election was nullified, did not give up a year of their lives in vain.  Dr. Paul was the pace car.  And now the real race for America’s future begins.

Join the discussion on FACEBOOK now.

And who do you favor for the GOP nomination in 2016?  Vote below.

Vote for your favorite for 2016


Rand Paul Now Leads Liberty Movement

April 9, 2013

It has only been a little more than a month since Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster on the floor of the U.S. Senate.  But it is looking more and more like a defining moment in American politics.  It may be a defining moment in American history.

.

The dramatic sight of Rand Paul standing all alone, in the well of the Senate on March 6, 2013, speaking up for the U.S. Constitution, asking the questions that the media and the power establishment was too busy or too indifferent to ask, is a picture that will be forever burned into the psyche of many Americans.  And the key point here was that he was alone.  The rest of Washington, D.C., the politicians, the television producers, the White House staff, had scattered across town to posh restaurants enjoying their cocktails, regaling each other with tales of the day’s successes and making their deals for tomorrow, smugly content that they had put another day of work behind them.
.
That afternoon, Senator Rand Paul had begun what would be a 13 hour filibuster, promising to hold up confirmation of the new Director of the CIA until the president answered this simple question. “Does the president’s newly assumed power to kill a U.S. citizen, without arrest or trial, apply to non combatants here in the United States?”
.
It was a reasonable question.  Under president Barack Obama, the U.S. government had begun an unprecedented policy of killing U.S. citizens if they were deemed as terrorists.  Forget Miranda rights, they couldn’t even have a trial.  And this could happen anywhere in the world. The United States did not have to be at war with a country.  They could violate the air space and commit these killings in the Middle East, Asia, even Europe. In 2010, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed in a drone missile strike on a desert road in Yemen.  Two weeks later, his son, born in Denver, Colorado, with no ties to terrorism, searching for his father’s body in Yemen, was likewise killed by an American drone strike.  The killing of al-Awlaki was justified because of his rabble rousing sermons which had inspired terrorists.  The son’s killing, was oops, sorry, a mistake.  
The media has been remarkably silent.
In February, when asked about drone missiles now circling key locations here in the United States, the White House was asked if the president had the power to kill U.S. citizens  without trial, on American soil, or was this just something he could do overseas?  The White House assured the amazingly docile American media that the Justice Department had agreed that the president had this power.
.
President Barack Obama can be thankful that his predecessor, George W. Bush, did not or Obama, himself, might not be around.  By such reckoning, Barack Obama’s own pastor could have been “droned out” for his tirade, when he famously chanted, “God damn America,” from his pulpit.   And Obama, had he been in the audience for those sermons might have been collateral damage, much like al-Awlaki’s son.
.
The country seemed to be lulled into a trance.  This included its once fierce and uncompromising, professional, watchdog media, now held tightly by its corporate leashes, reduced to reading press releases and providing entertainment.  The trance included its corrupt politicians, too busy making money off of insider trading to take time to defend something so esoteric as a Constitutional right.  It included its courts, now as malleable to public opinion and as intimidated by American culture as the politicians.   Even the public was silent, too intellectually lazy to care.  No one could move lest they be stamped racist, liberal, conservative, unpatriotic or some other unpopular sticker.
.
So Rand Paul, like the sassy kid in the proverbial story, The Emperor Has No Clothes, asked aloud the question that no one else dared ask.
.
The White House sniggered.  The media ignored it. President Barack Obama would not answer.  Nor would anyone else.  Former president George W. Bush was silent on the subject, as was former president Clinton and Democrat Party leader, Al Gore.  Republican leaders, John McCain and House Speaker, John Boehner didn’t peep.  This was apparently a tough question.
.
And so, as it appeared to the nation, Rand Paul, all alone, without a single ally to hold his water, took to the Senate Floor in a filibuster, demanding that this simple question be answered.  If he was out of line and the rest of the country knew what they were doing, so be it.
.
At first there was not much of a reaction.  In the afternoon, when a member of the White House press corps asked about it, the president’s spokesman openly laughed. While Fox News Channel and MSNBC mentioned the event, mostly the national media ignored it, much as they had Rand Paul’s father, when he raised issues of civil liberties. After three hours, fellow Senator, and Liberty ally, Mike Lee finally made an appearance.  Everybody else, including the president, went out to dinner that night and then home for the evening.  The vast Liberty online community was remarkably calm.
.
But as the night wore on and Americans finished their meals and sat at their monitors or picked up their I-Phones to answer some mail, word of the drama unfolding on the floor of the U.S. Senate began to spread.  Some called it a Twitter Blizzard, a mocking reference to the snow storm that was not happening as predicted. First it resonated among the Liberty Movement base.  Rand Paul had launched a filibuster.  He wouldn’t stop talking until the President answered his question.  And then it began to spread across political and partisan lines.  What’s a filibuster?  Why won’t the president answer such a simple question?  What happened to the watchdog media?  How could they let such a question go unanswered?  By 9 pm,normal television viewing was skewed. NBC’s popular Law and Order was losing its audience as people rushed to online streaming or YouTube captured videos of the drama.  C-SPAN viewers spiked.  Cable television began to be dominated by the spectacle.
With the public aroused, the politicians reacted.  A parade of Senators, Republican and Democrat, rushed back to help Rand Paul.  Mike Lee made another appearance, this time with Ted Cruz and likely presidential contender, Marco Rubio.  Mitch McConnell and the GOP leadership fell into line.
They were all a minute too late and a dollar too short.  Senator Rand Paul, all by himself, without any help, had electrified the nation.
The next day, the politically savvy and thorough White House hauled out a canned moment that had been carefully preserved in case the filibuster went wrong.  Attorney General Holder had already answered the question to a Senator before the filibuster began, they now insisted.  But one wonders what they would have done with that canned moment if the public had not reacted.  Thursday morning, as Rand Paul began recovering from his 13 hour filibuster, the president finally answered the question.  And his CIA director was promptly confirmed.
A lot of other things were confirmed as well.
1.) Rand Paul is an unquestioned leader of the Liberty Movement and can inspire it whenever he chooses. Others will have to wait their turn.
2.) He is no political slouch, he is gutsy.
3.) Rand Paul is the first candidate since Ronald Reagan to actually lead a movement.
4.) The old left-right, Cold War paradigm is dead.  Rand Paul represents a new philosophy back to the constitution and it attracts support across the political spectrum from left to right.
5.) The fact that the country is moving in his direction and the packaging of his message is more palatable than that of his father’s, Rand Paul can win the presidency.
.
From a purely historical perspective, one wonders how much further we will go in gutting our Constitution and sacrificing our rights to keep us “safe.”  How much bigger will government get?  How many more powers will be seized by the executive branch and how much future legislation will be accomplished by executive fiat?  At what point will it go so far down this road that we cannot find our way back?  And we learn that our form of government has changed before our eyes, without a discussion?
Will Rand Paul’s filibuster be nothing more than an empty moment of theater on our way to a future government run by a single chief executive, serving at the pleasure of fifty television moguls?  Or will it mark the hi water mark of the new, post 9-11, tyranny and the beginning of a self examination that will take us back to a renewal of our hard won Constitutional Republic?  We can only hope and pray for the latter.
.

Rand Paul – a new foreign policy

February 6, 2013

For the past few years, we in the liberty movement have had the luxury of being able to stand on the outside and lob in grenades at America’s corrupt foreign policy.  But now, with one of our own, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as a potential president, we have to face the reality of how to govern.  What would a Rand Paul presidency look like?  We got the answer this morning when he delivered a speech before the Heritage Foundation.

Keep in mind, Rand Paul spent seventeen years as an Ophthalmologist.   Nevertheless he preformed what can only be described as Rhinoplasty – or a nose job – at the Heritage Foundation, outlining before the stuffy G.K. Chesterton conservatives in the audience a new foreign policy for the Republican Party, one that offers a better fit for new realities.  Some Rinos will like it, some, who are growing fat as lobbyists for government subsidies, won’t.

Rinos (Republicans in name only) is the acronym applied to liberal Democrats who became Republican during the Reagan years, at the height of the Cold War.  They agreed with Reagan that communism was dangerous and America should not accept its inevitable ascendancy and should contest it.  Although less enamored by Reagan’s supply side economics and totally rejecting of Reagan’s social agenda they became an important part of Reagan’s winning political coalition.

But when the Cold War ended the Rino wars kept going.  They lobbied for a bigger budget for the CIA, a bigger budget for defense, with newer and better weapons and more interference around the world.  And all of this was before 9-11.  What had been a moral imperative, to stand down an aggressive, criminal communist gerontocracy, morphed into a role of America as moral guarantor for the world.

“We have the power,” the Rinos pointed out, “it is unconscionable for us not to use it against injustice.”  Of course, Rinos and their corporate friends made money off of this new arrangement.

Today, with the added impetus of the war on terror, American accounts for 42% of the world’s military expenditures.  We have 50,000 jets, while our nearest rival, China, has 5,000 jets.  We borrow money from China to put boots on the ground in Australia to defend Australia from China.  Feeling safe?  And, ironically, the strategy we used to bring down communism is destroying us as well.   Our arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and now we are close to bankruptcy ourselves.

Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are locked into a fiscal death embrace, Democrats spending programs to reward their political constituencies and Republican spending money to reward their pals in the military industrial complex.  Both sides are eating at the pig trough of public money while the rest of us are taxed to death, handing over our hard earned money to government favorites.

The deadly solution? The insidious hidden tax? “Quantitative easing.” It has wiped out the wealth of a whole generation and made a tiny oligarchy of rich and powerful.

Most of us in the liberty movement have really offered no solutions to foreign threats.  Our foreign policy has been to close down all of our military bases, end all of our wars, mind out own business, and curb the power of the presidency.  This we hoped would help restore the economy and turn our enemies into friends.  Eventually.

In the meantime, what would our policy be if one of us were president?  Are these ideals only fodder for our blogs and books and newsletters?  Would we really ignore a nuclear Iran and pretend it will go away?  Would we ignore terrorist attacks on our allies and say it is none of our business? While we all abhor the loss of civil liberties, how far would we go to use government intelligence to pre-empt a terrorist strike against us?  Where do we draw the line?  And is there a safe path back to that liberty movement ideal, without us getting ambushed along the way?

The Senator began by defining the current foreign policy crisis.  The enemy, he said, was not terrorism, which is after all a tactic, but rather radical Islam, something that many politicians have been reluctant to acknowledge.  Rand pointed out that it is not the tiny percentage it is often alleged to be by politically correct, wishful thinking, American politicians.  Rather it is a “robust minority.”

Part of Rand Paul’s new foreign policy was a list of liberty movement basics, although couched in language that Rinos, who now dominate the Heritage Foundation, can swallow.  And more often than not they were posed as questions.  He called for an end to war by executive order.  He quoted Madison who warned that war is always more favored by the chief executive.

He complained about the irrelevancy of congress pointing out that the president sought permission to use force in Libya from NATO, the United Nations, from anyone but the US Congress where the power belonged.

“The debate over war is the single most important debate in this country and it should not be glossed over.”

Invoking his recent trip to Israel he pointed out that the debate about a nuclear Iran is underway in Jerusalem but not in Washington.

“Where are the calls for moderation, restraint?”

He alluded to the “unintended consequences” of war, a favorite subject of his father, Dr. Ron Paul.  “Why are we so quick to supply weapons for Syrian rebels?  Will they respect the rights of Christians in their new government?“

Rand Paul asked the room full of Rinos, many of them lobbyists for corporate arms manufacturers, “Should we keep sending weapons to countries that are hostile to Israel and the United States?”

But if the Senator called for fewer military bases, less soldiers overseas, a less trigger happy foreign policy with less power residing with the presidency, he also called for a more coordinated and ambitious strategy in the war against radical Islam.  This will be a tough pill to swallow for some diehard Libertarians.

He compared this crisis to the challenge of the Cold War. And called for a modern version of Cold War containment, a policy that is not entirely military but not all diplomatic either.  Countering radical Islam, the Senator declared, demands a worldwide strategy.   When there is war, we should go into win it and we should not go in alone.

Rand Paul said, “What the United States needs is a policy that finds that middle path.”  He called for a “foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries because of the fear of what they might do.”  But also one that legitimately acts decisively when danger is known.

He pointed out that “A foreign policy that is everywhere all of the time is an extreme [policy] on the other hand a foreign policy that is nowhere, any of the time, is also an extreme [policy].”

How will liberty movement leaders accept this call for a foreign policy more engaged than our ideal?  How will neo-conservatives and Rinos accept a future where American doesn’t bomb first and ask questions later?

Rand Paul ended his speech with these words, “I will be a voice to those who want a saner and sounder foreign policy.”

Nietzsche once said that “In individuals insanity is rare.  But in nations it is the rule.”  We can only hope that our nation will come out of its stupor and find the wisdom in Rand Paul’s clarion call.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 485 other followers