Rand Paul one-man filibuster of Brennan nomination

[eb22]

For anyone who still believes that Rand Paul's intentions are good,   check out the following article.    I posted part of this article on the JTF Forum in 2010.    If one still supports Rand Paul after reading this,    I doubt any article or presentation will change that person's mind:


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/02/rand-paul-anti-war-anti-gitmo-and-anti.html

Monday, February 01, 2010
Rand Paul, Anti-War, Anti-Gitmo and Anti-American
 
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
He's for shutting down Guantanamo Bay and banning the forceful interrogation of Al Queda terrorists. Not only that he would like to see the dangerous terrorists currently held in Guantanamo Bay deported back to their countries of origin, where in his own words, "It’d take them a while to get back over here."


He wants to cut the deficit by cutting defense spending and boasts that if he had been in the Senate, he would have held up the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He flirts with pro abortion and drug legalization rhetoric. His main spokesman was caught penning satanic anti-Christian lyrics and blaming America for 9/11. In response to this, his campaign manager, suggested there was "truth on both sides".

Barack Obama? Nancy Pelosi? No, Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul who has been a freelance Al Queda spokesman in Congress, currently running in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky. The mainstream Republican establishment has thrown its support behind Trey Grayson. The local tea party movement has Bill Johnson. Meanwhile the same league of 9/11 Truthers, anti-war radicals and online gambling companies is busy astroturfing for Rand Paul, and filling up his war chest. They're already creating fake websites targeting his opponents.

Rand Paul has been cleverer than his father, dressing up the same message in more ambiguity, and redirecting questions with formulaic and deliberately vague answers. For example on the 9/11 Truther Alex Jones show, Rand Paul explained that his technique when answering questions about the War on Terror differs from his father, in that he emphasizes that there is a constitutional right to declare war. Which is his disingenuous way of attempting to seem pro-national defense, while avoiding talking about his real views on the War on Terror.

Paul confirmed to Jones that he offers the same message as his father does, but with a more appealing "presentation".


"You're basically what I would call a chip off the old block. Your policies are basically identical to your father, correct?"

"I'd say we'd be very very similar. We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary."

Rand Paul on Alex Jones, 5/21/09


Do Republicans really want a candidate who admits to hiding his real message in order to win a Republican primary?

Rand Paul's routine is a gussied up version of his old man. There's still the same old Paul army behind him, often shipped in from out of state. And there's the man himself, talking about the Military Industrial Complex, closing Gitmo, freeing the terrorists, blaming the War on Terror for the economic crisis and discussing a left-right coalition for rolling back the American Empire. And the old slips like Rand Paul comparing the US military to Hitler. No wonder he fails the conservative litmus test for Republican candidates.

Rand Paul has been a little quicker to distance himself from people like Chris Hightower, mainly because he understands the media better than his father does. And he understands that his message has to be massaged for the masses. But the message hasn't changed, just the presentation has.


Rand Paul “couldn’t agree more” with those who believe Guantanamo has “significantly damaged the reputation of the United States” and who want to “see it shut down.” – (Rand Paul official campaign web site post, posted by the site Administrator, 5/25/09)


"It's unclear whether these people are guilty or not guilty... So I really think deportation or sending them back to their country of origin might be the best way to go. And none of it’s fair, because some of them have been held years and years without trial... and you deport them to the countries where they were captured..."

Rand Paul on Gitmo prisoners on Alex Jones, 5/21/09

Yes deport them to where they can kill American troops. If you think that's not what he meant, try again;


“I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I’d drop them back off into battle … you’re unclear, drop ‘em off back into Afghanistan. It’d take them a while to get back over here.”

Rand Paul speaking in Paducah, KY, 5/8/09

And what will they possibly do in battle over there? But don't worry, even if they do kill a few American soldiers, it will probably take them a week or so to back over here.

Rand Paul blames the War on Terror for the economic problems America is suffering today.


“Traditional conservatives who want the same sort of aggressive foreign policy probably cannot balance the budget… Unless you cut some of what we’re doing militarily, you cannot balance the budget - Rand Paul


"Part of the reason we've bankrupted the country is fighting so many foreign wars and having so many military bases around the world." AntiWar Radio interview may 17, 2009

Rand Paul is of course opposed to the kind of waterboarding that broke 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He is for repealing the Patriot Act and for building a left-right coalition to roll back the "American Empire".


"Is rolling back the empire not the first order of business for shoring up the economy?"

"Yes I think they're interrelated, and they've become the politicial coalition you need to win a race basically. Because here are people on the left who acknowledge the vast expenditures of the military industrial complex, and there are people on the right who are beginning to understand that. There's a sort of left-right paradigm that you bring these groups together in order to try to win an election. I think it's coming."

AntiWar Radio interview may 17, 2009

Do you really want to be part of a left-right coalition to roll back the "American Empire"? Because that's the strategy of the Pauls.

Finally Rand Paul stated that if he had been in the Senate he would have held up the US attack on Afghanistan and Iraq.


"I tell people in my speeches that the most important vote that any congressman or Senator ever has is on war and peace... and had I been in the Senate during the debate over Iraq or Afghanistan, I would have forced a vote on a declaration of war... had I been in the Senate I would have held things up."

AntiWar Radio interview may 17, 2009

And of course like his pop, Rand Paul is a big believer in seeing the enemy's view of things.


"Iran feels threatened because we have troops in Iraq and troops in Afghanistan... we have to understand their perspective, that they feel threatened."

Rand Paul, 2008

I'll close this article by quoting what Alan Keyes has said about Rand Paul, but his entire message is worth reading;


"Ron Paul’s son is mounting a well funded effort to exploit the rising tide of voters who identify with the conservative name. But like his father, he rejects Ronald Reagan’s ‘Peace through strength’ acceptance of America’s leadership for freedom in the world. Like his father, he echoes Barack Obama’s illogical willingness to pretend that America is to blame for the hateful attacks directed against us by Middle East terrorists.

Like his father, he seeks the support of those who understand that the Constitution cannot survive unless its foundation of respect for unalienable rights is preserved. But, again like his father, he asserts that it can somehow be just and lawful for State governments to violate the unalienable rights of human offspring in the womb or the research laboratory. It’s only wrong when the Federal government does so."

After Sarah Palin's unfortunate and misguided endorsement of Rand Paul, some have fallen into line and insist on repeating over and over again that Rand Paul is a mainstream conservative. He is not. No more than Lyndsey "Amnesty" Graham whom Palin also endorsed is (Debbie Schlussel). And his own words are the best argument against his candidacy.

Do Republicans really want a Senate candidate in Kentucky that a Democrat can run against on national security issues? Do they want a Senate candidate who will is so far off the map that some Republicans will wind up crossing party lines? Because that's exactly what we'll be getting with Rand Paul.

There's a mainstream establishment candidate and a tea party candidate in the race already. Rand Paul is neither, though by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement while kissing up to Mitch McConnell, he's trying to be both at the same time. What Rand Paul is, is his old man in a new package, trying to market himself to conservative voters and hoping they don't learn about his real views.