Guest Post: The Trouble with Rand Paul

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics,

Rand Paul just endorsed a man who is deeply hostile to human liberty.

Perhaps that’s Rand’s idea of playing politics? Come to the table, strike a deal, get what you can. Trouble is, it’s tough striking a good deal when the guy on the other side of the table believes that the government should be allowed to claim — without having to produce any evidence whatsoever — that certain people are terrorists, and therefore should be detained indefinitely without any kind of due process.

That’s textbook tyranny.

Yes, I would have [signed the NDAA]. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. If I were president I would not abuse this power. But people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.


Mitt Romney

Except, if the government had any evidence they were really members of al-Qaeda and engaged in a war against America they could be charged with offenses under current laws and tried in front of a jury of their peers. As was proven when Judge Katherine Forrest struck down the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA as unconstitutional, the real detention targets are people like the ones who brought the case — writers, investigative journalist and whistleblowers: people like Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, and Birgitta Jonsdottir.

Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes beyond the pale. The NDAA is Romney’s most egregious transgression against liberty, but not far behind are his desire to start a war against Iran, to increase military spending, to start a trade war with China and his belief that corporations are people.

I know I will never agree with any politician on every single dimension of every single issue, and that to some extent politics will always involve compromise. Certainly, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues. But Mitt Romney’s stances on these issues seem much, much, much closer to Barack Obama than they do to Ron Paul. In fact, he might as well have endorsed Obama for President.

And the Ron Paul supporters are noticing: Rand has probably burnt most bridges to his Father’s supporters now. His Facebook page has seen a huge outpouring of fury:

Just lost a lot of faith in a man I otherwise adored.

You suck Rand! Traitor!

That’s why this country is doomed! Even the person you trust is a sell-out. I’m done with politics, people deserve what they get. Let the country run itself to the ground, and still people will not understand what freedom and self-responsibility is about. People want big gov’t, big brother every step of the way. Well, they got it. The rest of us, might as well try to move to another country or find an island and move there.

I knew I’d never vote for Mitt… Now I know I’ll never vote for Rand.

He has fully sold out to the bankers

Endorsing Romney is tantamount to an utter sell-out of conservative principles.

Did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison try to compromise with King George? Or — when it became obvious that they were facing tyranny — did they stand up for the principles of liberty?

I have always been uncomfortable with the children of politicians becoming politicians. Every anointed child feels like a step away from meritocracy. Dynasties are dangerous, because the dynasty itself comes to be more important than the qualities of the politicians. Who would Rand Paul be if he wasn’t Ron Paul’s son? Just another neocon. Neocons often have a few “unfashionable” libertarian or constitutionalist sympathies; look at Charles Krauthammer. But — unlike Ron Paul — the neocon never has the spine to do much about their libertarian or constitutionalist sympathies. They just ride on the establishment steamroller, into foreign occupations, empire building, corporate welfare, and banking bailouts. Into Iraq, and soon into Iran.

Rand Paul just got on the steamroller.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Roger O. Thornhill's picture

My guess is a 'deal' has been made - I'm curious to see what that deal is...

whstlblwr's picture

Rand was irritated with RPs success from beginning of the campaign.

iDealMeat's picture

Ha..  Like any of it matters..  Ron Paul could call Jon Corzine before his committee and ask him all kinds of Q's..


But he doesn't..


They all suck,  All of them..

Normalcy Bias's picture

Yep. To a man. They're all only in it for themselves. If they won't sell out, they can't get the financial backing to run a campaign. Quid pro quo, Clarice...

dwdollar's picture

Ron Paul was set up to leave a tremendous legacy. Now he's letting his son squander it for a ticket with the Romney Titanic. What joke. A lot hope died for a lot of people today.

kill switch's picture

Webster Tarpley's view on Ron Paul and Rand Paul,,,,This is going to be painful, but I must agree with webster,,,just look at the results...

Aziz's picture

I don't agree with Webster Tarpley about Ron Paul. Let's not forget Tarpley is a big government pro-socialism guy who idolizes FDR. I don't mind some limited government and some limited welfare, but Tarpley's vision is extremely statist.

Rand is a totally different issue.

ATM's picture

Limited welfare? That's a fucking joke. There is no such thing.

Government is NOT a fucking charity.

When you say "limited welfare" what that really means is unlimited welfare because once that spigot is opened how is it possible to turn it off? Every fucking thing that money can be spent on money will be spent on - you know, because it helps someone. Only it doesn't. It is ony a forced stealing of the money of some to give to others to empower the givers. It's a power that the citizens of the US never gave to their Federal government yet look at what we have.

"Limited welfare" is utter bullshit. Giovernment as charity means certain bankruptcy.

Aziz's picture

Yes but in a democracy you will always get people voting to take money and give it to someone else. People like it. Yes, it's theft, and yes I know your response will probably be "this is a republic, not a democracy". I suppose you could have a political program that ended all redistribution, but good luck getting votes and support. So it's better to do a small amount of redistribution (say only for the extremely poor, no corporate welfare) than the kind of huge government statism that Webster Tarpley and FDR advocate. Maybe that's a road to bankruptcy, but it's a slower road than the one we're on today with MASSIVE welfare.

LetThemEatRand's picture

That's just pure ideology speaking.  If we don't have a middle class through some redistribution, those of us with money will have to hire body guards.  Reality is a bitch, but that doesn't mean we need to live in a world of pure fantasy.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, is just a corporatist.  Unfortunately, many people who masquerade as liberatarians are in fact just corporatists.  For example, one of the prominent posters on this site (mises institute of canada).  Now we have proof with Rand Paul too.

Aziz's picture

You don't need redistribution to create a middle class — the opposite actually. The fastest way is a free market with opportunity for all, special protections for none, and a strong currency and that's a fact of history.

I want to minimise redistribution, because it is a misallocation of capital and labour, and it creates special interests that become parasitic.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So no education for the poor/middle class through taxation?

That's redistribution.

Aziz's picture

The idea of putting the vast majority of children into a government (re)education camp makes me deeply uncomfortable. if you're going to fund and carry out state education on the local level then whatever. As I said above, it's unrealistic to try to abolish all kinds of redistribution. But 50 years later when state education sucks and its victims are moronic unthinking drones who care more about Air Yeezys than entrepreneurship and wealth creation, then we'll regret it. Oh right. That's the status quo.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I went to public school. I own a small business.  I do pretty well and I have public education to thank for it.  

Did you go to private school?

Ookspay's picture

Do you force your employees to join a union and pay mandatoy dues to bribe politicians? 

Now that's freedom baby!

LetThemEatRand's picture

Hey mid-management guy.  How goes the E-Trade baby thing?

Ookspay's picture

Not bad, thanks for asking. There’s no-one above me at my companies, btw, lot’s of people below me, (lol, I said B-low me!). You know, work work work... 

I come from a long line of lenders, I got rich just exploiting you spenders, but now I just manage the blender, up, up, up on the hill...


LetThemEatRand's picture

If you were that fucking smart, you would know that "lots" is not "lot's."

I call Bullshit. E-Trade baby.

Nukular Freedum's picture

Runs a small business, spends all day every day policing ZH for thought crimes. Can we see the anomoly here?

I see you have trouble understanding the transmission mechanism whereby a libertarian society would supply much better versions of the social things you correctly value, but without the attendant bankruptcy and loss of services that your favoured system throws up. Anyway, good luck with the long hours of self education needed to get up to speed on this issue.

Surly Bear's picture

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

Did you see what happened there?

Nukular Freedum's picture

Yes! You're free-riding again!

See what happened there?

iDealMeat's picture

I said.. "They All suck..  All of them.."

they do.. 

FEDbuster's picture

Rather than not voting, consider Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.  No chance of winning, but you will sleep better knowing you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

Cadavre's picture

It is so nice to know we have a grammatical and spelling bee champ in the mix at ZH.

What motivates you to be so meticulous?

Aziz's picture

I went to a poor government school characterised often by complete disorder, lack of respect, lack of morality. Some people I went to school with are now heroin addicts. Way to fucking go, big government.

We "learned" in history about the evils of laissez faire capitalism, and how brilliant it was that we have government.

Thank God I managed to self-educate that trash out of me.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Are you fucking shitting me?  

You are here at ZH and you got here DESPITE your public education?

Pull up the ladder.  I'm in the life boat.


Michael's picture

What This Country Needs Is More Obama Enema!

If I get no satisfaction from the GOP, I'll now directly vote for OBAMA!

The complete and total economic collapse of the USA and the world is guaranteed. I say teach the whole country a lesson they'll never forget and let Obama finish it off, and let the blame shift from Bush to Obama and the Democrats, so the country sees both parties are the same.

A white verson of Obama being Romney is no better than the black verson.

LetThemEatRand's picture

TPTB are going to let Romney Preside over the collapse.  I'm not sure why yet.

Pinto Currency's picture

How do Romney or Obama support a law to target and kill Americans helping Al Qaeda when Obama is already helping al Qaeda (recently in Libya & now is Syria).  Does the President put out a hit on himself?

"...As to the current violence in Syria, we must consider the numerous reports of forces providing military support to the Syrian rebels — the UK, France, the US, Turkey, Israel, Qatar, the Gulf states, and everyone’s favorite champion of freedom and democracy, Saudi Arabia; with Syria claiming to have captured some 14 French soldiers; plus individual jihadists and mercenaries from Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, et al, joining the anti-government forces, their number including al-Qaeda veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who are likely behind the car bombs in an attempt to create chaos and destabilize the country. This may mark the third time the United States has been on the same side as al-Qaeda, adding to Afghanistan and Libya...."

LetThemEatRand's picture

Too bad Rand Paul threw his hat in the same ring.

Clashfan's picture

I made this same point on another thread, Pinto. :)

Bananamerican's picture

"TPTB are going to let Romney Preside over the collapse.  I'm not sure why yet."

well, there may be a few more sheckels to pull from the yokels on the way down...

plus, Romney is such a security badass...he'll have no qualms about quashing the non-faithfull as ole Joseph Smith descends from a cloud to sort us all out.

Michael's picture

This whole Ron Paul/Rand Paul ideological thing with Rand endorsing Romney is the Bible's Prodigal Son scenario being played out.

It's a sign.

Michael's picture

We tried to get Dr Ron Paul into the Presidency in 2008 to soften the blow and were thwarted by the mainstream media, the status quo, the establishment, and the powers that be.

We tried to get Dr Ron Paul into the Presidency in 2012 to pick up the pieces of what was left of our Republic after the economic collapse and were thwarted by the mainstream media, the status quo, the establishment, and the powers that be.

Now I'm afraid it's going to be hell on Earth.

BlankfeinDiamond's picture

Sounds to me like you are saying that Ron Paul is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Bananamerican's picture

"It's a sign."

yeah, it's a sign of the political "Whorepocalypse"

dark pools of soros's picture

this needs to happen.. wait till SNAP goes to 1 in 5 citizens, that makes food prices go up even more

Ookspay's picture

Amen Aziz. Public education's main purpose is to teach us all to be good little taxpayers. Apparently 50% of the population is too stupid to even do that, so they become perpetual parastitc liberal voters.

It is easier to learn than un-learn...

GMadScientist's picture

Funny. At my school they taught me about Civil Disobedience and how to fight the man by not paying my taxes. And we read 1984 and Animal Farm; lot's of "socialist" propaganda to be had in there, comrade.

Then didn't exactly make it past the 3rd grade...which explains quite a bit!



LetThemEatRand's picture

They conflate their own ignorance with public school because they slept through class.

Irony.'s picture

When something is given for "free" it is seldom appreciated. That's why a system which is based on spending other people's money always leads to gross misallocations of resources.

GMadScientist's picture

"When something is given for "free" it is seldom appreciated."

You're right. 100% inheritance tax immediately, for the same reasons you stated.'s picture

But that would still be giving the money away for "free" to the government. So your comment makes little sense although it was a good try at confusing folks into working hard all their lives in order to fund your pet projects. But if you're serious you can just give me all your Momma's money. Put up or shut up.