Justin Raimondo: Why they hate Rand Paul

[Anti Federalist]

They hate him because he is the son of Ron Paul ... If anyone threatens their perpetual, fake, wars on drugs and terrorism he will go down.

We have no government ... we have Mafia, who gain personal wealth from wars and drug running. They will take Rand down if he continues to threaten their mafioso cartels.

No harder to understand than that.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Well, this is guilt by association argument. Just because some Zionists hoped to use Johnson to distract people from Ron Paul doesn't mean that Johnson himself embraces Zionist agenda.

I never said or implied anything about Johnson himself. As a matter of fact, I went even further and said that he would probably be unaware of all of the sub-groupings and libertarian infighting.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Great article.

My favorite paragraphs:

If it is now evidence of "racism" and "neo-Confederate" sympathies to hold that the Civil War was a horrific tragedy which might reasonably have been avoided – and slavery abolished peacefully, as it was in every other nation on earth – then we have truly entered Bizarro World, where up is down and opposition to mass murder by the State is a hate crime.

I’ve had my share on run ins with Jack Hunter, nor have I exactly been an uncritical fan of Rand Paul, but it’s not too hard to detect the pattern in all this. The Beltway’s anti-libertarian cabal has been extra busy this week, with no less than a baker’s dozen of anti-Rand Paul screeds, from Goldberg to Michael Gerson to every neocon known to man and then some, all of them hankering for Sen. Rand’s scalp. Why do you suppose that is?

Three reasons: 1) He’s ahead in the Iowa polls, and the buzz about his much anticipated presidential campaign is getting louder. 2) Sen. Paul and a small but vocal group in Congress have apparently succeeded in calling attention to the utter folly of getting involved in Syria’s civil war, and that crazy notion is now officially on hold, and 3) Alone among our presently serving elected officials, Paul has come out with some favorable comments about Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker who exposed the government’s vast and highly secret spying program. This last is a major "sin" – as Pope Jonah puts it – as far as the political class is concerned, and there can be no forgiveness.

Worse, from the Golbergian-neocon-"progressive" perspective, Sen. Paul is introducing legislation, in coordination with co-thinkers in the House like Rep. Justin Amash, that would repeal legislation authorizing government spying on Americans and restore the Fourth Amendment. The neocon-"progressive" alliance is out to scotch that movement, along with burgeoning pro-Paul sentiment in the GOP.

 

[Christian Liberty]

2016 is do or die. Rand Paul may be an imperfect candidate but its what we've got. Roll of the dice? Sure, but what else are we going to do?

And if your answer is "Civil disobedience", that in no way precludes you for rolling the dice on Rand Paul.

To think otherwise, as I have thought at times in the past, is to underestimate the stakes.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Define "Pro-Israel."

Rand Paul would probably technically apply as "Pro-Israel" but not in a Zionistic sort of way.

When I say "Pro-Israel" I always mean it in a Zionistic kind of way.

 

[cajuncocoa]

2016 is do or die. Rand Paul may be an imperfect candidate but its what we've got. Roll of the dice? Sure, but what else are we going to do?

And if your answer is "Civil disobedience", that in no way precludes you for rolling the dice on Rand Paul.

To think otherwise, as I have thought at times in the past, is to underestimate the stakes.

I tend to agree with you on this. As critical as I've been of Rand for some of the things he's said (and may be again, if necessary), I'm coming around to the notion that he is the last best chance for a liberty candidate getting this close to the White House in my lifetime. He's not my perfect candidate (that would be his Father), but I've accepted the difference, as it is tolerable, whereas the possibility of President Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary is not. It will be interesting to see how the establishment reacts to the possibility of a President Rand Paul as the time for the 2016 primaries grow nearer.








Somebody bookmark this post for when I get accused of being a "hater" again.

 

[JCDenton0451]

What do you mean last chance? What happens if Rand fails in 2016? Do you just quit?

There will never be a president Rubio or a president Bush. Unless they run as Democrats, demographics won't allow it. Rand Paul is the only future Republican party has, assuming it has a future.

 

[Christian Liberty]

When I say "Pro-Israel" I always mean it in a Zionistic kind of way.

OK.

I'm personally somewhat pro-Israel by the standards of this forum (Although of course an anti-semite from the perpsective of the lamestream media)) but I support no US involvement in the region. If they fall, they fall, none of our business.

If a bunch of Zionists want to personally pool their resources to help Israel, be my guest.

I have better things to spend my money on personally but YMMV.

I tend to agree with you on this. As critical as I've been of Rand for some of the things he's said (and may be again, if necessary), I'm coming around to the notion that he is the last best chance for a liberty candidate getting this close to the White House in my lifetime. He's not my perfect candidate (that would be his Father), but I've accepted the difference, as it is tolerable, whereas the possibility of President Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary is not. It will be interesting to see how the establishment reacts to the possibility of a President Rand Paul as the time for the 2016 primaries grow nearer.








Somebody bookmark this post for when I get accused of being a "hater" again.

Will do.

This doesn't mean I'll refrain from criticizing Rand when its warranted, but I'm literally terrified of any result that doesn't mean him winning.

Much as I don't like the compromises, I guess this is how you win the White House. Personally, I couldn't play the game that way, and I'd never win.

The principles I stand on are the principles I stand on, nonetheless, I'm voting for Rand. Both in the primary and the general.

What do you mean last chance? What happens if Rand fails in 2016? Do you just quit?

More like the establishment might force us to quit...

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Wonder if they'll try to bring out the newsletters again. Maybe CNN can have Dondero on and he can claim to have seen Rand Paul reading/writing them back in the early 1990s.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What do you mean last chance? What happens if Rand fails in 2016? Do you just quit?

There will never be a president Rubio or a president Bush. Unless they run as Democrats, demographics won't allow it. Rand Paul is the only future Republican party has, assuming it has a future.

What I mean by last chance: simply that there aren't too many qualified liberty people out there, coupled with the fact that I probably have only so many presidential elections left in the tank. #reality

What if Rand fail in 2016? then I will probably either vote for the LP candidate or sit it out.

Do I just quit? I doubt it, but we will have to see what the landscape looks like after 2016 if Rand doesn't succeed.

 

[JCDenton0451]

More like the establishment might force us to quit...

And how is that supposed to work? They have no leverage on us. We have our votes. Romney made an effort to court RP supporters late in his campaign, which means they get it too.

 

[cajuncocoa]

And how is that supposed to work? They have no leverage on us. We have our votes. Romney made an effort to court RP supporters late in his campaign, which means they get it too.

Are you still confident that your vote counts?

 

[Working Poor]

And how is that supposed to work? They have no leverage on us. We have our votes. Romney made an effort to court RP supporters late in his campaign, which means they get it too.

Oh really I saw no evidence of that.

 

[JCDenton0451]

What I mean by last chance: simply that there aren't too many qualified liberty people out there, coupled with the fact that I probably have only so many presidential elections left in the tank. #reality

What if Rand fail in 2016? then I will probably either vote for the LP candidate or sit it out.

Do I just quit? I doubt it, but we will have to see what the landscape looks like after 2016 if Rand doesn't succeed.

If Rand Paul doesn't win in 2016, there is no reason why he shouldn't try in 2024, assuming nobody more qualified comes along. Just look at Nixon: lost his election by a small margin in 1960, won by a landslide in 1968.

Anyway, our chief goal should be transforming American politics and educating voters, rather than electing a specific 'Liberty candidate' as president. There is not much a president can do on his own.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Oh really I saw no evidence of that.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/paul-ryan-pitches-the-ron-paul-vote-136546.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution

 

[Christian Liberty]

If Rand Paul doesn't win in 2016, there is no reason why he shouldn't try in 2024, assuming nobody more qualified comes along. Just look at Nixon: lost his election by a small margin in 1960, won by a landslide in 1968.

Anyway, our chief goal should be transforming American politics and educating voters, rather than electing a specific 'Liberty candidate' as president. There is not much a president can do on his own.

There's no reason he shouldn't try in 2020. If another GOP candidate wins they should be primaried.

(Obvious assumption that the GOP candidate isn't as good or better than Rand.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

And how is that supposed to work? They have no leverage on us. We have our votes. Romney made an effort to court RP supporters late in his campaign, which means they get it too.

Are you still confident that your vote counts?

This.

 

[JCDenton0451]

There's no reason he shouldn't try in 2020. If another GOP candidate wins they should be primaried.

(Obvious assumption that the GOP candidate isn't as good or better than Rand.)

It is never a good idea to run against the incumbent. The incumbent always wins unless he alienates his base somehow. Bush lost because he raised taxes, Carter alienated many Jews by forcing peace agreements on Israel.

If Barry Goldwater ran in 1968, he would have won.

 

[fr33]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/paul-ryan-pitches-the-ron-paul-vote-136546.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...for-Ron-Paul-Fans-to-Support-the-Constitution

I wouldn't call that an effort.

"Obama is slightly worse than our turd sandwich. Ok well maybe they are the same but don't forget, god hates democrats."

 

[Todd]

You are guys suggesting that neocons and Koch bros encouraged Gary Johnson to run? That doesn't make any sense. Gary won 1% of the vote. This is 1% that did not go to Romney.

What's your beef with Gary Johnson anyway?

Who said Romney was the Neocons guy? Obama is making them quite happy. It was win win for them in 12'.