RUTHFULLY YOURS

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON:A SERIOUS LOOK AT RAND PAUL

Posted By Ruth King on June 21st, 2010

BELOW READ RAND PAUL’S POSITION STATEMENT ON ISRAEL…DECEPTIVE AND AS SWINDLE ASKS WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE SEA CHANGE IN ATTITUDE WHEN HE IS RUNNING FOR OFFICE. BEWARE PAUL IS A MENACE AND SHOULD LOSE BIG…..AND PALIN AND HANNITY SHOULD STOP CALLING THIS NASTY MAN ” A GREAT AMERICAN”…..RSK http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/06/19/theonequestiontoanswer/ DAVID SWINDLE   We talk too much in politics. We compose long essays and in-depth articles that obscure what really matters. I’m going to start doing this more: just breaking things down to the root, and forcing a single question. That’s the benefit of politics in the age of 140 character tweets. We can actually get to the heart of the issue.

The newest issue of The New Republic has a great piece highlighting Rand Paul’s ideological origins:

The third of Paul’s five children, Rand had been an avid student of his father’s political teachings. “As a young lad, he sat at his father’s knee and learned all he could,” says longtime Ron Paul campaign aide Jean McIver. By the time he got to Baylor University, Rand was a font of small-government dogma, conversant on the evils of the Federal Reserve and a floating currency. “Rand was pretty much a carbon copy of his dad,” recalls John Green, who belonged to a Baylor secret society called the NoZe Brotherhood with Rand. “He started drinking the Kool-Aid at an early age.” So, in 1984, when Ron Paul was called back to Washington for a House vote and had to miss a scheduled joint appearance with Gramm, he turned to his 21-year-old son to fill in for him. In front of 300 people, Rand Paul gave his first political speech. “I listened to him pretty closely,” says Gramm, “and I remember the young man did quite well.”

…

But his devotion to his father—and to his father’s politics—never waned. Over the years, he continued to pitch in on his father’s campaigns, none more so than Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential bid, for which Rand traveled to ten states and appeared on hundreds of radio shows on his father’s behalf.

…

Ron Paul has served as a “distinguished counselor” at the von Mises Institute, which has published his books. And, while Rand Paul has never had any formal associations with the organization, it’s clear that its leaders have played a key role in his intellectual development. “I tell people when they ask me if I know Lew Rockwell that I used to ride to work with Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul back in the late 1970s, maybe early 1980s,” Rand told Rockwell in a radio interview last year, “and I got to hear all kinds of great conversations on the way to work about philosophy, politics, religion, you name it, and I guess I was always very, very interested in that.” Similarly, in a videocast Paul did lamenting the fact that he never met Ayn Rand, he said, “One of the ones I was lucky enough to meet through the years was Murray Rothbard, and, when he came to speak to interns in the early 1980s in Washington, I was privileged enough to drive him back to the airport and got to talk to him about things.”

…

None of this should be surprising. Having learned his politics at his father’s knee, Paul has had no opportunities since those early days to unlearn them. While Paul’s professional life as an ophthalmologist has presumably exposed him to many things, his political life—dedicated as it has been, until now, to his father’s career—has been spent entirely inside his father’s suffocatingly cramped paleolibertarian universe. “He lives in an information bubble,” says Chip Berlet, who studies right-wing movements for Political Research Associates.

I have one question that a conservative who supports Rand Paul and claims to take the war against Islamic Nazism seriously needs to answer: at what point between the end of campaigning for his father’s 2008 presidential run and now did Rand Paul realize that the foreign policy views he’d believed and fought for his entire life were dead wrong?

Wake up: Rand is every bit as radical as his father and is thus worse on Israel and the War on Islamofascism than Barack Obama. Just as the Alinskyite-In-Chief never truly broke from his hard Left origins, Rand still holds onto his fringe paleolibertarianism. And also just like the Community Organizer President, Rand will lie about what values he actually holds in order to get the mainstream to put him into office. Anyone care to disagree?

The United States Special Relationship with Israel

By Dr. Rand Paul

Candidate, United States Senate

Israel and the United States have a special relationship.  With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.

The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel.

I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.

The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex.  The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.

I strongly object to the arrogant approach of Obama administration, itself a continuation of the failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push Israel to make security concessions behind thinly veiled threats.

Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations.  Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.

As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.

Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.

It is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass judgment or to use our power or relationship to force Israel to go against her own interest for the sake of “peace.”

Peace is a laudable goal.  But it is just that – a goal.   It is not an end at any cost.

It makes no sense to me that the United States provides Arab countries hostile to Israel with $12 billion in annual financial and military aid. Many of the weapons that Israel would face in a Middle Eastern conflict would have come directly from our government. I find this appalling. In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.

Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.

Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.

Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran.  I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.

We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program.  I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling.

Comments are closed.