Rand Paul claims to support lower taxation and "smaller government." Some even call him a libertarian. On his own website, however, he calls for "robust" funding for "defense" programs, which constitute about half of the Federal Budget, if calculated honestly.
Paul also seems to believe that certain classes of people "do not deserve the protections of our Constitution," which implies that Paul believes the Federal government can choose to inflict cruel or unusual punishments (for example) or to disregard treaty obligations in respect to people the government determines are 'undeserving of Constitutional protection.'
Let's look at some positions Rand Paul publicly supports:
Supports More Taxes for State-subsidized Military-Industrial Corporations:
"Rand supports robust funding for our military. Under Dr. Paul’s vision, the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase."
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/
Supports the Denial of Due Process for Accused Terrorists and "Detainees":
" Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil. He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees."
"Foreign [alleged] terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution...These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=is_rand_paul_good_for_civil_li
Supports the U.S. Invasion and attempted Colonization of Afghanistan and its Opium Fields:
"When our national security is threatened, Dr. Paul would not hesitate to authorize swift military action to destroy the threat, and he has clearly stated he would have done so in Afghanistan."
Supports the Militarization of the U.S./Mexico Border:
"My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border."
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/illegal-immigration/
Doesn't Necessarily Believe B.P. was 'at Fault' in the Gulf Oil Blowout:
"I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen."
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/21/rand-paul-calls-white-house-pressure-on-bp-%E2%80%98un-american%E2%80%99-says-that-%E2%80%98sometimes-accidents-happen%E2%80%99/
Heavy taxation to subsidize a bloated military-industrial cartel, troops along the border, armed aggression and occupation abroad, unlimited force authorized for dealing with "enemies of the state," no "blame" for powerful and deadly corporations. Smells like fascism to me. Rand Paul seems to be willing to jettison whatever libertarian convictions he may have whenever they are politically troublesome.
Well, paragraphs are your friends.
But anyway, a shame Rand didn't learn enough from his father, but it's also cool that Ron let his son choses his own intellectual path.
Yeah, browser issues. Paragraphs now!
Benjamin,
Much of this is concerning. I really haven't been following Rand too much, but What is the argument against trial by military commission for enemy combatants?
Mind you that I am a budding libertarian here and former "conservative" or "neoconservative" as I tend to think Libertarians are the true Conservatives or Liberals (take your pick) since they uphold the foundations of classical liberalism, but I digress. I did two tourse in Iraq 2004-2006 in the Marines and my experience there led me to first question, then oppose the war effort, but if a war is being fought against a foreign enemy then I am not quite sure why you imply that enemy combatants should be afforded due process. I am not really here to so much challenge your position as I am to simply hear you out on this
I kind of disagree with the analysis on his BP view. Lew Rockwell had a mises daily espousing essentially the same view. Should we knock him for it as well?
http://mises.org/daily/4331
.
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
jdp,
The argument against trial by military commission for enemy combatants is essentially.. how do you determine someone is an enemy combatant? Currently, the state just "deems" someone to be an enemy combatant. But how can we garuntee that it wont deem an innocent person to be an enemy combatant? The reason we have a trial is to avoid this type of presumtion of guilt.
Personally, I have no problem with terrorist being tried in military court. But if you give the government that power it opens up the door for massive abuse. The only way to secure our rights is to just treat everyone the same and give everyone the same rights.
Don't get your panties in a bunch on the BP thing.
All he said was that accidents happen - which is true.
And he said BP should be fully liable for the cost of the cleanup and punishment, etc. Rockwell said this too.
Rand also objected to Obama Admin's fascist rhetoric about putting their boot heel on the throat of a business. Obama Admin needs not to demagogue it, but apply justice evenly.
Look guys,
Rand is *actually* a very principled libertarian philosophically, however he has decided to "play the political game" and water down/change some of his views.
Deal with it.
He will still be the best person in DC besides his father.
"I kind of disagree with the analysis on his BP view. Lew Rockwell had a mises daily espousing essentially the same view. Should we knock him for it as well?"
What do you mean? Rockwell said specifically that BP should pay for every single cent of cleanup whereas from the looks of it the Rand Paul artical seems to indicate that he would be willing to let BP off with a slap to the wrist
"Rockwell said specifically that BP should pay for every single cent of cleanup whereas from the looks of it the Rand Paul artical seems to indicate that he would be willing to let BP off with a slap to the wrist"
No - Rand supports BP paying for the cleanup plus possible more. I heard him say that in an interview. He just didn't like the administration's rhetoric.
Chris I have actually always wondered and questioned whether the immense powers granted to the state could ever be turned against the American people. The bigger quesiton in relation to this is what exactly is the government definition of terrorism? If I go and blow up a Walmart and kill 100 people will I be tried in criminal court or will I be shipped off to some military base to never be heard from again? The question of what exactly is terrorism for the purposes of possibly denying someone due process has been something I have thought about before. I do understand the counter argument to this as far as it concerns non citizens though.
"Much of this is concerning. I really haven't been following Rand too much, but What is the argument against trial by military commission for enemy combatants?"
Well, as far as your question goes, I don't necessarily have any problems with military tribunals, per se. I do have a problem with the phrase "enemy combatants." My understanding is that terms like "enemy combatant" and "detainee" are mostly are used because they have no actual meaning in law. In other words; there are established bodies of law which deal with the types of crimes the government accuses "terrorists" of committing.
Mass murder of civilians, or attempted mass murder of civilians, for example, is prosecutable in civilian courts and under U.S. domestic law. It is often arguably prosecutable under the military 'laws of war' as well in many cases, as a 'war crime.' Additionally, it may be often prosecutable under International Law. The problem seems to be, from the government's point of view, that if prisoners are called "criminals, " then they are entitled to the protections of civilian law; if they are called "war criminals," they are entitled to the protections afforded to Prisoners of War, as delineated in the Nuremberg Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they are sent to the International Criminal Court, then they are under the jurisdiction of International Law. In any of the three cases, the accused would be entitled to due process in one of the three jurisdictions; which would include things like the right to hear the charges against them, to talk to a lawyer privately, to not be tortured, to be released if acquitted, and various other measures intended to promote a fair trial.
The government's position, under both Bush and Obama, seems to be that if their administrations invents a new word for "prisoner" ('detainee' or 'enemy combatant'), then the people they so label can be dealt with without any reference to any law; laws can be made up as the government goes along, because there are no laws governing the treatment of 'detainees' as such, and they use this word precisely for this reason. The problem is; how do we know a 'detainee' is guilty? The purpose of the 'due process' afforded by the various jurisdictions of law is to establish this guilt. The problem with a statement like "“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution” is, how do you know they ARE a terrorist? The purpose of trial by jury, for example, is established in the Constitution as a means of DETERMINING the guilt of persons; absent this 'protection,' what process are we going to use to discover if they really are a terrorist?
Rand Paul's website says "He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees." So, because someone is *detained* by the military, they therefore automatically lose their right to a civilian trial? His website says in the previous sentence; "Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil." Dr. Paul seems to be implying that simply because someone is detained, it's safe to assume that they are an "enemy combatant," and that thus they do not "deserve" any legal protections, whatsoever, simply because the government has accused them of wrongdoing and invented a novel label for the wrongdoing. The government can ignore the law in regards to anyone; all they have to do is make up a new word to call you which is not found in existing law, and then claim that people described by this 'new word' are not covered under existing laws.
This all may sound ridiculous, but I think there is a very strong case that this is in fact the legalistic maneuver the government is in fact employing to avoid legitimate trials of many people currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, among other sites.
The reality is that the Constitution is the government's charter, and the Constitution describes and limits the powers and abilities of the government; it does not describe and limit the rights of individuals (foreign or citizen), as the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state. For example, the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution does not describe the right of individuals not to be tortured and then limit this right to U.S. citizens; rather, the clause limits the U.S. government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," against anyone, everyone, anywhere for any reason. It's a limit on what the chartered government can legally do; not an enumeration or limitation of the rights of individuals
. What I find most troubling about Dr. Paul's statements (although he's certainly not alone in this), is that he seems to be talking about the Constitution as a document which limits and defines the rights and privileges of individuals, as opposed to the truth, which is that it is a document which delineates the rights and privileges of the government it establishes through law.
Counter-points
He may be supporting military for DEFENSE only. He may be recalling all troops and dismantle all foreign bases. But keep a strong national defense. Plus, he is more electable unfortunately if he shows America is Strong.
Why do I have to pay for the airfare and criminal trial of these foreigners? Do you honestly think a Terrorist will get a fair trial against the people he is trying to kill? I don't want them flown against their will to the US. I'd prefer a mock miiitary trial and have them released and send the troops home. Which I think is his reasons for supporting this.
Probably where some of the taxes of the state subsidized miilitary industrial complex is going. I think this fits in with constitutional obligations. Instead of using troops for invading. Use the troops to defend against invaders.
If a nation attacks the US, swift action is required. Fits in with the constitution. Probably would have wanted to go to war with afghanistan only if it was done under declaration of war.
If you are paying few cents per barrel of oil to pay for a "FUTURE" oil spill. plus have a Government maximum liability limit. This would send a strong message to BP that they have "spill insurance". Therefore, we have government at fault here as well as BP. Accidents do happen. Ignoring government's influence on the cause of this disaster is naive.
Note: I am playing devils advocate. I am making a defense based on what I know of the views of Rand Paul. Typically a Constitution Party platform. My comments on each subject are not my personal views.
Benjamin:Supports the U.S. Invasion and attempted Colonization of Afghanistan and its Opium Fields:
armed aggression and occupation abroad
are either not true, or at least not supported by the article you linked to. In fact, it specifically says that Paul believes only congress can declare war, troops shouldn't be used as a police force, and that he's opposed to nation-building. Opium isn't mentioned at all.
Not only is this thread pointless in that we already knew Rand Paul is not an anarcho-caplitalist, your argument is deceptive to boot.
It's a logical argument you have. One thing I have thought about is that when the Constitution was written in 1787 there was no such thing as a legal construct defining you as an "American citizen" to my knowledge. You lived in a state that was voluntarily a member of the union although I'm not even sure if there was a record of you being a citizen of a particular state. Perhaps a property owner would have had some record with the state or something. Either way the whole line today that non US citizens are not given constitutional rights would have been alien in our early history as a Constitutional Republic since no one was a US citizen in a legal framework sort of way. For example if an Irish man immigrated to America and in his first week in country committed even the most heinous crime such as blowing up a building taking many lives in the process, he or she would have been given due process.
Is my reasoning correct or am I wrong? This is not something I have seriously reserched as I mentioned before. Just something I have brainstormed about in the past
"In fact, it specifically says that Paul believes only congress can declare war, troops shouldn't be used as a police force, and that he's opposed to nation-building. Opium isn't mentioned at all."
Yes, but we're talking about politicians here. In the context of politics, if a politician is not calling for a new policy, they are in de facto support of existing policy.
"Rand has distanced himself from his father's foreign-policy noninterventionism, insisting he's for the war in Afghanistan and against rapid withdrawal from Iraq."
Paul’s campaign manager indicated he’s not for immediately pulling out all of the troops of either Iraq or Afghanistan: “He is not for wholesale withdrawal. Rand has advocated better defining the mission, but now that we’re there we have to win.”
Especially that second quote sounds like FULL ON SUPPORT for existing policies of troops used as a police force, nation building, and complicity in the opium trade.
Paul claims he believes that a declaration of war is necessary to have a war, which would make both current wars illegal on account of being undeclared, but he seems fine with continuing things he claims to believe to be illegal. He's not calling for withdrawal of troops until such a time as war is declared, is he?
As for the opium, I personally believe that it's a major part of the reason the U.S. is there. Maybe I'm cynical, but most of that opium is being sold to the Russians and is causing major problems for their society, while the trade creates massive amounts of black market money which ends up being laundered by Western banks, and very profitably I might add. But don't take my word for it:
Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims
Drugs and crime chief says $352bn in criminal proceeds was effectively laundered by financial institutions
Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.
This will raise questions about crime's influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he said.
Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that gang money was used to save some banks from collapse when lending seized up, he said.
"Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way." Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said the money is now a part of the official system and had been effectively laundered.
"That was the moment [last year] when the system was basically paralysed because of the unwillingness of banks to lend money to one another. The progressive liquidisation to the system and the progressive improvement by some banks of their share values [has meant that] the problem [of illegal money] has become much less serious than it was," he said.
The IMF estimated that large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover.
Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.
British bankers would want to see any evidence that Costa has to back his claims. A British Bankers' Association spokesman said: "We have not been party to any regulatory dialogue that would support a theory of this kind. There was clearly a lack of liquidity in the system and to a large degree this was filled by the intervention of central banks."
So like I said, Paul doesn't seem to have any real opposition to the status quo in Afghanistan, which very likely includes Western profiteering off of illicit opium.
So, Ben, we don't really support Rand Paul.
But you're always clamoring for more democracy. How do you feel about the way the people have spoken this time?
You should have a problem with it because it is a blunder strategically. Giving them a military trial raises their profile and their status, it makes them into the equivalents of the prime minister Tojo and his generals. Giving them a civilian trial relegates them to the rank of rapists, thieves and murderers. In Britain the authorithies insisted on treating the captured IRA cadre as common criminals, which they absolutely hated and insisted on being given a status distinct from them. But in the USA the government voluntarily aids the terrorist cause by insisting on giving them a treatment distinct from that of common murderers.
It does not matter if the military prisons are harsher and the military trials easier for the prosecution. The very fact that they are given a treatment different from that of criminals reinorces the view that they are not criminals but more like political prisoners, or some sort of prisoners of war, to a significant extent it robbs the US of a moral victory for bringing a criminal/terrorist to justice
Look guys, Rand is *actually* a very principled libertarian philosophically, however he has decided to "play the political game" and water down/change some of his views. Deal with it. He will still be the best person in DC besides his father. +1
+1
>Rand is *actually* a very principled libertarian philosophically, however he has decided to "play the political game" and water down/change some of his >views.
Is there some evidence for this claim other than wishful thinking? And, if I accept this claim, how long will he play the political game and water down his views? Will he vote in anti-freedom ways (for wars, against due process, against impeachment on these issues, against private property since he's now pro-CRA1964) because, after all, he's the best person in DC besides Ron and therefore needs to win reelection?
"Speaking" would be if the residents of Kentucky could propse, vote on and veto legislation directly (like the people of Switzerland do, for example).
I don't think voting for one of two canditates in a primary election for one of two bureaucratic parties, then votingbetweeen the candidates of those two parties, qualifies in any way as "speaking."
Speech : political process of Kentucky :: a complete sentence in English : two bits of binary code
I think if the people of Kentucky had *any* say at all in actual decisions their state made, as opposed to merely the personalities who write the laws, I think we'd see far more libertarian policies in law than any Rand is proposing.
You should have a problem with it because it is a blunder strategically.
Yeah, I agree... civilian trials are the best option. Well, the best option is not using the miliitary to arrest foreigners in other countries, but military tribunals trying the accused as accused war criminals under Nuremburg, Int'l Law and the military code would still be way better than the nonsense they have going now at Guantanamo.
Benjamin, do you support democracy? If so, why?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Benjamin:"Speaking" would be if the residents of Kentucky could propse, vote on and veto legislation directly (like the people of Switzerland do, for example).
But what if everyone voted on laws in America like in switzerland? Americans would vote down gay marriage, substance user's rights, etc. They would just love it if transgender people would crawl down a hole and die.
You don't think the masses will just vote themselves everyone else's income? What incentive can there be for any individual to work or accomplish anything if getting ahead just means you'll be looted and plundered?
But what if everyone voted on laws in America like in switzerland?
Well, I think in an American context, ideally we'd be voting on these things mostly at a state level...On gay marriage, for example, this polling suggests that support for gay marriage is in the majority in Northeastern and Western states, while in a minority in the MIdwest and South. So freedom might require some geographic flexibility, but on the other hand, states which chose to discriminate would be the losers as capable citizens chose to live elsewhere. (Personally, I favor 'civil unions,' for gays and straights, as far as the law in concerned, but that's another issue...)
The same thing would probably happen with drugs; some states would vote to be like Amersterdam and some would vote to have a drug war; but the states which voted to be repressive would have to pay a lot of money for prisonrs and deal with more black-market related crime (as they do now), while the states which were more permissive would have more tax revenue, tourism, and fewer black-market related problems. The only places the drug war seems to be being repealed is in places with direct referendums; I live in a state where cannabis was recently decriminalized via referendum, and I bet it's going to be outright legalized in California this November.
So let's say people in a state voted for a 100% redistributionist system, so that there was no "incentive... for any individual to work or accomplish anything." Well, then there would be no income to distribute, right?
Even from a strictly redistributionist point of view, redistributionist taxes couldn't be raised beyond a certain point at which work becomes pointless and tax revenue collapses. My guess is that there probably would be some states which would vote to be very redistributionist, and some states which would try to have almost no taxation. I'd imagine states would have very different economic policies, which would make them a real-world laboratory for testing economic theories. The ones which worked best would presumably create the most jobs and attract the most newcomers over time. I think plenty of states have conservative electorates which would vote for minimal taxes, and there'd probably be less waste and more efficiency in the states which favored high taxes... I can't imainge special favors and kickbacks passing often via referendum, or when referendum can veto them.
I don't think every vote would turn out 'right' every time, but I do think it would be a self-correcting system over time.
Benjamin:Well, I think in an American context, ideally we'd be voting on these things mostly at a state level...
Benjamin:So freedom might require some geographic flexibility, but on the other hand, states which chose to discriminate would be the losers as capable citizens chose to live elsewhere.
Benjamin:I live in a state where cannabis was recently decriminalized via referendum, and I bet it's going to be outright legalized in California this November.
Benjamin:I don't think every vote would turn out 'right' every time, but I do think it would be a self-correcting system over time.
At the end of the day, democracy, like all forms of government, suffers the dysfunction of having one group be judge in its own case. Its a dumb idea and no one has ever agreed to it.
Those are pipe dreams Benjamin. We could call democratic republics a noble experiment, but it is an experiment which has failed. See On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution.
There's absolutely no justification for forbidding gay people to marry. Why should the voluntary actions of two individuals, which harms nobody else, be limited just because they live in the wrong geographic area?
What if people voted that this quadrant of people can only eat pork and beans, then the next steak and eggs, etc.? Statists cling to this irrational belief that the optimum way of organizing society is holding popularity contests to put people in power. Do you poll someone every few years to "represent" you at the grocery store?
It's pretty obvious to me he's just playing politics by saying he's pro-CRA1964. It seems to me that he realized, unfortunately, that people are currently too brainwashed into thinking people wouldn't voluntarily abandon their racist position. Not to mention that his father took a beating in the 80s thanks to his newsletters that got spun, so it seems like a smart move to make if he wants to be elected.
Not to mention that a large amount of his backing is from the "Tea party" folks, who also happen to looove Sarah Palin. He probably has to swindle through to continue getting their support.
Yes, he's being weasely, but I think he's probably closer to his father's positions(If not quite to the same degree) than he can let on right now.
We could call democratic republics a noble experiment, but it is an experiment which has failed.
Still going strong in Switerland... Where exactly is democracy failing on account of their being too much of it?
"There's absolutely no justification for forbidding gay people to marry."
No one is actually forbidding gay people to marry *anywhere* in the U.S., as far as I know. Gay people can get a religious leader or whatever to pronounce them married anywhere they like. They can call each other spouses, tell everyone else they are spouses, etc. That's marriage.
The only question is whether the state or their employer recognizes the marriage. Personally, I don't think the state should recognize any marriages; the state should recognize civil unions for tax and civil purposes, for everyone equally. This issue is so loaded because the state is intruding into a religious realm, and taking sides about who is "married," which for most people is a religious issue (who is married in the eyes of God[s[). So both sides want the state on the side of their theological position, which is really silly in my opinion.
"holding popularity contests to put people in power."
Well, as I said in several places, I'm not in favor of "representative" democracy; I think that's what's failed, if anything.
Imagine for a second that all we had to do to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was to convince 100,000 people to sign a petition asking for a vote on the Act, and then it would be put on the National ballot in November. No vetting hundreds of candidates in hundreds of local races, holding their feet to the fire, hoping they don't get bought out with campaign contributions or political favors; just 100,000 signatures and an up or down vote. If you don't win this year, you can try again next cycle.
How long do YOU think the Federal Reserve Act would have lasted if we had had national referendums along those lines ever since 1914?
Do you poll someone every few years to "represent" you at the grocery store?
The unionized employees who work there do, and they have a higher quality of life and work to show for it.
Lol, well I wish he'd decide to be a Republican full time then because he seems to think he's a libertarian sometimes too.
"Imagine for a second that all we had to do to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was to convince 100,000 people to sign a petition asking for a vote on the Act, and then it would be put on the National ballot in November."
This is closer to what's called "pure democracy" I think.
....for less time than the US has existed. I'm not saying that setting up some form of democracy leads to instant social disorder. It does, however, run counter to civilization. Read this.
For every "Switzerland" there is an Iran or a Zimbabwe.
Personally, I don't think the state should recognize any marriages; the state should recognize civil unions for tax and civil purposes, for everyone equally.
The political system you endorse contradicts your other supposed beliefs. Taxation just complicates things because that is unjustifiable too.
Imagine for a second that all we had to do to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was to convince 100,000 people to sign a petition asking for a vote on the Act, and then it would be put on the National ballot in November.
Imagine a genuinely free society. The Federal Reserve would have never even came about. Imagine if all it took was 51% to vote to raise taxes on the richest 1% and buy everyone a Mercedes. Certainly we would all be better off if we had this power right?
This has nothing to do with what I said (and unions reduce overall wages). Unionized grocery store employees don't hold elections to appoint someone to choose what groceries they buy. What you cannot do is prove a distinction between goods and services like justice and security, which supposedly must be handled by a ruling class, and mundane things like groceries and hair salons.
if Rand Paul is a facist...what are his opponents? even worse than a facist?
Can we add "allegiance to a foreign government" to the list of Rand Paul's attributes?
Summary; Rand Paul supports:
- foreign aid for Israel; elimination of foreign aid for countries Israel doesn't like
- free trade with Israel; trade sanctions on anyone Israel doesn't like (specifically Iran)
- an unconditional right of self-defense for Israel; no stated belief in a right to self defense for Palestinians, Lebanese, or anyone Israel doesn't like.
link:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25526.htm
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.
Copyright 2010, The American Spectator
You're a hypocrite for complaining about these things, when the same is true for the vast majority of Congress, and for supporting the type of system that puts those people in power.
" - foreign aid for Israel; elimination of foreign aid for countries Israel doesn't like
- an unconditional right of self-defense for Israel; no stated belief in a right to self defense for Palestinians, Lebanese, or anyone Israel doesn't like."
My man.
Benjamin: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. Makez me lol
Benjamin: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.
As Rand Paul aligns himself with anti-immigrant forces, father Ron Paul comes out in favor of DADT repeal
Republican Senate candidate and Tea Party hero Rand Paul says he opposes granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
In an interview with Russia Today, flagged by Jillian Rayfield at TalkingPointsMemo, Paul appeared to join the anti-immigrant sentiment running through his party in recent years, telling the news network that the practice of granting citizenship to all persons born on US soil -- as mandated by the 14th Amendment -- "should stop."
"We're the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen," Paul said.
On that point, it would appear Paul is misinformed. Dozens of countries around the world adhere to the principle of Jus soli, "right of soil," meaning citizenship based on a person's place of birth. Among the countries where persons are automatically granted citizenship by virtue of being born there are Australia, Canada, France and the UK.
Thus, a law proposed by Republican lawmakers last year that would end the right to citizenship by birth would be unconstitutional, constitutional lawyers say. Despite this, some 90 members of Congress have co-signed the bill, which is known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.
News that Paul has sided with anti-immigration hardliners in the GOP further stretches the credibility of those who claim that the GOP candidate for a Senate seat from Kentucky is a libertarian like his father, Rep. Ron Paul, Republican of Texas. Though immigration is a controversial issue among US libertarians, libertarianism has traditionally opposed any regulation of immigration and supported an open-borders policy.
In a recent interview, Paul disappointed many supporters of his father when he said, "I'm not a libertarian."
............................................................................................................................................................
First he comes out against the Civil Rights Act, now he comes out against the 14th Amendment! Maybe he really is a racist?
Amendment XIV (1868)
Like civil rights, this issue is a dead end. The 14th ammendment is not going anywhere, people are just wasting their time, make themselves look stupid.
^Paul didn't bring this up. He got asked about it in some minor interview, and rather debate him on real issues Maddow just accused him of being racist. This is not his platform. Its the democrats who are stuck in the stone ages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzoGgUOGB-w&feature=email
^
They are accusing Rand Paul of being racist for blah blah blah. I don't feel like explaining, but check out.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap