Tag: Rand Paul

Ron Trolling Rand

People within liberty circles have been talking about Rand Paul’s potential presidential run. Those of us who still have our sight and hearing intact view his potential run as irrelevant because we recognize Rand for the neocon he is. But many others believe the son mirrors the father and therefore stupidly cheer for the possibility of caucusing for Rand. Like many members within the liberty circles, there are a lot of neocons who mistakenly believe that Rand is just like Ron. When Ron says fun statements it makes the neocons more skittish about Rand. Thankfully Ron seems to be more than willing to troll his son:

“A lot of times people think secession, they paint it as an absolute negative,” said former representative Ron Paul (R-Tex.). After all, Paul said, the American Revolution was a kind of secession. “You mean we should have been obedient to the king forever? So it’s all in the way you look at it.”

This weekend was a crucial one for Rand Paul, the Republican senator from Kentucky and un­declared candidate for the presidency. He was in California, trying to line up donors at an opulent retreat organized by the billionaire Koch brothers.

At the same time, his father — retired after 12 terms in Congress and three presidential runs — was in the ballroom of an airport hotel here, the final speaker at “a one-day seminar in breaking away from the central state.” He followed a series of speakers who said that the U.S. economy and political establishment were tottering and that the best response might be for states, counties or even individuals to break away.

Hear hear! Secession of the individual is what I’m all about. Now that Ron’s out of politics he also seems to be more willing to discussion radical ideas such as individuals seceding from the state. But this talk could cause headaches for Rand since the neocons will believe that he also supports individuals seceding from the state. And if there’s one thing neocons can’t stand it’s individual liberty.

I don’t give a damn about Rand’s potential presidential run but I look forward to the drama if he chooses to. There is the obvious family drama, which really kicked off when Rand endorsed Mitt Romney over his own goddamn father. But the real juicy drama will be within liberty circles as the more gullible caucus for Rand while the rest of us tell them it’s a big mistake. After Rand either gets railroaded at the Republican National Convention just like his father or wins the presidency and does nothing to advance liberty those who refused to support him will take a few victory laps around the track as we laugh our asses off.

If You Want Limited Government You’re Not Getting it By Voting

November 4th is almost here (and almost over, thank the gods; I can’t wait until people are being nicer to one another again), which means the political rhetoric is in high gear and most people deeply involved in politics are being insufferable dicks to anybody who isn’t going to vote their way.

Since this isn’t a presidential election few people really give a damn. But there is one group of people who care very much, the small group of presidential hopefuls. These scumbag politicians are spewing some of the dumbest rhetoric out there in the hopes of drumming up a base of gullible suckers who will work furiously, for free, on their campaigns. Elizabeth Warren already beat on the rhetoric drum when she claimed that the Republicans are responsible for everything bad in this country. So it’s time for a Republicans to claim that the Democrats are responsible for all of this country’s ills. Who better to spew such rhetoric than Rand Paul:

Our Founder’s would be ashamed at what our government has become. Micromanaging the daily lives of citizens is not the duty of government. But the GOP is taking a stand—we are saying enough is enough.

It is the Republican party that is trying to limit government power and this is an ideal that all libertarians firmly believe in and support. If we want to protect our civil liberties, we must come together. And it’s no secret that the Republican party desperately need libertarian support.

This is what Rand has reduced himself to, being a mindless party shill in the hopes he will be given a chance at the presidency (he won’t). But it’s amazing how much cognitive dissonance this man maintains. The Republican Party, according to his article, will protect our civil liberties. I must have missed the asterisk that indicates your civil liberties won’t be protected if they involve wanting to marry somebody of the same gender, transition genders, smoke cannabis, avoid being spied on by the government, keep your assets from being randomly seized by police officers, stop this “tough on crime” bullshit this has made this country a total police state, freely cross the imaginary line between the United States and Mexico, go through the airport without being sexually molested, or practice the Muslim faith without being labeled at terrorist. Basically if the civil liberties you want to enjoy fall without a very small subset then the Republican Party may throw you bone if you beg really hard.

You’re not going to vote yourself a limited government. In fact a limited government is a pipe dream. Once a group of individuals has the power to declare what is legal and illegal and has the capacity for violence to beat down or kill anybody who disagrees the idea of limited control is thrown out the window. The only limitation you may enjoy are the ones approved by the state. As we have seen in this country every politicians is interested in curtailing your liberties. Some of them want to curtail one subset while others want to curtail another subset. In the end both subsets get restricted because both groups of politicians manage to wield some of the state’s power.

If you want limited government voting Republican isn’t going to get it. In fact it won’t even slow down the state’s grabbing for power. Republicans want to restrict your liberties just as much as Democrats. That’s why voting isn’t going to deliver the goods. The only candidates that have a shot of winning (because the Republican and Democrats used their duopoly to lockout other parties for all intents and purposes) want to expand the state’s powers.

Anyways I will try to avoid wasting your time with too many political articles between now and November 4th and focus on things that actually matter.

Selling Rand Paul

Mondays are rough for blogging. The new cycle hasn’t ramped up to the weekly top speed so we’re left scraping the bottom of the barrel. In my quest to give you guys some content to read I’ve decided to go for the low hanging fruit of politics. Specifically the popular (in libertarian circles) political topic of Rand Paul.

Something has been bugging me about Rand’s supporters that I couldn’t quite figure out until now. Whenever Rand’s name is mentioned on a libertarian discussion board a handful of people always try to sell him. Any seemingly poor decision (poor in regards to libertarianism) made by Rand is justified as him needing to play the political game in order to generate neocon support that is necessary to win the presidency. When somebody expressed ideological differences with Rand one of his supporters invariably shows up to talk about how libertarians, whether aligned with Rand or not, must support Rand because he’s the only small government option on the board (it’s rather ironic that so-called libertarians feel that it’s appropriate to tell other people what they must do).

And this is what bugs me about Rand Paul’s supporters. In my experience if a politician has to be sold to an ideological group than that politician doesn’t support that group’s ideology.

In fact Rand’s supporters remind me of a sleazy used car salesman in a way. They approach you when you’re browsing their lot and point out a few cars that will supposedly fit you well. Listening to the salesman would lead you to believe that every car you’ve looked at is in excellent mechanical condition even if the body looks a little banged up. You’ll also be lead to believe that the previous owner (of which he assures you there was only one) was very strict about performing scheduled maintenance and drove like an old man. But when you run a CARFAX report you find that the vehicle was actually rebuilt after being totaled out due to an accident with a semi that pushed it into a river.

Like the used car salesman above, Rand’s supporters are being deceptive in the hopes of selling him to libertarians. The only part about this entire exercise that I don’t understand is why. Libertarians, unfortunately, make up a small percentage of Americans. A presidential candidate can easily win without their support. So why are Rand’s supporters investing so much time in trying to sell him? My guess is self-reassurance. If they can convince a majority of other libertarians that Rand Paul is in fact a super secret libertarian then his libertarian supporters can sleep well at night convinced that they are supporting a candidate who reflects their ideology. Either that or they’re just trolling the libertarian community, which would be hilarious.

Shot Down in Flames

Rand Paul has obvious aspirations of the presidency (everybody has dreams, some dreams are just stupid). Anybody who has researched presidential politics knows that becoming president requires one to kneel down and perform fellatio on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). For those of you who don’t know the AIPAC labels itself as America’s biggest Jewish lobby. In reality the group is America’s biggest pro-zionist lobby and not all Jews are zionists. But the point is you must appease the AIPAC to stand a realistic chance of attaining the presidency.

So Rand Paul decided to demonstrate his loyalty to it by presenting the Stand With Israel Act of 2014:

Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Stand with Israel Act of 2014. This legislation halts all U.S. aid to the Palestinian government until they agree to a ceasefire and recognize the right of Israel to exist. The bill, S. 2265, can be found HERE and below:

“Today, I introduced legislation to make all future aid to the Palestinian government conditional upon the new unity government putting itself on the record recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and agreeing to a lasting peace.”

Too bad for Rand but the AIPAC is having none of his shit:

While the legislation is expected to garner widespread backing in Congress, AIPAC is quietly expressing reservations about it, according to those familiar with the group’s position.

“We are not supporting the Paul bill,” said one AIPAC insider. “We believe the law currently on the books is strong and ensures that aid is contingent on key conditions that help maintain America’s influence, keep Israel secure, and advance the peace process.”

“I want to be very clear, AIPAC supports a cut off of aid to any Palestinian government that includes an unreformed Hamas, and this is what is provided for in current law,” the AIPAC insider said.

In other words it’s not fucking stupid. The United States already has a policy of not providing funding [PDF] to any organization in Palestine that could possibly be against Israel. You can’t buy off one of the most politically powerful lobbies in the United States by simply making something that is currently against policy more against policy.

I could point out how Rand Paul’s attempt at picking sides in a foreign conflict isn’t a libertarian thing to do. But commenters over at The Daily Paul reminded me Rand Paul’s “liberty” supporters will perform fantastic feats of mental gymnastics to explain away any of Rand’s anti-libertarian actions as part of his super secret plan to bring libertarianism to America. If that’s what Rand’s supporters want to believe so be it. But one thing is certain, if Rand doesn’t figure out how to play the game better he’s never even going to become president.

Individualists Must Act as a Collective and Other Political Inconsistencies

Libertarianism, at least here in the United States, is a strongly individualist philosophy. The core of libertarianism is built on the idea that we are each individuals who interact with one another. But according to libertarianism each individual has their own dreams, hopes, and aspirations that they are uniquely qualified to fulfill. Collectivism is the opposite point of view that see individuals as mere components in the real idea of importance: society. Where libertarianism asks what is best for the individual collectivism asks what is best for society. Which one is correct? I side with individualism but that doesn’t mean you have to. However if you subscribe to an ideology I feel that it’s important to be consistent.

Consistency is a problem many libertarians have when it comes to politics. One of the heated debates raging in libertarian circles at the moment is whether or not Rand Paul is good enough to deserve the support of libertarianism. This debate has lead to some real ideological inconsistencies such as this one:

Libertarians need a similar model to help decide which candidates they can support and which they can’t. Without these distinctions, it’s all too easy to reject a candidate who is wrong about an opinion-level issue even though he’s awesome on all “dogma” issues. Or libertarians might support a candidate who got a 90% on simple purity tests—but the 10% he got wrong was a “dogma” vital to liberty.

Concentric circles of politics give us a more dynamic rubric to help libertarians make logical, consistent voting choices without letting media spin, or—I’m gonna say it—the emotional fact that a candidate isn’t his dad get in the way.

So for libertarians who haven’t ordered their political opinions in a concentric circles model, your reason for hating Rand Paul pretty much (logically) sucks.

Libertarians as a whole need a model to decide which candidates they can support and which they can’t? That sentence screams of collectivism, which is ideologically opposed to libertarianism (at least as defined in the United States). Instead of demanding all libertarians adopt the same model for deciding politicians anybody who claims to be a libertarian should defer to each individual.

Who can decide whether or not Rand Paul is a candidate worth supporting? You can. In fact only you can. Based on my beliefs I cannot support Rand Paul. That doesn’t mean you can’t. We are all individuals and must choose our own paths based on our own beliefs.

Political battles are won by getting enough people to agree with your opinion, which makes politics necessarily collectivist (which is probably why socialist ideologies fare better in politics than libertarian ideologies). As an individualist I have found myself unable to remain ideologically consistent while participating in politics. That is part of the reason I have chosen to route of agorism instead.

There are a lot of libertarians who claim that “we” need to stand behind Rand Paul even if we don’t agree with him in order to win politically. Any victory that requires me to go against my most valued beliefs is no victory. Demanding that I do so and arguing that any reasons I have for not doing so are stupid is also a claim that you know better than I do, which you don’t because you’re not me. Claiming that you know what is best for me is, in my opinion, ideologically inconsistent with libertarianism. Therefore I find demands by so-called libertarians that “we” support Rand Paul to be doubly inconsistent with libertarianism itself as it relies on political strategy and requires the person making that demand to believe he knows what is best for everybody else.

Rand Paul Once Again Demonstrates His Love of Authoritarianism

It’s time again for me to take a swing at my favorite political punching bag, Rand Paul. This time it is in regards to a statement he made about Edward Snowden, the man who gave up his cushy job with a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor to enlighten us all on the widespread surveillance state we live under:

During an interview with Eric Bolling on Fox News last week, Sen. Paul was asked to respond to the video of director Clapper lying about the collection of data in March 2013 – before Snowden’s leaks. Paul told Bolling it’s ironic that the same legislators and pundits calling for Snowden’s imprisonment are turning a blind eye to Clapper’s committed felony in Congress. Disagreeing with the illustration Paul created, the Senator said he wants the law applied equally: both to Snowden for leaking and to Clapper for lying.

[…]

Along with Stephanopoulos’s question of clemency, the ABC pundit wanted Senator Paul to touch on his comments to Fox News’s Bolling, regarding a prison cell for Snowden. Paul told ABC’s “This Week” that the reasoning behind his statement was to convey a point of equality under the law, pointing out that Snowden and Clapper broke laws and that neither the pro-NSA or anti-NSA sides should throw a blind eye to broken laws.

Emphasis mine. This really irritates me for a couple of reasons. First, a precedence of jailing somebody who revealed criminal activity would decrease the likelihood of another person coming forward in the future. When agencies or corporations are engaging in criminal activity that information should be made public. Unless that information is made public it is too easy to cover up the evidence and sweep the story underneath the rug. This is especially true when oligarchs, such as government officials, are on the take. Based on the stories that have come to light about the activities of the NSA; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Department of Justice (DoJ) I don’t believe it is unreasonable to think anybody who used “proper channels” in an attempt to reveal criminal activity would find themselves in a cage or ditch.

Second, what Edward Snowden did was the right thing. Punishing Snowden for leaking those documents would be no different than punishing an armed person who stopped a school shooting. Yes, entering a school with a firearm is illegal but if it is done to stop somebody who is attempting to murder students and faculty then the violation of “gun-free” zone laws should be ignored. Likewise, any laws Snowden violated by leaking those documents should be ignored. More often than not the law stands between a good person and the right thing. When this happens the obstructing laws shouldn’t be enforced.

Rand Paul attracts support from both the neoconservative and libertarian sides of the aisle. The neoconservatives, rightly so, see a politician who is willing to talk the talk without walking the walk. Libertarian supporters of Rand Paul believe a rather absurd conspiracy theory. They believe that, upon being elected to the presidency, Rand Paul will turn away from his neoconservative nature and reign freedom and liberty upon this country. If somebody can show me a single instance of such a change occurring in a politician while he was in office I make consider that conspiracy theory a bit more than a theory. But as far as I’m aware such a change of heart has never occurred.

Rand Paul is the Master of Political Grandstanding

Now that it’s been proven that the National Security Agency (NSA) is spying on the American people it’s time for Rand Paul to take the stage and perform some political grandstanding. Low and behold, as if on queue, he has come forward with a piece of legislation that he claims will restore Fourth Amendment protections:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today announced he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013, which ensures the Constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment are not violated by any government entity.

“The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive’s expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party,” Sen. Paul said. “When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American’s constitutional rights.

Let me get this straight. The federal government violated the Fourth Amendment by spying on the American people and Rand solution is to make that act more illegal? I’m sure the NSA will stop spying on us when it becomes doubleplusillegal! Hell, making spying illegaler will work better than repealing the PATRIOT Act or FISA!

This legislation is likely to be a worthless as his legislation to protect Americans from being executed by drones, which included an exception so vague that it could be applied to anybody.

Rand is turning out to be a master of exploiting crises for political gain and that fact should worry everybody.

Where’s Your Messiah Now

To the people who believe Rand Paul will deliver this country from the so-called progressives I have only one question, where is your messiah now:

At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.

[…]

In an interview a day before his Iowa trip, Paul, 50, also tried to make clear just what kind of politician he is. “To some, ‘libertarian’ scares people,” he said. “Some of them come up to me and they say, ‘I kind of like you, but I don’t like legalizing heroin.’ And I say, ‘Well, that’s not my position.’ ”

Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.

If Rand Paul is your plan B for delivering this country from tyranny then it’s time to start working on your plan C. The man is a politician who prioritizes power over principle. He doesn’t want to deliver this country from tyranny he merely wants to be in charge of the tyranny.

Rand Paul’s Apparently Flip-Flop on Domestic Drone Usage

Libertarian sites are expressing shock from the supposed savior’s change in attitude regarding domestic drone usage. Last month Rand Paul performed a 13 hour filibuster against domestic drone usage but yesterday he had an apparent change of heart:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he would have supported police using drones in last week’s hunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing.

“If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them,” Paul told Fox Business Network.

[…]

Paul said that the question of an “imminent threat” was the pivotal one when considering drone policy.

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

I said an apparent change of heart because the sentiment expressed above isn’t actually a change in heart. Last year Mr. Paul introduced legislation that he claimed protected Americans from being killed by drones. I noted that there was a major hole in the legislation that effectively rendered it useless:

Sounds good so far, right? Let’s have a look at the exceptions mentioned in the above paragraph:

(1) PATROL OF BORDERS- The use of a drone to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal entry of any persons or illegal substances.

So drones will continue to be used to monitor the 100 miles “Constitution free zone” that 2/3 of the United States population lives within? It appears as though Rand Paul’s bill only protects 1/3 of the population from these unwarranted drone uses. That appearance is deceiving though as there are more exceptions:

(2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary.

There it is, the one exception that makes this entire bill meaningless. Law enforcement don’t need a warrant to use a drone if they have “reasonable suspicion” that circumstances are such that imminent danger to life exists. “Reasonable suspicion” is another way of saying “because law enforcement wants to.” It’s a catchall phrase that has been used by law enforcement agents to avoid that pesky Forth Amendment.

If his legislation was any indicator Rand Paul has always been fine with using drones to kill Americans so long as the state’ arbitrary “terrorist” label is applied to the target beforehand. Everybody can stop being surprised now. Rand Paul isn’t being inconsistent, he’s always been find with killing Americans with drones.

Rand Paul isn’t a Libertarian

The hardest part about identifying as a libertarian is how poorly the general population understands the term. Here in the United States the term is generally applied to any self-declared conservative or Republican that pays lip service to small government, civil liberties, and the need for being fiscally conservative. Unfortunately the core of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, is almost unknown outside of libertarian circles. This is why a man like Rand Paul gets called a libertarian:

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), libertarians hope to become a dominant wing of the GOP by tapping into a potent mix of war weariness, economic anxiety and frustration with federal overreach in the fifth year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

I fail to see how a man who voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the amendment to the NDAA that placed additional sanctions on Iran, provided funding for a neoconservative that stated women rarely become pregnant from rape and wants to based policies on said statement, introduced meaningless drone legislation, and endorsed Mitt Romney is going to lead libertarianism in any way. Heck, Rand Paul doesn’t even consider himself a libertarian:

“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian,” Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

Unlike his father, Rand isn’t a libertarian and we would all do well to stop referring to him as such.