When Rand first announced his candidacy I was thrilled. My first thoughts were "wow we are going to have a Ron Paul clone in the Senate this is fantastic" sadly though over the last year my joy has turned to sorrow on this matter as more and more evidence has come out pinning Rand Paul as nothing but an opportunist snake in the grass, here is yet another piece of damning evidence.
_________________________________________________________________________________
One faction of the GOP that has remained particularly wary of Rand Paul's Senate candidacy are neoconservatives who are still angry about his father Ron Paul's criticism of Israel and his disdain for Bush-era military adventurism.
In the past, Rand has echoed his father's views, opposing the Iraq War, and from the neocon point of view, the Paul family's isolationism is as whacked out as anything hatched by the anti-war left.
Now, it turns out, Rand is looking to mend fences. He made a quiet pilgrimage and met privately with some of Washington's most influential neocons, as well as the pro-Israel lobby, delivering them a not-too-subtle message: Never mind my father's views, you guys can trust me now.
The episode is buried in Jason Zengerle's big new profile of Rand in GQ Magazine:
At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who'd been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. "He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic," Senor says of their two-hour encounter. "He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn't confrontational, and he wasn't disagreeable. He didn't seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode."
The following month, he met with officials from the powerful lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has frequently clashed with Ron Paul over what the group views as his insufficient support of Israel. Paul, according to one person familiar with the AIPAC meeting, "told them what they wanted to hear: 'I'm more reasonable than my father on the things you care about.' He was very solicitous."
But some neocons still remain highly wary of Rand. Michael Goldfarb, who still works closely with Kristol, tells me that Rand's summit with the neocons has "dampened some of the concern" but that neocons remain split over whether Rand can be trusted.
"While there was once pretty much universal hostility to Paul among neoconservatives, there's now a split, with some folks inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and others still convinced he's his father's son," Goldfarb says. "Those folks aren't likely to change their minds until he starts casting votes on national security and defense issues."
It's the latest chapter in Rand Paul's extreme makeover: From neo-isolationist to neocon in 60 seconds!
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Rand Paul Threatens GQ Magazine Over Expose
Source
Rand Paul's camp is firing back at GQ reporter Jason Zengerle and the magazine for a piece detailing the Kentucky Senate candidate's "kooky" behavior in college.
"We are investigating all our options - including legal ones," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Politico. "We will not tolerate drive-by journalism by a writer with a leftist agenda."
Zengerle, in a piece posted online Monday, described Paul's 2½ years at Baylor University. The Senate hopeful attended — but didn't graduate from — the Texas school before eventually attending medical school at Duke. Zengerle wrote that during Paul's tenure at Baylor, he "wasn't your typical Baylor student."
Indeed, Zengerle describes Paul's membership in the NoZe brotherhood, a secret society comprising more liberal students at the predominantly conservative Baptist university. The NoZe brotherhood was behind pranks and a satirical newspaper that wouldn't seem out of place at most universities.
But Zengerle also describes a troubling incident involving Paul that goes beyond typical campus jokes.
He quotes an anonymous woman who claims that Paul and one of Paul's fellow NoZe members blindfolded her, tied her up and put her in a car.
First, she says, Paul and the other man tried forcing her to take bong hits in his apartment. Next, they drove her to a creek and made her bow down to "Aqua Buddha" — supposedly their God. (Not surprisingly, she says Paul was smoking pot, too).
"They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic," she told GQ. "They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke."
GQ Editor-in-Chief Jim Nelson, in a statement, defended the piece against charges of "drive-by journalism."
"We've vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked Jason Zengerle's reporting on Rand Paul's college days, we stand by the story, and we gave the Paul campaign every opportunity to refute it," Nelson said. "We notice that they have not, in fact, refuted it."
It's not uncommon for politicians to shoot the messenger after an unflattering story. And media-bashing can go over well with voters, especially on the right.
After a rough May interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow over his controversial civil rights views, Paul said: "I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias."
So far, the Paul camp hasn't specified inaccuracies in the GQ piece. If it's factually correct, then there probably wouldn't be grounds for a suit. (A GQ spokeswoman told The Upshot that there had been no legal action as of early afternoon Tuesday Eastern time).
Benton did not immediately respond to The Upshot's request for comment on whether the campaign believes the piece is inaccurate and on what grounds they'd consider legal action.
Rand Paul's camp is firing back at GQ reporter Jason Zengerle and the magazine for a piece detailing the Kentucky Senate candidate's "kooky" behavior in college.
"We are investigating all our options - including legal ones," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Politico. "We will not tolerate drive-by journalism by a writer with a leftist agenda."
Zengerle, in a piece posted online Monday, described Paul's 2½ years at Baylor University. The Senate hopeful attended — but didn't graduate from — the Texas school before eventually attending medical school at Duke. Zengerle wrote that during Paul's tenure at Baylor, he "wasn't your typical Baylor student."
Indeed, Zengerle describes Paul's membership in the NoZe brotherhood, a secret society comprising more liberal students at the predominantly conservative Baptist university. The NoZe brotherhood was behind pranks and a satirical newspaper that wouldn't seem out of place at most universities.
But Zengerle also describes a troubling incident involving Paul that goes beyond typical campus jokes.
He quotes an anonymous woman who claims that Paul and one of Paul's fellow NoZe members blindfolded her, tied her up and put her in a car.
First, she says, Paul and the other man tried forcing her to take bong hits in his apartment. Next, they drove her to a creek and made her bow down to "Aqua Buddha" — supposedly their God. (Not surprisingly, she says Paul was smoking pot, too).
"They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic," she told GQ. "They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke."
GQ Editor-in-Chief Jim Nelson, in a statement, defended the piece against charges of "drive-by journalism."
"We've vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked Jason Zengerle's reporting on Rand Paul's college days, we stand by the story, and we gave the Paul campaign every opportunity to refute it," Nelson said. "We notice that they have not, in fact, refuted it."
It's not uncommon for politicians to shoot the messenger after an unflattering story. And media-bashing can go over well with voters, especially on the right.
After a rough May interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow over his controversial civil rights views, Paul said: "I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias."
So far, the Paul camp hasn't specified inaccuracies in the GQ piece. If it's factually correct, then there probably wouldn't be grounds for a suit. (A GQ spokeswoman told The Upshot that there had been no legal action as of early afternoon Tuesday Eastern time).
Benton did not immediately respond to The Upshot's request for comment on whether the campaign believes the piece is inaccurate and on what grounds they'd consider legal action.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Catch This Before It's Gone
Wow check this out before it's gone.
The video lambastes Trey Grayson for accepting donations from bailed out companies yet now that PAUL IS DOING THE SAME THING, they just remove the ad.
What a snake.
The video lambastes Trey Grayson for accepting donations from bailed out companies yet now that PAUL IS DOING THE SAME THING, they just remove the ad.
What a snake.
Neo-Con Rand Paul Takes The Bailout Money
As I wrote here a couple months ago, Dr. Rand Paul is a zionist neo con. I had enough doubts about his integrity that I dropped all support for him either monetarily or from this website. However with this news I truly am shocked that he would stoop this low.
I remember vividly how he attacked his opponent for taking donations from big corporations who had received bailout money,(click here) and rightly so. However once he secured the nomination he followed his former opponents footsteps and went to a $1,000 per plate dinner hosted by Mitch McConnell (huge neo con) and attended by many Senators who voted for the very bailouts Paul claims to be against.
___________________________________________________________________________
You can read the full story here.
Republican Rand Paul's opponent in the U.S. Senate race isn't the only one who thinks Paul compromised his stance against business as usual in Washington, D.C., by taking campaign cash at a high-dollar fund-raiser there last month.
It rankled some Republicans, too.
"I am deeply disappointed that he did that," said Warren Scoville of London, an attorney who served more than 20 years in various positions with the state Republican Party. "I voted for (Paul) because of where he was, and now he's not where he was."
Last year, with the primary election still months away, Paul pledged not to accept contributions from any senator who voted for a federal bailout of the banking industry.
That was in response to plans by Paul's main opponent, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, to attend a Washington fund-raiser hosted by Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and others who voted to shore up giant banks with taxpayer money.
Paul has been sharply critical of the bailout, citing it as a reason he got into the race.
After trouncing Grayson, however, Paul benefited from a $1,000-a-person fund-raiser June 24 in Washington hosted by McConnell and attended by senators who voted for the bailout.
Attorney General Jack Conway, Paul's Democratic opponent, said the move showed Paul had become part of the very thing he railed against in the primary, and Conway accused him of hypocrisy.
Paul's camp disagreed with Conway's assessment.
The GOP primary was a battle for the direction of the party, and Paul won it with his platform of requiring balanced budgets and complete opposition to bailouts, said his campaign manager, Jesse Benton.
"Dr. Paul accepts financial support from anyone who wants to support his ideas of limited government, term limits, balanced budgets and real reform but makes it clear to them that money will not influence his votes or positions," Benton said.
It's difficult this early in the general election to gauge how Paul's decision to get cozier with the establishment he criticized in the primary will affect voters Nov. 2.
David Roos, a retired minister in Murray who has been active in the Tea Party movement, said it didn't escape notice in his circle that Paul had, as he put it, "capitulated to the establishment."
Tea Party activists and others concerned about record federal deficits helped drive Paul's primary win.
Roos said he and others had hoped that Paul would remain independent of McConnell and that the Internet fund-raising prowess Paul showed in the primary would be enough to free him from taking money from the traditional political powerhouses.
But Roos said the incident isn't enough to drive conservative voters away from Paul. They don't see Conway as a viable alternative because he is more liberal, so the choice is to vote for Paul or stay home, he said.
And no one Roos knows is mad enough about the fund-raiser to stay home, he said.
"Most of us will support him in spite of that. We'll take 80 percent of a loaf rather than none," Roos said. "We'll probably have to hold our noses."
Still, others said Paul's warming to McConnell and the GOP establishment probably will cost him some votes.
Scoville said he probably won't vote for Paul in November. The effort to raise money with McConnell raises questions about whether Paul will change his stance on other issues, Scoville said.
"I don't trust Rand Paul anymore," he said.
Others, however, argued that Paul has not turned his back on his principles, but rather is doing what is necessary to win so he can put those principles to work in office.
Republican state Sens. Tom Jensen, of London and Robert Stivers of Manchester said the fund-raising event won't cost Paul any support.
"Running for the United States Senate is the big leagues," Jensen said. "He's not changing his principles to get the money."
If you want to join a game, you play by the existing rules, said Aaron Witten of Grayson County, a regional coordinator for Paul.
"That doesn't mean that once you get into the game, you can't try to change the system for the better," Witten said. "He's just playing the very few parts of the game that he has to to get in."
If Paul thought he could win without McConnell's fund-raising, he probably would, but he will need that help against Conway, who is wealthy enough to give his campaign a big financial boost, Witten said.
Others took a similar pragmatic view.
Richard Collinsworth, a retired insurance agent in Owensboro who has been active in the Tea Party movement, said he has some concerns about McConnell, but it doesn't bother him that Paul is getting closer to the Senate minority leader.
"I see that Paul needs the Republican Party just like the Republican Party needs Paul," Collinsworth said. "If he doesn't get elected he's not going to help anybody."
I feel confidant that I have made the right decision in dropping support for someone like Rand Paul.
I remember vividly how he attacked his opponent for taking donations from big corporations who had received bailout money,(click here) and rightly so. However once he secured the nomination he followed his former opponents footsteps and went to a $1,000 per plate dinner hosted by Mitch McConnell (huge neo con) and attended by many Senators who voted for the very bailouts Paul claims to be against.
___________________________________________________________________________
You can read the full story here.
Republican Rand Paul's opponent in the U.S. Senate race isn't the only one who thinks Paul compromised his stance against business as usual in Washington, D.C., by taking campaign cash at a high-dollar fund-raiser there last month.
It rankled some Republicans, too.
"I am deeply disappointed that he did that," said Warren Scoville of London, an attorney who served more than 20 years in various positions with the state Republican Party. "I voted for (Paul) because of where he was, and now he's not where he was."
Last year, with the primary election still months away, Paul pledged not to accept contributions from any senator who voted for a federal bailout of the banking industry.
That was in response to plans by Paul's main opponent, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, to attend a Washington fund-raiser hosted by Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and others who voted to shore up giant banks with taxpayer money.
Paul has been sharply critical of the bailout, citing it as a reason he got into the race.
After trouncing Grayson, however, Paul benefited from a $1,000-a-person fund-raiser June 24 in Washington hosted by McConnell and attended by senators who voted for the bailout.
Attorney General Jack Conway, Paul's Democratic opponent, said the move showed Paul had become part of the very thing he railed against in the primary, and Conway accused him of hypocrisy.
Paul's camp disagreed with Conway's assessment.
The GOP primary was a battle for the direction of the party, and Paul won it with his platform of requiring balanced budgets and complete opposition to bailouts, said his campaign manager, Jesse Benton.
"Dr. Paul accepts financial support from anyone who wants to support his ideas of limited government, term limits, balanced budgets and real reform but makes it clear to them that money will not influence his votes or positions," Benton said.
It's difficult this early in the general election to gauge how Paul's decision to get cozier with the establishment he criticized in the primary will affect voters Nov. 2.
David Roos, a retired minister in Murray who has been active in the Tea Party movement, said it didn't escape notice in his circle that Paul had, as he put it, "capitulated to the establishment."
Tea Party activists and others concerned about record federal deficits helped drive Paul's primary win.
Roos said he and others had hoped that Paul would remain independent of McConnell and that the Internet fund-raising prowess Paul showed in the primary would be enough to free him from taking money from the traditional political powerhouses.
But Roos said the incident isn't enough to drive conservative voters away from Paul. They don't see Conway as a viable alternative because he is more liberal, so the choice is to vote for Paul or stay home, he said.
And no one Roos knows is mad enough about the fund-raiser to stay home, he said.
"Most of us will support him in spite of that. We'll take 80 percent of a loaf rather than none," Roos said. "We'll probably have to hold our noses."
Still, others said Paul's warming to McConnell and the GOP establishment probably will cost him some votes.
Scoville said he probably won't vote for Paul in November. The effort to raise money with McConnell raises questions about whether Paul will change his stance on other issues, Scoville said.
"I don't trust Rand Paul anymore," he said.
Others, however, argued that Paul has not turned his back on his principles, but rather is doing what is necessary to win so he can put those principles to work in office.
Republican state Sens. Tom Jensen, of London and Robert Stivers of Manchester said the fund-raising event won't cost Paul any support.
"Running for the United States Senate is the big leagues," Jensen said. "He's not changing his principles to get the money."
If you want to join a game, you play by the existing rules, said Aaron Witten of Grayson County, a regional coordinator for Paul.
"That doesn't mean that once you get into the game, you can't try to change the system for the better," Witten said. "He's just playing the very few parts of the game that he has to to get in."
If Paul thought he could win without McConnell's fund-raising, he probably would, but he will need that help against Conway, who is wealthy enough to give his campaign a big financial boost, Witten said.
Others took a similar pragmatic view.
Richard Collinsworth, a retired insurance agent in Owensboro who has been active in the Tea Party movement, said he has some concerns about McConnell, but it doesn't bother him that Paul is getting closer to the Senate minority leader.
"I see that Paul needs the Republican Party just like the Republican Party needs Paul," Collinsworth said. "If he doesn't get elected he's not going to help anybody."
I feel confidant that I have made the right decision in dropping support for someone like Rand Paul.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Rand Paul IS A Zionist Neo Con
As I wrote earlier in the month I have cut my support for Rand Paul 100% since it came to my attention that he was a zionist who supports the terror state of israel. Now there is even more proof straight from the horses mouth.
Source
I've obtained a document that the Rand Paul campaign is circulating to those interested in his views on Israel, and it's interesting to see how the positions he's taking as a Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky differ from those adopted by his father, Rep. Ron Paul, a harsh critic of U.S.-Israel ties.
"Israel and the United States have a special relationship," Rand's position paper begins. "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."
Rand goes on to support free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and "strongly object to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration" toward the peace process. "Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations," he asserts.
In one clear departure from his father, Rand states that:
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.
By contrast, when Israel retaliated against Hamas in Gaza to stop rockets from being fired toward Israeli civilians, his father rushed to condemn Israel. In a YouTube video, Ron Paul called it a "pretty sad day for the whole world" that he said reflected the spread of the idea of preemtive war. He went further, by saying the fact that the United States provides aid to Israel and did nothing to try and stop the military action made the U.S. complicit. He said the action would "antagonize" the Arab-Muslim world and warned that "we’ll suffer the consequences."
Continued U.S. support for Israel is part of Ron Paul's broader view of foreign policy and the concept of "blowback." Rand Paul focuses his statement on condemning foreign aid to enemies of Israel, saying that, "In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel." But he doesn't address the issue of aid to Israel itself.
You can read the full statement after the jump.
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.
Source
I've obtained a document that the Rand Paul campaign is circulating to those interested in his views on Israel, and it's interesting to see how the positions he's taking as a Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky differ from those adopted by his father, Rep. Ron Paul, a harsh critic of U.S.-Israel ties.
"Israel and the United States have a special relationship," Rand's position paper begins. "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."
Rand goes on to support free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and "strongly object to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration" toward the peace process. "Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations," he asserts.
In one clear departure from his father, Rand states that:
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.
By contrast, when Israel retaliated against Hamas in Gaza to stop rockets from being fired toward Israeli civilians, his father rushed to condemn Israel. In a YouTube video, Ron Paul called it a "pretty sad day for the whole world" that he said reflected the spread of the idea of preemtive war. He went further, by saying the fact that the United States provides aid to Israel and did nothing to try and stop the military action made the U.S. complicit. He said the action would "antagonize" the Arab-Muslim world and warned that "we’ll suffer the consequences."
Continued U.S. support for Israel is part of Ron Paul's broader view of foreign policy and the concept of "blowback." Rand Paul focuses his statement on condemning foreign aid to enemies of Israel, saying that, "In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel." But he doesn't address the issue of aid to Israel itself.
You can read the full statement after the jump.
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.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Dr. Rand Paul Supports Israel
I have considered writing about this for quite some time but have abstained. Now though with the last email I received from Dr. Paul's campaign I can't hold back.
As I wrote back in December 2009 the other "libertarian" who would like to shake up Washington, Peter Schiff, has as far as I'm concerned, shown his true neo con zionist roots and no longer receives my support in any form or fashion.
The following is a letter I received from Dr. Rand Paul's campaign.
“Well, hello everyone. This is Dr. James Dobson, speaking as a private individual.”
“Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake? I did just that last week. I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent.”
“But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYN’s in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
“I now know that he is avidly pro life. He believes that life begins at conception.”
“He opposes earmarking and supports Israel. He identifies with the Tea Party movement and believes in home schooling. Sounds like my kind of man.”
“If I lived in Kentucky, I would vote for Dr. Rand Paul. Would you consider sending him to the U.S. Senate to shake things up in Washington?”
Anyone who has any knowledge of the atrocities committed by the state of israel will have serious problems with Dobson's claim that Dr. Paul "supports israel" I recommend a fantastic documentary on the subject which can be found here it's called Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land.
The film is certainly not the sole source of information regarding the terror state but it is a good starting place.
Needless to say any politician who "supports israel" I am against 100%. We send israel around 30 billion dollars per year, not to mention fight wars for them according to Congressman Jim Traficant. I do not believe the governments version of 9/11 but even if you do there is no question whatsoever that we are loathed in the middle east for the SOLE REASON that we support israel in it's horrific genocide of the Palestinian people.
In good conscience I can no longer support Dr. Rand Paul's campaign financially or through this blog.
As a side note I find it interesting that Dobson claims Paul opposes earmarking which his father correctly points out are the only way to allocate funds to your district. In short congress votes on a mammoth budget, but if you do not earmark where the money goes undoubtedly it only goes to the well connected in secret. So by earmarking you can see any money trail. It is also of importance that Dr. Paul ends up voting against the budget anyway.
As I wrote back in December 2009 the other "libertarian" who would like to shake up Washington, Peter Schiff, has as far as I'm concerned, shown his true neo con zionist roots and no longer receives my support in any form or fashion.
The following is a letter I received from Dr. Rand Paul's campaign.
“Well, hello everyone. This is Dr. James Dobson, speaking as a private individual.”
“Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake? I did just that last week. I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent.”
“But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYN’s in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
“I now know that he is avidly pro life. He believes that life begins at conception.”
“He opposes earmarking and supports Israel. He identifies with the Tea Party movement and believes in home schooling. Sounds like my kind of man.”
“If I lived in Kentucky, I would vote for Dr. Rand Paul. Would you consider sending him to the U.S. Senate to shake things up in Washington?”
Anyone who has any knowledge of the atrocities committed by the state of israel will have serious problems with Dobson's claim that Dr. Paul "supports israel" I recommend a fantastic documentary on the subject which can be found here it's called Peace Propaganda and the Promised Land.
The film is certainly not the sole source of information regarding the terror state but it is a good starting place.
Needless to say any politician who "supports israel" I am against 100%. We send israel around 30 billion dollars per year, not to mention fight wars for them according to Congressman Jim Traficant. I do not believe the governments version of 9/11 but even if you do there is no question whatsoever that we are loathed in the middle east for the SOLE REASON that we support israel in it's horrific genocide of the Palestinian people.
In good conscience I can no longer support Dr. Rand Paul's campaign financially or through this blog.
As a side note I find it interesting that Dobson claims Paul opposes earmarking which his father correctly points out are the only way to allocate funds to your district. In short congress votes on a mammoth budget, but if you do not earmark where the money goes undoubtedly it only goes to the well connected in secret. So by earmarking you can see any money trail. It is also of importance that Dr. Paul ends up voting against the budget anyway.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Rand Paul Money Bomb Dec. 16th 2009
Sign Up Here
On December 16th, 1773, American colonists dumped tea into the Boston Harbor to protest an oppressive tax. This December 16th, American citizens will dump thousands of contributions into the Rand Paul senatorial campaign to protest the unprecedented expansion in the size and scope of the federal government.
The Boston Tea Party helped ignite the American Revolution 236 years ago. The founding fathers established a Constitutional Republic, a system of limited government which allowed freedom and prosperity to flourish for generations. Unfortunately, today's so-called representatives have lost sight of the vision of the founders and have brought us unconstitutional programs that do great damage to our liberties. Now is our chance to reignite the spirit of freedom that once changed America forever.
Please join us this December 16th 2009 for Rand Paul's largest one-day donation event. America needs 5,000 patriots to commemorate the original Boston Tea Party, by pledging to contribute $100 (or whatever you can afford) to the campaign of Rand Paul,
and on that day -- donating at his website, randpaul2010.com.
Help Make American History Again!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Rand Paul Leads The Fundraising In Kentucky
Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the GOP establishment favorite in the state’s Senate race, lagged well behind his primary opponent Rand Paul in third quarter fundraising.
Grayson announced he raised only $642,800, despite getting fundraising support from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and NRSC chairman John Cornyn during the quarter. Grayson ended September with $1.18 million cash-on-hand.
His third quarter total was dwarfed by Paul, who raised over $1 million, much of it coming from online donors supportive of his father’s libertarian presidential campaign. Paul has banked $912,000 in his campaign account.
Paul’s significant fundraising advantage – combined with polling showing him within striking distance of Grayson – indicates that the Republican nomination is truly up for grabs, even though national Republicans are behind Grayson’s campaign.
Grayson announced he raised only $642,800, despite getting fundraising support from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and NRSC chairman John Cornyn during the quarter. Grayson ended September with $1.18 million cash-on-hand.
His third quarter total was dwarfed by Paul, who raised over $1 million, much of it coming from online donors supportive of his father’s libertarian presidential campaign. Paul has banked $912,000 in his campaign account.
Paul’s significant fundraising advantage – combined with polling showing him within striking distance of Grayson – indicates that the Republican nomination is truly up for grabs, even though national Republicans are behind Grayson’s campaign.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Track The Rand Paul Money Bomb
http://randpaulgraphs.com/
In case you haven't heard today is the Rand Paul money bomb. More information can be found here.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Rand Paul Money Bomb
Join in the fight and help Rand Paul deliver a knock out punch to establishment candidate Trey Grayson with a pledge to donate $100 on the same date!
Read about the DC establishment's fundraiser for one of their own here.
Our grassroots goal is to bring together 5,000 common people to donate $100 each creating a one day donation total of $500,000!
Here is an interview with Rand on Morning Joe.
Here is Rand Paul's campaign website.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/
Sunday, July 12, 2009
3 Exciting Candidates
During such troubling times as we currently find ourselves in, when Marxism is gaining ground at an unprecedented and unchecked pace, it is important to look for the positives. Although admittedly in my eyes they are few and far between, we still have to rally around them. The following three candidates for Congress are all great men with years of dedicated service to the preservation of the Constitution. If you are looking for a way to rescue our nation from the grip of communism please support these candidates. In no particular order they are
Dr. Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Adam Kokesh
Dr. Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Adam Kokesh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)