Category Archives: Rand Paul

Chuck Baldwin Endorses Rand Paul

Baldwin has been saying some positive things about Trump, so this comes as a bit of a surprise. I respect Baldwin, so I’ll pass this on. I think the mistake he makes is in prioritizing the police state issues ahead of the immigration issue. This is from his Facebook page:

Faithful readers of this post know that I have previously provided objective commentary–complete with pluses and minuses–on most of the Republican presidential candidates. They also know that I have spoken quite positively about Donald Trump. But heretofore I have endorsed no one. Until now.

First, I believe the biggest threats to liberty we face have NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. We have far more to fear from those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and from the international bankers at the Federal Reserve than any radical Muslim. Hence, all of the fearmongering about Muslim jihad and Sharia Law in America only plays into the hands of the globalists who are orchestrating all of this madness.

Second, I am absolutely convinced that the greatest threats to our liberty are, 1) The neocon wars of aggression around the world–especially in the Middle East, 2) A burgeoning Police State here in the United States.

I have now had plenty of time to examine the candidates regarding his or her commitment to defeating these two great threats to our liberty; and there is only ONE Republican candidate that sees these threats and would use the power of the Oval Office to defeat them–or at least curtail them:

That candidate is RAND PAUL.

I know that Rand is NOT his dad. I am not nearly as excited about Rand as I was Ron. And there are several issues with which I disagree with Rand.

But I firmly believe Rand gets the whole neocon war issue and would put a stop to it if he were President. In this regard, Rand might be the ONLY major party presidential candidate who could potentially avert WWIII. I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.

I also believe Rand truly sees the growing Police State in this country and would rein in these out-of-control federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

NONE of the other candidates would do anything significant to change America’s foreign policy or to rein in the growing Police State in our country.

Accordingly, as I pan the two major party presidential candidates, there is only one choice in 2016: RAND PAUL.

This is the the comment I posted:

The biggest threat to liberty we face is the country turning irreversibly Blue in a couple of decades if current immigration trends continue. Immigration is the only issue that matters because all the other issue rise and fall on the country not turning Blue.

Advertisements

Rand Paul Gets Birthright Citizenship Right then PC Panders on Race

Debates among reasonably intelligent political hobbyists on Facebook are more substantive than what we saw last night. That is why my favorite response of the whole night was Rand Paul on birthright citizenship. He actually made relevant historical arguments about why the 14th doesn’t really enshrine such a thing. It was not the original intent of the amendment and the Supreme Court case that allegedly settled it (Wong Kim Ark) was not really a good test case for illegals anyway because Ark’s parents were here legally and were essentially permanent residents. I almost fist pumped after that answer. Then he had to go and PC pander on pot. Sigh. I really don’t have the temperament for major party politics.

*This post originally stated that Rand had also suggested putting Rosa Parks on the $10 bill, but that was in error. He suggested Susan B. Anthony. A few others suggested Rosa Parks.

The Constitution Party to Rand Paul: You Can’t Be Both

The following is an e-mail I received from the Constitution Party:

Dear Patriot:

Many conservatives put their faith in the two party system, hoping some candidate will reform the Republicans.

Rand Paul, who offers a few positive takes on some key issues, recently said: “I’ve been there. I’ve seen what it’s like in the third-party world. Our system is directed to the two parties and I made the decision when I started running for political office that I am a constitutional conservative and Libertarian-leaning Republican.”

Constitutional Republican? Sadly, Rand Paul seems to to be just another politician out to reform the GOP. It’s not going to happen, and worse, he offers the same failed path for patriots seeking real solutions. That road that must come from outside the elitist-controlled political parties. I wish he knew better.

Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips clearly stated why America needs the Constitution Party: “To capture the Presidency for an agenda of Constitutional renewal, we need a political instrument with clarity of principle and unity of purpose — one willing to offer a change in direction as well as a switch of drivers.”

We are out to change the system and with your support we are making progress. I urge you to visit our national webpage: it has a new look and is easy to navigate. It’s a refresher course on what we believe and our plans for winning.

www.constitutionparty.com

When talking to friends and family about our Constitution Party, I often refer to what John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

Your financial support, $20, $50, even $100, is essential to our future. I hope I can count on your continuing support.

Sincerely,

Frank Fluckiger
National Chairman

“Non-interventionist” Rand Paul Comes Out Against Iran Deal

Who was it that said that that apple didn’t just fall far from the tree, it fell in a whole ‘nother orchard. From Rand’s Facebook page:

The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance
2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity
3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

I will, therefore, vote against the agreement.

While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal. Please help share this news.