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.

UFC Original Pat Miletich Endorses Rand Paul

I point out when cool people endorse Trump, so in the interest of fairness, I’ll pass this along. Old school UFC fighter Pat Miletich has endorsed Rand Paul. There is even Rand Paul Pat Miletich gear if you so desire. Cool pick-up from the state of Iowa for Rand. I guess not all the tough guys are endorsing Trump, just most of them. 😉

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.

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.


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.

After Confederate Battle Flag Betrayal, I Will Not be Going “All In” for Donald Trump

In a post below, Hawthorne suggested that I should go “all in” for Trump as the best way to gin up some useful political theater. I was seriously considering it, although I still had some angst about whether or not I should support Rand Paul. Trump is not the best on all the issues, although he is the best on trade deals and building a wall, but he is a generalized “stick a thumb in the eye of the Regime” candidate. That is why I was very disappointed to read that he joined the anti-Confederate Battle Flag PC fest. (I literally crossed my fingers when I Googled to see if he had made a statement, hoping I wouldn’t be disappointed.) I was really hoping he would denounce the hysteria or at least defer to the people of South Carolina on the issue, but he chose to make a definitive statement in support of removing the flag, so I will not be supporting him.

I don’t really blame Trump as much as I do some of the other clowns. He was born in Queens, NY, had a typical American education and has not really been a part of a political milieu where he would learn better, or at least come to understand the sensibilities of some on the issue. Rand Paul and Rick Perry, for example, have no such excuse. But Trump is a fiesty contrarian and those instincts should have at least lead him to bite his tongue on the issue. The two candidates I was considering, Rand and Trump, have let me down. As of now, I have absolutely no one to support in the Republican primary. Unless someone acceptable gets in, I guess it’s time to start looking at who is running for the Constitution Party nomination.

Sadly Rand Paul Goes Full PC on Confederate Battle Flag

This defection hurts more than most of the others. I have been critical of Rand, but I was still considering supporting him and voting for him as the best of a bunch of poor alternatives. He just made that decision easier. I will not vote for a flag turncoat. The Battle Flag is a test of whether or not you will stand up to the PC Rightthink Borg. Rand failed. At least he has relieved me of the angst I was having about whether I should support him out of deference to his father.

Stand With Rand Round 2 #standwithrand #whereisted

Yesterday Rand Paul “filibustered” the Patriot Act renewal. It is set to sunset soon. From what I understand, it wasn’t technically a filibuster, because no vote was imminent, but it was his attempt to throw off the calender and force debate. This filibuster, like his first one, rallied his troops and forced his opponents to address an issue they probably didn’t want to address. People were asking why Ted Cruz wasn’t there helping with the filibuster, so much so that it eventually made #whereisted trend. Cruz eventually showed up. He supposedly favors debate on the issue.

As I understand it, the Freedom Act was intended to modify the Patriot Act to address some civil liberty concerns, but people who initially supported it now believe it is too watered down. As I understand it, Cruz supports the Freedom Act and the Patriot Act. Paul opposes the current iteration of the Freedom Act.

The Unpatriotic Act should be opposed in toto and allowed to sunset. It is a monstrous piece of legislation that was hastily passed in the wake of 9/11. That it was ready to be voted on so quickly indicates it had already been drawn up, and the Feds were just waiting for an opportunity to rush it through. If there are parts of the Unpatriotic Act that are necessary, then those should be passed separately, rather than the whole monstrosity renewed in whole or with modifications. Remember, if the Feds can use the Unpatriotic Act against terrorists, they can also use it against domestic dissenters. So the question is, “Who do you fear more, terrorists or the Feds?” For me, it’s not even a close call. Opposition to the Unpatriotic Act should be the default conservative position, especially for any conservatives who claim to be fighting the Establishment.