The illusion. Look, he’s got a great policy on smoking dope. Big deal. Look back to Bill Buckley, Milton Friedman and George Schultz — arch-conservative paleocons — and they were for the legalization of all drugs before Rand could make a fist. He’s articulate, seemingly more in touch with reality than Ted Cruz, bt the again so is my Aunt Phoebe, so what!
Listen up, Spicoli, it’s about more than dope. Review and research carefully to what he’s said and not said. Yes, above and beyond his weed policy.
- He’s waxed neocon with his aggressive stance towards Putin anent Ukraine. Remember these beauts? In a National Review piece entitled “Rand Paul’s Plan for Ukraine: Bizarre and Delusional” Paul the dauphin said the following. “I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic.” He groused, “The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.” What?! Or this: In an TIME op-ed, Paul wrote: “Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.” [GULP!] Might I direct you to our friends at UFAA and TWSP for a cogent review of the good Senator’s views. I encourage you to search far and wide for everything on everything.
- He’s flip-flopped on drone use to dispatch Americans on American soil. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” he said. Paul also stated in the same interview that “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on.” Apparently, an “imminent threat” is constituted by a liquor store robbery, setting the due process and Constitutional bar for an emergency situation rather low. Wow.
- His austerity measures à la Mont Pelerin Society would make Draco blush. It’s simply cruel and without merit. As has been said, we’re better than that. We’re the American School of Economics. Not Austrian. Verstehen? It’s factual and historical and essential to the continued and sustained existence of our republic. Look it up, Sparky.
- His message is devoid of reference to infrastructure and critical government programs and expenditures. Look, it’s part of the mantra, I dig. The shibboleth and bumpsticker ideology that serves him well. As my great friend, Webster Tarpley has endorsed, where’s his message on measures to re-industrialize, build infrastructure, develop science drivers, create jobs, and restore a high-wage economy? But to be fair, no one’s talking about that. Save Dr. T. And speaking of friends, my great pal Alex Jones heartily endorses Rand and I can understand that. He is certainly not without any moment of cognizable sapience, but when stepping back from the mosaic, take a good look as I have. The big picture is what I’m interested in.
What’s a girl to do? Friends, on paper RP sounds significantly better than the other spouters of vapidity. But is he truly any different? No. In terms of actual policy? Nah! And remember that our system allows not the revolutionary. Were he to ever advance past the initial stages of review he would have to pledge fealty to globalist elites and panjandrums. So what to do? Well, I simply don’t vote for any of these folks. Their availability bodes ill in and of itself. I always write my name in and prefer to “throw away my vote” with a greater degree of panache. Unless and until there’s a revolution we can play musical chairs with candidates all day long and nothing will materialize. Nothing will change. Excuse me, better yet — nothing will improve. Remember what a wise man once said, if voting really changed anything it would be illegal.