Tag Archives: Rand Paul

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Rand Paul Says GOP Will Shaft Trump, Allow Democrat Witnesses and Block His Requests — Warns Colleagues Not to Commit Political Suicide, by Cassandra Fairbanks

Any Republican Senator who played ball with the Democrats would find his or her election imperiled. From Rand Paul at thegatewaypundit.com:

In an interview with The Gateway Pundit about the impeachment effort on Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul warned his colleagues who plan to let the Democrats choose witnesses that they will lose their reelections.

Senator Paul, who has seemingly been leading the charge to defend the president during this process, also explained that he would vote for Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to have to testify, especially since Schiff has a staff member who is friends with the whistleblower — potentially making him a material witness.

Additionally, Sen. Paul stated that he wants the impeachment process to be over as soon as possible, but that if the Democrats are allowed to call witnesses, President Trump must be afforded the same right.

When asked if any other Republicans have been supportive of Sen. Paul’s assertion that he wants to call in the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify, he asserted that there are a lot of people who do, but that they have been quiet.

Continue reading

They Said That? 12/23/12

From CNN’s Jake Tapper and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

Bravo, Paul!

Free The Press, from Raúl Ilargi Meijer

For grandstanding hypocrisy its hard to beat the 300 newspapers that published editorials deploring President Trump’s attacks on the press. How many of those 300 have lifted an editorial finger to help Julian Assange or Edward Snowden? From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

Two thirds of Americans want the Mueller investigation (inquisition, someone called it) over by the midterm elections. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has said that if Mueller wants to interview Trump, he’ll have to do so before September 1, because the Trump camp doesn’t want to be the one to unduly influence the elections. Mueller himself appears to lean towards prolonging the case, and that may well be with an eye on doing exactly that.

And there’s something else as well: as soon as the investigation wraps up, Trump will demand a second special counsel, this time to scrutinize the role the ‘other side’ has played in the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath. He’s determined to get it, and he’ll fire both Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein if they try to stand in his way.

There have of course been tons of signs that it’s going to happen, but we got two significant ones just the past few days. The first is the termination of John Brennan’s security clearance. It looks impossible that no additional clearances will be revoked. There are more people who have them but would also be part of a second special counsel’s investigation. That doesn’t rhyme.

The second sign is Senator Rand Paul’s call for immunity for Julian Assange to come talk to the US senate about what he knows about Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Obviously, we know that he denies its very existence, and has offered to provide evidence to that end. But before he could do that, a potential deal with the DOJ to do so was torpedoed by then FBI chief James Comey and Senator Mark Warner.

Both will also be part of the second investigation. Rand Paul’s motivation is simple: Assange’s testimony could be a very significant part of the process of figuring out what actually happened. And that should be what everybody in Washington wants. Question is if they all really do. That’s -ostensibly- why there is the first, the Mueller Russian collusion, investigation. Truth finding.

To continue reading: Free The Press

Rand Paul Against the World, by Jack Hunter

Rand Paul is apparently tempering some of the foreign policy advice Trump gets from his more wild-eyed advisors. From Jack Hunter at theamericanconservative.com:

Not long ago, Donald Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton was promising regime change in Iran by the end of this year. Uber-hawk Bolton has long wantedwar with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo isn’t much different, and has even advocated bombing Iran. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has previously recommend U.S. airstrikes against Iranian targets.

Today, Bolton says the U.S. does not to seek regime change in Iran. So does Pompeo. So does Mattis.

Why?

President Trump has been known to be hawkish on Iran. Politico observedWednesday: “Trump has drawn praise from the right-wing establishment for hammering the mullahs in Tehran, junking the Iran nuclear deal and responding to the regime’s saber rattling with aggressive rhetoric of his own….” There are also powerful factions in Congress and Washington with inroads to the president that have been itching for regime change for years. “The policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran,” says Senator Tom Cotton, once rumored to be Trump’s pick to head the CIA.

So what, or who, is stopping the hawks?

Politico revealed Wednesday some interesting aspects of the relationship between Senator Rand Paul and the president, particularly on foreign policy: “While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: ‘He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul…’.”

On Iran, Politico notes, “Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White House.”

But this part of the story was the most revelatory: “’Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,’ this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East.”

This is significant, not because Trump couldn’t have arrived at the same position without Paul’s counsel, but because it’s easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war with Iran. “Personnel is policy” is more than a cliché.

To continue reading: Rand Paul Against the World

Know a Man by Knowing his Enemies, by Eric Peters

Rand Paul pisses a lot of the right people off. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

Like his father Ron, Senator Rand Paul has earned the right kind of enemies.

Ironically, many of them happen to be Republicans – the ones who cannot abide Paul’s principled defense of liberty – because it often conflicts with the business (and power) of these inside-the-Beltway apparatchiks.

Just as they tried to marginalize the elder Paul – some will recall the despicable treatment meted out to this gentle and decent man during the 2012 presidential primary by his fellow Republicans – so also the long knives are now glinting in the moonlight for his son.

The younger Paul is coming under fire for supporting the nomination to the Supreme Court of Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump.

But why would Paul be attacked for supporting the president’s nominee?

Kavanaugh’s nomination apparently worries Swamp Thing Republicans because he may be in favor not merely of “replacing” Obamacare with some other government-run program but of repealing it outright – something establishment GOP’ers such as Mitt Romney as one for-instance very much oppose.

Romney and others of his bent support government-run (and government-mandated) “health care.” They just prefer your are forced to submit to their “plan” rather than a plan crafted by Democrats.

A difference without much distinction – like the establishment Republicans themselves and the reason for their repudiation by the voters.

Kavanaugh could also be the vote which returns to the states – and thus, one step closer to the people – the power to decide whether taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions (as distinct from the deceitful argument peddled by the “choice” crowd that Kavanaugh is champing at the bit to outlaw abortion).

Heaven forbid the people ever get to decide anything!

The Swamp Thing Republicans may prefer someone more like the agreeable Chief Justice John Roberts – who somehow found Obamacare – the Affordable Care Act – “constitutional” and even empowered the IRS to apply a tax as punishment for failing to purchase health insurance.

This breathtaking expansion of federal power has already been undermined by President Trump, who rescinded the so-called “individual mandate.” But the real threat is a Supreme Court reversal of the constitutionality of the ACA – and that could very well happen if Brett Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh.

To continue reading: Know a Man by Knowing his Enemies

The Emergence of Rand Paul is a Good Omen, by Tom Luongo

Rand Paul has emerged as someone who’s important to President Trump’s plans and a sometimes vocal supporter. From Tom Luongo at strategic-culture.org:

Rand Paul is becoming the most intriguing figure in U.S. politics behind Donald Trump. As the war waged by the media and Deep State against Trump escalates, Paul is deftly coming to the President’s aid.

And that makes him someone worth watching.

On two key issues this week Paul took the Deep State head on to diffuse the outcry over Trump’s performance at Helsinki. First, in an article published the day of the summit he announced he would be travelling to Russia as a diplomatic envoy to build on Trump’s meeting with Putin.

But, more importantly Paul sided with the President on another matter, NATO and, by extension, our entangling military alliances. On these issues he truly rises to take on the mantle of his father’s foreign policy, a foreign policy which nearly won him the Republican nomination in 2012.

Dialogue is especially important when hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, as is the case in relations between the United States and nuclear-armed Russia. So I applaud Trump for both chiding our NATO allies and greeting its expansion with skepticism, and I applaud him for sitting down with Putin. We should be doing more of such self-examination and dialogue.

Socrates famously said, “An unexamined life is one not worth living.” But, the lack of examination of the horrific consequences of U.S. foreign policy as proscribed by the neoconservatives in the GOP and DNC has led to a life on this planet that far more dangerous than it needs to be.

Life is always worth fighting for, and Paul’s stance here is both principled and correct. As is Trump’s.

Since Trump took office, Paul has been the President’s critic and ally. As a libertarian at his core, Paul’s principles lead him to put his own ego aside when insulted by Trump, stand his ground on the issue nut keep his options open to future opportunities for common ground.

In effect, Paul’s approach to Trump is to praise Trump when he’s on the right of an issue and criticize him when he isn’t.

And he always has a concrete policy option to offer, which is very important in any negotiation.

So, now, with Trump attempting to take control of foreign policy after ceding it to his staff and their neoconservative bias for most of 2017, Paul is supporting Trump directly in this turn away from them.

His questioning ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s use of his security clearance for personal gain led directly to a meeting with Trump and an announcement that not only is Brennan in trouble of it being revoked, but also that of James Clapper, James Comey, Susan Rice, Michael Hayden and Andrew McCabe.

To continue reading: The Emergence of Rand Paul is a Good Omen

Here’s Your $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill Which No One Has Read, from The Burning Platform

Deep State is still winning

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses – and parties. Here’s the 2,232 page, $1.3 trillion, budget-busting Omnibus spending bill.” Rand Paul

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/03/23/heres-your-1-3-trillion-spending-bill-which-no-one-has-read/

Republicrats, from The Burning Platform

Republican scum. The Deep State stays intact no matter what party is in control.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/03/21/republicrats/

Finally, Some Good News, by Paul Craig Roberts

At least 90 percent of what Paul Craig Roberts writes is pessimistic, so when he finds some good news to write about, it might be worth noticing. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

Washington’s gratuitous raising of tensions with Russia that we have been witnessing for many years is so reckless and irresponsible that we need some relief from the depression of it all. Perhaps I am grasping at straws, but here are some hopeful developments.

—An establishment journalist, Michael Goodwin, the chief political columnist for the New York Post and a former bureau chief for the New York Times, has blamed the New York Times and Washington Post for the destruction of journalistic standards in the United States. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/2016-election-demise-journalistic-standards/

—James Kallstrom, an Assistant Director of the FBI, told Fox News that high-ranking people throughout the US government coordinated a plot to help Hillary Clinton avoid indictment:

“I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted.

“I think it goes right to the top. And it involves that whole [Russiagate] strategy—they were gonna win, nobody would have known any of this stuff, and they just unleashed the intelligence community. Look at the unmaskings. We haven’t heard anything about that yet. Look at the way they violated the rights of all those American citizens.”

Kallstrom goes on to name names: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-18/ex-fbi-assistant-director-there-was-high-ranking-plot-protect-hillary-brennan

—Senator Rand Paul vows to block the appointments of Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel as Secretary of State and Director of the CIA. Read and rejoice:https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/18/politics/rand-paul-mike-pompeo-gina-haspel-cnntv/index.html

It is possible that the firing of Deputy FBI Director McCabe has opened for public exposure the plot hatched by the CIA, FBI, Departments of Justice and State, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee to cover up Hillary’s felonies and to falsely accuse Donald Trump of conspiring with Russian President Putin to steal the US presidential election. If Trump doesn’t chicken out, it is possible to put Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Hillary, and many others in prison for their egregious and bold assault on American democracy and the rule of law. These prosecutions would break the power, of much of it, of the secret national security state, and, thereby, make it possible for Trump to return to his campaign promise to normalize relations with Russia. If these relations are not normalized, war will be the result. But at least now there is a chance.

To continue reading: Finally, Some Good News 

Sen. Rand Paul: Bring home our troops and, yes, throw a parade

Senator Paul says hold a parade after we’ve brought home the 14,000 troops serving in the US’s longest, and certainly one of its most senseless, wars—Afghanistan. From Rand Paul at foxnews.com:

A military parade in the nation’s capital? The last military parade in Washington was in 1991, after our victory in the first Iraq War.

Though the martial image of high-stepping soldiers is not one I tend to associate with our nation’s Founders’ distrust of a standing Army, I’m not against a victory celebration. So I propose we declare victory in Afghanistan, bring home our 14,000 troops and hold a victory parade.

We defeated the enemy in Afghanistan. We killed or captured the terrorists who planned, plotted, or aided in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We killed the ringleader, Usama bin Laden. We disrupted the terrorists’ camps where they plotted and trained. We dislodged the Taliban government that aided and abetted bin Laden.

The only reason victory is elusive in Afghanistan is that presidents continue to have an impossible definition of victory. If victory is creating a nation where no real nation has ever existed, then no victory will ever occur.

If victory requires the disparate tribes and regional factions of Afghanistan to have more allegiance to a regime in Kabul than to their local tribal leaders, then victory will never come.

We spend about $50 billion a year in Afghanistan. When quizzed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently, undersecretaries of Defense and State could not answer the most rudimentary of questions concerning the war.

How many Taliban fighters do we face? Blank faces for an answer. What percentage of the Taliban are unrepentant terrorists unwilling to negotiate? Blank faces again.

The Taliban now control a significant amount of Afghanistan’s real estate. Are the Taliban open to negotiating, considering that they appear to be winning?  Blank faces again, but with perhaps a touch of remorse, knowing that there really is no possible military solution in Afghanistan.

To continue reading: Sen. Rand Paul: Bring home our troops and, yes, throw a parade

%d bloggers like this: