By The Right Scoop


Fox New’s Eric Bolling just tweeted out that sources are telling him Rand Paul will run for president in 2016:

Hmmmmm. My first reaction to this news is one of skepticism, wondering if he is simply trying to follow in his father’s footsteps to continue growing his father’s libertarian following while running for president. If that’s the case, I’d love to hear more about Rand’s foreign policy thoughts and how they deviate from that of his father. Because many of Ron Paul supporters completely agreed with him on his foreign policy and his son was right there supporting him along the way.

So we’ll see where he falls on this, if this report is even true.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    A while back he said Zero was the worst president ever – He has my vote

    At least he is relatively sane compared to his Father!

    • DavidScottMasiwchuk

      what evidence do you have that shows this?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

        I corrected myself above

        BUT — ABO makes sense now more than ever before

        FYI – I voted for Mittens

        • DavidScottMasiwchuk

          Unfortunately I did too….To bad we wasted a opportunity on a man who didn’t live up to what we gave him.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

            I blame the very weak unprepared Republican strategy

            Zero outmaneuvered the Republicans – They always seem to shoot themselves in the foot

            • DavidScottMasiwchuk

              they are to busy trying to be like them and act cool…..I dont want cool I want competent.

            • Conniption Fitz

              The GOP didn’t give voters a clear Conservative choice. Romney’s Governorship was nearly identical to Obama’s presidency. Romney used Alinsky tactics in the primary just like Obama.

              • PhillyCon

                But the kicker is that Romney did not use Alinsky tactics on Obama!

            • keninil

              Ironically Republicans don’t own enough voting machine companies.

            • godsense

              If the Democrats ats get their way Republicans won’t even have the right to shoot themselves in the foot anymore.

              Long live the Second Amendment

            • Conservative_Utopia

              Let’s not forget the voter fraud in the swing states, e.g., Allen West in FL and the whole Cleveland debacle. We have already lost regardless of who we pick if the fraud is not cleaned up.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-L-Macchia/649373637 Robert L Macchia

              I am seeing all over the internet, that the election was rigged. The self proclaimed Messiah can do anything he wants and rigging the election may be true. He also had the foolish college students that expect social justice programs to support them, which is part of the ruination of many countries and US as well. Do these dopes in college know that their debt besides college loans is now a whopping $85,000 in taxes that they owe when they start working if they can even find a job. I weep for the future of America.

              If Rand Paul runs for president, I pray he is not as whacky as his father was, I even wrote to him to tell his father to stop the nonsense remarks he passed about his ideologies for US.

              • http://twitter.com/ztj_wwf Zach Johnson

                Why don’t you explain how Ron Paul is “whacky”…go ahead.

                • DavidScottMasiwchuk

                  you mean other then the blame America for all ills and his racist news letters?

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001184760772 Gabriel Mascioli

                  DavidScottMasiwchuk,

                  You sir are misinformed. The “racist” letter your are referring to was not sent out, nor signed by, nor endorsed by, Ron Paul in any way. He never knew about that letter. period. It was proven a long time ago. Your out of the loop. It was sent out by an employee working in his office. You should catch up to current times. Furthermore, AMERICA is to blame for it’s ills. Who else is to blame!? It’s our own damn fault for being asleep at the wheel and allowing these atrocities to be implemented on us! period. WAKE UP, sir!

                  Kindly,

                  -gabriel

                • DavidScottMasiwchuk

                  You sir are gullible….Only a fool would believe that.

            • cabensg

              Zero outmaneuvered the Republicans – They always seem to shoot themselves in the foot and us in the back.

  • DavidScottMasiwchuk

    Thats all we need more Paulbot mania.

    • aposematic

      Hmmmm?????? As opposed to Obumamania, I’ll take “Paulbot” mania any day. And just who’s foreign policy could be worse than Obuma’s? Same for spending, regulation, Fed., EO’s, pretty much whatever? Just who/what is shooting oneself in the foot. Libertarians are for “extra small” Gov., much more in common with Conservatism than any other Ideology. Get over the false flags…please.

      • DavidScottMasiwchuk

        It wasn’t Just Ron Paul that made himself unelectable….His rabid fanatical fan base helped him lose as well…..

    • FutureOnePercent

      I think we might be surprised by how many social conservatives are now more open to libertarian views.

      They have always been relegated to the back of the classroom as a bunch of socially liberal and crazed conspiracy theorists, but I think the message of Liberty is picking up steam even among the “extreme right.”

      You’re either a statist or you’re not. Doesn’t matter which side of the coin people fall on.

      And like aposematic said, I’m not calling you a statist or attacking you personally, just giving an example.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        Problem is those views are not libertarian but libertine. Those words are similar but have very separate and distinct differences and applications.

        • FutureOnePercent

          I’m not advocating the “do whatever you want, to hell with the consequences. there is no right and wrong” positions of a libertine.

          There are clearly right and wrong and as a social conservative myself, I understand the importance of educating people on the differences between right and wrong and what kind of paths it leads a life down.

          My point is that it is the responsibility of social conservatives to be fighting the culture war and to win back our society, not the responsibility of the federal government.

          I know so many social conservatives who do nothing to advance their cause in society, but show up to the polls once every 4 years and are shocked when our American value system is being flushed down the drain.

          It’s going to take more than checking R in the voting booth to get this country back on track.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            I agree to an extent but remember politics is reflection of the culture so one must fight for social values in both arenas. It does no good to be against drugs but to then go on to legalize drugs. That is akin to handing someone a gun to shoot the burglar but shooting yourself instead. Far too many dumkoff’s think legalization makes something socially acceptable. That is but one example.

            The rest of your post I totally agree with. People think if they elect a conservative they can just walk away and that is how the Silent Generation got their name. Not so. They forget about the literally thousands of other influences in DC not to mention money. You can think you are electing a conservative but they are only as conservative as we make them. The left knows this! That is why they ban together, stay on their progressive reps backsides, and absolutely politicize everything. They manipulate all fronts and until we start seeing this and doing the same we will lose and quite possibly lose this country as a whole.

            The reason I point to the libertine model is because I am seeing more and more moral relativism from conservatives. Libertarians in reality are liberaltarians. That ‘don'[t judge me’ pablum or ‘who am I to judge?’ crap. We all are to judge and give judgment in every way every single solitary day. People who put forth that nonsense are purposely misconstruing the Bible and are a form of evil IMO.

            • FutureOnePercent

              Laurel, thanks for the response!

              I respectfully disagree that we should be fighting in both arenas. That to me is the same as opposing teams playing a football game and arguing over which refs are going to officiate, the ones who are fans of the home team or fan of the away team.

              The government should be a silent observer, protecting (or providing recourse as you’ve pointed out) the rights of ALL citizens.

              I think that libertarians for years have pigeon-holed themselves into this “Who am I to judge” mentality.

              I say judge like hell.

              If I see some idiot with 8 kids standing in line at Wal-Mart using food stamps, guess what, I’m gonna judge! And I should judge! We all should use some more judgement, maybe we’d be better off.

              By all means push your social message of conservatism as loud as you possibly can, but we have to win on the merits of our arguments and the better life we offer, not by getting someone thrown in jail if they disagree.

              • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                You provide a false analogy and a false assumption.

                The ref analogy isn’t applicable or even responsible. Please stick with apples to apples. And btw…refs do have their biases. They are human not robots. The culture reflects who gets elected and who gets elected put into place laws that effect the culture. That is indisputable. So yes we must continually fight the moral sewer that is becoming the culture as well as force those elected to do what they were elected for. You make a promise keep it or at least give me a damn good reason for breaking it.

                As to tossing someone in jail for dissent…what in the hell are you talking about? I never ever said that. I am not a progressive…that is what they advocate, not me.

                • FutureOnePercent

                  I’m not sure how the ref analogy would not be applicable here? I understand that politics is downstream from culture, and that is why we should be trying to change the culture instead of watching our values fall apart and instead of winning by bringing out our message, we sit idly by and just think to ourselves “Well, if we just got a Republican into the White House we’ll be fine”

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  We are talking circles here and saying shades of the same thing. What you are proposing is simply fighting the culture or a one front war. I am proposing we fight both fronts in politics and the culture.

                  The left has been fighting a multiple front war for decades.

      • DavidScottMasiwchuk

        Do you know the difference between anarchy and liberty? A willingness to actually govern yourself.

      • Orangeone

        I for one will NEVER support amnesty for illegal aliens. Round them up and ship them out. Rand Paul along with Marco Rubio are illegal lovers. All that does to the US is dump more on social services, welfare, ObamaCare, social security, medicaid and medicare and they still work for cash and don’t pay taxes.

        I will also NEVER support homosexual marriage.

        • FutureOnePercent

          I agree that as long as we have social services, welfare, Obamacare, social security, medicaid, and medicare we should be building a wall and then rounding up and shipping them out. 100% agree with you there.

          The best case scenario would be to end ALL of the redistributionist programs, including the income tax and have it replaced with a Fair Tax.

          If you did that, the economic argument for not allowing illegals becomes moot, but there is still the national security issue to worry about. I say build the wall either way and until we end all government programs that transfer wealth, kick out the illegals and never give amnesty.

          For homosexual marriage, I would never support it either.

          As long as the government is involved in marriage at all, whether through issuing licenses or different treatment in the tax code, we should be standing up for traditional marriage.

          I’m only stating that government having NO intervention (in economic or social issues) is preferable.

          • Orangeone

            I have a much stronger feeling on the violation of our federal laws as it relates to illegal aliens.  It is illegal to enter our country the way the continue to enter.  If we are going to ignore that law, what other will we ignore? Will they be allowed to drive drunk, commit burglary, robbery, incest, rape, murder all without consequence? They are already evading and avoiding income tax which would land you and I in the federal pen for a very long time.
            BTW, cannot remember the state, but an illegal alien was just given a kidney from the official transplant list and the taxpayers paid for the transplant.  An American will die. Now illegals think they are ENTITLED to free medical care and argue it’s humane to allow them to illegally cross our borders for it.
            I do concur on taxation but I want a flat tax, the Dems are going after “fair tax” and I want the gov’t out of marriage as well.

  • Constance

    It’s too early for me to start hearing about who wants to run for president. I’m skeptical of all of them at this point. It’s going to take the next couple of years for me to determine who I could honestly get behind, if at all. Rand Paul is okay, but because of who his father is, I am skeptical. The foreign policy stuff is what worries me. Perhaps he doesn’t hold the same views as his dad in that regard. Of course, by 2016, Iran will be nuclear, and Israel may not exist anymore anyhow. Foreign policy may not even matter by then.

    • marketcomp

      Spot on, Constance. This little statement certainly makes one wonder why so early? Because personally, right now, I cannot see a time that I would ever vote for nor support a candidate who does not support Israel and supports legalizing drugs! I just cannot see it.

      • Orangeone

        Agreed! Both Paul and Rubio will spend the next 4 years campaigning and let the US Senate continue to slide further into Reid’s hands. They need to do what they were elected to do, be Senators not potus candidates.

    • sjmom

      I agree to wait to see who emerges after 2014 but I will add Israel will exist and Jerusalem will be its capital as written in the Bible.

      • Constance

        I sincerely hope you are correct. I am so afraid for Israel right now. I’m so afraid of what’s happening in the middle east and the buffoons running the show in this country. I have no faith in my own government anymore. God has to step in, and I hope that’s exactly what happens. It’s going to have to be divine intervention at this point.

        • FutureOnePercent

          No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. – Isaiah 54:17

          Rand Paul is not against Israel…

          It’s a scary time in the world, but God is in control.

          Israel is protected, and the best thing we, as an ally, can do for them is to get our financial house in order to be in a position to help. I don’t think there is anyone better to stop playing politics and start leading than Rand Paul.

          • aposematic

            At this point I semi-agree. Filed under viable candidate?

        • sjmom

          Israel is God’s land and Jerusalem the capital city. Don’t be afraid but look up because our redemption is nigh. :)

        • Orangeone

          I worry for Israel too but with a true leader in Netanyahu that will defend his country I know they will be safe and even stronger in 2014!

    • cabensg

      I to don’t know what views he holds but he is a Libertarian and as such I don’t know how they can even say they uphold the Constitution seeing as it has specific rules and regulations that are supposed to guide our country. To much government control is one thing but we also don’t need a free for all where anything goes. The main support for Ron from the young was because he was going to legalize drugs. I doubt Libertarians support marriage is between a man and woman either.

      • http://twitter.com/AdamBlacksburg Adam is Anti State

        You couldn’t be further from the truth when you assert that Ron Paul’s support came from younger people because of his stance on drugs. What you guys fail to understand is the logical consistency between non-intervention in the economy, and non-intervention in foreign affairs. Central planners are bad, whether they are economic or otherwise. No group of people has the ability to build a nation without a free market and the invisible hand of the marketplace. This principle, when applied consistently, leads to small government with only the responsibility of protecting liberty and property. Therefore excluding social/corporate welfare, unnecessary military interventions, and the rest of the monstrosity that government has become.

        Logical consistency is attractive, and that is what attracts people of all ages to the philosophy of Ron Paul and libertarianism.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          Baloney.

          What Ron Paul and supporters fail to understand is that events in history cannot be undone and have shaped our positions. There is no such thing as non intervention and most especially when it comes to foreign policy. WWII forever changed that.

          • Orangeone

            Well said Laurel! If a PaulBot had been in the WH during Pearl Harbor we would be speaking Japanese.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

              I don’t understand how anyone can support RP just for his 9/11 comments alone. First off he blames the victim…that being the USA but then goes on to say we deserved it for continual intervention in the ME. It doesn’t even remotely begin to match reality to what Bin laden has said. Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 because we, not him, kicked Saddam out of Kuwait at the behest of the Kuwaiti’s and Saudi’s. We were invited in! 9/11 had nothing to do with any intervention in the ME. Now the cheering crowds after the fall of the towers maybe did but in reality that has more to do with Islam than anything else.

      • Orangeone

        You are correct and I saw it first hand in MN. The PaulBots didn’t give a rip that Santorum won the vote in MN, they went to the RNC and supported Ron Paul against the votes of MN voters. That says it all to me, their way or the highway, damn the voters.

    • Alborn

      It is never too early if we end up needing to have a third party candidate. It is really hard for them to get on the ballot in some states. I am much more libertarian leaning than I ever realized. I will vote and work to elect Rand Paul. Hope this is true. I do not like the smart attitude of Christie and Rubio is not as quick on his feet as Rand Paul is. If Palin is giving it any thought she better get out there now and build the ground troops. It will not be easy to overcome the fraud in the large cities. This is a real problem for an honest election going forward.

      • Orangeone

        I appreciate your thinking but would like you to consider what adding 12 million more illegals to our citizenry will do to this country. Remember, over 75% of the hispanics voted Dem in 2012.

  • marketcomp

    Well then, I guess legalizing illegal drugs, specifically marijuana, supporting same-sex marriage because even though only 9 States have legalized it means that it should be law of the land, and advocating for defunding our closet alley, Israel, makes for a really excellent candidate for the Republican party.

    • Conniption Fitz

      Not!

    • FutureOnePercent

      “The Jerusalem Post quoted Paul as saying, “It will be harder to defend Israel if we destroy our country [the U.S.] in the process. I think there will be significant repercussions to running massive deficits.”

      At least someone understands that wanting to help, and being in a position to help are sometimes two different things.

      “Paul went on to assert that the presence of U.S. dollars in Israel’s defense budget precludes Israel from making its own decisions, and questioned whether “our money sometimes clouds the sovereignty of Israel.””

      The marijuana and gay marriage issue both come down to this: Is the government’s job to promote a social agenda or is it to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens.

      Far too often we try to fight the culture war on the political battlefield.

      We’re the first to cry “statist” when someone uses government force against it’s true purpose, yet we turn a blind eye when our own side does it.

      When Jesus came to the earth, did he try to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people, or did he go start a political career to start passing laws against sin.

      We can and should stand up against same-sex marriage and drug use, but like everything else, that argument has a proper place.

      • johngalt30

        Well said, Paul is “that candidate” that people always say they want but never get.

        • RocklinConservative

          It’s more like “that candidate that everyone but no one votes for!” Take Palin for example. Everyone touts her conservative credentials, but when it came to backing her, I can’t count the number of times I heard how much they “really like her, but she can’t win” … Well NO … not with that attitude.

          Right now … I’m going to hitch my post to Rand Paul’s wagon. I like just about everything he says. I get his emails and support the causes he is going after.

          I am, however, open to other candidates. But 4 years is a long time, and I want someone strong who can articulate our principles and do it well. I don’t want the same retreads from this last election. None of them. Fresh, strong blood is what we need.

          As for Israel, I stand with Israel. Paul may just be using common sense here. I doubt seriously he would be suggesting that cutting back on Israel’s support would not also include cutting back on all the money that we are giving to her enemies. I would bet large amounts of money that he would cut back a huge chunk that we are now contributing to Islamists who want to wipe her off the map. I’m open to hearing more.

          • FutureOnePercent

            In his own words, he would be cutting aid to the enemies of Israel and the U.S. first and then take a slow gradual approach towards Israel.

      • marketcomp

        Good try but no convert here! Your points are weak and lack facts. Are you really saying that defunding Israel is a good thing given that they are the only democracy in the Middle East and surrounded by lunatics and dictators? So, we defund Israel but send F-16s to Egypt! If we don’t help defend our closest allay then what does that say about us? Here’s what we can do, defund Egypt and stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia and explore like hell for our own. Now that will free up funds and still allow us to support Israel. Israel is in the battle for survival and your little posts suggest that neither you nor Rand Paul understand the severity and life and death situation of Israel. They are having problems feeding their own people because of trying to maintain and stay in a war ready mode.

        The marijuana and gay marriage comes down to the Government supporting the destruction of human existence and the family. How can anyone support same-sex marriage when it is so anti-theatrical to the very survival of human survival?
        Yes, we did legalize alcohol but we can now see that by doing the destruction looking at the fact that many still drive drunk and kill people. Marijuana will have the similar impact. Moreover, why make the same mistake twice when just because 2 States have legalized marijuana and a couple of others have some form of quasi-legalization does not mean that it should be legal for every State. Let’s wait and see what the impact will be for those States and the same for same-sex marriage.

        So just because libertarians say that people should be free to do whatever they want simply ignores the impact of these positions on society and the culture. And if we don’t stand-up for the those positions that support a better way to live then we would have given up on culture, society and by proxy the human existence.

        • FutureOnePercent

          Hey marketcomp, thanks for the reply. Hopefully I can help clear up some of my positons and the stated positions of Rand Paul too.

          So first, I think it is a TERRIBLE idea to be sending F-16s to Egypt! And so does Rand Paul, his plan was for a quick withdrawal of foreign aid from countries that are a threat to the U.S. and to Israel. In fact, he specifically mentions Egypt when talking about this issue.

          “I’m all for gradualism,” he said. “I would start a little more quickly with those who are enemies of Israel, and enemies of the US. I would like to see their aid end more quickly. With regards to Israel, it could be a gradual phenomenon.”

          “The senator said that he was concerned the US was trying to win friends in the region by providing them with arms, and that he was concerned that a situation could emerge in the future where Israel would have to face US-supplied tanks to Egypt.”

          He continues with saying that he does not believe that foreign aid would even be ended in his lifetime.

          I understand, and I believe Paul understands the severity of the situation there and that’s why he would not support just pulling the rug out from under them.

          Another point (and this is something I just learned from this article) is that 74% of all of the aid money given to Israel must be spent on U.S. goods. With gradual cutbacks, we would be able to see the defense industry in Israel also begin to grow.

          On the marijuana and gay marriage issue, libertarians do not simply ignore the impacts of these things on society, we just understand that it is the role of SOCIETY to promote moral behavior, not governments.

          I’m a social conservative. I believe homosexuality is a sin and I’ve never done drugs in my life. I’ve never even smoked a cigarette and I hardly ever drink. The worst thing that libertarians did to themselves was trying to align with some sort of counter-culture or label themselves as “fiscally conservative but socially liberal.” I hate that phrase, that has nothing to do with being libertarian.

          I’m fiscally conservative and socially conservative, but I understand that God put me on earth to witness to people and that is is MY responsibility to discourage drug use and homosexuality in our culture, not my Congressman’s.

          You keep saying that “we” need to stand up for the positions that support a better way to live, and my only question is:

          Who is “we?”

          Is “we” me and you as social conservatives or is “we” you and a police force?

          • FutureOnePercent
          • marketcomp

            We, are the opposition! You can call it social conservative or just plain ole common sense but that’s who “we” who are, who I am. Look, it is negligent to allow the opposing party to amplify their positions, which are wrong. And by agreeing with them and supporting their same-sex marriage positions, and the legalization of drugs just to name a few, we give-up the fight for the culture and society. The democrats and liberal are wrong on just about every issue that I can think of including the aforementioned.

            I understand that foreign aid can and should be reduced starting with Pakistan and so many others and reevaluating aid on an agreed upon time frame should be essential and mandatory. But, Israel should never be put on that list unless their values are not aligned with our values of democracy and free enterprise. So my question is why gradually suspend the aid to Israel? They need us! If they can independently support their defense, then that’s one thing. But, to come out and say, “I would like to see their aid end more quickly. With regards to Israel, it could be a gradual phenomenon.” Why? Additionally, you say that, “The senator said that he was concerned the US was trying to win friends in the region by providing them with arms, and that he was concerned that a situation could emerge in the future where Israel would have to face US-supplied tanks to Egypt.” Really! At what point in time, citing history, where Israel would threaten the US! Is this a joke? I hope that someone else thinks this is funny because I think it’s hilarious! Russia and China supply arms to countries that align with their values and ideology. So why can’t we do the same to countries who essentially align with our values. And let’s not forget, that which you so conveniently left out, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Did you and apparently Rand Paul forget that too!

            On the issue of society’s role to promote moral behavior. Look the Government make laws that support Natural law and nowhere in Natural law where a same-sex species can reproduce off-spring for survival and nurturing of the species. That, my friend, is Natural law! Procreation is designed to fulfill the obligation to preserve the human race and neither same-sex marriage, or homosexuality support that obligation.

            I am not trying to disagree with you, future! I just want to present a common sense view to some of the hysterical and pandering positions of just going along to get along.
            This maybe a continuous struggle.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

              Well said!

              Aid to Israel can be summed up as this: give money or give your life if you value Israel.

              What I see is people growing weary of fighting the good fight so they are giving in to it which is what evil banks on good men doing.

              • marketcomp

                Absolutely!

            • cabensg

              Social conservatives wouldn’t be for government intervention if they hadn’t been forced to defend their positions from the left. There would be no pro-life movement if there wasn’t abortion especially taxpayer funded abortion. There would be no marriage act if the left hadn’t insisted on homosexual marriage. There would be no defending prayer if the left hadn’t wanted to abolish it in government and schools. The list goes on. Social conservatives were happy to have their views and live their lives accordingly without insisting everyone else did until government and the left decided to not allow them to even have their own beliefs and insisted they adhere to liberal beliefs by fiat if necessary. Christians do not insist you believe what they believe. Liberals do insist you believe what they believe and Social conservatives are fighting back in the same area the left uses through government since that’s what liberals are using against them.

              • FutureOnePercent

                cabesng, that is one of the BEST arguments I have heard against libertarianism! It is absolutely true that we did not start this fight, and right now we are forced to fight fire with fire.

                I’m only making the case that the best case scenario would be that neither side uses the blunt force of government to force it’s own views.

                The goal of libertarians is to draw from both sides of the political aisle people who believe that the role of government should be limited and not used as a way to punish those who don’t agree with you. There are many more Republicans who can agree with that sentiment than there are Democrats, because Democrats are hard-core statists.

                It ends like up being like one of those multiple choice question on an SAT where they say “Choose the best answer.” My preference is that no one gets to go run to Big Brother when they don’t get their way, and instead rely on actually shaping the culture towards morality.

                I’ll take a socially conservative statist over a liberal statist every day of the week, but I’d prefer neither to be a statist.

                My real hope is that we can cast a wider net with a wider message, Liberty!

            • FutureOnePercent

              My position is not to legalize gay marriage, but to get the government out of marriage all together. Marriage is the most sacred institution in the world and for some crazy reason we’ve decided to lt the state butt it’s head into it. The same legal protection as marriage could be available through private contracts. The only reason this is even an issue is because our tax laws treat married people and single people differently. Tax everyone equally regardless of marital status and it no longer becomes any of the governments business.

              I also support the rights of a church to tell a homosexual couple that they will not marry them. That is the real problem with the homosexual agenda today. It is not about equality, it is about getting the legal footing to start suing churches who don’t agree with them and forcing their views on others.

              So we are left with one of two options, either the government gets out of the marriage business and allows for freedom of speech for churches to say they will not perform ceremonies OR our politicians should be standing up for traditional marriage.

              To think that the government will actually take it’s grubby hands off of anything is a fantasy of mine, but the reality is it will probably NEVER happen, so far as long as that is the case, we should support traditional marriage in our candidates. If one side is going to be forcing their views on the other, I’d much prefer it be our side because we’re right, but the best case scenario would be neither side brings force against the other.

              On the foreign aid issue, I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying about Israel facing US supplied tanks. I’m not suggesting in any way that Israel would ever attack the US or vice versa because you’re right, that would be ludicrous! I’m saying that a country like Egypt, who the US supplied tanks to, could turn around and use those tanks against Israel.

              And I didn’t point out that arms sales to Israel would never stop. We would still be selling anything they needed to be able to defend themselves, but it would be a mutual trade. What Rand Paul wants to do is move from a Sugar Daddy to Israel to a strategic partner with them.

              Ask yourself who is in a better position to help Israel, an America with a healthy economy, or one that has been turned into a Third World country after the economy collapses.

              For homosexuality being against Natural Law I 100% agree, and SOCIETY should make the case for that.

        • Guest

          I had a reply to this… did it get deleted?

          What’s going on here LOL.

          marketcomp, were you able to see it? I’m not trying to ignore you :P

  • deeme

    This is what I love about Rand Paul..

    An exchange between KY’s newest senator and a federal bureaucrat. He states what many of us have been thinking for some time.
    5 minute video:

    • FutureOnePercent

      LOL best line in there… “Keep it to yourself!”

    • cabensg

      I don’t disagree in any way with how he’s handled being a Senator. In fact the rest of them could take lessons on getting the message out like he has. He can stay as Senator as far as I’m concerned.

  • sjmom

    I’m with you Scoop and want to know more. Looks like another Romney thing where dad did not make it so son has to run for president. We’ve seen how well that turned out. Let’s win in 2014 and then talk about it.

  • Steven

    I can absolutely support Rand Paul for president in 2016. The GOP must actually nominate a republican in 2016 and Rand Paul is actually a conservative republican. The GOP is mystified by how dissatisfied the people have been with them when all they do is nominate people like McCain and Romney who are liberals. Now they are talking about Christie? Are these people out of their minds?

    Nominate a conservative. That means Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Rick Scott, Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio. Don’t nominate Christie, Paul Ryan, and there’s no point in mentioning Tim Pawlenty. I am not so dead set against Condi Rice or Bob McDonnel, though I cannot completely throw them into the solid conservative camp because of their Establishment ties. But as Establishment candidates go, those two are much more conservative than McCain and Romney.

    We need to win in 2016 and that begins with nominating an actual conservative Republican candidate. Rand Paul fits the bill as well as any.

    • Constance

      I agree with you – NO Chris Christie or Paul Ryan! Absolutely no. I can’t even look at Christie anymore after all this BS since before the election. Paul Ryan is a good man, but he is not conservative enough for me. Also, anybody who voted for the fiscal cliff deal will not get my support. I can’t deal with that garbage anymore.

    • aposematic

      No NE RINOs for sure!

    • Orangeone

      Rand Paul is not a conservative Republican. Republicans do not support homosexual marriage, legalizing drugs, and amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

  • Kordane

    Apart from foreign policy, was there anything else that Conservatives disagreed with Ron Paul on?

    • Conniption Fitz

      - legalizing drugs
      – legalizing human trafficking (aka slavery and prostitution) and porn
      – ‘gay’ ‘marriage’
      – gays in military

      • FutureOnePercent

        And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. – Mark 16:15

        Who’s job is it to preach the gospel?

        Ours or Congress?

        I don’t remember reading the passage in the Bible where Jesus says “Go ye into all the world, and pass laws to keep people from sinning.”

        As a social conservative, it’s time to stop trying to pass the buck on to the government for our failure to spread God’s message.

        • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

          If you have equated The Gospel with legal prohibitions, then you have misunderstood one or the other or both of them.

          We do have laws prohibiting particular sins, like murder and theft. Morality is the basis for all law. By attempting to disqualify prohibitions against the mentioned behaviors (which includes human trafficking!) as a result of having their basis in morality, you must, in order to be consistent, also disqualify prohibitions against murder and theft for precisely the same reason.

          • FutureOnePercent

            Murder and theft both break the natural law of the right to life and property respectively. They are both crimes that you commit against others.

            Homosexuality and drug use break none of the natural laws regarding protecting the life, liberty, and property of others.

            Protecting natural law is the only consistent form of law.

            So Frederic Bastiat and I both disagree with your assumption that morality is the basis for all law.

            bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

            • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

              You demonstrate my point.
              You’re making the case that some actions should be illegal and some should not be illegal. Your moral values are the basis for your conclusions.

              If you believe that morality should not be the basis for law, then you have no basis for what should be law.

              • FutureOnePercent

                Okay, I can see where you’re coming from.

                My point is that a just law protects people from the aggression of others.

                You’re simply stating that my idea of “aggression” is in itself, a moral judgement.

                That makes sense to me.

                At the very bottom level, yes, natural rights are a form of morality because we believe that hurting people, taking things from people, or forcing people to do things they don’t want to do is immoral.

                My point is that outside of protecting the life, liberty, and property of others, a government can not act without contradicting one of these three principles.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  Laws are for the lawful and as society breaks down more and more laws are needed because of simple misinterpretations such as yours. No law protects anyone from anything unless they are a moral and lawful person. Moral and lawful people respect the law and do their best not to break it, The law itself gives recourse to the victims of the lawless…nothing more. It grants nothing in the way of protection but can provide recompense.

                • FutureOnePercent

                  I’m not saying the only law on the books should be “Don’t hurt others, steal from others, or force others to do things they don’t want” and that’s it.

                  I agree that as society grows, we need laws to address the issues that come up, but those laws should be grounded in protecting or providing recompense for those three things. Life, Liberty, and Property.

                  We have speed limits to try to protect life and property.

                  We have laws against rape that protect or (try) to provide recompense for the taking of someone’s liberty.

                  I’m not naive to think that we could replace every law in the country with a simple “Don’t do these three things.”

                  Maybe I’ve been stating it in an over-simplistic way, but I’m only talking about using that as the foundation, not the entire structure of our legal system.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  You need to re-read what I wrote because the philosophy of it which incidentally is the philosophy of a civilized society went right over your head.

                  It isn’t about the size of society in the least. Not even close. You are interpreting it in an over simplistic way. Your view is that which has put way too many laws on the books because as always society tends to react with emotion and punish the lawful who aren’t breaking any laws in an effort to prevent bad things from happening to good people…which is impossible. Gun laws are a prime example of that or the infamous Sudafed laws.

                  Lawful people need laws and use them to know the rules of the game and have legal recompense or recourse when a law is broken. That recompense or recourse is known as justice and jail for the perpetrators. Instead we as a society just punish those that obey the laws by continually infringing their rights and privacy by adding more restrictive laws on the books.

                  The more society breaks down and the more moral relativism justifies bad behavior with piss poor excuses the more laws will be put on the books and considered ‘needed’ to get justice and prevent bad things from happening to good people. Laws are required indeed because if men were angels they wouldn’t need government but the laws should not be aimed squarely at the lawful but the unlawful. Once again my gun rights are about to get abridged because some mentally ill person once again got a hold of gun, a person in a state I never stepped foot in nor personally knew btw, killed a bunch of innocents. Why am I being punished? I could jam this blog with examples, that is but one.

                  Every single thing the Founding Father’s warned about in regards to a moral society and too many laws, not to mention the false sense of security in regards to liberty has come to pass.

                • 57thunderbird

                  Agree.Today’s America makes the founders appear as prophets.

                • FutureOnePercent

                  Laurel, I re-read your post and I think I did misunderstand what you were trying to say so let me try to respond back to that.

                  I wasn’t trying to suggest that just because a population grows, we need to have more laws. I meant in terms of things like as new technologies emerge, we need laws to protect life, liberty, and property in those areas as well. For instance, when the internet became popular we had to start making laws against hacking and stealing information to protect property through a new channel.

                  For the gun control issue. I’m not saying that every time we find another crazy psychopath we need to pass more laws. We have laws against murder, what other law do we need? I agree with gun owners are being punished for the sins of people they have never even met, and if the law were consistent, we wouldn’t have people jumping at the chance to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

                  Finally, I’m not advocating for moral relativism. The protection of life, liberty, and property is about as absolute as you can get.

                • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

                  My point is that outside of protecting the life, liberty, and property of others, a government can not act without contradicting one of these three principles.

                  I understand, and it’s a fair point. But I’m not trying to debate whether natural law us a sufficient basis for our instituted law.

                  Your original response to Conniption Fitz seemed to me to be suggesting that morality cannot be the basis for law. That’s how I understood your references to the Gospel and the Bible. My only point is that, while laws against gay marriage or drugs or prostitution are based in a particular morality, other laws against murder, theft, and kidnapping are also based on morality. Natural law is morality. It’s one that we believe is objective and no more subject to change than gravity or inertia. But it is morality

                • FutureOnePercent

                  Agreed :)

            • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

              You have failed miserably to comprehend Bastiat.

              • FutureOnePercent

                Then help me understand. What am I missing here?

                The government’s role is to protect life, liberty, and property from the aggression of others. Anything beyond that is for society to do, and not the government.

                Point out what part of that is wrong.

                And I’m not trying to be argumentative or sarcastic, which it can sometimes come across that way when typing…

                • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

                  Even in Bastiat’s The Law, which you linked to, he asserts that morality and law must be in sync. Otherwise, you are stuck violating one or the other.

                  I’m not trying to debate whether Natural Law is sufficient basis for instituted law. I’m only saying that Natural Law is morality, and the belief that Natural Law should be the basis for instituted law is a moral conclusion.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

              “Homosexuality and drug use break none of the natural laws regarding protecting the life, liberty, and property of others.”

              Says who?

              • FutureOnePercent

                Laurel, not to avoid your question with another question, because I think it is completely valid to ask, but can you give me an example of how homosexuality or drug use infringes on anyone else’s life, liberty, or property?

                Please don’t think I’m trying to be rude or disrespectful, because one of the things I love about Right Scoop is that we can even have these kinds of discussions.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  They are not victimless crimes and often family members are the one’s that get it first and the worst so that is why you don’t hear much about those dirty little secrets.

                  As a child I was the victim of a homosexual ‘being who they are’. Also have repeatedly been a victim of drug abusers from theft to violence in the pursuit of drugs. Drug abusers are not the most productive members of society. I often wonder how much more crime we would have if we didn’t support them with entitlements.

                  USA is one of the few country’s in the world that no longer views homosexuality through a mental lens and since that changed in the 70’s crimes are being swept under the rug.

                  That is as personal as I will get but I will add that there is a lot of dirty little secrets that go with homosexuality and drug abuse and that doesn’t even scratch all of the social disorder and disruption that bad behavior causes. People actually think the homosexual and drug debate is new to history and I’m here to tell you it isn’t but because of that we are doomed to repeat, rinse, and repeat again over and over until the societal cloth has disintegrated.

                • marketcomp

                  Another well presented and articulated post, Laurel.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  Thank you my dear. I didn’t even get into the child abuse aspects of it all. Anyone who is the child of a drug abuse or addict of any stripe, yes it is time to include gamers in that category sadly, knows it isn’t a victimless crime as well.

                  Just as the mass shootings avoid talking about the elephant in the room named mental illness, people tend to forget the elephant in this room is named addiction. All trends have a pattern to them and ignoring the unifier quality to the pattern doesn’t change it.

                  Heck I even have known people who have made their children go without so they can support their cigarette habit.

                • Orangeone

                  Laurel, you are SO CORRECT! I have met several people who divorced because their spouse “discovered” they are really homosexual. It’s one thing to do that to an adult but all of the kids are screwed up and in therapy. And I won’t even get started on the bullying in school because of it.

                  I also just saw on Twitter that EBT cards are being used by drug dealers to pay their bail!

          • FutureOnePercent

            And human trafficking breaks the natural law of liberty, which liberty’s true definition is freedom from coercion.

            If they are forced to do something against their will, their liberty has been infringed.

            Same thing would apply to rape as well… in case anyone get’s the crazy idea that I think that should be legal as well.

      • Kordane

        Let me ask you one thing: Are you for or against the unalienable individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

        If you’re for those rights, then you must also be in favor of the freedom to buy/sell/use/own drug and pornography, and you must also be in favor of the freedom for homosexuals to marry and serve in the military.

        If you’re against those rights, then basically stick with your positions.

        As for the “human trafficking” criticism, the only instance I seem to recall is when Ron Paul voted against a bill that allegedly congratulated South Africa for cracking down (somewhat) on human trafficking…. but then spent the rest of the bill crafting “resolutions” on how South Africa should run their own government. Ron Paul is clearly against human trafficking, because he’s a rights-respecting man. In this instance, he simply opposed the bill because it was dictating to other nations how to conduct their affairs, and that’s just not a legitimate role of the government.

        I’m personally in favor of the freedom to do the other things you listed, because I’m in favor of the unalienable individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I know what freedoms they imply.

        Quite frankly you’re being a tyranny-sympathizer if you aren’t a consistent advocate for the unalienable individual rights, and that’s the bottom line here.

      • Orangeone

        Do you happen to know what his stance on illegal aliens was? His son hearts them!

    • Amy

      My only disagreements with Paul were foreign policy and his border policy. Since I lean much more libertarian & constitutionalist than big R, I had no issues with much else.

      • FutureOnePercent

        I think the border policy many of us take (myself included) is that as long as we’re giving away freebies through government programs and tax laws, we need a secure border.

        But what if all of that ended. What if no one got freebies from the government? Would we still be so opposed to immigration if we we’rent subsidizing it?

        What if we removed all federal taxes and instead went to a Fair Tax where no matter what your legal status is, you still pay it?

        Would we be against people coming here and spending money in our businesses?

        Many of the issues that conservatives have with immigration is really based on the unfair advantage our welfare state and tax laws give the illegals.

        • Amy

          I’m not one of those conservatives – most of my family is made up of so called ‘anchor baby’ hispanics or first/second generation immigrants. They all came here for one reason – freedom to make a living and provide for their families. Putting into place your ideas would indeed cut down on those coming in country to get a free ride and it would help. Doing something different about the drug issues in our country would help with the border security as well. That said, I still want a freaking wall, with a mote – and alligators in the mote…

          • FutureOnePercent

            Haha, I would be happy with a wall too, because let’s face it, the odds of the Fair Tax actually being implemented is about 0%.

            And even with the Fair Tax, we should still have a streamlined immigration system, it just won’t be as pressing an issue as it is today.

            As far as drugs, legalize marijuana…

            It seems like every time this government starts a “War on ______,” ______ starts winning… Poverty, Drugs, Terror, etc…

            What part of government sucks at doing anything don’t people understand LOL.

            War on Drugs! Brought to you by the same idiots who run the DMV.

            • Amy

              War on ________ just means the government wants another reason to spend tax payer dollars as well as more control over it’s ‘citizenry’.

              We definitely need to look at our immigration policy – it’s whacked. We need to have a better way to track those here on visa’s as well.

              I’m not giving up on the tax reform though – I’ll continue to push and pry & nag about that one. It’s a ridiculous mess of a system that punishes the successful and rewards mediocrity.

              I should also mention that I want a wall because our enemies are patient & methodical SOB’s who I believe ARE infiltrating our country. Even the lazy media outlets have documented the heavy presence of terrorist organizations in the drug cartels.

        • Kordane

          The country still needs border security because terrorists/violent people will attempt to come into the country, and that is something that needs to be prevented. I don’t think a wall is the best way to accomplish that though, given that a wall is incredibly expensive, and the threat from terrorists/violent people crossing the border isn’t adequate justification for spending such large sums of money. Police can mostly deal with such problems when they arise, although having some border security (minutemen, of sorts) is still prudent.

          • FutureOnePercent

            Kordane, I completely agree.

            As a sovereign country, we need to make very clear when someone is invading our space.

            There are still threats out there and we need to act accordingly.

          • Amy

            I’d like to see each state put their National Guardsmen at the border and arm them with something more than non-lethal rounds. Breaching our borders should be a lethal decision. It makes no sense to me that we are documenting the presence of Hezbollah & Hamas in the drug trade and doing nothing about it while waging a war against ‘terrorism’ in other lands. It’s idiotic…

          • Orangeone

            Your true colors are showing through. You only want to keep out terrorists and violent people but the sludge from Mexico is free to flow in and destroy our country. Illegals and all their anchor babies need to be rounded up and transported back to the hell whole they came from. Violate our laws and you shall be dealt with. Try going into Mexico illegally and see what they do to you.

            • Kordane

              And how exactly do non-violent non-terrorist Mexicans “destroy” the country?

              I would argue that if you eliminated the welfare/entitlement state, you’d find that only the hard working productive immigrants would come to the country. Those are the kind of immigrants I like; not the parasites who come simply for welfare/entitlements.

              Dunno what you mean by “true colors”, but I am sensing quite a bit of collectivism in you.

              • Orangeone

                What part of illegal don’t you get?  This woman was an illegal alien and murdered 4 children by driving an automobile without a license! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331989,00.html

                This illegal alien in OH slammed into the back of a school bus, thankfully no children were killed.  Open bottle!  http://www.examiner.com/article/illegal-alien-charged-with-dui-school-bus-crash
                This previously convicted felon illegal alien murdered a 17-year old teen and shot the Good Samaritan that came to her aide in NV.  Oh, he’s also a gang member! http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/05/previously-convicted-illegal-alien-murders-teen/
                But this is all A-Okay until it is your child that is murdered.

                • Kordane

                  Those are just criminal activities that happen to be committed by illegal immigrants. I could quote plenty of things done by actual citizens or legal immigrants. It doesn’t mean that immigration per se is the problem, but that criminality itself is the problem.

                  Regarding gangs, or more specifically Mexican drug cartels, the problem there is that the US government has banned drugs and is fighting a “drug war”. That kind of action massively drives up the price of drugs, which makes drug cartels very profitable to operate. The solution is just to legalize all drugs, as I advocate anyway as a matter of individual liberty.

                  You’ll have to do better than that.

                • Orangeone

                  Oh that makes it sooo much clearer. Entering our country isn’t a crime (read up yes it is) and it is NOT immigration, it is criminal trespass.  If the illegal aliens had not illegally entered our country these crimes would NEVER have been committed and those 4 children WOULD NOT BE DEAD. And is our fault because drugs are illegal.  Typical Libertarian, dumber than a dumocrat.
                  I have a suggestion.  We’ll round up 100 illegal aliens. We will lock them in a room with your children for 90 days.  Anything they do will be deemed legal and no intervention or prosecution can occur.  Up for that?  You believe they are just misunderstand so they should be find as daycare providers to your kids.

                • Kordane

                  Immigration hasn’t always been an issue of whether it’s legal or illegal. I mean, back at the start you could just get off a boat and you could be an American. Today’s Mexican immigrants could claim to be Americans by the standard of early-America’s immigration policy.

                  And you’re right, if those immigrants hadn’t come over, then yes, those crimes wouldn’t have been committed – But the point I’m making is that their immigration was not the problem; their particular crime (other than illegal immigration) was the problem, and that their particular crimes get committed by all manner of individual – legal immigrant and even actual citizen.

                  And yes, the Mexican drug cartels ARE the result of the war on drugs / making drugs illegal. IF all drugs were made legal (as would be consistent with the unalienable individual rights of Man) then those Mexican drug cartels would disappear because there would be NO profit in it for them. The whole reason why they make such profits is because there is such risk involved in drug dealing. Take away the risk (because it would be legal) and those drug cartels would cease to be. There are plenty of Libertarian writers who have spoken about this exact issue and its resolution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    I really want to get excited about this because Rand has been my choice for quite some time. However frankly…..I’m like Bill Whittle. Its really hard for me to care anymore.

    • FutureOnePercent

      Like B-Dub said, we need to win the culture war so that elections are a fore-gone conclusion.

  • nibblesyble

    I like Rand on a lot of issues, but he is similar to his father on ones that I cannot support, such as legalizing drugs, his non-support for Israel ect. Sigh, I wish Newt was thinking about running again!

    • FutureOnePercent

      I’m going to sound like a broken record in this thread, but these are the types of things that will throw the Republicans on the ash heap of history.

      Put aside your personal views on any of these subjects for one minute and ask yourself: “Who’s responsibility it is to enact social change?”

      Is it our responsibility as a society or is it the governments?

      As soon as we try to force people into our own way of thinking by using government to point the barrel of a gun at someone, we are just as guilty as they are.

      If we are to be against statism, our message falls apart if we are inconsistent.

      • nibblesyble

        I appreciate your point of view and it has merit, I like Rand and I would support him running over a whole bunch of people, just not Newt!

        • FutureOnePercent

          Nibble, thanks for the kind words and taking the time to try to understand what I mean…

          I’m not going to be able to change anyone’s mind, but I hope I can at least convince people to give these views a chance.

    • Orangeone

      Newt has come out for homosexual marriage so he’ll fail as well he should.

      • nibblesyble

        Are you speaking of when he said that he believed in State’s rights and that if the people vote it in, that he can accept that over a judge deciding? I see nothing wrong in either of those statements.

        • Orangeone

          He recently made a statement that the Republican party needs to come around to gay marriage.  With that, I disagree.  It would be one thing if the people were really voting things in but we are not, it is a very small # of politicians that lie to get our votes and then do what they want.

          • nibblesyble

            Hi O, I read what he said. He was more or less saying many states have voted this in and it looks like more and more people are coming around to it. Ugh, I love me some Newt…but wish he would rethink this and fight against this tide. Having said that, I learned that political figures disappoint as well as inspire. Thanks for the info.

            • Orangeone

              But the people are not voting it in the elected officials are which is what is wrong with this type of representation.  The politicians lie, tell us what we want to hear and do as the d@mn well please.  I’m looking for Allen West to do something!  Or maybe even Tim Scott although I think he will run for the US Senate seat.

              • nibblesyble

                I am with you on Allen West all the way!

                • Orangeone

                  Just curious who you would like for VP?

                • nibblesyble

                  I actually would be thrilled with Palin as Pres and West as VP, then West as Pres for the next 8 years! With Newt as Chief of Staff or some other roll that would have him advising. Both Palin and West love Newt and admire his knowledge so I can see it happening.

  • http://hehasfailed.wordpress.com/ HopeHeFails

    The apple can’t have fallen that far from the tree. Probably end up pulling a John Roberts on everyone after election.

  • drphibes

    Rand is the more balanced Paul. He is a right-leaning libertarian.

    We need to scrutinize his ideas on immigration, though.

    • cabensg

      I hope he doesn’t run.

      • FutureOnePercent

        Just out of curiosity, are there any reasons you don’t want him to run?

        Not picking a fight, just wondering.

        • cabensg

          I’ve got nothing to fight with but opinion anyway. I just can’t see a Libertarian as what we need for president. If………..if Republicans were to come up with a conservative candidate that I could really get behind I feel Rand would split the vote. I find him much more likeable and persuasive than his father so yes I hope he doesn’t run.

          • Orangeone

            You are correct. Because of the PaulBots in MN, we are stuck with Dayton the Drunk fr Governor and now have full Dem Legislature. MN will pass homosexual marriage, ban gun and raise taxes by the end of January because of what the libertarians did.

      • drphibes

        Yeah, not sure how I feel about it. My gut instinct is on the shallow side of charisma, etc. We need the right kind of conservative who can inspire people. I wish Ronald Reagan were running.

  • conservativenews

    He’s exactly what America needs. He will unite conservatives and libertarians. In 2016 there will be absolutely no money to support any country, including Israel. We are the brokest nation on earth and there is 4 more years of Obama ahead of us.

    • aposematic

      Debt is slavery! And who are the holders of the majority of America’s debt that continues to grow by $86B/mo.? That’s right, the the Fed. And who are the Fed.; A cabal of the World’s Billionaire Bankers and assorted other Billonaires. The bailing this cabal out of the mess they created of the World is the primary reason for the continuing $1.2T/yr. average yearly American deficit. The “Debt Ceiling” will be raised so the redistribution of America’s wealth can continue to prop up the World’s Billionaires.

  • Rshill7

    Never heard Rand Paul say anything ridiculous. Have heard him say many wise things. I like him. He could get all the paulbots and a lot of conservative Republicans. Could probably get a lot of social liberals too. I think he’d govern as a strict constructionist.

    No more libby lights! Give me individual rights!

    • Amy

      Oh, I like that one – libby light – it’s fitting for so many in our R party. :-)

      I thoroughly agree with the individual rights as well.

      • Rshill7

        That’s why you’re on my “groovy” list :-)

    • hbnolikeee

      One has to wonder if he is an anti-semite like his dad though…

      • Rshill7

        Right, but two can tango.

        • hbnolikeee

          Fine in the ballroom, but the Oval Office?

    • las1

      He’s already showing signs of equivocation in his latest trip to Israel. Equivocation in the eyes of the Bots, that is. He’ll have a fight on his hands with them on FP and Israel… but what can they do… resurrect Ron Paul? Aint’ gonna happen now.

      Like you, I’ve always liked Rand Paul, and clearing the anarcho-libertarian fanatics out of the way on the issue of FP will be his first task. Prepare to see flying cat fur.

      • Orangeone

        He’s trying to win over Conservatives by making it appear he supports Israel. True politician. He is ignoring his election position of US Senator by campaigning for 2016.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Rand Paul is an economic conservative, but not a social conservative.

    However, the GOP will likely nominate Charlie Crist and/or Chris Christie.

    • Rshill7

      Charlie Crist is a democrat.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

        And that’ll stop them… how?

        • Rshill7

          Cuz he’s a democrat :-)

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

            so? that didn’t stop them from nominating John McLame did it?

            • Rshill7

              No, but McLame was a covert democrat with an R after his McName.

      • aposematic

        What time is it?

    • hbnolikeee

      Oh for Crist’s sake.

    • cabensg

      I guess your looking at past records when you make that prediction. I can see your point.

    • aposematic

      Thanks for the belly laugh Conniption Fitz, I needed that!

  • deTocqueville1

    I have mixed feelings about Rand. He seems far to self promoting for my taste and if this is true my inclinations are confirmed. It is too bad because he could have been a hard worker for Senate conservatism and reform.

  • DevastatingLegDrop_22

    At least Rand has some juice. Paul Ryan sounds like a dirge so far this Congress.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

    I’m all for Rand Paul running. We need fiscal responsibility. If the Republican’s run someone like Rick “Big Government” Santorum, that’s pretty much an instant win for whoever the Democrats run.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler
      • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

        Rick Santorum has spoken numerous times about how the Government needs to be more involved. He believes the Republican’s can run big Government better than the Democrats. Santorum is a conservative all right, a Neo-Con that is.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

          After i heard “Santorum has voted to fund planned parenthood” i threw your link out as crap. The truth is, any Senator who has voted to approve the Federal budget has voted to fund abortion because the budget has allotted funds to Planned Parenthood. He has LEAD the charge against planned parenthood as can be seen by their scorcecard of him.

          2006 Planned Parenthood – Positions 0%
          2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          2004 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          2003-2004 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          2003 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          2001-2002 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          2001 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          2001 Planned Parenthood – Positions 0%
          2000 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 20%
          1999-2002 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association – Positions 0%
          1999-2000 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          1999 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          1999 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          1999 Planned Parenthood – Positions 0%
          1997-1998 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          1997 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          1997 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          1996-2003 Planned Parenthood – Positions 0%
          1996 NARAL Pro-Choice America – Positions 0%
          1996 National Right to Life Committee – Positions 100%
          1995-2004 National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association – Positions 0%
          1995-1998 Planned Parenthood – Positions 0%
          1993-1996 Planned Parenthood – Positions 5%

          Rand Paul was just throwing sh*t on him because his dad needed the help.

          • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree. At the very least, Santorum can get up and run on the social issues again, and lose.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

              I suppose so. But ever wonder how George Bush won the presidency twice? mhmmmm….. http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/18/why-social-conservatives-win/

              • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

                Bush won, because lot of people are gullible honest. Rick Santorum isn’t even a Social Conservative IMO. He throws the subject around because he knows it will get him votes, but I don’t think for a second he’s serious about it. Either way, this is why I love The Right Scoop, people can disagree, but it’s civil.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

                  Rick Santorum isn’t even a Social Conservative? “tries to hold laugh in but fails.”

                  Claiming that Santorum isn’t a social conservative is like claiming Obama isn’t a liberal, you just. can’t. do. it.

                  http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Gay_Marriage/

                  And he has taken the bullets for it. Just google his name to confirm that.

                • PhillyCon

                  John:
                  Remember where this attack is coming from. Ron Paul ran several ads on this (that he’s really not a SoCon). He went after Santorum’s conservative credentials re: Title X funding.

                  Many of Santorum’s critics were Ron Paul supporters. This coalesced nicely with the Romney attack ads as well. Kind of tells you the priority of the primary. Doesn’t it?

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

                  Sadly yes

              • Louisvillejim

                Because the Supreme Court knew Gore was a nut?

                • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

                  I think we can all agree that Al Gore is a nut lol. One that is 100 million dollars richer sadly.

            • hbnolikeee

              “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.” Careful that’s lib speak. When you cannot justify your position that is the lib non response.

              • http://www.facebook.com/richard.drakos Richard Drakos

                lol fair enough. I fully admit I’m awful at debating stuff, so never mind me haha.

                • hbnolikeee

                  No problem. Your answer indicates a reasonable person. ;-)

    • ryanomaniac

      I agree…no Santorum. The guy is nice enough but he is a little hypocritical and fires before aiming.

      • Louisvillejim

        Rand knows a terrorist act when he sees it. Good enough for me.

  • Amy

    Hmm… I haven’t heard enough about foreign policy or the borders from Rand. I can live with everything else but if he supports open borders and has isolationist views like his dad than it’s a definite no go for me.

    • Louisvillejim

      Like Obama knew anything about either one. Rand wants to build a WALL and we can do that(although the dems don’t believe we could)and worry about the illegals and their children later. Otherwise, what is the point of immigration reform???

      • Amy

        Well I didn’t vote for Obama – LOL However, I would have voted for Ron Paul before Obama for certain. I’ve never heard much on Rand’s border policy or his immigration policy views so I will be investigating it.

        • Orangeone

          Caution: What he says and his actual beliefs may well be different.

      • hbnolikeee

        Look, I would basically take a pile of turds over what we have now (not comparing RP to that..). But, offering a justification for anything: ie. “Like Obama knew…” is not good reasoning. Pointing at one stupid move as making another one okay is just not going to get us “there” and doesn’t make the sale.

        You should not offer one bad move as justification for more. And do note that I am not saying that RP would be bad.

        • cabensg

          I will not take a pile of turds until that’s what Republicans offer again and I am unanimous in that.

          • hbnolikeee

            That’s fine. But don’t use what some ass has done as a pass on what someone else does.

            • cabensg

              My attempt at humor was a total fail.

  • Howzah123

    Rand Paul 2016

    • Louisvillejim

      YES.

  • poljunkie

    I still haven’t recovered from 8 weeks ago.

    • Rshill7

      Have you tried letting your husband pick you up and twirl you around over his head while you’re saying “Weeeeeee”?

      Just another helpful hint from your Uncle Rs :-)

      • poljunkie

        I will try that today and get back to you.

        :-)

        • Rshill7

          Ok sister…listen. If that doesn’t work, take your time and prepare your favorite sandwich in the whole wide world. Then wrap it ever so carefully and lovingly in Reynolds Wrap and pop it in the microwave for 59 seconds.

          • poljunkie

            Hey now.

            • Rshill7

              Ooops :-(

              • poljunkie

                Once in the stupidity of my youth, I put something in the microwave with foil. Thankfully it wasnt much…So it just sparked. ☺

                Back then in the olden days we called in tin foil.

                • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

                  I blew a door off once.
                  forgot I had a fork on the plate and walked away.
                  don’t remember details but I do remember thinking the food tasted fine though :)

                • poljunkie

                  Hahahahahahah

    • cabensg

      Why did you have to put it like that? It seems like an eternity ago to me.

      • poljunkie

        It is hard to believe isnt it?

        Sorry.

  • JudyPaulette

    I didn’t read all the comments below so this may have been covered.
    There are current pictures of Rand Paul in Israel which is fueling
    this speculation of a prez run. I don’t take any of it seriously.
    The ink wasn’t dry, so to speak, on the last election until people were talking about the 2016 election.
    When his lips move and say I am running I will believe it.

    • cabensg

      Believe it he’s gonna run.

  • colliemum

    These super-early claims of possible candidates for 2016 are utterly futile.

    They are futile because they assume everything will be ok again because Obama isn’t running.

    Wrong.

    Unless the states and unless the voters massively address the issue of voter fraud, and do something about it now, no GOP candidate will win ever again.
    It is disturbing that the question of voter fraud has sunk under the horizon, and it is disgusting that neither the GOPe nor Romney has been saying a word about it.

    as they won’t do anything, it is up to the citizens in the states to kick their governors etc and get this sorted – now, before 2014, never mind 2016.

    The posturings of the Rand Pauls, Rubios, Christies and the rest are pixie-dust, to make you look away from the real issue, voter fraud.

  • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Stewie

    Good move-

    I’d definitely support him over any establishment garbage. The fact that he’s out so early with it seems like he’s trying to back the GOP into a corner by hogging the stage and coalescing the conservatives and libertarians around him.

    • Rshill7

      Right, and coalescing beats convalescing every time.

  • Sober_Thinking

    This can be good or bad. I firmly believe that a percentage of voters (1% officially?) were siphoned off from Romney because of Ron Paul… I’m not condemning them necessarily (and I really don’t want to debate this comment), they simply voted for who they liked.

    Rand Paul is seriously, one of the most conservative people in Congress. I like him overall but part of me doesn’t trust him 100% either. So… if this is true, there may again be a split among conservatives in 2016… depending on how “Libertarian” Rand is. The funny thing is, I’ve been supporting the idea of third party for more than a year now. If that 3rd party is Libertarian, I hope they can meld more with the Tea Party on the few points I support (a strong military for example). If they do that… I may be on board. I already agree with nearly 80% of what they stand for.

    However, it’s a bit too early to think about the election in 2016 imo… let’s focus on 2014 while we lay the foundation for 2016.

    • cabensg

      You don’t trust him 100% I don’t trust him at all.

      • Sober_Thinking

        I won’t defend him, because I don’t know all his voting records or positions. But many things I have seen and many people I trust, like what he’s been doing.

        But like you… I’m wary… not just of him. ANY politician is capable of going to the dark side.

        :)

        • cabensg

          I really like what he’s been doing as Senator. Everything I’ve seen and heard so far are music to a conservatives ears but it’s still a far cry from me wanting him for president. I actually don’t doubt his integrity (silly me) it’s the Libertarian in him. I just can’t reconcile the Libertarian views on to many things. I’m gonna get killed for this but I’d take a tiny bit of Rinoness if it was combined with an overwhelming dose of conservatism over libertarianism.

          • Sober_Thinking

            Well, I hope that just for once in a long while, we get a superstar for a candidate. Someone who has a check in almost every box – if not all. Someone who is a true conservative and a Tea Party darling… someone that even teavangelicals can back. Wishful thinking perhaps but who knows. And then the question is, will this person run as an independent, a Republican or what?

            I’m still Jonesing for Allen West… at least for now. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1254810689 Pete L-man

    I am voting for Rand Paul in 2016 without any hesitation. His foreign policy is sound. He wants to remove foreign aid to all countries, even Israel yes, but will then take a stand back and see what they really need in aid and provide such aid. He is a smart man and is as fiscal responsible as they come.

  • cabensg

    If he wasn’t a Libertarian he’d have my vote.

  • FutureOnePercent

    As a Libertarian-Republican who is excited about this choice, does this automatically make me a PaulBot or do I need to be socially liberal and have some crazy conspiracy theory first?

    Just wondering what the rules of the game are…

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      No, you’ll have to be socially liberal and a crazy conspiracy theorist first. :P

    • poljunkie

      No!

      You’re good in my book!

    • puma_for_life

      I like him, too.

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    I’m still holding out hope that Allen West will run in 2016. I really hope he does.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    Okay, I have no problem with him running, and would like to see what he has in his campaign and to the debates.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVCGRG62NAGQXJ6ZNE4JCTVVTU Ray

    Here is MY view of foreign policy. We won the war of Europe in the 40’s. WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? The reason they brought about this European Socialism is WE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR IT, by hugely supplementing their military. We need to get out, if we would not have been there, they would have had to pay for their own military, would not have had the economy based on our spending, and would NOT have experimented with socialized medicine.
    We need to bring them home. Plain and Simple. We have long range missiles and Bombers to alley any problems before our forces can mobilize and get there anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      To an extent you are correct but to another extent you aren’t. We can still have bases in Europe without propping up socialism. Europe effectively used their support for the USA as a bargaining chip to get that prop up.

      Also we are there still and around the world because we were very close to losing WWII from getting caught with our pants down. We lost thousands of lives due to this. We have a lot of resources in this country so trying to be Switzerland won’t wash. We must defend our resources and always be prepared to defend ourselves. Peace will always be found on the other side of war.

      Remember too that geography also plays an important role in our base placement and in correlation to problems in the world.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVCGRG62NAGQXJ6ZNE4JCTVVTU Ray

        That MAY have been true in the first 30 years after the war, however, we have advanced in technology since then. Again, we can send missiles anywhere in the world in about 30 minutes, we still have a Navy that can inflict great harm in a matter of hours to almost any place on the planet, at least until we can have boots on the ground in as little as 20 hours.
        NOW an exception would be IF THEY CHOOSE TO PAY US TO BE THERE. Then I would be ok with it. But this is a total waste of taxpayers money.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          That is pure baloney that you deluding yourself into thinking it is Filet Mignon. At the end of the day it still comes down to boots on the ground and how many as well as how fast you can get them there. Boots on the ground secure the area as opposed to losing lives in the process of securing the area. Drones are not a substitute for everything and we cannot always mobilize to every part of the world as fast as you say but one thing that makes that possible is the fact that we have the tools in place all over the world that make that possible.

          Yes we may need to pull back some just due to the expense and the spending here, and we certainly need to stop propping up socialism in Europe but currently it is in our interest to do so. You can rant and rail, pis and moan, but those that made the bad deals of being the world’s police force are long gone so it does no good. If Europe falls so does all of Western Civilization which includes us. We are not big enough or good enough to stand up to the entire rest of the world.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVCGRG62NAGQXJ6ZNE4JCTVVTU Ray

            laurel, how long did it take to get boots on the ground in bagdad? We did shock and awe for days, which allowed for setup of the land war/.
            We still have ally status with most of Europe, and I am sure it would not be a matter of hours for any force to take over all of Europe.
            The act of our removing forces from Europe would cause them to stop depending on us and OUR MONEY. England has a capable military as does Germany. I was stationed at Lakenheath England for 4 years in the mid 80’s, and know the RAF could handle the 20 hours it would take to get our forces on the way.
            Again, we have a capable Navy that can strike anywhere in Europe or Southwest Asia within hours.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

              We got boots on the ground after telegraphing our punch for how long? And we got boots on the ground due to the fact we had what stationed in the Gulf?

              We give a lot defense freebies to Europe that need not be but in reality the ink dried on those contracts to give freebies before we were born. We have become co-dependent with Europe.

              Look I’m not saying we can’t cut back but I am also not saying isolationism is a good thing either. We have done that too many times in history and it didn’t work out well.

              And there is still no getting around the fact that at the end of the day it still comes down to boots on the ground. The minute you show a weak spot or create a void it will be exploited.

              • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVCGRG62NAGQXJ6ZNE4JCTVVTU Ray

                If we are there protecting them, they should pay, if not we should leave. Again, our technology has increased to a point we do not need to be present in theater immediately. Besides, even if we are, the commander in chief could tell our guys to stand down, which just happened.

                • DavidScottMasiwchuk

                  You are not understanding the point….It isn’t them we are protecting it is us, our resources and interests.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVCGRG62NAGQXJ6ZNE4JCTVVTU Ray

                  I am understanding the point, exactly. Our weapons delivery systems have been updated from b-42’s and p-57’s that our Air Force (albeit Army Air Force then) and navy had at the end of WW2. Our military cut their military costs since we were “In Theater”, which had the unintended consequence of subsidizing them so they could develop European Socialism, which now has been exported here to bankrupt our economy. If we had left in the late 50’s they would have either not attempted the socialism or they would have been bankrupted within 15 years instead of in the last few years.
                  Our military has far better capabilities than you seem to be giving them credit for. Our weapons delivery can be employed in less than an hour to anywhere on the globe with our missile systems, our Naval forces can be in theater in less than 5 hours anywhere in Europe via fighter jets and smart weapon technology. Our Air Force long range bombers would then take over, and lastly boots on the ground within 18 hours. I am not sure why you are digging in with 60 year old military tactics.

                • DavidScottMasiwchuk

                  Clinton thought the same thing and yet still we needed troops on the ground…………. The governments job is to protect us and the constitution. Thats it….So why do so many complain then they actually do their job?

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

                  How do you know they aren’t paying?

                  You are absolutely dead wrong on this. I wish it were as simple as you make it but I know a few military logistics people that would disagree with you. this is not a new discussion for me.

      • cabensg

        Your absolutely right. Pulling our bases from around the world only gets applause if you don’t actually look at the consequences. As far as saving money is concerned it’s laughable. We could probably put a dozen more outposts around the world with the savings from the absurdities our government now funds, which by the way could fill 20 large volumes.

  • FutureOnePercent

    For anyone concerned about Rand Paul’s view of Israel, please read this… I think he makes some very compelling arguments about how we can REALLY be helping Israel.

    http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=298674

    • rsfan1

      I wonder why Paul wouldn’t comment on Hagel?

      From the article…

      “Paul was recently selected to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but declined to comment on the nomination of Chuck Hagel as new US defense secretary.”

  • tdaly

    He has our vote as well!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    He doesn’t have a prayer.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    I read this thread and I see many things but mostly what I see is people making the exact same mistakes as the left.

    People in reality are still looking for a moral socially and fiscally conservative Republican but none are on the horizon and none will come until we come to an agreement of what socially and fiscally conservative means. It doesn’t mean libertarian or neo-con for me nor does it mean fluid morals.

    The simple fact is that those already hinting at running and gearing up have failed. Yes Rand and Rubio that means you.

    In the next four years I hope that my fellow Americans will learn what the difference between governing and politics actually is. It is crucial that you do.

    • marketcomp

      Well spoken, Laurel as always, my friend! It certainly, does make one wonder about the objectives of someone that would annouce this so early. Shore up support or eliminate a competitor, maybe? But, your right it really doesn’t matter at this point. We still MUST deal with the Marxist in office now.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        Correct!

    • wadnnit

      Who is better out there?

      • DavidScottMasiwchuk

        Many…..West for one.

        • wadnnit

          yes..How about Allen West and Tim Scott ticket?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        I like West but we should see what develops. Desperately throwing our support behind the boy du jour just makes us desperate and pathetic.

        • wadnnit.

          Thought about it and don’t really agree. Further, would like to see West/Scott ticket with Cain as Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

          It’s about a couple of principles. One, we need radical change now and visions give us strength and courage, even if they may change/evolve into somethng better down the road. Two, what we think about what is occuring now reflects what we are learning freshly about truth: These men are powerful black men who together could infuse a sense of true American ideals into the country in a way no others could.

          It is obvious how they could do so, and that informs us how to respond to ignorant villification of conservatives as rascists, and protestations that liberalism is the only thing going today that will save the African American, other minority peoples, and the country.

          It is useful to speculate.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            There is a great big difference between speculation and actual promotion…and generally speaking promotion in this country comes at the behest of the liberal media. Media very slyly puts the person front and center in the news and people glom on and they become the celebrity candidate. That is the how and the way media picks our candidates. We let them.

            When you have one bullet in your gun you better make it count. Putting forth a candidate this early gives the left far too much time to take him down or the candidate far too much time to take himself down.

            And I don’t give a crap if the left wants to call me a racist or anyone else. They have killed the word quite frankly and that has it’s own repercussions. I WILL NOT LET OTHERS DEFINE ME NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. I like West, Scott, Cain, and many other black men not because they are black but because they hold my ideals and are extremely intelligent. Now if being black is what helped them to form that intellect then more power to them. Whatever it takes.

        • wadnnit.

          Laurel–
          Further again, today I discovered a video from another black quarter, Dr. Manning in Harlem, and here’s the link:

          Another powerful voice for real change. I looked up what “Atlah” means, and it revealed something to me that has been on my mind, for real, for quite some time: a vision of a powerful uprising of black men from the most unexpected places. Check out this link as well and put it all together–
          http://atlah.org/2010/11/01/atlah-explained/

          Now, here’s another reason why it is useful to speculate–it just might end up being prophecy! Don’t know if you believe in prophecy, but I do, and I believe it is still being given to us. We hold thoughts and ideas, visions, in our upturned hands, and wait …maybe it is the Lord speaking to us.

          What a fruitful discussion this may turn out to be! What a day. This is the day the lord hath made!

          Hope springs eternal, with the Lord God Almighty!

          Amen

  • ApplePie101

    A distraction. America’s salvation will not come from Washington DC, but rather from us as individuals, and on the state level.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F6WP57ET6FUO7LRAPPM45P2RFI Gary

    The corrpt GOP elite will sabotage him. He needs to lead an independent conservative pro constitution party. The GOP is finished. Let them split the idiot vote with the Marxists.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      Trouble is most don’t know what Constitution means or how it’s applicable within the law, establishes the law, and how past precedent effects that.

      I hear many proclaim “Constitution!” but know little of it or it’s applications. Two and half centuries of cause and effect cannot be wiped clean like a chalk board.

  • kssturgis62

    This outlines Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy. he is not like his dad, he does differ with him on Several things. http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-foreign-policy/

    this is one quote from the article:

    Paul also said President Barack Obama is “not very different” than former President George W. Bush. The Senator from Kentucky has proposed ending America’s $30 billion in aid to Israel. He called the United Nations a quote “forum for dictators.”

    His father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) favors withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    “Get the troops out of Afghanistan and end that war that has helped us and hasn’t helped anyone in the Middle East,” said Ron Paul during the first Republican primary debate.
    But unlike his father, the younger Paul is not proposing immediate withdrawal of US troops, and said he supports increasing the percentage of America’s budget spent on the Pentagon—despite an 81 percent increase in defense spending since 2001.

    “When I prioritize spending, I think national defense is a constitutional function of government, so I think that it would have a priority for me over all other spending really,” he said.

  • NJK

    Gosh, I hope so. I won’t even have to think about it.

  • TLaMana

    I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of his foreign policy stands. I believe we should pull out of Europe and Asia and stop giving money to other countries when we can’t afford it and they hate us.

    I believe we should stop nation building. How another country runs itself is no concern of ours. The only reason why we are in the Middle East is for the oil. If we fully developed our domestic resources we could pull out and let them blow each other up.

    I believe we can cut DOD spending by almost half and still fulfill our National Security needs.

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    as long as he doesn’t call bradley manning a patriot or says he respects dennis kucinich I will consider him.

  • jgilman1

    Conservatives+Republicans+Libertarians+Paulbots+Democrats who got slapped up side the head with reality= pretty darn good odds.

  • aZjimbo

    Who cares. He’ll be a rino by then.

  • http://twitter.com/InaudibleNoise InaudibleNoise

    Rand Paul in Israel: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=298674

    ZoNation Speaking about the GOP NOT allowing Dems to elect first woman POTUS: http://youtu.be/lVWHVrDQFdo

    The Hill article calling Chris Christie the ‘GOP Churchill’ & Hillary’s “most formidable opponent” http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/276493-christie-the-gop-churchill

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I wouldn’t feel too awful if I woke up one morning and Rand was sitting behind the Oval Office Desk.

    But I have to say it: he is not 100% committed to restoration, and he definitely is NOT the best articulator of conservative, constitutional principles. Until he gets that, he’s not the guy we need. Not even close.

    In fairness to Rand, he’s probably at least as committed to Restoration as Allen West, and maybe even has a slight edge over West in that area. But he isn’t even in the same league as West when it comes to articulating the American concepts of individual liberty.

    Vote West, my friends. You owe it to your grandchildren.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GDJGRV2MMCB6P2ZYTUZW6BHFVA Richard

    After all, it is his father. Can’t a man have some family loyalty?

  • JoeSixPacks

    In 2008 Ron Paul sounded like a lunatic to me. Completely insane. In 2011, Ron Paul said the same things running for President again, and sounded like the only grown up in the room. I’d give Rand a listen. Why not?

  • RobertMahoney

    I spoke with Rand face to face here in Lexington KY when he was running for office. I asked him how his foreign policy differed from his fathers, he said to me..

    “There are those who think we should be everywhere all the time, and there are those who think we shouldn’t be anywhere any time. I believe that if we do go to war, it needs to be exactly that, a declared war.”

    Again, this was nearly 3 years ago from memory. He made it clear that there are 2 types of thinking, those like Bill Kristol and National Review (Neo Conservatives) who think we need to be a global force, and there are those who thing we should bring all our troops home (Ron Paul, Alex Jones etc.) I think Rand takes the sensible position that we need to be where we need to be, and when we are done, then we come home. We do it legally and constitutionally.

    What I do like about Rand is the fact that all the hardcore Ron Paul supporters hate him.

  • NCHokie02

    I hop Rand does run. I think he would be an awesome candidate. Please dont automatically dismiss him before you hear him because of his father. I would have voted for him over Mitt this last go round.

  • m0r0

    Despite my fears of his foreign policy I hope he runs. As of this moment he is the ONLY Republican politician out there in the press fighting vociferously against the president and the abuse of the democrats. He has the balls to be out there and he is incredibly articulate. Thank goodness for him.

  • jrt1031

    Unfortunately the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. For this reason I don’t find Rand to be such a great presidential candidate. I actually really liked his agenda in the past but when he endorsed Romney over Gingrich he showed his lack of good judgment call. If more could have stood behind Newt we wouldn’t be stuck with the mess we have now.

  • Orangeone

    A little more insight to Rand Paul – he ran under the Republican ticket and not as a Libertarian. Lie #1. His son was also just arrested for alcohol-related crimes (underage drinking). Will he be the next Father of the Year after Billy Boy Clinton? Perhaps he should concentrate on his parenting before his political career.

  • conseraterian

    According to Breitbart.com, Sen. Rand Paul is making his distinctions from his father quite clear:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/10/Rand-Paul-Tries-to-Shed-Ron-Paul-s-Poor-Israel-Record