Rand Paul running in 2016?

The possibility of Rand Paul running for President in 2016 has been mooted ever since he won his senate spot.  From hope, to speculation, to an item of faith, his name has been present in the calculations.

His request to be on the ballot in Kentucky twice and its approval seems to seal the deal:

The Courier-Journal reports that Kentucky Senate committee voted Wednesday to allow Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to place his name on the 2016 ballot twice, once for his reelection as a senator and once for president of the United States. 

Paul made the request because Kentucky’s state law states that he would have to leave the Senate if he wanted his name on the Kentucky GOP presidential primary ballot. The Senate State & Local Government Committee voted 8-2, with the two nay votes being Democrats. 

Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer said there would likely be a floor vote on the issue next week. GOP supporters said that the U.S. Constitution does not allow states to decide who can run in federal elections. 

The original bill, written by Thayer, stated that anyone running for federal office could appear twice on a state ballot, but during the committee’s meeting, he changed the wording so that only a presidential or vice-presidential candidate could take advantage of the opportunity. Thayer noted that Sen. Morgan McGarvey, a Democrat from Louisville, voted for the bill; Thayer said, “It gives me a bipartisan bill.” …

One of the concerns about his standing for the top job has been the risk of losing his presence in politics, were he to lose in the race.  This move goes close to ensuring he continues as a senator in that case.

Although popular, he is far from a shoe-in owing to disunity within the Republicans, some of whom can be expected to throw a hissy fit and stay home if their preferred nominee fails to get up.

There is also the problem of his being a one-term senator. Recent experience of the disastrous results from the last time a such a person was elected will still be front and centre during the election and may put people off voting for him.  

Libertarian dilemma in Virginia

The Virginian governor’s race is turning out to be something of a feast for libertarians, with a strong well supported LP candidate in Robert Sarvis, and a strongly libertarian Republican candidate in Ken Cuccinelli (Left).  As result, the state is likely to be governed by big government nanny stater, Terry McAuliffe.

While the polls are all over the place on this race, some of the later ones have McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli by just 2%, but Sarvis is on 10 -12%, most of it taken from the Republican.

Cuccinelli though is the sort of guy who, were the Liberal Party to put him up here, we wouldn’t need to stand a candidate other than to feed him a few preferences: 

Political analyst Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, who often espouses the libertarian viewpoint, wrote Friday that Cuccinelli “would arguably be the most libertarian governor in the United States if he wins on Nov. 7,” a point that contrasts sharply with the fact that libertarians are attacking him. 

As Carney observes, Cuccinelli, as Virginia’s attorney general, was the first to challenge the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s mandates, taxes, subsidies, and infringements upon liberty. 

As governor, Cuccinelli’s plan is to cut the state income tax rate by 15 percent for individuals and 33 percent for corporations, creating an environment that is ripe for the free market.\ 

But libertarians should take note that Cuccinelli’s style is more “pro-economic growth” and less “pro-business,” as evidenced by the fact that his state’s business lobby has had its feathers ruffled by his stand against corporate welfare. Cuccinelli opposed the tax hikes that were sought by Northern Virginia developers to pay for roads and public services, and he pledged to cut the tax credits for special interest groups. 

In addition, Cuccinelli fought, while a state senator, to protect second amendment rights and, consequently, has an "A" rating from the NRA. He also opposed smoking bans when serving as a state senator. 

As Carney states, “Cuccinelli also often chooses government restraint over ‘law and order.’”  Not afraid to oppose his own party, Cuccinelli, was the only Republican to vote against an expansion of the death penalty in 2009, even during a competitive primary for attorney general. … 

… Carney gets to the crux of the matter, however, when he asserts, that “social liberals’ attack on Cuccinelli conflates his personal conservatism with his policy views.” 

The fact is that, while Cuccinelli might not personally agree with a law, he knows his job is to uphold the laws in his state. So, when he prosecuted a 47 year-old sexual predator who had sex with a minor, he defended his state’s “Crimes Against Nature” law but did not attempt to “ban sodomy” or homosexuality, as his critics say. He also has never attempted to “ban contraception,” as Planned Parenthood and its minions have charged. 

As Carney contends, Ken Cuccinelli may personally live a conservative lifestyle, but his record as both a state senator and attorney general is one that demonstrates that liberty is worth fighting for. Shouldn’t libertarians respect his choice to live as he does, while he also works to keep Virginians free?

Many libertarians live a relatively traditional, conservative lifestyle as Cuccinelli apparently does, which is a totally different concept to social conservatism.   The difference is, that while the libertarian conservative conducts himself in a manner, which would be acceptable to the socon, he would not use the authority of the state to inflict his ideas on others who choose to live differently.  Cuccinelli seems to be one of these.

Both Ron and Rand Paul, and a number of small government types have been in the state supporting Cuccinelli over both Sarvis and McAuliffe which is a fair indication that he is acceptable to our side.

Curiously, Berkshire – Hathaway owned Danville Register & Bee, has endorsed Sarvis.  This, while surprising is probably indicative of the left’s desperation since Cuccinelli started closing the gap.  BH is the plaything of liberal tragic and Obama groupie, Warren Buffett who is probably just doing his bit to lure support away toward Sarvis in the hope that doing so will get the Democrat across the line. 

McCain blames Tea Party for Democrat actions

Those Republicans who were devestated by the loss by their 2008 Nominee John McCain have some consolation now.  Watching his actions of late it has become reasonably clear; it wouldn’t have made a lot of difference.

Old John was the guy who referred to Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Justin Amash as ‘wacko birds’ over Paul’s daring to stage a thirteen hour filibuster in the Senate in an effort to force the White House to repudiate its previous assertion that it might be OK to kill US citizens on US soil with unmanned drones.  Unfortunately, he didn’t get to hear the speech as he, his mate Lindsey Graham and a number of other GOP Senators were dining with the President.

Now, with another rush of blood to the head, he is trying to blame the same people for provoking his Democrat friends into changing the rules in order to prevent opposition to their plans: 

... Cruz said on Thursday on the floor of the Senate that old-school Republicans had been working with Democrats to spend more money and raise the debt ceiling. Such Republicans, Cruz said, “would very much like to cast a symbolic vote against raising the debt ceiling and nonetheless to allow our (Democratic) friends on the left side of the aisle to raise the debt ceiling.” Mike Lee said something similar earlier in the day. 

Then McCain went off. He ripped on the Tea Party senators, stating that the set-upon Democrats would surely react by attempting to curb Republican minority rights. “That would be the most disastrous outcome that I could ever imagine,” said McCain. He added, “Isn’t it a little bizarre … Basically what we are saying here on this (Republican) side of the aisle is that we don’t trust our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol who are in the majority, Republicans.” ...

McCain is essentially claiming that if the Republicans don’t agree to allow the Democrats to do what ever they like, they will be responsible for the Dems acting in an unconscionable manner.

Perhaps old Johno might explain what the Republicans did to cause the Benghazi cover-up, the Fast and Furious cover-up, the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS, and the scrutiny of AP and Fox reporters by the Justice Department, all of which are unconscionable.

McCain ‘doesn’t understand filibuster’ or anything else

Probably the only good thing to come out of the 2008 election was that John McCain failed in his bid to become President.  Obama, despite his stupidity, his failings, shortcomings, and nonsensical ideas, was the better man at the time.  He had convictions albeit wrong ones, but McCain had none and still doesn’t.

McCain is the guy who called Rand Paul and Ted Cruz ‘whacko birds’ for the Paul filibuster over the potential use of drone strikes on American citizens on American soil, which made Paul a household name.  Now he claims not to understand why twelve Republicans would stand up for the Second Amendment: 

Sen. John McCain says he doesn't understand the threats from some of his Republican colleagues to filibuster a bill on background checks to buy guns. 

"I don't understand it," the Arizona Republican said on Sunday of the threat coming from Sen. Rand Paul,Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee and nine other Republicans. "The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.” 

"What are we afraid of? ... If this issue is as important as we all think it is, why not take ... it up and debate?" McCain said on CBS's "Face the Nation." “Everybody wants the same goal to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled." 

An examination of background checks, he said, is "something that the American people and certainly Congress could be helped by if we have a vigorous debate and discussion." 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he also wants gun legislation to make it to the floor.

Once background checks are enacted into law, unless there are strict conditions applied, the characteristics disqualifying a person from gun ownership can be expanded to the point where it is almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to qualify.  There needs to be a way to prevent people suffering mental illness or who have a history of coercive activities from gun ownership, however this must not be able to be expanded to include every American.

A guy who cannot understand why a Senator would stand against drone strikes against American citizens on American soil is hardly the ‘go to’ guy on Second Amendment issues. 

It would be difficult to imagine a more unworthy successor to Barry Goldwater in the US Senate than McCain.

Rand Paul; Republic Vs Democracy. RWL stands with Rand

“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” - Lord Acton

 Rand Paul staged a filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director lasting Twelve hours and fifty-two minutes and has raised the important issue of republic Vs democracy in governance.

Paul is one of the few in Congress who understands the importance of remaining a constitutional republic with strict limits on government contained within the enumerated powers in the constitution.
 
There is no inherent virtue in the term ‘democracy’ in its own right. It is simply a method of selecting those who will form a government. Without the strict terms and conditions under which a limited government operates, there is no real guarantee that the elected government will not be despotic.

 Technically, the government of Nicaragua, is democratic, yet few other than Sean Penn, Jimmy Carter, Joe Kennedy II, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, The UN Human Rights Council, and The New York Times, really think this is a good thing. Also on the list of democratic nations are Iran, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Iran, and others.

 A despot is a despot regardless of the method of installation, elected or by coup. Governments have over the years managed to slither under constitutional protections like has happened in the US and Australia. This needs to be wound back.

Paul’s cause in this, is the refusal of the administration to rule out the targeting of American citizens by drone strikes or other methods even on US soil. While his opponents argue that this is not likely to happen, it probably will unless prevented now.

Rand Paul on public perception of government

Rasmussen Reports are consistently showing the approval levels of congress being at extraordinarily low levels. In the last poll on the subject (Jul 13), ONLY 7% felt that congress was doing a good job, as opposed to 60% who felt it was doing a poor job. Rand Paul gives his opinion in the following video:


While the time of Rand’s speech was not mentioned, the fact that it is 600 pages long and was delivered that morning is a clear indication that no real in depth perusal of it was possible prior to the vote in “half an hour.” Had an advance copy been read in the days prior, it would be out of date, owing to the changes of the night before.

It is questionable whether these documents need to be as long as they are. There has to be a way of simplifying them, unless the purpose of making them that long is to ensure they are not fully understood, and possibly hides some aspects until after they are voted on.

The novels of Tom Clancy are often used as an analogy for documents that are long and complex, but they are normally 1,200/1,300 pages long. Obamacare, was as long as two of them read in succession, were they read at all. It was longer than War and Peace, and Atlas Shrugged combined, and created the memorable quote; “It will have to be passed so we will know what is in it.”

A guide for the indefinitely detained.

Image: So ... You've been indefinitely detained.

You have to wonder if Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and their ilk have ever read the Declaration of Independence, or if they have, did they read the grievance section shaking their heads asking, “What were they opposed to that for?” Given their support for indefinite military detention they possibly feel that George III probably had the civil liberties thing about right. Republicans upset about the 08 result can probably be happy they dodged the bullet of a worse President.

Of course you get those naysayers like Senator Rand Paul:

“If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.

“The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of ‘Meals Ready to Eat,’ weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial. Just this year, the vice president referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial.”

Now that this is a fait accompli “Tom the Dancing Bug” has produced a valuable guide (above) for all of those who through membership of the Tea Party, NRA, Ron Paul campaign, or other suspect organizations, find themselves enjoying the hospitality of the US Army in exotic locations to help you deal with your situation. We suggest that you take particular notice of the useful FAQs.

Rand Paul, fighting the Patriot Act.

A great adage for all political parties should be, “Never legislate yourself more power than you would be comfortable with the other side having if you lose government.” Unfortunately in the case of the Patriot Act, The Republicans were for it before they were against it after being voted out, and the Democrats were against it before they were for it. Now it seems that both sides are for it.

Perhaps the public need to be more circumspect when looking at legislation and objecting more vociferously to draconian acts by either side, and when seeing ‘bipartisanship’ should understand that if it is in the interests of both sides, then they are getting well and truly screwed.

One of the consistent voices on the side of freedom is Senator Rand Paul, who seems to be one of the very few standing up for the Constitution in the face of overwhelming odds in the battle to end this act. He has moved and supported a number of amendments to the act, and spoken towards these:


Essentially those in favor of extending the act are arguing that those who oppose it would be responsible for any act of any terrorist in the future, whether or not the provisions would have prevented it or not. This has intimidated most to the point where the attempt to block cloture was defeated 74/8 with only four Dems and three Republicans supporting him.

Rand is a strong and articulate voice for liberty in the USA, and has great scope for the Presidency at some time in the future. I have doubts as to whether it is now as the US population is justifiably wary of electing inexperienced first term senators to that position. Still, his letter to senate colleagues is telling:

He (James Otis) condemned these general warrants as “the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book.” Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges—not soldiers or policemen—would issue warrants. Otis’ battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).
I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.

I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.

As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?

The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.

It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of “security.” ....

Rand Paul; “Spending more is not a cut.”

Paul seems to be one of the more capable Senators in the US. It is somewhat ironic that he had to fight tooth and nail against the establishment elements of his own party to get there.



The more I see of him the more I like him. He is after all one of the few who is making a genuine effort to cut expenditure and has come up with serious plans for doing it.