In what is clearly a nod toward the libertarian-leaning Senator and his longtime fiscal conservative Congressman father and former GOP candidate Ron Paul, the Romney campaign has just confirmed Rand Paul will be among a select group of primetime speakers at the upcoming GOP convention this month.
Inside-the-campaign reports have long suggested both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were on friendlier terms than other was the case between other Republican candidates during an often bitter fight for the nomination. This good nature is now being extended to Ron Paul’s son and rising star within the Republican Party – Rand Paul. There remain whispers that the popular Kentucky Senator was being considered for the VP slot – though such considerations never reached beyond mere campaign speculation.
Romney is also extending another prime time speaking slot to Rick Santorum, possibly his fiercest rival during the Republican primary race. Both men have since mended fences (at least publicly), and Santorum has publicly declared his intent to help make Barack Obama a one and done president.
Oy vey.
Did you see this?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/25/drug-money-funds-voter-fraud-in-kentucky/
Romney better be very careful.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Senator Aqua Buddha benefitted from this. Who would the drug dealers want to buy votes for more than a liberal/libertarian drug legalization promoter?
Let’s not forget that the Pauls have a history of election fraud. Ron Paul people actually went to prison after his 1988 Presidential campaign.
E.A.B. August 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“Who would the drug dealers want to buy votes for more than a liberal/libertarian drug legalization promoter?
Let’s not forget that the Pauls have a history of election fraud. Ron Paul people actually went to prison after his 1988 Presidential campaign.”
1). Drug Dealers can’t afford drug legalization as it would adversely impact sales under the counter through regulation creating high risk and high reward dynamics in Law of Demand and Supply and Demand. It would also adversely impact Prosecutors and Judges election PR in much of the same way the elimination of Self-Defense creates a win-win for Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys, Judges, and Law Enforcement.
2). In 1988, Ron Paul left the Republican Party to run for President as a Libertarian Independent Party and set the ground work to attack Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and other US prioritized groups aka nationalistic groups as threats to the Progressive Republican and Democratic Bi-Partisan Establishment naming such as potential terrorists and Right-Wing Extremists.
Please quit bashing Paul and supporters. I am one and I am nothing like what some of you alledge. Really, are the Pauls and their supporters any worse than the jugeared jackass and his supporters?
I see that as more of an overzealous supporter issue than systemic corruption.
In all truth, I believe the Pauls are probably about the most honest politicians in Washington.
And liberal? Hardly. These guys are pro-life champions of freedom of speech, gun rights, small government and laissez-faire capitalism.
I agree with everything these guys stand for, with exception only to their stance on foreign policy.
Incidentally, decriminalization/legalization is a concept that originated with William F. Buckley.
I concur 110% with you, Bill O!
LIKING ROMNEY MORE AND MORE!!!! GREAT MOVE TO LET THE GREAT SENATOR RAND PAUL SPEAK AT THE CONVENTION!!!!! OBAMA MUST BE DEFEATED!!!!! SAVE AMERICA!!!!!
Oh dear, this will put a couple pairs of panties in a bunch around here.
Hardly. It was to be expected. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Libertarian contingent are in the tank for, well, “unAmerican” interests.
And the first fish bites the hook.
Oh, Randall, settle down. Rand Paul is one of the good guys. He’s certainly a man of honor. That’s ridiculous to imply that he’s on board with “unAmerican” interests.
Take a closer look at the skeletons in the Pauls’ closet. “Honor” isn’t something these people know much about.
Imagine, if you will, a “Republican” President as destructive and deceiving as the current Democrat President. That would be the election of Ron or Rand to POTUS. They aren’t “good guys.”
Put the dots together: Alex Jones, drug money in Kentucky, RT television appearances, “end the fed,” support for the legalization of bogus medical supplements, the Mises Institute, blame America first, Murray Rothbard and “Ronald Reagan – Warmonger,” Lincoln hater Thomas DiLorenzo, conservative hater Tom Woods, the break with the Republican Party, the recent infiltration, a presidential campaign that never ended, had no chance in winning, and kept spending money… etc. etc. etc. I could go on but I won’t.
Now ALL of this points to a movement that is not pro-America, or even American. It points to a subversive agenda, clearly being dictated by one country in particular, deeply involved in organized crime (drugs, money laundering). Our longtime foes, de Tocqueville recognized – the Russians.
Exactly. Why else hasn’t he gone away like other candidates that have run for president in the past, as in where did his money come from… and why else did he not stay in the primary race when he would have won against Mittens this cycle as things were trending before he bowed out? His purpose was (and always has been) to split the conservative and libertarian-repub vote in the primary for his good pal, WMR.
If you’re referring to Russian intelligence’ apparent support for Ron and Rand Paul, I think you’re misinterpreting the situation.
Russian intelligence has their own goals and they have nothing to do with supporting Libertarians, but everything to do with manipulating public opinion.
Randall August 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm
“Hardly. It was to be expected. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Libertarian contingent are in the tank for, well, “unAmerican” interests.”
1). I’d tend to agree that it was to be expected. Libertarian, Constitutionalists, and etc who supported Ron Paul are necessary to further enhance Romney’s 2012 election bid to be successful.
2). As to being ‘un-American interests’, this would require ignoring the rather blatant and acceleration towards civil privilege and Empire building, which neither are exclusive to civil rights and peace. What many legislated laws, Executive Orders, and various procedures have done is alienate rights and transition them into civil privileges. What our interventionist policies have done through globalization, sustainable development, and etc is De-Develop the US and effectively gutted massive areas of infrastructure of commerce, transport, economic policy, and foreign affairs. Wars are typically won in both forms by:
A). Those who flexibly planned and adjusted most readily by changing circumstances.
B). Those with the infrastructure: economic, manufacturing, and resource allocation and development, which increases the ability of flexible planning and adjusted to changing circumstances. The Russian Federation learned this lesson after the Cold War as their infrastructure and resource allocation was effectively flanked and imploded by the US’s who have since gutted its chief advantages. If NATO were to start a war with Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and several others like the geopolitical stage of Russo-Sino encirclement indicates: 1). NATO and the US collapses in a Cold War environment due to globalization and sustainable development places the advantages into the hands of Eastern Balance of Power. 2). The balance of power forces the US and NATO and Russo-Sino alliances to enter blatant and open warfare. If one studies Diplomatic History, there really is no substantial distinction. To paraphrase: ‘The weapons have changed, but the mission remains the same’.
“If NATO were to start a war with Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and several others like the geopolitical stage of Russo-Sino encirclement indicates: 1). NATO and the US collapses in a Cold War environment due to globalization and sustainable development places the advantages into the hands of Eastern Balance of Power.”
But this is obviously contrived. China would not side with Russia and Pakistan over the United States. Iran is currently at war with Pakistan. North Korea would never side with the Chinese Communist Party. You’ve put together a coalition of enemies, several who would side with the U.S. over the others.
America has a much more significant manufacturing base than any other country. We don’t make our cheap goods anymore due to, as you point out, globalization, but this doesn’t mean we can’t effectively wage war.
Finally, if you’re worried about China, consider that we feed several hundred million Chinese. War with us – for them – means mass starvation. It ain’t happening, ever.
“But this is obviously contrived. China would not side with Russia and Pakistan over the United States. Iran is currently at war with Pakistan. North Korea would never side with the Chinese Communist Party. You’ve put together a coalition of enemies, several who would side with the U.S. over the others.”
Yet:
1). Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, India, Brazil, and several others have made trade agreements dropping the US Dollar in denominated trade amongst themselves. BRIC nations in particularly Russo-Sino have led the charge to dissolve the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency and principle mechanism to export US Dollar inflation derived by currency debasement.
2). Russia and China through respective ministries have already pronounced support of its southern buffer zone aka Iran will be defended even if the end result is a World War. Russo-Sino have over the last 3 decades have sought to align their economic and geopolitical interests.
3). Iranian-Pakistani war? Really? An attack on Pakistan is declared to be perceived as an attack on China by Chinese officials, and Pakistani-US relations have soured tremendously since the bin Laden raid and friendly-fire along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
4). North Korea after decades of sanctions and geopolitical pressure from Western nations survive purely by the Chinese subsidies granted and afforded to the North Korean regime to prevent its collapse and enable the useful buffer between US-Sino forces from once again, which sparked the Chinese during the Korean War to launch a counter offensive against the US forcing a stalemate aka cease-fire that’s been in effect ever since. China has hinted overtly and covertly that it would allow a unified Korean Pennisula under the sole reservation; US forces remain south of the cease-fire parallel.
5). China’s whole Militarization and Modernization is derived on a countering; the US’s weapons of war. In addition, it’s been dropping US Dollar surpluses and switching trade priorities including food, which circumvents the US’s ability to commit war crimes by the Geneva Convention from using food as a weapon of war.
6). Globalization and Sustainable Development over the last 3 decades have gutted that Industrialization and off-shored/out-sourced to BRIC nations. 90% of all jobs lost have been in Industrial infrastructure.
So, are you trying to say that Obama’s domestic and foreign continuation of the last 50 years have done a bang up job and should continue?
I respectfully disagree with your analysis, but will limit myself to addressing the specific issue of China.
As I mentioned, we feed 100 million+ Chinese. We own 70% of their commercial paper. We built their internet infrastructure. They have one aircraft carrier, that after several years, is still non-functional. China has a Nork problem, especially in the Northern provinces.
With that in mind, imagine if China were insane enough to try to declare war on America. She’d experience famine, a complete collapse of her IT infrastructure, and a collapse of her economy within days. North Korea would probably join in on the hurt parade. Are you still so worried?
The Chinese Communist Party has gone Christian. They don’t like Mao. They are our allies, not our enemies. Why do you think we’ve had such good relations with them for so long?
I apologize for the location of this response, but my browsers isn’t presenting a reply button further down.
“They are our allies, not our enemies. Why do you think we’ve had such good relations with them for so long?”
Chimerica was formed as China benefited from globalization, and it was able to peg the renembi and particularly after being given favored status, which offers import at very low tariffs, which can and has repeatedly been threatened to be increased particularly by naming China a currency manipulator. Then, there’s opposing geopolitical ambitions that further strains Chimerica to head for divorce.
China has never truly been an ally of the United States as geopolitically their ambitions particularly within China’s strongly viewed sphere of influence are in major conflict: 1). Their rivalry with Taiwan, which has essentially been the Kuomingtang’s base of operations since being pushed out of China’s mainland. 2). China is admantly opposed to US forces being based in surrounding it from the west, south, southeast (Taiwan), and east via the Korean Pennisula particular a unified Korea with a US friendly and more northern Korean bases along multiple borders, which is why a unified Korean Pennisula enabling US forces to move further north is viewed strongly negatively by the Chinese. 3). ASEAN have been hard at work creating an alternative to the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which the remenibi is meant to be one of its main pillars, which threatens Dollar Hegemony. 4). The US’s ambitions largely conflict with China’s viewed sphere of influence and have been modernizing its military with its sights set on countering the US.
These are not actions of allies but hesitant trade partners who will operate cooperatively as long as interests are being fulfilled.
There’s more, but it strongly supports ‘Chimerica is heading for divorce’.
“I respectfully disagree with your analysis
“I respectfully disagree with your analysis”
I’m not opposed to agreeing to disagree.
(I hit the wrong button to finish this in my post).
In any case, hardcore Paul supporters aren’t likely to support Romney, but Romeny is bound to realize this in his decision to have Rand Paul speak at the convention, but there are supporters who would rather take their chances with Romney over Obama attaining re-election particularly those who would support Romney by this gesture and particularly if named the Vice President. Frankly, I doubt Obama would have much of a chance with that kind of political expediency occurring even if those on both sides would consider it unsavory.
China, like any other nation, is going to take steps to benefit itself independently of its allies. Working on a contingency to create an alternative currency because what we’re doing to our own isn’t subverting American influence; it’s hedging.
America does have an excellent ally in Taiwan, as well. Taiwan (i.e. triad), and Japan, own much of China’s capital base.
I believe our disagreement was over China’s ability to effectively challenge American military superiority, and whether they desire to. Right now, and in the foreseeable future, China a) could not b) has no compelling reason to … challenge American military superiority. They are more concerned with the mob running Pakistan and the psychopaths in North Korea.
Summing up, China’s caught between Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan, and North Korea. And then there’s always Vietnam, the Maoists, and the Hui, not to mention Burma. I don’t spend much time around Chinese generals; still, it seems reasonable to assume these countries are more on their mind than the USA when it comes to military operations and preparedness.
Like I wrote earlier, we’re allies, not enemies. Sure, that could change one day, but I don’t consider it a rational security priority given the other global threats to peace.
***Err, not the Hui. I meant the Uyghurs.***
You are so wrong! It sounds like you are talking about obots! Untwist your shorts and leave us alone.
Don’t go Bircher, now.
Do you really think if Ron Paul’s people were so principled and honorable, they’d have abandoned Reagan? Do you think they would have split with the (R) Party?
Ron Paul is a good salesman, but he’s a liar. Surrounded by “9/11 Truthers.” Nothing could be more disgraceful. It’s easy to get snookered in by a charlatan, but when somebody compiles the evidence of his treachery, it’s up to you to recognize that you’ve been had. Lew Rockwell, author of racist and anti-Semitic newsletters with full approval of Ron Paul. Yikes.
The man is supremely shady and no conservative. He’s an agent of organized crime. Why is it, do you suppose, that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin all avoid his types? If Paul were a nearly mainstream conservative he’d have their support, but he oddly doesn’t… despite his fiscal conservatism and his constant talk about the Constitution.
RP is a horse of a different color – Red.
Gosh and golly gee, I wish I had bought Beck’s book, “Arguing with Idiots”.
But you are not worth even replying to anymore. Go read your obot propaganda.
That’s not very nice. I simply laid out some evidence. I’m sorry I wasn’t persuasive.
Paul supporters are either incapable of recognizing or unwilling to admit that they’ve been had. They wear blinders 24/7.
You can’t reason someone out of something they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.
Bad choice. The Pauls and their supporters are neither conservative nor Constitutionalist. These Libertarian Party infiltrators have no business speaking at a Republican convention.
Ron, Rand, and their delegates should be tarred, feathered, and run out of Tampa.
And the second fish.
Not going to be baited by delusional anti-Semitic druggies. Sorry.
That was idiotic and uncalled for! I am neither delusional, anti-Semitic nor a druggie and you just insulted me. Again.
Sorry, I forgot to include the part about them never being willing to admit it.
Problem is, this isn’t going to satiate the Libertarian infiltrators. Trying to co-opt them into the Republican Party is like when the Palestinian Authority and Lebanese governments tried to co-opt Hamas and Hezbollah into their governments–give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile. It ends with a complete hijacking of the institution that grants them inclusion.
What the polls aren’t telling anyone:
Hillary’s supporters appear to be abandoning Zero and they may carry their grudges with them right into the voting booths – in Pennsylvania, for starters . . .
http://www.hillaryis44.org/2012/08/06/nobama-say-hillary-clinton-voters/
Very good find, Obeline. I’ve been wondering about this group as well, especially in light of the fact that work on the 2008 Democratic Primary “We will not be Silenced” seems to have slowed to a crawl. Regardless, those disenfranchised Hillary voters are still out there and should be fairly easily convinced to vote for Romney.
I’m sure most of you have seen the portion of this documentary that has been completed, but for those of you who have not, I’d invite you to check out their website:
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/
Lots of video and eye-witness accounts of the voter fraud that was perpetuated on the Democratic party by our Manchurian Candidate president. The fact that they haven’t been able to get funding to finish it goes to show just how easily led and brainwashed most Liberals are.
Romney may turn out to be another GWB or worse but I have a gut feeling Romney has gotten the message–gotten it big time–govern like a Conservative or be a one termer.
Rush interviewed Romney and Rush said he at least knew the talk. Whether he knows the WALK is another question but at least he knows the TALK.
Giving Rand Paul a PT speaking slot is certainly a great step in the right direction.
Don’t care. None of this matters to me. Romney was not my first choice, but now he is THE choice. I will vote for him no matter who the Veep mught be. No matter if The Current Imposter manages to fake or find a photo of our guy having gay sex with his pet lama at the Washington Monument at high noon. Well, okay, if Romnney were to select Nancy Pee-lousey as his running mate that would demoralize me, but that ain’t gonna happen. And even then I would probably rationalize that the veep would not succeed, and Romney would be an improvement over Neo-Nero. Nothing else matters.
Rurik,
I enjoy your posts…. a lot!
Thank you, And may I return the compliment. Your comments are also always worth careful reading anc considering.
Defeating BHO might take a coalition of strange bedfellows – and it would be worth it.
And just imagine what Bill Clinton could do for posterity while basking in the limelight of forever wonderfulness.
Bubba could secure a place for himself in the history books as the Best Ex-President of the United States EVER . . . as the man who saved America.
Yes, he could truly earn immortality.
He could redeem himself and gain the love and affection of appreciative Americans of every stripe and affiliation.
And all he has to do is tell the truth at the Democratic Convention. Go off-script and detail what happened in 2008 when BHO violated Hillary. Just imagine if Clinton started talking about Kenya and threats . . . okay – so maybe he couldn’t go that far. But, he could tell America that Barack Hussein Obama is an incompetent and a failure. He could tell America O & Co. are running the country into the ground.
Does anyone have his ear?
Bill Clinton’s ego would be happier than a pig in . . . eternal heaven.
Bubba is owned by the same people as Zero. He may be getting close to life’s finish line (judging from the looks of him), but Soros & Co. would make the remaining time he has on earth a living Hell if he ever pulled anything like this.
That being said, I DO expect Pres. Pantload, in his convention speech, to twist the knife ever so subtly that he sunk into Zero’s back some years ago.
Rand seems a little more co-operative for the common good than his father, but if he gets any sort of meaningful position in Romney’s would-be cabinet, it would be a bad decision. Some blogs, like Little Green Footballs, have done an excellent job of tracing Ron’s nasty history and contradictions and Rand has already got some… Odd statements on public record, which the same places have recorded. It would be instant ammunition for the Democrats.
Just a speech by Rand, however, I’ve no problem with. It would do do well to convince some of the supporters of his father’s campaign to use their vote for some kind of good, instead of sitting on it as many have threatened.
Did Ron Paul leave the values of the Republican party? No.
But the party did leave him and become a moderate one – looking like the Truman Democrats- before the Democrats went liberal. The only difference between the two major parties is one is now in the middle and the other has moved a thousand miles to the left. Dr. Paul is the MOST conservative member in DC- which is why the Libertarians love him. His understanding of where we’ve been & where we’re heading is so foreign to most- he is perceived as crazy. He’s not. He knows exactly what needs to be done and has the courage to say so.
Truman? Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry and create his own version of Trumancare. Sure, he wasn’t a Ron Paul lib on foreign policy, but he was a big government guy.
Dr. Paul is a quack.