Skip to main content

"Senator" Rand Paul (R/Teahadist-KY) is a duplicitous lying bastard who specializes in talking out of both sides of his mouth. He, not McConnell, not Boehner, not Cantor, should be enemy number one of the American Progressive movement, and the Conservatives should throw him out if they value their political lives.

Let's review the case.

He claims to be a Libertarian. He decries President Barack Obama, claiming he acts like a king, invoking language from the American revolution in a cheap petty attempt to gain some traction for this completely asinine argument. Lest we forget his temper tantrum over gun control, this nut attempted to convince us all he was standing up for our civil liberties and that Obama was some sort of tyrant who had issued just piles of these executive orders. Never mind that as a matter of public record this is utter bullpucky. Never mind that Reagan issued twice as many orders as Obama. Most certainly never mind that these kingly proclamations were little more than hey underling do your job. Obama was a king! He was a tyrant! He's coming for your guns and going to repeal the Second Amendment! It has nothing to do with Rand's ties to a hyper conservative gun nut fringe right of the NRA. Rand Paul is just a good ol' Libertarian from Kentucky!

There are other examples of this turd of a politico wearing a Libertarian skin - like the drone debacle. His own party told him to sit down and shut up on that one. One particularly ornery Republican Senator continues to beat up on Rand Paul, too. Of course, these days, Paul is back to "King Obama" and the NSA with this PRISM nonsense.

Now anyone who knows me knows I think the 2008 FISAA as well as the Patriot Act and their renewals are violative of the Fourth Amendment and should be struck or repealed. On this, admittedly, I agree with Rand Paul. I would remind my readers that likewise, stopped clocks are right twice a day. On PRISM, the actual policy stand is Paul's stopped clock impersonation (as is the rest of his record if the clock was stopped circa 1940). But let's not kid ourselves, Rand Paul is still too clever by half. You do not charge up to the Supreme Court with a petition. You have to go through the lower courts first to get to the Supreme Court, as SCOTUS does not generally have original jurisdiction on much of anything. Luckily, someone has already done that. Rand Paul should not be filing another mega-suit. He should be filing an amicus brief and getting senators to sign on to it for Jewel v. NSA. He should - but he won't, because that would be reasonable and Rand Paul is a loon.

It is critically important to note that "Libertarian" Rand Paul will fight for your rights (as he defines them) as long as you're what he considers a red blooded American. If you're not, his true Tealiban colors peek out from the Libertarian makeup and he turns into an ultranationalist neoconservative. Rand Paul swears the comprehensive immigration reform bill negotiated by the Gang of Eight can't pass the House - and he may be right. The Bath Salts Caucus in the lower chamber won't vote for anything, and the Republican Caucus as a whole may be about ready to make the Hastert Rule have some teeth, at least for their Speaker. Rand Paul could do the sensible thing and line up behind the bill like Kelly Ayotte already has. That, however, has no glory for Rand Paul. No, he needs a stronger bill. He needs to be the conduit through which the bill passes - him, and only him, not the democratic process. Rand Paul will be the singular reason immigration reform happens, according to Rand Paul. What's he calling for? A stronger bill. We've heard this line before. What he will demand is that the border be hermetically sealed so not even the wind can cross, and then we can tackle the immigration piece.

I could go on. His position on gay marriage is dog whistle - let the states decide is how we kept segregation in the south. He's a die-hard pro-lifer. He's an anti-Obamacare doctor who has no plan to replace it. He thinks the way to save Social Security is to cut benefits. He thinks that a Congress that can't pass anything, at all, should review every single rule the Executive produces - which means it wouldn't have time to do anything else. He pushes and honestly believes conspiracy theories. Do not be deceived. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. The man is just stark raving crazy. The fact that he is still talking further poisons the American political atmosphere every time he opens his mouth. Rand Paul needs to sit down and shut up.

Originally posted to Jo Hafford on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 12:58 AM PDT.

Also republished by My Old Kentucky Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  OMG! LOL! I have to remember this one.... (8+ / 0-)
    The Bath Salts Caucus in the lower chamber won't vote for anything,
    Actually, I think it describes the majority of House Republicans!
    Insane and out of touch.  

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 01:29:28 AM PDT

  •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 01:54:40 AM PDT

  •  I have repeatedly pointed out (8+ / 0-)

    To people thinking Rand Paul is some sort of freedom fighter, that his lawsuit over this NSA stuff is a kabuki, because he has far, far more leverage than a lawsuit at his fingertips . . . he's got the fucking US Senate?  Where is the legislative action that could materially impact Rand Paul's concerns?

    Yeah, that's right.  I think it is being introduced by Democrats.  As usual, Rand Paul is a grandstanding con-artist who has deluded a new generation of Paultards into giving him money and attention, in return for which he will do exactly the same lot of nothing his father did in Congress.

    I then go on to point out in great detail how Ron Paul also never advanced any significant legislation in his 25 years as a Congressman.  They're frauds.  They talk big, and do nothing.

  •  Not libertarian at all despite name! (8+ / 0-)

    Anyone who wants the government in my bedroom and doctor's office is not Libertarian.

    BTW While I agree with you regarding a need to totally re-examine the Patriot Act, writers on this site seldom acknowledge that under Obama the oversight of the courts was slightly improved.

    •  Agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skrekk

      He's a libertarian for straight white male property owners. For the rest of us ... no voting rights, employers can decide if you get birth control, outlaw abortion under all circumstances, no marraige equality, no disability access.

    •  Maybe, maybe not. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama has expanded the circle of members of congress with access, yes. Members of congress are still crying foul with regard to some of the WH's specific disclosure/oversight claims.

      This particular writer is not commenting on Obama's oversight record until Congress tries to dig around in this whole PRISM mess. We'll see what we'll see, but I'm not gonna pull an Issa and reach the conclusion before the investigation.

      •  I think this is with the wrong "parent" but (0+ / 0-)

        Revisions to the Patriot Act also made the FISA court a bit more immediate, efficient and powerful.

        I'm NOT defending the Patriot Act. I think it was not to protect us but to control us. There are some aspects of the data mining (very tightly controlled) that are probably for all of our safety. But it should be very clear in the law--and VERY clearly a felony--for anyone to use it for anything but finding terror plots.

        We CAN have that national conversation, and we can shred the original act and create a 21st Century definition of what is actually protective and what is unconstitutional.

        High time. I'm pleased that Obama is willing to have the conversation.

  •  This is news........ (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, Rogneid, skrekk

    Most that call themselves 'libertarians', and plenty in these times all of a sudden switched from calling themselves 'republican' and even 'conservative' in the closing months of the bush admin., after full support of during those years, haven't a clue as to what that means nor the ideology of, they just go with the flow fed to them!!

    That's been the case forever, any I've ever met followed same pattern and were constantly looking for a political home while continuing to be staunch supporters of anything 'republican'!

    "If military action is worth our troops' blood, it should be worth our treasure, too; not just in the abstract, but in the form of a specific ante by every American." -Andrew Rosenthal 10 Feb. 2013

    by jimstaro on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 03:31:15 AM PDT

  •  Repubican Libertatian (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tinfoil Hat, Rogneid, Sue B

    This offshoot of the Republican party believes in small or no government for Democratic agenda priorities, such as jobs, infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

    However, on Republican agenda items, such as handing huge tax breaks to crony business interests, and expanding the government to regulate women's bodies, the libertarian part gets tossed out, and its all big government again.

    So, Rand Paul is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 04:03:26 AM PDT

    •  They're really Propertarians. (7+ / 0-)

      These Randians are not real supporters of human liberty.  They'll happily send the troops in to quell a strike.  They care only about property rights and those who own property.

      The term "libertarian" is used historically and everywhere else in the world to refer to anarchists who are both anti-State and anti-Capitalist.  Anarchists have called these Randians "Propertarians" going back at least to Murray Bookchin.

      •  What is the difference between an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrekk

        anarchist and a libertarian?

        The anarchist has a Bachelor's degree.

        Rand Paul is my Senator.  He is a misogynist, and a grifter just like Palin.  He's smarmy, and a liar.  

        His father believed what he did - Rand doesn't believe that shiat, he's just in it for the money and power.  He uses his father's base.  He's a fake Libertarian.

        Rand has made some deal with McConnell - McConnell doesn't want to get a Tea Party primary.  Rand is supposed to stave that off.  They are appearing together in KY.  Mitch hates Rand, never supported original election.  Political bedfellows.

        "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

        by mumtaznepal on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 06:18:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, and he's a fucking racist, too. All the KY (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skrekk

          good old boys who make up his posse need to be wearing sheets.

          "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

          by mumtaznepal on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 06:22:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  which goes to my point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mumtaznepal

          It is RAND PAUL that is the real problem. The GOP will never be run by sane people as long as the establishment totes him around. They need to fire up the low orbit ion cannon of dark money and blast his ass outta there.

        •  You couldn't be more wrong here. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ZhenRen
          What is the difference between an (0+ / 0-)
          anarchist and a libertarian?

          The anarchist has a Bachelor's degree.

          Anarchists are anti-Capitalist.  Historically, most anarchists are also skeptical about religion.

          Randian Propertarians base everything on property rights.  Proudhon says:

          "All property is theft."

          If you're interested in learning something about Anarchism other than the usual propaganda, here's some good resources:

          1) Emma Goldman's classic little apologia re: Anarchism:

          http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/...

          2) David Graeber's useful essay on anarchist anthropology:

          http://www.eleuthera.it/...

          3) a collection of Kropotkin's writings:

          http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/...

          As for clever jokes, here's another one:

          Q: How many voters does it take to change a light bulb?

          A: Trick question.  Voters and voting never change anything.

        •  Moreover... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OutcastsAndCastoffs

          Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, since anarchism has traditionally meant non-authoritarian socialism, and is definitely anti-capitalist. An-archo means without ruler or without authority.

          Libertarianism, as well, in Europe has always meant libertarian socialism (anarchism).

          In the US, the right wing has tried to adopt these terms, and some are so ignorant they think the right wing invented the usage, but the terms anarchism and libertarian date back to the mid 1800s in Europe, and are still used around the world today to indicate anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian forms of socialism.

          Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian.

          And anarchists are not against organization in the slightest degree, rather, they prefer an egalitarian,  horizontal form of social organization, rather than vertical, hierarchical forms that are top down in governance, with elites calling the shots. Worker owned co-ops which are democratically organized using consensus or other forms of direct democracy is an example of a horizontal form of community self-management.

          The reason right wing usage of the terms is self-contradictory is because capitalism is by nature vertical and hierarchical in social structure, and is rife with authority and rulership over workers by the owner class who control the means of production. So, this isn't truly anarchic or liberating in any sense, except for those few who mange to become the owner class.

          Just a brief history about the terms for anyone interested.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 02:34:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hold up... (0+ / 0-)

      Y'know, infrastructure never used to be a partisan issue... but then that reply almost turned into a post, so maybe it had better just turn into a post. :)

  •  The term libertarian is so nebulous (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shippo1776, Rogneid

    That it has pretty much been rendered meaningless as a practical definition of one's politics.

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 04:24:28 AM PDT

  •   I am not a Libertarian. They are pigs. (3+ / 0-)

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 04:47:14 AM PDT

    •  the whole "every man for himself" ideology is (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rogneid, Sue B, Yasuragi, mumtaznepal, TomP

      utterly pathological.

      It is simply impossible to base a functional society on greed and selfishness, no matter how prettily we try to dress it up.

    •  I'm a libertarian (0+ / 0-)

      In the original, traditional meaning of the term, not the contradictory, oxymoronic way the right wing has used to co-opt it.

      Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian, and has been used since the mid-1800s to indicate libertarian socialism.

      Right wing libertarianism is a contradiction in terms, and became popular in the 1970s, while in Europe, libertarian still means non-authoritarian forms of socialism.

      Anarchism (libertarian socialism) is truly libertarian.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 01:19:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  gee, and I thought the Ron Paul personality cult (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid

    would be able to transfer itself right on over to Rand.

    (snicker)

  •  Ah, American libertarians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Jazz at High Noon, skrekk

    They will forever fight to rescue our liberties from the depredations of the monolith of the state in order to place us at the tender mercy of the depredations of the monoliths of the corporations.

    Why, without them, what freedom would we have left?

    •  In other words he's a Fascist. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mumtaznepal, skrekk

      A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

      by onionjim on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 05:27:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd just call him an Oligarchist (2+ / 0-)

        He wants to let the big corporate elites continue to run the show.  

        American libertarians (following the old Tocqueville mold via Ayn Rand) claim that the main threat to individual liberty is the all-powerful state.  Starting in medieval times, the state grew from nothing to a giant force, co-opting independent aristocrats and sapping their liberty away generation by generation.

        The end result is a populace of peons under the thumb of state technocrats.  

        It's not entirely untrue, but they ignore the concomitant growth of oligarchic financial concerns intertwined with states.  

        So that their sovereign remedy of pushing the state back would (obviously) not make the average individual more free.  

        It would just leave us more firmly under the thumb of private monolithic powers (corporations).  That only works well if you are already a person of means within that framework.  And that's exactly why American libertarians tend to be moneyed courtesans firmly ensconced within the power structure.  

        Their philosophy is vapid, self-serving, and disconnected from actual reality.

  •  He IS a Libertarian (0+ / 0-)

    the contradictions and hypocrisies are built in.
    Libertarianism is a not-well-thought-out cover for selfishness that's dressed up in verbiage that is attractive to halfwits and juveniles. It's full of internal contradictions and fallacies, blind spots and prejudices. It plays on the paranoia and insecurity of it's (largely) white male followers.
    Someone like Paul is a perfect evangelist of a false philosophy.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 05:42:56 AM PDT

    •  Real libertarianism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JoHafford

      dates back to the 1800s and is anarcho-socialist. So, no, he isn't truly a libertarian. See detailed explanation up-thread. The word predates the American usage by more than a century.

      But I agree that the right wing attempt to co-opt the term is completely contradictory. Almost everywhere outside of the US, the term has a completely different meaning. We don't have to allow the right wing to spin these terms in Orwellian fashion.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 08:18:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Paul is truly a loon, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal, Progressif

    but one who is earnestly running for President.  He just had an op-ed printed in the Louisville paper this morning because he apparently just discovered that blacks get arrested more than whites!  Good thing Rand is on the job, or we wouldn't have known about it!

  •  Libertarians can be duplicitous, lying bastards (0+ / 0-)

    And often are.

  •  He's Not a Very Smart Guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skrekk

    I'd say that, at minimum, his ideology is not fully formed.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 08:33:50 AM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site