Topic: Class Warfare, Libertarian Style, Out of the Mouth of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
 |
| Would you believe this is not a Democratic Party slogan for an election year, but rather one created by libertarians? |
In the middle of untold thousands of illegal immigrants who continue to infiltrate our sovereignty as illegal citizens daily, among those who do comprise of Middle East peoples of origin who upon having been detained (and there have been very few in comparison to what have gone undetected en masse) and admitted to being members of Hamas and linked with al Qaeda and ISIS, the family duo of Rand Paul and his father Ron continue to spin their support for this issue, and are doing so ingeniously. How else would Sen. Paul and his father accomplish this other than to rehash the War on Drugs dating after it has been waged by more than 45 years according to some accounts during the Nixon presidency, which continued to be waged through every administration until Obama, who simply disregards any piece of paper ever shuffled through Congress ending with the word "Act" or the document starting with We the People. What is most intriguing is how Rand Paul, like his father, proclaims as if a parakeet to be a constitutionalist, but then like the president occupying the Oval Office on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue four to five days a week if it is accurately confirmed true, and at least three days somewhere on a local ritzy golf course where today he was reported to be teeing off with none other than sportswriter Michael Wilbon - a Chicago native and one of the presidents boyz in the hood (yes, you read that right; if I am going to accused of racism for attack Obama's policies, I will give them plenty of fodder over which to gripe) according to Washington, D.C. journalist and pro-Second Amendment advocate, Emily Miller - why do both Papa and Sonny Paul feel the necessity to proclaim they only vote in harmony with the Constitution when like Obama, they turn the other cheek when laws along our border with Mexico or in general with all immigration, do not jive with their political agendas?
I receive every Facebook update from her as a subscription, and I have to say I am very impressed with Mrs. Miller's commitment to her career to report the news objectively and as a columnist and author, do her best to destroy the president's credibility alongside the entire Democratic Party.
The GOP for decades has sought to destroy the institution of class warfare, but it appear as if the hardline libertarian fringe, led by Ron and Rand Paul, seek to drag that very old wedding dress given to the conservative establishment by the Democratic Party for any voter or politician classified as Republican to wear from its rhetoric-weary closet, always tightest around the lower alimentary canal and the crotch. And as I have grown keenly aware since Ted Nugent called Barack Obama a mongrel and was met with a vehement excoriation by Sen. Paul and slammed as basically a racist comment, my suspicions have only grown until today as the Middle East burns and it now spills across our border with Mexico as Gov. Rick Perry tours that area around the Rio Grande, more legislation, as if they are bullets, are being introduced on the Senate floor by Sen. Paul which support in stealth what he, as with every libertarian historically, always have: a world with no borders, nor any laws, nor any protections by an impartial third arbiter per John Locke to ensure the right to own property or to simply know the natural liberty to simply live.
As mentioned in the previous blog article, Sen. Paul has swerved on more curved backroads than those near my home to blame not Barack Obama for the destruction by terrorists in the Middle East of Israel and the spreading of the ISIS-manifested caliphate, but George W. Bush. And why is this? Why does Sen. Paul, like his father, continue to destroy his own party, even the Tea Party conservative alliance that helped him get elected and which some say his own father served in an integral role in the organization's founding in 2008, but publicly support more by the day Obama as if he can do no wrong at all? Whatever happened to Sen. Paul's attempting to separate himself from his father who only voted to send our armed forces to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban who harbored al Qaeda in order to take out bin Laden and the organization itself out of fear of his staff mutinying and resigning in its entirety? Why is Sen. Paul working diligently to proclaim himself fully aligned with Israel, but from what I have read to date he has not once spared a breath to utter one word in defense of Benjamin Netanyahu as he is faced with annihilation by Hamas shortly to align itself with ISIS, which stated that it will have to wait until they invade America? Why am I finding myself drawing parallels between Adolf Hitler utilizing the Reichstag fire in 1932 to consolidate his base for support in route to exalting himself from the elected position of Chancellor to "Der Fuhrer", or "the father", Germany's dictator for life? So far as I can discern, the only difference behind the principle is while Hitler wanted to launch a Pan-Germanic state steeped in extremist nationalism, Sen. Paul's push for restoring American exceptionalism at home, much less abroad, is more in common with our president's desire to cripple America's confidence until its people are willing to feed from his right-hand to be blessed with his salvation. His use of populism is eerily similar to Adolf Hitler, V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin, "The Great Helmsman" Mao Zedong and others who led the world history's bloodiest campaigns to acquire power. For Sen. Paul, he needs to never look too far for inspiration than to simply take the president up on a weekend invitation to play a round of golf. He might even call you a racist if his own party members - RINO faction or Tea Party conservatives - object, sort of like he did here:
No thank you, Sen. Paul. You might be more dangerous than President Obama since I at least know what that man stands for. You at the very least are riding a very dangerous fence. And as Margaret Thatcher, a real leader with conviction and courage under fire stated:
As mentioned in the previous blog article, Sen. Paul has swerved on more curved backroads than those near my home to blame not Barack Obama for the destruction by terrorists in the Middle East of Israel and the spreading of the ISIS-manifested caliphate, but George W. Bush. And why is this? Why does Sen. Paul, like his father, continue to destroy his own party, even the Tea Party conservative alliance that helped him get elected and which some say his own father served in an integral role in the organization's founding in 2008, but publicly support more by the day Obama as if he can do no wrong at all? Whatever happened to Sen. Paul's attempting to separate himself from his father who only voted to send our armed forces to Afghanistan to topple the Taliban who harbored al Qaeda in order to take out bin Laden and the organization itself out of fear of his staff mutinying and resigning in its entirety? Why is Sen. Paul working diligently to proclaim himself fully aligned with Israel, but from what I have read to date he has not once spared a breath to utter one word in defense of Benjamin Netanyahu as he is faced with annihilation by Hamas shortly to align itself with ISIS, which stated that it will have to wait until they invade America? Why am I finding myself drawing parallels between Adolf Hitler utilizing the Reichstag fire in 1932 to consolidate his base for support in route to exalting himself from the elected position of Chancellor to "Der Fuhrer", or "the father", Germany's dictator for life? So far as I can discern, the only difference behind the principle is while Hitler wanted to launch a Pan-Germanic state steeped in extremist nationalism, Sen. Paul's push for restoring American exceptionalism at home, much less abroad, is more in common with our president's desire to cripple America's confidence until its people are willing to feed from his right-hand to be blessed with his salvation. His use of populism is eerily similar to Adolf Hitler, V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin, "The Great Helmsman" Mao Zedong and others who led the world history's bloodiest campaigns to acquire power. For Sen. Paul, he needs to never look too far for inspiration than to simply take the president up on a weekend invitation to play a round of golf. He might even call you a racist if his own party members - RINO faction or Tea Party conservatives - object, sort of like he did here:
No thank you, Sen. Paul. You might be more dangerous than President Obama since I at least know what that man stands for. You at the very least are riding a very dangerous fence. And as Margaret Thatcher, a real leader with conviction and courage under fire stated:
“Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.”
I know Obama is a coward; he proves it each time he breathes. With Sen. Paul, though, I think he stands for less than our socialist enemies who are currently micromanaging America and the world into oblivion. Therefore, I ask rhetorically just who among Obama and the Ron and Rand Paul camp is the most dangerous? So far, I am beginning to ponder whether seeing is more than simply believing.
The Libertarian Publication Rare Serving as the TASS for Ron and Rand Paul
To finally cut to the chase following my "brief" editorial, I am providing to my readers the actual article where Sen. Paul issue his attack upon the GOP and tacit support for the socialists within the Democratic Party from the news site Rare:
"War on drugs"Rand Paul slams racist drug war: “Prisons are full of black and brown kids”
Speaking to the Iowa Republican State Convention on Saturday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) talked about how the war on drugs destroys families by frequently giving minorities decade-long sentences for what are often youthful mistakes.“I think drugs are a scourge. I think we’ve maybe gone too far and that marijuana is a problem,” Paul said. “And yet I also think it’s a problem to lock people up for 10 and 15 and 20 years for youthful mistakes.”Pointing out that three out of every four Americans in prison for marijuana offenses is either black or brown — even as whites use the drug at a comparable rate — Paul advocated for a more compassionate approach to sentencing.“[T]he prisons are full of black and brown kids because they don’t get a good attorney, they live in poverty, it’s easier to arrest them than to go to the suburbs. There’s a lot of reasons, but I can tell you, if you go to the African-American community and ask them if they think the law is fair, they’ll tell you no,” he said.“Should a 19-year-old kid get a second chance? I think yes,” he added.“Let’s be the party that has compassion, that doesn’t say the behavior is right but says, ‘You know what? When you’re done with your time, that you get the right to vote back,’” Paul continued. “Let’s be the party that is for extending right to vote back to people who have paid their time, who have reformed their ways.”This isn’t the first time Sen. Paul has tried to extend the reach of the Republican Party to oft-neglected groups.5 ways Rand Paul is trying to grow the Republican PartyThe Kentucky senator has reached out to Silicon Valley and progressives over NSA, delivered speeches at historically black institutions like Howard University, urged members of his own party to “tone down racial rhetoric” in the immigration debate and has attracted significant youth support.Paul has also received more black support in his own state than any other Republican except Chris Christie.***
Rand Paul claims that three out of every four Americans in prison are black or brown, but he really never specifies who exactly is brown, nor did he ever state whether he would extend this illegal activity currently to his white enemies. He sure made every attempt to catch Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's attention, though, and this is bound to draw their interested eyes for at least a second before they attack him as a racist for saying politically-incorrect terms like black and brown.
Why has Ron and Rand Paul insisted for years that they aim to not rely upon heavy donations from major corporate sponsors or wealthy media moguls and yet here I am reading the following within this very article stating "The Kentucky senator has reached out to Silicon Valley and progressives over NSA, delivered speeches at historically black institutions like Howard University, urged members of his own party to 'tone down racial rhetoric' in the immigration debate and has attracted significant youth support"?
Why indeed, Sen. Paul? Why indeed? You are reaching for the progressive-dominated Silicon Valley, where Bill Gates dominates and is the primary private financier of Common Core, which already is rewriting our history books so that America's children understand how conservatives are racist and "Barry" is near godliness - except of course it would never dare spare word of Obama's borderline godlike complex as a means to avoid any obvious attempts to link their god on the Far Left to our God who art in Heaven.. Of course you are like any other good politician in that you are inherently corrupt. Your own libertarian-based media outlet just confirmed it.
And the one comment, the most damning indictment of all that he choose in support of President Obama on throttling our national security, was the following statement which I totally reject, also courtesy of Rare:
Conservatism today
Rand Paul continues to urge conservatives to tone down racial rhetoricOn Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul urged his fellow conservatives to get “beyond deportation” to reach more Hispanic voters, indicating once again that Kentucky’s junior senator wants to steer the GOP in a different direction.Paul made it clear that the GOP needs to take a more sober approach to immigration if it is to garner sympathy with the Hispanic community, which is crucial for the GOP’s aspirations in 2016.Statistics consistently show Hispanics prefer Democrats to Republicans by a 2-1 ratio.“The bottom line is, the Hispanic community, the Latino community is not going to hear us until we get beyond that issue. They’re not going to care whether we go to the same church or have the same values or believe in the same kind of future of our country until we get beyond that. Showing up helps, but you got to show up and you got to say something, and it has to be different from what we’ve been saying.”Politico noted that Paul’s thinking “differs from the political path promoted by some of Paul’s fellow conservatives, who argue that … shared religious and entrepreneurial values, for example … will be sufficient to make inroads with Hispanics.”Paul believes that the Republican Party currently lacks the image required to form a more substantial relationship with Hispanics. “Until we get to that point,” beyond immigration that is, “they’re not going to listen to any of the next message,” he said.Paul added that the current visa system is too burdensome for newcomers, something that significantly contributes to our immigration problem.Paul’s line of thinking is consistent with remarks he made on the fifth Anniversary of the Tea Party in February.
***
How stupid does he think conservatives really are as a whole? Urging American amid the crisis of thousands so far unaccounted having flood across our borders appears to me in a rather ironic twist you intend to honor the memories of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and Poncho Villa and hand over our sovereignty the terrorist-sponsored Mexican government in Mexico City! To read of the Obama-mouthpiece CNN per the network's president Jeff Zucker, the network thought just two years ago the issue of halting all deportations was a wonderful idea, and would lead to great things for the socialist Far Left:
Mexico's president praises Obama's immigration shift
By the CNN Wire Staffupdated 1:42 PM EDT, Mon June 18, 2012
Los Cabos, Mexico (CNN) -- President Barack Obama received praise Monday from Mexico's president for the decision last week to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants.
After the two leaders met one-on-one before the start of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, President Felipe Calderon thanked Obama for what he called an "unprecedented" move in halting the deportations.
"We believe this is very just," Calderon said, according to an interpreter, adding: "Thank you for the valor and courage that you had in implementing this action. I'm sure many, many families in the United States thank you as well."
Obama made no new comment on the election-year policy change announced Friday that prompted immediate praise from Latino leaders who have criticized Congress and the White House for inaction on immigration reform.
Republicans have reacted with outrage, saying the move amounts to amnesty -- a negative buzz word among conservatives -- and usurps congressional authority.
In announcing the change in the White House Rose Garden, Obama said it will make immigration policy "more fair, more efficient and more just."
"This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix," Obama said to take on conservative criticism of the step. "This is a temporary stopgap measure."
Noting children of illegal immigrants "study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag," Obama said, "it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans."
Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.
It also will allow those meeting the requirements to apply for work permits, Napolitano said, adding that participants must be in the United States now and be able to prove they have been living in the country continuously for at least five years.
The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said, adding it was "well within the framework of existing laws."
The move addresses a major concern of the Hispanic community and mimics some of the provisions of a Democratic proposal called the DREAM Act that has failed to win enough Republican support to gain congressional approval.
Obama has been criticized by Hispanic-American leaders for an overall increase in deportations of illegal aliens in recent years. Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 396,906 illegal immigrants, the largest number in the agency's history.
Friday's policy change is expected to potentially affect 800,000 people, an administration official told CNN on background. Others put the figure at potentially more than 1 million people.
Hispanics make up the fastest-growing immigrant population in the country, and the Latino vote is considered a crucial bloc for the November presidential election.
Democrats, however, rejected Republican claims that the move was political. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sponsored the DREAM Act, noted that Obama repeatedly called for Congress to pass immigration reform legislation, including the DREAM Act. The president acted only after it became clear no progress would come in this Congress, Durbin said.
CNN's Tom Cohen contributed to this report.
***
Let me repost below a few key lines from this report:
President Barack Obama received praise Monday from Mexico's president for the decision last week to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants.
After the two leaders met one-on-one before the start of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos, President Felipe Calderon thanked Obama for what he called an "unprecedented" move in halting the deportations.
"We believe this is very just," Calderon said, according to an interpreter, adding: "Thank you for the valor and courage that you had in implementing this action. I'm sure many, many families in the United States thank you as well."
Of course President Calderon of Mexico did not differ, and of course he did not at all attempt to stifle Operation: Fast and Furious under Eric Holder because what the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was intent upon was to fund Mexican drug cartels, or organized crime south of our borders, to do as they will and to receive likely campaign funding as Obama did from Mexico, which the BBC reported on February 7, 2012, which just like the above report about Obama and Mexico for all intents and purposes nullifying our border, was released during his last election:
Obama campaign returns funds linked to Mexico fugitive
US President Barack Obama's election campaign is to return donations linked to the family of a fugitive Mexican casino magnate.
The Chicago-based brothers of Juan Jose Rojas Cardona, known as Pepe, raised some $200,000 (£126,000) for Mr Obama.
Pepe Cardona fled the US in 1994 and is now seeking a pardon for drug and fraud charges, the New York Times reports.
Meanwhile, Mr Obama is to allow a pro-Democratic fundraising group to raise unlimited cash to back his candidacy.
Mr Obama's official campaign war-chest is healthy - with some $81m cash in hand at the end of 2011 - but relies on small donors.
Campaign officials have said that most donors give $250 or less, with an average donation of $56.
Suspicion of murder
The report in the New York Times detailing the Cardona donors' continuing links to their fugitive brother prompted a swift reaction from the Obama 2012 campaign.
"On the basis of the questions that have been raised, we will return the contributions from these individuals and from any other donors they brought to the campaign," said Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign.He said the campaign "constantly" reviews contributions received and said that more than 1.3 million Americans have donated so far.According to a leaked US state department cable from 2009, Pepe Cardona - now based in Mexico's Monterrey region - was suspected of orchestrating the murder of a business rival.After the rival's death, Pepe Cardona became the largest operator of casinos - often used to launder illicit profits - in the area.Last year, according to the New York Times, his Chicago-based brothers Carlos and Alberto Rojas Cardona arranged for the former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party to seek a pardon for him from the governor.However, no pardon was reported to have been forthcoming.Late last year the Cardona brothers began donating to the Obama re-election campaign and to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the New York Times reported.They gave donations of $38,000 each to the DNC and more to the election campaign itself, putting them high on a list of so-called "bundlers" who make large campaign contributions.Speaking on cable network MSNBC on Tuesday, presidential adviser David Axelrod said that while the Cardonas brother were not the "guilty party", the vetting process "didn't go deep enough".'Two sets of rules'The decision to hand back the Cardona donations came as it emerged that the president had given his personal backing to Priorities USA, a so-called "super PAC" (political action committee).Obama aides, campaign officials and some government members will be allowed to speak at Priorities USA events, the Obama campaign said.The decision is aimed at countering what the Obama campaign sees as a key financial advantage for the president's Republican rivals.A 2010 Supreme Court ruling allows super PACs to raise unlimited cash to support a candidate, as long as they do not co-ordinate activities with the candidate's campaign.Presidential front-runner Mitt Romney's official campaign has seen a pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, spend heavily on negative advertising during the primary season. Newt Gingrich's cash-strapped campaign has been kept alive by money donated to a pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future.Two super PACs set up by former President George W Bush's aide, Karl Rove, raised some $51m in 2011 to spend on upcoming 2012 battles.Although Mr Obama has previously decried the influence of money in politics, Democratic super PACs have raised little cash so far.In an email to supporters on Monday night, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the Democrats would "not play by two sets of rules" in the upcoming election.
***
In defense of the root source for David Axelrod's definition for intelligent complexities, if he has to tell the public that no one understands his boss due to his being intellectually "complex", I suppose I can draw the parallel to either "the blind leading the blind" or sing about The Three Blind Mice. The same is true for Valerie Jarrett, who uses Obama as her frontman and public relations puppet to run the nation since she is a Iranian national, having migrated her as a child with her parents, and currently cannot serve as president of the United States. I suppose then that as the Obama 2012 campaign jettisoned funding from the Cardonas brothers of Obama's hometown oligarchy and yet Axelrod proclaimed their innocence, well, I say we should also croon to the mafia running the White House the epic Blues Brothers' tune "Sweet Home Chicago."
In segueing again to Sen. Paul, further inconsistencies regarding his idea for public school vouchers are not so much that he should not support allowing the people to decide where their children should attend schools with the tax dollars they pay (and The Wire used Gov. Bill Haslam of my home state of Tennessee as the major proponent perhaps nationally of School Choice NOW), but the dangerous support for charter schools which Knox County Schools Superintendent Dr. Jim McIntyre just cut several teaching positions as well as administrators to open the first such school in the inner city against the will of the majority of our parents here as well as he axed this year's faculty pay raises to enforce is concerning. All that is achieved is that the primary demographics which Sen. Paul supports to receive a higher quality of education in theory - his "black and brown" children - will be subject to the same discrimination he so despise in the private sector workforce but convenient chose to voted "No" to the measure to ban it. The article will be available courtesy again of The Wire, and I hope you grasp perhaps not the idea of school choice or even vouchers as being the issue in dispute, but the hypocrisy of his messages where he criticized labor and trade unions of obstructed these policies, only to oppose what he hopes to create a nation where the term Chicano no longer exists.
Rand Paul went to President Obama's adopted hometown on Tuesday to pitch private school vouchers as the "great equalizer" for inner-city minority students. That message doesn't work as well in mostly-white rural areas, where Republicans don't want to send sparse federal dollars to private schools.Paul visited Chicago's Josephinum Academy, a Sacred Heart-affiliated school that is 5 percent non-Hispanic white, according to The New York Times. There he told students that "the money is yours," and that those who oppose school choice are "dead-enders." Specifically, "the Democrat Party has opposed charter schools and vouchers pretty much steadfastly, and I would say the unions have as well,” he later told reporters.The thing is, Democrats and Republicans in rural areas oppose private school vouchers — which divert money from public schools to private schools — for the same reason: public schools need that money more. Arizona Republicans recently sided with Democrats to vote down an expansion of the state's voucher program, arguing that "the program unfairly takes money from public schools and gives it to private institutions that cannot be held publicly accountable," according to the Houston Chronicle.A voucher bill drafted by Tennessee's Republican governor also died this month, because "approximately $15 million would be shifted away from public schools and to private schools," according to Chalkbeat. The bill passed the state Senate, but died in the House. State Rep. Bill Dunn blamed that on the midterm elections, because "lawmakers are probably being influenced by constituents — particularly in rural areas — against the legislation," according to EdWeek. The Associated Press noted that the voucher funds often don't equal the amount of tuition. Rural areas in Kansas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have also fought against private school vouchers. Kentucky, Paul's home state, does not have a school voucher program.Rural schools face many of the same problems inner-city schools face, including higher concentrations of low-income students and limited local funding. The difference is, they tend to be whiter. Republicans on the national stage hone in on school choice benefits for students of color because it's a better political move. But the reasons rural Republicans reject school choice — the vouchers aren't enough for elite private schools and the money belongs in public schools — apply to inner-city Democrats. Republicans know the money is theirs, but they're not voting to put it in private schools.
***
In my attempt to avoid sheer laughter bordering upon hysterics, what The Houston Chronicle was reported to have provided as a reason why the federal government does not want to relinquish control of what it continues to so epicly destroy by the day as with any other public expenditure program or bureaucracy will simply be reposted just below for your entertainment:
The thing is, Democrats and Republicans in rural areas oppose private school vouchers — which divert money from public schools to private schools — for the same reason: public schools need that money more. Arizona Republicans recently sided with Democrats to vote down an expansion of the state's voucher program, arguing that "the program unfairly takes money from public schools and gives it to private institutions that cannot be held publicly accountable," according to the Houston Chronicle.
And if this does not tell you after five years of the president threatening to outlaw home schooling due to the federal government's incapacity currently at direct oversight, I shudder what might finally convince you to the contrary that as he speaks from the left-wing side of his mouth his commitment to civil rights and social equity, his right-side if you associate it historically by what his left-side claims is true, is working to further segregate public schools under the guise of affording opportunities for the school systems' economically disadvantaged no one else will be granted.. And if The Wire is brazen enough to falsely claim that any Republican in Tennessee opposes school vouchers and yet favors what our own Dr. McIntyre is to initiate from my understanding in August with the new school year, perhaps it should confer with a few state legislators from Memphis, the only Democratic Party stronghold in our state, and not coincidentally, the city with the highest percentage of minorities, including the poor, residing within. Meanwhile, like with Obama and his love for photo opportunities he claimed he did not have time for since he wanted to cut ahead to the front of the line at a barbecue restaurant in Texas and then had his photograph taken numerous times paying with our tax dollars for his latest PR snafu, well, welcome to the GOP, or rather the Libertarian Party in absentia, with Rand Paul using his own variation of populist charm as he has learned from his friend in the White House who might still be on the golf course how to lie better than normal liberals or conservatives. And now that I state this, has he a clue as to whether he is a Democrat or Republican? I am having difficulties in determining this.
***
And on the issue of voter fraud? Well, Sen. Paul opposes this too. And as I am on a roll, let us cut to a conservative think tank outlet to discuss the divergence here, courtesy of Top Conservative News.com:
US Senator Rand Paul meet with a group of black pastors to ask what he could do to attract black supporters. Now Rand Paul says he is opposed to voter ID laws because they are “offending people.”
Rand Paul ran for US Senate as a hardline “TEA Party” candidate. His biggest issues were opposing US imperialism/wars abroad and stopping illegal immigration. Since taking office Rand Paul has converted to a supporter of amnesty and is supporting large scale US intervention in Eastern Europe.
From The Wire…
Sen. Rand Paul is now a disciple of the anti-voter ID movement, after the black pastors he met with on Friday showed him the way and the truth about measures that tend to decrease minority voter turnout. After meeting with the pastors, Paul shared the good news with Jeremy W. Peters of The New York Times: the GOP needs to “lay off” the whole voter ID laws thing, according to Peters. “It’s offending people,” Paul said.
This isn’t the first time Paul has met with black pastors — it’s just one element of his ongoing attempt to be the face of (successful) GOP outreach to black and Hispanic voters. And this also isn’t the first time he’s come out against the restrictive voter fraud laws in red states that disproportionately affect black voters (who are more likely to vote for Democrats). Last month, during a conversation with David Axelrod, a former advisor of President Obama, Paul said he was against the restrictions on early voting passed in Ohio and Wisconsin, according to The Huffington Post. Paul has also come out in favor of restoring voting rights to ex-felons.
During last month’s conversation, however, he didn’t come out against ID laws. “Dead people do still vote in some elections. There is still some fraud. And so we should stop that, and one way of doing it is (driver’s licenses),” he said at the time. The problem is, when a political party that has a reputation for pushing policies that work against minorities, people will get offended. Thank God someone finally told Paul.
***
It appears as if no one really know what Sen. Paul really stands for, what policies he champions, nor why for the past two years he has appeared for fewer roll call votes than the average U.S. Senator. And apparently, thousands of dead people today continue to be offended after having taken a dirt nap for decades. This will mitigate the plight for Sen. Paul to continue being voted to high public office. I have not yet met a dead person who has argued against much of anything, even the undertaker's bill to his or her family. And they will not at all with Sen. Paul.
The record on how often he is present to vote figure is available courtesy of GovTrack.us:
The record on how often he is present to vote figure is available courtesy of GovTrack.us:
Voting Record
From Jan 2011 to Jul 2014, Paul missed 38 of 998 roll call votes, which is 3.8%. This is worse than the median of 2.0% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time.
| Time Period | Votes Elligible | Missed Votes | Percent | Percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Jan-Mar | 46 | 4 | 8.7% | 87th |
| 2011 Apr-Jun | 58 | 1 | 1.7% | 28th |
| 2011 Jul-Sep | 49 | 5 | 10.2% | 90th |
| 2011 Oct-Dec | 82 | 7 | 8.5% | 95th |
| 2012 Jan-Mar | 63 | 1 | 1.6% | 59th |
| 2012 Apr-Jun | 109 | 1 | 0.9% | 45th |
| 2012 Jul-Sep | 28 | 1 | 3.6% | 55th |
| 2012 Nov-Dec | 50 | 1 | 2.0% | 53rd |
| 2013 Jan-Jan | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 0th |
| 2013 Jan-Mar | 92 | 2 | 2.2% | 76th |
| 2013 Apr-Jun | 76 | 3 | 3.9% | 67th |
| 2013 Jul-Sep | 43 | 0 | 0.0% | 0th |
| 2013 Oct-Dec | 80 | 6 | 7.5% | 85th |
| 2014 Jan-Mar | 93 | 6 | 6.5% | 91st |
| 2014 Apr-Jun | 123 | 0 | 0.0% | 0th |
| 2014 Jul-Jul | 5 | 0 | 0.0% | 0th |
***
Sen. Paul has already been on the campaign trail, and it started once he took the oath office. But while he pledges to destroy the institution of business as usual inside the Beltway, apparently the senator from Kentucky has assured the observant eye that his true intention is to ensure that it never really ends, but rather how it is his intention to drastically alter the practice to serve his corruption mired in stealth in realizing his insidious agenda. Just what again is Sen. Paul's agenda? And since the trend in roll call voting appears to have increased since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on March 4, why suddenly is he appearing all but the past two recorded periods so dramatically more often? For example, in the marked period of 2014 Apr-Jun, he never missed a vote out of 123 which were held, neither has he missed during the 2014 Jul-Jul, of a grand total of five votes thus far in the month held. So what is his agenda for the past two cycles while he still finds time to support President Obama in his avoiding the crises in Iraq and Syria while simultaneously placing the sole blame upon George W. Bush, who intended for some show of American armed forces to remain for an undetermined period as the new government gained traction in establishing a democratic foundation? Consult again GovTrack.us to review just what he has sponsored over the years, and especially what he has done recently, of the 96 total he has brought before the Senate floor since winning his election in 2010:
I. S. 2567: Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act of 2014: A bill to provide for the sealing or expungement of records relating to Federal nonviolent criminal offenses, and for other purposes.
No summary available, but look at the timing of this law in comparison to the border crisis!
Introduced: Jul 08, 2014
Status: Referred to Committee on Jul 08, 2014
Prognosis: 1% chance of being enacted
II. S. 2550: Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act of 2014: A bill to secure the Federal voting rights of non-violent persons when released from incarceration. (This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on June 26, 2014, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.)
No summary available, but again, notice how this was introduced in relationship to the border crisis!
Introduced: Jun 26, 2014
Status: Referred to Committee on Jun 26, 2014
Prognosis: 2% chance of being enacted
III. S. 2477: Egyptian Military Coup Act of 2014: A bill to prohibit certain foreign assistance to the Government of Egypt as a result of the July 3, 2013, military coup d'etat.
6/17/2014--Introduced.Egyptian Military Coup Act of 2014 - Prohibits U.S. government assistance to Egypt pursuant to the coup d'etat restriction under the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Act, 2012.Suspends the provision of specified defense articles and services, and the processing of letters of offer and acceptance for future arms sales, until the President certifies to Congress that democratic national elections have taken place in Egypt followed by a peaceful transfer of power. (How does Sen. Paul justify cutting off Egypt but ignoring anarcho-capitalist style of conquests transpiring by ISIS and Hamas in Iraq, Syria and Israel? And if he wants to cut off Egypt, just what does he consider "specified defense articles and services"? I cannot wait to sometime hopefully soon tackle this bill.)
Introduced: Jun 17, 2014
Status: Referred to Committee on Jun 17, 2014
Prognosis: 2% chance of being enacted
IV. S. 2265: Stand with Israel Act of 2014: A bill to prohibit certain assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
4/29/2014--Introduced.
Stand with Israel Act of 2014 - Prohibits any direct U.S. assistance, loan guarantee, or debt relief to the Palestinian Authority (PA) or any affiliated governing entity or leadership organization.
States that such prohibition shall have no effect for a fiscal year if the President certifies to Congress that during such fiscal year the PA has:
(1) formally recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state,
(2) publicly recognized the state of Israel,
(3) renounced terrorism,
(4) purged all individuals with terrorist ties from security services,
(5) terminated funding of anti-American and anti-Israel incitement,
(6) publicly pledged to not engage in war with Israel, and
(7) honored previous diplomatic agreements.
Introduced: Apr 29, 2014
Status: Referred to Committee on Apr 29, 2014
Prognosis: 2% chance of being enacted (And the senator continues to introduce emergency legislation that contradicts his position upon Iraq and Syria regarding ISIS and Hamas, stating to steer clear of all foreign conflicts, while continuing to destroy America's capacity both abroad and now on our own soil as Mexican military personnel are invading our sovereign territory by supporting amnesty!)
***
There are 92 more in which he has sponsored. This provides you an idea of what he recently is sponsoring. As most bills brought before either house of Congress are sometimes hundreds of pages long or even well over 1,000 in total, I have not had the time to tackle even one. These are essentially the Cliff Notes renditions of most recent one immediately catching my eye. I do have to say about one I chose not to post regarding regulating small businesses, and how ironically Sen. Paul would chose to propose alleviating their burdens in facing federal fines and sanctions by proposing more regulations to regulate what he did not like about the old regulations! Try reciting that sentence ten times fast!
***
As the Kentucky Tea Party organization continues to attack Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader for the GOP, on his public pledges to support and pass amnesty, so too has it against Sen. Paul, who wasted the organization's precious fundraised capital to win his election on a streamline platform similar to its base tenets only to prove why he is no different than the socialists in the Democratic Party nor the RINO faction socialist within the GOP:
This, again, is from June 13, 2013. And when we fast-forward to the recent victory by Sen. McConnell over the Mark Bevin in the primaries, well, Sen. Paul supported his crony-capitalist counterpart from whom he is learning so much about being an establishment politician very quickly, courtesy of Louisville, KY's own LEO:
KY Tea Party leaders criticize Rand Paul on immigration reform, presidential ambitions
Sen. Mitch McConnell isn’t the only Republican senator from Kentucky taking heat from his home state Tea Party these days.Tea Party groups in Kentucky are criticizing their beloved Sen. Rand Paul this week over his support for immigration reform — though he has not come out 100 percent in favor of the Gang of Eight bill that just made it to the Senate floor yesterday — questioning whether his presidential ambitions in 2016 are clouding his judgment on the issue.This morning, the Northern Kentucky Tea Party posted this message on their Facebook page along with an article quoting the details of Paul’s speech to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles:“In 2010 when then Rand Paul was running for Senate he said no welfare benefits to illegals or their anchor babies and that we don’t need any more immigration laws what we need is to enforce the laws that are on the books. i guess running for president has made him change his mind!”Those basic sentiments were shared by United Kentucky Tea Party leader John Kemper in an interview with LEO yesterday. According to Kemper, Paul has been meeting with “pro-amnesty” groups all over Kentucky — Louisville, Bowling Green and Lexington, as well as national groups — but is refusing to meet with conservatives opposed to the current immigration reform bill. Today he said over 10,000 individual faxes will be sent to Paul’s office, telling him to oppose the bill.“Rand doesn’t appear to be listening to our side,” Kemper says. “He’s not having meetings with anybody who is anti-amnesty, but he meets with 3,000 pro-amnesty folks. It’s one issue, but it’s pretty significant.”Kemper pointed out the immigration forum in Lexington that Paul spoke at, which LEO Weekly covered.“You saw who was in that room,” says Kemper. “Did you see a single anti-amnesty person in that room? I have no problem with someone having a private meeting, but I do when that’s all you’re meeting with. We’ve sent letters from all the Tea Parties to Rand and Mitch saying there’s not a Tea Party organization in the state that agrees with the Senate bill.”Kemper added that he thought Paul was cynically trying to play both sides of this issue in order to boost his presidential chances in 2016.“He can say I was really trying to work this out with his Democrat friends in 2016 when he runs for president, and then he can go back to his Republican base and say we tried to get the security issue in there and Democrats just wouldn’t do it,” says Kemper. “So he’s playing politics… Most politicians try to keep one side or the other with him, but he’s magically ticked off both sides on this issue. I don’t know how he runs for president doing that.”A poll from an establishment Republican pollster released today shows that Kemper and the Northern Kentucky Tea Party’s views on immigration are in the minority in Kentucky, as 63 percent of Kentuckians support the basic outline of the Senate immigration reform bill. It should also be noted that establishment Republicans are the ones pushing for immigration reform within the party, realizing that further alienating the growing Latino demographic could lead to permanent minority status for the GOP in the future.Kemper also shared some rather… interesting views on immigration from the South, saying “The Puerto Rican and Cuban Latinos are different from those coming from Mexico and other South American states, because (the latter) see government as a way to prosper,” adding that Mexicans take welfare benefits despite also buying “widescreen TVs and 24-inch rims.”As we mentioned in our story on Paul two weeks ago, such inflammatory rhetoric might just as well have come out of the senator’s mouth three years ago. But not anymore, which is at least a small part of why the Tea Party is so angry with him now.Posted by Joe Sonka on June 13, 2013 at 11:56 am.Tags: UncategorizedPermalink | Follow this story's comments with the RSS feed for this post.Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
***
Unlike Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, two epic leaders who even as I loved both and still love them today had their flaws like any other politician, Sen. Paul is in no manner of speaking a conviction politician, but as Mr. Kemper reinforced what I have said for the past week, someone who rides the fence. Mr. Kemper also stated what I have long realized but until recently was willing to overlook as a necessary evil to win an election: He is buying votes with welfare subsidies and these pro-amnesty special interests. He may now be the biggest whore I have ever read in modern politics when you consider so many contradictions from his proclaiming to be a man of principle and constitutional conviction to now retracting his pledge to cut out egregious special interests governing our nation through its politicians since he is engaged in the same. All one needs to read in the following comment in how he is echoing his disgust at the manner Sen. Paul defrauded the Tea Party to win his seat in the U.S. Senate is as follows:
And again, Sen. Paul is a populist, and I have said this both on here for the past few weeks as well as to my friends locally and through Twitter what I also will quote directly from the Northern Kentucky Tea Party:“So he’s playing politics… Most politicians try to keep one side or the other with him, but he’s magically ticked off both sides on this issue. I don’t know how he runs for president doing that.”
This morning, the Northern Kentucky Tea Party posted this message on their Facebook page along with an article quoting the details of Paul’s speech to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles:
“In 2010 when then Rand Paul was running for Senate he said no welfare benefits to illegals or their anchor babies and that we don’t need any more immigration laws what we need is to enforce the laws that are on the books. i guess running for president has made him change his mind!”
Fool me once, shame on you. But if you fool me twice, well, I have no one else to blame for uncanny stupidity than myself whom I victimized most. Again, though, what does Sen. Paul believe in? I think he knows, and it reeks of the same old socialism his friend Barack Obama is using to not just destroy America, but to fund and align himself directly with ISIS, the Palestinians and their terrorist conduit Hamas, the world. Anarcho-capitalism is how Obama is achieving his measures for global domination of the most insidious sort, and why Netanyahu only recently was reported by The Times of Israel as having conferred with UK Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party, French President Francois Hollande of the Socialist Party whom Obama publicly has courted to support whatever foreign policy initiatives his next dartboard and continue of blanks he will use to "fire", German Chancellor Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrats and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper of his nation's Conservative Party; even the worthless Ban Ki-moon, the General Secretary of the United Nations, has been consulted and calling for Hamas to end its role in the conflict before Israel follows through in good faith.
In hitching my wagon further on its high horse, I want to briefly address my opinion on the United Nations and Ban Ki-moon. Let us not mistaken Ban's idiocy as he cast aside any idea that ISIS procuring both chemical weapons and now nuclear measures to build first dirty bombs and later more deadly weapons of mass destruction as nonsense due to how he would have to admit that George W. Bush was right to avoid the "Do-Nothing" United Nations on how best to address America's national security during the war on terror. In the end, Ban will do what every UN leader historically has in achieving: nothing. He will, however, fly with his officials to Greenland to observe a small parcel of foliage growth in the tundra and say that it somehow is growing near a dense field of glaciers, always followed by his inevitable call for ending climate change, but mysteriously speaking very little by comparison on how to meet the challenges of morbid poverty globally other than insisting the U.S. continue provisions of humanitarian supplies that are redirected by the UN to the governments of these nations, usually dictatorships, who then consume what was meant to feed those they are starving to death; to enlist Bono's idea to lift the Global South from poverty rather than contribute to it would be counterproductive and inevitably lead to the UN's obsolescence, which initiated as soon as it was established. It is, however, more than what on the surface Obama is not doing, but in reality is funding ISIS, the Palestinian Authority and its strong arm Hamas to grow the new caliphate and to destroy America willingly. Apparently, Ban might just be siding again with the president in establishing some measure of a world order. Our UN Ambassador Samantha Power has already vocalized the president's desires to hand over "a sliver" of our popular sovereignty, and it would be all too convenient for the president to do so since he is totally incompetent not just on monetary matters, but simply for serving as either the gay illiterate to the world as John F. Kennedy reportedly referred to Teddy in life, or something else more sinister is afoot.
Whatever this is, somewhere too is Sen. Paul and his father in mix in some capacity as they both are known for years as supporting the conspiracy theory in concert with the likes of Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11) that George W. Bush was the major catalyst in aiding Osama bin Laden towards planning and the final execution of that terrible day.
European Conservatives Lash Out in Opposition to Sen. Paul's Fake Ambivalence
Whatever this is, somewhere too is Sen. Paul and his father in mix in some capacity as they both are known for years as supporting the conspiracy theory in concert with the likes of Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11) that George W. Bush was the major catalyst in aiding Osama bin Laden towards planning and the final execution of that terrible day.
***
European Conservatives Lash Out in Opposition to Sen. Paul's Fake Ambivalence
If you need ever again to know where our global allies believe where exactly Rand Paul stands on ISIS and the burning Middle East, I refer you to Europe, who has no reason to avoid printing what our mainstream media, both left-wing and on the right, publicly tell their viewers or readers they will not report, courtesy of European News. To ensure absolute authenticity aside from my posting the corresponding URL for you to refer to the news media site, I am going to repost the actual formatted article as close as possible to what is on the page:
Rand Paul: So what if there is an al-Qaeda state?
Paul says we shouldn’t do things without the support of Congress (but the president does have support on this) and the American people (whom he assumes don’t care if we face a launching pad for another 9/11). Understand that he doesn’t merely say we shouldn’t put boots on the ground; he argues that we don’t have an interest in the outcome. He manages to get through an entire op-ed without recognizing that a state dominated by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would represent a bigger threat to the United States than Afghanistan did pre-9/11. Paul observes that the Iraq war was harder than anticipated but ignores the success of the surge and the peaceful, stable state in which the George W. Bush administration left Iraq. He also borrows President Obama’s false talking point that we couldn’t leave forces there. (Paul incidentally doesn’t understand or is deliberately misleading readers when he says our actions in Syria contribute to the rise of ISIS there; in fact, had we swiftly pushed out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, there would have been no – zero – ISIS fighters there.)
By contrast, retired Gen. David Petraeus, who led the surge in Iraq, asserts: “If President Obama and other leaders conclude that the threat posed by ISIS is significant then I would support actions to target high value ISIS elements. If ISIS is seen as a terrorist organization with the potential to engage in terrorist acts beyond the Middle East, then that could warrant the targeting of high value targets. . . .We must realize that ISIS poses a threat not only to Iraq but to the UK and other countries as well. ISIS poses two challenges, to the stability of Iraq, and also the emerging threat it poses beyond Iraq and Syria.”
So who is right – David Petraeus or Rand Paul?
Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, who has advised presidents of both parties, says, “Fortunately, there is a very broad consensus in both parties, in Congress, and in the administration that the US has a clear and direct interest in preventing the establishment of a jihadi state in the Middle East.”
Indeed, consider the contrast between Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.):
The most acute security threat to the United States is the aggressive movement of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces out of Syria and into Iraq over the last six months. These vicious Sunni fanatics may be relatively small in number but they make up for it in sheer brutality. Although President Obama dismissed their aggression into Fallujah in January of this year as the terrorist equivalent of the junior varsity, recent events suggest they are of a much higher capability. . . .
ISIS is in fact much more than a local or even a regional threat. They are among the worst of the radical jihadists who attacked us on 9/11/01 and 9/11/12—so bad in fact that “core al Qaida” as President Obama likes to call the terrorist cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan have renounced them. Their goal is to establish a new caliphate in the Middle East and northern Africa, and they have publicly announced that when they achieve their ambitions in Syria or Iraq, their goal is to move on to Jordan. To Israel. To the United States.
Because of their actions and their stated intentions, it seems that a concise but decisive mission to degrade the lethality of ISIS would be in the national security interests of the United States.Unlike Paul, Cruz has also been clear that under no circumstances should we partner with Iran. (“Just because Iran fears the ISIS jihadists, it does not follow that we should partner with them in this fight. The enemy of our enemy, in this instance is not our friend.”) One of these senators is acting in a Reagan mode, and one sure isn’t.I asked Michael O’Hanlon, an early critic of the war strategy pre-surge and a respected analyst of the surge’s impact, why it was not a good idea simply to sit on the sidelines. He replied that then “we get a prolonged period of sanctuary for al-Qaeda in the region.” He explained, “So it’s not just about outcomes, but about how long the chaos and the conflict persist, as well. What’s happening now already hurts our interests badly I’d argue, and with each passing day/week/month, we are at greater risk of direct attack.”So what is Rand Paul for? He doesn’t want to disrupt formation of an al-Qaeda state, he doesn’t want to back non-jihadi rebels in Syria, he doesn’t want to use drones to kill American jihadists in the area and he doesn’t want a National Security Agency surveillance system to detect jihadist plots. He is giving Obama and his hapless secretary of state “time for diplomacy” with Iran, as Iran races to its nuclear threshold and its economy rebounds. (About the only thing left is to buy more ambulances for the next attack.) This is isolationism and irresponsibility of the worst order.David Adesnik, an expert on U.S. isolation, agrees in a piece thoroughly debunking Paul’s position:Rand Paul has difficulty understanding why Al Qaeda safe havens threaten those interests. It’s hard to imagine [former Defense Secretary Casper] Weinberger or [President Ronald] Reagan being so naive. Finally, the Weinberger Doctrine insists on the use of force only as a last resort. In principle, that’s an entirely uncontroversial idea. The problem is to determine in reality when the last resort has been arrived at. When ISIL controls large swathes of territory? When it sets up a government? When Ayman al-Zawahiri arrives for a visit?
Something noticeably absent from Rand Paul’s column and interview are any constructive suggestions for how to deal with the threat we face. Of course, those who can’t understand a problem are unlikely to recommend solutions. In effect, Sen. Paul embraces a policy of denial. He’s glad to wait and watch.In that regard, Paul’s views are closest of any GOP senator or congressman to the president, although in his defense, Obama has figured out that it would be bad to have a terrorist state smack dab in the middle of the most volatile place on the globe. Maybe Paul should run for the other party’s presidential nomination; he’s clearly to the left of Hillary Clinton on all of this. The University of California at Berkeley crowd would love it.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.Right Turn
***
Oh how I wish Ms. Rubin could read this blog article, particularly the conclusion which shall surely sting any hardline anarcho-capitalist supportive of Sen. Paul and his father, Ron. Spelling it out as she did before I happened to locate this over Google, I apparently read her mind; I must be a clairvoyant! What Sen. Paul claims would be his foreign policy could not be further removed from that of the Reagan Doctrine. While America never fired a shot directly at the Soviet Union, we also embarked upon the most awesome military buildup that through serving as both Reagan and his greatest political ally stateside or internationally, Margaret Thatcher, what was certainly the most expensive deterrence system in world history destroyed the most evil empire the world has ever known. And why do I say the Soviet Union was more evil than Nazi Germany? Because Soviet communism destroyed Nazism. It was, in fact, a war between the two most evil ideologies and nations in the history of Western civilization. The Soviet Union managed to win it at the cost of perhaps as many as 30 million Red Army lives and millions more who either sacrificed for Mother Russia or were tossed into the line of fire involuntarily under Joseph Stalin's directives. And for the record, combining Mao Zedong of China and Stalin alone, as if numbers so enormous as the following figure by this point are even quantifiably accurate or possible to grasp its absurdity, trump Hitler's total. It seems that historians like to forget that one death is a tragedy, but millions are negligible. Stalin stated so much to be true. The following per The Daily Mail of the UK:
From Stalin to Hitler, the most murderous regimes in the world
By NIGEL JONESUPDATED: 17:00 EST, 28 January 2012The 20th century witnessed death and slaughter on an unprecedented scale.It was the century of the Holocaust and two World Wars; of communist, Nazi, fascist and military dictators who between them killed more than 100 million people.Scroll down for the leaders themselves, listed in order of the numbers who died as a result of their rule.The casualties of conflicts involving the U.S., the UK and France in Korea, Algeria, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq are excluded on the grounds that, though many would view these as unjust colonial wars by ‘imperialist’ powers, they weren’t fought by dictators.Indeed, when the wars proved unpopular or unwinnable, they were brought to an end by the pressure of public opinion.1 MAO ZEDONGChina (1949-76) Regime Communist Victims 60 millionChina’s so-called ‘Great Helmsman’ was in fact the greatest mass murderer in history. Most of his victims were his fellow Chinese, murdered as ‘landlords’ after the communist takeover, starved in his misnamed ‘Great Leap Forward’ of 1958-61, or killed and tortured in labour camps in the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties. Mao’s rule, with its economic mismanagement and continual political upheavals, also spelled poverty for most of China’s untold millions. The country embraced capitalism long after his death.2 JOSEPH STALINSoviet Union (1929-53) Regime Communist Victims 40 millionLenin’s paranoid successor was the runner-up to Mao in the mass-murder stakes. Stalin imposed a deliberate famine on Ukraine, killed millions of the wealthier peasants – or ‘kulaks’ – as he forced them off their land, and purged his own party, shooting thousands and sending millions more to work as slaves and perish in the Gulag.3 ADOLF HITLERGermany (1933-45) Regime Nazi dictatorship Victims 30 millionThe horror of Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship lies in the uniqueness of his most notorious crime, the Holocaust, which stands alone in the annals of inhuman cruelty. It was carried out under the cover of World War II, a conflict Hitler pursued with the goal of obtaining ‘Lebensraum’. The war ended up costing millions of lives, leaving Europe devastated and his Third Reich in ruins.
***
Of course, I have not seen anywhere on this list of any mention of the one human atrocity which led to the invention of the term genocide. That dubious honor belongs to the last caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, which slaughtered between 1 and 2 million Armenian civilians primarily of the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith during World War I. Read the following website titled The Armenian Genocide.org to understand this horrific atrocity and how we today on a far larger geographic scale face the same danger if Obama is not stopped and Rand Paul continues to grow more powerful by the day in leading tacit public acceptance to a policy of appeasement. I am opining to each of you now that Barack Obama is not only complicit in the inevitable attempts by ISIS, the Palestinians and Hamas to achieve this goal of the final global caliphate, so too is Rand Paul, but I am not certain with the latter as to how he exactly is playing his part of yet.
***
If Sen. Paul's use of the filibuster to attack the president on his now-public knowledge as policy for drone usage seemed to defend truth, justice and the American way, he apparently had no qualms there with the idea of using it on certain people, notably the Tsarnaev brothers, who were granted years earlier the right to planning further Islamic jihad on U.S. soil at the Boston Marathon. The Russian government had warned the Obama administration of the Tsarvaev ties to Islamic separatist factions in Dagestan and even the South Ossetia regions where George W. Bush sent to the Black Sea a naval fleet in threatening military retaliation for an all-out assault on the former Soviet state of Georgia's sovereignty. As President Obama himself appears as stoned with his decisions on how he will support the new Kiev government du jour through funneling military munitions into Poland along its border with Ukraine while knowing his role as Vladimir Putin's whipping boy, Sen. Paul was interviewed about using whether he would have favored the use of drones against the Tsarvaevs, which now appears to be consistent as he is more egregious as a flip-flopper than was our current Secretary of State, John Kerry, or Lurch if you please, himself:
Sen. Paul and his father Ron, as stated, are part of this plan, either in a complicit role or more insidiously than we will ever known before all hell truly breaks loose. One thing's for certain: the junior senator from Kentucky is supporting the president, albeit as if he is waffling as he does so like a drunk vagrant in the National Mall, while blaming George W. Bush for everything as would Obama, who as Sen. Paul speaks his rather indecisive mind, also demands that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resign:
So now that Sen. Paul is blaming first Bush, then sectarian conflicts which have lasted for centuries, but not directly Barack Obama and instead is supporting whatever it is Obama chooses to do that changes daily, we then have this on CNN, where apparently he is far more comfortable engaging Candy Crowley in friendly chatter as her dittohead (Rush Limbaugh's famous term can be used in so many ways) than with someone who will force him to defend his position like Sean Hannity. Ironically, I have yet to read of one libertarian supporter who did not claim in my use of sarcasm, Sen. Paul had the debate won before he entered the studio for the interview. Take note how before Ms. Crowley, Sen. Paul states that if Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki flees, the real problems begin (and this is, after all, what the president sent Sec. of State John Kerry to force him into doing before he then reworded his rhetoric to a divide and conquer measure of leadership, whatever that means):
And now that we know that he knows there are actually history textbooks, if you reads them, acknowledging centuries or more than 1,000 years of sectarian conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis, I feel all the better knowing that he can read and apparently follow through by rewriting what he does not like about it and claiming that there is now a "power vacuum" we directly caused, but in fact has been in place for as long as he claims such bizarre sectarian conflicts have been waged, and still he managed to not discuss too much about the Kurds both sects have slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands, only to proclaim that Iraq would be better off had Saddam Hussein never been toppled! What a socialist spin on what has led the public to believe is his serving the role of champion of popular democracy as the GOP's most prominent populist politician!
"That guy, Hussein"? I am just astounded at how he has managed to utilize the language of political science to somehow apply in the most befuddling way possibly the term referring to worldwide global policy geopolitical! Again, this time before his comrades who serve as the Democratic Party's commissars within the Senate panel on what I hesitate out of my ear drums bursting a-flame on the reverse hyperbole of an intelligence committee, because as there are so many different committees between both houses, I have never succeeded in maintain just the labels of every single one. And if I am relying upon Sen. Paul to play the role of the jingoist as he slices up the regional political boundaries as if a pie much like the European imperialists and the U.S. did with China during the 19th Century which led to the Boxer Rebellion, well, perhaps Sir Rudyard Kipling might well have described what Sen. Paul's true goal of saving the world one ISIS and Palestinian alliance with Hamas regime at a time, including of course Israel, when I mock him as ruling the world on his own concept of the white man's burden. So much for championing liberty for all and civil rights for the some. All I am reading from him or as with these videos, listening to, are some of those most arrogantly ignorant plans for how he would rule the world. They are far more in tune with Axelrod's assessment on Obama's intellect with the following adjective: complex. And like Obama, they are derived from a very large pile beneath a bull's derriere.
***
Now I will turn to one of the most socialist of all mainstream political commentators, NBC's David Gregory, where Sen. Paul is more brazenly blaming Dick Cheney and George W. Bush for the world apparently coming to an end in order to not face being destroyed by a leftist within the media:
And again, to CNN, where Sen. Paul now states America, not anyone else nor any state within the Middle East at all, has manufactured "a jihadist wonderland":
And as I have stated before that the Obama administration has a vested interested in the oil capital of Burisma Holdings, the large private oil corporation in Ukraine, due to Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter serving on its executive, so too does Sen. Paul, who apparently has acknowledged the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 signed by Clinton, British Prime Minister John Major, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the leader of the Ukraine at the time, now seems to believe that honoring treaties supporting foreign entanglements and alliances is apparently the right thing to do since it obeys international law not domestic statutes sanctioned by the Constitution he swears he supports, but more often chooses to ignore:
It is rather tragic that the man standing alongside of Sen. Paul, Sen. Lamar Alexander, is the GOP senator with seniority of my home state of Tennessee. He is not popular here at all, as majority of us who voted him into the Senate decades after he was our governor during the late 1970s/1980s followed by his time as President of the University of Tennessee (again, my collegiate alma mater), and as I have read, is facing serious challenges lying ahead by the Tea Party before he is assured to be renominated. I only hope Tennessee is not on the cusp of another Thad Cochran voting fraud scandal that will simply be swept aside by both Alexander's supporters, but as with Cochran in Mississippi when it was obviously conservatives would overwhelming vote to remove him as its nominee for the Senate, a potential stealth partnership with the state Democratic Party. That would be the destruction of what Sen. Alexander's mentor and political colossus both in Washington and in Tennessee, the recently-deceased former Sen. Howard Baker, created with what Alexander himself stated was the first two-party political system in state history predating the Civil War to the era of Andrew Jackson, the father of popular politics in America.
Conclusion: Is Sen. Rand Paul the Most Dangerous Man in America, and Perhaps the World?
The sheer ignorance of this man who either has no idea in what he believes or is otherwise more dangerous than Barack Obama himself since no one really knows what his agenda is nor why he is not supporting any measure of military deployment to the Middle East but is willing to freely support amnesty even amid congressional reports stating of late that in fact, known Islamic terrorists are crossing into America from Mexico and now the federal government has ended its policy of screening for ID to board planes (which I have yet to read what Sen. Paul stands on this measure), I stand by what I have stated for weeks: He is an anarcho-capitalist, brilliantly appealing to all on both sides even as he unabashedly contradicts his own policies. And after all, any run-of-the-mill politician will wisely promise political transparency. Just ask Hunter Biden as again, he is now on the executive board as a member of Burisma Holdings, the largest private oil firm in Ukraine, and then add two-and-two to understand how four is the measure for why Obama is so interested in his own rather bizarre means for public display:
 |
| Hunter Biden, son of Vice President Joe Biden, and new executive board member of Ukrainian private oil corporation Burisma Holdings |
“Burisma’s track record of innovation and industry leadership in the field of natural gas means that it can be a strong driver of a strong economy in Ukraine. As a new member of the Board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”
The Chairman of the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings, Mr. Alan Apter, noted: “The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.”
***
I offer only one piece of advice to Sen. Paul. The 2016 Presidential Election has yet to reach the GOP primary. He might want to read between those lines if by some irony he happens to read this prior to the nationalization of the same Google corporation he has courted for nearly two years, which is available in November 14, 2013's article courtesy of The Week.
To read a myriad of horrified tweets in opposition to Salon calling for the nationalization of Google and Facebook, well, there you go again, Sen. Paul, as he courts Silicon Valley under the guise of preserving the Fourth Amendment's implied right to privacy when in fact, you may be sleeping with the devil and the hopeful end to your farce, or more appropriate a joke, of a political career. As I am not exactly the best at utilizing simply HTML formatting, much less JavaScript, this is my best attempt at reproducing what Michelle Malkin's Twitchy.com posts via Twitter state in their horror, but only to me so much as I am determing to ascertain whether it is Barack Obama or Rand Paul supporting such a measure:
How Silicon Valley turned on President Obama Blame the NSA By Dana Liebelson | November 14, 2013
In the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Silicon Valley was squarely in President Obama's corner.
Google's executive chairman coached Obama's campaign team; executives from Craigslist, Napster, and Linkedin helped him fundraise; and when the dust settled, Obama had won nine counties in the liberal and tech-heavy Bay Area, scoring 84 percent of the vote in San Francisco. But a little over a year later, following explosive allegations from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that the government is exploiting tech companies to spy on Americans, some members of Silicon Valley are taking a new perspective: "F--- these guys."
That's what Brandon Downey, a security engineer with Google, wrote late last month, upon learning that the NSA had broken into Google and Yahoo and was exploiting the data of millions of users, allegedly without the companies' knowledge. He added, "We suspected this was happening, [but] it still makes me terribly sad. It makes me sad because I believe in America...The U.S. has to be better than this."
Executives at Google, which issued a polite denial when the first revelations about PRISM came out, were publicly furious over the new revelations (which the NSA denied): "We are outraged at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone to intercept data from our private fiber networks," David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, told The Verge. This is the same company that in October 2012 gave $342,409 to Democrats and only $37,250 to Republicans, according to data from OpenSecrets.
Many techies may be regretting such investments. "There's a strong libertarian streak that dampens support for the Obama administration... Entrepreneurs don't like the government telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies or their wallets," says Craig Montuori, a Caltech aerospace engineer who designed data systems for the Chris Christie campaign in 2009 and worked in the field for Obama in 2012.
"I personally donated to the Obama campaign in both 2008 and 2012, and given the recent revelations, I would certainly reconsider doing the same in the future," Sina Khanifar, a programmer and activist who helped launch Stopwatching.us, a coalition demanding more information about NSA surveillance efforts. "One of the biggest advantages the Obama campaign had in the last election cycle was the technical team that wrote their grassroots organizing software. The NSA revelations have seriously damaged technologists' trust in government, and I think recruiting a similar team for the next elections would be much more difficult."
Jonathan Nelson, who has been programming since he was seven, is the founder of Hackers and Founders, which assists tech startup entrepreneurs, and has 11,000 members working out of Silicon Valley. He tells The Week, "Our hopes were that the Obama administration would hold true to their promises and end these [surveillance] programs. But instead, they've expanded to unimaginable levels. That's been crushingly disappointing for many in our community."
Nelson notes, however, that the different factions of the tech industry have responded in various ways. He points to "Massive Tech Co" — companies with thousands of employees — which he believes are less inclined to speak publicly against the administration because they have government contracts and established policy interests.
Spokespeople for the big-name tech companies wouldn't comment on the record for this article, but they've nonetheless taken covert action to protect user privacy. Microsoft, for instance, signed on with Apple, Google, and other companies to voice support for full-fledged NSA reform. "Companies are beginning to realize that...the NSA is actively hacking and targeting [them], putting all of us at risk," says Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst and legislative assistant for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Twitter was notably absent from Snowden's revelations about the PRISM program. But the company's latest lobbying disclosure form reveals that Twitter is lobbying on a host of civil liberties bills related to stopping NSA surveillance — though we don't know for sure on which side the company is lobbying — including a bill that would stop the government from scooping up geolocation data; a bill that would require more transparency in the FISA court; and a sweeping bill that reforms the Patriot Act.
Twitter also noted in a November 4 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the company went public last week) that "if our security measures are breached... our products and services may be perceived as not being secure [and] our business and operating results could be harmed."
Nelson says that after Massive Tech Co., there's venture capital-funded startups, which rely on third party servers that belong to companies like Amazon or Rackspace to guarantee the integrity of their data. "Once people around the world start to not trust [the] startups that they are using, and they start using other services… this could kill hundreds if not thousands of companies," he says. And beneath that, there's the "alpha geeks" — people in Silicon Valley working for small companies that are taking steps like "moving away from hosted email."
Not all techies are blaming Obama for the NSA scandal. Montuori, who worked for the Obama campaign in 2012, says, "I still approve of [Obama] and support him as president. But the system at a whole is to blame, with the NSA pushing increased legislative authorizations and with a wink and a nudge exceeding even those bounds."
Whether the scandal will affect Democrats' relationship with Silicon Valley come 2016 remains to be seen. One high-level tech executive told The Week, "I really have no idea what's going to happen... but I am curious what candidate Hillary's opinions on the spying are. Does she agree or disagree with the views of Obama?"
***
Let me go on record to state using more sarcasm that Ms. Liebelson is as journalist for Far Left media outlet Mother Jones, and she is so intelligent that it is important to note than more pertinent to our world than her simply speaking fluent German, she is also fluent in Mandarin Chinese. Funny thing, our Far Left in the media like Ms. Liebelson, that she plays violin rather well, or so she states, and wants you to know too albeit as an indirect play on stereotypes that like so many others in Germany and China, she is just more cultured in the sphere of Marxist ideology, but with a twist of Maoism to boot. Apparently, however, the Chinese are not too keen that a president of the United States is more Marxist than Mao, Lenin and Stalin. This too from Daily Tech from June 4, 2014, where Beijing now threaten to "severely punish" Google and Apple over their complicity in the NSA spying. Our of interest for avoiding the combination of War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged in one rather historically-linked novel of Russia's history impacting its greatest gift to America in Ayn Rand more than a century later, I will provide for now the Chinese media's direct quotes and allow for you to read the rest of the article, followed by the disseminator of what may be the sole honest comments ever quoted by Joseph Stalin as I finish this regarding media control:
U.S. companies including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. are all coordinating with the PRISM program to monitor China. To resist the naked Internet hegemony, we will draw up international regulations, and strengthen technology safeguards, but we will also severely punish the pawns of the villain. The priority is strengthening penalties and punishments, and for anyone who steals our information, even though they are far away, we shall punish them!
- Liang Jun Bianji, editor, The People's Daily (This is the link to the actual article from one of the Chinese state media outlets.)And this, from Google chief legal officer David Drummond courtesy of Reuters, who I will add is of no relation to Conrad Bain's character from the iconic television sitcom Diff'rent Strokes:
We cannot say this more clearly - the (U.S.) government does not have access to Google servers - not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.And God bless Apple Corps., whose co-founder and legal intellectual copyright defrauder Steve Jobs is likely rolling over in his grave as his zombified remains - if he has not been cremated - are hearkening upon his near-epic disaster in the form of his iconic 1984 commercial during the Super Bowl which launched the first line of Macintosh desktop computers if he could only read of what his company's current CEO Tim Cook penned in his own mea culpa:
Much of what has been said isn't true. There is no back door. The government doesn't have access to our servers. They would have to cart us out in a box for that.And again from the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing through another state-run media out called Xinhua, the red dragon might just be ascending:
It is widely known that the U.S. has for a long time been using its advanced technology and infrastructure to perpetrate large scale theft of secrets and eavesdropping against foreign political leaders, enterprises and individuals.
From WikiLeaks to the (Edward) Snowden incident, the U.S. hypocrisy and double standards have been abundantly clear. The Chinese PLA has been a serious victim of this kind of behavior from the U.S. Statistics show that in recent years the PLA's international internet terminals have suffered a large number of attacks. IP addresses show that a large number of those attacks come from the U.S. China demands that the U.S. give a clear explanation of its internet theft of secrets and eavesdropping on China and immediately cease such activities.Keeping in mind, my fellow readers, that the PLA is short for The People's Liberation Army. They are the only other nation globally to fund its military in excess of $100 billion, and it is currently ranked third in terms of power. Rand Paul insists akin to those within the actual Libertarian Party that our armed forces be crippled by a minimum 60-percent cut in funding. And once again, how else did China achieve its communist state which Jimmy Carter officially recognized in 1979 while delegitimizing Taiwan for political and economic expediency purposes globally? Through wealthy Chinese elitist on the Far Left, most notably Mao Zedong, who utilized anarcho-capitalism, albeit of course in a far more agrarian model of consolidating monetary resources, in his tactics in guerilla warfare and stealth subversion. He partnered with his sworn adversary, Chiang Kai-Shek of the Kuomintang (the Nationalist Party), to fight the Japanese during the World War II, then swept his equally-despotic foe off the mainland, where then then fled across the Formosa Strait to present-day Taiwan. Class warfare can be a wonderful ploy to fight the haves when no one realizes commonly that the have-nots really are the ones who are often wealthier than the haves who then become more autocratic in their totalitarianism than the old feudalism system Mao toppled in China and killed as many as 72 million Chinese civilians during his dictatorship.
To read a myriad of horrified tweets in opposition to Salon calling for the nationalization of Google and Facebook, well, there you go again, Sen. Paul, as he courts Silicon Valley under the guise of preserving the Fourth Amendment's implied right to privacy when in fact, you may be sleeping with the devil and the hopeful end to your farce, or more appropriate a joke, of a political career. As I am not exactly the best at utilizing simply HTML formatting, much less JavaScript, this is my best attempt at reproducing what Michelle Malkin's Twitchy.com posts via Twitter state in their horror, but only to me so much as I am determing to ascertain whether it is Barack Obama or Rand Paul supporting such a measure:
I’ve got a better idea: let’s not listen to @Salon. Ever. twitter.com/Salon/status/4…
—
Ben Howe (@BenHowe) July 08, 2014
Holy crap RT @Popehat: This is not from the Salon parody account. twitter.com/salon/status/4…—Film Ladd (@FilmLadd) July 08, 2014
Uhm… RT @MPeper Unreal! RT @FilmLadd: Holy crap RT @Popehat: This is not from the Salon parody account. twitter.com/salon/status/4…—Matthew Newman (@MDMRN) July 08, 2014
@BecketAdams @Salon Is this the real Salon or the parody? I can't tell anymore.—Charles Hoskinson (@cehoskinson) July 08, 2014
Well, we’ll say this for Salon: They never run out of ways to make themselves look stupid.
Let's nationalize Amazon and Google: Publicly funded technology built Big Tech — time to make them utilities slnm.us/4gEhCQB—Salon.com (@Salon) July 08, 2014
Read it and weep:
They’re huge, they’re ruthless, and they touch every aspect of our daily lives. Corporations like Amazon and Google keep expanding their reach and their power. Despite a history of abuses, so far the Justice Department has declined to take antitrust actions against them. But there’s another solution.Is it time to manage and regulate these companies as public utilities?
Writer Richard Eskow thinks it’s a pretty darn awesome idea:
These aren’t just the portraits of futuristic corporations who have become drunk on unchecked power. It’s a sign that things are likely to get worse – perhaps a lot worse – unless something is done. The solution may lie with an old concept. It may be time to declare Big Tech a public utility.
Smart take, bro.
@Salon This is pretty much the dumbest idea ever.—The Real Bepo (D) (@TheRealBepo) July 08, 2014
It’s a doozy, all right!
Shorter Salon: We didn't tax you more at the beginning. You succeeded. Now your business is ours. #notkidding salon.com/2014/07/08/let…—Will Antonin (@Will_Antonin) July 08, 2014
Great now the geniuses at @Salon are waging a war on things that actually work. #HasTheUSPSTaughtYouNothing—Christopher Miller (@ChrisAMillerNow) July 08, 2014
Salon likes to keep busy.
Salon wants to nationalize Amazon and Google? http://t.co/mY6xle076d—Padraig Cæl (@Peetweefish) July 08, 2014
You guys, Amazon and Google have been kicking ass as private entities, you guys. Time to nationalize them and turn them to shit, you guys.—Padraig Cæl (@Peetweefish) July 08, 2014
Well, what’s good for the goose … right, Salon?
Let's nationalize @Salon so the Government runs then destroys it.—Kate (@misskathrynhyde) July 08, 2014
Hey, it’s only fair.***
Follow @twitchyteam
You be the judge. The more I read, the more I ponder just who is responsible for what and is supporting our nation's fast track towards a virtual TASS media source, disseminated as only the state would discern as necessary as random reports of Photoshop jobs of the president at the Texas border with Mexico by friendly left-wing media; if they are indeed true, as I have spent sporadically the past few days searching for any article at all of a recent doctored job at the Mexican border, I have yet to locate it by way of Obama's contentious Google supporters who are also in Sen. Paul's pockets. To listen to Charles Krauthammer as reported by Mediaite, a leading conservative thinker of today's political climate, he certainly confirms the merciful conclusion to this article, which keeps taking on a life all its own:
And upon The Wall Street Journal reporting from 2013 one of Sen. Paul's public and unabashed visits to Silicon Valley to court Google and Facebook, it appears as if he has learned very well the most profound wisdom ever imparted by a totalitarian dictator in Joseph Stalin:
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
- Quotations for Public Speakers : A Historical, Literary, and Political Anthology (2001) by Robert G. Torricelli, p. 121
And on education and who wields its curricula' source, so too did Comrade Stalin comment:
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
- Interview with H. G. Wells (September 1937)
Finally, in acknowledging how well Sen. Paul has learned from his friend in the White House when he is not out for tee time, Stalin foreshadowed 21st Century America as only the world's victory of the Great Patriotic War between its two most notorious Western despots with the following:
"The press must grow day in and day out — it is our Party's sharpest and most powerful weapon."
If Sen. Pauls absorbs the popular media as a whole, including eventually the conservative establishment that to date is thankfully resistant to his charade of liberty for all under a stealth concept of "liberte, fraternite, egalite" consistent with the world's first violent anarchist revolution leading to what also was the first left-wing experiment in totalitarian governance in France, as Bastille Day is to be celebrated tomorrow for the 225th anniversary, he will control America. And if Sen. Paul controls America, he will have succeeded where Barack Obama has so miserably failed: global domination under a true totalitarian-sanctioned utopia.
