Rand Paul

Rand Paul Vows to Stop NSA Spying 'on Day 1' of Presidency

Wants to "take back America" from special interests.

|

Rand
Randpaul.com

Rand Paul's campaign kickoff just concluded with a rousing speech by the libertarian-leaning U.S. senator from Kentucky in which he promised that his first act as president would be to stop the NSA's illegal spying on American citizens.  He vowed to win the White House while clutching the Bill of Rights in one hand and the Constitution in the other.

Paul's speech hit on seveal big themes of his candidacy: ending cronyism, reforming the criminal justice system, and (most worryingly, for many libertarians) defeating radical Islam.

His speech began with a thunderous pledge to "take back America" from special interests—from a collusion of big government and big business.

Paul also spent time elaborating on his foreign policy views, which have been presented as more hawkish in recent months. He continued his tough talk on Iran, touted his support for sanctions, and asserted that, "until we name the enemy, we can't win the war." The enemy is radical Islam, according to Paul.

Even so, the senator tempered his fiery foreign policy rhetoric with some non-interventionist sentiment. He decried nation-building in the Middle East and lamented that the U.S. "borrows money from China to give to Pakistan."

The speech wasn't all political soundbites. Paul also discussed his career as an eye surgeon; work can be its own reward, he said—especially when work involves restoring people's eyesight.

Paul wants his fellow Congressmen to spend more time actually using their eyes—to read bills before they pass them. Only in Washington, D.C., could that message generate any disagreement.

Stay tuned for Reason's continuing Paul campaign coverage.

NEXT: Future of New Mexico's Overwhelmingly Supported Asset Forfeiture Reform Uncertain

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Probably close Gitmo too.

    1. And get the troops out of Iraq. 😀

  2. –“”until we name the enemy, we can’t win the war.” The enemy is radical Islam, according to Paul.”–

    well, he’s not wrong on any of this really the question is how does he propose to deal with radical Islam because if it is just more of the same failed policies we have been engaging in since the 50’s he’s just as doomed to fail as all of his predecessors were.

    1. ^THIS^

      Tossing political correctness into the gutter and calling a disgusting and violent theocratic movement what it is shouldn’t be considered a bad thing. If he couples it with a “no nation-building and no foreign forays without clear evidence of a direct and impending attack on vital national assets/interests,” I’ll feel like we’ve made some progress.

      1. I don’t remember who it was or if it was last night or this morning but they said Obumbles position on this is based on the absurd proggie notion that everyone should get a trophy. Since Islamists have never gotten a trophy, i.e. always had their asses handed to them, then they have no self esteem and that is at the root of their bad behavior. We shouldn’t berate them or belittle them or smack them around too hard.

        It rings true and is consistent with his behavior. This is a guy who ordered NASA to elevate making the Muslims feel good about their achievements to its highest priority for fuck’s sake.

        The scary part of course is that the logical solution would be to let them win. Yes, I think Obumbles is stupid and deluded enough to do that.

        1. Like the State Department explanation that “no education and high unemployment” is the true root cause of violent Islamism? Don’t get me wrong, those two things contribute to a fertile ground for any kind of brainwashing. But there just seems to be something that makes THIS cult gravitate towards violence. No way it could possibly be anything in its formative texts that directs such behavior and a complete absence of any modern reformative movement…

          1. “No way it could possibly be anything in its formative texts that directs such behavior and a complete absence of any modern reformative movement…”

            It is not radical Muslims that are doing this. It is the most fundamental Muslims carrying out the dictates of those texts who are the terrorist.

            Radical acts by Fundamentalist Muslims is the most correct definition of International Terrorism today.

            1. Agreed. I said in another thread that I’d be more comfortable calling out the problem as “fundamentalist Islam.”

              1. Which you know nothing about, other than its status as SUPERDEMON, Global Category.

                Quite funny, in an inverted SJW way. You know. Like, SJW here to Pwogwess the Stoopid Reactionaries by wearing a uniform and goose-stepping while singing Havah Negilah.

          2. No way it could possibly be anything in its formative texts that directs such behavior and a complete absence of any modern reformative movement…

            When did Abe Foxman and Binny Netanyahu start posting on reason as “Catatafish”?

            I think your silly Torah and dumbass Talmud might be the formative texts for violent retribution, but you go on with your PR, good and noble Friend of Israel.

        2. position on this is based on the absurd proggie notion that everyone should get a trophy. Since Islamists have never gotten a trophy, i.e. always had their asses handed to them, then they have no self esteem and that is at the root of their bad behavior.

          Of course progs seem to know little of history. The years between 760 and 1200 the world was their fucking trophy. Hell, progs always love to talk about how Islam was once the leading edge of human civilisation while Europe was suffering the “Dark Ages” (which they confuse with the medieval ages).

          1. From about 550 BC to 651 AD, the Middle East was Iran’s trophy?

            1. And now all they have left is…Club Persh.

              1. Decorated with blue shag carpet and gold curtain rods that will make you want to puke!

        3. Since Islamists have never gotten a trophy, i.e. always had their asses handed to them, then they have no self esteem.

          Legitimate and justified self-esteem comes through worthwhile accomplishments.

          The biggest reason Islamists have no self-esteem is because they don’t deserve any, because frankly they’re not good at anything except murdering people in barbaric and cruel ways.

          Seriously, what worthwhile thing have they contributed to mankind in the last few centuries?

          1. The aqueducts?

            1. Nope that would be the Romans

            1. Although technically that was Arabs, not muslims per se.

          2. What contributions have been made as a result of Islam itself, ever ?

            Some of the people who adopted Islam have done some worthwhile things during their history. Doesn’t the majority, or all, of Arab intellectualism pre date Islam ?

            I can’t name a damn one that was done as a result of, rather than in spite of, Islam. There may be some but I am unaware of them. That might be due to my bias against Islam which I fully admit to having.

            What has Egypt accomplished in the centuries since it became a predominately Islamic country ?

            1. Get occupied by the French?

            2. Eliminated most of the modern Egyptian language?

        4. The last time the middle east was peaceful and prosperous was when they were all under the Ottoman yoke. Maybe the solution is another Turkish caliphate. The Arabs are sure as hell doing a shitty job of running their own countries.

          -jcr

          1. Probably not to be supported by Armenians.

      2. People are using religion as a cover to be awful to others. Stop talking about the religion and start talking about the awfulness of the individuals. Or at least be consistent and condemn the “radical Christianity” at that pizza shop in Indiana.

        1. Right, because refusing to cater a gay wedding is totally the same thing as stoning gay people to death. FFS.

        2. Bullshit. These actors are the most Fundamental of Muslims.

          I wonder if you agree with Obama that the attacks on the Jewish bakery during the Charlie Hebo murders were just random violence and it was a coincident that the bakers were Jews ?

          The Fort Hood murders were just workplace violence as the killer shouted Allah u Akbar ?

          To compare the acts of murdering Muslims fulfilling the dictates of their book with a individual who said she would serve gays in their resturant but would not participate in their wedding by catering the event is purposeful intellectual bullshit.

          1. Shlomo and Shmuel, dressed as “militant Islamic fundamentalists,” laughing all the way to the temple chock-full of fetlocked Chosen.

        3. Sorry Dave,

          Did the radical Christians at that pizza shop kill anyone? capture anyone? refuse to serve anyone? torture anyone? The answer to all of these is no.

          The ONLY thing they did is admit, when asked, that they would not participate in a wedding that was against their religious beliefs. Not that they would be rude, insulting, or obstructive, just decline to participate. The GOONS!

          So, what do we call someone who equates torturing people, bombing people, and beheading people on video with someone who politely declinrd to participate in a wedding?

          1. Retarded. We call that person retarded.

            1. I live in the land of radical Christians, and let me tell you, the Amish arent that bad at all.

              1. Yeah, I am comparing the bible belt to NW Iraq and…..I’d rather live in the bible belt. I can deal with annoyance and boredom. Kind of hard dealing with getting stoned to deal.

            2. We might call that person “Sheldon Richman.” This might also be redundant with Dark Lord’s description.

          2. progtard, or progturd if tard hurts your FEELINGS.

        4. Aside from what others said above (refusing to attend a wedding, vs. stoning the happy couple to death), also consider that Christianity is a religion, while Islam is a religion..and a judiciary system..and a non-secular template for totalitarian government.

          It’s really not that difficult to see why libertarians would view these two groups very differently. Is it?

          1. “libertarian” at reason.com tends to mean “crypto-zionist progressive who knows key liberty-ish snark terms.”

  3. Rand motherfucking Paul!

    1. If this is what I can look forward to for the entire Electionpalooza, I may just shoot myself.

      1. Suicide is never the answer, little trooper.

        1. Maybe he was gonna aim for the foot ?

          Not suicide just a little act of self mutilating defiance.

        2. Or he could run from a cop!

  4. Closing Gitmo required either (a) the immediate release into the wild of all captives, (b) civilian trial in the US of all captives, or (c) due-process compliant military tribunals for all captives.

    The Obama administration refused to do (c), and I don’t think even acknowledged it as an option. Option (a), for better or worse, was a political non-starter. And option (b) required too many other people (Congress, locals) to agree, which they didn’t.

    I’m thinking the NSA won’t present these problems.

  5. He said jack-shit about gay cakez

    1. Gay cakez are acceptable to a libertarian so long as they are baked by an illegal mexican and include cannabis.

      1. But we firmly believe that ass sex should be kept out of industrial kitchens.

        1. Very firm on the ass sex, yes.

          1. Plookin’ too hard on meeeeee!!!

      2. A true Libertarian will hire an Uber driver for delivery.

  6. And I believe that is a function totally withing the constitutional powers of the executive.
    He could also re-sched dope, as I recall and as Obo has lied about.

    1. I used to think that Obumbles probably would reschedule it if he wasn’t under too much pressure, but after the Loretta Lynch hearings I have changed my mind. They find the power that the WOD gives them too alluring. It is a statist’s dream and he went from pot smoking kid to raging drug warrior.

  7. That’s so cute!

    The reality is that the NSA will keep spying. They’ll look for some angle to neuter him – either evidence of a real scandal, or perhaps to even manufacture one.

    They’ll leak information (real or false, whatever works) to undermine his authority with the vulgar masses and other politicians.

    It will take fucking Sun Tzu lopping off the heads of concubines levels of holding people accountable to break the civil service, and the civil service laws prevent anything more draconian than a six year long hearings cum appeals process to put someone in a rubber room.

    1. Giving up already, are we?

      1. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. After that, call it a day. No sense being a damned fool about it.”

      2. There’s a difference between declining to charge up a 15 degree slope of closely mown grass at the midpoint of a machine gun nest’s arc of fire while wearing clown shoes and a neon yellow vest and giving up.

      3. He’s not wrong. There is no one more entrenched than the civil service bureaucrats. No one. And that includes, as strange as it seems, the spy fucks.

        1. Exactly right, Epi. It’s Congress that has to do something about it by choking off their funding, but guess what, Congress won’t do that either because the elected representatives (center of power) and the bureaucrats (center of power) work together to maintain, if not advance, their respective centers of power.

        2. There is no one more entrenched than the civil service bureaucrats. No one. And that includes, as strange as it seems, the spy fucks.

          Very well. If they’re afraid of losing their lifetime jobs, put them to work repairing bridges or something.

          1. ^^THIS!

            Redirecting a bureaucracy into a less harmful direction is the most effective way to curtail it.

          2. I don’t want people that work at NSA bein responsible for ensuring the safety of the bridges on which I drive.

        3. This seems like another good opportunity to encourage anyone who hasn’t watched
          Yes, Minister to go watch it as soon as possible.

          1. Here’s a good one. The show was beloved by Margaret Thatcher, although the creators worked assiduously to avoid giving the appearance of favoring any party. They were brutal about demonstrating the cynical nature of the bureaucracy and how defiant it is against relinquishing any bit of power. Probably the greatest lesson baked into the show is how entrenched the civil service is, whichever party holds power.

      4. Winners never quit and quitters never win, but those who never quit and ever win are idiots.

        1. Ironically it took about 12 tries to get that comment to post. Fucking squirrelz.

        2. After I gave up cigarettes I remembered my parents didn’t raise me to be a quitter so I’m back to a pack and a half of menthols a day!

    2. They’ll look for some angle to neuter him – either evidence of a real scandal, or perhaps to even manufacture one.

      Hell, they may do that during the primaries.

    3. I dunno tarran, I keep thinking of Reagan and the air traffic controllers.

      It can be done if you have the balls.

      1. It can be done if you have the balls.

        Put it this way, if Rand can’t/won’t, no one ever will. At that point, I’ll give up.

        1. To do it, the civil service law has to be ammended. Soooo, which office has a greater ability to submit a bill to the congress:

          1) A sitting president?

          2) A sitting senator?

          Ans key: V unvy gurr, sryybj areq. Gur nafjre or gjb bs pbhefr.

          1. I wouldn’t underestimate the ability of the President to control the agencies that he is in charge of. Now, those agencies have an enormous amount of their own power, but a President with an Attorney General willing to bring investigations, cases and indictments against agency personnel could make a huge impact.

            Imagine, for a moment, an AG that brought civil rights cases against NSA employees. With all the attendant publicity, discovery, and arrests. Think that wouldn’t change the NSA?

            1. If the NSA doesn’t dead agent the DA, that is.

    4. Maybe if the 6 year process were followed by heads being chopped off it would help.

      You get the nice, cushy CS job, and it’s hard to get fired still. But if you do get fired, you also die.

    5. The NSA are the true “opposition in residence”.

    6. The last time we got civil service reform, a president had to be killed.

      And Garfield died on a Monday, which I am given to understand he was not a fan of

  8. Bills should be required to be reduced to a 3-4 page “plain-english” synopsis. If Congress can’t accurately describe what it’s doing in 3-4 pages of plain english, then the bill isn’t worth passing.

    1. You mean when lawyers write laws they intentionally make them so confusing that only a lawyer can decipher them? Who’d a thunk it?

      1. On one of my first days at my firm, which was during 2012 and the ACA litigation, one of the associates in our insurance group remarked “I don’t understand why any lawyers would oppose Obamacare. It’s in our interest since it creates so much work.”

        I don’t like that guy.

      2. You mean when lawyers write laws they intentionally make them so confusing that only a lawyer can decipher them? Who’d a thunk it?

        The gift of words is the gift of deception and illusion.

        In all fairness, lawyers are just the paid professionals at it.

      3. Why blame lawyers for functioning as system as the system is designed? There can be no doubt, that the state corrupts the law more than the practitioners of law could ever hope to corrupt the state.

        1. Because lawyers are who designed the system in the first place ?

          1. The only thing worse than a lawyer is a politician – said someone smart (not meh)

    2. And every substantive clause should cite the direct constitutional authority by which the power to enact such clause is derived.

      Unfortunately, in the current state of things, these twats will just rubber stamp “Commerce Clause” and be done with it.

      1. Unfortunately, in the current state of things, these twats will just rubber stamp “Commerce Clause” and be done with it.

        There isn’t even a rubber stamp, it’s a foregone conclusion with some under-the-breath mumbling tacked on;

        Letter of the law is ambiguous… *mumbles*… written law less important than context… *inaudible vocal emanations*… default to least unconstitutional interpretation… *hushed whispers*… Court Adjourned!

        1. *looks for beer to weep into*

          *begins weeping anyway because there is no beer*

      2. How about the “FYTW Clause”?

    3. The problem with that is then you have two versions of the law which may contradict and Congress will eventually write what people want to hear in the plain English synopsis and what Congress/the lobbyists/etc. wants in the legal English full text.

      1. Oh there are tons of problems with my proposal, agreed. How do you punish the drafters for failing to accurately summarize? Which version controls? Etc. etc.

        Regardless, I am hoping there’s an alternative to the current system, in which “Congress” writes a 2,000 page bill which in practice basically gives some fed gov agency the authority to do whatever the hell they want. Because “the world is complicated.”

        I never understood that. In Con Law and Admin Law, the “world is complicated” became the justification for the expansion of the federal government, but it was never shown that the federal agencies were ever competent of doing anything other than screw up our “complicated” world.

        1. “Regardless, I am hoping there’s an alternative to the current system, in which “Congress” writes a 2,000 page bill which in practice basically gives some fed gov agency the authority to do whatever the hell they want. Because “the world is complicated.””

          The following as a Constitutional amendment

          Congress may not delegate any legislative or rule making authority to any executive branch agency.

          Congress may request for executive branch agencies to draw up rules by which a law shall be enforced however once complete those rules must be voted upon and passed by both houses of Congress before the law can go into effect.

          Executive branch agencies tasked with enforcing a law may propose rule changes to Congress at any time however the proposed rule changes must be publicly posted for 90 days before Congress may vote on those changes.

          No alteration to a regulation is allowed nor is any reintrepretation of it’s meaning allowed to be put into force until after it has been approved by both houses of Congress.

          At the very least this would force Congresscritters to explicitly and publicly vote for or against the regulatory bloat their laws create.

        2. but it was never shown that the federal agencies were ever competent of doing anything other than screw up our “complicated” world

          They’re really competent at giving regulatory over to industry officials, writing legislation favorable to preferred interests, and then retiring from government into regulated industry.

          1. “and then retiring from government into regulated industry.”

            And/or just forward trade their family into millionairedom.

            1. It always blows my mind to see some congresscritter being accused of bribery when the law for personal enrichment is already in place.

              Why take a traceable payment or gift when insider trading is legal ?

              They must really be that dumb.

              1. If elected to Congress, I promise to not take bribes or engage in any quid pro quo and maintain a strict policy of only engaging in legal insider trading and any other form of personal enrichment that my (government-paid) staff shall discover.

        3. Here’s my fix:

          No bill can be passed unless it is read, in full, on the floor of the House and Senate before it is voted on. No amendment can be made unless it is read, in full, etc.

          No legislative authority, which includes writing regulations, can be delegated by Congress.

          I’m sure there would be problems, but they would at least be new and interesting problems.

    4. There should be several avenues for voiding defective laws:

      Just leave it to ordinary juries: if they can’t understand a low, out it goes.

      Compare multiple verdicts: if they are all over the landscape for similar cases, the law is enforced inconsistently, and out it goes.

      Compare enforcement itself: if it’s applied selectively, out it goes.

      And lastly, if any court can’t agree unanimously on what a law means, it is tood amned unclear for mere citizens to understand, and out it goes.

      Further, every voided law is voided in its entirety. No selective voiding, no modiifications, no editing. Send it back to the legislature to try again.

      1. Or what. That’s rather the problem. We have laws aplenty, some of them even clever, but there’s not much of an “or what” if Top Men decide that’s all just namby-pamby details.

        1. What do you mean, “or what”. If a law is voided, it’s pining for the fjords. No law. Can’t be applied. Has to be re-passed and re-signed.

          1. I *think* Hamster is alluding to penalizing the clowns who waste the taxpayers’ dollar screwing around. For instance, if a law is determined to be unconstitutional, ban every sponsor of the bill from government employment for life.

            1. I have a hard time with applying rules like that to elected legislators. I don’t really favor any laws that exclude people from eligibility for office for reasons other than age. Sure, it would be great to stop the people who keep passing unconstitutional laws. But we all know that once the power exists, someone (and probably not someone we would like) will find a way to abuse it and exclude their enemies from office.

              1. No one ever claimed this was a *perfect* solution.

                /Democratcare proponent

              2. Ageist .

            2. I’ve thought of that, but that demands perfection from legislators. I’d love to smack ’em for even proposing blatantly unconstitutional bills, but it’s too easy to not find an inconsistency until months or years later in some oddball corner case. It doesn’t even require a massive bill.

              I also don’t like making even politicians so afraid of the slightest mistake that they do nothing. I want them to do nothing, of course, but I’d rather it were from limiting government power than having a bunch of timid fucks with power.

              Just throw out the laws and make them start over.

      2. Compare multiple verdicts: if they are all over the landscape for similar cases, the law is enforced inconsistently, and out it goes.

        Compare enforcement itself: if it’s applied selectively, out it goes.

        Is this just a restatement of disparate impact and disparate treatment?

        1. Think of the first one for actual charges and verdicts, the other one for arrests which never go anywhere.

    5. How about this:

      Congress people have to take an actual test about the substance of the legislation and actually pass said test with 100% correct answers before they are allowed to vote on it. The tests will be proctored and the penalty for cheating is dismissal from Congress, banishment from all future federal government service, and a $250,000 fine levied on the Congress person themselves, and solely payable by them personally, and the same penalties for anyone that helped them cheat.

      1. I like it. But no weasel-wording about “substance”, and require a 10-page essay on repercussions of the law.

        1. Please explain why you are comfortable with the police shooting people who do not comply with this law.

          1. Not enough clarity.

            Please explain why you are comfortable with the police shooting, strangling, truncheoning, and otherwise legally assaulting people who do not comply with this law.

        2. “Do you believe “interstate commerce” refers to that economic activity that actually crosses state lines, or do you believe it means anything anyone does anywhere at any time?”

          1. Come on, interstate commerce includes growing wheat in your backyard for your own consumption because you aren’t buying wheat from the store which could come from out of state producers!

            /Wickard v. Filburn

      2. A. It’s too subjective.

        B. The penalty is excessive.

        The combination will lead to massive corruption.

        That’s why I prefer to leave it to juries. At least the subjectiveness is widespread.

    6. “Bills should be required to be reduced to a 3-4 page “plain-english” synopsis.”

      That’s not enough, because they would leave out all the unpleasant aspects of the bill. I think bills should be limited to 3-4 pages total.

  9. We’re getting a war with radical Islam regardless of who wins. If he does the other stuff, it’ll be a win.

    1. Getting?

      We’ve been in a war with radical Islam since the late 70’s

      1. Hey, what are the *Crusades*, chopped liver?

        1. Hey, what are the *Crusades*, chopped liver?

          Given how many Christians crusaders killed, sacking of Constantinople, dismemberment of Eastern Empire for a century or so and lining it up nicely for Turks to conquer afterwards, I’d say Muslims have less to complain about than, say, Mongol sweep of Mesopotamia.
          Now, Arabs have the full right to get pissy about taking all the shit parts while Turks got all the benefits!

        2. That would be a very broad “we”.

          1. That’s why “we” used broadswords.

  10. Paul wants his fellow Congressmen to spend more time actually using their eyes?to read bills before they pass them. Only in Washington, D.C., could that message generate any disagreement.

    You have to elect him to find out what’s in him.

  11. Yeah, he is making the right noises to win me over, but when I hear him list all of the things I believe he can actually do all I hear is silence.

    Still, so far I like this guy better than any candidate since…..uh….well, in my lifetime. When the power structure of your own party is your strongest opposition and you still poll well it tells me he is doing something right. I am hoping he is serious about his positions and not just another shit-bag vying for a spot in the political class.

    1. I am hoping he is serious about his positions and not just another shit-bag vying for a spot in the political class.

      I wonder/worry if the time isn’t past. Candidates consistently sound better and perform more ineptly throughout my lifetime and I’m sure that’s true for a couple of generations back.

      I wonder if the system isn’t cast in such a way that the only way you could make a considerable change would be to walk around with your hand over ‘the button’ screaming “Repeal these laws right now or I’ll fucking do it!”

      I mean, after Clinton, Bush, and Obama these pogues have got to be entrenched and intransigent.

      1. pogues?

        always good to see the Chosen wrestle with their love/hate of the Irish. give your kids an Irish first name, but remember the Irish are stupid drunks and don’t worship a 6 pointed star.

  12. Peter King just shit himself with rage.

    1. And the benefits of a Paul candidacy have begun…

    2. No. He shit himself in fear. He’s flinging his shit in rage.

  13. That right there should get him a landslide win.

    1. More like a Randslide, am I right?

      1. Shit’s getting Paulitical around here.

      2. Randsride, dude. He’s Republican, therefore he’s lacist.

      3. Too many politicians make predictable promises yet display a Paulcity of perceptible policies.

      4. Several times his father made a ron for the Presidency.

    2. Not after NBC Nightly News informs everyone that this would be worse than the Sequester times a thousand.

      1. And everyone has seen that devastation.

      2. And everyone has seen that devastation.

        1. You said it.

  14. News from the future:

    Saturday, January 21, 2017
    Washington, DC — In his first weekly address to the nation this morning, President Paul announced an historic end to domestic spying programs….

    Sunday, January 22, 2017
    Washington, DC — President Paul was assassinated today just two days into his first term as president by a crazed gunman totally working alone….

    *adjusts tinfoil hat and opens another beer*

    1. I am not gonna say that that is not the first thing that crossed my mind. Above I said both that I don’t think he could pull it off and that I keep thinking of Reagan and the ATCs. Then I thought of Jackie K climbing on the trunk of a car to retrieve her husband’s brain.

      1. I don’t think it would ever be necessary.

        They’ll keep him from winning in the first place.

        I actually cringed when I read him announce that as a priority.

        That probably ruined any chance of him even winning the primary.

    2. “The gunman was heard shouting something about closing Gitmo, and that finally everyone will have affordable health care.”

      1. Progressives immediately blamed it on the climate of hatred in Dallas in 1963.

        1. +1 Middle-aged, white man, above-average intelligence, social outcast, working alone

          1. And a “damned Commie”.

          2. Obviously a Tea Party type.

            1. I think the Universe’s sense of brutal irony would also dictate that he will have been in-and-out of police/state custody sometime within the past 5-10 yrs.

    3. Nah. If the shadowy cabal that runs everything is really there, they have ways of convincing new presidents to go along. There are things worse than death.

    4. Thursday Jan 19, 2017. Pres Elect Paul killed by ‘errant’ drone.

  15. You know who else promised to do things their first day in office?

    1. Everyone? Everyone ever?

    2. Hitler! Except I’m betting he actually succeeded at it.

      1. Not only that – he started early and succeeded at a couple of goals before taking office.

        1. Except his goal of conquering Russia?

          1. I thought he decided set that goal after taking office.

          2. He did give it a hell of try. I can’t fault him for not trying on that one.

          3. Meh, his ideology had mostly conquered Russia in 1917 anyhow

          4. Meh, his ideology had mostly conquered Russia in 1917 anyhow

          5. Meh, his ideology had mostly conquered Russia in 1917 anyhow

          6. Meh, his ideology had mostly conquered Russia in 1917 anyhow

            1. You need to turn the volume on your stereo down. There’s an echo.

              1. There’s some bushy-tailed rodents that need some fryin’ around these parts, methinks…

            2. Nazi and Communism have a lot in common, but I’m not quite sure I’d call them the same ideology.

              1. What say you of Nihilism?

                1. At least it isn’t an ethos?

              2. Well, the main difference is intellectual, if that’s the right word to use – fascism is socialism for the advancement of the state, while communism is socialism that will make the state meaningless, more or less, In practice communism became more like fascism – socialism for the advancement of the state – since it never progressed to the point of a non-state entity. Or rather, communism never made it past the point of socialism for the advancement of the state. At least that’s my take but I will defer to others with better knowledge.

                1. So, communism as practiced in Europe and fascism as practiced in Europe were basically the same.

                  The difference between the two is that communism held out a further stage, the withering away of the state, that never happened.

    3. Barry H. O’Bama?

      1. That’s true, he did.

        Turned out to be another broken promise, I guess.

    4. Monica Lewinsky. With the cigar. In the Ovary Office.

  16. Rand Paul Vows to Stop NSA Spying ‘on Day 1’ of Presidency

    OK, so Rand has already dumped his chances of getting elected (and on the same day as announcing his candidacy – is that some kind of record or what).

    1. How about this approach:

      “If you like *your* surveillance, *you* can keep *your* surveillance.”

  17. “until we name the enemy, we can’t win the war.” The enemy is radical Islam, according to Paul.

    The enemy is Islam. The tolerable Muslims are tolerable insofar as they are unIslamic in their beliefs.

    1. I’d prefer it if he’d said “fundamentalist Islam.”

      1. I think “radical” may be a better term? It gets more to how they act, rather than what they believe (which opens the door to “true Scotsman” arguments about who the fundamentalists really are).

  18. Yeah, sure.

    1. Did you say “yeah, sure”?

      1. “Yes, sir.”

        1. MEOW!

  19. …(most worryingly, for many libertarians) defeating radical Islam.

    I think that would depend on what he means by “defeating radical Islam.” Obviously if he means perpetual war and nation building that’s a non-starter, but I doubt that’s what he means, considering in the same speech he also decried nation building. If he means “containment” like he talked about a year or two ago in another speech for the Heritage Foundation (I think) and only going to war when absolutely necessary then that may be a little more palatable for most libertarians.

    Unfortunately he’s probably not going to expand on exactly what he means by that because it would mean pissing off either the libertarian faction or the neo-con faction.

  20. (most worryingly, for many libertarians) defeating radical Islam

    As a libertarian, I have zero qualms with this. There is no love of liberty in radical Islam. While I certainly don’t support reshaping the entire Middle East, I do think we have to accept that, while we don’t notice it here in comfy USA, there are Islamo-fascists who hope to kill us.

    1. I don’t know of any sane, rational person who doesn’t want to see radical Islam defeated.

      The only interesting questions are, (1) what counts as “defeated”, and (2) how should it happen.

      1. sure, I agree that those are the questions. But to play ignorant and act like OH NOEZ THE ISLAMOPHOBES!!1!!1!

        is not respectable nor intellectually honest when observing the worldwide trends of where violence is coming from.

      2. hah hah hah, this is a regular side-splitter! even “libertarians” (emphasis on self-labelling, de-emphasis on liberty) know how to shit on GLOBAL EVIL as defined by Zion.

  21. “Paul’s speech hit on seveal big themes of his candidacy: ending cronyism, reforming the criminal justice system, and (most worryingly, for many libertarians) defeating radical Islam.”

    So is Robby running for the office of “New Weigel” or what?

    1. No kidding. It’s like he’s getting all his information fed straight through a buttplug.

      1. He’s buttchugging his information, is that what you’re saying?

    2. He’s working on his masters in J from C

      1. What a surprise, Rico Suave’s at Clod-Dumboland, surrounded by upper west siders and Team Emanuel.

  22. I would love for that to be the case, but I have a feeling it will be much like Obama’s campaign promise to close Guantanamo. I believe that Obama wanted to do that, he even signed the orders on inauguration day, however, I believe it was military leaders, NSA, whoever else, who stepped in and said “no, you can’t do that.” I believe the same thing will happen with this promise, and that won’t be Rand’s fault. That being said, Obama has still been an awful president, and Rand will be a much better one!

    1. “Rand will be a much better one!”

      Of course – because his history of racism, plagiarism, lying and waffling will prepare him so for what folks like you envy and desire?

      1. weigeling to the tune of Havah Negilah, eh? sound the shofar!

  23. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  24. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!….
    ==================
    http://www.NavJob.com
    ==================

  25. Yep, he’s going to increase the defense budget
    continue giving big money to Israel
    AND
    do away with cronyism…..makes perfect sense!

    Even I, a person who knows what pols are made of, am flabbergasted both by Rand and his supporters. I know it’s early in the game, but let’s take the gloves off.

    He’s a republican – which pretty much means he’s for war and anything for money.
    PERIOD.

    Actually, he lies even more than most Republicans – who at least admit their bias toward violence (other people dying for their money) and selling out.

    Remember – the ONLY reason Rand lies so much is that you people praise and enable him to do so.

    1. the hasbara is strong with this masshole

  26. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  27. I just got paid $6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that?s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do…

    http://www.jobs73.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.