Is Rand Paul A ‘Christian Zionist’?
Or does he just play one in the drama we call American politics?
As Israel’s ultra-nationalist parties continue to gain traction, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to appease them by building "settlements" with US taxpayer dollars on Palestinian land, the hostility between Washington and Tel Aviv is coming out into the open. While tension has been building for a while – I would argue since George W. Bush’s second term, when Dubya balked at going along with the Cheney-neocon plan for war with Iran – it is now reaching a dramatic climax with the spectacle of the Israeli Prime Minister openly rebuking Washington for alleged "interference" in Israeli politics. This is rich coming from someone who made no secret of his preference for Mitt Romney, and it comes in response to the publication of a recent piece by Obama supporter and pro-Israel writer Jeffrey Goldberg detailing the President’s private remarks on the settlements question. Goldberg reported:
"When informed about the Israeli decision [to build more settlements], Obama, who has a famously contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart.
"In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, ‘Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.’ With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation."
Netanyahu, in full campaign mode – the elections are next week – was quick to respond, as the Jerusalem Post reports:
"’I think everyone understands that only Israel’s citizens are those who will be the ones to determine who faithfully represents Israel’s vital interests,’ the prime minister said in his first direct response to Obama’s reported criticism.
"Netanyahu said over the past four years he had withstood ‘enormous pressure,’ including demands that Israel curb its pressure on Iran, withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, divide Jerusalem and stop building in the eastern part of the capital.
"’We fended off all those pressures, and I will continue to stand firm on Israel’s vital interests for the security of the citizens of Israel,’ he declared."
While the Post avers Netanyahu’s was a "direct response," in fact no names were mentioned, but everyone (especially in Israel) knows this "pressure" has been emanating from Washington. Joining Netanyahu in his denunciation of those pushy Americans was none other than "libertarian" Sen. Rand Paul (R-Gooberville). Fresh from a recent trip to Israel paid for by the American Family Association, a Christian fundamentalist activist group, the "libertarian" Senator and wannabe presidential candidate declared:
"’That’s an arrogant and presumptuous point of view and doesn’t further progress on anything,’ the senator said, and he returned to that view throughout the call as he discussed the location of Israel’s capital and Israeli settlements. Paul decried U.S. politicians who display ‘this flippant and arrogant’ attitude about internal Israeli affairs, saying that ‘no one can really know as much as people in the region’ about such matters. ‘It is not up to the U.S. to dictate’ to mayors and West Bank officials where housing goes, Paul added. Paul said he considers himself more pro-Israel than some pro-Israel audiences because ‘I’m for an independent, strong Israel that is not a dependent state, not a client state.’"
Siding with a foreign leader against an American President is always problematic for any US politician, but lest one think this is an example of political courage on Sen. Paul’s part, consider the context of his remarks. US military aid to Israel now exceeds $3.5 billion a year – not counting the value of special projects like the "Iron Dome" missile defense system the Senator is so enthralled by. Those billions pay for a program of systematic ethnic cleansing: Arabs are being forced off their lands, and "settlements" are being erected on the ruins of their former homes.
Surely the Senator – who, despite appearances, is no dope – knows this. And if he didn’t know it, surely he was educated on the subject in his meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas – although, oddly, in all the news reports of Paul’s trip to Israel, where hear nothing about this scheduled encounter.
Yes, it’s true: "no one can really know as much as the people in the region" – but aren’t the Palestinians people?
Pretending not to grasp the significance of the settlements issue, or of the larger issue of Palestine and the two-state solution, simply will not do – not for an alleged "leader" of the libertarian wing of the GOP, and certainly not for a somewhat over-eager presidential candidate who flaunts his ambitions. Since Israel could not exist – let alone bomb, invade and subjugate its Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors – without extensive US military and economic aid, it is viewed as America’s regional proxy. This is what "the people in the region" know and Sen. Paul appears not to want to know.
Paul has long since backed off his stance of wanting to end aid to Israel: he now says he would do it gradually, and would start cutting the aid budget by immediately ending it for countries "where they burn our flag," singling out Egypt and Pakistan and specifically exempting Israel.
Previously under attack by the Israel lobby for saying US aid to Israel ought to be ended – and just because he is, after all, his father‘s son – the Israel trip was meant to make amends, and Paul earned plaudits from the Lobby in this country for his efforts. The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin took a breather from her frantic campaign to impugn the character of Chuck Hagel to give the lesser Paul a thumbs up, having earlier contrasted him favorably with his father. Phil Klein exulted in the birth of "Zionist non-interventionism," which apparently means we pay the bills and don’t bother the Israelis as they ethnically cleanse Palestine of the Palestinians. Seth Lipsky, writing in the New York Post, hailed Paul’s comments as "the most supportive of Israel since Sarah Palin." Dave Weigel reveals more of the tortured rationalization for Paul’s conversion on the road to Jerusalem:
"I asked Paul to revisit the settlement question. Had his trip taught him anything that was being incorporated into his new thinking?
"’One question is: If I’m the mayor of Jerusalem, or if I’m looking at places in the West Bank and settlements in the West Bank, obviously there’s either advisability or inadvisability with regard to ultimately finding places to build, whether it’s antagonistic or provacative,’ said Paul. ‘Where I distinguish myself, though, is while there might be right or wrong answers to these questions, it’s not American politicians’ business to be dictating the answers. The answers need to come from the participants who live on the ground in these areas. I think it’s just presumptuous and arrogant of us to think, well, we’re going to go down to a roadmap of Jerusalem and decide where the neighborhoods can be expanded? It did influence me some that I did see the map of the neighborhoods, and I did see that there are neighborhoods being expanded in the Arab areas as well as the Jewish areas of Jerusalem, but the comments I heard from officials were: What does America want? Do they want there to be a religion test on who’s going to buy land? How would we feel in America if land that was designated for development, we said you have to prove what religion you are before you can build on the land? You can see how it’s a funny sort of bias we’re asking for, how we want them to develop the land.’"
Shorter Sen. Paul: Who cares about "right" and "wrong"? Let the Israelis go wild with our tax dollars.
Where the Senator "distinguishes" himself is in the sheer brazenness of his sophistry, which disappears the Palestinians from the "participants who live on the ground." Is Rand Paul really so clueless that he doesn’t know there’s already a "religious test" when it comes to housing in the land of Israel? I don’t know what maps the Senator was shown, but the idea that the Israeli government is allowing Arab housing to be built anywhere in Israel is just laughable: they are, instead, tearing down Palestinian homes so that Jewish-only housing – linked by Jewish-only roads – can be built. "A funny sort of bias" indeed!
Although, to his credit, Paul tried to distance himself from Naftali Bennett‘s proposal to annex the West Bank – "There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of hope in that" – he hailed the Israeli attack on Gaza and told his audiences they needn’t "go on bended knee" to the US. His father, on the other hand, described Gaza as a "concentration camp."
Sen. Paul’s trip was sponsored and paid for by the American Family Association (AFA), a virulently anti-gay group based in Tupelo, Mississippi, and organized by one David Lane, a Christian fundamentalist political operative who helped organize anti-gay referenda in California, Iowa, and other states. Lane refused to back Mitt Romney on the grounds that the Republican nominee wouldn’t come out against gays adopting children. Other participants in the David Lane tour: Joe Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily and the nation’s leading "birther," and Tamara Scott, of Concerned Women for America, who made her mark in the lunatic fringe when she declared that gay marriage will lead to "object marriage," warning that "people will want to marry the Eiffel Tower!" As for the AFA, the group that picked up Sen. Paul’s bills for this trip, the Los Angeles Times reports:
"The Tupelo, Miss.-based association portrays homosexuality as a moral threat to the country. One of its top officials, Bryan Fischer, who promotes a Perry presidential candidacy on the association’s website, has drawn criticism for a variety of anti-Muslim and anti-gay remarks, including claims that Hitler was gay and that the Nazi Party was a creation of ‘homosexual thugs.’"
Go here for the creepy video.
The Christian fundamentalist fixation on Israel is based on their dispensationalist theology, which lifts quotations from the Bible in order to prove that the gathering of Jews in the holy land is a sign of the "end times" – signaling the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Bible foretells a war that will commence on the plain called Armageddon, and America, they believe, must take Israel’s part in this coming world war during which the Anti-Christ will seek to destroy the Jewish state. Indeed, they believe they can accelerate "God’s plan" by pushing for another war in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf – and therefore speed up the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. This is the woof and warp of "Christian Zionism."
That’s why whenever anyone looks cross-eyed at Benjamin Netanyahu, the Religious Right – which was the creation of dispensationalists like Pat Robertson – goes ballistic.
That’s why the Rev. John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel group is gathering thousands of names on petitions calling on the Senate to not confirm the "anti-Israel" Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Sen. Paul was asked, during his trip and in the conference call afterwards, if his newfound fervor for Israel includes opposition to Hagel’s nomination, but he has so far been non-committal. He’ll find that failure to get on board the "pro-Israel" bandwagon in this – and any other – instance will quickly erase whatever credits he’s built up in those quarters. If you’re a fanatic, it’s all or nothing – and that’s who he’s playing with here.
The idea that the United States – which has poured billions of taxpayer dollars into the Zionist project and unconditionally defended Israel – has no standing when it comes to the Jewish state’s "settlements" policy is absurd. We pay for this not only with our tax dollars but also in terms of the hatred that comes our way from the Muslim world on Israel’s account. Anyone who doubts this is a major factor in provoking terrorist attacks on US interests is fooling themselves
Israel is rightly seen as an American proxy in the region, and any conflict in which they are involved – say, a strike against Iran – is bound to drag us in. Indeed, the whole thrust of Israeli foreign policy – and the activities of Israel’s energetic lobby in the US – has been to get us to do their dirty work for them and attack Iran on their behalf.
If Rand Paul thinks he can attain the Presidency by aligning himself with fundamentalist fanatics who await the Rapture and long for World War III, he is very mistaken. The tragedy is that the libertarian "brand," and the good name – and organization – built up by his father will be sullied by the son’s untrammeled ambition.
Or maybe more than ambition is involved here. One explanation for Sen. Paul’s conversion on the road to Jerusalem other than the most cynical opportunism raises the question: has Rand Paul been converted to a dispensationalist "born again" version of Christianity?
The California-based pastor Rob McCoy, who accompanied Paul on his trip, speculated:
"There is a part of me that wonders if he is part of the evangelical community, but there’s another part that says I really enjoy his presence, and that it doesn’t matter. I don’t want somebody who is going to play me — the Republican Party has already played me."
From accounts of the trip, they were singing gospel songs as they traversed the holy land, although the Senator demanding "Knocking on Heaven’s Door" hardly added to his "born again" credentials. In any case, whether Paul can continue to play the evangelicals and his father’s staunchly anti-interventionist libertarian followers at the same time remains to be seen.
One thing’s for sure: he’s not playing the hardcore Zionists over at Commentary magazine, where Jonathan Tobin disdains Sen. Paul as looking for "cheap pro-Israel dates." Tobin is smart enough to realize that "Zionist non-interventionism" is a contradiction in terms, because Israel depends on the projection of US military power abroad for its very survival. That’s why cutting the defense budget is characterized by Tobin & Co. as "anti-Israel." Tobin rightly points out that economic aid to Israel has long since been ended, and that now it’s 100 percent military aid – which the Israel lobby will fight tooth and nail to shield from the budget-cutters’ axe. To top it off, he compares Sen. Paul to another candidate who masqueraded as an "ardent backer of Israel":
"But it is just as possible that Rand Paul’s odyssey to Israel and outreach effort to pro-Israel conservatives is analogous to Barack Obama’s path in the years before he was elected president. Obama had few ties with pro-Israel groups, and was known as the friend of pro-Palestinian activists and other radicals. But with the help of some in the Jewish community, he worked hard to change his image. He, too, said it was all a misunderstanding to see him as anything but a friend to Israel, albeit one that didn’t like the views of the Likud. Those who vouched for his pro-Israel bona fides have had a lot of explaining to do during his presidency.
"Those who are allowing themselves to play that same role for Rand Paul need to think long and hard not just about being cheap dates but about the likelihood that the candidate whose positions they are rationalizing may have a very different agenda if he ever got into the White House."
Sen. Paul will doubtless react to Tobin’s insults with more groveling assurances that he’s really Israel’s best friend. However, my guess is that Sen. Paul’s efforts to sell himself as a mouthpiece for the Greater Israel lobby will fall flat: there are other tools out there, more willing, and with better presidential prospects. Short of changing his name to Paul Rand, and announcing his conversion to Christian Zionism, I’m afraid the freshman Senator from Kentucky is out of luck.
Update: Although I wrote above that there has been nothing in the media about Sen. Paul’s meeting with Abbas, my good friend Scott Horton has discovered one all-too-credible account:
"U.S. Senator Rand Paul informed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of his country’s opposition to the Palestinian intention to join United Nations agencies, a well- informed Palestinian sources said Monday.
"The source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity the Republican Senator told Abbas after a meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah that the United States will impose sanctions on the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) if it decided to join UN agencies…. According to the source, Paul asked Abbas to resume direct peace talks wit Israel without preconditions. Paul also said that the U.S. administration is going to push for the resumption of the peace process between the Palestinians and Israel very soon."
"Abbas, for his part, demanded U.S. pressure on Israel to halt its settlement activities and hostilities against the Palestinians, said the source, adding that Abbas expressed his resentment at the U.S. fiscal embargo on the PNA."
Having been granted observer status by an overwhelming vote of the General Assembly – with even America’s European allies deserting Washington – why shouldn’t the Palestinians participate in the UN? Sen. Paul and his flock of "born again" Israel Firsters don’t want that to happen because it recognizes the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood – and delegitimizes the occupation. There are many humanitarian services the deprived and long-suffering people of Palestine might enjoy as a result, but the petty cruelty of "born again" Rand would deny them even that.
So the Senator did go see Abbas, and took the opportunity to threaten him with sanctions – and to demand that he drop the "no more settlements" precondition for resuming the peace process. Of course, not even that kind of servility to the Greater Israel lobby will satisfy the Jonathan Tobins of this world, but no one can say Sen. Paul didn’t try.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
I’m on Twitter quite a bit these days, and you might want to follow me here.
Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Forward by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon.
Buy my biography of the great libertarian thinker, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, here.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Overthrowing the Washington Mindset – January 20th, 2013
- Napoleon in Mali – January 15th, 2013
- The Chickenhawk Meme – January 13th, 2013
- Hagel Nomination:
The Revenge of the Realists – January 10th, 2013 - The Hagel Battle:
‘Why is Obama Doing This?’ – January 8th, 2013
Quiet
January 17th, 2013 at 10:24 pm
very thorough, very sad.
Is Rand Paul A ‘Christian Zionist’? – Antiwar.com | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America
January 17th, 2013 at 10:28 pm
[...] Is Rand Paul A ‘Christian Zionist’? – Antiwar.com [...]
Stuart
January 17th, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Justin,
First of all, I've been a fan of your writing for quite some time. However, I take issue with some of your comments and conclusions. Specifically:
- There is nothing in your article (or anywhere else I can find) that shows Rand Paul's Middle East policy departing from that of his father. He wants to end foreign aid (please link me to a video where he says otherwise), and he thinks that the fight between Israel and Palestine is none of the US governments business.
- He did not "hail the Israel attack on Gaza". That statement is plainly false.
- Regarding his meeting with Abbas: when talking about "his country’s opposition to the Palestinian intention to join United Nations agencies", I'm quite sure he was talking about prevailing public opinion in the States, or even the president's position, rather than his own. I'd be curious to see any evidence to the contrary.
- Attacking Rand Paul's appearance is childish (and not even justified, IMO).
Thank you,
Stuart
Stuart
January 17th, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Sorry, that should be: "Rand Paul's Middle East policy departing SIGNIFICANTLY from that of his father". There are obviously some differences.
Tom Mauel
January 17th, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Rand Paul wants to be president. Like the supposedly "liberal" Paul Wellstone, Rand Paul knows he must go out of way to prove to the military establishment what a brute he would be if given the chance.
Johnny in Wi.
January 17th, 2013 at 11:13 pm
I agree with you. Justin is just plain wrong about Rand Paul. I had a long post which detailed all my disagreements with this essay but for some reason it was not allowed through. I am not going to waste more time on it. Rand Paul has stood up the the Lobby on many occasions on defense spending, foreign aid, the NDAA, etc. The Lobby knows he is no pal of theirs. He went to Israel, talked to all sides, to get foreign policy credentials and went as far as possible at this time by calling for Israel to some day to get off our welfare rolls. He wants to cut all foreign aid to everyone period. He just has to be careful or they will brand him an antisemite like they did his father and Chuck Hagel.
the lion
January 17th, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Rand Paul like all of those before him doesnt care about Israel, He will align himself with whom ever will get him the most votes for the Presidency, and to be blunt the majority of the Christian Zionist lobby doesnt care about Israel either except that they believe that the Zionist must rule so there can be a second coming of the messiah!
As I read it Rand Paul wants a strong independent Israel, no foreign aid! Of course that isnt going to happen because whilst Israel may court him to a degree they will court many more Senators and Congressmen through other means so that they still get the aid they believe they are entitled to!
mom
January 17th, 2013 at 11:48 pm
As much as I Love You Justin, I can't stand your silly-ness, Oh what is a parent to do? :)
Justin Raimondo
January 18th, 2013 at 12:44 am
At first I thought you were just a naive apologist, but that last bit about "prevailing public opinion" really gave you away.
june
January 18th, 2013 at 1:07 am
As I read it Rand Paul wants a strong independent Israel, no foreign aid!
of course not because the muslims want control of Israel that is why there is no peace. They call themselves palestinians, but really they are muslims. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
mom
January 18th, 2013 at 1:19 am
The land belongs to the Jews whether Justin wants to admit to it or not. The palestinians are just muslims who want control. The "palestinians" aren't a race of anything, they're just muslims. What the muslim claim to fame about anything concerning Israel is beyond me.Ha ha, I guess it is the brown thing, heh heh, I am brown therefore I can take over your government, cue Cinthia Mckinny,
bluejay
January 18th, 2013 at 1:31 am
I would hope that my speech is specific…but just in case, the land does not belong to the Isreal's warlords, but to the Jews. Not Isrealis but Jews. Everyone else is a controler and should be thrown out.
davidj8800
January 18th, 2013 at 1:35 am
Rand Paul:
"I'm not a libertarian"
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,…
Loose Savage
January 18th, 2013 at 1:38 am
It sounds like Rand is negotiating a Faustian bargain: he gets a pass to talk about reducing foreign aid; Israel gets a pass to increase settlements and killings.
bluejay
January 18th, 2013 at 1:52 am
it;s ours.
Stuart
January 18th, 2013 at 4:05 am
"Gave me away" as what, in your opinion? I've no idea what the prevailing public opinion is on the matter, but Rand may have been expressing his estimate. Like I said, I would be very curious to see evidence to the contrary.
Do you care to address my points, or will you limit yourself to name-calling, as you did with the Senator?
Johnny in Wi.
January 18th, 2013 at 5:01 am
Justin; As Hagel grovels at the feet of Shumer and the Lobby, I don't here of a lot of attacks on him from you. He is going to work for a mass murderer obsessed with entangling us in many African countries. He is being used as a front man to to get the military on board and to tweak the noses of the Neocons, which is great politics for Obama, His base hates the Neoons. Rand Paul has a huge target on his back. He is the leading opposition figure on the right. It is imposssible to attack the Lobby from the front right now. He is hated by the Zionists just like his old man. He wants to get something done, while is father was a brave pioneer, Rand wants a different approach. It is far to early to see how this comes out? Your reaction is far too extreme, where as with Hagel you are too soft.
richard vajs
January 18th, 2013 at 6:12 am
Between America and Israel there is a unbalance in population distribution. It seems that too many of the crazies that adore Israel live here in America. Conversely, the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported in December that up to 40% of the Israelis themselves want just to get the Hell out of there. This 40% is educated and secular.
Makes sense that America send its John Hagees, Abe Foxmans, ignorant Islamophobes, etc to Israel in exchange for those secular, left leaning, educated Israelis who find the official apartheid policies of Netanyahu disgusting.
Only drawback is that this would concentrate too much racism, greed and lunacy into one small place. The gradient of nasty energy generated would be sky high – it could conceivably disrupt planetary orbits – I can envision asteroids jumping orbits just for the chance to smack into the place.
dink
January 18th, 2013 at 6:19 am
To understand Rand Paul's positions you have to understand 1) Kentucky Republican Demographics and the 'Infection of so called 'Christian Zionism'". You really need a professor of Religion and of current events (International Relations, Middle Eastern and American History) to make sense of these things. Rand Paul is a Libertarian stuck in the craziness of the current GOP. Because he is a Senator and more powerful than his House-of-Representatives father in actual voting (not influence), he has a rockier political road to travel.
Iran and Israel are to varying degrees: Theocracies. (Not Democracies). Getting in their-pie-in-the sky power struggles is antiAmerican and foolish. Third-rate Christian-Opportunists like Paul Hagee linked with Evangelicals and American Israeli Likud supporters, and elements of the Israel Lobby in the 1980s and poof 'You have the son of a Libertarian Stalwart' trying to navigate in 2013 politics. Its a hard position to be in.
Mark
January 18th, 2013 at 7:44 am
And the truth shall set us free! Great article Justin. Sad that so many of your regular readers cannot (or will not) see another traitor in the making.
Is this not the same Rand Paul who endorsed the neocon and Christian Zionist Mitt “let’s bomb Iran yesterday” Romney?
Geraldo Kaprosy
January 18th, 2013 at 8:51 am
There is no shortage of traitors. In addition to Rand and Mitt, Justin named the following: Jeffrey Goldberg, Jennifer Rubin, Phil Klein,, Seth Lipsky, and David Weigel. These Zionist Israel-Firsters should be deported, along with all those "Americans" who serve only Isreal.
Justni Raimondo
January 18th, 2013 at 8:56 am
How much are they paying you?
guest
January 18th, 2013 at 9:16 am
Problem is, Rand is a dunce. His father Ron is not.
davidj8800
January 18th, 2013 at 9:27 am
Iran isn’t a settler colony state created by and dependent on western imperialism, “Israel” is. You don’t need to be a “professor” of anything to understand that, and a libertarian does.
Generalissimo X
January 18th, 2013 at 10:07 am
that lunatic bibi is an absurd joke of a man. he's po'd about "u.s. influence" on israeli elections. meanwhile adelson funds a perennial loser like newt gingrich to the tune of 10's of milliions of dollars. their entire aipac apparatus is designed to bribe and marginalize our congress. but it's the us influencing them? i wish. maybe we ought to actually get something for our billions a year rather than a fat smug little lying p.o.s. who stands with cartoon bombs at the un.
as for rand, he ain't his daddy and let's leave it at that. when you go against your father's principles to stand with a massive tool like mitt romney, well that says it all. he's a clown.
and as an aside all this hagel fawning is a bit much for me. if confirmed he's the sec of state. bfd. it's my understanding that as a member of the presidential cabinet his job is to essentially obey the wishes of his boss. sure, he may have influence, even get in his opinions. but like any situation, when the boss says, in this case "bomb iran", he's either going to do it, be fired, or resign. he is not the architect of any real policy. that is not his function. to pine any hope of change on this i think is folly.
Benjacomin Bozart
January 18th, 2013 at 10:17 am
Having been to Israel and knowing Christians, descendants of the ones who tended their flocks in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, that are being extirpated from Israel, Syria, Iraq, and anywhere else the Zionist and US military are attacking in Middle East means you are anti-Christian or ignorant about what is going on.
The Jews were booted out 2000 years by the Romans. The majority of Zionist are not the descendants of those people. Supporting a murderous religious apartheid state is anti-Christian and un-American if you believe in the tenets of democracy.
Benjacomin Bozart
January 18th, 2013 at 10:23 am
Does this mean that the right will rise to denounce and spew hatred against Rand the same way they did against the Dixie Chicks for not only saying bad things about the sitting President in a foreign country, but to also be a Senator and allying himself with a foreign government against the US?
Rand Paul is no Libertarian but neither are a lot of Republicans who claim to be either. My assumption is they don't want to admit to being Republican for some reason or don't actually know anything about Libertarianism.
Benjacomin Bozart
January 18th, 2013 at 10:25 am
He isn't a Libertarian and his father had no problem getting re-elected while being a guiding light of Libertarianism.
Benjacomin Bozart
January 18th, 2013 at 10:28 am
i.e. he is your standard political whore.
Ron Q
January 18th, 2013 at 10:35 am
Rand has a chance to take the Paul Legacy into the US Senate. So far I am not very impressed.
If he votes against Hagel that will tell us a lot, not because Hagel is so great but because the neo-cons and the Likudniks strongly oppose him.
Ray
January 18th, 2013 at 10:42 am
I find it rather odd that Justin is taking the position that, like some Trotskyist "popular front," Chuck Hagel ought to be shielded from all criticism from a non-interventionist perspective, yet Rand Paul expressing his positions in a focus-group-tested way (mind you, not changing them) is completely unacceptable. The perfect is the enemy of the good is the enemy of the perfect?
Drizza
January 18th, 2013 at 10:46 am
Rand Paul is a wolf in sheep clothing and he is not the one to be trusted to lead the movement that Ron Paul started. I believe Rand Paul will compromise the movement and soon it will turn into the Tea Party. Iran hating, Israel loving, military expansion party and we cannot allow this. Rand does compromise and doesnt stand on principal like his father. It is so sad how far the apple fell from the tree.
Eric
January 18th, 2013 at 10:49 am
Though I agree with your analysis and many reservations against Rand Paul, I object to your assumption that all evangelical Christians are radical Zionists and dispensationalists. They may be the loudest voices among Christians, but there are many of us "gospel-singing" and "born again" Christians who recognize that the state of Israel has no bearings on the new covenant established by Christ. If anything, Israel is just another one of those all-powerful, militaristic states that will be wiped out with the just reign of Christ.
Justin Raimondo
January 18th, 2013 at 11:03 am
You are quite right, which is why I specifically wrote "dispensationalist" Christians, followed by a brief explanation of their wacky theology;
Justni Raimondo
January 18th, 2013 at 11:04 am
Rand Paul is fundraising from libertarians, and often claims to be one: Chuck Hagel is a moderate Republican and never asked me or any libertarian for a dime. Simple when you think about it.
Justin Raimondo
January 18th, 2013 at 11:06 am
[[[YAWN!]]]
Justni Raimondo
January 18th, 2013 at 11:09 am
Sad, yes — believe me, I had no fun writing this. Rand Paul's people have contacted us, by the way, denying the account of what Rand told Mahmoud Abbas (see "Update," above). However, they haven't said what DID happen at that meeting. We await a statement from them.
Ray
January 18th, 2013 at 11:12 am
But doesn't he say he isn't a libertarian? (e.g. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,…
And Rand Paul wants to run for president, and so he has to phrase his positions in such a way that the inevitable "anti-semite" smears seem the most ridiculous. It's sad that we as a country have devolved to such a state, but it isn't his fault. If I recall correctly, this site was a big booster of the Hagel '08 trial balloon, so it's kinda difficult to take a holier-than-thou perspective on this front, I'd think.
dbriz
January 18th, 2013 at 11:16 am
Rand Paul again manages to send the wrong signals to paleocons and libertarians alike. It becomes more apparent by the week that he is a work in progress. Without the clearly defined intellectual positions that drive his father.
Ron Paul was and is an educator at heart. Rand is, well, a politician. As such he may continue to disappoint those of us who stand firmly with Ron Paulian positions.
To date, this flirtation with Likudniks and Chrisian Zionists is his most egregious affront. A potential dealbreaker. These folks were the prime movers against his father's candidacy. A sentient human being should by now be well aware of the damage neoconservatism has done to our nation's character, economy and world relations.
If Sen Paul persists in pursuing these relationships no matter the excuse, he will prove unworthy of continued support from those who support Paulian policies
abe
January 18th, 2013 at 11:30 am
You see what is happenning, in near future you will be drafted into the military. Guess what you will die on your doorstep fighting these GLOBALIST NWO FILTH WITH YOUR GUNS or you will die in some sand pit hell hole for BIBI and his tribe! You pick.
drizza
January 18th, 2013 at 11:45 am
I can already see it Rand Paul turning into a seasoned politician. There is just no justification to his support for sanctions in Iran or his support for Mitt Romeny. I cant believe some people believe that Rand Paul will somehow institute libertarian ideas in the Republican party where his farther for 30 years tried and was just laughed at and ignored. Rand Paul is drifting further away from his father turning into a politician. As clearly you can see if has to pander to Israel in which his father never did in order to maintain his position. I wonder what Ron Paul's thoughts behind closed doors of his sons behavior because clearly he wouldnt agree with it politically.
Jeremiah
January 18th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
You can't see him "departing significantly" from his father? Really? Well, Rand's father never voted to sanction Iran, a country which is no serious threat to the US. The elder Paul knows that sanctions not only harm (and very frequently kill) innocent civilians, but that they also tend to smother any hope of negotiations and so actually pave the way for war. But if Rand knows this—and how could he not?—, he apparently doesn't care. By supporting belligerent acts against the Iranian people, he rejects the heart of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, and shows that he's willing to get blood on his hands in order to placate the Lobby and its lackeys on the right. This is unforgivable.
And while he says that what Israel does with its Palestinian helots (on our dime) is none of our business, he makes it clear that Iran's business does concern us. You see, Iran's action have "ramifications" for the entire region; but Israel's actions apparently only have local consequences—abundant evidence to the contrary aside.
Perhaps we could split semantic hairs over whether Paul "hailed" the attack on Gaza, but we certainly can't accuse him of being neutral: "I don’t think you need to call me on the phone and get permission to stop missiles raining down from Gaza."
But don't worry: he's all for reducing aid to Israel, gradually, at some undetermined point in the misty future, and after they wean everyone else first; not, of course, that he thinks foreign aid will end in his lifetime (*wink* *wink*).
Is Rand Paul a born again 'Christian Zionist'? – Telegraph Blogs
January 18th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
[...] Last week Rand Paul went to Israel, and it looks like he came back with more than a lousy t-shirt. The goal was to put some distance between his antiwar libertarianism and the accusation that he’s anti-Israel – and he may have had some success. During his tour of the Holy Land he met with Benjamin Netanyahu, Simon Peres and Naftali Bennett – a Right-wing leader associated with the settlement movement. On the settlements, Paul opined that Obama had no right to tell Israel where to build. On bombing Gaza, he said, “I don’t think you need to call me on the phone and get permission.” David Lane, the evangelical conservative who organised the trip called it a “home run.” When he did get home, Paul called reporters to let them know that he’s also coming out in favour of a new missile defence programme. The Business Insider concludes that he’s turned in to a “pro-Israel defence hawk.” Some antiwar libertarians are worried that he's become a "Christian Zionist." [...]
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Some people simply cannot bring themselves to stop worshipping "the politician".
After the exit of the great Ron Paul, they feel they must make up the most ridiculous of "wishful thinking" theories and excuses for some other guy, just because the notion of distancing themselves permanently from the system is too much to bear. In the meanwhile, they will ignore or try to justify in some way every wrong move he makes (e.g. sanctions against Iran)
It's kind of pathetic, really.
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
"He wants to end foreign aid (please link me to a video where he says otherwise), and he thinks that the fight between Israel and Palestine is none of the US governments business."
He wants to end it for god knows how many countries that are conveniently unfriendly to Israel, while cutting it from Israel last (probably when he no longer has to push for it). Yet despite this obvious bias in his gradualism, he claims the Israel/Palestine situation is not his business. RIGHT, that's why the aid he says he'd cut to Israel will be the last. No value judgment there, right?
"Regarding his meeting with Abbas: when talking about "his country’s opposition to the Palestinian intention to join United Nations agencies", I'm quite sure he was talking about prevailing public opinion in the States, or even the president's position, rather than his own. I'd be curious to see any evidence to the contrary."
Oh, so when he talks to people about the NDAA, he tells them about the president's opinion *as if it represents his own*, or likewise with public opinion? I have a bridge to sell you if you think he was merely mentioning public opinion, IF HE DID NOT IN FACT AGREE WITH IT.
Furthermore, YOU are the one making the subjective statement. Why on Earth should people who disagree present evidence to the contrary, as if you don't need to present evidence for your own claim?
"Attacking Rand Paul's appearance is childish (and not even justified, IMO)."
He voted for sanctions against Iran. If you care about people mocking his appearance, your priorities are out of whack.
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
You do realize that nationality and religion are too different things, right?
So they are Palestinians AND they are muslims.
And guess what? The other side are Israeli's AND they are Jews.
Shocker, right?
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
They TOOK the land, dummy, with the help of outside nations. And they didn't own it (as if any race owns land)
And if anyone thinks about Jews owning it because a long long time ago they were kicked off, i got two words for you: "American Indians".
Get it?
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He has SAID SO himself.
And even if he was, who gives a crap about his career and his "road to travel"? If he compromises, he compromises with evil which by definition means he no longer represents true libertarians anyway.
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
"Rand Paul is no Libertarian but neither are a lot of Republicans who claim to be either. My assumption is they don't want to admit to being Republican for some reason or don't actually know anything about Libertarianism. "
The latter. Most of them simply think it is "hip" to be called a libertarian nowadays and think they are one just because of a few disagreements they have with the GOP, but they don't seem to understand the most basic things about it. The apologetics for people like Rand Paul clearly prove it.
The irony is, most of them could probably not even conceivably be called small government conservatives or constitutionalists, since they let Rand Paul get away with sanctions against Iran and endorsing warmongering fascist Mitt Romney.
Tony
January 18th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
"But doesn't he say he isn't a libertarian?"
Doesn't matter. He is still appealing to that base; and during his father's election he certainly made no bones about that. Furthermore, there is the issue where many others are still depicting him as a libertarian. People need to be relieved of this myth. Nobody needs to be relieved of the myth that Hagel is not a libertarian.
"And Rand Paul wants to run for president, and so he has to phrase his positions in such a way that the inevitable "anti-semite" smears seem the most ridiculous. It's sad that we as a country have devolved to such a state, but it isn't his fault."
First of all, why is this any of Justin's problem? He calls them as he sees them, and whatever "troubles" Rand may have to avoid this or that is not any of his concern, or any of ours. Second, it is not Rand's fault? Is he a child? He wants to be president, he should take responsibility, rather than play by their rules and still expect NOT to be raked over the coals.
chris
January 18th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Thanks once again, Justin for this brialliant article !!! This would-be emperor truly has no cloths.
In and of himself Rand doesn't really distinguish himself at all from his fellow, elected representatives. The problem with poor Rand is that ironically, his name, evoking the memory of his father only to accentuates the glaring difference between the two.
I just want to add a little editorial note, to the yearly $3,5 billion in direct aid, military aid, tax breaks, and countless other "known and unknown" aid, you have to add the other billions in aid given to Israel's neigbors, like Jordan, Egypt, etc., none of which, represent any strategic interest per se for the US either. Their aid is simply given to control and stabilize Israel's neighbors. If Israel was located somewhere else, its neighbors there would be getting the dough.
The other thing in your article, which I find really shocking, is this charade that we're all getting used to by now, the fact that, whoever becomes or wants to become a presidential candidate, like Romney and Christie has to be whisked off to Israel, quite openly now, for their Hadj in order to be declared kosher (or is it goy-sher ?). In order to see just how far this is from normal. just try to imagine the response everyone would have if they would be flocking to the Vatican for something like that; Dan Brown would be all over that !
wars r u.s.
January 18th, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Rand Paul is the mailman's kid.
wars r u.s.
January 18th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Coming from the man who thought Romney wasn't a warmonger.
heath
January 18th, 2013 at 3:48 pm
On a tangent, It probably illustrates how dumb the crazy christian right is if they claim that Hitler was gay. This was the idea of German history professor named Lothar Machtan at the University of Bremen. In his Hidden Hitler, "presents a documented study which he claims establishes Adolf Hitler's (closeted) homosexuality and the impact of this upon his life and career.".
On reading it it sounded plausible enough, the author claiming that it was the outting of a relative of the kaiser's as gay in 1912 by reporters who were Jewish that contributed toward his enmity towards "the Jews' . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Hitler
Incidentally, how did Rand's meeting with Abbas go? Was it 'Constructive' or is that the way only meetings with Isreali's pols go?
Jaime
January 18th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
I have a theory about these visits to Israel on the part of American politicians. I believe that these senators and congresspeople are actually assassinated when they get there and replaced by brain-washed clones whose only idea is "Israel first, Israel first".
Is Rand Paul a christian zionist? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum
January 18th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
[...] Rand Paul a christian zionist? Is Rand Paul A I dunno…don't like him much either way. He is a kiss ass to Romney and endorsed him against his [...]
asdfdfgha
January 18th, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Check the news, they are holding Rand Paul's son hostage.
Jaime
January 18th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
Why should this land belong to Jews? They were also invaders at some point in time.
george
January 18th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
I had higher hopes for the freshman senator.
Johnny in Wi.
January 18th, 2013 at 7:56 pm
I said Romney was not yet a mass murderer, only a potential one. Obama on the other hand has already killed thousands of innocents with his drones and wars. Romney will now never be a mass murderer. Obama will always be a mass murderer, who continues to murder and torture everyday. Obama could have stepped into office and on the first day ordered the troops home. Instead he has expanded wars in Central Asia and numerous African and Middle Eastern countries. I see no end to it do you?
dink
January 18th, 2013 at 8:00 pm
The Soviet Union voted for Israel statehood in 1945. Most of Israel's early air force was gotten from private deals from elements in then communist Czechoslovakia. Republican president Eisenhower resisted Israel, Britain and France's when they invaded Egypt in the fifties ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis ) Iran's current government is a theocracy. Persia was a expansionist empire at one point . It would be wiser for the United States to have a Realpolitik relationship to Iran and evolve (Britain and the United States where once total enemies), it can not do that with agents of a foreign government (AIPAC) defacto controlling US policy. What Rand Paul did was radical because it reminds Republicans that it costs the United States in the pocketbook, something Mr Obama never dares try to do. What serves the United States best should be the question. Taking total and completely one side, in the two-people's-one-land conflict (when there is no longer a cold war) of the Palestinian/Israel conflict is not good US policy. If you bust the right wing expansionist wing of Israel in the pocketbook, they will be forced to reach real settlement with the Palestinians. Netanyahu crushed the Israeli protests over standards of living ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Israeli_social_… only because the Israelis feel threatened by outside. What you have right now is the Israel lobby picking and choosing which side of hands off Libertarianism they like (hands off settlement issues) and ignoring the parts they don't like (NO, zero, zilch, – US money) What you have right now is the Islamic Republic of Iran, who violently put down their own revolution, trying to play-the-saint on the somebody else's (Palestinian) cause. Reduce Israeli injustice and you reduce Iran's influence. What will the future hold? They used to think Apartheid South Africa would last forever. Modernity means a more secular middle east where formerly Islamic women will gain more civil rights, and birthrates will reduce, and standards of living will increase. Would the China solution (Modernity vs High Birth Rates) for Palestine/Settler Israelis, and Iran? Egypt NEEDS to Import Food. Israel does not. Once again take away Israeli blank checks from Washington, and watch what happens.
dink
January 18th, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Rand Paul's has approximately 6.7 times the constituents of his father.
Population (2000) of Ron Paul's district: 651,619 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_14th_congr… ) and the Population of Senator Rand Paul's Kentucky 4,369,356 – Jul 2011
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
Rep. Ron Paul was one in 435. Senator Rand Paul is one in 100. He is more a target of AIPAC.
dink
January 18th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
I suggest Realpolitik is a better strategy. (refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises <— ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik ). Less intervention means a better standard of living for American citizens.
mustcomply
January 18th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
Thanks Mr. Raimondo. I appreciate you would have preferred to write a much different article about Rand – one that was giving him a good report. But sadly he doesn't provide us with an opportunity for good reports does he? Even the apparent good he does I fear is merely part of a con. I posted a comment at the DailyPaul. I'll repeat it here.
I keep saying it. I will continue to warn everyone I can. This man is not one of us. He is not his father. He is not even a shadow of his father. His agenda is not liberty. His agenda is president Rand. And no the two agendas are not commingled. The liberty agenda is a tool Rand is using to achieve his goal – political power. Rand has seen firsthand the power and potency of the grassroots movement his father has created. Rand aims to harness this burgeoning political force. After all, he's in on the ground level. The liberty agenda is a means to an end for him. That is how he will use it. I admit I could be wrong about this. Someday I hope I will have to admit I spoke out of school. But I can see no other way to read his actions.
For the crowd that seeks to rationalize and give cover for Rand's mounting pile of lies, double speak, betrayals and displays of poor judgement, I offer this analogy:
Picture a young woman that works as a prostitute to make money to fund her missionary work promoting the gospel of Christ. This is in essence what the Rand apologists say that Rand is doing. He is in bed with, promoting, making deals with, aiding and abetting, the enemies of liberty – all for the purpose of promoting liberty! Brilliant! How does that work? It doesn't work. It only exposes Rand as a fraud. It only destroys his credibility. At best it dilutes the message. At worst it renders the message incoherent. This is the gospel message carried on the lips of an unrepentant prostitute. So much rubbish. This is Rand Paul.
Expect Rand to continue to apparently do good things for the liberty movement during his time as Senator. This is his M.O. The tea party libertarian. This is his schtick. This is how he hopes to con the next generation of would be conservatives, just like the neocons enslaved the well meaning but naive and jingoistic would be conservatives before us. In the end Rand will reveal that he is for sale, again and again. His apologists will keep pointing to this good bill he wrote and that good vote he gave and make the "he's the best that we've got and he's working stealth" plea.
But he isn't one of us. He's just a whore. His father was a spokesman for liberty. Rand is a spokesman for degeneracy.
mustcomply
January 18th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
I thought I saw Ron Paul age 10 years during the summer of 2012, during the campaign. I speculate this was the effect of Ron coming to the realization that his son was totally and utterly compromised.
mustcomply
January 18th, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Do you classify supporting Mitt Romney for President while Ron Paul was still vying for the presidency as an act worthy of disqualifying him from further support? I did.
Mitt Romney. What more do I need to say?
dink
January 18th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
I STAND CORRECTED by Mr Raimondo's update. I DO NOT SUPPORT Rand Paul's declaration that the Palestinians should not have representation in the UN. ((("U.S. Senator Rand Paul informed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of his country’s opposition to the Palestinian intention to join United Nations agencies, a well- informed Palestinian sources said Monday)), if the quote is true. Representation in the UN makes the different between Civil Rights and no Civil Rights. It changes everything: He changes from a champion of the American taxpayer to just an opportunist succumbing to the Likud Israeli Lobby)))
Andy_osnard
January 18th, 2013 at 8:39 pm
The way the Mossad and their Zionist "Fellow Travelers" in the US work, it could be they found some weakness in Rand Paul which they could use to threaten to expose him. And here all the conservatives were hailing him as the Great White Hope. Another tact would be to let him know, that without AIPAC and the American Jewish Lobby supporting him, he would never be seriously considered a candidate for office, since the NeoCons (Trotskyites) are now firmly in charge of the Republican Party.
Mike
January 18th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
It will end when bankruptcy forces their hand.
mustcomply
January 18th, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Thank you Eric. This is huge. Where is the voice of the Bible believers that aren't on board with the televangelists? Is there one? I wish we could hear more of it. I don't pretend to understand the book of Revelations. On the contrary, it completely perplexes me. But the teachings of Jesus are clear and straightforward. His kingdom was not of this earth. His teaching was the golden rule, eschew quests for power and importance in this world in anticipation of riches in the next. Where does dive headlong into Armageddon fit into Matthew, Mark Luke or John?
ksat
January 18th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
I lost all respect for Rand Paul when he stabbed his father in the back by supporting Romney even before the Repub convention (Ron had not conceded nor released his delegates). However, I actually found it amusing that a senator from the minority party actually threatened the Palestinians with sanctions. Is Rand speaking for Obama now?
A. G. Phillbin
January 18th, 2013 at 9:53 pm
You're better than this kind of response, Justin. Childish, truly childish.
ksat
January 18th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
Johnny, isn't it completely naive to think that Obama could have "ordered the troops home" on his first day? Don't military experts always say that wars are easy to get into but hard to get out of. Obama made a HUGE mistake in the '08 campaign when he kept referring to Afghanistan as the 'good war.' That may be one reason why he finally supported, after much dithering, the neocon inspired Afghan surge, and also why the war is still going on. That said, I, too, am greatly concerned over Obama's willingness to get us involved in African civil wars that have nothing to do with our national security.
James Madison
January 18th, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Rand Paul is a non-interventionist just like Ron Paul. Neither supports intervening into Israel or Palestine or the UN. Basically, the author of this horrible article wants to intervene when it suits their purposes.
Dave
January 18th, 2013 at 11:09 pm
This statement doesn't seem to be true to me. "Since Israel could not exist – let alone bomb, invade and subjugate its Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors – without extensive US military and economic aid,…"
You see, I'm laboring under the idea that Israel has 200-300 nukes and an assortment of usable launch and delivery vehicles to tote them around in. Not to mention bio, chemicals, daisy cutters, and a bunch of other creative reactive stuff.
I'm surprised to read in this venue about how helpless and vulnerable Israel is and I don't at all understand why oh why would my anti-war guy paint this picture?
Falsely painting Israel as a friendly beach weakling always getting sand kicked in his face, always needing Uncle Sam to pump up muscles is expressive of a Pro-War attitude wanting to pump the zone up with bigger, better mo' whup ass. I have the greatest respect for you and your writing. Please explain Mr. Raimondo. I must be missing something.
Monster from the Id
January 19th, 2013 at 1:22 am
Sure, Obummer could have ordered the troops home on his first day.
He could end all the wars and bring them home now.
As long as he didn't mind suffering the fate of JFK.
I fear that Mike is right, and the only thing which will end our filthy blood-soaked hegemony is the bankruptcy of the hegemon.
Wolfgang9
January 19th, 2013 at 4:27 am
IMHO, I never had any respect fior that "Tea Party" movement. I think its a bunch of stupid people who cannot think logically and believe anything absurd their corrupt preachers are telling them.
Sorry, Wolfgang
Mike
January 19th, 2013 at 6:22 am
"Rand Paul wants a strong independent Israel"
It's none of his business whether or not Israel is strong. The Israelis need to deal with that not the parasites in The Imperial City.
Mike
January 19th, 2013 at 6:27 am
The land doesn't belong to ANYONE unless they paid their hard earned money to buy it. The Israeli government though has actually SUBSIDIZED Israeli housing. That's using stolen funds (called taxation by big government idiots) to colonize places where Palestinians already live.
I've heard idiot dispensationalist Baptist Fundy idiots actually refer to Palestinians as "occupiers". Uh..excuse me? Do they even know what an occupation is?
Justin Raimondo
January 19th, 2013 at 8:11 am
Oh yes, because it's "childish" to think that some politician would pay someone to shill for them. Grow up, Mary.
OldRightKnight
January 19th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
- Encouraging followers of the Libertarian movement to reject anyone who is not 100% Ron Paul is a fatal mistake to a movement that has been making huge in roads within the Republican Party. Committee leaders, elected statesmen, elected officials, and so on.
-If we are ever going to have the power to truly make changes at the governmental level then we have to win elections, and lambasting someone who has not yet hurt us in anyway shape or form is destructive. Rand is not perfect no, but nobody is.
OldRightKnight
January 19th, 2013 at 4:10 pm
Do you think the Neo-Cons woke up one day and said "hey let's go have a beer, then take over the Republican Party?" No they didn't, they made in roads for decades until they had enough of them in positions of power. Also not all Neo-Cons are 100% the same, yet they support each other do they not. We would be wise to take their blue prints and use it to our advantage.
Remember as Frederick the Great once noted, "He who defends everything, defends nothing."
OldRightKnight
January 19th, 2013 at 4:12 pm
There is no "Pure" Libertarian philosophy. It's quite all right mind you to be a Social Conservative and a Libertarian. Nothing wrong with Libertarians having Pro-Family values, Ron and Rand both do. In fact those are the views that win ELECTIONS! Socially Conservative Libertarians can win elections.
Mike
January 19th, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Same here. Endorsing that POS Romney ended any respect I once had for the traitor.
Mike
January 19th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
On this one I might have to disagree Justin. I've heard Rand say he's a conservative not a libertarian. Too bad he's not smart enough to be a libertarian though.
Andy_osnard
January 19th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Are you speaking of the Hasbara? I think their hourly wage went down over at the Israeli Foreign Ministry on Rothschild Blvd. in Tel Aviv since Avigdor Lieberman was booted out because of the fraud and theft allegation. Still, there are Hasbarats all over our blogs these days, ranting against Anti-Semitism and the Zionist's right to defend themselves by shooting rock throwing teenagers in the back when they run away from the IDF.
Andy_osnard
January 19th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
The Israelis are always big on numbers, exaggerate, exaggerate. How could they hide all those missile silos in a country the size of New Jersey?
Andy_osnard
January 19th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
"The institutionalization of tyranny is the achievement of the Bush/Obama regimes of the 21st century. This, and not the Great Society, is the decisive break from the American tradition. The Bush Republicans demolished almost all of the constitutional protections of liberty erected by the Founding Fathers. The Obama Democrats codified Bush’s dismantling of the Constitution and removed the protection afforded to citizens from being murdered by the government without due process. One decade was time enough for two presidents to make Americans the least free people of any developed country, indeed, perhaps of any country. In what other country or countries does the chief executive officer have the right to murder citizens without due process?"
(Paul Craig Roberts)
Is Rand Paul A ‘Christian Zionist’? « Attack the System
January 20th, 2013 at 6:27 am
[...] By Justin Raimondo [...]
omop
January 20th, 2013 at 6:49 am
Interested to know why my comment was deleted/
Jeff Albertson
January 20th, 2013 at 9:28 am
Considered as a chess move, pawn Rand blocks own knight (Ron) becoming valuable to both sides, and not being taken until no longer useful to either, but that's how he stays on the board. The analogy breaks down because, as you imply, some of the black pieces seem to be playing to the whites' advantage, as if both sides were played mainly to continue the game. Winning would be losing, since the lights go out and the shooting starts whenever the gameplay stops. This interferes with the management's goal of sending everyone home drunk and broke, and my own conceit that there was a lot of saloon chess playing back in Deadwood. [R-Gooberville! Classic, and (I have good friends in WK) accurate.]
I'm reduced to hoping (in lieu of prayer or donations) Rand knows what he's doing. He knows where to get the best advice, but I'm afraid he might be ignoring it.
james
January 20th, 2013 at 11:30 am
Why are you apologizing for being 100% correct?
OldRightKnight
January 20th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
“So we think a little more of a libertarian Republican, someone who is a strict Constitutionalist, but also believes in a strong, defensive military but not necessarily in an overly aggressive or bellicose lets get involved in everybody’s civil war military, I think that has more appeal to independents and some people who have given up in the Republican Party,”Rand Paul said.
Sounds great to me, too many haters in this forum.
Is Rand Paul A Born Again Zionist? (Telegraph)
January 20th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
[...] The Business Insider concludes that he’s turned in to a “pro-Israel defence hawk.” Some antiwar libertarians are even worried that he’s become a “Christian Zionist” by [...]
James Madison
January 20th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
Wow, that's funny, the people here want military interventions. Swell. No wonder they hate Rand Paul.