Rand Paul – Just another Politician

by Rocco J. Piserchia

Back in 2010 I was one of the Ron Paul supporters who also was very excited that Rand Paul won a US Senate seat in KY. As time went on Rand changed his positions. Rand’s defenders interpret all of his changes as sheer political brilliance. The Rand mythology goes like this: He’s learned from his father’s ineptitude and failures in Washington DC not to be principled. Rand is theoretically and allegedly deeply committed to the original intent of the US Constitution, however unlike any other DC politician who’s ever lived he alone knows how to be effective by pragmatism. So Rand endorsed Willard “Mitt” Romney in 2012. Then he went on to endorse the GOP minority leader of the US Senate Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Rand’s brilliance was apparent in his explanation for why he endorsed McConnell – McConnell asked him (This in and of itself should come as a great warning to his wife in the event another woman simply asks Rand to do something objectionable.)  Rand held a meaningless filibuster which changed nothing but claimed victory – the reality is that US citizens still may be targeted as enemy combatants and executed without due process.

One talking point that Randbots use is that Rand’s voting record in office is second to none. His voting record is excellent – however Randbots appear to be ignorant that over 90% of the votes in the US Senate aren’t recorded by name, they’re unanimous consent/without roll call votes.  So Rand does have an excellent voting record for the 6% of the votes that can be verified. Jim DeMint exposed this problem and supposedly sought to change the procedure. One would think that champions of liberty such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would make this an issue and change the rules in the US Senate that permit this practice, unless they enjoy keeping the public in the dark about how they vote 94% of the time.

Rand endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) – tyranny is worthy of endorsement as long as an oath breaking politician has an R next to his or her name. Rand reflected his political brilliance by not recalling that Susan Collins voted for illegal NSA spying, the Patriot Act and the 2012 NDAA. (Selective memory is a radical new method that no DC politician has ever utilized prior to Rand.) Rand has even raised funds for the RNC. This week Rand was dispatched by Thom Tillis (R-NC) in a desperate attempt to help Tillis win the general election for US Senate. Rand appeared at Big Ed’s restaurant in Raleigh NC on Wednesday October 1, 2014 followed by a private fund raising event for Tillis after his psy op at the restaurant.

Tillis as Speaker of the House in the NC General Assembly has been a vocal proponent of public private partnerships (P3s) which includes the first foreign owned toll road in NC. I asked Rand about his position on P3s and foreign owned toll roads. Rand said he has no position on toll roads and in typical political fashion he refused to address P3s. Tillis is in violation of the 2013 and 2014 NCGOP platforms regarding foreign owned toll roads. If the leadership of the state NCGOP was not corrupt Tillis would have been censured for supporting foreign owned toll roads in NC. Instead of being censured he was given the nomination for US Senate. This senate race should have been won by any Republican with a heart beat but Thom Tillis is finding a way to lose. Tillis was backed by establishment Republicans in DC and Raleigh yet in the primary he could not even get 50% of the vote in spite of spending $10 million by his campaign and outside groups. Tillis’ arrogance has been on display during the primary and general campaigns in that he has not even made token concessions to the Tea Party and the conservative GOP base voters. His attitude is that Conservative voters have no other place to go. Tillis evidently forgot that people may cast a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate or have the option of writing in John Rhodes or David Waddell.

As he was leaving the restaurant I tried to ask Rand about Obamacare since both he and Tillis no longer support the repeal of Obamacare. Rand’s handler would not let the covert champion of liberty answer any more questions. I can understand why any questions about Obamacare have to be avoided. Tillis ads are running which state Obamacare should not be repealed after he had previously said “It’s a great idea that can’t be paid for.”  Rand has also stated that Obamacare will not be repealed while he continues to raise funds from his supporters to repeal Obamacare. While I see this as typical political duplicity Randbots interpret this as yet another example of his political brilliance.

In essence the politics of Rand Paul can only be explained by deception and duplicity. Randbots live in an imaginary world where only the supporters of Rand Paul understand his true motives which permit him to allegedly lie to the RNC and GOP establishment. The fact that Rand is lying is beyond dispute at this point. The real question is who is being deceived – is it the GOP establishment or Rand’s supporters? The fact that Rand continues to raise funds from his supporters to repeal Obamacare after he’s already admitted it’s not getting repealed speaks volumes about the morality of his political brilliance.

Advertisements

Rand Paul continues to mislead on immigration

24ahead.com

6/12/14

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul spoke on a conference call organized by Michael Bloomberg‘s Partnership for a New American Economy and – together with Grover Norquist – promoted comprehensive immigration reform (what most call “amnesty”).

Now, either because he got pushback or to take the sales job to his Tea Parties base, Paul offers a guest editorial at Breitbart News ( peekURL.com/z96LtY3 ). I’ll briefly describe how it’s wrong and how he’s attempting to deceive you. If you’re a Rand Paul supporter, I hope to change your mind.

Paul begins:

I am for immigration reform because I am against allowing 12 million more illegal immigrants into our country. If we do nothing, 12 million more illegal immigrants will come. We must be in favor of reform—smart reform that starts with border security.

Characterizing that position as “amnesty” is simply untrue.

What we have now is a lawless border. Current policy is a beacon for more illegal immigrants. The Obama administration’s lawless executive orders legalizing people who came here illegally will only encourage more illegal immigration – unless we act now with real, strong, verifiable border security.

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law.

My “Trust but Verify” plan will ensure that our border is secure. Under my plan, national security and border security will move as the first element of any reform and would require annual votes of Congress to establish that the border is truly secure. No other reform could go forward until this happened.

1. The first paragraph is the “we already have defacto amnesty” line popularized by Marco Rubio. Paul’s talking point is deceptive because it assumes we must choose between the current situation and some form of mass legalization. There are other options that Paul is ignoring, such as attrition. If Paul and his colleagues really wanted Obama to enforce immigration laws, they could make it happen. To some extent, Paul’s first paragraph is an extortionist’s threat: give me what I want or things will get worse.

2. For various reasons, the mass legalization Rand Paul wants would encourage more illegal immigration. It would give more power to far-left groups that currently support illegal immigration, such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Paul’s plan wouldn’t punish employers that knowingly hired illegal aliens in the past, it would let them off the hook and encourage them to keep hiring illegal aliens if they can. And, as can be seen currently, weakness on immigration – such as talk of mass legalization – can lead to a mad rush for the borders. Rand Paul’s plan would also reward political corruption, such as those politicians who’ve looked the other way on illegal immigration because of large donations from business groups. Rand Paul’s plan would reward such behavior and encourage more of it.

3. In the second paragraph, Rand Paul plays word games. His plan is what most people would refer to as “amnesty”. But, to avoid confusion, let’s play his game. Let’s not use the shorter “amnesty” but the longer “mass legalization”. Instead of arguing with Rand Paul whether his plan is amnesty or not, let’s just show how his plan will harm the U.S. See reform not amnesty for more on that aspect.

4. There is one group for whom Rand Paul’s plan – and all other immigration “reform” plans so far proposed – are definitively amnesty. As alluded to above, all those businesses that knowingly or not hired illegal aliens will get off the hook. Illegal aliens will be forced to pay some kind of fines (unless those are waived) and will face other “tough” punishment. But, their employers will get a full and complete amnesty for their past hiring of those illegal aliens. In some or many cases those employers knew what was going on but looked the other way, or knowingly accepted fake documents. They won’t face any sort of punishment for that.

5. Rand Paul is in the “secure the border first” crowd: as discussed at the link you have to ask what comes second. In Rand Paul’s case we know: mass legalization of millions of illegal aliens.

6. Whether putting Obama or Congress in charge of declaring the border secure, that’s letting the fox guard the henhouse. Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and previous Congresses brought us to the current situation. Rand Paul certainly isn’t doing all he could to secure the border right now, nor are most other leading politicians. Some of those politicians might be marginally better than Obama on immigration, but generally speaking trusting leading politicians – Democrats or Republicans – on immigration isn’t a wise idea because they’ve shown themselves to be quite corruptible (generally either by racial power in the case of the Democrats or business donations in the case of Republicans).

7. Why is Rand Paul holding “national security and border security” hostage to his mass legalization plan? If he were truly concerned about the security of the U.S., wouldn’t he at least push that separately? Yet, Rand Paul is tying them together: demanding mass legalization as a precondition to securing the border.

Rand Paul then details his high-tech plans for border security, which will include “and yes, surveillance drones”. Then:

My plan takes border security a step further than anybody else in Congress. Under my plan, Congress will vote every year on border security. If Congress votes that the border is not secure, elements of immigration reform will cease to go forward and visa programs will be slowed. If Congress does not think the border is secure after five years, every element of immigration reform will be stopped.

8. See #6 above. Congresses come and go, some will be better on immigration than others. The very people who’ve shown themselves to be corruptible on immigration will be the ones voting on whether to continue aspects of Rand Paul’s plan. His plan will give more power to the people and groups that currently try to undercut border security: the ACLU, the National Council of La Raza, and hundreds more. They’ll use that increased power to make sure that, for instance, politicians weaken some aspects of Rand Paul’s plan to allow certain programs to continue (like DACA) even if the border isn’t judged secure. Rand Paul’s last sentence above is cruelly deceptive: he knows that once his plan is started it’s not going to be stopped. The forces that would oppose stopping it or halting parts of it are too strong and have too much money.

Rand Paul continues:

Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Throughout history, our nation has been flooded with immigrants who have moved here with a flavor for the home country, yet they have assimilated into what we know today as America. That idea, and the American Dream, must be protected and preserved.

Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.

9. See nation of immigrants and immigration tradition fallacy for a discussion of the hoary talking points uses in the first paragraph above.

10. The people and groups that Rand Paul’s plan will give power to tend to oppose assimilation, such as the NCLR. There is little current external pressure on immigrants to assimilate. Those who try to assimilate immigrants tend to get smeared by the far-left and tend to back down. Rand Paul’s plan would make that worse.

11. The U.S. is a lot more than just the shopping mall/flea market Rand Paul envisions. Some immigrants have opinions on various topics that simply aren’t compatible with fundamental American concepts. We can’t have people coming here just because they want to make money: that’s not what the U.S. is all about.

Rand Paul ends with this:

I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.

I support legal, not illegal, immigration. We must embrace immigration and immigrants, and we must recognize that our country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make better lives for themselves. However, our current system is broken, and we cannot move towards reform until our border is truly and fully secure.

Rand Paul is still playing word games, still using bogus talking points (system is broken), and still holding border security hostage to his mass legalization plan. He’s also not putting numbers on the (no doubt high) legal immigration he wants.

We could move forward on border security right now. Rand Paul could go on a crusade demanding that Obama enforce immigration laws at the border and at the workplace. Rand Paul could speak out against the various actions Eric Holder and other administration officials have taken to encourage more illegal immigration. Instead, Rand Paul is holding all that hostage to a massive legalization plan that would have massive negative impacts on the U.S.

If you were and still are a Rand Paul supporter, I want to change your mind. Contact me at @24AheadDotCom.

If, on the other hand, you realize how deceptive Rand Paul is and want to oppose his plans, then make the arguments on this page to those who haven’t seen the light. That could take you as little as a few minutes: search Twitter for those who tweet approvingly to @SenRandPaul, and then make the points on this page to them.

Rand Paul’s position on Obamacare is revealing

On April 27th I received an email from Rand Paul himself via rand.paul@randpacusa.com. It’s in the format that he and his father use to solicit funds non stop – it’s a fund raising email disguised as a petition. In this case I was asked to sign a petition to “Repeal Obamacare”. This petition may be found here

header

The same site has a different page begging for donations to “Help Rand Paul Repeal Obamacare” here

This page even includes a free video from Rand speaking at the GOP convention in August 2012.  In his address Rand emphatically asserted that ALL of Obamacare  is unconstitutional.

However the narrative of Rand’s opposition to the PPACA, otherwise known as Obamacare, has dramatically changed. Rand is not even regurgitating the RNC talking point on Obamacare, which I think was first uttered by Willard “Mitt” Romney, i.e., Obamacare needs to repealed and replaced. Now Rand is conceding defeat – he does not expect Obamacare to be repealed.

Hot Air reports the Hill’s account of what Rand said at Harvard on Friday April 25:
“I think it’s going to be difficult to turn the clock back. People get assumed and accustomed to receiving things, particularly things that they get for free,” he told a crowd of students at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Friday…
“I think one of the practical things you might be able to do, and I think the public at large might accept this, is to make ObamaCare voluntary. You make it voluntary, basically you get rid of the coercion,” he said, presumably by eliminating the penalty those without insurance are required to pay, known as the individual mandate.
He said he may keep some parts of the law, like the subsidies to help poor Americans afford insurance, or the Medicaid expansion — two of ObamaCare’s more popular provisions but potentially its more expensive.
“Does that get rid of the subsidies? Not necessarily, or the Medicaid. But I think also we’re going to find out we can’t afford to have everybody on Medicaid, we can’t afford to have everybody on subsidized insurance,” Paul said.

Back in September Fox News reported Rand stating,
“I’m acknowledging we can’t probably defeat or get rid of Obamacare,” he said. “But by starting with our position of not funding it, maybe we get to a position where we make it less bad.”
Some Senate Republicans, including would-be 2016 presidential rivals Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, have said they would vote to refuse to pay for the health care law, even if it meant shutting down portions of the government. Paul has called closing down the government “a dumb idea.”

The very best that can honestly be said about Rand at this point is that he’s just another politician. Rand is not only contradicting himself regarding the repeal of Obamacare – he has the audacity to lie as a fund raising tactic to repeal that which he said in 2013 and last month in April will not be repealed.

—————————————————————————-

RELATED ARTICLES

Have Republicans finally surrendered on ObamaCare?

Paul:  ‘Difficult to turn the clock back’ on O-Care