Daily news sites

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Rand Paul, disliked by the progressives and perhaps by many in the establishment rEpublican power base. Hard to listen to at times, but if one does listen closely Senator Paul makes lots of sense.



Perhaps Senator Paul, having a more tolerant attitude towards the civil liberties of all Americans will galvanize a large enough following to overturn the stale and static present rEpublican leadership and build a more inclusive and tolerant party.

THE HILL -

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday told conservative activists the Republican Party had grown "stale and moss covered" and said the GOP needs a more libertarian approach that makes freedom the movement's defining principle.

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Kentucky senator offered a revamped version of his father's hands-off libertarian vision for Republicans — and positioned himself as a leader capable of confronting the GOP establishment.

"The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere," Paul said.

"If we're going to have a Republican Party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP. We must have a message that is broad, our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom."

Paul has publicly clashed with more senior Republicans over the past two weeks, notably Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Graham and McCain blasted Paul for mounting a 12-hour filibuster of President Obama's CIA nominee, John Brennan, over the administration's drone policy.

McCain called the filibuster a stunt meant to "fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms." Paul fired back at McCain and Graham, two leading Republican defense hawks, saying the senators "think the whole world is a battlefield.” {Read More}

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

A man of principle and integrity. Representative Ron Paul in response to the rEpublican pArty offer of a speaking slot at the national rEpublican cOnvention.

POLITICO - Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.

“It wouldn’t be my speech,” Mr. Paul said. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”

It is a rare thing in the politics of the 21st century when a politician puts principal ahead of politics.

A son is not always "a chip off the old block."

Paul’s refusal to play ball stands in contrast to his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who at some personal political cost has endorsed Mitt Romney’s bid – and has a speaking slot.

The disparate approaches to the convention, and toward Romney, reflect the stylistic differences between father and son. And they reveal starkly different levels of ambition.

Uncompromising and perfectly willing to operate on the margins of mainstream politics for decades, Ron Paul proved unable to take his liberty message to a broader audience. Even this year, at the height of his national influence and popularity, the Texas congressman failed to win the popular vote in a single state and never seriously threatened to win the GOP nomination.

His son, however, has already accomplished something that Ron Paul never could – he won statewide office. And in less than two years in the Senate, Rand Paul has established himself as a formidable player in GOP politics and a presidential prospect.

How much further Rand Paul can advance the movement is unclear. But with his endorsement of Romney and his convention profile, it’s obvious that Rand Paul is aiming to take the libertarian message to the next level while his father will occupy the role of the movement’s conscience.

I find a glaring contradiction in it all. Ron Paul, by far the brighter of the Paul's IMO, was unable to gain national recognition and acceptance. Yet his son, who supposedly is a liberty movement advocate has risen to be a star of the movement. But is he sincere? Methinks not.

By pandering to the establishment wing of the rEpublican party he insures himself a speaking slot at the national convention. Need we require any further proof than his endorsement of Mittens Romney, the epitome of the establishment statist neo fascist rEpublican party?

Via: Memeorandum