Posts Tagged ‘Rand Paul’

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY).

Senator Rand Paul’s June 7, 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney for President in 2012 came as no surprise to me, as I predicted as far back as 2009 that he wouldn’t be a constitutional candidate for the U.S. Senate, and my unpopular prediction was further vindicated with this endorsement, so why are so many others surprised by his decision?

On December 31, 2010, I wrote the article, The U.S. Senate regularly violates the law, about my shocking discovery that U.S. Senators were regularly conducting business and passing legislation without the constitutionally mandated quorum of a majority of Senators in order to conduct business.

In it, I responded with a January 9, 2011 comment about my assessment of Senator Rand Paul:

If Rand doesn’t know about that requirement and his duty regarding it, then he’s already no constitutional candidate in my books.

I stopped regarding him as a constitutional candidate once he came out with this November 2009 press release:


“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

If you read his words carefully, there is the possibility that it was a clever attempt to fool “law and order” conservatives into voting for him, so long as he has accepted being a one-term Senator in actually standing for the Constitution in this matter.

However, I suspect he meant it the way I first read it, whereby he regards the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant to foreign “terrorists,” despite the Constitution being a contract between the people and their government, which defined the government’s powers and limits, including its dealings with foreigners.

Read Full Post »

English: Radio host and documentary film maker...

During the Bilderberg 2012 meeting, Alex Jones interviewed one of his most frequent guests, and fellow GCN host, Webster Tarpley.

At the start of what became a one-hour and 20 minute interview, Tarpley gave his analysis of Ron Paul, and since it was something Alex Jones didn’t want to hear, he started acting childishly at the 9-minute mark.

Since 2011, I started writing about some of Alex Jones’ questionable guests (Dr. Steve Pieczenik, Pastor Lindsey Williams, Lyndon LaRouche, …) who are repeatedly invited back, as well as some of the questionable articles on Infowars.com. But it was on April 26, 2012 when I had finally heard enough to go public, and put myself on Alex Jones’ blacklist for daring to hold him accountable for his own behaviour, in a manner similar to the way he holds establishment figures accountable for their own behaviour.

Because Alex Jones didn’t like the way Webster Tarpley was hacking apart Ron Paul in the way Alex has let him hack away with impunity at establishment figures, he decided to act childishly, starting at 9 minutes in by raising the deliberately diversionary question, “so Obama’s gonna save us?”

It goes downhill from there over the next ten minutes, with Alex Jones using a childish voice and engaging in childish behaviour to try to steer Tarpley off-topic, which he didn’t fall for.

Read Full Post »

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...

It has been noted that Friday, May 20, 2011, marked 60 days since the initiation of U.S. hostilities against Libya.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 prohibits U.S. armed forces from continuing hostilities for more than 60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period, unless there is statutory Congressional authorization, or a formal constitutional Congressional declaration of war.

However, the War Powers Resolution and its timetable are a completely false diversion in this case.

The only situation in which an offensive military operation without prior Congressional authorization is valid under the Resolution is, “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Since the United States wasn’t attacked by Libya, the War Powers Resolution doesn’t apply, and, therefore, the imposition of a no-fly zone (an act of war) was unlawful to begin with, and the talk of the 30-day withdrawal deadline is a red herring.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts