Rand Paul: The Next Ronald Reagan


A cavalryman depends on a strong-willed beast. US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the equestrian-soldier is riding a sick horse. When the beast becomes too ill, and is determined medically futile the soldier places a bullet in its head. This act is not an easy task to carry out, but the soldier knows a sick horse is a dead horse, which is better put out of its misery.  For a cavalryman in the battlefield it is quick. In Washington, Paul will have to take his time- just as Reagan did. Reagan destroyed the GOP mold of his time. Many wonder, will Paul follow in his steps?

Ronald Reagan and the Paul Family during Reagan's 1976 Presidential bid. Ron and Rand to the left of Reagan.

Ronald Reagan and the Paul Family during Reagan’s 1976 Presidential bid. Ron and Rand to the left of Reagan.

It is quite remarkable that America has already had a Libertarian-leaning Republican, but the establishment GOP wouldn’t dare let you know about it. This man is more quoted, and revered than any other GOP politician in history. His name was Ronald Reagan, and he once said, “The heart of my philosophy is libertarianism.”  You will never see Lindsey Graham or John McCain utter this quote, but come election year they will claim themselves Reaganites. In 1976 at the GOP convention Rand’s father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX, Retired), was one of only 4 republican congressmen to support Reagan that year. Reagan lost. In 1980 Reagan tried again, Paul still at his side, but this time Reagan won by a landslide. Reagan’s win marked the beginning of what many recall as the “Reagan Revolution”. The “Revolution” is a purposeful parallel that the Senior Paul carried on into his presidential bids. However, the two Pauls play a remarkably different battle plan. The Senior Paul’s battle was an ideological one. The Junior Paul’s battle plan is a strategic ground game. A game poised to not only win hearts and minds as his father did, but votes as well.

Paul will be able to pull together conservatives and independents from across the spectrum just as Reagan did. He can turn blue states red with his stance on droneswiretappingmedical marijuana and other civil liberties. He is the leading name in the 2016 GOP bid as of now. He has won every recent straw poll his name has been in, and has visited every early primary state multiple times. Also, he is winning the social media race with more than 1 million Facebook fans. There are also multiple support, and “Presidential Draft” pages for Rand Paul with hundreds of thousands of fans. No other potential candidate has this social media force. Look to the Obama presidential wins and we know that elections are now dependent on social media force. Furthermore, one super- PAC has been working feverishly on a draft effort raising thousands of dollars to send out “Paul for President” campaign garb.

This aside, the truth is that Reagan would never be elected in the modern day Republican Party without one hell of a fight. Thirty years has changed the game of American politics with the establishment GOP backed by war lobbyists, big agriculture and the pharmaceutics industry. Paul’s battle will be one against the largest machine yet known to man. Although the establishment holds more events, fundraisers and marketing in the name of Reagan than any other GOP politician in history they do not believe what Reagan believed. The grassroots will support Paul, many state legislators will follow and he will also bring in endorsements from many leading conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation headed by former US Senator and ally, Jim DeMint. Regardless, make no mistake; he will be met with great resistance in 2016. He stands headstrong against the modern day GOP on many things such as foreign policy and aide, and the establishment’s lack of bite when it comes to not raising taxes and protecting the Second Amendment.

Expect to see Paul square up against types who are marketed to the American people by the establishment as being “Tea Party candidates”.  Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan seem to stand out as these types, and are losing popularity with the actual Tea Party as they continue to align more with the establishment. The Republican Party hasn’t put one of their own in office since 1980 with Reagan. Is Paul the next Reagan? Paul can stand on his own merits, and no one should underestimate this. However, we also cannot underestimate the power of Reaganism.

For a ‘Revolution’ to occur, something must come to an end.  The question is will Paul be able to place the metaphorical bullet in the GOP’s head as Reagan did decades ago? If Paul does win- the Republican Party we know today will die. Many believe that is more than a fair trade.

Rand Paul Begins Campaigning Against Hillary Clinton 2016

It seems that the democratic party is not alone in their speculations of Hillary Clinton mounting a 2016 presidential bid. Although Clinton has said time after time that she is not interested in running the polls strongly suggest that democrats want her and no one else. With the momentum focused on minorities it is not surprising that if Democrats want to maintain control of the White House they need Hillary to make it happen. Who could stop Hillary if she did decide to run? Considering that Obama has mastered the art of elections and online donations as well as the fact that Bill Clinton remains wildly popular Hillary will be a force not easily defeated. It has been said that if republicans wish to remain viable they must find a candidate who can bring together the tea party, the libertarian wing and the traditional conservative wing. Many believe that candidate to be Rand Paul.

Paul Meets With Tennessee Republican Assembly

Paul Meets With Tennessee Republican Assembly

Paul has already been on what many consider to be a campaign spree. He has won every presidential straw poll his name has been listed on. Furthermore, he has now made a major move by sending his lead strategist and chief of staff, Doug Stafford away from his Senate post in Washington D.C. to head up Paul’s national political operation. This is perhaps the clearest indication that Paul is planning a 2016 bid.Paul went one step further when he addressed a crowd of approximately 600 prominent Tennessee senators, representatives, donors and grassroots activists at the annual Tennessee Republican Assembly convention 2 weeks ago. Paul was received with thunderous applause and multiple standing ovations. Here Paul recalled his encounter with Clinton as the only member of the Senate to actively engage Clinton on Benghazi for ignoring requests for more security and not reading urgent cables. While other GOP Senators were singing Clinton praises- Paul told Clinton, “Ultimately, I think with your leaving, you accept culpability for the greatest tragedy since 9/11. Had I been President at the time and I found out you had not read the cables… I would have relieved you of your post.” “I think it’s inexcusable,” he added. As Paul finished his story the crowd again stood in applause. Paul continued to tell the crowd, “I think that should disqualify you from seeking any sort of higher office.” The crowd again roared and the audience was heard screaming, “Rand 2016”. Paul then took questions from the audience. Many questions were geared towards a Paul presidential bid. Paul responded, “Things seem to be falling in that direction, but I am not going to make a decision until after this year.” In this first moment of acknowledgment towards Hillary Clinton’s possible presidential bid it seems the 2016 race is starting to take form as one that would put Rand Paul against Hillary Clinton. Paul seems to recognize this and is drawing first blood.

Rand Paul Never Voted for Indefinite Detention in 2013 NDAA

Libertarians began to abandon Rand Paul (R-KY) in droves after he voted for the 2013 NDAA. Many of them believed that this legislation included indefinite detention of US citizens. However, it did not. Many of them have sworn to never vote for Rand Paul again. These misguided libertarians are upset over nothing. Rand Paul explains:

I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain. 

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can’t be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill. 

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn’t it.

This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year’s bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.   

That provision was in last year’s NDAA bill. 

Rand Paul

Rand Paul (R-KY)

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained.

I would never vote for any bill, anywhere, that I believed enhanced the government’s power to abridge your rights and detain people. This goes against every principle I hold dear and the Constitution I took an oath to uphold and protect.

Government power and the many associated abuses have been piling up for years. We will not win all our liberties back at once. But we did win one battle this year, and we should be pleased that we did while also realizing the fight is really just getting started. 

I hope you will keep fighting alongside me.”

Long time friend and Congressional ally, US Representative Justin Amash  provided the following statement: 

Senator Rand Paul is correct in his description of the 2013 NDAA. It’s the 2012 NDAA (not 2013) that authorizes indefinite detention without charge or trial. There’s much more to be done to protect our rights and undo the harm of the 2012 NDAA (which doesn’t expire), but thanks to the efforts of United States Senator Mike Lee and Sen. Paul, we are making significant progress in (re-)advancing the principle that all people in the United States have a constitutionally protected right to full due process.”

With Super PACs already forming to support a Rand Paul for President 2016 ticket if the liberty movement hopes to advance it would seem that Rand Paul is their best chance in decades. However, with liberty focused alternative media smearing Rand’s name without warrant over his vote on the 2013 NDAA the  movement is not making their case any easier to win. 

Breaking: House Republicans to Raise Debt Ceiling

House Republicans have agreed to vote on legislation as early as next week to raise the debt ceiling for 3 months. However, they sent a warning to the

Speaker of the House John Boehner

Speaker of the House John Boehner

Senate that they must work with them to come up with a budget deal before they “agree to a long-term ceiling raise”. It seems that House Republicans have no serious intentions to cut spending since they have already indicated that they are willing to vote for long-term debt ceiling raises. However, the measure would make it to where Congress will not get a paycheck if a budget deal is not met before the 3 month deadline of April 15th. If we are to look at the fiscal-cliff ‘deal’ (resulting in a threat of national credit rating downgrade), can we be sure a budget passed by the Senate and Obama will be any better than what we had before? Obama recently held a news conference where he said he will not negotiate with Republicans on raising the debt ceiling. It seems that the President got his message across without having to sign an unconstitutional executive order as has been speculated. Will this tactic of allowing the President to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a budget for the first time in years actually work? Only time will tell. US Senator, Rand Paul (R-KY) says he will vote it down.

Breaking: Fiscal Cliff Deal Unconstitutional; VOID

Democrats and Republicans alike have remained silent on a very major issue of the Fiscal Cliff deal that was voted on and passed at the beginning of the month. According to the US Constitution, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” –Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 US Constitution. Here is the problem, The Fiscal Cliff bill, or the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012  as it stands with revenue raised through taxation did not originate in the House of Representative, but in the Senate.

Boehner, Reid, and Obama

Boehner, Reid, and Obama

As happened with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, the Senate shelled a House bill purposefully to pass this legislation, which raises revenue through taxation on the American people. Will there be a Supreme Court challenge on the constitutionality of the Fiscal Cliff bill as there was with Obamacare? With such strong support from both the Senate and the House you shouldn’t expect a challenge. Anyone who dares to speak out on the constitutionality of the legislation will be spearheaded as attempting to tailspin the Nation into another recession. However, research has shown that had we simply jumped off the Cliff, we would have most likely been far better off anyways. So, even though no one in the Senate even read the bill before they voted on it, and the Constitutionality is void- your paycheck has already gone down due to the social security tax increase and many other new taxes. Strangely, Obama didn’t actually sign the bill. He was on vacation in Hawaii and used an “Autopen” to do so. Obama, Speaker Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Reid have not yet commented about the Constitution in regards to the Fiscal Cliff deal.

Shocking Details of Fiscal Cliff Begin to Leak; Another Credit Downgrade Looms

The Fiscal Cliff. There has been much talk about it, but few Americans actually know what it is. In the most simple terms: On December 31st, 2012 a large series of tax cuts were set to expire. If a deal was not met to expand the tax cuts by January 1st, 2013

Paul Ryan and John Boehner

Paul Ryan and John Boehner after the Fiscal Cliff Vote 

then automatic, across the board spending cuts and tax increases would occur. A sufficient deal by Congress should have included, at the very least-moderate cuts in spending and little to no increases on taxes. However, the ‘deal’ we got included:

  • 80% of Americans that make over $40,000/ year will see a tax increase. Beginning immediately, the majority of Americans will see smaller paychecks.
  • Hollywood elites get $430 Million.
  • Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands get $220 Million for liquor manufacturing.
  • NASCAR gets $70 Million.
  • Algae growers get $59 Million.
  • Obama also insisted that his campaign contributors got massive, record setting tax breaks: Goldman Sachs, Citi, Morgan Stanley, GE, etc. All of them gave billions to his re-election efforts.
  • $1 in Spending cuts for every $41 in raised taxes, a 1:41 ratio.

So, the majority of America will get their taxes raised and their paychecks will continue to shrink. Combine this with runaway inflation from the Federal Reserve pushing QE4, and the average American’s ability to purchase and survive is about to hit a major wall. Meanwhile, Obama bails out his corporate pals who make billions. In fact, the very friends that had enough money to give him billions to get re-elected. If they had the billions of dollars to give to him then why do they need tax breaks? According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), no one in Congress even read the bill. Or is that really even shocking? The bill ‘hit the floor’ for the first time at 1:36 AM and was voted on and passed at 1:39 AM. In fact, most aren’t sure there was even a bill printed. Congress was told that the bill was available online at 1:36 AM, but no one actually saw it on paper. Therefore, no one who actually voted on it that morning even read it. Why do we allow our representatives to pass laws that affect us, which they are almost always exempt from, without even reading the legislation? Nevertheless the bill passed the Senate  89:8, and the House 257:167. Former VP Candidate, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan voted in favor of the bill.

Moody’s has already sent a warning to Congress that the Fiscal Cliff deal did absolutely nothing to solve the Nation’s crisis and is threatening to downgrade America’s credit rating yet again.

Knowing all of this as truth one must ask themselves, if taxes were going to be raised on the majority of Americans anyways, why didn’t we simply just go off the cliff? Had we jumped off the cliff yes taxes would have been raised, but spending would have been cut also. Instead, there are essentially no cuts in spending, massive tax hikes for the average American, and huge corporate tax cuts perpetuating the corporatism culture that the White House and Congress have become so accustomed to. As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you can begin to rebuild. Should we not have just hit rock bottom? Americans have been told by the mass media that a ‘deal’ was struck and we have avoided some monstrosity of a disaster. However, when you actually read between the lines, the cliff seems like a much more suitable alternative to what we have been dealt.

Obama Seeks the Power to Raise Debt Ceiling Without Congress and Without Limits

The rhetoric from the Obama administration is sometimes truly shocking. They say that Congress must raise the debt ceiling “without drama, or delay“. Is raising the debt ceiling not something that Congress should seriously ponder over? In November Obama presented Speaker Boehner (R) his fiscal cliff proposal. In this proposal Obama requested to take the power of raising the debt ceiling out from underneath Congress so that he could have total control over when and how much to raise it by.

This is President Obama’s latest attempt to violate constitutional law. Only Congress has the power to authorize borrowing of funds. Since this is the “debt” ceiling all funds in regards to raising it would be defined as borrowing. No where in the Constitution is the president granted the power to override

Obama and Speaker Boehner

Obama and Speaker Boehner

this congressional responsibility. However, Michael Dorf, Cornell law professor and close friend of the Obama Administration, says that when presented with the unconstitutional options, “Obama must simply pick the least unconstitutional option“. How does this ideology even hold ground in America? Pick the “least” unconstitutional? The Constitution is not a continuum of less or more.

Meanwhile, the GOP has purged its most Conservative members from the Budget Committee by the hand of Speaker Boehner. Boehner’s removal of House Conservatives that were unwilling to waiver on the national debt and bow to Obama’s wishes seems the be the beginning of the GOP giving in to Obama’s demands without regard to party values. Obama has stated that he will reject all future debt ceiling limits with regards to the fiscal cliff negotiations. Obama wants the power to send the debt to astronomical limits, and the GOP is preparing to give in to those wishes. This type of behavior by GOP establishment officials will only continue to isolate true conservatives and weaken the party further.

Currently the debt ceiling sits at a new high of $16.394 trillion as of January 30, 2012. At midnight on Dec. 31, 2012, a major provision of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) is scheduled to go into effect. The crucial part of the Act provided for a Joint Select Committee of Congressional Democrats and Republicans — the so-called ‘Supercommittee ‘— to produce bipartisan legislation by late November 2012 that would decrease the U.S. deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. To do so, the committee agreed to implement by law — if no other deal was reached before Dec. 31 — massive government spending cuts as well as tax increases or a return to tax levels from previous years. The fiscal cliff looms, and Obama is about to get everything he wished for this Christmas.