New rule: if you happen to agree with something Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says, wait five minutes and he'll say the exact opposite. Yet somehow both the left and the right gets suckered by this guy at every turn. He’s nothing more than an opportunist who will say just about anything in order to flimflam either the far-right and the far-left into supporting him. So far, he's making Mitt Romney look like a rock-solid, unswerving pillar of integrity. It's really quite remarkable how often it happens, especially when it comes to his ludicrous attempts to outflank the Democrats to their left.
You might recall how Paul accused Hillary Clinton of being a war-hawk, while planting himself in the non-interventionist camp, thus appealing to the pacifistic tendencies of the left.
Here's Paul on Meet the Press, August 24:
"If you wanna see a transformational election, let the Democrats put forward a war hawk like Hillary Clinton."
And in The Wall Street Journal, August 28:
To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.
Anyone who put their money on a flip-flop regarding Middle East intervention within five days wins the jackpot. Here's Rand Paul on Tuesday, September 2, after news broke about a second beheading of an American journalist by ISIS terrorists.
Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: "If the president has no strategy, maybe it's time for a new president."
In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: "If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily."
Apologies for the whiplash. First of all, he seems to have forgotten the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), in which Congress authorized the president to use military force against al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups. Secondly, Rand Paul would not only attack ISIS, but it sounds like he'd ask for a congressional declaration of war, which would absolutely involve the use of ground troops in Iraq. Again.
Rand Paul jerked your chain, lefties, and he's going to keep doing it as long as you keep falling for it. He's like that annoying uncle who can't stop doing the old pull-my-finger joke, and the libertarian-leaning far-left keeps expecting a different outcome -- something other than a fart. Put another way, if you're still "Standing With Rand," where the hell are you standing?
STANDING WITH RAND: DRONES AND THE MILITARIZATION OF POLICE
By way of a review, here's Rand Paul on the militarization of the police and the use of weaponized drones.
I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.
I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him… If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.
The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.
STANDING WITH RAND: AID TO ISRAEL
While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.
"I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past."
STANDING WITH RAND: BANNING BIRTH CONTROL
In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have given employers an excuse to deny contraceptive health care coverage based on their conscience.
"There may be various opinions in here, but there’s probably almost nobody who wants to ban birth control. I haven’t heard any Republican politician who does."
STANDING WITH RAND: CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
May, 2010. Opposes provision in Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in private businesses and institutions.
"One [title] deals with private institutions and had I been around, I would've tried to modify that."
July, 2014. Denies ever opposing the section of the Civil Rights Act preventing discrimination in private businesses and institutions. Asked by NBC News if he ever opposed the title, Rand Paul replied:
I think you get the idea. At best, he's suffering from some kind of senile dementia and simply can't remember his positions. At worst, he's a flagrant liar and flip-flopper who has no values -- or at least tries badly to hide his actual values. And yet people can't wait to praise him for his values. Suckers.