A Rand Paul Candidacy? Hmmmmm…….

Interesting.   Speculation begins about Rand Paul’s mid-east trip being a precursor to a potential presidential bid.   Your thoughts?

Rand Paul8WASHINGTON TIMES – Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t explicitly deny that his eight-day visit to the Holy Land represents the launch of a 2016 Republican presidential nomination run, describing the trip as “more an effort to become part of an international stage.”

But at least some of the 40 evangelical Protestant leaders traveling with Mr. Paul think otherwise.

“This trip to meet with Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians is absolutely the first step in his 2016 White House campaign,” said David Lane, evangelical political organizer and president of the Los Angeles-based Pastors and Pews.

Mr. Paul joined the pastors on a tour bus climbing its way to the Israeli side of the 9,000-foot Golan Heights; the other side is Syrian territory.

Many others on the bus said they were convinced that Mr. Paul is starting a political climb to even greater heights.  (read more)

This entry was posted in A New America, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to A Rand Paul Candidacy? Hmmmmm…….

  1. g8rmom7 says:

    Here is his main positive in my mind…he MAY be the only one that could bring the Libertarian and Conservative movement to some sort of an agreement and together we can get the GOP to get their heads out of their arses for once and for all. I’m not sure there is any other viable candidate out there that can do it. He shares a lot of the positive views by his dad but he doesn’t come off as an Alex Jones type fringe guy like his dad did. That is my opinion.


  2. g8rmom7 says:

    I’ll add, it’s funny that you post this now. I just got finished sending his PAC a small donation to hopefully help him get the Senate and Congress to fight these executive orders. Not convinced they will be able to do it, but like I said above, you won’t find one of those rabid Paulbots going against him. And if he can harness the youth vote like his Dad almost did, it may work.

    At this point of course, I’m just holding out hope we will even have an election in 4 years. Praying.


  3. justfactsplz says:

    Not a bad idea in my opinion. He makes a stand for what he believes in and doesn’t just go with the flow like so many other politicians do. We could do a lot worse.


    • canadacan says:

      Rand Paul is hated by the traditional Republicans. Like 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea it’s a good start. There will always be a place for Rubio


      • justfactsplz says:

        Rubio could win, I know he could. He is another one that is not afraid to make a stand.


        • drkate says:

          Rubio is ineligible to be president. That Paul would consider Rubio just puts him in the same boat as all the other republicans–ignore the constitution.

          Rand Paul is a diversion, folks…we are better off NOT working with the R’s who just prove time and time again they are not up to the task of a Constitutional Republic.

          Rand Paul betrayed his father so he could continue to play the game.


        • Sharon says:

          He’s not eligible.


  4. jordan2222 says:

    I followed his Dad for over 20 years. He influenced me more than any living person. Without him, I would probably know nothing about the Austrian school or the Federal Reserve. My degree is in Finance in Economics so that gave me a fighting chance to learn a little about money and banking.

    Along with that, I began to read the Federalist Papers to have a better understanding of the Constitution even though I had studied both in school and ended up carrying a pocket copy and still do to this day.

    Rand is not exactly like Ron but he is the closest thing to it, so hell yes, he would get my support.

    Marco Rubio has already supported things I don’t so he would not be my choice.


  5. g8rmom7 says:

    I love Marco, but I don’t think he is what we need…he’s too establishment and will not get the Libertarian vote. And as uncomfortable as that group made me feel uncomfortable, I will bite the bullet because we have to save this country and we need to find someone who can convince the young people that freedom isn’t free. I’m telling you, if we don’t do something about the 30 and under crowd to realize that the conservative message IS to their advantage and not what the media presents…we are in trouble.


    • sundance says:

      It is the Jeb Bush aspect to Marco Rubio that turns me off….. THAT, and Rubio has never REALLY been vetted. He definately is the “establishment” choice 100%.


      • jwoop66 says:

        Ha! If he runs, you will see the left, with no concern for the irony or hypocrisy, rage on about how he is ineligible because he doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirement for Natural born citizenship. The media will be right there with them. I’d put money on it!


  6. wildninja says:

    Oh wait, but because he loves liberty he’s a dangerous extremist… not.


  7. west1890 says:

    I just want to throw in that thing that nobody seems to want to pay attention to when they tout Rubio or Jindal as a potential presidential candidate. Neither one is a NATURAL born citizen. They are NATIVE born but their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth, so either one being a candidate would be no different than illegals coming into Arizona from Mexico, the woman giving birth in an Arizona hospital and then they all pack up and go back to Mexico. The child would be NATIVE born, meaning born on US soil, but not NATURAL born-the child of two US citizens. In any case, Rubio, even if he were qualified, is too much a RINO and Rand Paul would be an excellent candidate.


  8. Sharon says:

    When listening to any candidate for POTUS over the next four years, I will lean toward the one who makes the fewest references to victim groups, big tents, “shaping our message,” minorities, revamping of immigration law, compromise, bipartisanship, the rich, Islam as a religion and social safety nets.

    Any groundswell interest in Rand Paul’s candidacy will be dominated by Ron Paul supporters who are desperate for a new love interest. They are an albatross around the neck of any candidate because giving them a hearing always seems to require knowledge of and 100% agreement with every itty-bitty thing Ron Paul ever said, in this or any previous life. They would eventually wear out any freestanding Rand Paul supporters because of their insistence on using his dad as their own litmus test on first generation, reality-based Rand Paul supporters.

    But–on the other hand: If the majority of the votes in 2016 are cast by people who want the free ice cream, they could dig LBJ up to run, and he’ll win. They can run Biden and he’ll win. They could run Chelsea, and she’d win. However, if the majority of the votes in 2016 are cast by people who want to preserve our Republic, either Mitt Romney or Richard Nixon (or Rand Paul) would win.

    Changing lawlessness and ignorance and greed into an intelligent love of freedom is not something any candidate can do anything about. So I submit that the ultimate winner of the 2016 election will not be determined by who the candidate is at that point: it will be determined by who the electorate is at that point.

    Will they have had enough? Will they have been properly dis-illusioned? Will they have conquered some basic math? Will enough of them have died off as a result of obamacare that the national IQ rises a bit?

    The 2016 electorate is the issue–not the identity of the candidate.


  9. Sharon says:

    See now, here’s something that bugs me. Rand Paul was on Hannitty tonight, and speaking fightin’ words:

    Senator Rand Paul was on Hannity tonight to discuss Barack Obama’s attempt today to ram through gun control measures by executive privilege. Paul is not a fan of Obama’s arrogance.

    “I’m very concerned about this president. FDR had a little bit of this king complex also. We had to limit FDR finally because he served so many terms that I think he would have ruled in perpetuity. I’m very concerned about this president garnering so much power and arrogance that he thinks he can do whatever he wants.”


    Really. We’ve been concerned about his power and arrogance for four years now.

    Now Rand Paul is a Senator. Since Rand Paul is a Senator, surrounded by a bunch of other Senators, I would like to know how many committees there are where even the minority party actually does have a speaking opportunity, where they might address the fact that “this president (is) garnering so much power and arrogance…”…Are there channels in the Senate for a Senator to address a serious issue like this?

    Are we going to see, going forward, an increasing % of the lines in Rand Paul’s date book filled with trips to Israel and interviews on Hannitty to lay the groundwork for a potential run in 2016? Who’s Senatoring while the candidates are electioneering?

    With the nation in the devastatingly dangerous position it’s in, on about 38.287 different fronts, do the Senators not have enough obligations and commitments and responsibilities with their Senatoring?? Don’t they have enough to do? How is it that they have so much time, four years out, that they can set aside massive swaths of time to go electioneering?

    I’d like to have the sense that there was equal time between electioneering and Senatoring. Everything’s a launch pad. Nobody wants to do their job. They just want to use it for a launch pad. Like a bunch of hyperactive kids wearing clothes a couple sizes too large. I’m sick of it.

    Too bad we don’t have a functioning Congress any more. Understand it was pretty good idea at one time. If Rand Paul would make such an amazing President, should he not be a functional, effective Senator who, along with other Senators, can actually make stuff happen in the position they presently hold? Or is it always and only FUTURE positions where they can make things happen?


    • canadacan says:

      I have researched this to my eyeballs are about ready to fall out. my phone has limitations either that or I don’t know how to handle it. therefore I have sent an email to the administrations were the folks uh regarding the subject of presidential eligibility. the Constitution is not clear I want to find the natural citizen therefore it has been determined by some sort of congressional committee or research in 2011 that if you are born in the United States regardless of the fact that you have both parents as aliens you are now considered a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president of the United States. I have written about this before and I’m not completely stupid Rubio is there for by definition eligible to run for president of the United States whether you like the guy or not


      • canadacan says:

        Typos are. Egregious. Today. This is what happens when I get frustrated and infuriated.


      • Sharon says:

        You think he’s eligible. Others don’t. Your response here clearly indicates that you have been aware for some time that there is considerable disagreement on this issue. Research should also show that thoughtful people have taken positions on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, if you believe that disagreement is the same as an accusation of stupidity, then there’s no way to disagree with you about anything.

        You apparently also assume that those who disagree with you do so because they dislike Rubio. In my case, you’d be wrong. When I initially realized he was not eligible I was disappointed. The very first time I applied the thought “we can’t have it both ways” was when I applied it to myself.

        When two people hold two different opinions on a matter, that does not inherently mean that one of them is stupid.The fact that someone disagrees with you really should not be infuriating.


        • canadacan says:

          I have a low level of frustration and I am a work in progress. This is a well informed site and I do not believe that anybody would not be interested in Rubio unless it was for political reasons and philosophical differences.
          However the eligibility Rubio and others like him with aliens as parents has been discussed before. the area regarding natural born citizen in the Constitution is a grey area. A person may disagreeagree with C theory behind Rubio’s eligibility as a presidential candidate. but he feels and evidently the law is with him at this point in time that he can run for president in the United States.


  10. 22tula says:

    by Andrew C. McCarthy – December 8, 2011

    Prosecuting Terrorists in domestic courts? November 29, 2011 – @ 5:00

    Publius Huldah – Ask Questions
    Excerpt – January 4, 2013

    9. Rand Paul has just proposed an amendment to ban abortion on demand.
    Is Rand Paul THAT IGNORANT of the Constitution’s provisions? Doesn’t he know that abortion is just one of the bazillion of issues reserved by the Constitution to the states and the people?
    How can he preach sermons about unconstitutional bills and limited Constitutional government when he introduces unconstitutional legislation on his own pet issues?
    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | January 4, 2013 | Reply

    For well over 100 years (this really goes back to the 1840s), the primary purposes of the American public schools have been to (1) destroy children’s minds so that they are rendered incapable of rational analysis, and (2) to socialize them into becoming drones of a national welfare state.

    Only a very few of us were able to resist this conditioning.

    And so, many people have been duped into believing the Pauls are great men! Rand Paul is as much of an ignorant idiot as his father. Rand Paul is all for the Balanced Budget Amendment. And we see that he doesn’t understand that the Constitution is about what WE THE PEOPLE authorized our “creature”, the federal government, to do (“enumerated powers”). It is not about what WE can and can’t do.
    Comment by Publius Huldah | January 4, 2013

    Excerpt – August 13, 2012
    23. Sens. Rand Paul and Jim DeMint are cosponsoring a bill called the National Right To Work Act. If passed and signed, it would implement the RTW across the entire country and overturn state laws on the matter. (So if your state does not have a RTW law and instead has a union-friendly statute, it would be overturned.)
    I would therefore like to ask you two questions which Sen. Paul has, so far, refused to answer:

    1) Where in the Constitution is there authorization for a National Right To Work Act as sponsored by Sen. DeMint and cosponsored by Sen. Paul?
    2) Do you agree that the true test of one’s fidelity to the Constitution comes not when one votes against things that he easily opposes, but when he votes on policies and things that he supports but which are nonetheless unconstitutional?
    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | August 13, 2012 | Reply

    You are correct. ALL matters pertaining to “labor”, “employment”, “wages & hours”, “unionization”, etc., etc. are outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress for the country at large.

    So any federal statute which purported to impose a national “right to work” law on the country at large would be UNconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress by The Constitution.

    Of course, within the Federal enclaves (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause), and in any remaining federal territories (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2), where Congress has general legislative authority, Congress could properly pass a “right to work” law.

    Also, within the Executive Branch, the President arguably would have authority to provide by Executive Order that federal employees working within the Executive Branch may not be required to join labor unions.

    I continually marvel at how Ron & Rand Paul ever got the reputation for being particular supporters of the Constitution.

    Re the two Pauls & Jim DeMint: I continually scratch my head: (1) Are they really so shallow? Is is possible that anyone is that stupid? Or, (2) Are they self-consciously evil people trying to mislead gullible TP people? Sadly, that is not a difficult thing to do.

    P.S. added Aug. 14, 2012: Here is a third possibility: (3) If the two Pauls and Jim DeMint have never read the U.S. Constitution, then they wouldn’t know that a federal “right to work” law is not among the enumerated powers of Congress. So it could be Ignorance.
    Comment by Publius/Huldah | August 13, 2012 |

    Obamabots vs. PaulBots by Marx
    Coming to a Kabuki Theater near you.


  11. jordan2222 says:

    It’s pretty clear that people either love Ron Paul or they think he is a nut job. Rand will probably be thought of in similar light but, overall, no one has more consistently voted in line with our Constitution than Ron Paul.

    I do know that an awful lot of young people have been positively influenced by Paul and have actually studied the Constitution as a result. OTH, I seriously doubt that even half of those on the Hill could ace a Constitutional exam

    IMO, passing a comprehensive exam should be a requirement for any public office similar to the bar exam.

    In spite of his shortcomings, for now I like Rand Paul over all over possible candidates.


    • canadacan says:

      I am absolutely with you if 1 wishes to hold public office they must have to pass a comprehensive exam on Constitution. Preferably this exam would be written by the Heritage Foundation for potential candidates for office


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s