Many people are framing the difference between the “libertarian wing” of the GOP against the “Decepticon wing” of the GOP establishment, as a point where libertarians meet left-wing progressives on the political spectrum. (Looking at you Brit Hume)
This is ideologically and fundamentally wrong, and leading to confusion. So let me interject after the Hannity video and reset the framework so that a larger understanding is intellectually absorbed. First the video:

Here is where the Patriot movement gets lost amid the talking heads.
Instead of talking about, thinking about, and framing reference points around, a political continuum as a circle; I would present the basis a larger context is needed.
I would also present an opinion that people are not stupid.   Patriots are quite able to understand big issues, and both sides need to remember that as they present their positions.
But again, I would strongly urge everyone to stop thinking about a “political continuum”, and start thinking about a “freedom continuum.” Shifting the mental paradigm to define distinctions around freedom.
Forget the politics of whomever is presenting the idea being discussed.
Political continuums are, by their very nature, circles. Freedom continuums however, are lateral lines that never meet.
You are either free, or you are not.
That is the way conversations need to be considered.
Yes, if you accept the politics of Chris Christie and Rand Paul, against the backdrop of political narratives, then Rand Paul lines up with some left-wing progressive perspectives.
You will note this is shown at the conclusion of this outline.  However, if you reconcile the positions of either party against a linear consideration of freedom – the distinction between them becomes crystal clear.
Think of a number line between -0- and 20.   Ten being the middle point. This is the Freedom Continuum.
On the Zero end of the scale you have the abject lack of freedom or totalitarian communism. Pure, big and massive governmental authority over the individual.
On the twenty end of the scale you have the abject lack of government, and total and complete freedom.   However, this is also abject anarchy, without rules, laws or regulations to govern individual behavior.   Survival of the fittest regulates activity, so that’s not good either.
Around the mid-point is a pure Democracy, where the majority decide what rules are followed and what freedoms can be enjoyed.   Despite years of indoctrination, it is important to affirm, this consideration was never a construct of our nations founding.
Democracy sucks, because the minority is ruled by, and their freedoms removed by, the majority.  Democracy is also given to emotional rule based on current events;  In addition pure Democracy can be corrupted by silver-tongued liars (See Egypt last week).

Again, continuing to reference “freedom” as the qualifier. We were founded as a constitutional republic.
Meaning –  smaller segments of the entire nation (states) could determine for themselves which rules would apply to their smaller group. The larger Federal government was then given a list of things it could impart as rules upon everyone in all segments.
However, any rules not outlined were reserved expressly for the smaller segments. See the 10th amendment.
So we were founded around a 15ish’ position on the 20 point linear scale. Some government was needed, some individual freedom’s restricted, but the vast majority of rules governing those freedoms would be determined closest to the individual.
There is no point where this continuum bends and meets the other end. That is an abject fallacy.
Rand Paul is advocating for Freedom, pushing the conversation toward the right side of this continuum. Chris Christie is advocating for a lack of individual freedom, pushing the conversation toward the left side of this continuum. Diametric opposites in the direction they advocate for.
There is also no place where Rand Paul meets progressives. It is impossible for individualists (right side of scale) to camp with collectivists (left side of scale) on a freedom continuum.
So in the regard of freedom, Rand Paul is correct, or most correct.
However, Rand Paul goes off the rails when he takes positions like his father, Ron Paul, believing isolation is the preferred course of U.S. freedom.
This begets the entire principle of someone, in some nation, standing firm amid the cries of all adversity against global collectivists.
There is a reason that Ronald Reagan talked about the “beacon,” and the “city on the hill.”
There must be an ideology somewhere in the world, where “freedom” is the primary consideration behind liberty.
There must be a place where people, from any nation, can look and see opportunity, hope, and the capacity to engage in a principle of “striving” toward some better sense of accomplishment.
That place has been The United States of America. It is the construct of this freedom principle which has been attacked relentlessly for decades;  And the self loathing left has continually railed against the fabric of freedom, thereby diminishing the light from the beacon of hope.
The flaw in the Ron Paul / Rand Paul outward view of isolation is never more pronounced than when they deflect acceptance that our dollar is the global currency;   With all of the implications inside that factual construct there are particular responsibilities the United States must uphold.
One of them is to provide security for the freedom beacon to be seen by individuals in all nations.
Yes, that means we have a responsibility to maintain a military of such global significance we can protect the aspirations of any, and all, nations who also seek to advance their own shining light.
Such was the case following World War II when we afforded the beaten and battered European Continent the capacity to rebuild itself internally, while we stood guard atop the wall of their homeland defense.
Our military strategically positioned in such significance so they could focus on their internal economic construct.
We retain this position, throughout the world, today.
In return for this global presence to defend freedom, the industrial westernized nations trade between themselves in our currency.   This allows the citizens of this nation a far greater standard of living because our reserve bank can spend without devaluing our currency.
In essence our currency is propped by all nations, and subsequently every Americans’ standard of living is higher than the nations who support it.
See how that works?
However, this also means we have a responsibility not to be greedy, excessive or glutinous with our choices and printing presses. When we are greedy, manipulative or excessive, we risk the admonition from any nation who takes exception to our engagements and the manner in which we choose to engage.
THAT, my friends and truthseekers is also the REAL reason why Osama Bin Laden attacked the WORLD TRADE CENTER, the heart of U.S. Global economic commerce. It was that message, that very specific message, of taking exception, OBL delivered for the entire world to see.
The ‘freedom-police’ responsibility is the very responsibility the Ron Pauls’ and the Rand Pauls’ do not want the United States to carry.
However, if they remove that responsibility -especially now- the financial collapse against the average American will be staggering to witness.
It is, however, also this potential for collapse, that lies at the very heart and center of the goals for the Fabians.

Remember: “Remould it closer to the heart’s desire.”

How can they take control? By taking away your freedom. How do you take freedom? Take away financial liberty, private ownership and attach you to the collective society.  Permanently extinguishing for all time the beacon of light atop the Hill of Our Republic.
So while Rand Paul is walking in the opposite direction to Chris Christie on this issue, until Paul accepts the U.S. having a GLOBAL SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY, ultimately the outcome puts both Christie and Paul in the same place.
Patriots who value freedom should recoil from both.