‘Al-Quds’ #Brennan confirmed as CIA director

March 8, 2013

(Many Faces) The Senate confirmed John ‘al-Quds‘ Brennan as director of the CIA on Thursday afternoon. The vote was 63-34.
The Senate voted 63-34 in favor of Brennan, overcoming Republican Senator Rand Paul’s attempt to slow the White House counter-terrorism advisor from becoming the next head of the CIA.
Paul, who spent nearly 13 hours speaking on the Senate floor on Wednesday, was irate about the reluctance of President Barack Obama’s administration to declare that “targeted killings” of American citizens on US soil were unconstitutional.
Attorney General Eric Holder then clarified the administration’s policy on Thursday and said that Obama would not use his authority to order a drone to kill an American on US soil who was “not engaged in combat.”
With the man in charge of removing references to Islamic terrorism from all government manuals in charge of the CIA, what could go wrong? 

I’d be careful with the critics as well… I can certainly see a hypothetical reason why one would need to kill a US citizen on US soil with a drone. The questioning was too political. I’m no fan of Obama, but I would never limit the possibility for a military to protect it’s citizen in the most effective manner. Rand Paul’s question was what they call a gotcha question.


Benghazi: Hillary Clinton Asks What Difference It Makes?

January 23, 2013

(The PJ Tatler » [VIDEO] Pressed for Answers on Her Response to the Benghazi Attack, Hillary Clinton Fumes ‘What Difference Does It Make?’)Most of the Senate Republicans tasked with questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi failed to lay a glove on her. They never bothered to ask any questions regarding why she blamed the attack on a movie. Sen. Ron Johnson broke the pattern of weak questions, though, and asked Clinton about the talking points that the administration used after the attack to blame a YouTube movie. Clinton briefly flew into a rage.
h/t Washington Free Beacon

What difference does it make Hillary asks? As if going over the process that led to the deaths could not avoid the death. Amb. Stevens was giving weapons to Muslim Brotherhood groups. Those weapons are showing up in the hostage crises in Algeria. Hillary seems to think that the only victims in Benghazi were the four that died there. There is a systematic problem. Obama and Hillary were allied with the Muslims and Obama is still running things… in fact Obama by nominating Hagel has become more determined then ever to ram his dangerous views of killers into permanent U.S. policy

Republican Rand Paul calls for gradual cut in aid to Israel

January 7, 2013

If you thought Rand was different then Ron then you need medication. There is no equivalence between countries the U.S. buys allegiance to and countries that fight Islam for us. There is a difference between your friends and your business dealings.

“CHANGE” – U.S. senator calls for gradual cut in aid to Israel.(DS)(Many Faces) By Aron Heller. JERUSALEM (AP) – U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on Monday called for a gradual reduction of American foreign aid, delivering the message in an unlikely venue – since Israel is among the top recipients of American assistance. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, told reporters that the U.S. can’t afford to keep borrowing money and then handing it out to others, even to allies like Israel. “It will harder to be a friend of Israel if we are out of money. It will be harder to defend Israel if we destroy our country in the process,” he told the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an Israeli think tank. “I think there will be significant repercussions to running massive deficits … you destroy your currency by spending money you don’t have.” Paul, a longtime opponent of foreign aid, acknowledged he was expressing a “minority opinion” and doubted Congress would end foreign aid in his lifetime. “It’s unlikely anything changes, but I think it is worth discussing,” he said during his first trip to Israel. Israel gets about $3 billion a year in military aid from the U.S. Paul insisted Washington should first cut aid to countries with strained ties to America, such as Pakistan and Egypt, and only later wean Israel off aid. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously stated he was interested in doing that. Paul said the aid, used in large part by Israel and Egypt to buy U.S. weapons, was creating an arms race in the Middle East that could ultimately harm Israel, not help it. “I’m concerned that some of the weaponry that we are currently giving to Egypt may one day be used against Israel,” he said. Most American military assistance to Israel must be spent on U.S.-made equipment, providing a boost to the military industry there. Paul suggested Israel would actually benefit from less aid, saying it would enhance its sovereignty by not having to approach the U.S. “on bended knee” when making its own decisions. “I don’t think you need to call me on the phone to ask permission for what you want to do to stop missiles from raining down on you from Gaza,” he said.Read the full story here.

Did anyone not see this coming?

The Deal Between Romney and Paul?

February 27, 2012

(American Thinker) It is becoming increasingly obvious that an alliance has formed between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. This alliance probably has been in effect for several months, but only now has it become blatantly obvious. Paul has viciously bombarded virtually the entire Republican field via attack ads with one exception: Mitt Romney. Instead, Paul focuses like a laser on any conservative alternative who moves up the ladder.
At first, I believed this was merely a strategy to politically assassinate the Romney alternative so that Paul himself could fill the void; however, I am thinking there is much more going on behind the scenes than initially meets the eye. Here’s my theory (and it’s just that — a theory): Mitt Romney has informed Ron Paul that he will be selecting his son, Rand Paul, as his VP should he become the nominee.
But wait, you say — Romney is a politician’s politician: he will say and do just about anything to get elected. He’s flip-flopped on every major issue, accused his opponents of such outlandish things as supporting China’s one-child policy, and managed to tick-off and isolate virtually all of his former competitors via his well-coordinated political Death Star smear machine (see Giuliani, Thompson). How, therefore, could Ron Paul trust Romney on this speculative promise?
Easy: Ron Paul has taken out an insurance policy. Mitt Romney has guaranteed Paul Senior that Paul Junior will be his nominee because he knows that if he stabs the Pauls in the back, Ron will simply run third party and torpedo any chance Mitt may have at the White House. This way, Ron is guaranteed that Mitt won’t back down from his promise, and Mitt is guaranteed Ron won’t spin-off and run as an independent. It also gives Ron the only thing he ever really wanted: influence in the party.
Several people–including the Santorum campaign–have suggested that Mitt may have made a deal to make Ron his running mate. There’s about a snowball’s chance in hell that this will happen. Let’s face it: these two men are polar opposites when it comes to policy and their overall worldview. Should Ron Paul sign on with the establishment’s favorite candidate, he will have eliminated his currently impenetrable perception of authenticity among his base of supporters.
Plus, let’s be honest, Ron Paul hasn’t been vetted by the mainstream media. If he were on the ticket, the media would have a field day digging up all his past writings and associations. Hell, the guy warned of a “coming race war” and suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was an “inside job.” Not to mention the support he’s garnered from individuals such as white separatist David Duke, a man Ron praised back in 1990.
The Paulites can complain all they want about how his old newsletters are just a conspiracy (like everything) against their candidate, but let’s face it: if stories like these were plastered on every news network in America throughout the entire month of October, the campaign would be toast. And they both know it. Ron knows that he doesn’t have a legitimate shot at the White House, and Mitt’s intelligent enough to understand that placing Ron on the bottom of the ticket would be political suicide.
Enter Rand.  The admission by Rand that “it would be an honor to be considered” as Romney’s veep is a bizarre thing to say considering he’s currently campaigning for his father, who is supposedly running against the man.
The junior Paul already is a rising star among Tea Party activists and shares most of the same libertarian-leaning principles of his father. Rand doesn’t have his father’s baggage and is a young and articulate spokesman for limited government. He walks the line between conservatism and libertarianism — often bridging the two philosophies — and is viewed as the more pragmatic and levelheaded of the Pauls by people like, well, me.
This alliance would essentially kill three birds with one stone and guarantee Republican content in November. First, it would give the “establishment” beltway types their guy, pleasing the old bulls in the party and the Karl Roves and Ann Coulters of the world. Second, those conservatives reluctant to support a wishy-washy mush candidate like Mitt, who has thus far successfully managed to divide the party with his bombardment of character assassination attacks on “fellow” limited-government office seekers, will hold their noses and vote for the guy if a “true conservative” like Rand were also on the ticket. Conservatives will believe (wishfully) that Rand will hold Mitt’s feet to the fire when it comes to policy implementation. They will also see this as an opportunity to have a Tea Party member in a position of significant power and influence, a potential launching pad for Rand’s young political career should he pursue the office himself one day.
Lastly, with Rand on the ticket, Ron now has cover to support Mitt — a candidate almost diametrically opposite him — due to his son (a much more moderate libertarian conservative). This brings over not just the Ron Paulites (who, caught up in a cult-like swirl, would never support anybody but Paul or his son no matter who was running) but also independent-minded libertarian voters. I could foresee libertarian publications endorsing the ticket, claiming that their philosophy is on the rise, and with the younger Paul only one step below the presidency.
With moderate Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians united behind a Romney-Paul ticket, the party should have no trouble launching a legitimate shot at the White House come November.

it’s a theory that works… how often did Ron Paul attack Romeny? Not much

Sarah Palin rides shotgun?

May 29, 2011
Can you imagine Obama creating awareness to MIA’s or POW’s on a motorcycle?…yes…I can imagine Obama on a motorcycle…I can imagine him in a Gay Biker bar too. …not a Palin hater… just want to get that out, but what was with the guy screa ming to people to get out of here? bit rude… and not professional… further he doesn’t have a right to do what he did. Palin’s support of Israel is great, though she should never of backed a hater like Rand Paul… and that is the source of the problem. She is a person I really want to like, but she surrounds herself with people like this biker guy who needs to be taught a lesson about the Constitution. …she had better start talking about her relationship with the Paul people and why she sold Israel out for a few nasty Paultard Tea Party trash.  Rolling Thunder” 2011, Black Leather, “loves the smell of emissions” via The Mad Jewess

Is Rand Paul the Tea Party? Is he anti-Israel?

November 26, 2010

The New York Times raises the concern that Israel is becoming a partisan issue (in fact, it has been one for at least the last two years) in the US Congress, but frets that some Republicans may not be as supportive of Israel as we would like them to be. However, the Times only has one example: Rand Paul.

Scores of Tea Party-backed candidates are entering Congress, many of whom favor isolationist policies and are determined to cut American foreign aid, regardless of its destination. Rand Paul, the newly elected Tea Party-backed senator from Kentucky, bluntly told the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, that they were going to disagree about the need for foreign aid and suggested that they move on to other topics, according to a person briefed on the meeting.

Yet the Tea Party-backed lawmakers remain something of a mystery. One of their brightest stars, Marco Rubio, went on a personal trip to Israel days after winning his Florida Senate race. But pro-Israel analysts point out that Mr. Paul once said he did not view an Iran with one nuclear bomb as a threat, though he has subsequently been more hawkish. Mr. Paul did not reply to a request for comment.

Yes, there may be an issue with Rand Paul. But the same issues exist with some Democrats as well (Keith Ellison?).

But is the Tea Party Rand Paul or is it Marco Rubio? And didn’t most of the Tea Party candidates (Christine O’Donnell) supposedly lose anyway?

I’ll put up with one Rand Paul if the rest of the Republicans are more pro-Israel than their Democratic colleagues. Marco Rubio? John Boehner? Eric Cantor? Mike Pence? Do I need to go on?

Read the whole thing.

I have a feeling this may just be the Times trying to head off a massive flood of Jewish votes to the Republicans in 2012. I’m inclined to wait and see how Paul behaves once the new Congress is in session.


For a more positive view of Tea Party support for Israel, go here.

The Times also expresses concern about foreign aid to Israel, but the truth is that what Israel needs (and mostly gets) is military aid, much of which is paid for in cash or in kind, albeit generally at a discount.

Rand Paul The Myth vs. Reality

June 24, 2010

As you know, Rand is Ron Paul’s son and he’s also the GOP nominee in Kentucky

Those that thought the Conservatives catering to Hezbollah in Michigan wasn’t Anti-Antisemitism, I’m certain will be sympathetic to Rand Paul.