Rand Paul Exposes the ‘Great Covid Cover-up’

In an explosive new op-ed, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed that at least 15 separate federal agencies knew that attempts to create a COVID-19-like coronavirus were being undertaken at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as early as January 2018.

Yet, heads of these agencies did not reveal this information to the public; for years, they actively refused to release information on the project to lawmakers such as Paul, who were attempting to provide congressional oversight.

“For years, I have been fighting to obtain records from dozens of federal agencies relating to the origins of COVID-19 and the DEFUSE project,” wrote Paul, who in March revealed he was formally launching a bipartisan investigation into the virus’s origins with Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan.

The DEFUSE project refers to a proposal submitted by EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based nongovernmental organization headed by British zoologist Peter Daszak, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The purpose of the proposal was to “insert a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus to create a novel chimeric virus.”

Paul also identified two additional parties who were part of the original plan to create chimeric coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab: the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the federal agency formerly headed up by Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Dr. Ian Lipkin, a professor of epidemiology and one of the authors of the now-disgraced “Proximal Origin” paper. The authors of the paper, which was published in Nature in March 2020, stated that evidence clearly indicated that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally, even though privately, the authors expressed clear concerns that evidence suggested the virus was genetically designed.

Some scientists have already raised ethical concerns in response to the revelation.

“We now know Ian Lipkin was part of the initial DEFUSE proposal,” said Bryce Nickels, a professor of genetics at Rutgers University, in response to the revelation. “Everything he has said about COVID origins and his role in the fraudulent ‘Proximal Origins’ paper must now be reconsidered in the wake of these new revelations.”

It’s not just Lipkin, of course.

All of these parties failed to speak up when COVID-19, one of the deadliest viruses in a century, emerged from Wuhan, Paul says, and details of the DEFUSE project may not have come to light at all if not for a whistleblower (identified as Lt. Col. Joseph Murphy).

More details of what the Kentucky senator calls “the Great COVID Cover-up” are likely to materialize as Paul and Peters continue their investigation. But an abundance of evidence already shows it’s no exaggeration to use that word: cover-up.

Paul is hardly the first government official to use the term.

Nearly a year ago, David Asher, a bioweapons specialist who led the State Department’s investigation into the origins of COVID-19, sat down with New York magazine journalist David Zweig and explained why there has been so little progress made in discovering the origins of COVID: Those with institutional power don’t want answers.

“It’s a massive coverup spanning from China to DC,” Asher said. “Our own state department told us, ‘Don’t get near this thing, it’ll blow up in your face.’”

Other government whistleblowers have also attempted to expose the cover-up.

In August, the CIA confirmed that the agency was “looking into” allegations from a CIA whistleblower who claimed that analysts tasked with determining the origins of COVID were offered “significant” financial incentives to change their assessment that COVID likely emerged accidentally from the Wuhan lab. (It’s worth noting that Fauci allegedly was admitted to agency headquarters “without a record of entry” while the CIA was conducting its investigation into COVID’s origins.)

The reason the government would cover up DEFUSE becomes obvious when one analyzes the nature of the proposal, which British author Matt Ridley weeks ago noted included a great many “wacky” (and reckless) ideas such as spraying vaccines into bat caves to immunize them.

“In the end, what they were doing was making more dangerous viruses, with a view of understanding them,” Ridley said. “It looks very strongly as if in trying to prevent a pandemic they may have caused one.”

While we still do not know this for certain, it looks increasingly likely that COVID-19 was born of gain-of-function research that was partially funded by the U.S. government.

Though this result would be shocking to many, especially those who see the state as virtuous and infallible, it’s far less surprising to students of history and economics.

“The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments,” Ludwig von Mises explained in Omnipotent Government. “The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.”

The reason for this is obvious. The more power is concentrated, the less accountable it becomes, and power without accountability is a recipe for disaster.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner.

Source: Rand Paul Exposes the ‘Great Covid Cover-up’ – FEE

Rand Paul Exposes the ‘Great Covid Cover-up’

Congress’s 4,155-Page Omnibus Bill Is a Symbol of American Decadence

On December 20th a handful of Republican senators shuffled before an audience of reporters prepared to issue fiery polemics on the year-end omnibus bill which sat, heavy and ponderous in all its eight-ream absurdity on a wheeled cart before the five-senator assemblage.

“DANGER: $1.7 trillion of hazardous debt” read one of the mock-hazard signs decking the cart. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul declared the bill an “abomination,” while Utah Senator Mike Lee skewered the unseemly pressures to freeze it into law by proclaiming the process “legislative barbarism.”

 

Every year it happens with textbook repetition: Washington politicians procrastinate in releasing a colossal expense prospectus for the following year which unfailingly runs thousands of pages, requests billions of dollars, and is granted mere hours of scrutiny before being thrust to a congressional vote. The process is riddled with partisan intimidations and shrewd slandering. Democratic politicians trot out folksy pleas about supporting struggling Americans, to which, naturally, passing the bill is postured to achieve. Most Republicans cave to its smothering inevitability; a minority bitterly protest. 

The omnibus bill earns its name from its practice of absorbing a collection of smaller bills into one vote. You might be tempted to call this government efficiency, but think again. In reality, it’s the gateway of legislative sloppiness and profligacy. And you might be tempted to believe Washington’s Christmas tradition is paternal benevolence for the common man but this too is a smokescreen. If our political overlords actually cared for our future in the manner of responsible stewards they would not bankrupt the nation. They would not smuggle dozens of silly congressional pet projects into our legislative initiatives. They would not make a mockery of the political process by demanding decisions on bills scarcely proffered hours of review. They would not egregiously spend money we did not have. They would not thoughtlessly shovel funds to any hungry bureaucratic mouth in the country. They would not insult American taxpayers by destroying our currency, snowballing our debt, and wrapping it all in a veneer of charity and Progress. Grim and apocalyptic though this indictment may be, it is nevertheless the bitter truth. 

Desensitization 

As Americans, we have become numb to the money-gobbling maneuvers of the bureaucratic machine. We hardly flinch at billion-dollar price tags, not because we do not cognitively register such a number as large but because we feel detached from its significance. We do not feel connected to its consequences. We don’t even feel particularly sure about what the spending figures should be, so bewildered by the dizzying complexity of contemporary American politics are we. We put our fingers to the glass and watch but we cannot seem to stretch our fingers out and really touch the harrowing reality of a $1.7 trillion bill or a $31 trillion in national debt. Such numbers fail to disquiet our consciences. Why? 

Here are a few potential reasons.

1. Nobody talks about fiscal conservatism anymore. Republicans love to rhapsodize about this fixture of their intellectual tradition but few are those who actually extend this principle from token rhetoric to the necessary scolding and refashioning efforts of current regimes. No matter whether they claim democratic or republican status, administrations do a sordid job of expenditure restraint. This equivalence between the parties is sobering indeed, indicating that the majority of republicans do not know how to defend small-government and balanced budgets with any authentic confidence. You might hear “fiscal conservatism” sprinkled throughout the campaign trail for its old-fashioned appeal and knack for attracting votes, but it is no longer practiced by those in Washington. Longtime champion of fiscal restraint Sen. Rand Paul has made entreaties for years that are drowned out by the opportunism and apathy swarming the Capitol.
2. Nobody is sure why fiscal conservatism even matters: Government money has been lamentably scrubbed of morality. It bears no qualms about tempering its quantity or maintaining its quality due to an ethical contract with the people. Money has no scruples attached to it anymore. The modern conscience conceives of it as a hollow instrument; a neutral tool to get from A to B. But what is money really made of? Where does it get its value? In what ways can it be a wonderful thing and in what ways can it equally be a dangerous thing? Few care to mull these questions.
3. Nobody quite feels the consequences of reckless spending yet: Because we raise debt ceilings with impunity and have thrown that old burden of balancing budgets out the window, we stay disconnected from the ramifications of fiscal hedonism. It is hard enough for politicians to make difficult choices that affect life beyond their term limits, because where's the motivation in that? And so, money becomes this distant, untouchable relic that no one wants to poke at.

And so, not only have we lost a certain emotional reaction to government spending (i.e. an instinctual discernment of when it hits a threshold of moral questionability) but we have also lost an intellectual grasp of it (i.e. an understanding of why extravagance cannot persist in perpetuity.) All of this adds up to a mass desensitization that leaves us dangerously acclimated to an environment that pretends money is a plaything and not actually the beating heart a civilization. 

Here are some of the ways in which this unlucky acclimatization has occurred: 

1. Money added is rarely scaled back: In government, addition is the path of least resistance. Subtraction has poor incentives, can be politically painful, and sounds mean and parsimonious to us Americans who see government as our rightful pursestrings and sympathetic caretaker.
2. Added bureaucracy is rarely reviewed or pruned: More money inevitably feeds more bureaucratic cubicles. Bureaucracy is a curious animal: one that has a considerable appetite for more money and workers and administrative projects, but one that also has a deadening effect and leaves decay in its wake. In this way, bureaucracy has always bizarrely appeared to me as a life/death personification. If one thing is for sure, it will seek to justify its existence and once breathed form by taxpayer dollars, will lunge for more funds to legitimize its continuance. 

3. Law becomes more complex and disorienting: As sentences rain from keyboards and paper churns from the printer and more thousand-page legal monstrosities are produced, we end up building on a (new-ish) toxic American tradition of unintelligible, byzantine law. The less lucid and graspable the law is to the public, the less accountable government becomes—and the more fuzzy the political vision of the masses grows. After all, do we even know what laws were passed in the year-end omnibus bill? More worryingly still, do our politicians even know? Is this state of affairs normal? Would we call it a natural progression? I would warn against this particular temptation: the temptation to believe that increasing complexity is a sign of sophisticated progress, of governmental fine-tuning. It is not. It tangles with its serpentine requests and chokes with its punishing demands. And it throws a veneer of precision and compassion (owing to its seeming charity) over it all. As a general rule of thumb, when edicts becomes more profuse and complex and fail to remain concise and coherent to the public, they are unequivocally not serving the masses. (They are probably serving the elites.)

Post-Empire Flavor

What does one see when they gaze upon a 4,155-page bill? A symbol of American decadence. A pile of legal jargon so exhaustive its efforts look undeniably frantic. This utter excess inspires notions of blind mania. What are we doing and why? Is there any principle behind governmental motion? Are there any scraps of real thought or prudence? Or is the impetus merely zombie-like bureaucratic appetite? No matter how comprehensive and caring we would like our present government to appear, the rot cannot be fully concealed. An eight-ream bill is no sign of legislative nobility. It is an insult to the common people. It makes for a ridiculous picture of thoughtless excess. It just looks stupid at first glance. This intuitive, gut-level reaction is important. It’s the embarrassing truth of our attempts at managerial sophistry laid bare. It’s worth mentioning that empire decline is marked by an apathetic watering-down of principle, by money deterioration, and by administrative overextension. Check, check, check. 

Size Matters

The larger government grows, the more money it absorbs; sure. But the less functional it becomes too. It ossifies, and its vibrant principles start to decay under the dead weight.

Once a certain threshold in size is reached (and who’s to say exactly where that is) organization lapses into oppression. Vibrancy lapses into atrophy. And decent functionality lapses into chaotic disarray. The lesson?

Overreach and you snuff out life. Congress’ proud 4,155-page creation is a post-empire emblem if there ever was one. Do not be fooled by the legislation’s size: it represents a floundering American system, not a vibrant one.

Lauren Reiff

Lauren is a writer of economics, psychology, and lots in between. To read more of her work, follow her on Medium.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Congress’s 4,155-Page Omnibus Bill Is a Symbol of American Decadence

Rand Paul Is Leading a Bipartisan Effort to Fix One of the Government’s Worst Immigration Laws

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bipartisan bill alongside Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) on Wednesday that provides a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 200,000 “Documented Dreamers.”

What’s a “Documented Dreamer?” I’m glad you asked, as many American citizens remain unaware of the significant problems a person might face to “come here legally.”

The term is used to refer to the children of long-term visa holders in the US who were brought to the country by parents or guardians.

Typically, their families are waiting for decades on the green card backlog, sort of like a waiting room for legal status. In this circumstance, a child is essentially kicked out of their place in line when they come of age.

Other dreamers have parents who came here on a business visa or another type of visa, and many of these actually punish people if they attempt to get a green card. These families, and their children, are therefore never in line for a green card to begin with—even if they own businesses in the US.

As the law currently stands, these children must self-deport when they come of age. Some are able to legally stay past their 21st birthday if they go to college on a student visa, but that’s usually the end of the road. This means they face returning to countries they have largely never known as they enter adulthood. Many of them do not speak the language or understand the culture. Their families and their entire way of life are in the US, yet they become a criminal overnight based on an arbitrary birthday.

Paul and Padilla’s new legislation is called the America’s Children Act, and it’s pretty straightforward.

The bill would provide a pathway to permanent residency (which is different from citizenship) for dreamers. Under this proposal, the child’s age would be locked into line for a green card on the day they file for one, rather than based on the date the government actually gets to their application. It also allows Dreamers to work while they wait starting at age 16, and continuing into adulthood so long as they graduate college.

For over a decade, the country has been at a stalemate on immigration. And while the policy discussions rage, many forget that there are real lives hanging in the balance. Both major political parties continue to put people in border camps, both continue to deport large numbers of people, and both continue to direct our law enforcement agencies to apprehend people based on their immigration status.

The issue with the Dreamers is yet another example of that. Forcing a child to leave their family and rip their lives apart due to government backlog is a heinous thing to do. Put yourself in their shoes, in their family’s shoes. They’ve tried to do things the “right” way and are still sentenced to such a fate.

On top of that, we waste valuable resources policing these innocent people’s immigration status. Imagine what could be done to stop real crime and violence with those resources. If anyone is actually concerned about nefarious people coming across our border, they ought to be the loudest calling for streamlined immigration. Let the people who just want to live and work do just that, and then we could focus our attention on actual crime.

When it comes to the Dreamers, it is important to remember that their status is more a factor of government backlog than it is a question of whether or not they should be allowed to be here. And while they wait for that verdict, operating under constant threat from our officials, this community continues to be a tremendous value add for our economy, contributing $42 billion to our annual GDP. These are the people we want here.

The fact that a young person could be torn from their family and home, just as they are embarking on adulthood is a chilling one. It is imperative that we find a way to ensure these lives are no longer hanging in the balance. Doing so will make us a richer country, economically, culturally, and morally.

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

No, Rand Paul Didn’t Have It Coming

I read Elie Mystal’s article on Rand Paul’s assault, which suggests such violent encounters are the inevitable result of libertarianism in practice. He makes two errors. First, he contends Rand Paul ignores the rules of his HOA based on his libertarian philosophy. Second, he contends basing a legal framework on the libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) is unworkable.

Private Contracts

Regarding the first error, libertarianism is based on the sanctity of voluntary contracts. An HOA is a perfect example of what libertarians would replace zoning regulations with – an enforceable contract voluntarily entered into by every individual, instead of a set of rules imposed on the whole by a supposed majority. Mystal conflates voluntary contracts with regulations near the end of his piece, writing, “Rand Paul’s broken ribs are a g**damn case study in why we need regulations.” This begs the question, “Why do we need regulations, rather than just enforcement of the HOA?”

 

Neither Mystal nor I know the terms of Rand Paul’s HOA contract, but if they prohibit either pumpkin patches or compost heaps, then Rand Paul appears to be in violation of that contract. Libertarians would side with the HOA, not Rand Paul. However, the HOA contract also provides penalties for violation of the terms, which I’m fairly certain don’t include bum-rushing him and breaking his ribs.

This all assumes there is any truth to reports Senator Paul used his property in ways his neighbors found offensive, whether compliant with the letter of his HOA agreement or not. Several of his neighbors have come forward since Mystal’s piece was written to refute those reports.

Even in the absence of a written agreement, libertarians recognize longstanding local conditions as binding on new property owners. Thus, I cannot come into a quiet community and build an airport on my land, subjecting my neighbors to the noise and other inconveniences of having an airport border their land. By the same token, I cannot buy the land next to an existing airport and then demand the airport stop making noise or doing the other things an airport must do to conduct its business. This principle extends to all sorts of questions, including air pollution, zoning, etc. Murray Rothbard wrote about this concept many times. Here is an example.

The Non-Aggression Principle

Second, Mystal’s article includes this passage:

You can do what you want and I can do what I want and, so long as we’re not hurting anybody, the government can do nothing.” It’s… cute, as theories of social interactions go. It’s not a workable basis for law and governance.

I would refer the writer to this passage from Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural address:

With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. [emphasis added]

In fact, Jefferson reiterated the NAP as the basis for law and governance many times over the course of his life. Examples include this, this and this.

Rather than a “cute theory of social interaction,” the NAP was the guiding principle of American liberty for well over a century until Woodrow Wilson specifically called it out as no longer adequate for what he considered too complex a society for the NAP to govern. Libertarians disagree with Wilson. Mystal may not. But it would be a much more valuable discussion if libertarianism would at least be represented correctly when criticized, rather than presented in the cartoonish fashion our sound bite media so often resort to.

Reprinted from tommullen.net

Tom Mullen


Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom's writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Rand Paul says “My liberty message is still winning”

Rand Paul says “My liberty message is still winning”


Rare Politics comes from a libertarian-conservative perspective, so naturally we were disappointed when the most libertarian candidate dropped out of the Republican presidential primary.

In his first national interview since leaving the race, I sat down with Senator Rand Paul to look back on his campaign, talk about what went wrong and perhaps most importantly—what the future holds for the liberty movement.

Sen. Paul was upbeat and optimistic, not what you might expect to find in a candidate that fought hard for the nomination but who’s campaign ended with disappointing results.

Rand Paul says despite the fact that his presidential run is over, his liberty message is still winning.

What does he mean?

Rare: You have many passionate supporters, particularly young people, who feel like they don’t have a candidate now that you’re gone. Some still plan to vote for you. Some are looking at other candidates. Some vow to stay home.

This is your first opportunity to talk directly to them since leaving the race—what would you like to say?

Rand Paul: That I was amazed at the outpouring of support, and I think in some ways it wasn’t as well documented by a lot of the media, what kind of support we got from the college students.

The Students for Rand group, I think we had 500 college campuses. It was a big effort. At any point in time in the last couple of weeks, in the Des Moines headquarters, we’d have 300 or 400 college students making phone calls.

I know some of them were probably disappointed that we weren’t able to go on. But we felt like we needed to exceed expectations. We were polling around 5 percent, and we got 5 percent. The good news is we beat several establishment figures, Bush, Kasich, Christie and Fiorina. But, we didn’t feel like we had enough momentum to go on and do better in New Hampshire.

So we had to make that decision really, that’s the U.S. Senate, for now. I’m running for re-election and so I have to continue with that same message and same energy but really on a state level, not the national level.

Rare: So maybe you would recommend them being invested in your senate campaign?

Well they can be, (the senator said, grinning) we’ll still have opportunities for people to come to Kentucky and help us.

But also we want them to continue with the groups they started on the college campuses. Its’ really not so much about an individual, it’s about this liberty movement, which are ideas. And you know, the famous saying ‘ideas have consequences,’ or that ideas are stronger than armies.

That is our hope, that people will get involved in the liberty movement, and that this movement grows over time to someday be dominant enough to have a nominee of a major party.

Rare: In 2014, the New York Times said we might be on the verge of a “libertarian moment” in our politics. When you left the race, critics were eager to say the libertarian moment was over. What do you say to those critics?

Rand Paul: I think they oversimplify things. If you ask what are the issues and ideas that are part of the ‘libertarian moment’ or the liberty moment, I would put in there a constitutional foreign policy or a more reasonable foreign policy. I think we’re winning on that issue.

If you ask the general public now, after the Republican debates and really after a little bit of the Democrat debates: Is it a good idea to have regime change? Is it a good idea to topple Gaddafi in Libya? Are we safer or less safe? Is the region more stable or more chaotic?

I think the facts on the ground—we’re actually winning on that.

If you ask them, should we go into Syria now and topple Assad? Would we be better off? I think now many people are asking the follow up question, which is ‘what happens after Assad?’ Maybe ISIS actually grows stronger or fills that vacuum? Maybe arming the allies of ISIS also helped ISIS to grow stronger?

So I think we’re winning on that debate.

The fact that I didn’t win the election, I don’t think represents whether those ideas are winning. Because in presidential politics, I can’t tell you how many times people come up to say they agree, even people who didn’t vote for me.

Since I’ve been more active in some meetings here in Washington, some people come up to me from both sides who are very complimentary as to the ideas and issues and saying ‘don’t stop talking about foreign policy, don’t stop talking about criminal justice reform.’

So I think we can win the issues battles sometimes and not win an election.

Rand Paul Poised to Stage Massive Upset in Iowa

Rand Paul Poised to Stage Massive Upset in Iowa


Paul adviser Steve Grubbs, who is heading up his Iowa operation, recently spoke about it toBreitbart news:

“Seventeen to twenty-seven thousand votes is win, place or show” Paul’s top Iowa adviser Steve Grubbs told Breitbart News, coming off a rally attended by 150 Iowans. Grubbs is the former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. He previously led Bob Dole and Steve Forbes to great success in the Iowa caucus. Now he’s working at the top of Rand PAC.

“We have 1,019 precinct campaigns in every corner of the state,” Grubbs said. “He’s peaking at just the right time. Four years ago, Rick Santorum was in last place 23 days out. He rose to win it. There’s been a lot of movement here in the last three weeks. If you want to be in the right place at the right time, you need to have the ground game ready to go.”

“For the first time since 2000, the caucus will occur while college is in session,” Grubbs said. “We have campus organizations at more than twenty University of Iowa colleges and universities.

“They’ll register at the caucus,” Grubbs said of his younger libertarian-minded voters. “It’s better to register the day of the caucus. If you register January 10 at your local county auditor, then they’ll pull the punch list on caucus day and your name won’t be there. Because they’re just using the most recent list they have from the state of Iowa, and that’s a government! How often do they refresh? Then if your name isn’t there, there’s a challenged ballot.”

Paul himself recently pointed out that the campaign has a goal of turning out 10,000 college students:

In an interview with PBS NewsHour’s Gwen Ifill on Thursday, the Kentucky Republican said that his campaign has a “real shot” of reaching its goal to draw 10,000 students to the polls next month — an ambitious goal for any GOP candidate, including the current front-runners, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and real estate developer Donald Trump.

The campaign is targeting students “on campus, really trying to organize dorm by dorm,” Paul said. “We have a really good ground game.”

Paul said his campaign has placed 500,000 phone calls to voters across Iowa and has 1,000 precinct chairs in the state, more than any of his GOP rivals, with two weeks to go before voting begins.

Note: Since Paul’s interview a few days ago, the campaign has reached 700,000 phone callsand has a goal of 1 million.

Paul has some strong outside help that adds yet another layer to his impressive organization. PurplePac reserved $500,000 in ads for him earlier this month. But perhaps more impressive have been the efforts of Concerned American Voters, lead by Matt Kibbe (formerly of FreedomWorks) and Young Americans for Liberty President Jeff Frazee. CAV has had at least40 full-time, paid staffers since it started in June.

Frazee recently gave an update on the notable progress his PAC has made:

“We’re waiting for Rand to catch fire,” Frazee said. “If that happens in Iowa, there are millions of dollars sitting on the sidelines, waiting for him.”

Concerned American Voters got off the ground in June, and since then it has made 1.1 million voter contacts in Iowa to identify 37,352 likely caucus goers. They’ve been marked as certain to support, likely to support, or maybe to support Paul.

Overall, the Paul organization-both the campaign and outside support-is extremely impressive. And the goal of forging a winning coalition cannot be understated.

Though Paul has focused heavily on the college vote, he hasn’t neglected rural areas of the state. While some candidates such as Donald Trump have taken to pandering on ethanol mandates, Paul has been emphasizing his strong opposition to eminent domain:

He spoke to a crowd of about 80 in Oskaloosa at an event billed as an eminent domain town hall. The Kentucky senator said while he is in favor of creating energy independence by building domestic pipelines, he is opposed to any land being taken from private property owners without proper compensation.

“One of the worst powers, one of the most egregious powers you can give a government is the power to take your property,” he said. “And we have a government that’s grown too large in this sense.”

Paul looks to rein in government programs

Paul looks to rein in government programs


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is looking to curb the size of the federal government by targeting redundant or wasteful programs.

Paul, a Republican presidential candidate, on Wednesday introduced two pieces of legislation that he says could help scale back spending.

One bill, backed by Republican Sens. Mike Enzi (Wyo.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.), would limit authorizations to four years, though lawmakers could request a longer authorization for a specific program.

The legislation would also add hurdles before Congress can authorize a new program, including identifying the objective, any areas of potential duplication with existing programs and what potential alternatives were studied.

Enzi said the legislation would force Congress “to reexamine what we are actually funding in order to improve or eliminate government programs not delivering results.”

Under the legislation, any program that is allowed to expire would then go through a two-year drawdown.

Paul also introduced a separate proposal that would require the Obama administration find $10 billion in savings by eliminating and consolidating government programs within 150 days of the legislation being signed into law.

The administration would use reports from the Government Accountability Office on overlap and duplication to help guide their decisions on which programs to cut or merge.

It would also require the president recommend to Congress any changes that are needed to help consolidate or get rid of federal programs and require that the Congressional Budget Office report to lawmakers when a piece of legislation would create a program or office that is duplicative.

Rand Paul & Ron Paul To Host Liberty Rally In Iowa City

Rand Paul & Ron Paul To Host Liberty Rally In Iowa City


Rand Paul will host the ‘Revolution Continues Rally’ at the University of Iowa on Sunday, January 31, 2016. Rand Paul will be joined by special guest Ron Paul, and together they will focus on energizing the youthful base by discussing the importance of protecting the entire Bill of Rights and being boldly for conservative ideals that limit the powers of the Washington Machine.

Rand’s unique message of liberty can unite Constitutional conservatives, young voters, and independent voters, which will lead to a successful showing on caucus night.

Aside from his father, Rand will also be joined by over a dozen family members who will host their own events throughout the state and speak at caucuses on the evening of Monday, February 1st.

Details of this joint appearance can be found below. Additional events and availabilities will be announced soon.

SUNDAY, JANUARY 31, 2016

WHAT: The Revolution Continues Rally

TIME: 7:00 pm CT

WHO: Rand Paul & Ron Paul

WHERE: University of Iowa- Iowa Memorial Union, Main Lounge

125 North Madison Street

Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Ron Paul to campaign with his son, Rand Paul

Ron Paul to campaign with his son, Rand Paul


Former presidential candidate Ron Paul will return to Iowa a day before the caucuses to campaign for his son.

Ron and Rand Paul will host a “The Revolution Continues Rally” at the University of Iowa on Jan. 31. The younger Paul is a Kentucky senator who is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

It will be the first time Ron Paul has appeared on the campaign trail to stump for his son this cycle.

The event will be held at 7 p.m. at the Iowa Memorial Union, 125 N. Madison St., in Iowa City.

Paul: Defeat the Washington machine

Paul: Defeat the Washington machine


In 2010, I ran for office because I was tired of being misled by Republicans who promised conservative government and instead gave us bank bailouts and more debt. I was tired of watching Wall Street profit at the expense of Main Street with each and every new round of Washington’s tax-and-spend and tax-and-print policies.

The Tea Party Movement has grown exponentially over the past five years, but Congress hasn’t changed a bit. We now spend roughly $7 million per minute and face a debt of over $18 trillion. These reckless spending habits have led our debt to match our GDP. As a result, a smaller percentage of the United States is working now than at any time since the Jimmy Carter administration. More Americans are projected to have been laid off last year than at any time since the Great Recession.

Never quite learning from their past mistakes, the Republican-controlled Congress recently passed yet another fiscally irresponsible omnibus bill, which will add $700 billion in new debt.

It is sad and discouraging to know that our representatives would agree to any new spending. Some $3 trillion comes in to the U.S. Treasury in taxes. Couldn’t we survive on just $3 trillion?

We’ve spent taxpayers’ money on everything from an unusable $43 million gas station in Afghanistan to a $15 million grant allowing a golf club maker to do research in space. Don’t you think there might be some room for cuts within our budget?

What’s even worse than your representatives agreeing to $700 billion in new debt is the fact that they didn’t even know what they were spending the money on. Speaker Ryan’s omnibus bill was 2,242 pages long, and it wasn’t plopped onto our desks until a couple of days before the vote was scheduled — giving us just days to sift through thousands of pages of complicated legislation.

In hindsight, one thing is for certain: This spending bill was a Democrat’s pipe dream, and Republican lawmakers let it become law.

Conservatives allowed the Obama administration to extend cutthroat environmental regulations over the private property of our farmers, ranchers and businessmen. Many farmers and ranchers will now be faced with costly permits and evaluation fees for the man-made ditches that exist on their own property. Lawsuits in at least 31 states have sprung up as a result of this controversial EPA rule, and yet your Republican-controlled Congress let it slide right past them.

And that’s not all. This 2,242-page spending bill fully funds Obamacare and sanctuary cities, while also granting $1.6 billion for the president’s refugee program — bringing an additional 15,000 refugees from high-risk areas into this country, all while failing to improve the vetting process.

I believe that a lot of these negative bills pass through Washington because our congressional representatives don’t have enough time to see what is inside of them. That’s why I introduced the Read the Bills Act — so that our representatives have the opportunity to govern as effectively as possible. If passed, this legislation would require Congress to delay votes by one day for every 20 pages of legislation.

But even forcing our representatives to read the bills isn’t enough to halt all of Washington’s recklessness. Unfortunately, many of our so-called conservative congressmen aren’t voting to increase spending because they don’t have time to closely study the legislation — they are voting that way because they are not really all that conservative.

Will Rand Paul surprise in Iowa?

Will Rand Paul surprise in Iowa?


The Iowa caucus is less than two weeks away and Rand Paul’s team is organizing under the radar.

While Donald Trump and Ted Cruz duke it out over ethanol subsidies and the definition of birthright citizenship, Paul’s Iowa campaign has appointed 1,000 precinct captains and claims to have made an astounding 500,000 get-out-the-vote calls.

Rare spoke with Senator Paul about his campaign efforts and why he believes his showing in the Iowa Caucus might shock those who underestimate him.

“These are feats that have been unheralded by the media,” said Paul, noting his supporters’ on-the-ground organizing and his well-attended campaign events.

Paul explained that Iowa has approximately 1,600 precincts and that his campaign has appointed captains in over two-thirds of them. “What outsiders don’t realize is that some people show up and aren’t sure who they’re supporting. They can be convinced by the captains who stand up and speak in their precincts,” he said.

Paul also noted that captains help recruit others and bring them to the caucus. “I think we’re in a good position to turn our people out,” he said.

According to Paul, several of his rival candidates lack an operation with the same level of sophistication. “Trump is just starting to get a ground game but it’s yet to be seen,” said Paul, noting that Trump holds large rallies, but that it’s not clear he’s teaching people to caucus.

Paul also said that he’s seen very little organizing from Rubio’s campaign in Iowa.

Another factor that could give Paul an edge is his reliance on a secret weapon other candidates have overlooked: The youth vote. “We have 22 college campuses organized,” said Paul, “And we’re having a rally at Iowa State University just preceding the caucus.” Paul said the rally will serve as a launching point for students who will then travel to the caucus.

Paul told Rare that this is a unique opportunity because most Iowa caucuses, including 2008 and 2012 when his father Ron Paul was a candidate, took place while students were off-campus for Christmas break.

“If your goal is to capture the youth vote, it’s easier when you have people organizing each dorm and hallway. It’s also easier to get people out when they’re all in one location,” Paul said.

Paul has also been drawing sizable crowds. “In Iowa and New Hampshire our Students for Rand rallies average anywhere from 300 to almost a thousand,” said Paul’s Creative Director Marianne Copenhaver. “Our town hall events have almost all had standing room only crowds, averaging around 300 people each,” she added.

“By live streaming almost every rally on Facebook and Twitter” Copenhaver said, “we’ve been able to reach about 40 thousand people online during each broadcast.” “The crowds, in person and online, are enthusiastic, she said. “Most everyone seems genuinely appreciative to hear a candidate actually discuss policy specifics and answer tough questions.”

“It’s a stark contrast for the people who have seen other candidates in person,” she added.

In addition to the groundwork Paul’s campaign has laid, they’re getting an indirect assist from Concerned American Voters, a Super PAC backing him that has made 1.1 million voter contacts, and raised $3 million last fundraising quarter.

Sen. Rand Paul: Break Down the Wall That Separates Us From the ‘Other America’

Sen. Rand Paul: Break Down the Wall That Separates Us From the ‘Other America’


In his 1967 address to Stanford University, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of two Americas. He described them as, “two starkly different American experiences that exist side by side.”

In one America, people experienced “the opportunity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in all its dimensions.” In the other America, people experienced a “daily ugliness” that dashes hope and leaves only “the fatigue of despair.”

The uneasy coexistence of the two Americas is brought to bear by the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

Although I was born into the America that experiences and believes in opportunity, my trips to Ferguson, Detroit, Atlanta, and Chicago have revealed that there is an undercurrent of unease.

Congressman John Lewis, who heroically marched in Selma, still sees two Americas. He writes: “One group of people in this country can expect the institutions of government to bend in their favor, no matter that they are supposedly regulated by impartial law.”

The other group: “[C]hildren, fathers, mothers, uncles, grandfathers . . . are swept up like rubbish by the hard unforgiving hand of the law. They are offered no lenience, even for petty offenses, in a system that seems hell-bent on warehousing them by the millions . . . while others escape the consequences of pervasive malfeasance scot-free.”

We need to notice and be aware of the injustices embedded in our criminal system. However, we shouldn’t be misled to believe that excessive force is the norm, not the exception. I believe that most police are conscientious and want only to provide safety for us.

The blame should be directed to the laws and the politicians who order police into untenable positions, that insist on “taking down” someone for selling a couple of untaxed cigarettes.

Our pursuit of justice should not obscure the fact that on many occasions, good people do step forward to find justice.

This past fall, Helen Johnson was desperate to feed her two daughters and their small children who had gone two days without food. When she got to the store, she discovered that the $1.25 she had was not enough to buy eggs. She was a mere fifty cents short, so she stuffed the eggs in her pocket.

Helen didn’t even make it out of the store before the police were notified.

When Police Officer William Stacy arrived, something special happened. Instead of handcuffing Helen and taking her to jail, he used discretion and compassion to mete out justice. He warned Helen not to steal again and he bought her the eggs himself. Helen saw Officer Stacy again on Thanksgiving Day. He delivered a truckload of groceries to Helen’s home. Her grandchildren were overjoyed and proclaimed that they had never seen so much food in all their lives.

It isn’t hard to find injustice around us, but we must not let injustice smear the good deeds that do occur everyday.

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Rand Paul for President

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Rand Paul for President


The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) is proud to announce the endorsement of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) for the Republican presidential nomination. In a crowded field of candidates, most of whom show little genuine commitment to individual liberty, cutting spending or reducing the size of government, Senator Paul stands out as a consistent champion of the values of the Republican Liberty Caucus: limited government, free enterprise and personal liberty.

An RLC presidential endorsement requires a candidate to secure a two-thirds vote of the RLC state charters. Only a few presidential candidates have earned this honor in the 25 year history of the organization. While Rand Paul won the straw poll in New Hampshire at the RLC National Convention last October, the formal endorsement is the product of a more involved and controlled process engaging directly with RLC state charters and members.

“The RLC is a 100% grassroots, bottom up organization, and this endorsement indicates Senator Paul is the candidate of choice among our state charters and membership at large,” said RLC National Chairman Matt Nye. “Senator Paul has been a consistent favorite with our members since he announced his candidacy, and we are pleased to have the opportunity to formally endorse him.”

Senator Paul has been one of the strongest voices for liberty in the Senate, and has consistently opposed government abuse and the trampling of individual rights under the Obama administration. Paul has led on efforts for sentencing reform, to audit the Federal Reserve, to protect the Bill of Rights and to control spending. A President Paul would be the standard bearer for the GOP on issues like these on the national stage.

“The Republican Party is changing and we need dynamic new leaders like Paul to end the divisive rhetoric and dangerous policies being promoted by other candidates,” said RLC National Vice Chairman Dave Nalle.

Elizabeth Warren And Sherrod Brown Fight Fed Audit, Foreclosure Transparency

Elizabeth Warren And Sherrod Brown Fight Fed Audit, Foreclosure Transparency


Top progressive senators are running away from a bill authored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to audit both the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy operations and millions of foreclosures. Their aversion could doom any chance for public transparency surrounding the widespread abuse that banks deployed against homeowners in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and her fellow financial reform advocate, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, have come out against Paul’s proposal, which would for the first time provide a public accounting of the central bank’s monetary policy maneuvers and its transactions with foreign central banks.

“Sen. Brown has supported recent actions that have brought historic levels of transparency to the Federal Reserve,” spokeswoman Meghan Dubyak told The Huffington Post. “But he does not see how this legislation will benefit working Americans.”

Warren and Brown insist they’re on board with more transparency in the Fed’s regulatory operations, but they’re drawing the line at monetary policy.

“I oppose the current version of this bill because it promotes congressional meddling in the Fed’s monetary policy decisions, which risks politicizing those decisions and may have dangerous implications for financial stability and the health of the global economy,” Warren said in a statement provided to HuffPost.

…

Still, this idea of “political independence” is difficult to reconcile with basic principles of democratic accountability. It’s also a distortion of the concept underlying the 1913 law that created the Fed.

“That independence is of course independence from the executive branch,” University of Texas economist James Galbraith testified at a House hearing in 2009. “It is not and cannot be independence from the Congress itself. The Federal Reserve may be delegated certain functions by the Congress, but the Congress can always choose to hold it accountable … It’s a legal independence of a kind that other regulatory institutions have had over the course of our history. It’s not an independence which is specific to monetary policy per se.”

The Fed is the world’s most powerful economic institution, and its monetary policy operations are its strongest tools, setting interest rates that have tremendous influence over U.S. growth, inflation and the prices of key assets. The Fed’s arrangements with foreign central banks and governments even give it a significant role in foreign policy. Yet despite its vast political reach, the Fed is far less accountable to the democratic process than other policy-setting agencies in the American government.

While the Fed’s Board of Governors, based in Washington, D.C., is a public agency, the central bank’s 12 regional branches are private-sector entities. Two-thirds of the directors of each regional branch are selected by commercial banks in the region, and many of those directors help select the presidents of each branch. Many of these regional presidents, in turn, play a role in setting monetary policy alongside the Board of Governors.

There have always been political dimensions to the Fed’s activities. During the financial crisis, Ben Bernanke, then Federal Reserve chairman, and Tim Geithner, then president of the New York Fed, worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on various bailout activities, with Bernanke even helping sell Congress on a $700 billion bailout bill.

Regional Fed Presidents, meanwhile, have never been immune to political thinking. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher ran for Senate as a Democrat before joining the Clinton administration as a trade official. San Francisco Fed President John C. Williams has been a career Fed economist, but also served as senior economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton. Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota signed a petition organized by the libertarian Cato Institute opposing President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan a few months before he took office.

Sen. Rand Paul: The Fed Is Crippling America

Sen. Rand Paul: The Fed Is Crippling America


On Jan. 12, Congress is scheduled to vote on the “Audit the Fed” legislation (H.R. 24/S. 264), which, if passed, would bring to an end to the Federal Reserve’s unchecked—and even arguably unconstitutional—power in the financial markets and the economy.

We aren’t the first to be wary of the powers of central banks. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson viewed the powers of central banks as being contrary to the protections of the Constitution. As Jefferson wrote: “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

In a similar vein, the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises also recognized that limiting government power in the realm of money was a matter of liberty, not merely economics. Mises explained that “the idea of sound money … was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights.”

How far we have come as a country that these words from Jefferson and Mises sound so foreign today. Perhaps we have all been blinded by the credit and equity bubbles that surround us. But what better wake-up call to rally support for legislation that would shine a bright light on the government institution that today has created these bubbles, subsidizes small subsets of the population (thus amplifying wealth inequality), and enables endless government debt?

The Fed was intended to be an apolitical body, a concession to placate the naysayers. But today, the Fed isn’t even shy about entering the political fray: witness Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s income inequality speech riddled with Democratic talking points during the 2014 elections.

The Fed is, indeed, a political, oligarchic force, and a key part of what looks and functions like a banking cartel. During the 2007-08 financial crisis, the Fed’s true nature was clear to anyone paying attention. As the Treasury began bailing out the investment banks from the consequences of their profligate risk-taking (and in some cases fraudulent schemes), the Fed moved in tandem, further purchasing the underwater assets of these institutions, as well as actually paying interest to the commercial banks (hemorrhaging from risky loans) for reserves they kept parked at the Fed.

To be sure, Fed officials came up with opaque jargon to describe such operations, but the stark reality is that the Fed was treating risky assets as good collateral, and in the fall of 2008 began literally paying banks to not make loans to their customers.

Even today, the recent policy announcement has doubled the rate of this massive implicit taxpayer subsidy to the banks—what they call “interest on reserves.” In the textbook rate-hike case, the Fed sells off assets (or slows the rate of purchases) in order to reduce the supply of reserves. Then, the equilibrium price of borrowing reserves (i.e., fed funds rate) rises. In contrast, now and for the foreseeable future, as indicated by the Fed’s guidance statements, the Fed is raising rates by increasing interest on reserves.

As of Dec. 17, the Fed is paying 50 basis points on both required and excess reserves. So the Fed, itself, is increasing how much it will pay to “borrow” reserves from the commercial banks. Given the estimated $2.6 trillion in excess reserves, at 50 basis points that means the Fed will be paying commercial banks some $13 billion in annual income. Right now, the Fed is paying the same on required and excess reserves, though that in principle could differ.

As the Fed keeps raising interest rates through this same mechanism, the amount paid to commercial banks will only mushroom. You can forgive analysts for not discussing this; it was not even mentioned in the Fed’s Dec. 16 announcement.

As the Fed pays commercial bankers more in interest payments, there is dollar-for-dollar less for the Treasury; in other words, for a given level of federal expenditures, the deficit is that much higher. Therefore, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing commercial banks to not make loans to their customers—or rather bribing them to charge their customers higher interest rates on loans. And, the U.S. taxpayer is going deeper into debt to provide this bank subsidy.

Rand Paul: ‘Appalled’ By NSA Spying on Members of Congress

Rand Paul: ‘Appalled’ By NSA Spying on Members of Congress


Senator Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says he is “appalled” by the recent revelation that the National Security Administration eavesdropped on Israeli leaders, American-Jewish groups, and members of Congress.

“I’m appalled by it,” Paul said on Fox News’ Fox and Friends. “This is exactly why we need more NSA reform.”

Paul said that since the San Bernardino terrorist attack, the NSA debate has been focused on more surveillance.

“Since the San Bernardino shooting everybody’s saying ‘oh, we need more surveillance of Americans’” Paul said. “In reality what we need is more targeted surveillance.”

“I’m not against surveillance” Paul added. “But I am against indiscriminate surveillance.”

“It’s a real invasion of our privacy,” said Paul. “You can see how we stifle speech if you’re going to eavesdrop on congressmen, and that it might stifle what they say or who they communicate with. And this is a big, big problem.

Bernie Sanders? No, Thank You, I Stand With Rand

Bernie Sanders? No, Thank You, I Stand With Rand


Yes, it is that time again. The 2016 presidential election is already underway. We always hear the typical promises for prosperity and security by both Democrats and Republicans. However, do we really look at the policies and positions of these candidates? There seems to be this hype about Senator Bernie Sanders among people of my age. He promises a restoration of the middle class but only at the expense of going to war with the upper class. You cannot create wealth by having a bureaucracy take it from one class and give it to another. Senator Sanders is an enemy of economic freedom and capitalism. He suggests that the wealthy should be taxed at 90 percent. Just let that settle for a minute. He believes that if I make a million dollars I should only keep 10 percent of it. Some would argue that the 90 percent would go to a better cause than what I would use it for. Senator Sanders wants the 90 percent of my income to be distributed to the lower and middle class in the form of more welfare and increased dependency on the government. Why doesn’t Senator Sanders just go ahead and tax my income at 100 percent? It seems like to me it would be easier for him to do so.

The United States of America is $19,000,000,000,000 in debt. We are on the verge of a debt crisis similar to Greece. We can either learn from the Greeks or become the Greeks. Greece is socialism at its very best. You see, Senator Sanders wants us to become Greece. A nation that spends record amounts on pensions, taxes at unbelievably high levels, and still manages to tank its economy. I think Senator Bernie Sanders’ slogan for the economy should be “Crash and Bern” because that’s exactly what will happen if he’s elected.

The United States will only be restored to economic prosperity if it follows the guidance of the Constitution. I believe there is only one candidate who will adhere to true economic liberty. That candidate is Senator Rand Paul.

RAND PAUL: Here’s why we should audit the Fed

RAND PAUL: Here’s why we should audit the Fed


It is no secret that the Federal Reserve’s unchecked printing press causes recessions and increases income inequality. Allowing the Fed to inflate our money supply will artificially keep interests rates low, but at what cost? Their acts can no longer go unchecked, which is why I am proud to carry forth my father’s original ‘Audit the Fed’ legislation, which will receive a vote in the Senate in early January.

In 2009, Senator Cruz drafted a legal brief praising President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a stimulus bill that increased deficit spending by over $800 billion. In the brief, Senator Cruz argued that the bill’s handouts will “directly impact the economy” and “further the greater purpose of economic recovery for America,”

Earlier this month, Cruz then blamed the Great Recession not on the Federal Reserve’s artificial lowering of interest rates, but on its failure to continue pushing them down in a timely manner. Cruz said that the Federal Reserve’s decision to “[shift] to a tighter monetary policy…set the stage for the financial crisis.”

On the campaign trail, Senator Cruz has further demonstrated his unwillingness to rein in artificial credit expansion by repeatedly calling for the Fed to follow “rules-based” monetary policy. This means that he still wants to control the money supply in order to meet the requirements of a mandate or equation.

I couldn’t disagree more strongly. No true fiscal conservative should ever support the artificial lowering of interest rates—not in 2008, not now, not ever. Doing so is the equivalent of signing a death warrant for our country’s low income earners.

Former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh refers to the Fed’s easy-money policies as the reverse Robin Hood effect. “If you have access to credit—if you’ve got a big balance sheet—the Fed has made you richer,” he said in an interview. “This is a way to make the well-to-do even more well-to-do.”

Rand Paul Is Virtually the Only Candidate Who Doesn’t Want to Start World War III in Syria

Rand Paul Is Virtually the Only Candidate Who Doesn’t Want to Start World War III in Syria


“I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate,” said Sen. Rand Paul during the Republican debate. He was referring to Gov. Chris Christie, but could have been talking about virtually any of the other eight people standing on the stage at The Venetian.

Indeed, only the libertarian-ish Republican senator from Kentucky was willing to admit that reckless U.S. interventionism in the Middle East—cheered on by Republicans and Democrats alike—gave birth to ISIS. He calmly explained that deposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gadhafi in Libya created a vacuum for even worse radicals to thrive. And as Paul pointed out, if President Obama and Republican hawks had gotten their wish two years ago and deposed Bashar al-Assad, ISIS would now rule in Syria as well.

While most of the other candidates remained staunchly anti-Russia, anti-Iran, and anti-ISIS—even though the former two are unwaveringly opposed to the latter—Paul was willing to criticize the recklessness of a go-to-war-with-Vladimir-Putin over nothing policy.

“If we announce that we’re going to have a no-fly zone… it’s a recipe for disaster,” said Paul. “It’s a recipe for World War III.

Rand Paul: Clinton, Rubio both ‘neoconservatives'

Rand Paul: Clinton, Rubio both ‘neoconservatives’


Rand Paul says Hillary Clinton is a “neoconservative” — just like Marco Rubio.

The Kentucky senator and GOP presidential candidate lumped Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, and Rubio, a surging Republican candidate, together on foreign policy — criticizing them for being too willing to intervene in Middle Eastern conflicts in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Sunday on “State of the Union.”

Asked about Clinton, Paul said: “I see her as a neoconservative.”

“I see her and Rubio as being the same person,” he said. “They both wanted a no-fly zone. They both have supported activity in Libya — the war in Libya that toppled Gadhafi, an intervention that made us less safe.

“They both have supported pouring arms into the Syrian civil war, a mistake that I think allowed ISIS to grow stronger. And they both have supported the Iraq War. So I mean, what’s the difference?”

He was particularly critical of both Clinton and Rubio over Libya, saying the two had advocated an intervention that led to instability and turned the country into fertile territory for ISIS.

“I fault Hillary Clinton. I fault President Obama. But I also fault the neoconservatives within my party like Rubio who have been eager for war in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, and they want a no-fly zone in an airspace where Russia is already flying,” Paul said.