President Paul?

RAND PAUL is kicking off his presidential campaign tomorrow, though it looks like he’s already done it.

America could do worse, is already doing far worse.

Sure, Paul’s daddy is a kook, but let’s assume the fruit has fallen far enough from the tree. Rand has exhibited some kookiness of his own in the past, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. Isolationism’s time has passed, but Rand seems to have cooled on that stance, thank God.

Which brings me to one of his most attractive features: He’s not thumping the Bible. Even my boy Ted Cruz’s first campaign video was chockablock with Bible talk.

And Ben Carson? Lordy.

Now I have absolutely nothing against the Christian tradition — quite the contrary — but I want a candidate who keeps it to himself for the most part. We live, alas, in increasingly secular times, and the Church Lady talk turns off too many “independents” these days.

It’s time for practicality, time to send Democrats packing.

Now that things are warming with Communist Cuba, maybe we can ship them all to Havana. They think they would like it down there. But they wouldn’t.

49 thoughts on “President Paul?

  1. If I recall correctly you were initially smitten with Mr. Carson, or perhaps it was another black gentleman, been a while. I am definitely not looking forward to another 18 months of what has become a dumbed-down version of Ringling Brothers.


    1. Charles: Carson had promise for a brief spell, and the fact that he’s black (actually black, not like the biracial, faux-black Barry) is a plus in our race-fixated Western world, but it’s become clear that he’s Bible-obsessed, putting even Santorum to shame.

      He can scarcely open his mouth without quoting Scripture.

      Bible-thumpers are going to vote GOP anyway. No need to preach to the choir. It turns off lots of people. Not a shrewd way to campaign.

      Yep, another year and a half of “Change You Can Believe In.” I hope you people are proud of yourselves.


  2. I’m seriously considering relocating to Indiana and opening a pizza joint/wedding catering operation. I’ll get the needed capital by opening a GoFundMe account.


  3. Any Republican candidate is better than Hillary. The better the candidate, the more viciously the media will attack them.

    His father wasn’t wrong. We need to audit the Fed and Fort Knox. Fort Knox has not had an audit since 1954. That gold is gone!

    Germany tried to get their gold back out of Fort Knox. All they got was a chance to look at some gold. It seems the U.S. government lends, rents and loses the gold of our nation and those nations that were so foolish as to trust the U.S.

    We need to put an end to the incestuous relationship between the big Wall Street banks and the Democratic party and the U.S. government. This starts by denying power to the Democrats.


    1. Señor Gill: Any GOP candidate is better than any Democratic candidate, of course. And Hillary will not be the next president. I can’t see her even getting nominated, but I could be mistaken.

      As for Rand’s nutty daddy, he got some things right.


        1. Señor Calypso: Yep, I did go astray with my Barry predictions. I grossly overestimated the IQ of the American people. However, this time I have statistics on my side. Just once, or perhaps it was twice, in U.S. history has a president who’s completed two full terms been followed by another president of the same party.


  4. The big Wall Street banks support authoritarian neocons from both parties.
    So far, Rand Paul is the only candidate I would vote for.


    1. Andrés: So you’d not vote unless, say, Paul was the GOP candidate? That sort of thinking is how Barry won his second term, people not voting because the opposition candidate is not perfectly ideal. Lesser of the evils, I say.


      1. Mitt Romney attended the 2012 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virgina. He was already picked by the global elite before the election. I did not consider him the lesser of the evils.


  5. To assume that Evangelicals would automatically vote Republican is an error. They abandoned the party when Romney was nominated.

    Black Evangelicals always voted Democratic, and that may be the intended target audience they may have been trying to reach.

    Also, remember, Cruz’ father is a minister. It is the thought process that he was raised with. That frame of reference works with Christians, but it puts non-Christians off.

    Still, I don’t fault a candidate based upon his religious convictions, with exception of the Muslim faith.

    Lyndon Johnson was a church-going Christian, but he was one evil person.


    1. Señor Gill: Well, okay, you’re right about some Christians. They could very well stupidly stay home. I wish Republican candidates would just shut up about the Jesus thing.


  6. I believe his name is Randy. Why doesn’t he use it? I don’t trust people who are deceptive about something so basic. Barack used Barry the way people use Bob instead of the formal Robert. Once elected he used his formal name, which is appropriate. Rand is not even a name. Why not RAN? or just R.P.?


      1. Ms. Shoes: Francisco says he was being facetious. I believe him. He was just a little too subtle for me and you, I think. I like the name Rand. It’s not common. I like Pancho too.


  7. Mr. Paul formally announced his candidacy this morning…unfortunately he is against gay marriage, against a woman’s right to choose, and against the legalization of marijuana…no vote here…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Charles: I oppose gay marriage too due to the “marriage” word. Stick to “civil unions,” and I’m on your side. I support abortion rights up to a point. It’s a very, very difficult topic. And Rand and I part company on drugs. I support legalization of drugs for all adults.


      1. Do you support “civil unions” for all, or are you in the “separate-but-equal” camp? I can agree with the former, but am vehemently opposed to the latter. Gov’t has no place deciding who should be your legal life partner.


        1. Kim: Straight folks already have the civil union option, after a fashion. It’s called getting hitched by a judge instead of in a church. But it’s still called marriage, isn’t it?

          So I guess I’m in the separate-but-equal camp. As for government having no place deciding who should be your legal life partner … “government” and “legal” kinda go hand-in-hand.

          It’s an issue chockablock with issues, isn’t it?


          1. The Supreme Court, in Brown vs Board of Education, declared that separate can never be equal.

            I’d be in favor of the government calling all “marriages” “civil unions” as a legal concept, leaving the marriage term to the religious orders.

            But there is no rational basis for declaring that the legal benefits of marriage are only available to people whose choice of spouse the government approves.


            1. Kim: Yep, separate but equal can be a sticky wicket. I agree. And civil unions, as I understand it, pretty much provide the legal benefits you want. It’s an imperfect world in which we reside. Would that we could make it otherwise.


              1. Creating a “civil union” structure would lead to government inefficiency. All statutes and regulations that currently exist which reference marriage or married people would have to be rewritten. Some bureaucracy would have to be set up to make sure that new laws remained harmonized between the two words. Seems like this whole “marriage is a sacred word” policy is kind of ridiculous.


    2. P.S. The issue of abortion will never be settled to everybody’s satisfaction. Never. But if you outlaw it, it will just force women to do it in less-than-ideal conditions. It’s the same as outlawing drugs. People still get drugs, but the illegality causes all manner of social issues and conflicts. Often government simply needs to mind its own business.


  8. Felipe, I was being facetious. Although Charles last comment indicating Mr. Paul’s stand on these issues alone would erase him from the race for me.


    1. Ah, Francisco, the facetiousness, I guess, gets lost online. Sorry about that. As for those other issues that trouble you, they are relatively unimportant compared to savage Mohammedan cutthroats running wilder every day in this world. The Democrats, and the pathetic Barry, don’t seem too concerned about that. We need someone with huevos in the White House.


  9. Don’t assume because one is “against gay marriage” that they are really “against.” Most people don’t give a dooley who other people sleep with as long as it isn’t them.

    What they are against is seeing gay people getting married in their churches and temples. Let the gay people do what they want in their own church or temple.

    I am afraid that eventually, someone will sue wanting to be married in a religious ceremony in a faith that finds the practice objectionable. This is a logical extension of the wedding cake issue. There must be a solution that satisfies everyone, but forcing one’s lifestyle on others is not it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Señor Gill: You are quite correct, and not for the first time. I am dead set against gay marriage, but I’m hardly a homophobe. I don’t give a hoot who other people get naked with. Concerns me not a bit. I’m against gays adopting too because I don’t think kids want to be raised in what is basically a social experiment. Kids want normality more than any other segment of the population. Give it to them, I say.


  10. Civil unions are totally fine by me In fact, I am in one and quite happy. I have no desire or need for a religious ceremony, and most of the kids I have seen who have been adopted by gays or lesbians are very happy and well-adjusted … and lucky. Normal is hard to define.


    1. Charles: Just found this comment of yours in the spam pile. Dunno why it went there. My apologies. As for kids being adopted by same-sex couples, we’ll have to disagree on the wisdom of that. As for normal being hard to define, nah. It’s quite easy. It’s the norm, the common denominator of whatever.


  11. America needs a leader, not someone whose main qualification is they can win an election. Unfortunately we are going to get someone who can win an election.

    As far as I can tell, no candidate (or high elected official, for that matter) is discussing the real problems, preferring instead to focus on ISIS, abortion, supposed voter fraud, illegal immigration, and on and on and on.

    One of the biggest problems? Demographics. We have an entire system of retirement and medical care which was set up on the assumption that people would live ten to fifteen years less than they do now. This, along with excessive military spending, is going to bankrupt us if it’s not addressed in time. And you can add a pathetic public education system to the list of BIG problems. That one doesn’t get the attention it needs either.

    Yet a quick perusal of Rand Paul’s candidacy page shows a lot of platitudes about controlling spending, but nothing specific. And not even platitudes about education.

    Whoever wins will continue to ignore the rot within. Don’t expect more, or you’ll surely be disappointed. Part of the decline phase of a great empire is that toward the end, the problems seem so insoluble that no one even tries.


    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where we think we’re realistic, not cynical.


    1. Kim: We are definitely in the decline phase of a great nation. I wouldn’t call it an empire because it isn’t and never has been. Social Security does need attention in a dire way. U.S. medical care, now ensnared by ObamaCare, will just get worse. Military spending actually has fallen under Barry, according to my information. I think it should rise. I like the military, and everything about it.

      The education system is a mess, true, to a great degree because of teacher unions. And ISIS and illegal immigration are massive problems. Abortion is not. It’s simply something that extremists on either side of the issue are foaming at the mouth over. Government can stay out of it altogether, in my opinion.


      1. ISIS is a problem, massive for those who live within its reach, less so for the rest of us. But I’ll ask you a pointed question about ISIS. How many aircraft carriers does it have? How many destroyers? How many fighter planes? How many factories making the above? How far can ISIS project its power? In the 1940’s, Germany and Japan were *MASSIVE* problems because of the above. ISIS is not a massive problem.

        As for illegal immigration, while I believe people should follow the rules, it’s not clear that any material harm comes to America from illegal immigration. And if you come back with “they take our jobs,” then what do you have to say about children? They take our jobs too. (Not to mention legal immigrants who often take the best jobs; my old field was full of them.)

        As for the military, how much is enough? We spend more than 10x the entire rest of the world combined. I think it’s too much, and it has never been subjected to a cost-benefits analysis. Audit the Fed? How about auditing the Pentagon? The Pentagon should be able to mount a more-than-adequate defense of the USA for $600 billion a year. Tops. And if that figure made it difficult or impossible to meddle around the world, we’d all be better off.

        One thing that’s generally missed by the media and everyone else is this: a lot of the problem places in this world are filled with illiterate or very poorly educated people who are governed by beliefs and superstitions that are not amenable to logic and reason. They only see an American military presence, and the diplomatic rationale is completely lost on them. Then they become terrorists to “avenge the muslims.” It’s the same as it was with the Vietcong. They told people that America was there for no good reason, and people just wanted them out. And despite all the dire predictions from the hawks, once we left Vietnam, there was no further blow-back.

        I think it could well be the same in the Middle East, though there’d probably be some initial blow-back, but still at a lower cost to life than the current policy.


        1. Kim: The ISIS fanatics can extend their reach as far or farther than did Osama bin Laden, which is to say New York, Chicago, Houston and even Boston.

          If you believe that America’s failure to control its borders is nothing to be concerned about, well, I don’t know what to tell you. Barry agrees with you.

          And I favor a beefy U.S. military. It makes a good impression on evil-doers.


          1. No nation “controls its borders,” if by that you mean zero illegal immigrants. As someone exercised by the topic, surely you know that a large percentage of illegal aliens entered legally and then overstayed their visas. That has nothing to do with border security. Also, Obama has more vigorously enforced immigration laws than any other president, despite all those who are asserting otherwise. And all those Central American children? Admitted under a Bush II era law. Had nothing to do with Obama.

            As for ISIS, you didn’t really answer my question. Sure, some nutcases will manage to create victims far from home. But that by itself does not constitute a “massive” problem. Problem, yes. Massive, no. And definitely not a large threat to the mainstay of the US population.

            Most years, more Americans are gunned down by their own police forces than by terrorists.

            As for the military, how “beefy” is “beefy” enough? Spending 10x the rest of the world isn’t already “beefy?”

            You also haven’t really asserted what harm comes from illegal immigration. Surely if something’s a problem, then it’s evil effects should be easy to identify, no?


  12. Abortion is the issue that Democrats always pull out every election just hoping some wayward Republican will put their foot in that cow pie, and it seems it never fails. It is best to not even answer or acknowledge questions on that issue. No matter what one says, it will be taken out of context and twisted. Say nothing.

    This is almost as good as the line “The Republican are going to steal your Social Security.”
    They have used that for years.


    1. Señor Gill: Yes, God and sex seem to cause constant problems for Republicans. Lordy, I wish there were some third viable alternative to the Democrats. And, yes, keeping their mouths shut often is the preferred option. If only they would learn.


Comments are closed.