What an idiot.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:35 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Rand Paul and the Filibuster > *Posted by Ryan W. McMaken <[email protected]> on March 6, 2013 10:22 > PM > > People who follow me on Twitter know that I criticize Rand Paul. I do this > not because I think he should be a clone of his father, and that he's > somehow "betrayed" Ron Paul's followers. On the contrary, as I've noted > before, I think Rand has always been quite > upfront<http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/115225.html>about his > non-libertarian views. I don't think he's attempted to deceive > anyone. > > My primary motivation in criticizing Rand is to illustrate the reality of > his positions to many of his followers who seem to think that the > libertarian movement should view Rand Paul as the next Ron Paul. They > should not, regardless of the last name of the Senator from Kentucky, > because Rand Paul is not, in my view, enough of a consistent defender of > liberty. Nor is he enough of a known commodity to warrant all of the > uncritical and blind support I see coming out of the so-called, and > oxymoronically named "libertarian conservatives." > > However, I have to give credit where it's due, and Rand Paul's filibuster > today is good for at least two reasons. > > First of all, it's good because it's a filibuster. The claim that the US > Senate is "the world's greatest deliberative body" has long been laughable. > The Senate mostly rubber-stamps the edicts of the president when he's in > the same party as the Senate majority. Even when the majority is in a > different party then the president, rarely is anything more than token > resistence offered to the president's appointments and treaties. This is > made obvious by the fact that filibusters are so incredibly rare as are any > actual rejections of the president's nominees. The Senate was created as a > check on both the foreign and domestic policy of the president, yet, we see > virtually no such thing ever out of the Senate. > > The fact that Senator Paul is willing to stop the government in its tracks > for a few hours with a filibuster is a credit to him and probably stems > from a decent understanding of what the Senate is supposed to do. Not only > is the filibuster a good thing because it can obstruct the will of both > senators and presidents, but it is also good because it serves to empower > minority rights over majority rights. This > speech<http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/byrd7.html>by the late Senator Robert > Byrd, delivered back when it was the GOP that > was trying to kill the filibuster, explains how the filibuster stands as a > bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and outlines many of the > filibuster's virtues. > > Secondly, the this particular filibuster is good because it has been > specifically used to oppose and discredit one of the worst abuses of the > presidency in many years. And that's saying a lot, since the history of the > presidency is primarily a history of usurpation. If presidents can claim > the right to kill anyone they want at any time, as the current president > has indeed done, then we have entered the final phase of complete > lawlessness. I think Rand Paul is sincere in his opposition to this, and > the fact that he is laboring nearly alone in his efforts to discredit this > practice illustrates just how utterly useless and immoral the US Senate > actually is. (I should note by the way, that I do *not* think the > opposition to drone killings offered today by Sens. Rubio and Cruz is > sincere.) > > Moreover, Paul's filibuster is simply an embarrassment to the regime which > counts on -and gets!- nearly unanimous and bipartisan support of all its > most horrible abuses from TARP to NDAA. > > I'm glad that Rand Paul has finally found the issue that he is willing to > go to the mat over. For all his inconsistencies and caving to the neocons > on Iran and other issues, he's still apparently one of only a tiny handful > of politicians in Washington who is willing to say much at all about the > final destruction of the Bill of Rights. While Paul may be conventional on > many issues, his peculiarity and commitment on this issue is laudable. And, > the fact that he stands nearly alone should frighten anyone who is still > uninformed enough to think there is a functioning system of checks and > balances in Washington. Paul's stand should also serve as a source of > everlasting shame to the so-called Progressives who obviously care not one > iota for human rights, democracy or decent government at all, as long as > one of their own is the current elected dictator. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
