Rand Paul vs. King Barack: Rand throws down the gauntlet after Obama throws down the Republic.

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

Missile Command January 16, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Refreshing to see someone, anyone, call king putts on his extraconstititional proclamations.

It is my belief though, that this gun stuff and other topics to soon follow are all to deflect from the simmering scandals like Bengazi and F-n-F.

guysmiley January 16, 2013 at 5:39 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

“Never let a crisis go to waste”…
Just move around from crisis to crisis to confuse the low info voters into believing the BS coming out of DC.

StrinaM January 16, 2013 at 6:48 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Also to put off budget talks. And it’s an excuse to spend more money. Why cut when you can spend.

Joe January 16, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Unfortunately, I think many Americans want a king. It’s easier because they don’t have to pay attention to what the king is doing, only go along with it.

flashingscotsman January 16, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Low info voters. A dime a dozen.

Elrond Hubbard January 17, 2013 at 11:44 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Indeed, a king (or a President for Life) always makes wise, dispassionate decisions so the people won’t have to waste time planning their lives or providing for their future.

Ruben January 16, 2013 at 8:25 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

When will politicians such as Rand Paul stop giving interviews and speechifying and just once and for all call for the military to arrest the POTUS as a domestic enemy of the constitution?

Ruben January 17, 2013 at 9:30 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Would the one who gave me a TD please tell me why you do not like the question?

6 November 2012 January 17, 2013 at 5:07 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Exactly why is there an israeli flag behind him?

poppajoe49 January 17, 2013 at 5:58 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I saw him on Fox and Friends this morning talking about nullifying any exec order that is believed to be illegal or unconstitutional. It will be fun to see this actually happen, and the petulant child pout and whine about how the right hates him and is raaacccciiisssttt!

flashingscotsman January 17, 2013 at 9:24 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’d love to see a group of Congressmen with balls do just that. But I’m not holding my breath.

More likely, the few states and counties with quality leadership will stand up to it, and refuse to allow the new regs to be enforced. I’m looking forward to seeing a federal agent being arrested.

6 November 2012 January 17, 2013 at 4:23 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

A State of Disobedience.

davidintexas January 17, 2013 at 4:36 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I agree with virtually everything Rand Paul says. But because his dad’s supporters are such maniacs, idiots, and over-bearing fools, I simply will never vote for Rand Paul for any office at any time under any circumstance.

Not so silent January 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Careful, you will call up the Creepy Crowley, the one and only Ron Paul supporter…It’s like having a seance and hoping Satan shows up…Any time you mention a member of the paul family…it shows up…

PsychoDad January 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I can’t even believe Creepy is a real Paulifarian. I’ll diverge from Tex a bit, I would definitely support Rand, although I agree that Ron’s supporters tend to be his worst advertising. I would even support Ron , in a limited way — I do believe he is too narrow and single-issue, even though Constitutional integrity is a very important issue. I think his best place is where he spent his career, in the House, I don’t think he would be a very wise choice for pres. (ButI would still vote for him over any Demonrat!) I think he, and a lot of his followers, don’t fully understand that all laws are implicitly a part of the Constitution, or at least under standard legal analysis, any law is =presumed= Constitutional until a Federal court decides otherwise. (Constitutionality of laws is what is known in lawyerspeak as a “rebuttable presumption.”) Getting up on a soapbox and throwing around the term “un-Constitutional” is a bit like the firetruck in the July 4th parade that blows the siren, then throws out handfuls of candy to the kids — it’s spectacle, nothing more.

For example, I like to taunt Creepy and others of his ilk with the fact that the Const. calls for an army and navy — no air force. Under strict Paulifarianism, the Air Force, as it is, is un-Constitutional! You would have to roll it back into the Army as the Army Air Corp, as it was originally. But if you can do that with an un-C. department, can’t you do it with anything? Couldn’t you then put the EPA and the Dept. of Education –both technically un-C. — under the Dept. of the Treasury, or the Post Office? Treasury was once the umbrella for the Coast Guard, after all. All to the point, a lot of Paulifarianism’s “Constitutional” objections are easily solved or bypassed, leaving you in virtually the same place. And the Constitution really is a lot more adaptable than they would have you believe, although not in the way the Demonrats would have you think of it as a “living breathing” document.

I guess the brightest side I can find in all this — OK, we have the Pauls. But the Demonrats STILL have Lyndon LaRouche!