A Bit of Heat

Ok, so I have taken a little heat from the last article I posted. – Some of it self-inflicted, to be sure. I am a bit frustrated with myself for feeling the way I do. I don’t want it to seem as if I am against Rand Paul’s recent filibuster; I really am not.

Many of the people I admire and respect in the political realm have commented, or written editorials on Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster which ended up being about firing drones on US citizens. 

I unequivocally agree with these responses.  The government should never be able to attack our citizens in any form. I want to make it clear, that I support Rand Paul in doing this.  He had every right to do so. It is absolute insanity to think that the government might have a right to fire one of these drones on an American. But despite all of that, I really feel like we are missing something here.

What’s bothering me is what is beneath the surface, and yes I think there is something. What’s bothering me is the further division and attacks it has caused among Republicans; and yes it has caused some.

Without a doubt, John McCain and Lindsey Graham should not have criticized Senator Paul! But in my opinion, neither should the tea party have fired back. This is getting us no where, except more division in our party.  And the truth of the matter, just maybe McCain and Graham had a right to be somewhat concerned at the timing and possible grandstanding of Paul’s actions.

I believe each of these men have their good points in regard to what they want to achieve for our nation. At the root of their differences, however, is who they see as the bigger enemy – it is a difference in ideology. Paul, like his dad, believes it is our government that we need to fear more than anything else at this time. McCain and Graham have a more traditional view of our foreign policy and national defense and take a more hawkish stance on radical Islam. I also believe they have a more realistic view of our enemy, in regard to the militancy of Islam. I think this extreme ideological difference is the root of the actual problem these two senators have with Senator Paul.

In fact, I believe the concern and the division it is causing is strictly out of ideological differences. Rand Paul sees the government as a bigger threat to Americans then he does radical Islam. He opposes the war, would cut our defense and takes more of an isolationist view in our nation’s "intervening" in these areas. We have known for some time that Rand Paul is in favor of cutting defense and has in the past proposed cutting the State Department by 71 percent. That’s huge!

Graham and McCain are more traditional in their support of the war and military and I believe both have a more accurate pulse on what is happening in regard to radical Islam.

I believe Paul’s choice in making this (i.e. the filibuster of John Brennan- which turned into a filibuster over drones on US citizens) the focus of his attention at this time, gives a clear view of where his concerns are. As example: Why didn’t Paul filibuster the Secretary of Defense nomination: Chuck Hagel? There were huge concerns over this nomination in regard to Senator Hagel being the most anti-Israel senator, in our nation's history!  And what about John Kerry as Secretary of State! Where is Paul's concern about that?

Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a great article about how in the end, it seems as though Paul is really concerned about drone attacks anywhere, rather than just about attacks on our citizens on US soil. And that this may really be about Paul’s strong distaste for this war and our attentions there.

You can read Krauthammer’s poignant thoughts here. 

And yes, there was a bit of grandstanding going on, I believe. Even Senator Paul admitted to that.  Maybe Paul’s real intentions were as Krauthammer says to stand against drone attacks anywhere, not just on US soil. Maybe this was really about the attack on al-Awlaki in Yemen. You can read my thoughts about that here.  If that is the case, then Paul's filibuster is in actuality a protest over the war on terror. We might believe then, it is also about Paul's desire to cut military spending, for which he is known. It therefore wouldn't be too great a leap for us to believe this is all because of his isolationist views. None of this is too far-fetched, in my opinion. That’s where I direct my concerns over the questionable reason for this filibuster. Now that is getting to the underlying current that has been bothering me. Drones fired on US soil?  uh uh...it just ain't happenin'.

Regardless of any of this, Rand Paul's timing was perfect in regard to the attention it brought him just before CPAC and their straw poll for 2016.

Now believe me, I understand the concern over our government gaining more power over us, especially in regard to this administration.I flat-out do NOT trust Obama nor anyone in his administration, for that matter. That's why getting this administration to admit something like Paul got them to admit, means absolutely nothing. Obama does what he wants. But, if we do not take serious the threat we have in radical Islam, I think we make a serious mistake. 

I simply find it interesting that Senator Paul has not thrown any further support in the effort to find out what happened in Benghazi.  Yes, he came out strong initially; especially when he told Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that he "would have fired her had he been President"! That statement encouraged me; I was cheering him on and singing his praises. His strong determination and resolve during those hearings was admirable. Actually, he was fantastic in those hearings, as was Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. But it wasn't long before we started to see a bit of what Paul really believed after his questioning of Hillary Clinton. He seems to believe the US is deserving of these kinds of attacks, when we stick our noses (in his opinion) where it doesn’t belong.

If that isn’t the case, then why has he dropped the issue, now? Why isn’t he working with Senator Graham in his efforts to get to the bottom of Benghazi? What happened in Benghazi is reprehensible, and that we continue to let the Obama administration get away with this type of action is frightening.

It simply seems to me Paul has dropped the ball on that, - though Lindsey Graham continues the fight - Paul instead has focused his intentions on the issue of possible drone strikes on Americans.  I simply question why. I find myself thinking Charles Krauthammer has a point in regard to there being something more.

I trust and like Senator Paul more than I do his father, but it simply troubles me that he chose to make a greater point out of distrust of our own government, than he did on follow up of Benghazi; or this war on terror; or an appointment like Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and an appointment like John Kerry as Secretary of State. I think his lack of action on these issues speaks to his world view; and I hate to think that his actions - or lack of action on certain critical problems- might be out of his disdain for America that his father so often showed. In fact, Senator Paul's recent behavior is classic Ron Paul behavior.

With the Paul’s, it seems, it always comes down to everything being America’s fault, or the old-school Republicans fault, or that the two parties are (again, in his opinion) one and the same!  

“Speaking of the two parties Paul said: ‘They all agree that we should be involved everywhere around the world and that we should give unlimited weaponry to every side of every conflict all around the world and that we should extend foreign aid without conditions,’ he said.”

That is simply an inaccurate portrayal of our party; but making a criticism like that certainly resonates with our citizens, because NO ONE wants to see this kind of foreign aid!

The thought that the two parties aren’t any different is in actuality very damaging! Again, it simply isn’t true and I might add, especially with the new conservatives that are coming into their own within the party.

Why doesn’t Senator Paul put the same effort that he makes in these attacks of others to simply working within the system to correct what has gone awry? Instead he seems to constantly try to make himself the hero and everyone else the villain.

He is not far from his dad, on the continual bashing of fellow Republicans and pointing to himself as the only one who gets it…the lone wolf trying to fight the battle alone. I just don’t think that is accurate.  And even if it is accurate, these Republicans need to find a way to work together and come to an agreement that is best for our UNION.

In reality, both father and son seem to have the same anti-colonial view of America that Barack Hussein Obama has. They simply have such a view of America for different reasons than that of Obama. But the reason doesn’t really matter because the end result is going to be the same. It is going to take us to the same place – the inaccurate belief that America is at fault and “Imperialistic America” is to blame for all the ills of the world.

In an article at World Net Daily, though written from a supporting perspective that makes some great points as to why we need to follow up the investigation into Benghazi, we also get a view of what Senator Paul really believes.

“He said the backdrop is that the attack was a consequence of America’s interventionist foreign policy.

There he goes; blaming America! And our "interventionist foreign policy"!

“We should really be thinking to whom we give weapons,” he said.

“For years we gave weapons to the mujahedeen and bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. So we were in favor of radical jihad for over a decade,” he said.

Really? This was supposedly during President Reagan's time. Are we really going to believe that Reagan gave weapons to bin Laden? This is simply not factual. But it is certainly a myth that continues to propagate among certain circles! Rand sounds just like his dad on this issue delving into an inaccurate belief, that even if it were true, would have little relevance today!

He suggested the Obama administration is making a similar mistake “in a slightly different fashion by giving F-16s and Abrams tanks to Egypt.”

When asked if he has any reason to believe Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., will be a better secretary of state than Clinton, Paul said, “I think they’re identical, and they’re identical to many of the Republicans.”

He said it appears the parties in Washington are not that far apart on some issues.”

Now I totally agree with Paul on the issue of not giving our money, guns, tanks and fighter jets to our enemies; and yes, since the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, we should consider Egypt our enemy! This is insanity at best and what some (including myself) consider treason by our leadership. I also agree with Senator Paul that John Kerry is as frightening as Hillary Clinton in the office of Secretary of State. What I don’t like is that he lumps both parties into the same position. When will we see a Paul defend the Republican Party - at least defend the traditional platform?

To be fair, I also want to include some sources that reveal the inappropriate comments of Senators McCain and Graham. I do wish they had not attacked Senator Paul; rather, making their points another way. Their comments and actions only hurt their cause. Chris Stirewalt, at Fox News, makes some good points.

"Rather than do what other moderates and hawks had done and let Paul have his moment whilst gently reminding their constituents that killing bad guys was very important, McCain and Graham mocked and derided Paul and his supporters.

It was stunningly bad politics. McCain and Graham may pride themselves on being tough-minded realists when it comes to the war on militant Islamists, but to sneer at “libertarian kids” and mock Paul after his principled stand won’t get them anywhere in their goals of keeping the U.S. on a war footing.

Instead, it just told some of those folks who were intrigued by Paul’s stand that the Republican Party was not interested in having their support. A Republican captivated the country by doing something other than losing a fight with Obama, and McCain and Graham tried to undo it.

Am I going to have to admit I’m wrong about this – that I’m wrong about Rand Paul?

I don’t think so. But the debate is definitely on about libertarians in the Republican Party. And as you can see by the above quote, I am not the only one talking about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

You can hear Senator Graham's concerns and passion about Benghazi in this video: Lindsey Graham on Benghazi

Listen to this video, please. I think you will find it interesting:  McCain

I simply have to agree with Senator McCain. He gets right to the heart of the issue in this video and though Shepherd Smith didn’t realize it, I’m sure, he expressed my concern best when he said Senator Paul's libertarian view is actually more closely aligned with the views of the left.  That’s what bothers me most!

I, for one, am going to fight the libertarian intrusion into the traditional Republican platform.

I’m pretty sure, in spite of the heat – self inflicted, or not – in the end, I have gotten it right. I may not totally like it, because I despise defending the more liberal John McCain, as well as Lindsey Graham; but for this subject, I believe I have chosen the right side. Because as Shepherd Smith unwittingly told us in the above video; on this issue, Paul is more closely aligned with the left. I couldn't agree more.

*As a final note, I want to include a recent video of an interview by Tucker Carlson with Charles Krauthammer after CPAC. Charles makes some interesting comments in regard to the future direction of the Republican Party. His comments about Rand Paul are particularly interesting, as well as accurate, which offers credence to what I have stated here.