Skip to comments.Rand Paul's present to his dad Ron
Posted on 08/24/2009 4:50:40 PM PDT by freepersunite
Rand Paul's Birthday Present to Dad Ron Paul By Nikki Schwab, Washington Whispers
What do you give a congressman for his birthday? If you're Senate candidate Rand Paul and you're choosing presents for dad, Rep. Ron Paul, whose birthday was yesterday, you go for gifts that scream politics. "I gave him an original copy of Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative that was given to me by the publisher," Rand Paul tells Whispers, adding that it was published in Kentucky, where he's running for U.S. Senate. He also gave his pop, who's a big fan of economics, some early 20th-century currency called gold certificates. "So I gave him that, framed, with a statement at the bottom that says, 'When paper was as good as gold,' " he says.
Though that's nice, what Ron gave back to his son was better; he let Rand use his birth date as a fundraiser. "His birthday present to me, I guess, was helping with the 'money bomb,' " says Rand Paul. His campaign scheduled a money bomba mass online donation for Ron's birthday and, within 24 hours, added $430,000 to its coffers. While the underdog candidate has now raised over $680,000, the original goal for yesterday's money bomb was $1 million. Rand tells us he's not disappointed. "I think you set high goals in order to try to motivate people to go for things," he says. "When my dad raised $6 million online [during his presidential campaign], nobody remembers that his goal was $10 million."
It was a pretty good day all around.
I thought it might have been an autographed copy of the Koran, bearing the signatures of his/their heroes: Mohammed, Ahmanutjob and Saddam Hussein.
it was Ronald Reagaon’s speech “A Time Of Choosing” that moved me right. Previously I viewed myself as a left winger
Yes I never knew that Danny Kaye and Ron Paul were such good friends.
Wonder where they got the name Rand for their son?
Mw Too! I read it in 64, 13 years old.
You joined up to post Ron Paul nonsense?
I have an August 1961 copy of CoaC within reaching distance, on my desk. It’s a 14th printing - from it’s original print date of March 1960. Best conservative manifesto ever. It’s a condensed reading of Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny. Both should be required reading for all those you care about most.
Interesting article, but don’t expect a favorable response on this website.
A coalition of the neo-cons and the Neandertal wing of the GOP dominates the Free Republic site as well as the GOP. This coalition intentionally drives off libertarians and libertarian-minded conservatives, and has done a darn good job of it so far. If you doubt that, just consider the 2008 election results.
Rand Paul follows in the footsteps of Ron Paul, a genuine limited-government, libertarian conservative. The ideals of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government hold no sway with neo-cons and Neandertals. Consequently, Rand Paul is persona non grata here. If it were 1977, Ron Reagan would be persona non grata as well; after all, it was Reagan who said, “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
BTW, Rand is short for Randall.
Well said, I agree!
wasn’t RR a bit of an outcast? he even campaigned for Ron Paul in the special election and Ron Paul was one of his first backers in congress when people said he was unelectable.
Ping to #11 & #12. Too good to pass up.
by the way, when RR became president he changed (for the worse). Ron Paul got very disillusioned with that and quit congress.
Ron Paul is a genuine apologist for America's enemies who wants to see a continuation of Comrade O's worldwide groveling apology tour and general policy of collapsing America in upon itself as a pitiful and defenseless has been among nations.
Free markets in this day and age is simply code for "no more income for any Americans who work with their hands for a living" and for "send all the jobs to Bangladesh." Let us instead dump GATT and WTO in favor of tariffs to rebuild American industry. The worship of money by our spoiled rich is a national disgrace and not a political cause that can reasonably be called "conservative" or sane, for that matter.
Ronald Reagan was a patriot. The paleopipsqueaks are not patriots. DO NOT imagine that you can hijack the memory of Ronaldus Maximus to advance those whose foreign policy and military policy more resembles by far those of little Ronnie Tutu. If Ronaldus Maximus had lived to see the sorry state to which the likes of paleoPaulie had dragged libertoonianism, he would not have spoken favorably of libertarianism. It was once the philosophy of free men and women and knew the evils of totalitarian enemies. It was once a philosophy which would have recognized Sharia Law as not a libertarian ideal. It became a philosophy which first cozied up to the mass murder of babies by abortion because it is just none of our bidness (don'tcha know?) and then decided that homosexual and other perversions were perfectly OK and then decided that peace, trade and fiddlesticks was an apprppriate foreign policy response to the enemies of Western Civilization. To many libertarians, the only recognizable enemies are God and these United States of America.
I was a Libertarian state party officer until Roe vs. Wade and the "libertarian" response to same. By 1976, I was a Reagan State Chairman when he challenged Ford. Now we have Ron Paul applying that brilliant libertarian insight of refusing to care or do anything about outrages like abortion to foreign policy where he would go on autosmooch for Islamofascist butt. THAT is not the heart and soul of conservatism, just a combination of Margaret Sanger and Neville Chamberlain warmed over. Ignore the mold on the casserole and maybe you will find it a tasty meal with no heavy lifting. I won't.
AND, puhleeze stop with the whining about the poor paleolibertoonians being unpopular on FR or in the GOP. They are unpopular everywhere and rightfully so. Ayn Rand was no conservative. There is no God but Moolah and Ayn Rand was its prophet (profit?) is no statement of a conservative. Conceding that Rand Paul's first name is short for Randall, why do you suppose that Randall tolerates shortening it to "Rand?"
Conservatives and libertarians have diverged and are not to be confused with one another. Frank Meyer's dream of fusionism has failed. To the extent that individual liberty (not for abortion or perversion) and "free" markets and limited government are somewhat important values, they take a permanent backseat to Judaeo-Christian values and national survival without which they will not exist at all. If you are disappointed that the entire conservative movement agenda and focus is not the fertilization and worship of your securities portfolio, tooooo baaaaad.
Neanderthal and proud of it. What you and most of the leftists call "neocon" is, of course, conservative. The actual "neo-cons" are still a handful of surviving and mostly New York City based nonogenarian intellectuals who used to be socialists (but emphatically NOT communists) but fled the Demonratic Party when it was seized by McGovern and the communists in the early 1970s. Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Gertrude Himmelfarb, et al. The departed include Sidney Hook, Daniel Patrck Moynihan, the Rostows. You do their intellectual stature a disservice by taking their collective name "neocons" and applying it to garden variety conservatives of lesser intellectual rigor but more conservative views on domestic issues.
As to the paleos posing as "conservative" but are not and the libertoonians, they share the always fatal flaw of believing with a pissant coward like Neville Chamberlain that nothing is REALLY worth fighting for. As the good Book says: Men cry peace, peace! but there is no peace.
Ron Paul and his political love slaves have much more in common with Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, International ANSWER, John Lennon's Imagine and Ramsay Clark than they do with patriotism or any form of actual conservatism. And lest we forget, paleoPaulie's campaign last year drew the eager support of the likes of David Duke. Yes, paleoPaulie and his spawn are not very popular around here nor should they be.
Oh, and Ronaldus Maximus campaigned repeatedly for a Congressional candidate named Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. in 1970 so I wouldn't be reading too much into his campaigning for the paleofruitcake Ron Paul many years ago and long before Paul had apostasized from conservatism to be the Al Qaeda mouthpiece in the last presidential tournament. The appropriate (and merciful) conservative response to the Galveston treasonweasel is to deport him permanently.
When Ronaldus Maximus became president, he continued to be Ronaldus Maximus. It was paleoPaulie who went nuts and abandoned conservatism then and ever since. Thanks for the concession that Paul is not to be confused with Ronald Reagan, though.
he grew the size of government though and started the deficit spending, right?
Ronaldus Maximus certainly did not start any policy of deficit spending. He may not have overcome it as established by his predecessors. From 1950 to 1994, I believe there were only three "balanced budgets." Eisenhower (a Rino) accomplished two of them. Nixon (not a conservative paragon) the other. In each case, there was a mild appreciation and twittering among the Main Street coupon clipper set. Then the Main Street etc. could say in the next election campaign: WOW!!!!! We balanced the budget. The public responds with a looooong yawn. The Demonrats would respond with: Elect us and we'll give ya lotsa free stuff and make them rich guys pay for it. This ritually elicits a standing ovation from the otherwise bored crowd. The Demons play Santa Claus, the GOP plays the grinch who stole Christmas and, surprise! The Demons win.
Can we EVER break out of this cycle of being useless and brainless pinchpennies devoid of imagination, and whose image is American Gothic?
The conservative movement is about things far more important than mere money. AND THEN some want a revival of Neville Chamberlainism as foreign policy????
that’s the difference, you think big government is ok as long as its spending on military adventures, the other side want big spending on health care and such. eventually they compromise, it’s all the same, different sides of the same coin. big spending is big spending whether its military or domestic and the United States cannot afford it.
This is why Ron Paul became disillusioned with Reagan because he campaigned as a true conservative but when he got into office goverened differently. he certainly grew all facets of government and left it bigger than it was before like most Presidents!
Some people complain that we are not building an Iron Curtain between Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California OTOH and Mexico on the other and arming the border with every available military unit. Scrap the war against those who took down the WTC and attacked the Pentagon and hijacked four passenger airliners to do it, they say! Keep those Mexicans from coming north to lounge kn luxury on the welfare state of the USA. Now there are several ways to address the perceived problem. It seems likely that the most genuinely libertarian plan would be to end the welfare state. Conservatives can agree with that. No magic wand dumping every recipient into the gutters tomorrow morning at 3 AM but a measurable distance from today to the end of Medicaid, HUD, the Education Department, gummint edjumakashun generally, the Energy Department, the Labor Department, the Commerce Department (tolerated by that infamous neocon Calvin Coolidge/just ribbing), the new funding of nearly a measly $1 million to study the effect of the use of "recreational" drugs in enhancing adolescent sexual experiences (one waits in vain for libertarian complaints on the "constitutionality" of that one), Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, ICC, FCC, the federal tea-tasting board, the federal mohair commission and a zillion other wasteful boondoggles. If that list is not comprehensive enough, add your favorite ten federal boondoggles. Perhaps, you might start with federal earmarks for shrimping subsidies for Galveston area shrimp magnates.
Obliterating our enemies takes precedence over abolishing the tea-tasting board. Crushing Islamofascism, like ending communism takes precedence over eliminating the mohair commission. Taking out the people who have perpetrated the Achille Lauro, the Munich Olympics murders, blown up buses full of Israeli school children, have raised suicide/homicide bombing to an art form and have harmed and killed thousands of young American patriots who have been dispatched to punish them, will have to take precedence over eliminating various unconstitutional cabinet departments and programs. FIRST THINGS FIRST. Other things that take precedence over libertoonian dreamerama include protecting the lives of unborn babies whether paleoPaulie thinks that constitutional or not, and likewise protecting marriage from perversions posing as same.
Whatever you may think, there is certainly a distinction of major note in the conservative mind between maintaining a military that precludes attacks on our nation by its overwhelming capacity to destroy all enemies and expanding health care or creating federal womb-to-shoe box veterinary care for Spot and Tabby the Wonder Cat. However, it is libertoonians who want to ignore that distinction and cut all spending so that they will not be taxed and can have a permanent party on the spoils of their portfolios. The nation be darned, they just gotta be them! If babies have to die, so be it, they say! If marriage is to be mocked, who cares? If you weren't in the WTC on 9/11, why should you care? What you call "big spending" on military is a tiny percentage of the fedbudget. The fatal flaw in libertarianism as practiced today is that it dies not care about ANYTHING or ANYONE (other than the imperial self) enough to wage war or punish miscreants. You worship your wallets above all and most conservative folks regard your wallets as verrrry strange gods indeed.
It is not that your domestic budgetary concerns are wrong but rather that they lack weight to command the attention of serious people. Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Midge Decter, and Norman Podhoretz are far more reliable and far more valuable allies on their worst days than libertarians tend to be on their best days. That is why you don't count as any important part of the conservative movement. As a movement, you posit and defend the notion of a Godless society based on false pseudo-moral equivalence between belief and non-belief. That is why you don't count as an any important part of the conservative movement.
Ron Paul became disillusioned as he proceeded into ever more incoherent political insanity while Ronaldus Maximus governed as generally his voters expected him to govern. The fact that the abacuses of the paleos were overworked calculating federal budgets notwithstanding, Reagan is the gold standard for conservatism in the White House. If you doubt that, then take your hands off our lapels and run the paleotreasonweasel on the Libertoonian Party where he belongs and we will crush him there. Run him in the GOP and we will crush the 76-year old Captain Ludicrous worse than he was crushed last year. The party will not be hijacked and destroyed by the straitjacketed set of paleos.
At least, I will give you credit for being honest about Ronaldus Maximus and not pretending that he would be a paleo today. He did not credential many paleos during his eight years and they finally figured out that they were regarded as embarrassingly eccentric looney tunes and would NOT be credentialed or regarded as ready for prime time. They exploded in rage over this imagined mistreatment in 1986 at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin or Philadelphia Society and have been lurking under rocks ever since.
It must have felt good to get that off your chest.
Like Weicker, paleoPaulie went fully nuts well after he was supported by Ronaldus Maximus and in spite of that former support. Reagan's support was always politically useful but it was not an inoculation against political insanity as is amply demonstrated by the Galveston treasonweasel and all purpose Al Qaeda mouthpiece in America and peacecreep paleoPaulie.
You are probably helping most FReepers unite, however, in opposition to Mohammed "Earmarks" Paulie, the shrimpin' magnates' pal in DC. JimRob had Paulie's number last year. You missed the memo.
AND God bless you and yours.
Paul is exactly what Reagan stood for and believed in but didn’t govern as. Instead Reagan was sat down by the joint chiefs and the banksters like every new president and told what the deal was or he ends up like JFK. That is why you have so many sell out presidents who sound very reasonable. Remember Bush’s “humble foreign policy” and “no nationa building” (search youtube for the George Bush you forgot) that is exactly what Ron Paul stands for!!! Ron is consistant and principled and cannot be bought off though I suspect if he ever reached president, he would be bumped off by the criminal gang in DC
No doubt Ronaldus Maximus passed this inside story along to you when last you channeled him. Puhleeze. No one would try to buy off the Galveston Treasonweasel. There is no danger than he will ever have power. Back to the Bircher drawing board! Paulie is consistent and principled???? Laugh, I thought I’d die.
What do you REALLY think is the TRUTH of 9/11???? Mossad? Space aliens? Bankers? Moderate Republicans? America wants to know!
Mr Elk, please just buy a copy of Ron Paul’s Manifesto, 10 bucks or less at Amazon and you can learn about his beliefs, he is NOT a treasonsnake.
here is an excerpt:
‘In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Hardly anyone is aware of this today, since it doesn’t fit into the typical, by the script story of government rescuing us from a predatory private sector. ‘[From The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul]
Freepersunite: Life is short.
PaleoPaulie proved himself beyond argument to be an antiAmerican treasonweasel in the 2008 primary debates. He proved his lack of judgment by associating with David Duke. He is a proven anachronistic moron as proven by his actual 21st century advocacy of issuance of letters marque and reprisal in lieu of a manly foreign policy marked by the military crushing of the enemies of our nation and of our civilization. He is an treasonous imbecile in time of war as proven by his "Blame America First" blather shared with the American left and Islamofascist buttsmoochers everywhere. You want to ignore his two-faced dishonesty on abortion and earmarking, for two examples. Etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam.
Worse yet, you want me to waste money and, more importantly, time on reading the uberloon's writings. Paulie's problems do not stem from underexposure, but rather from overexposure. I ignored him for decades until he just had to INSIST on polluting the GOP POTUS primary process in 2008.
Much better to spend one's money and time on Scripture, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, Pope St. Pius X, Ludwig von Mises (the actual one and not the parody perpetrated by another treasonweasel Llewellyn Rockwell), Friedrich von Hayek, Hillaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, or popular fiction like Clavell's Shogun, James Michener's anything (even if he was a left-winger) a lot of recent Michael Crichton such as the anti-global warming hysteria State of Fear.
Anything fiction or non-fiction by the late Fr. Malachi Martin.
Try Lynne Cheney's Telling the Truth (probably the best and most insightful book I have read in the last decade-out of many hundreds read).
Anything by Marcus Tullius Cicero. Try the Aeneid (if you are not fluent in Latin, try Robert Fitzgerald's magnificent translation and he also translated the liad and the Odyssey).
Try histories of the Apaches: Once They Moved Like the Wind or the novel Avenging Victorio. Try biographies of Ronald Reagan. Try Peggy Noonan (in her previous militantly American incarnation) in What I Saw at the Revolution. Learn imperfectly about the actual conservative movement as it was and not as Paulie hallucinates that it was: Cadres for Conservatism.
Try Paul Johnson's Modern Times or just about anything else by him, Michael Novak's almost anything, Stonewall Jackson or anything else by by James I. Robbins; Herodotus, Livy, Fulton Sheen, George Weigel, and even the early novels by la Rand: Anthem and We the Living.
Entertainment is available in the novels of early Tom Clancy, Patricia Cornwell, David Baldacci, John Grisham, Taylor Caldwell (Captains and Kings), John Saul, Jeffrey Deaver and many others. Also, the historical novels of the Shaara family including Gods and Generals, Gettysburg, Last Full Measure and the one about the Mexican War (Gone for Soldiers?) which served as spring training for the War of the Imposition of Northern Tyranny (1861-1865).
Finally, spending time (especially if you are not a New York Yankee fan and therefore in need of instruction), on the library of Yankee literature including Peter Golenbeck's Dynasty: The New York Yankees from 1949-1964; When Rooting for the New York Yankees Was Like Rooting for US Steel, is never wasted.
With such riches of reading available and as the remaining years grow fewer, why would I even consider spending money or time on Ron Paul's anything? I'd far rather be FReeping or reading worthwhile stuff like those listed above.
Two deficiencies at FR compared to the otherwise inferior Lucianne.com are the absence of threads encouraging the swapping of reading lists and of recipes (typically family recipes at holiday time) both of which facilitate getting to know one another without the need for verbal combat dominating the entire learning process.
I am pinging JimRob to convey that suggestion. Recipes and reading lists will perpetually cement FR as best site on the web bar none and permanently beyond challenge.
thank you for your reading list BlackElk, interesting to see Hayek and Von Mises on there showing that you appreciate real economics and not the phoney baloney from Dodd, Bernanke and the rest of the crooks in DC. I was sad to see you protest Lew Rockwell who I think is an excellent writer and his website is a must read. You claim he is a treason yet his institute does so much to promote the classical economic works of Mises, Hayek and Murray N. Rothbard.
Rockwell is just another paleopeacecreep who dishonors the name of Ludwig von Mises by misappropriating it for his purposes. Treason is not defined by one’s economic views but by one’s resistance to one’s country in time of war. Justin(e) Raimondo, the lavender queen of antiwar.com may claim to be a free marketeer, a libertarian, etc. That does not excuse his limpwristedness’s opposition to America at war.