Rand Paul, Libertarian Extremist

National Review ^ | Andrew C. McCarthy

[ventanax5]

The Tea Party’s limited-government, constitutional heart is in the right place. But it needs much better guidance about how the Constitution works in wartime.

The defense-authorization bill currently under congressional consideration contains some unremarkable, largely redundant provisions about the treatment of enemy combatants. Naturally, the now-familiar alliance of leftists and libertarian extremists — self-proclaimed “constitutionalists” all — attacked with their signature “sky is falling” equanimity. On Wednesday, my column addressed some of the more hysterical arguments posited by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano. The real action, however, was taking place on the Senate floor, where Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (R., Ky.) squared off against John McCain (R., Ariz.), leader of the Republican party’s transnational-progressive wing. Sen. McCain, along with another tranzy, Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), sponsored the detention provisions — which are thus collectively known as the McCain-Levin amendment.

[GlockThe Vote]

Those Freepers are not for freedom at all. They buy into the lies and propaganda of the govt like lemmings.

[ReformationFan]

I think in the beginning(1955) it wasn’t. There wouldn’t have been a need for it with Republican Henry Luce in charge of such major publications Time, Life, Fortune and Sports Illustrated.

[GlockThe Vote]

Tell me what you disagree with Rand Paul on in this clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjVgWNzQnk&feature=relmfu

[GlockThe Vote]

you must favor Al Quada and blame america for 911 to not want the the govt to have this new power.

SARC!

[CowboyJay]

The article did have a few gems for those who had the patience to read it.

Nails McCain's ideology: "John McCain (R., Ariz.), leader of the Republican party’s transnational-progressive wing"

I'm going to quit calling him a RINO, now. "Trannyprogs" is a better name for him and the rest of the Wilsonian Dem faction of the party.

I found myself nodding in agreement here:

"The quest to quell Islamists by democratic processes has only empowered them. It has done nothing to enhance our security against terrorism. It has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars during a time of economic strife. It has actually provoked our enemies, whose ideology — which partisans such as McCain urge us to ignore — calls for waging violent jihad against Western forces that try to implant Western principles in Islamic lands.

It has enabled rabidly anti-American Islamists throughout the Middle East to market themselves as “moderate political parties” and bask in the legitimacy the “international community” confers on electoral success — no matter how fraudulently achieved. It has cheapened true Western democracy by accommodating it to authoritarian sharia."

He makes an excellent point, here. The rest of the world does not fall under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. It is utter utopian folly, and flies directly in the face of the the actual concepts in the Constitution itself, to attempt to make it otherwise. "The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. It endows Americans with protections against U.S.-government overreach. It does not extend to the rest of the world.

There are, howver, problems with McCain-Levin. While the Constitution DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT apply to anyone not a citizen of the United States, the Constitutional protections of US citizens whould be inviolate, even in time of war.

[jpsb]

It was mostly the bushbots, for the life of me I can not understand why any conservative or even conservative leaning person would support Bush 2. Bush 2 legacy is Obama and the (attempted) destruction of the Republic.

Even today look at the GOP candidates, only marginally better then Obama only Ron Paul or maybe Cain (big maybe there) offers any kind of real change in policy. All of the others are just more of the same. But go on to a Mitt or Newt or Perry thread is try to explain that, lol, fire and brimstone will ran down upon you.

[GlockThe Vote]

My ideal ticket is Paul / Bachmann

[jpsb]

I want Sarah/West but Paul/whoever is acceptable.

[Leto]

The idea that American citizens captured in the USA could be held by the military and or for the military to operate withing our borders is Un American period.

OTOH i have no problem with foreign nationals being seized inside the US and being sent to GITMO and held indefinitely without a trial.

[GlockThe Vote]

Paul/Bachmann are the only two I trust running for office.

The others are sleazebags. Santorum too. He pimped Santorum and is a complete NeoCon himself

[Lurker]

It’s the same argument made when the US Government interred Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

Anyone supporting this dangerous idea is an enemy of the US Constitution and has absolutely no place on this forum in my opinion.

L

[NativeNewYorker]

RINO pillow-biter

Oh, I like that a lot.

[GlockThe Vote]

The police state types scare me like you cant believe. and they have the balls to complain about obama? LOL

[NativeNewYorker]

NRO.....When did they go liberal?

I used to subscribe to the hard copy NR, back in the day.

I think their role now is to act as mainstreamy opposition to the ardent socialists, while protecting RINOs and dissing true conservatives.

[GlockThe Vote]

I just dont understand anyone wanting to give the govt this power? Who are these freaks and traitors? What background do they have? What is their motivation?

Why!!!!

[GlockThe Vote]

I’m sorry - but anyone calling themself a conservative and supproting this needs a real cold shower fast.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> By his title, (NRO or Andy’s choice) Andy has lost the debate with me. >>

Well in your own words you went into the article with a closed mind, so you lost the debate with yourself. Congratulations.

A title is normally not the choice of the writer, rather the editor. And an editor chooses a title to get people to read. So you are really showing an ignorance of how commentaries are published to get your panties in a wad over the title.

McCarthy makes it clear that it is unusual for him to disagree with the tea party folks and with Paul - but then makes it clear why he does on this issue - and why he thinks Paul is being “extremist” on this issue and this issue alone.

And no, he never calls “all” tea party folks anything nor does he ever make that big of a generalization. I am tea party mindset and I was not at all offended by anything said.

[jpsb]

I like Paul but 19th century isolationism is not going to work in the modern world, plus I do not want to abandon Israel.

[GlockThe Vote]

911 was the fault of govt incompetence, not lack of police state powers.

Anyone willing to give the govt more powers over us is a traitor. Screw them.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> There are still a couple of conservatives at NRO including Andrew McCarthy. Comments here sound like the left wing approach making blanket statements without even reading the article. I find people on both the right and left cheering for their candidate like a sports team, They cannot see their bias.>>

Amen, well said. I normally like almost everything Rand Paul does and was thrilled he won the seat in Kentucky over the God awful Jack Conway. Having said that, I stand by McCarthy in this particular criticism over this particular issue. And I think Rand is using sound bytes and talking points cynically in making his case, and further, I think he knows it.

Do I still like and support Rand? Absolutely. I just think he’s wrong in this case and I think McCarthy made a very sober and detailed case as to why.
And I don’t give a damn what other mistakes McCarthy has made. No one is perfect and no one is totally always wrong (except liberals).

Case by case....