Well some critical things to consider here:
1. I know how controversial the issue of support for Israel is with both Ron and Rand Paul. It is something I have thought over very intensely in recent times, considering that I consider myself a proud, unapologetic Zionist and agree with the notion that God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel.
That said, I think that unconditional foreign aid to any nation is problematic and counter productive. I believe that the US can support Israel by actively doing business and engaging in trade with Israel,exchanging military technology and treating an attack on Israel exactly as an attack on our own nation.
The issue is whether or not it is productive to have excessive intervening and adventurism on the Middle East with the claims that it is needed because Israel might be in danger. If it is an issue of electability, well Americans of any political affiliation are overwhelmingly not gonna be throwing their support behind a candidate because they promise to have repeated military interventions and “nation building” adventures like with Libya and claim it is needed because we must look after Israel. For starters, political leaders are often complete liars so it is a given that when they claim they need to protect Israel, it could well be that there are other objectives.
Rand Paul’s position seems to be reduction on foreign aid to all nations. I think that should be something we can live with. We have seen tragically few political leaders and candidates who have been serious at all about stopping foreign aid to clearly malevolent, terror supporting nations like Egypt and Pakistan and serious about working on limiting the amount of oil money sent to the Rich Arab States and taking them head on. Democrats and Republicans alike are too often content to let the Rich Arab states use trillions of oil dollars to fund massive terror networks and terror schools in every corner of the earth.
I would find it incredibly refreshing to have more political leaders say it bluntly - Egypt, Pakistan and the Rich Arab states are not our allies nor are they are “staunch allies” and never have been. Even among so called tough conservatives, haven’t we had more than enough of them pretend that these hostile nations are our good friends and buddies and refuse to get serious about them?
I would only truly consider Rand Paul to be throwing Israel under the bus if he pledged to stop aiding Israel while continuing to send aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, terror supporting Islamic nations and Islamic terror groups. Then I would be the first to call him 100 % unacceptable. But as far as I can see, he is not doing this. And he is advocating that the US allows Israel to defend itself and take care of itself without American intervention. I find this a lot harder to object to than I used to because, frankly, Israel is supposed to be founded on self determination and independence. Zionism is ideally meant to stress not depending on anyone for protection and being able to fight your own battles. As a die hard and enthusiastic supporter of Israel I firmly believe Israel is capable and tough enough to to handle itself without massive American aid and intervention under the guise of keeping Israel safe. Otherwise, what is the point of having Israel as an independent state? Why not just make Israel the 51st American state or have the Jews in Israel live in Jewish Quarters of European or Arab nations? So God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel. I don’t think that blessing Israel necessarily has to mean reducing Israel to complete dependence on our government. Government dependency has been a disaster for everyone who has relied on it.
And then there is the issues of drugs and gay marriage. Now if Rand Paul and Right Libertarians were advocating that the federal govt legalize gay marriage and force all churches, businesses and Americans across the nation to recognize gay marriage, I would wholeheartedly agree that is a problem. But I have not seen proof that they are doing this. To the best of my understanding, they are arguing for getting the government out of the marriage business, which would allow businesses and religious communities to decide for themselves how to define marriage. They do advocate for the Federal govt to recognize same sex civil unions, and I understand that a lot of conservatives would not agree with this. But I simply find that the Right Libertarian viewpoint - of letting the people decide for themselves instead of the Feds as to what defines marriage - to be the solution that makes the most sense.
And as far as drugs, well it has been discussed ad nausuem why the Federal War on Drugs has been a catastrophe and a giant waste of taxpayer money. Not to mention how severely it contradicts small gov’t principles on at least several different levels. At the very least, it would be far more efficient to have drug laws be a state’s rights issue - aren’t conservatives ideally supposed to be really big on states’ rights anyway - treat drug use more as a health issue than a law enforcement issue and yes, pardon all drug offenders who were jailed solely for possession and not for any violent crime.
Now, I can understand if Right Libertarians advocated for certain stances that you found you just could not work with, for example unrestricted abortion on demand, massive defense spending cuts without analyzing them to make sure they don’t reduce our defense abilities below what is needed and a complete open borders policy with no immigration restrictions and amnesty for all illegals. But as has been discussed in this thread, Rand Paul is not advocating for any of these issues - which I would understand would be too problematic for many Conservatives.
And I am not advocating for everyone here to like Rand Paul and be enthusiastic about everything he says. If you still dislike a lot of things he says, I fully understand. I fully understand if you would have serious objections to everything I just got done saying above. We’re not gonna concur with everything and let’s be semi realistic, whoever our top candidates are for President in the next election are, chances very high they will have some stances you have objections to and they will do things you consider highly disappointing. I am fairly certain that is called politics. I believe it is time for those who are serious about keeping America alive to analyze what issues are truly the most vital issues and unite as one on these issues and learn to come together despite any disagreements they may have in other domestic or foreign policy issues. Regardless or personal issues you may have with Rand Paul, if he becomes the most electable Republican we have in 2016, I hardly find that to be cause for mourning or panicking or doom and gloom attitudes.
you forgot to mention the conditions America attaches to the aid most of which is military and they have to buy weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon. Israel is barred by America from exporting weapons and competing in the lucrative arms market and that’s damaging to Israel’s economic interest. They have the technology and the capability (jews are educated and smart) to be able to develop a weapons industry and compete with the likes of Lockheed rather than be clients of them. In the end this is worth far more than whatever hardware they’re getting off the US (”teach a man to fish...” )
The original intent of the Constitution was to create a national government that was the “government of the States”. It was not intended to involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. That was the pervue of the individual state governments. At the national level, “libertarianism” is effectively the same as “original intent republicanism”. (Note: capitalization is significant).
I’m afraid even the staunch GOP goose-steppers are going to find fault with much of your post.
Somehow, their flavor of Fascism is ‘better’ than the ‘other guys’. I’ve yet to understand how the Conservative morality police would be anything to support?
We survived, hell PROSPERED, up until the early 20th century. Then, somehow, the People started losing that idea of Freedom and Liberty.
This is truly the dumbest and ignorant argument that libertarians put forth regarding their abdication of the natural law. Marriage is the foundation of society and is responsible for the producing of productive and well-rounded citizens.