Sunday, May 29, 2011

A Rothschild Comes to the Defense of Rand Paul

Matt Rothschild (a disowned heir of the New York branch of the Rothschild family)  writes in The Progressive:
I don’t agree with a lot of what Rand Paul stands for, but he was absolutely right to be objecting to the extension of some of the most noxious aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act this week.

One of those allows roving wiretaps. Another allows the FBI to essentially write its own subpoenas to any business in the country demanding its records. This includes libraries and bookstores, which have to cough up the names of their customers and the books they were checking out or buying.

These provisions were set to expire on Thursday, and on Wednesday on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid went after Rand Paul in the most outrageous manner. Sounding like Dick Cheney himself, Reid said that if these provisions aren’t extended, there will be “dire consequences” and “terrorists” will be able “to plot against our country undetected.”

Rand Paul called Reid’s charges “scurrilous,” which they were. He said he just wanted to debate the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, adding, “We threw out the Constitution with the Patriot Act.”


  1. I've always thought highly of Matthew Rothschild.

    He wrote me an appreciative letter after a piece in which I defended Sonia Gandhi from racist attacks in the Indian press.

    I've had a rethink about Sonia Gandhi since, but my opinion of this Rothschild has stayed positive.

  2. It’s a nice bit of honesty but I doubt his audience shares similar views. After-all, when has the regressive collective ever cared about the loss of individual freedom or expansion of the state's policing powers? Remember this group’s government hero is none other then FDR, a totalitarian that had no problem trampling on individual freedoms and rights in the name of the collective. Their issue has never really been with the the Patriot act itself, but rather the party that was in power implementing it. Look at how many of GWB’s policies that they protested during his administration that they now defend since it’s their people in power. Hell, these guys now support (illegal) warfare, state assassinations, violations of the sovereignty of other nations and even torture so its being done by a regressive leaning administration.

  3. My sentiments exactly Anonymous. In the '08 election, BH Mugabe and Hillary weren't mad at Cheney and Bush for trashing the Constitution. They were mad they weren't sitting in the catbird seat pulling the levers.

    But now they are in the hot seat. And nothing has changed.

    Some of us had that figured out. And some of us didn't.

    Still, if the regressive finally clues in and wants to come over to the dark side, I say we let 'em.

  4. Mr. Wenzel, you need to do better research sir! The Matt Rothschild you're referring to is my father and we don't happen to have any relatives in New York. We do have family in the Chicago area though. My father, the editor of The Progressive, is in his fifties and is not "a disowned heir of the New York branch of the Rothschild family" (Wenzel). The link with the previous quoted words proclaims that another Matt Rothschild is my father: “Now a 27-year-old high-school English teacher, Matthew Rothschild has written “Dumbfounded” (Crown), a memoir of his years growing up with his elderly and eccentric grandparents” ( My Dad didn’t write this memoir and this English teacher you’re referring to doesn’t write for the Progressive. Research before slander please!