Monday, March 17, 2014

WOW, Paul Craig Roberts Unloads on Rand Paul

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes:
As some Americans have misplaced hopes in Rand Paul, it is just as well that he revealed in Time that he is just another fool prostituting himself for the neoconservative warmongers and the military/security complex. If Rand Paul is the hope for America, then clearly there is no hope.


  1. Here are most of Rand's so-called "sanctions":

    1) "I would support immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline."


    2) "We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia."

    Say it ain't so.

    3) "The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi."

    This is not exactly all bad.

    4) "I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it."

    Rand wants Europe to pay for their own defense.

    5) "I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine."

    This is just basic free market philosophy.

    6) "Visa bans should be imposed and enforced."

    This one cuts both ways but is not exactly draconian. Those concerned about illegal immigration might like it. And whatever it is, it is certainly Constitutional. So I think many people are making a mountain out of a molehill. WTFU!

    1. Here is how neither Rand Paul nor you are libertarians or in favor of "small government".

      First of all, there should NO SANCTIONS, period, if only for the revolting hypocrisy of Americans lecturing Russia.

      1) It is not up to the state to interfere in the economy.

      2) America should not be giving any loans or aid to begin with. Rand's argument assumes that loans and aid would be fine if only it wouldn't reward Russia. How is this "constitutional"?

      3) Why is America in that summit at all? Does the constitution say it should be?

      4) Rand wants to REINSTITUTE the missile defense shields. Nothing about whether Europe wants it. Nevertheless he wants Europe to pay. How about he "reinstitutes" NOTHING in Europe, and doesn't presume to tell Europe what to pay for? Rand's position isn't authorized by the constitution.

      5) I can agree with that. Except that Rand thinks this is a good idea as a response to Russia's actions, rather than promoting this idea for its own sake.

      6) It shouldn't be up to government in the first place, and certainly not as a result of some country invading some other country on the other side of the world, which is none of America's business.

      Rand Paul's sanctions have absolutely NOTHING to do with libertarianism, NOTHING to do with small government politics, and for the most part have no authority in the constitution.

      We are not "making a mountain out of a moleholl." You are being a typical Rand Paul worshipper.
      We, on the other hand, are simply analyzing this man from the point of view of consistent libertarian views. Rand doesn't even qualify for small government conservatism.

      Of course, as someone who feels that America has any business telling other countries what to do (aka imperialism), you would think it is just a molehill.
      Let me repeat that libertarians have no obligation to support any Republican or conservative any more than we do liberals or Democrats.
      We won't have any reason to look the other way when he acts like a schoolteacher toward Russia when America acts like much more of a bully itself, even if he sometimes says *derp* NSA is bad *derp* (wow, what courage to take that position, eh?)

    2. so you oppose allowing someone to build the keystone pipeline? Good grief.

  2. I don't always agree with PCR but at least he's got enough balls to call out Rand on his political whoring.

  3. The son is not like his father.

    It woud be very bad to have Rand Paul win the election and the Fed and the Government to allow their manufactured bubbles to finally crash (before they are exposed as not having the ability to keep these bubbles going forever).

    Remember that Rand Paul sold out Ron Paul in 2012 for Mitt Romney. It would be a shame for the coming economic collapse to discredit Ron Paul's views for his son's economic ignorance.

    I post the following in case anyone still thinks Mitt Romney would have made a good President (not that Obama would have, but you don't want the free market to be falsely blamed for economic problems):

    Romney Obama the Same

    The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection

    Or Rick Santorum:

    Rick Santorum On Small Government (spread far and wide)

    Santorum - Republicans no longer the party of Goldwater and small government

    And yes, Ron Paul was defrauded in 2012:

    Jamie Allman speaks to Eugene Dokes about the St. Charles Co. caucus 3/20/12

    Bryan Spencer Speaks about Rigging St. Charles Caucus

  4. For a guy who did a job for the Man with Pinochet, this is a little thick from PCR. I get he is bitter, but as he still defends Pinochet, clearly he should be offering a deeper level of critique.