This is Why Rand Paul is Hillary Clinton’s Worst Nightmare

Screen Shot 2014-11-18 at 11.44.02 AMAs Hillary Clinton starts to ponder the curtains she wants to hang in the Oval Office, there is only one person who can realistically stand in her way: Rand Paul.

Readers of this site will be well aware that I spend very little time focusing on Presidential politics. There are many reasons for this, but more than anything else, I believe there are two key components to genuine cultural change, and none of them have to do with electing a savior. These are:

1) Knowledge – Ignorance is not bliss. Particularly when it comes to the advance or decline of a civilization. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. 

I am trying to do my own little part in that regard here at Liberty Blitzkrieg.

2) Internal Change – It is much easier to complain about others and the world at large than it is to improve oneself. I’m as guilty of this as anyone, but I am cognizant that you can’t change the outside world unless you have changed what’s inside. Gandhi said it best:

We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.

We can elect all the saviors we want to positions of power, but unless we are able to master the above, nothing will permanently evolve in the right direction, and we will be cursed into repeating the same painful cycle over and over again. Crash and burn.

All that said, I don’t think Presidential politics, or politics in general, have to be as horribly corrupt as they are today. I do think it is possible to elect courageous statesmen as opposed to power hungry, money grubbing frontmen and women.

As a consequence of my spending so much time reading about the world around me, I think I have a reasonable grasp of the potential contenders for the 2016 Presidential election from both of the tired and corrupt main parties. For all the chatter about Elizabeth Warren, I think Hillary Clinton is an absolute lock for the Democratic nomination. In fact, just yesterday the Huffington Post published an article detailing how the Democrat establishment had already made its move to cleverly neuter Warren by giving her more power within the Senate. For example:

Throughout Senate history, individual members have often steered away from leadership positions, worried that the horse-trading and consensus-gathering that leadership involves would neuter their power. But the Senate has been evolving in recent years into a much more leadership-driven institution, in which individual senators and even chairmen have less power than they once did compared to caucus leadership. Today, decisions that would have been made in side negotiations, in committee or on the floor are instead made by leadership.

It’s those meetings that Warren will now be a part of. At the same time, she will diminish her ability to maintain that inside position if she criticizes the party from the outside. That dilemma, however, has been with her every step of her career, as she has moved closer to the center of power.

We’ll see how this turns out, but it looks to me that the Democrats are giving her a sense of importance so she “plays ball.” Particularly when it comes to 2016.

On the Republican side, there isn’t a single candidate I would even consider supporting other than Rand Paul. Besides him, everyone else is either a neo-con establishment crony (Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney), or an intellectually challenged up and comer pandering basely to the lowest common denominator.

I am not considering Rand because I think he will “save America” or because his father is Ron Paul. I am considering Rand because I agree with him on enough positions that are important to me. Don’t take it from me though. Read the following article from H. A. Goodman, titled: I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why. Here are some excerpts:

Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin’s love child. I’m for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I’ve written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I’m against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I’m for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator “Green Eggs and Ham” on climate change. Finally, I’ve also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.

On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn’t Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described “moderate” on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul’s recent Bill Maher interview shows he’s open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn’t abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.

I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens.

Yes, I’ll have to concede some of my beliefs and roll the dice as to whether or not he’ll flip-flop on issues, but Hillary Clinton and President Obama have changed their views on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization and Iraq, so I’m taking an educated gamble with Sen. Paul. Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong, so I’m not too worried about voting for Paul. Below are ten reasons this Democrat is voting for Rand Paul in 2016 and if my liberal membership card is revoked, I’ll live with that; I’m not an ideologue like Sean Hannity, I’m an American.

1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Sen. Paul has called Obama’s ISIS war illegal and isn’t against defending American interests through military intervention, but stresses the importance of Congress making these decisions. Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago. Try naming even one of the Syrian rebel groups and explaining their differences with ISIS. Furthermore,The Week states that “Clinton’s instincts appear to be far more hawkish than Barack Obama’s.” Imagine a more hawkish Obama and you’ll get the next President Clinton. Also, famed neocon Robert Kagan is one of Clinton’s advisers and states in The New York Times, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.” That should tell you how liberal Clinton will be on matters of perpetual war in the Middle East.

2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as “one of the foremost critics of the government’s domestic spying program.” In early 2014, Sen. Paul filed a lawsuit against the NSA over domestic spying. Neither Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, nor any other candidate in 2016 has made this a top priority in their campaign. Sen. Paul has also voted against PATRIOT Act Extension bills, voted for an amendment that prohibits detention of U.S. citizens without trial (which of course didn’t pass the Senate), and his voting record protects American citizens from politicians paranoid over terrorism. Sen. Paul was vehemently against the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill that passed in 2013, because, “This bill takes away that right and says that if someone thinks you’re dangerous, we will hold you without a trial. It’s an abomination.”

3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to reform the criminal justice system. Their bill would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who’ve been adversely affected by non-violent criminal sentences. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don’t care about reforming the criminal justice system, and if they do, it’s on the bottom of their to do lists, far behind cozying up to Wall Street and increasing America’s military presence in the Middle East.

4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is “Wall Street Republicans’ dark secret” in 2016. I don’t see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she’d be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who’s addressed the GOP’s love affair with corporations, stating that, “We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street…corporate welfare should once and for all be ended.”

5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent “a few years” in prison. No other candidate in 2016 would dare take that position. The Wall Street Journal criticizedPaul’s position on the Snowden matter, and their criticism actually makes me like Rand Paul in 2016 even more. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is “puzzled” why Snowden would want to leave the U.S. and feels he might have helped terrorists with his disclosures.

6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I’m not making this up. I don’t want to get blown up eating a burrito at Chipotle because I visited Egypt to see the pyramids and happened to sit in a café frequented by a terrorist. In 2013, Rand Paul asked Eric Holder whether or not American citizens could be targeted by drones on American soil. Jon Stewart has a great segment about this. Eric Holder actually answered that theoretically, yes, drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil could be viewed as legal, depending on the circumstance. If this doesn’t frighten you, then vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, since neither one cares about this matter. Issues like drone strikes on American soil, against Americans, is why I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. This sort of thing is being discussed today in plain sight, yet only Rand Paul and a few others have shown outrage over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens. If it’s not an ISIL beheading video, nobody seems to care nowadays.

7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another. This alone would solve some of the gridlock in Washington. Paul has worked with 7 leading Democratson a number of issues; working on everything from judicial reform, NSA surveillance, the limits of presidential authority to launch strikes in Iraq, and other issues. Imagine Ted Cruz reaching out to Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell having lunch with Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has worked to emulate this picture.

8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn’t want to dismantleSocial Security. I do disagree with his view of the SNAP Program and certain other issues. However, Paul has stated, “I’m for a social safety net, but it should be minimized to helping those who can’t help themselves.” I don’t ever recall Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan making that type of statement and mainstream Republicans do everything in their power to promote the view that safety nets equate to communism or socialism.

9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul. They like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush a lot more, and The Weekly Standard, National Review, and others have voiced their reservations about a Rand Paul presidency. If neocons disagree with you, then you must be doing something right.

10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation. We’re stuck with a GOP who thinks the globe is one giant Stratego board game with God helping roll the dice, a Democratic Party more focused on defending Obamacare than stopping endless wars or protecting civil liberties, and a populace that cares more about beheading videos than the erosion of rights or the welfare of our warriors. Is Paul the answer? I’m not certain. But compared to Hillary and Jeb Bush, I’ll take the man who stated, “I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East.”

What is so interesting to me about the above list, is that although I would strongly disagree with Mr. Goodman on many issues, I concur with his assessment of the importance of the above. NSA spying, aggressive and unconstitutional foreign policy, reforming the criminal justice system and drone strikes. These aren’t side issues to me. They are core issues. He didn’t even mention Audit the Fed, which Rand sponsored in the Senate and would almost surely continue to push for.

These issues cut cross meaningless labels of “liberal,” “conservative,” “progressive” and “libertarian.” These are human issues. Issues of civil liberties and decency (read:#StandwithRand: The Filibuster that United Libertarian and Progressive Activists). They are issues on which Rand Paul is on the right side of history and Hillary Clinton clearly on the wrong. That’s precisely why I think the GOP establishment will do everything in its power to prevent him from getting the nomination. Why you ask?

The reason is the establishment GOP is part of the status quo, and the status quo likes things as they are. Hillary Clinton would be merely a more militant version of Barack Obama with even deeper Wall Street ties (read: Glenn Greenwald on Hillary Clinton: “Soulless, Principle-Free, Power Hungry…”).

A less hillbilly version of George W. Bush. I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. I dare them to prove me wrong.

Rand recently appeared on Bill Maher’s show. At the end, Bill said:

I think it’s only a good thing for America, when I’m not sure who I’m gonna vote for next time. 

Think about that for a minute. Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get all the libertarian votes, all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office), and a lot more genuine liberal/progressive votes than you might think.

He is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. That’s why Rand Paul is Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

 Follow me on Twitter.


 Add your comment
  1. Spot on. My sentiments exactly.

  2. Michael, I feel that it will not come to it – the prophecy of the Presidential houses has Obama as the 44th and final “democratically” elected Prez. So too our PM, and of course the last Pope prophecy. Personally, I think a nuclear false flag, involving New York and Seattle initially and probably 3 other targets including D-FW & LA, The bombs are already in place, the Nukular” Power Plants aare all compromised by Stuxnet, and I strongly suspect that there is a W53 series warhead in the very top of the ESB, or possibly in the basement. The lobby and the very top of the ESB was refurbished in 2009/11. New York was the HQ for Britain back in 1776, and suffered a terrible fire. NY drove the Mormons out in 1838 who promised to destroy it on September 11…also the date given in the 1930’s for the British Israel NWO to begin. The “other” Babylon rigged for destruction is London…

    • Whoa. I pray not. That does remind me an interesting quote from recently imprisoned Marcel-Lehel Lazar or Guccifer in New York Times.

      “Before agreeing to answer questions from The New York Times in prison, where he shares a cell with four others, including two convicted murderers, he read out a lengthy handwritten statement that he said explained the purpose of his hacking.

      A potpourri of conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the 1997 death of Princess Diana and alleged plans for a nuclear attack in Chicago in 2015, it said: “This world is run by a group of conspirators called the Council of Illuminati, very rich people, noble families, bankers and industrialists from the 19th and 20th century.”

      Paul 2016

  3. And let us not forget that on 17-11-2014, the Govts of the G20, the EU and other observer nations and institutions, totalling 67, ratified and accepted the bank Bail in provisions – in other words, the “Great Wealth Transfer” which greedy, avaricious, covetous “Christians” have been waiting for with baited breath has just happened, and most folk did not bat an eyelid…it’s catch 22 – if enough people take their money out of the bank (if “they” will let you – it’s theirs now) and the banking system will collapse and your money will be worthless – leave it in and they will simply take it when and as they need it…so folk are screwed either way…

    Cue God to move soon to shut the world down and enclose it in gross darkness for a while – give folk some time out to think awhile…

  4. Senator Rand Paul won the hearts and minds of the American people when on the Senate floor he filibustered the drones. He showed he understands why we need to stop over half a century of the abusive application of the state secrets privilege and related doctrine, act, regulation, executive order, administrative action and policy abuses.

    • Yes, and he supported Mitt Romney for President too. How easy people forget. What about his stance and unwavering support of Israel and AIPAC? Come on…you guys give him way too much credit. Rand Paul appears to be nothing but controlled opposition. The GOP is dead.

    • Michael Krieger

      Supporting Mitt Romney versus Obama was straight up politics. Everyone knows that Rand is more political than Ron Paul. You have to be to get elected President, that’s just a fact.

      The question of whether he is actually compromised is certainly possible, and I won’t dismiss that allegation. Which is why I said I would CONSIDER supporting him. You very may well be right. His vote against the Freedom Act (as questionable and bad as it was), was somewhat suspect.

  5. rand is definitely thinking ahead of time. bill maher is an open notorious democrat operative , and status quo elitist. a hugely deceptive politician actor comedian that has the fortune of actually being one of hte more clever folks on tv.

    i saw that interview. paul is becoming the consumate politician, which is why it’s obvious rand paul is a total and utter sellout and will never change anything


    MIKE—you’re making a false idol of rand paul and dare i saw you are falling into the very same blue-red left right paradigm trap that you frequently talk about as being a major impediment to meaningful participation of the public into their republic-democratic form of government.

    paul comes off well. TOTALLY ignores many of mahers’ set up framed trap questions and just says what he feels like saying.

    i do agree, paul might just win the primaries if enough people think he can beat hillary.

    then again, the etnire election process is rigged from beginning to end, so it really matters not if he can win the nomination, or even the presidency.

    • Michael Krieger

      Several things here. In your emotional response to my post, you misinterpreted pretty much everything I was getting at.

      1) Throughout the piece I said I would CONSIDER supporting Rand Paul. That’s hardly turning him into an idol. Furthermore, I went out of my way to make it clear electing saviors is NOT the answer.

      2) I never said he might win the primaries, I said he probably WOULDN’T win them, because the establishment GOP doesn’t want him to win and would actually rather have Clinton. That’s hardly falling into a red-blue trap.

      3) This post wasn’t about how he answered Bill Maher’s questions. I actually don’t care in this case. What I care about are his stated positions on specific issues I outlined. The only question is whether or not he actually believes them, and more importantly, has the balls follow through with them if elected.

      As the title makes clear, the post was about why he is the only candidate who can beat Hilary (he is), and why I would CONSIDER supporting him but no one else.

      Don’t invent things or attribute things to me that I did not say or even imply.

  6. The best going for the Republicans going into the next presidential election (if there is one) is Obama, a monumental screw-up if there ever was one.
    Other than Illegal aliens, welfare recipients, brain dead Democrats and swooning and weeping air-head women who love the sight of his magnificence, all who would vote Obama president for life if given the chance, granted that’s one hell of a lot of people, the Republicans do have a chance in 16 if Rand Paul can pull off the nomination.
    The major question will Rand withstand the force of the neo-cons who are mainly red-diaper baby Trotskites dressed up as Republicans.
    These neo-cons were the manipulators of the Bush crime family and their kissing cousins from the Chicago-crime-commie crowd are the handlers of Obama. It’s a choice between the devil and deep blue sea.
    The Clintons are a crime force all on their own with scores of dead bodies strewn on their path to “out” house glory.

    Subtracting all the above from the equation, are there enough people left in the country who have two brain cells to rub together to nominate and elect a Rand Paul to the “out” house? And if elected will he be able to withstand the neo-con-Zionist-wars for Israel-military-elitists, that congress bows to, that have this country in a death grip?
    If History is any guide, I don’t hold out much hope.

  7. I would agree with you.

  8. Mike, didn’t Rand buckle into the Israel lobby pretty much immediately after entering the Senate? Wasn’t he in favor of war against the ISIS-satan, enemy-du-jour?

    • Michael Krieger

      He has said he believes in a response to ISIS. He also believe Congress needs to authorize that, which is a huge distinction between him and everyone else. I don’t expect any candidate to agree with me on everything, but I do expect anyone I support to agree with me on enough core principles and be different enough from the status quo to make a difference. I think Rand is the only candidate who MIGHT fit that description.

      I will be watching closely.

  9. If you want to help Rand Paul win the GOP nomination, you need to register Republican, as only Republicans can vote for Republican nominees.

  10. Rand is gaining on the daily caller piece …Liberals love rand Paul…it happening

  11. You make an interesting case Mike…

    I wonder what he has to say about the obvious and disturbing (why is this not an issue?) GOP vote nullification programs, including highly questionable and selective culling of voter lists?

    One caveat, however… the GOP in control of all 3 branches (Executive, both Legislative, and Judicial) would be a bridge too far for me, and I suspect many others.

    Now if the Dems had congress…

  12. wow…

    US veteran speaks out

  13. With one line about fears around vaccination, Paul effectively nuked his campaign a few weeks ago. It showed he was not ready for the national stage. And second with his medical background, he has contributed to the illness and possible deaths of our nation’s innocents (babies and kids).

    Keep an eye on Jeb. He speaks Spanish at home. The election will be decided by the growing Hispanic population. Rubio is his protege and could run on the ticket as VP. You heard it hear first…

    Rand Paul will get less than 10% Rep primary votes. He may get a speech at the convention. Which will be closely pre-screened to focus on Big Brother and the NSA (acting like something is being done-when it is not). I’m with Paul on the NSA issue and Snowen is a hero.

    And Jeb may just slightly tip Hillary in 2016 and ease her into permanent retirement to join Bill on foundation work…

Leave a Reply

4 Trackbacks

  1. Jeb Bush Exposed Part 2 – He Thinks Unconstitutional NSA Spying is “Hugely Important” | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  2. Hillary Clinton Exposed Part 1 – How She Aggressively Lobbied for Mega Corporations as Secretary of State | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  3. An Oligarch Dilemma – Recent Poll Shows 42% of Republican Primary Voters Couldn’t Support Jeb Bush | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  4. Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers Plunge to the Worst Since 2001 | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)