Rand Paul Sees GOP Spyfare State As A Threat, Gets Accused of Having a “Dark Vision”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “In other words,  Charles Lane is following in the footsteps of Jennifer Rubin and the Washington Compost editorial page, alerting the voters out there of the horrors of the coming Rand Paul campaign for the presidency, or for the GOP nomination.  You’re going to be regaled by these awful things about what the U.S. government actually does as opposed to what it is fictionally said to do.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[/private]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  . . . to the horrors that Senator Paul is visiting upon the United States Senate, Charles Lane, Washington Compost:

[reading]

Politicians talk a lot, and the more a politician talks, the greater the risk he or she will say something regrettable. If you run your mouth for 11 hours at a stretch, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is wont to do, the chance of putting your foot in it goes up correspondingly.

So maybe it was statistically inevitable that Paul would cover himself in the opposite of glory by declaring, during his Monday Senate speech against National Security Agency counterterrorism surveillance, that “people here in town think I’m making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.”

Amid the fury of his Republican colleagues, who were the implicit targets of this self-pitying smear (and annoyed that Paul was raising money off such grandstanding for his presidential campaign), Paul admitted on Fox News that he might have strayed into “hyperbole” and “impugning people’s motives.”

Then again, what if hyperbole, combined with a certain passive-aggressiveness, is not incidental to Paul’s political style but essential? This is hardly the first time the presidential candidate has found himself explaining away an impolitic surfacing of his internal monologue. He’s still trying to live down his 2010 comments implying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act interfered with private property rights, not to mention some recent petulance toward female TV hosts.

[end reading]

Mike:  Mr. Lane, William F. Buckley also said at the time and wrote in National Review that the ’64 Civil Rights Act did interfere with private property rights, and was unconstitutional.  It may have been laudable.  I can direct you to essays written by Dr. Thomas Woods and Dr. Professor Kevin Gutzman that will make the case that if Congress wanted to do a civil rights act in the manner that they did it, that they should have pursued it via amendment.  Then it would have been legitimate.  But we don’t want to talk about actual facts and constitutions, now, do we, decepticons?  That doesn’t serve the purpose.  What’s the purpose?  Well, if we have bigger and growing government, then we have bigger and growing media to cover it.  You see how that works, folks?  That’s a nice little logical syllogism.  It’s not a perfect one but you can make it.  If we have bigger and growing government, then you have a bigger and growing media to cover it.

Let’s just pause here for a moment to test this little theory out.  Think of it like this.  Do you need to be informed via media that there is a bigger and growing retail sales force where you live?  Or is the media that informs you that the retail presence is growing in your area, is it the media of sight?  Sight is a medium.  You look out across the street and you see cranes and buildings going up, signs being hoisted down.  Ooh, a Five Guys is going in there.  Oh, a Panera Bread is going in there.  In the media in the sense that I used it, medium, plural for internet, radio, television, in other words broadcast media (plural for medium).  Right now you are listening through the medium of audio.  You’re using the sense of hearing to hear me.  That’s a medium.  If there’s more than one me, that’s media.  In other words, Andrew Wilkow and David Webb and I are media for your ears.  Get it?  So our little proposition doesn’t work for the definition that I used media in and applied it to the political class.  Back to the story:

[reading]

At its best, libertarianism is a cheerful, optimistic approach to politics, brimming with confidence about what men and women can achieve when left to their own devices, and, accordingly, with fresh ideas about how to meet social goals through individual initiative and free markets. The Republican Party could well benefit from adding such approaches to its platform on issues from gay rights to law enforcement. Democrats could, too, for that matter.

As is becoming increasingly apparent, however, Paul represents a darker, angrier corner of the libertarian imagination, the part that’s not just concerned by government overreach in pursuit of legitimate objectives [Mike: Yes, bombing brown people and killing innocent civilians in places that most people can’t point to on a map, that’s always a fantastic, legitimate objective.] — fighting terrorism, say — but positively haunted by spies, war “hawks” and maybe killer drones. Also, the Federal Reserve, which Paul would subject to an “audit.” [Mike: Getting the sense that Charles Lane is a decepticon? I am.]

Paul has tried mightily to mainstream his brand of politics, distinguishing it from that of his father, Ron, who, at last check, was promoting an investment firm in TV commercials by warning of a pending economic apocalypse that will supposedly be “especially rough on seniors.” In this, the son has been enabled by media coverage labeling him “the most interesting man in politics” (Politico, Time) on the basis of his dissent from GOP orthodoxy on drugs and national security. Nevertheless, the apple did not fall far from the tree.

[end reading]

Mike:  In other words, this is just another one of these – Charles Lane is following in the footsteps of Jennifer Rubin and the Washington Compost editorial page, alerting the voters out there of the horrors of the coming Rand Paul campaign for the presidency, or for the GOP nomination.  You’re going to be regaled by these awful things about what the U.S. government actually does as opposed to what it is fictionally said to do.

[reading]

Is Paul actually listening to his own words, as he regularly implies that the U.S. government is a greater threat to its people than al-Qaeda and the Islamic State combined?

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, let’s just analyze that part of the opinion piece here today.  I have said this as well.  The national government, the national democratic government – that’s what it is.  It isn’t federal any longer in any real sense of the word.  If it is, then we’re going to have to change the definition of federal.  Of course, since we have no definitions and we’re not allowed to have universals any longer, perhaps a redefining of federal is in order here.  Then again, we couldn’t use federal in the sense of Federalist Papers or a Federalist (think James Madison or James Monroe, someone of that sort).

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are directly threatening Christian peoples in Mesopotamia, or what used to be Mesopotamia.  They are not directly threatening the people of Topeka, Kansas.  They’re not directly nor indirectly threatening the people of Toledo, Ohio.  They’re not directly or indirectly threatening the people of Lafayette and Carencro, Louisiana.  They’re not directly or indirectly threatening the people of Pungo, Virginia.  Now, the IRS is threatening them directly and indirectly.  The NSA is threatening them directly and indirectly.  Warrantless wiretaps entered into and engaged in by these entities is directly and indirectly threatening them.  The FCC is directly and indirectly threatening them and all of us.  The federal judiciary of this national democracy, this sham of an alleged representative government directly threatens all 309 million souls of this national democracy.

Who is the bigger threat?  You’ve already been threatened by and then the threat has been carried out by all the entities that I just mentioned.  We haven’t even gotten into the DEA or any of the other hundreds of hell forsaken federal entities and agencies that all have acronyms as their names.  How many of you have had something innocent and not useful as a weapon but useful to you confiscated, to never been returned, by the TSA.  We have all these stories today about how the NSA lets 95 percent of the bad stuff through, but it makes sure it gets your cigarette lighter.  Don’t try to bring a lighter or cigar cutter through that checkpoint.  So who is actually directly threatening a citizen of these United States?  Is it Ayman al-Zawahiri or is it Robert Louis Smith, IRS agent?  Is it Carla Louise Roberts, TSA agent?  Etc., etc.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio