Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Raimondo: Rand Paul's Declaration of War is Loopy

Justin Raimondo correctly notes:
I was always made a little bit nervous every time I heard Ron Paul – and other libertarians – inveigh against the modern practice of going to war without a formal declaration of war. Well, yes, it’s unconstitutional, and, yes, process is important, but what made me uneasy is that I was always worried someone would actually take Ron up on his suggestion – that is, introduce a formal declaration of war. And when my worst fears were finally confirmed, and someone did introduce just such a resolution, wouldn’t you know it would be Ron’s son – Sen. Rand Paul!...

Sen. Paul is here establishing a whole new principle: the rather loopy idea that we are compelled to go to war whenever one of our "diplomatic facilities" is endangered. Which means we should’ve declared war on Iran when they took over our Tehran embassy in 1979 – and bombed the heck out of the Egyptians when they besieged our Cairo embassy in 2012. If we attacked every country where our embassy or consulate has been surrounded with threatening protesters screaming "Yankee Go Home!" we’d have invaded the whole of South America and half of Asia by this time.

There’s absolutely nothing in Paul’s resolution that justifies a declaration of war. Nor is there any attempt to show how the Islamic State represents a "clear and present danger" to the US: indeed, this claim is plainly comical, rather like an elephant being brought to its knees on account of the intimidating presence of a fearsome mouse.


  1. Justin is worried about nothing. Rand is just "playing the game" to get elected. He's lying on purpose to get elected and on January 20, 2017 Rand will no longer play the game (he won't care about getting re-elected in 2020) and will be an anti-interventionist just like his dad. I don't have any proof he will do this but my gut feel on these matters is all I need and my gut feel tells me that Rand will restore the republic. Plus, Rand has the added benefit of having libertarian DNA he inherited from Ron. And if Rand doesn't change and becomes a establishmentarian, he's still the most libertarian option we have so we must vote for him. Granted, I rejected this logic 2 years ago when Republicans emplored libertarians to vote for Mitt Romney because he was a better deal for us than Obama. But I'm going to forget all that and just Stand with Rand because his last name is Paul.

    (sarcasm off)