GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul: "Amazing resistance from both republicans and democrats" to his Stand With Israel Act

Listen @ 1:10 mark

http://www.mikeonline.com/taxpayer-money-may-going-terrorists-senator-rand-paul-tell-mike/

Any thoughts?

Yesterday, Rand wanted to pass his Senate bill to Stand W/ Israel (which guts money going to Hamas via Palestine) via unanimous consent but was blocked by fellow colleague and establishment re(pube)ican Sen. Bob Corker. All this while missiles were flying into Israel from Hamas rockets to which the iron dome that the US gave Israel shot them all down.

Answer: AIPAC opposes the Stand With Israel Act. AIPAC represents the Israeli government. They want US foreign aid to flow to Palestine, so it can flow to Hamas, so Hamas can use the money to attack Israel, so the Israeli military-industrial complex will have an "enemy" to fight.

[tvbcof]

Rand Paul: "Amazing resistance from both republicans and democrats" to his Stand With Israel Act

Listen @ 1:10 mark

http://www.mikeonline.com/taxpayer-money-may-going-terrorists-senator-rand-paul-tell-mike/

Any thoughts?

Yesterday, Rand wanted to pass his Senate bill to Stand W/ Israel (which guts money going to Hamas via Palestine) via unanimous consent but was blocked by fellow colleague and establishment re(pube)ican Sen. Bob Corker. All this while missiles were flying into Israel from Hamas rockets to which the iron dome that the US gave Israel shot them all down.

Answer: AIPAC opposes the Stand With Israel Act. AIPAC represents the Israeli government. They want US foreign aid to flow to Palestine, so it can flow to Hamas, so Hamas can use the money to attack Israel, so the Israeli military-industrial complex will have an "enemy" to fight.

Fairly easy.  The 'money going to Hamas' is actually largely flowing to corrupt and compliant 'leaders' in Palestine who stab their own people in the back.  That's why the population voted them out and voted Hamas in.  Hamas as a political movement has support from a lot of quarters.  This includes people who build what are essentially large bottle rockets to launch toward Israel, but a much larger contingent are those who simply try to provide social services for the beleaguered residents of the Gaza which is systematically ghetto-ized.

Fatah is mostly a bunch of fat-cats accepting Western money to do the West's bidding.  Paul wants to cut this off either because he is ignorant of how things work or because he understands the score and want's to change it (while couching it in traditional political rhetoric which deliberately misunderstands and even inverts the issue.)  One way or the other, it is entirely unsurprising that AIPAC, Corker, and every other Zionist or Zionist supporter is against this.

[Bit_Happy]

Rand is a huge asset in the Senate. Is it true he will lose his seat if he enters the Pres race, since in Kentucky he cannot run in both races?

[Ron~Popeil]

Rand Paul: "Amazing resistance from both republicans and democrats" to his Stand With Israel Act

Listen @ 1:10 mark

http://www.mikeonline.com/taxpayer-money-may-going-terrorists-senator-rand-paul-tell-mike/

Any thoughts?

Yesterday, Rand wanted to pass his Senate bill to Stand W/ Israel (which guts money going to Hamas via Palestine) via unanimous consent but was blocked by fellow colleague and establishment re(pube)ican Sen. Bob Corker. All this while missiles were flying into Israel from Hamas rockets to which the iron dome that the US gave Israel shot them all down.

Answer: AIPAC opposes the Stand With Israel Act. AIPAC represents the Israeli government. They want US foreign aid to flow to Palestine, so it can flow to Hamas, so Hamas can use the money to attack Israel, so the Israeli military-industrial complex will have an "enemy" to fight.

Fairly easy.  The 'money going to Hamas' is actually largely flowing to corrupt and compliant 'leaders' in Palestine who stab their own people in the back.  That's why the population voted them out and voted Hamas in.  Hamas as a political movement has support from a lot of quarters.  This includes people who build what are essentially large bottle rockets to launch toward Israel, but a much larger contingent are those who simply try to provide social services for the beleaguered residents of the Gaza which is systematically ghetto-ized.

Fatah is mostly a bunch of fat-cats accepting Western money to do the West's bidding.  Paul wants to cut this off either because he is ignorant of how things work or because he understands the score and want's to change it (while couching it in traditional political rhetoric which deliberately misunderstands and even inverts the issue.)  One way or the other, it is entirely unsurprising that AIPAC, Corker, and every other Zionist or Zionist supporter is against this.

He is a smart guy for sure. By giving everyone exactly what they pretend to want he can expose the underlying agenda and solve the real problem.

[beetcoin]

so wait, you guys support israel and are against the palestinians? that sounds a lot like the status quo. siding with the israelis, historically speaking, has been beneficial to presidential candidates.. especially when it is against palestine.

[Bit_Happy]

so wait, you guys support israel and are against the palestinians? that sounds a lot like the status quo. siding with the israelis, historically speaking, has been beneficial to presidential candidates.. especially when it is against palestine.

No, we support leaving everyone overseas alone (to run their own country) and defending our country against actual attacks.
Rand is pointing out (among other things) that giving money/arms to both sides can end up harming both sides.

[beetcoin]

so wait, you guys support israel and are against the palestinians? that sounds a lot like the status quo. siding with the israelis, historically speaking, has been beneficial to presidential candidates.. especially when it is against palestine.

No, we support leaving everyone overseas alone (to run their own country) and defending our country against actual attacks.
Rand is pointing out (among other things) that giving money/arms to both sides can end up harming both sides.

i'm not sure we live in the same world.. take a look here http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347151/rand-paul-and-israel.

“Absolutely we stand with Israel. What I think we should do is announce to the world — and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

rand is pretty warm with israel, and he's also talked about his dedication to religion - christians love their israelis. rand strikes me as someone who says something different, but does the same shit. i think you guys might be evangelized libertarians. it seems like you guys are ignoring the bad shit he does, and justifying it by saying "he's doing evil in order to do good."

[Chef Ramsay]

so wait, you guys support israel and are against the palestinians? that sounds a lot like the status quo. siding with the israelis, historically speaking, has been beneficial to presidential candidates.. especially when it is against palestine.

No, we support leaving everyone overseas alone (to run their own country) and defending our country against actual attacks.
Rand is pointing out (among other things) that giving money/arms to both sides can end up harming both sides.

i'm not sure we live in the same world.. take a look here http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347151/rand-paul-and-israel.

“Absolutely we stand with Israel. What I think we should do is announce to the world — and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

rand is pretty warm with israel, and he's also talked about his dedication to religion - christians love their israelis. rand strikes me as someone who says something different, but does the same shit. i think you guys might be evangelized libertarians. it seems like you guys are ignoring the bad shit he does, and justifying it by saying "he's doing evil in order to do good."

What's going on here is that his dad, Ron, was castigated as an anti-Semetic because of the way he phrased his non-interventionism. Rand is covering his ass and also showing how fake these so-called pro-Israel supporters are by offering this clearly pro-Israel act via a fiscal conservative approach and the establishment on both sides are bombing it down. In fact, Cruz was on Mark Levin's show talking about this but didn't mention it was Rand that was pushing it. Now, Rand has pro-Israel cred now whether he means it or not.

[tvbcof]

What's going on here is that his dad, Ron, was castigated as an anti-Semetic because of the way he phrased his non-interventionism. Rand is covering his ass and also showing how fake these so-called pro-Israel supporters are by offering this clearly pro-Israel act via a fiscal conservative approach and the establishment on both sides are bombing it down. In fact, Cruz was on Mark Levin's show talking about this but didn't mention it was Rand that was pushing it. Now, Rand has pro-Israel cred now whether he means it or not.

I'm not a supporter of Rand Paul.  I readily admit that he is way better on many issues than most, but that is not saying much.  At this point I simply don't trust that he has the leadership skills to manage something as complicated and tricky as the executive of the United States.  Certain of his positions I simply dislike and always will, but that is natural since I am not a Libertarian and disagree with some of their principles and prescriptions for society.

I am not naive enough to believe that one needs to avoid 'playing politics'.  Alas, in this phase of American politics it is just the opposite.  That is, one does not stand much of a chance if one is not willing to play such games.  Paul aligning himself with religious extremists and paying lip-service to Israel and our 'special relationship' is about as unsightly as anything in politics, but I don't rule out that it is necessary to have a chance of success in either of the two mainstream parties.  I, for one, don't feel confident that I know where his heart really is, but I don't dismiss his activities out-of-hand since I am also a bit of a realist.  I had some hope that Obama was simply playing that game back in 2008, and those hopes were dashed.  I never could get a read on whether Obama was a spineless worm, naive idealist, canny politician, or some combination thereof...but I never tried real hard.  I'm currently of the same mindset about Rand Paul.  He's playing with fire by dancing around on the tables in Israel, and I have limited confidence that he has the native ability to control the fire once it gets going enough to do him any good.

FWIW, I (as an admitted Liberal/Progressive type) do favor Paul over Clinton due to the many policy positions which do align with my own, and due to the hope that Paul is just disingenuously pandering as a political ploy on these areas which I am against.  Clinton is, in my opinion, a straight-up neocon and someone who will abuse state powers irresponsibly and thus highly dangerous to our nation for that reason.  I suspect I will hold that opinion until the end.  But I also doubt that I'll vote for either Clinton or Paul since I don't care for the general philosophical policy principles of either one.

[beetcoin]

What's going on here is that his dad, Ron, was castigated as an anti-Semetic because of the way he phrased his non-interventionism. Rand is covering his ass and also showing how fake these so-called pro-Israel supporters are by offering this clearly pro-Israel act via a fiscal conservative approach and the establishment on both sides are bombing it down. In fact, Cruz was on Mark Levin's show talking about this but didn't mention it was Rand that was pushing it. Now, Rand has pro-Israel cred now whether he means it or not.

I'm not a supporter of Rand Paul.  I readily admit that he is way better on many issues than most, but that is not saying much.  At this point I simply don't trust that he has the leadership skills to manage something as complicated and tricky as the executive of the United States.  Certain of his positions I simply dislike and always will, but that is natural since I am not a Libertarian and disagree with some of their principles and prescriptions for society.

I am not naive enough to believe that one needs to avoid 'playing politics'.  Alas, in this phase of American politics it is just the opposite.  That is, one does not stand much of a chance if one is not willing to play such games.  Paul aligning himself with religious extremists and paying lip-service to Israel and our 'special relationship' is about as unsightly as anything in politics, but I don't rule out that it is necessary to have a chance of success in either of the two mainstream parties.  I, for one, don't feel confident that I know where his heart really is, but I don't dismiss his activities out-of-hand since I am also a bit of a realist.  I had some hope that Obama was simply playing that game back in 2008, and those hopes were dashed.  I never could get a read on whether Obama was a spineless worm, naive idealist, canny politician, or some combination thereof...but I never tried real hard.  I'm currently of the same mindset about Rand Paul.  He's playing with fire by dancing around on the tables in Israel, and I have limited confidence that he has the native ability to control the fire once it gets going enough to do him any good.

FWIW, I (as an admitted Liberal/Progressive type) do favor Paul over Clinton due to the many policy positions which do align with my own, and due to the hope that Paul is just disingenuously pandering as a political ploy on these areas which I am against.  Clinton is, in my opinion, a straight-up neocon and someone who will abuse state powers irresponsibly and thus highly dangerous to our nation for that reason.  I suspect I will hold that opinion until the end.  But I also doubt that I'll vote for either Clinton or Paul since I don't care for the general philosophical policy principles of either one.

yeah i agree with you. i do like rand, but i'm not convinced he's all that different from anyone else. at this point, i might go as far as to say that i like rand more than i do hilary, but that doesn't mean much.

i won't end up voting for hilary or paul either. i think hilary is just part of the status quo form of government where we go out and spend billions/trillions on other countries, thereby enriching our "ruling class" while subsidizing their profits with tax dollars. i think she probably took the secretary of state job to strengthen her status as a world leader.. so she could do a 2016 bid for president.

i will concede to rand paul loyalists that his hand is definitely the most difficult to read, which is a good thing.. because it's already established, in my mind, that all other candidates are clear on how they play to "run" the country.

[Chef Ramsay]

Zogby national poll: Rand Paul 20%, Christie 13%, Bush 13%, Walker 8%, Rubio 7%

Rand Paul Leads the GOP Pack for 2016 -- And Not By a Little

by John Zogby
7/09/2014 @ 2:15PM

A new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican primary voters in 2016 shows Rand Paul starting to build a lead over better known – and more establishment – GOP figures. The poll of 282 likely and eligible voters in GOP presidential primaries was conducted June 27-29 and has a margin-of-sampling error of +/-6 percentage points.

In the poll, the junior Senator from Kentucky polls 20%, followed by “Establishment” candidates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 13% each. In fourth place is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 8%, then Florida Senator Marco Rubio 7%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 4%, and New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley all with 1% each.

This is the first time a GOP candidate has reached 20% in a crowded field and the first time a Zogby poll has shown someone emerging a bit from the pack. Obviously it is too early to predict outcomes or draw lasting conclusion but here are some points to consider:

More...http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2014/07/09/rand-paul-leads-the-gop-pack-for-2016-and-not-by-a-little/
Note that Cruz and Huck aren't in this one which they were when I pointed it out in the last one.

[Bit_Happy]

Zogby national poll: Rand Paul 20%, Christie 13%, Bush 13%, Walker 8%, Rubio 7%

Rand Paul Leads the GOP Pack for 2016 -- And Not By a Little

by John Zogby
7/09/2014 @ 2:15PM

A new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican primary voters in 2016 shows Rand Paul starting to build a lead over better known – and more establishment – GOP figures. The poll of 282 likely and eligible voters in GOP presidential primaries was conducted June 27-29 and has a margin-of-sampling error of +/-6 percentage points.

In the poll, the junior Senator from Kentucky polls 20%, followed by “Establishment” candidates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 13% each. In fourth place is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 8%, then Florida Senator Marco Rubio 7%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 4%, and New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley all with 1% each.

This is the first time a GOP candidate has reached 20% in a crowded field and the first time a Zogby poll has shown someone emerging a bit from the pack. Obviously it is too early to predict outcomes or draw lasting conclusion but here are some points to consider:

More...http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2014/07/09/rand-paul-leads-the-gop-pack-for-2016-and-not-by-a-little/
Note that Cruz and Huck aren't in this one which they were when I pointed it out in the last one.

Too bad they only polled 282 people, because those are some awesome results.  


Hey, does anyone know the answer to this?

Rand is a huge asset in the Senate. Is it true he will lose his seat if he enters the Pres race, since in Kentucky he cannot run in both races?

[Bit_Happy]

...
i'm not sure we live in the same world.. take a look here http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347151/rand-paul-and-israel.
.....

Have you ever read Rand's articles for the school paper in college? He is/was a genuine, radical fighter for individual liberty.
If the current system demands certain types of ass-kissing to have any chance of winning, then what do you expect to do....always lose?
Perhaps if he wins he can change the system, either way we face an "interesting" future full of many serious challenges.

[Chef Ramsay]

Hey, does anyone know the answer to this?

Rand is a huge asset in the Senate. Is it true he will lose his seat if he enters the Pres race, since in Kentucky he cannot run in both races?

They tried getting that law changed but believe it or not, democrats run the state house and they didn't go for it obviously. My guess is, Rand and co will know what kind of shot they have over the first handful of primaries or caucuses and if the steam is gathering they'll go for broke or otherwise pull out and stay in the Senate.

[Bit_Happy]

They tried getting that law changed but believe it or not, democrats run the state house and they didn't go for it obviously. My guess is, Rand and co will know what kind of shot they have over the first handful of primaries or caucuses and if the steam is gathering they'll go for broke or otherwise pull out and stay in the Senate.

Oh yes...
Reading your reply just reminded me that Kentucky has a late primary compared to many other states, so it works out great (??) depending on the deadlines for filing, declaring, printing ballots, etc. At least there is hope that things can work out really well. 

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul op-ed: Give kids a second chance after drug crime

by Rand Paul
July 11, 2014

A friend of mine's brother was convicted of a felony for growing marijuana plants in his college dorm. Thirty years later he still can't vote and his felony record prevents him from getting a good job.

Because of his story and others like it, I introduced bipartisan legislation to restore federal voting rights for non-violent offenders upon release from prison.

This week, I introduced another piece of legislation with Senator Cory Booker to make some reforms to the criminal justice system that will help non-violent individuals reintegrate into society and secure employment.

Both of these bills will reform existing federal law to allow low-level offenders a second chance. These ideas will both allow the restoration of the right to vote and the opportunity to remove a permanent blot preventing employment for those released after non-violent punishment.

First, we should restore voting rights to non-violent ex-offenders upon release, so they can vote in federal elections. This is an issue that I feel strongly about.

This past February, I testified before the Kentucky Senate to urge a Kentucky constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to many ex-offenders upon release.

The war on drugs has disproportionately affected men and women of color; minorities are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for certain nonviolent drug offenses, like drug possession, even though surveys show that white Americans use drugs at the similar rate. This is a travesty.

...

More...http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/11/voting-rights-drugs-minorities-column/12404979/?AID=10709313&PID=6152037&SID=xdthvbqp44ut

+

Similar footage last night on MSNBC (left wing central channel) about Rand's Lead on this issue along side Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9Qbo5QHac 5:38 min clip

[Chef Ramsay]

A Revealing Reading List
Rand Paul’s book recommendations.
This is a reflection upon the man by one of the neocons, ahem freedom conservatives as they now call themselves, over at Buckley/Kristol Central.

Rand Paul is a man of conviction. His reputation for acting on principle is the foundation on which he has begun to build the infrastructure of a presidential campaign. It is very difficult, however, for a man of conviction to adjust his image without compromising his reputation for integrity.

In the realm of foreign policy, Senator Paul faces the challenge of dispelling perceptions that he shares the isolationist tendencies of his father, former congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He wants to convince conservative voters that he has been mislabeled and misunderstood. His approach to foreign affairs has not changed, yet Senator Paul now presents his views as applications of Ronald Reagan’s firm but cautious approach to national security.

The Achilles’ heel of this rebranding effort has been Paul’s own candor. When speaking off the cuff, he has made observations that seem to reflect the worldview of President Reagan’s left-wing and isolationist critics. In that vein, Paul suggested that the United States provoked Japan before Pearl Harbor and that Dick Cheney supported the invasion of Iraq in order to make a profit for his former employer Halliburton.

Now there is the strange case of Paul’s reading list for students, which can be found on his official Senate website. The foreign policy section of the list consists entirely of works that blame the United States for the rise of Islamic extremism while offering solutions that verge on isolationism. Most of the books also express a sharp hostility toward Israel and toward those who believe that U.S. foreign policy should serve the cause of human freedom. Reagan, to put it mildly, was a friend of Israel and advocate of freedom.

...

Here's -> The List (partial)

The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich A. Hayek

The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater

Human Action, Ludwig von Mises

Conceived in Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul

End the Fed, Ron Paul

A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Ron Paul

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, Thomas E. Woods Jr.

More...http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/revealing-reading-list_796396.html?nopager=1


 

[Chef Ramsay]

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) slams Rand Paul's 'isolationist policies' in Washington Post op-ed

Rick Perry, a Republican, is governor of Texas.

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

...

More...htxp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perry-isolationist-policies-make-the-threat-of-terrorism-even-greater/2014/07/11/6dbfba4a-06f0-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
hit pieces get no linkage

[Bit_Happy]

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) slams Rand Paul's 'isolationist policies' in Washington Post op-ed

Rick Perry, a Republican, is governor of Texas.

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

...

More...htxp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perry-isolationist-policies-make-the-threat-of-terrorism-even-greater/2014/07/11/6dbfba4a-06f0-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
hit pieces get no linkage

"Isolationism" is a propaganda/BS word. Rand is for peaceful trade with other nations, not 'isolation' from the world.

[Chef Ramsay]

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) slams Rand Paul's 'isolationist policies' in Washington Post op-ed

Rick Perry, a Republican, is governor of Texas.

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

...

More...htxp://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-perry-isolationist-policies-make-the-threat-of-terrorism-even-greater/2014/07/11/6dbfba4a-06f0-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
hit pieces get no linkage

"Isolationism" is a propaganda/BS word. Rand is for peaceful trade with other nations, not 'isolation' from the world.

Yep, someone forgot to tell the likes of Perry that the term isolationism doesn't work like it did in the past. Now people are like, "So?'' But, your point is right.