Sen. Rand Paul Just Sold His Soul and Cost Himself Any Chance at the GOP Nomination (Video)

rand-paul-3Under no circumstances have I ever been a fan of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). While I don’t loathe him like I do someone like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), he’s slimy on a whole other level. Not only that, but he’s just an absolute fraud.


While I never cared for Ron Paul, I could at least respect the fact that he stuck to his guns when it came to his very libertarian view of the world. While the elder Paul never stood any real shot at becoming president, at least when he ran he did so by keeping to his values – even if he knew doing so most likely prevented him from ever really being a serious GOP presidential candidate.

The same can’t be said about Rand Paul. What he’s trying to do is ride the coattails of his father to gain the support of the “Paulbots” (a term used by many on the left to describe those people who are/were overly obsessed with anything and everything Ron Paul), while still pandering to the Republican voters whose views on many issues are in direct contrast to libertarians.

Take for instance the recent comments he made at the Capital Hill Club during a prayer breakfast where he basically said that he doesn’t believe in a separation of church and state and he opposes marriage equality.

“The First Amendment says keep government out of religion,” Paul said. “It doesn’t say keep religion out of government.”

Actually, it does specifically say to keep religion out of government. That’s why it literally says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – meaning that our government should not pass laws based on religion. Why would our Founding Fathers have specifically written in our Constitution that our government is not supposed to establish any sort of national religion, then proceed to want religion to dictate our laws? That makes absolutely no sense. 

Then he went on to pander to the evangelicals in attendance even more, suggesting this nation needs a big “revival” of sorts, before saying that he doesn’t believe anyone has the right to redefine marriage.

“Don’t always look to Washington to solve anything,” he said. “In fact, the moral crisis we have in our country, there is a role for us trying to figure out things like marriage, there’s also a moral crisis that allows people to think that there would be some sort of other marriage.”

So, don’t look for the government to solve anything… unless you want the government to pass and uphold bans on same-sex marriage, because Paul apparently believes same-sex marriage is immoral. In other words, the government won’t “solve anything,” unless you want it to pass bigoted laws aimed at denying Americans their Constitutional rights.

What I believe Paul has done with comments such as these is officially cost himself any shot at the presidency – not that he had any real chance at winning anyway. Rand Paul is the epitome of an article I wrote a while back calling out Republicans for trying to mix the ideologies of Ayn Rand with the religious beliefs of Christianity. It’s clear he’s trying to benefit from the legacy his father built, while also trying to pander to the hyper-religious aspects of the GOP that he knows he’s going to need if he plans to even stand a shot at winning the Republican nomination.


And that’s ultimately where the paradox lies for Paul, because he can’t do both. He can’t be the lover of all things religion one day, suggesting that religion has its place within the laws passed by our government, then go out trying to pander to the youth vote that often rejects many of the regressive social stances of the GOP.

Then again, this is the same guy who once staged a pointless filibuster concerning his opposition of our nation using drones – then a few days later proceeded to say that he would support using a drone to kill a man suspected of robbing a liquor store of $50. So, being a hypocrite and flat-out contradicting himself (or even lying about his degree) are clearly not issues to which Paul is a stranger.

Needless to say, I cannot wait to see him during the presidential debates. If there’s one thing that often happens during these debates it’s that frauds are easily exposed – and if there’s one thing that Paul is, it’s a fraud.

Watch his comments below via CBN.com:





Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Paul and Cruz are battling for the nuttiest of the wingnuts. Cruz the religious demagogue versus Paul the liberty demagogue. What Paul is demonstrating is that it’s far easier for Cruz to add “liberty” to his CV than it is for Paul to add “Jesus” to his. Wingnuts might be put off by the sudden theocratic conversion of the “libertarian” Paul. Will they buy into the Constitutionality of a theocrat like Cruz?

  • bestfriend

    Why are the majority of the stories on Forward Progressives about how bad the opposition is with few about how fabulous progressives are?

    • AviationMech

      Because it will come off as self-congratulatory. Why not expose the hypocrisy of elected officials that people we can influence may get hoodwinked by?

    • Even they can’t write bullshit that well.

  • Robert Guiscard

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – meaning that our government should not pass laws based on religion.

    No, that’s not what it means.

    Apparently the author of this piece didn’t take the time to learn that “establishment of religion” means the creation of a state church; a church to which all citizens must tithe, regardless of which religion they happen to practice. For example, the Anglican church was the established church of colonial Virginia.

    Now, on a federal level, do you think the Congregationalists of New England, or the Quakers of Pennsylvania, would stand to pay taxes to the Anglican church because it somehow became the established church of the federal government? Of course not. Hence, this line: it prevents the Congress of the United States from creating a law establishing any church as “the” state church of the United States.

    If you’re going to call someone stupid, it’s probably better not to base your entire premise on stupidity yourself, no?