Rand Paul To Deliver Tea Party Response To Obama State Of The Union … Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will give the tea party response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday, following the Republican response by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express announced Friday in a press release: "We are excited to have Senator Paul deliver the 3rd Tea Party State of the Union response next week. Americans are fed up with Washington politics that fail to address America's fiscal woes. Tea Party Express has called for reducing the size, cost, and intrusiveness of the federal government, and we have stood strongly for pro-growth policies to get the economy growing and job creation increased." – The Huffington Post
Dominant Social Theme: This man is just as good as Ron Paul but more easy to get along with. We can reason with him, especially when it comes to defending the country.
Free-Market Analysis: We believe a deal may have been struck between Rand Paul and the shadowy "leaders" of the GOP. The turning point was Rand Paul's endorsement of Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney some months before the US presidential election.
At the time, Paul explained that he felt it was incumbent upon him to endorse Romney because otherwise he would alienate GOP leaders who then would actively fight his (freedom) agenda.
We – along with others – wrote articles at the time explaining this was likely the wrong decision. Rand's father, Congressman Ron Paul, had managed to cobble together an extraordinary coalition of young and old, rich and poor simply by presenting himself as an uncompromising advocate for smaller, less intrusive government.
We wondered if Rand's pragmatism would fracture this coalition and prevent him from inheriting it. We believe this is just what has happened.
In a non-election cycle, Ron Paul's voice is not as strong as it once was. And Rand Paul – having palliated the powers-that-be – is garnering prominent speaking spots.
It looks like Rand may have made the right choice. But maybe not.
What Rand likely did is what US politicians have done throughout the 20th and now the 21st century. He somehow reached out to the real rulers of the US and much of the rest of the world.
This shadowy power elite – funded by controlling the astounding wealth of central banking – wants to create world government. It needs pragmatic individuals like Rand Paul, though no doubt Rand is not yet entirely trusted. To put it in Hollywood sitcom parlance, he is probably on "double-secret probation."
But he is gaining ground. He has seemingly enlisted for the duration, trading principle for pragmatism, and thus ensured himself of a high-profile.
He is now seen as a "spokersperson" for the Tea Party. In truth, there is no formal Tea Party movement. The original Tea Party was Paulian and inchoate. The current controlled Tea Party movement is specific and "patriotic." Economically, it is against complex taxation but has no position about the far worse problem of monopoly central banking.
Patriotic means things in modern US political parlance; most importantly, it means adopting the argument that there is a need for a powerful military-industrial complex that must project US power abroad. The reason Ron Paul never gained traction within the GOP was because he stubbornly refused to adopt this viewpoint, which is fundamental to elite control of the US two-party system.
The paradigm – artificial as it is – involves those who want government to legislate pocketbook issues on the "left" and those who want government to legislate behavior and morality on the "right." Both parties accept arguments for a monopoly central banking and also for a powerful military.
Ron Paul did not accept his party's approach to legislating moral issues: As a libertarian, he believed that such agendas as drug control and even migration were not the federal government's business. Far more importantly, he did not accept the relevance or necessity of Leviathan – the US's mighty, fiat-driven empire and its increasingly militarized business model.
Ron Paul was not defying his own party so much as he was defying the power elite that ran the US political process. Rand Paul is far less adversarial to this group, apparently – either by conviction or practicality. And as a result, it seems to us that he may have a chance to go far, perhaps as far as the President of the United States.
This is how the power elite works, by co-opting social and civil movements, organizing them, providing them with leadership and gradually paring away what is unpalatable until what is left is serviceable or at least non-threatening.
Rand Paul does not stand athwart the military-industrial complex the way his father did and does. Nor does he confront monopoly central banking with his father's zeal.
Rand Paul is a different brand, so to speak. He is a kind of "Ron Paul Lite." As such, he is becoming useful to the power elite that will need to co-opt the revolutionary realities of the free-market movement via leadership that "one can do business with."
It is probably hoped that Rand Paul will provide an appropriate level of rhetorical leadership while drawing people's attention away from the necessity for really radical change – shutting down the twin drivers of modern empire … militarism and fiat money.
We think we understand Rand Paul's strategy, which is the strategy of an ambitious man who is carefully adjusting his sail to the prevailing winds. But the world is a different place, as well, in the 21st century. What we call the Internet Reformation is making the kinds of damage control practiced by the elites in the 20th century more problematic.
This is because elite damage control – and reinforcement of dominant social themes – was predicated on episodic challenges. Once the challenge was isolated and reconfigured, it could be controlled and nullified.
But the Internet is a process not an episode. Times have changed. Does Rand understand? Do the hard men he is doing business with accept the reality of the Internet Reformation? They don't seem to be coping too well so far, as they seem to be increasingly turning to violence and economic terrorism in an effort to maintain control.
We shall see if Rand's bet pays off. It is a significant gamble, more so in the 21st century than the 20th.