I don't see that as delusional, rather its not fighting the delusion that THEY hold and so its manipulative. Its manipulative in a good way, ie inserting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the moral high-ground pill that they happily swallow. Once that moral high ground Constitution/bill of rights pill takes effect, all sorts of new realizations will come upon the newly cured. Such as, gee if we are fighting for the Bill of Rights, does that not mean that ALL people have such rights and does that not mean its morally and legally WRONG to drone bomb a man sitting in a Pakistani cafe? Should we not arrest him if we have something on him? And more to the point which Rand did bring up, WHO is this man sitting in a Pakistani cafe that we are bombing? Where is this LIST and what does it say? How do we know what is on this list is good and enough to drone assassinate someone? Well we don't, and so as someone who stands for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I must withdraw my support for this "war on terror". .... Read below my post about Zig-Zagging strategy for liberty and ask yourself if Rand Paul is not ZIG-ZAGging. Liberty....

Maybe its Rand's Zig-Zag strategy for advancing Liberty that is confusing you. Please see my description of it below....

The beauty of the Zig-Zag strategy for advancing liberty is that you can always ZIG for liberty at any time, BECAUSE, you can always ZAG back and "throw in the towel" and "go-along-to-get-along" and "be a team player", at any time. And who has described this ZIG-ZAG strategy better than you Justin? You have enlightened us all about how well the NeoCons in both parties have used this strategy time and again. They, a small focused ideological minority, have taken over the "thinking" of both parties. Well thanks to you, two can play that game. And that is why the R3VOLution was born: To infiltrate the 2-party duopoly and take over their "thinking" at the top escalones of the DNC/GOP. And many of us learned as PCs running for higher positions, that this ZIG-ZAG strategy is amazingly effective. And we are pulling liberty lovers up the organization. If the neocons did it in 30 years .... I can only hope we can do it in half the time.
--TREG

Rand Paul ZIGs for his dad in the GOP election, but wasted no time ZAGGING back into the GOP big tent the minute that the votes are clearly not going in Dr Ron Paul's favor. For me and many of us in "the R3VOLution, the fact that he jumped to support Romney so fast was shocking, but what many of us ( and myself included ) did not notice was how fast he jumped off the Romney train once Romney made it clear on a neocon Foreign Policy. You see, it was now was now 'safe' for Rand to ZIG back to that issue, once he had zagged back underneath the GOP tent by endorsing Romney weeks earlier. Most of all, we should all take note that he did not ZIG away from the foreign Policy issue by endorsing Romney, but rather, made it clear he was ZAGGING away from Romney because of his neocon stance. Yes, the player plays the game. And he appears to be playing as principally as possible and still be a Senator that "has the support of the people".

Rand Paul on Chuck Hagel. Here the principle is a wiser foreign policy, or rather, a foreign policy that is NeoCon free. So Rand Zigs and Zags differently here. He plays the game. He joins the GOP on its resistance to Hagel, but when its clear they have "lost the votes" as he explained to Glenn Beck, he Zigs and votes for Hagel (which secretly he may have wanted all along).

So here we have our first "Republican-libertarian leaning" Senator, and he is different than our first Libertarian-republican leaning Congressman from Texas.

It seems in Rand Paul, we will have to learn to hate the Game, but not the player. We will have to learn and expect him to ZIG OUT and ZAG Back into the GOP big tent.

Watch him, when the votes are not there to stop Brennan as CIA director, go ahead and vote for Brennan, thus ZAGGING back into the fold as another Kentucky "Great Compromisers".

The Zigging and Zagging is about Rand's strategy/style of advancing liberty. It is not as straight forward as is Dr. Ron Paul's, a strategy that "runs a straight line" and does not care if he is the lone vote on any issue. That STRAIGHT LINE-LONE VOTE strategy of our loved Ron Paul, is clearly not his son's strategy. As I said, Rand's strategy is to make the argument for liberty (Zig) and if the votes are not there, (Zag) back under the GOP tent to claim that he is a "team player". Fair enough. Notice that he did just that with the Brennan vote. He zigged for liberty during his filibuster, but Zagged back to vote for the rest who all know very clearly that Brennan is no friend of Liberty. A doctor Ron Paul, would vote NO to Brennan and not care a hoot that he was the lone NO vote. While we admire Dr Ron Paul for that kind of straight-down-the-line-liberty-voting-record, don't expect to make much sense out of Rand's voting record.

Like a great player who "plays the game well", RAND PAUL collects points for being "on principle" and he then collects points for being "a team player". Yes, its a very different style than his dad. I can imagine the young twenty something Rand Paul at the dinner table and at various Ron Paul congressional events as always saying to his self and to his dad, "But I would play this differently". Well now he is playing differently. Perhaps it is us who need to be schooled and wise up to his methods of zigging and zagging. That is, blame the game, not the new libertarian player.
--TREG

RAND Paul is running a ZIG-ZAG strategy to advance Liberty. Yes, it is different than his father's "Vote-for-Liberty-Straight-Down-The-Line" strategy where you don't give a hoot if you are the lone voter. Lone Votes are HARD to explain to your constituents and are often points of attack come reelection time. What RON Paul did was truly remarkable. But we should sit back and understand RAND PAUL'S Zig-Zag strategy for Liberty. I have no doubt that as a young man he thought about it all his life, as in, "If I was dad, I would do this differently"

Unlike like Ron Paul, who stuck to principle and just tried his best to gently and kindly explain it, Rand Paul appears to do this....ZIG ZAG.

He ZIGS towards the principled fight, then when the votes are in and he is clearly going to lose the principled fight, he ZAGS back over to get underneath the GOP tent for safety....

Take one of his first national TV interviews, the one with Rachael Maddow..... There he ventured out on Principal and tried to explain to the smart intelligent Rachael Maddow about how a part of the Civil Rights act violates private property and that causes some problems down the road. Yet she was not having any of it, would not entertain it, and instead jumped right in to playing the Gotcha-let-me-spin-you-as-evil-racist-republican. The story blew up and Rand Paul ZAGGED right over to Sean Hannity for GOP big tent cover and safety. Like his father Ron, the LEFT had what they wanted to give him; "a race problem",.

Rand Paul ZIGS over for Principle in the Senate on Iran sanctions, but soon sees that battle as lost, so he ZAGS back into the GOP big tent and votes with the crowd.

Rand Paul ZIGS against Foreign Aid, but runs into big pro-Israel resistance, so rather than zagging back into GOP line, he simply scratches in an exception to CUT ALL FOREIGN AID TO THE MIDDLE EAST: Except to our 'friend Israel'. With that position, he gets to ZIG outside the GOP tent on Principle, yet stay inside the GOP tent for safety. Expect Rand Paul to keep that voice on that issue.
-- TREG,

Treg

If the 2-party War Party is to be seriously & directly challenged, there MUST be a 2-party Liberty Party. Its time for "Jefferson Democrats" to step up and be counted. RP Patriots need a left-hook to their right-jab.

My point is that I don't think you have to worry one bit about the Ron Paul grassroots. They have put it all together. Moreover, they understand very clearly that the libertarian party is a failed "liberty advancing strategy". They are very clear on their direction.

The big question is this, --- are there enough libertarians left to infiltrate the DNC as "Jefferson Democrats"? Ron Paul Republicans want to know, for their goal to infiltrate the 2 party duopoly hinges on Jefferson Democrats doing the same thing inside the DNC. Those happy REASON CATO types need to take action fast. Right now, they are all talk and no walk.

Justin - I wish you could have sat in my shoes last week. In Arizona's congressional district 9 race, 8 republicans came to a fire house station to answer 20 prewritten questions by RP Patriots. One experienced Republican- Jon Kyl endorsed - talked to us about how he has improved on Ron Paul's medical free market plan. And to our surprise he did! He received a rounding applause. This only emboldens this poor fool to continue on the path of his "skilled thinking" on the issues to which not a clap was heard. Patriot Act? Yes parts were ok but he'd get rid of it. TSA? He hates it like 'us' but no other solution is found so we must live with it. Drones in the USA? Well they are a good idea on the border! National Id? My drivers license and social security card is all ready a national ID so I don't see the issue there. Mexican illegals taking away jobs? We've got to stop that and he doesn't mind ripping families apart. End the Drug War? Look I have driven the squad car around and seen first hand the damages that drugs do to families. AT THIS POINT the deafening quiet from the audience had taken its toll and he opened it up for questions. Mine was: "Are Black Markets a Bad thing for society? and "Why do you want to create Black Markets?" He droned on and gasps poored out from the audience. He "had time for" one more question. "You said in your opening statement that we must learn from our past. Knowing what you know now about Vietnam, would you agree that was a stupid war?" To which he said "yes" and droned on about "fighting it differently". Seven more candidates stood up before the 30 of us. We spared our applause for the rare times they said "Constitution" and "cutting spending" and "free trade" and we saved our questions to point out their hypocritical answers to the constitution, to cutting spending, to free markets. My point is that I don't think you have to worry one bit about the Ron Paul grassroots. They have put it all together. Moreover, they understand very clearly that the libertarian party is a failed "liberty advancing strategy". They are very clear on their direction. The big question is this, is there enough libertarians left to infiltrate the DNC as "Jefferson Democrats"? Ron Paul Republicans want to know, for their goal to infiltrate the 2 party duopoly hinges on Jefferson Democrats doing the same thing inside the DNC. (PS. webmaster, I could not sign in via facebook)

At the very least.... Get Charles Goyette on your show... !!!! I miss him on the radio.

Judge, you really.....REALLY need to get you a SIDE KICK. Your show needs more BOUNCE, more Back n Forth, and I really think you would work well with Mr. Goyette.

So let me highly recommend CHARLES GOYETTE.... watch him here
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6MgWWpRfag" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6MgWWpRfag

in peace and liberty,
Treg