Senator “Snake” Sabotages Trump and MAGA

A Special Report on Libertarian Senator Rand Paul

By: Cliff Kincaid

Although his critique of the COVID-19 cover-up has won high marks from Republicans and conservatives, his constant votes with the Democrats against President Trump’s war on Iran continue to raise questions about whether Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is indeed a “snake” who threatens the future of the Republican Party.

Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), now Secretary of Homeland Security, had referred to Rand Paul as a “freaking snake” for his attempts to undermine conservative and MAGA initiatives in Congress.

On Wednesday, we saw more evidence of that personality trait, as Senator Paul joined with RINO Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to advance a Democratic-sponsored war powers bill to halt the war with Iran and give the Nazi-style regime a major victory over the United States.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday evening, Rand Paul’s son went on a drunken antisemitic tirade against Rep. Mike Lawler, a Catholic supporter of Israel, saying, among other things, “I hate Jews, and I hate gay people, and I don’t care if they die.” William Paul, who was said to be visibly intoxicated and had introduced himself as the senator’s son, later admitted that he had “too much to drink and said some things that don’t represent who I really am.” He added, “I’m sorry, and today I am seeking help for my drinking problem.”

Like the Democrats, Senator Rand Paul has insisted that Iran had posed no “immediate threat” to the United States, justifying his votes against the war.

Rand Paul is a “Libertarian,” Not a Republican

Today, there are legitimate questions about whether his snake-like or “libertarian” views could inspire a run for the presidency by the Kentucky Senator and divide Republicans, giving the Democrats the presidency in 2028.

It has been attempted before.

The libertarians, who have their own political party, tried to sabotage Ronald Reagan’s run for the presidency in 1980 when the Libertarian Party offered Ed Clark as the presidential candidate and David Koch as the vice-presidential candidate. They ran on a platform of “non -intervention” in foreign affairs that included amnesty for illegals, abolition of the Border Patrol, and abolition of the CIA and FBI.

“Republican” Rand Paul is up for re-election to the Senate in 2028 but is expected to face opposition from President Trump, who has called the Senator a “sick Wacko” for his libertarian policies and will probably seek a different Republican Senate nominee. Hence, Rand Paul may opt instead for a presidential run on the Libertarian Party ticket, in order to sabotage the future of MAGA and get revenge on Trump.

Rand Paul is consistently voting with the Democrats and attacking President Trump over Iran, insisting that “a 47-year-old conflict does not qualify” for a war. The Senator “focused specifically on Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and asked directly whether current reports indicate an immediate and pressing danger sufficient enough to justify ignoring the Constitution and launching a unilateral bombing campaign,” according to a column about his foreign policy views.

He was wrong about Russia when he offered a justification and “reasons” for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and now he’s wrong about Iran.

Wouldn’t a reasonable person conclude that, after 47 years of attacks on America, which cost hundreds of American lives and produced many wounded warriors, that America had the right to respond? Not Rand Paul.

President Jefferson Went to War Without Congress

Did Thomas Jefferson ignore the Constitution when he fought the Barbary Pirates, known as the naval mujahideen, who were capturing American ships and enslaving our sailors? Of course not. He exercised executive power and didn’t seek a declaration of war.

Is Rand Paul, therefore, opposed to the idea of American self-defense?

Regarding the more dangerous nuclear issue, why did the Iranian regime, which has oil resources, maintain nuclear infrastructure projects anyway? General Dan “Razin” Caine said Iran “could be an imminent and existential threat to the United States itself in just a few short years.” We have since learned the threat was more immediate.

Here’s the exchange:

Senator Tom Cotton: And do you agree that because of their missile programs, especially the flimsy cover of the space launch program, that this is not just a threat to our troops in the region or Israel or our Arab friends in the region, this could be an imminent and existential threat to the United States itself in just a few short years?

General Caine: Senator, I think that’s an accurate statement.

What constitutes “imminent?” Based on the surprising advance of the Iranian ballistic missile program, it could have been a matter of weeks or months.

Think about it: if the “reports” about Iranian missiles were wrong, what about the nuclear weapons themselves? How close were they? And could President Trump take a chance waiting?

Iran had launched two intermediate-range ballistic missiles targeting the joint U.S.-U.K. military base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, a strategic site 2,500 miles away. But Iran had maintained that its missiles had a range of 1,240 miles.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said that, if the facts about the operational range of about 2,500 miles for those missiles were confirmed, it is “more evidence that what the President [Trump] is doing here, taking out the ballistic missile capability, taking out the nuclear capability from Iran, is crucial.”

But Rand Paul doesn’t see it that way. He votes with the Democrats.

Consistently Wrong on National Security

Rand Paul was wrong on Iran, and he was also wrong about Ukraine and North Korea. Concerning the latter, he said the proper response to North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was to “invite China to be part of an international force to monitor the Demilitarized Zone in exchange for cessation and dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program.”

Does anybody believe that China, which assisted North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, would then work to dismantle them?

Years ago, I published a report on how Moscow was influencing the conservative movement, examining how Rand Paul became a dupe of Moscow when he defended their recruitment of NSA/CIA spy Edward Snowden and moved him to Russia through Chinese Hong Kong.

Senator Paul said about Edward Snowden, “On deciding when you decide to become a civil disobedient — we’ve had famous ones in our career, but some of them only had to serve, like [Henry David] Thoreau only had to serve one day in jail, Martin Luther King served 30 days in jail.”

President Trump had called Snowden a traitor who deserved death.

Like Father Like Son

Interestingly, Edward Snowden contributed funds to Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign.

In my book, Blood on His Hands: The True Story of Edward Snowden, I argued that Snowden’s revelations were intended to destroy American intelligence capabilities and that they succeeded to a great extent, in part by enabling Chinese and Russian cyber warfare, blinding our spy agencies. That led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

A contributor, Martin Edwin Andersen, the first national security whistleblower to be given the U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s “Public Servant Award,” noted that Snowden illegally “leaked massive amounts of national security information” and then fled to Russia, a police state where “real whistleblowers and investigative journalists alike are under continuous threat.”

Snowden is the traitor that Rand Paul hailed as a hero. No wonder he votes with Senate Democrats against Trump.

Significantly, Rand Paul, like his father, had a close relationship with pro-Russian commentator and 9/11 truther Alex Jones.

Jones had repeatedly claimed the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which killed 26 people, including 20 children, was a hoax aimed at promoting tougher gun control laws. On this basis, he made money from gullible people who bought his vitamins, thinking they were promoting his “research” into the case.

It didn’t work. Jones went bankrupt after being sued by the families of the victims.

Unilateral Disarmament

Like father, like son? Under the “Sustainable Defense Task Force” plan advanced by the so-called “odd couple” of Reps. Ron Paul (R-Tx.) and Barney Frank (D-Ma.) in 2010, the U.S. Navy would be cut to 230 combat ships (from a planned number of 313). Under President Reagan, the U.S. had come close to achieving a 600-ship Navy.

In total, they proposed a trillion-dollar cut in the Pentagon Budget.

Other proposals include:

Reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Slash spending on missile defense and space.
Retire two Navy aircraft carriers and two naval air wings.
Cancel or delay the Joint Strike Fighter, known as the F-35.
End procurement of the MV-22 Osprey.

Former Rep. Frank, one of the most left-wing members of Congress, created the “Sustainable Defense Task Force” that came up with the proposed cuts and worked in cooperation with Reps. Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Their plan was designed to serve as a model for President Barack Hussein Obama’s proposed cuts.

The “left-right coalition” making up the membership of the group included people from the Center for American Progress and the Cato Institute, both of which were funded by George Soros, and the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies.

By the way, the F-35 has been heavily involved in “Operation Epic Fury” and has been used to target Iran’s air defenses and military infrastructure.

Whatever the exact timetable of Iran developing nuclear weapons, the war to prevent the imminent and existential threat of a nuclear Iran was always going to happen, except if the anti-military agenda of Rand Paul’s father had been adopted.

In that case, the U.S. could not have defended itself, and we all would be exposed to a potential Iranian nuclear weapons strike killing millions. That would have been a threat to America as well as the state of Israel, bringing forth a second holocaust.

Since he can’t expect re-election in 2028 as a Republican, observers expect Rand Paul to go rogue as a presidential candidate, probably on the Libertarian Party ticket, to sabotage MAGA and elect a Democrat as president.