Rand Paul "If I were President, I'd Repeal all Previous Executive Orders..."

By Elizabeth Nelson

Okay, we all know that Rand is an isolationist, but he's a man of his word. So his latest statement early in Thursday's New Hampshire state primary raised quite a few eyebrows, 

"If I were President, I think the first executive order that I would issue would be to repeal all previous executive orders.”  

Now, if we only heard that sentence, that sentence alone from a self-professed Constitutionalist would be a bad, bad thing, because former President GW Bush, his father with all his AIDS EOs, and yes, even Obama has signed some beneficial Executive Orders. 

People often talk about GW Bush's Executive Orders vs. Obama's but what they don't realize is, they weren't "over reaching" they were more along the lines of humanitarian "for the people," and not against our Constitution. Like Bushes Improving Assistance for Disaster Victims, Protecting the American People from someone unjustly taking our property, with his EO: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People. Or how about the EO we hear often, the Public Alert and Warning System - it had to start somewhere. 

We all know Bush loved our servicemen and women.  He signed an EO for our Service-Disabled Veterans, to strengthen opportunities in Federal contracting for service-disabled, giving them first dibs at Federal job contracts.  We hear every day about human trafficking, well, he even has an EO for Human trafficking Victims Protection. 

Now, what Rand actually said, in context, was:

“My inclination would be that there have been too many executive orders and that really you shouldn’t legislate through executive orders," Paul said,

 "I never want to make a blanket statement without looking at everything. My general inclination is you should have less executive orders, but that the executive orders could be used to undo a lot of executive orders that have overstepped their bounds.”

There are some things that isolationist Rand believes that I don't, but there are some Constitutional things that I can stand beside.  Now here, he's right.  Take all of the Executive Orders and pour them into a Constitutional Sieve and only the ones that are held fast and true in the Constitutional sieve pass the sniff test and will remain and the rest we will willingly flush down the drain, as they never should have been enacted upon in the first place; no matter when or what President or party was holding the pen when they signed. 

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson UnPHILtered on ISIS "Convert them or Kill them"

By Elizabeth Nelson

Phil Robertson was on Hannity discussing our situation with ISIS, with his Bible in hand, and he and Hannity what we should do with ISIS and we know darn well that the Liberal media is going to have an issue with what he said, but should they? I'll even restructure it for the liberal left, sit down first.

   

"Hey America, the Declaration of Independence is my book marker."

"For those who find me [wisdom] find life and receive favor from the Lord, But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death." Proverbs 8:35-36

Hannity: "What is the answer?"

"In this case, you either have to convert them, which I think would be next to impossible. I'm not giving up on them, but I'm just saying either convert them or kill them," " we're going to have to deal with this group way more harshly."

Phil has a heart for the lost, pure and simple, but he has a realist's mind:

"I'd much rather have a Bible study with all of them and show them the error of their ways and point them to Jesus Christ,"

"However, if it's a gunfight and a gunfight alone, if that's what they're looking for, me personally, I am prepared for either one."

Now, you're liberal "open-minded, tolerant" panties are in a wad, because a Christian openly spoke the truth, and told you that we should offer ISIS an option to their Islam cult by showing them Jesus Christ BEFORE we take their life?  How is this totally different than your option of:

"We must go over to Syria and destroy, exterminate, eradicate and annihilate  ISIS"?

Oh wait, it is different, Phil's way is a lot like Israel's strategy with HAMAS, that strategy that you were calling "evil," because it's a preemptive warning them before we attack them and take their life, right?  This way, we're giving them a choice before we kill them, because even Phil says they won't covert, so either way they die.  How does Phil know they won't convert, because he knows that we Christians won't turn, but at least this way we would have told them the truth before they took their last breath.

Phil is also right in that the more us Christians point the way to the Truth and the Life, the more the Liberal left is going to hate us for it, but we were warned that day would come. 

"Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." 

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." 

So, here we are again, but this time with ISIS and a feckless leader with no strategy, but this time with a "leader" that prefers to create power vacuums and sides with terrorists over patriots.  

Rand Paul, although an isolationist, makes a couple great points here:

Taking out al-Assad isn't the option we need, because much like Libya and Gaddafi, that causes a power vacuum that is filled with a Jihadists. In a nutshell, we created this ISIS problem we're in by fighting alongside al-Qaeda and arming [out of Libya] the Syrian rebels so that they could try to overthrow al-Assad and in doing so created a safe haven for ISIS in Syria.

Sen. Rand Paul: "Hillary's 'War Hawk' Policies Led to Benghazi Attack & Rise of ISIS"

By Elizabeth Nelson

Hillary Clinton had better get used to outspoken and honest Senators like Senator Rand Paul, if she actually tries to run for President in 2016, because he's once again causing heads to explode when he blamed Hillary's "War Hawk" Libyan policies for not only the Benghazi Attack but the Rise of ISIS.  "War Hawk," more like "War-Chicken," all squawk and scratch and no bite.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya.

Libya is worse off without the dictator we "helped" remove, then before, so what help was Hill-billy and Obama to Libya?  We lost four great men in the process and now have to take care of ISIS.  Rand Paul makes a great point:

"I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war.

One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya.

So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war."

Not to mention, it still hasn't officially come out in the Benghazi investigation that we were arming the Syrian rebels, because we were trying to repeat Libyan history, because that would be illegal, right?

For instance, in Syria, Paul says, by arming the “rebels” against Assad, America “degraded Assad’s capacity to wipe out the rebel groups in his country.”

A year ago, Obama sought approval from Congress to engage militarily in Syria, as Paul urges, but Congress balked. Facing stiff resistance from lawmakers of both parties, the matter never even came up for a vote.

According to Paul, that's how the system is supposed to work.

“Think what would have happened had we seriously degraded Assad to the point where he was overrun, think who would be in charge of Syria right now?” Paul asked before answering his own rhetorical question: ”ISIS.” In conclusion, Paul said:

"So we are very lucky that the American people are much wiser than Hillary Clinton, and much wiser than the president. We got the president and Hillary Clinton to slow down, but Hillary Clinton was widely reported to be the chief person proposing that we get involved in Syria. But really the only person directly involved in bombing ISIS’s bases right now is the Syrian government—so for all their wrongs, we’re actually quite lucky we didn’t have regime change, because I think it is a very realistic prediction that, had we had that happen, that ISIS would be in charge of Syria. Really, Syria, with Assad and all this war, is somewhat of a counter to the power of ISIS."  Read more Breitbart

There is a time and a place for everything.  Imagine if you can, the Syrian Rebels had succeeded in overthrowing of Assad and probably killing him, just like we were successful in our helping the Libyans in their overthrowing and killing of Gaddafi and causing Libya's total fragmentation today. 

Now, fast forward to the entry of ISIS, do you think the Syrian army would then unit with them or stand behind whatever corrupt scarecrow we had helped put in Assad's place?  Yeah, be careful what you wish for, Obama may not like al-Assad, but at least the rule-of-thumb is, the enemy of our enemy is our friend.