*I do not #StandWithRand by Cindy Sheehan

*I Do Not #StandWithRand

Cindy Sheehan

"I have no patience for useless things"

Kevin Spacey as Congressman Frank Underwood in House of Cards

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a congress".
 
Peter Stone

  True story: when I was camping near George Bush’s fake ranch in Crawford, Tx, I got a message of solidarity and support from KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke. I immediately denounced it and refused the support.

Recently an obvious political stunt was perpetrated by one of the members of the most exclusive group of one-percent jackasses on the planet, the US Senate, and some very shady and harmful thugs are supporting him in it and I would denounce that kind of support if it were me.

Senator Rand Paul filibustered the confirmation of Obama’s choice for CIA Director, John Brennan for 13 hours the other night. Make no mistake, just because I don’t #StandWithRand, does not mean that I stand with Obama’s “Dick Cheney”, Barack Obama, the Democrats or the use of drones to kill enemy combatants in the US.

Now, the reason I opened this piece with the reminiscence of David Duke, is that I have been thoroughly attacked (again) by the “left” and the “right” because I do not #StandWithRand. I don’t support partisan political grandstanding and that’s what his stunt was, and that’s all. Of course, Rand Paul supports the use of drones to kill brown Arabs in other countries and “enemy combatants” here in the US and he also hypocritically voted for the National Defense Authorization Act 2013.

I also believe that his father’s latest symbolic run for POTUS was used to set Rand up to run for president in 2016 and when Newt Gingrich praised him for his stunt and denounced other old guard GOP who are not supporting The Rand Paul Show, we can tell that the “new GOP” is going to be the younger crop of neocons like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio—the old ones like McCain and Romney are obviously not working out.

Don’t get me wrong about this either, I know that both parties support Wall Street and the War Machine and are sucking the life out of working-class and poor America and I really don’t pay that much attention to what goes on out there in the malignant capitol of the USA, but when over a million people around the world #StandWithRand, someone has to set the record straight.

“Purist” is another smear that is swirling around me because I didn’t become orgasmic over Rand’s “pile driver” the other day in the Senate, because like professional wrestling, his “pile driver” was for show and harmless to the establishment. However, I can stand as a proud purist and not with Rand because here are a few fascist, neocons that do #StandWithRand and if any of these people praised or supported me, I would go to Tibet to find my center and principles again and not come back home until my head was, once again, on straight:

Jennifer Rubin (Washington Post, 7 March, 2013) Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) demonstrated in his filibuster of John Brennan exactly why he is a formidable force and why 2016 contenders and their supporters should be nervous.

Charles Krauthammer Fox News Mega-Neocon (from The Blaze 6 March, 2013): Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer on Wednesday called Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) lengthy filibuster a “stroke of political genius” and said it will prove to be the moment that thrust him onto the national stage.

“He will be remembered,” Krauthammer said of Paul and the filibuster, which (sic) began just before 12 p.m. ET and was didn’t end until after midnight.

“This raises his image, and he’s completely sincere about this,” he added. 

“This will be a moment that people will say has launched him as a national figure.”

Sean Hannity, (Fox News, 7 March, 2013) Since the election, I've been saying that conservatives now have a few real stars in the Senate: Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Utah Senator Mike Lee and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Yesterday, in an incredible display of principled tenacity, Senator Rand Paul proved why he is on that list…So that is was led Rand Paul to his epic filibuster…

Extreme fascist, right wing, neocon radio host, Mark Levin, told his listeners to “support” the stunt (“stunt” is my word).

Last but not least, everybody’s favorite prescription drug addict, Rush Limbaugh (Rand Paul was on his show 7 March as reported by Noah Rothman in MediaIte):

In a wide-ranging interview, Paul told Limbaugh that he was (sic) thought it was important to have a debate about President Barack Obama‘s approach to American citizens (author’s note: screw the brown Arabs who are killed by drones) who are viewed by the administration as being subject to a drone strike. Limbaugh heaped praise on Paul for his ability to “take this president on” and said that many see him as “a hero” today.

RP: (Obsequiously to Rush): “I was thinking of you when I was in the middle of this 13-hour – I got about five hours into it, and I was like, ‘well, Rush does four hours of this every day. Certainly, I can do four more hours.”

RL: “Nobody in the Republican Party has dared take this president on. You did last night, and you’re alive today to talk about it.”

“You are, in certain ways, a hero to a lot of people today,” he added. “This was, to me, a seminal event last night that could change the direction that we are all heading – particularly in terms of educating and informing the American people about what actually is happening in their country.”

 

There is an old canard, “the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend,” and I highly doubt that any of the above neocons believe that the use of drones is ever wrong, but are using Rand’s stunt to attack Obama and the Democrats. I would have been more inclined to take notice if it were a Democrat taking Obama on, but is it news that a Republican opposes the policies of a Democrat? If Romney were president today (a man Rand endorsed) and he was doing the same things Obama is, the above partisan jackals would be thoroughly denouncing anyone who would dare oppose his behavior. I know what of I speak. 
 

Rand Paul supports the “crippling” sanctions against Iran, and obviously, the use of drones on the “battlefield,” so I #Stand with the people in Pakistan and Yemen who have been subjected to assassination by drone. Rand Paul went to Israel to pay allegiance to the Zionist-Apartheid state and supports its criminal existence and had a meeting with ultra-Zionist, William Kristol (right before he endorsed neocon, Mitt Romney) to promise that he would also be an obedient neocon.

I #Stand with Anwar al Awlaki, Samir Khan and Abdulramen al Awlaki who were American citizens assassinated in Yemen, without trial or due process. I #Stand with the people of Palestine who are being harmed by the very people Rand Paul is supporting.

However, I will agree that what Rand Paul did was a brilliant political stunt, because all week, no one has been having intelligent conversations about how Obama has vastly expanded the use of drones in Af-Pak and how thousands of innocents have been slaughtered. The stunt subject was so narrow that the badly needed conversation of the growing police state and how peace and social justice activists (particularly around Occupy and the Gaza issue) are being targeted and persecuted by the DOJ.

I was in front of the CIA in January of 2010 protesting the CIA’s part in the expansion of drone bombings overseas. Brennan could have been put on the hot seat for that, but Rand is the topic, not what should be the real topic.

As Frank Zappa said, “Politics is the entertainment division of industry,” but, sadly, not even very entertaining, more like boring predictability!

What happened after the Rand Paul show? Drones are flying all over the world, John Brennan was confirmed anyway, and Rand is “seriously weighing” a presidential bid in 2016? Do tell? What a happy coincidence!

*Author’s Note: the # (hash tag) is a device used on Twitter to consolidate topics. Over one million people have used the #StandWithRand since his stunt. 

UPDATE I:  (9:13 pm PST) This was posted on my Facebook wall and I thought it was a great complement to my article:

 

"During an interview with Sean Hannity, Sen. Paul described his meeting with Romney by saying, "I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible commander-in-chief. I don't think he'll be reckless. I don't think he'll be rash. And I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort and something we don't rush willy-nilly into. And I came away feeling that he'll have mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy."

Paul is widely and correctly regarded as the most likely heir to the leadership of the movement his father began. It seems likely that he will pursue the Republican nomination in 2016 or 2020 as the candidate of both Tea Party activists and Ron Paul supporters, and the 2012 Ron Paul campaign has been laying the organizational foundations for that future run. This is why the endorsement matters. Rand's approval of Romney's foreign policy threatens to alienate many of his core supporters, and it lends additional support to the Republican foreign policy status quo that he is supposed to be challenging.

The problem is not just that Paul gave Romney a free pass on foreign policy. He lent credibility to the idea that Romney's aggressive rhetoric on the subject doesn't mean anything, and can therefore be safely dismissed by voters worried about a return to the Bush era. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that Romney is channeling the views of his most hawkish advisers and promoting the foreign policy favored by veterans of the Bush administration. There is nothing in the public record to suggest that Romney's foreign policy would be one that Rand Paul could support.

Far from believing that war should be a last resort, Romney is on record supporting "preventive" wars in Iraq and Libya, and he has emphasized his readiness to wage "preventive" war against Iran. By definition, an advocate of "preventive" war rejects the idea that war should be a last resort. Romney may not seem reckless, but the Iran policy he and many of his advisers promote undoubtedly is.

As for having "mature" views on foreign policy, Romney has not provided much evidence of maturity in his policy statements. On Russia, China, NATO, and Afghanistan, Romney has made statements that were demonstrably false, provocative, illogical, or sharply at odds with his own advisers' views. From describing Russia as "our number one geopolitical foe" to rejecting negotiations with the Taliban that his advisers support, Romney has been developing a reputation for being neither mature nor responsible.

That isn't surprising, since Romney has essentially no foreign policy experience. His policy statements serve as a reminder that he is one of the least prepared major party nominees on foreign policy in the post-WWII era. Because of that, he has surrounded himself with advisers from the previous Republican administration. That is the common practice for similarly inexperienced politicians. Unfortunately for Romney, the previous administration's foreign policy record was largely one of failure, unforced errors, and one very costly and unnecessary war. It is hardly reassuring to know that Romney's policies will be shaped by many of the same advisers responsible for such poor results."

http://tinyurl.com/7cszysg