This week, Governor Rick Perry and Sean Hannity have been in the spotlight.
He took a great amount of headlines in his pursuit of justice. In fact, I thought most of what he did played into the Left's need for a crisis.
More importantly, the charade helped once again paint the Right as outrageous war-hawks.
It's a serious situation, but does such a spectacle really help? I think it hurts instead. It helps make it seem like the Right is too infatuated with violence.
So, at the end of the day, it makes it seem like the Right is just as broken as the Left. It feeds into the Alinsky model. Instead of rational debate, it helps promote both sides as broken. But, there are others who are more level headed.
For me, I have come around to liking Rand Paul.
I think much of my initial concerns stemmed from his father. While I liked many of his policies, in particularly his monetary policies, I was always concerned about his foreign policy. Ron Paul consistently voted against Israel. That was not so much anti-Semitic, as it was counter-productive. However, that was the father, and today is a different day. Rand Paul isn't yet as well known as his father, but considering he may run for President, he should be looked at carefully in this time.
Rand Paul had somewhat argued that the United States was funding ISIS in Syria, or at least, that is what the international audience took away from it.
But today, when he rebutted Governor Rick Perry's foreign policy attacks, in this article,
He made a great point.
"I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq, which include armaments and intelligence. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn't even address."
I emphasize the last line because it's important to point out that Rand is saying that the U.S. didn't directly put the arms in terrorist hands, they were passed there by allies. So Rand's assessment is concurrent with my own assessment.
Some internationals had argued that because the U.S. was funding terrorist groups, it was no better than a terrorist organization itself. A heady charge, but one that is becoming more repetitive as it resonates. One that has been shouted now across the world and even envelopes American Universities.
That is why you need representatives to show the way out of the mess.
In this case, I find Rand Paul's words to be the correct ones. His platform is sound. He stands with life and freedom. I see many of his recent actions, such as being the champion of the Stand with Israel Act of 2014, (see here), to be the result of a political maturity.
I find Rand Paul to be a legitimate, and strong, contender to be the next President of the United States.