Tuesday, January 28, 2014


Over the weekend, January 25, 20114, the NY Times published an article by Sam Tanenhaus and Jim Rutenberg titled, Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance.

The article is a survey kind of piece, fact light and certainly not a candidate for any prizes in investigative journalism.  

Lew Rockwell, of Mises Institute and, was mentioned three times, mostly to identify him.  No link to the original article by Tanenhaus and Rutenberg was included in the response bylined and featured by Lew, titled, We Win the NY Times Prize. 

The response by Lew is of interest because he positions the article as an attack on himself and the Mises Institute, which it is not.  

The repositioning aspect of the piece, which appears to be its primary focus, is Rand Paul who is presently testing the waters for a presidential run of his own in 2016.  The piece points to facts on the backgrounds of both Pauls, father and son, and those around them.   High up in the article Rand Paul is credited for his 13 hour fillibuster on the use of drones on American soil.  

The authors then ask the valid question, having quoted Mitt Romney saying, “Senator Paul is a credible national candidate.  He has tapped into the growing sentiment that government has become too large and too intrusive.” 

The article then cites an email from Mr. Romney which noted the potential for attracting "votes and dollars," from his father’s supporters as them, Mr. Romney says,  "could help make him “a serious contender for the Republican nomination.”

The authors then ask, how fully he (Rand) embraces some libertarian precepts.  

Senator Paul attended a conference of Liberty Political Action Conference last September 19 - 22 in Chantilly, Virginia, leaving early to attend another conference, this one held at an exclusive resort on Mackinac Island, Mich., for  "Republican stalwarts."  Karl Rove was also in attendance, this being an opportunity to check out potential candidates.  

It is natural that the authors would present the ideas of freedom, and the Constitution as marginal.  They work for the establishment and this is their job.  But it is time for  people of all parties to consider their options as well.  

What has been accomplished with the money donated, and time spent by activists, to return America to a Constitutional Republic?  The silence is deafening and deep. 

Many questions should be asked, and soon.