Rand Paul's Bilderberg “No Comment” and The Logan Act

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Rand Paul has been under intense scrutiny, not from usual suspects, but from his father’s national base of fervent libertarians and constitutionalists.  Since his controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney last week it has been all-hands-on-deck in the liberty movement.  People are beginning to know a little bit more about Rand and they do not like what they see – the honeymoon is over.

While some speculate his endorsement was a way to neutralize opposition from establishment GOP, laying down goodwill for his anticipated presidential run in 2016, others wonder whether he may be positioning himself as Lady Liberty’s double agent.  Ruminations aside, antennas are up and ready to analyze Rand’s next utterance.

This is one of the latest:

The secretive Bilderberg meeting concluded its most recent controversial confab earlier this month in Chantilly, Virginia.  The conference welcomed its typical shadowy constellation of global elite including many from all corners of American government: NSA chief General Keith Alexander; Thomas Donilon, Obama’s National Security Adviser; former U.S. National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger; failed GOP Presidential hopeful and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman; Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.); World Bank boss Robert Zoellick; Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Co-Chair and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and reportedly, among others, one - Mitt Romney of Massachusetts.

The “reporter” from WGCN Radio Chicago was unable to confront Sen. Paul about his endorsee’s participation in Bilderberg, but his “no comment” on whether Kerry (and by extension his new found political pal) was in violation of the Logan Act speaks volumes; specifically he didn’t say “no.”  This reinforces Sen. Paul’s purported political gambit – sacrificing for a moment philosophical purity for the larger more pragmatic prize of the Presidency down the line.

Sen. Paul is no doubt familiar with his father’s position on members of the U.S. government meeting behind closed doors and discussing policy.  Rep. Paul has called for investigations into public officials and their Bilderberg attendance.  On talk radio he questioned Gov. Rick Perry for his participation:

“This information about him going over there and violating the Logan Act and getting involved, I’m just impressed that that’s in the ordinary media — I think that’s encouraging, too...”

While it is clear by now the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree it is also evident that Sen. Paul is not his father and may not be as eager to work outside the system as libertarian ideologues would wish him to be.

The Senator’s political nolo contendre with regard to the Logan Act thus exposes many things: his misgivings with the secretive annual meetings, his refusal to abandon a tenuous political alliance with the political establishment, but most of all his realism.

If Sen. Paul can keep his cards close, even from a once adoring alternative media and if he can weather reactionary Paulistas his options remain aplenty moving forward.  To delve into an obscure and evidently toothless piece of legislation isn’t good politics and hurts him more than it would bring violators to justice.

To be sure, the Logan Act has barely seen the inside of a court room and the only times it has been mentioned is in the congressional record and referenced within Justice Sutherland’s 1936 Supreme Court opinion affirming the President as constitutional representative of the U.S. with regard to foreign nations.

The Logan Act reads, in part, as follows:

“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

When Sen. George McGovern was accused of its violation in 1975 the U.S. State Department issued this statement:

“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution…”

Nowhere in the act does it say that members of our government can’t meet with other government agents “in secret” as so many activists assert.  Meeting in secret or at least without record, in and of itself, is not illegal and in fact happens regularly even outside the twenty or so elite summits that occur every year around the world.

It is interesting to note that Dr. George Logan, from whom the bill derives its name, was a pacifist who helped quell tensions when the U.S. and France fought an essentially undeclared war at sea – the Quasi War – at the end of the 1700s.  When Logan returned successful partisan Federalists were unhappy he received undue adulation from the media and sought through law to “curb the temerity and impudence” of such individuals. 

The question arises then: when are we to apply and not apply the Logan Act?  Are we to merely call for its enforcement when it offends our egalitarian and conspicuous sensibilities?  That wasn’t its intent.  The Logan Act has been used in the past to threaten those who want to continue dialogue when our government has ended diplomacy.  Think Jesse Jackson and his Cuban negotiations, Sen. McGovern and Stokely Carmichael in protest to Vietnam.

There is as much an opportunity for enemies of peace to use this act (if it ever saw the light of day) against those who would choose to open a back channel and avert open war, say with Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia as it is for those to use it against the world’s enigmatic power brokers seeking to influence our elected representatives.  Something lobbyists do on a daily basis.

But, how many undeclared wars do we currently fight?  If Rand Paul, or Ron Paul for that matter, were prosecuted under the Logan Act attempting to quell one of these many dubious interventions – undeclared wars – we now find ourselves apart, the irony would be overwhelming.

What activists and concerned citizens should continue to do is scrutinize and expose where the rubber meets the road, where ideas are put into action – political reform, legislation, executive orders, court decisions, administrative rules and regulations, etc.

While every decision our leaders make should be thoroughly investigated, vetted and debated, for now Rand Paul should be allotted some breathing room.  He has set himself on the path for the presidency and while many wish he’d just take off where Ron left off, the princeling may not be – his thing.  Rand has yet, as far as his voting record is concerned, to fall to the dark side, until then we should reserve judgment.

What Rand Paul's Endorsement Is and Isn't

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for President has formed a crack in the Paulista universe.  The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters, save an actual poll, are clearly rejecting the move as a sign that after all of their hard work, donations and success Rand has abandoned his base and sold out to the political establishment.  Just take a look at his Facebook page, yikes.

One example of the outrage: “NWO has a brand new tool in their toolbox.  How could you?”

Ron Paul by any measurement led the libertarian movement out of the political wilderness.  For decades he remained stalwart in his advocacy of the Constitution often being a lone voice of reason amidst calls for war, bank bailouts, undermining civil liberties and growth of national government.  Similarly his son has espoused these beliefs with the same vigor in his brief time in the Senate and has often been found willing to debate the finer points of libertarian philosophy while it may not often be popular.

The Pauls have been rock stars of a young, growing and vibrant liberty movement, which has proven capable of dismantling and remaking anachronistic state GOP leadership in their own image.  The Paulistas, while rancorous at times and buying wholesale into a very cynical view of their government, have displayed adept political maneuverability in securing more delegates than anyone thought possible.

The Ron Paul Revolution has tapped into a sustainable and vigorous movement while simultaneously creating a home replete with models of representation for moderates, disaffected liberals and disgruntled conservatives.  Why then would Rand endorse the personification of establishment politics?

First, lets make clear that what Rand Paul has not done, which is hurt the liberty movement.  The recent success of Ron Paul has shown the growing power of this faction of new politics.  The Ron Paul Republican is here to stay and that’s why you won’t see Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney.  The brand is secure, however, there is some politics left to play – and this is all about politics.

The Paul strategy is quite clear - graft healthy philosophy onto a dying system.

Rand Paul's ideology might not be identical to his father's, however, the
movement of which he claims to still be apart may act like a life giving
philosophical graft.  The GOP is the dead vine blow, the liberty
movement is grafted above.

There is a reason why Rand chose Sean Hannity’s Fox News program to announce.  It is one of the most watched shows on television and the platform is directed right into the homes of moderates and the full breadth of the conservative establishment.  His intended audience was the GOP not his base, which looked at objectively is a small, but growing part Republican politics.

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post:

"In making clear that [Rand Paul] is publicly behind Romney, Rand Paul is sending a very clear signal: I’m a good soldier for the GOP.

Make no mistake: The Republican party establishment will never embrace Rand Paul as one of their own — nor would he want them to. But, it is possible that Paul playing the role of loyal Republican in the 2012 election could well neutralize some of the fears the party regulars have about the prospects of him carrying their standard at some point down the line."

His gamble has initially paid off as self proclaimed “neocon” commentators are already warming to a future Rand Paul run. As Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller crassly put it: “He’s everything you like about Ron Paul, without the crazy.”

This neutralizing effect would quell the anxiety over future attempts at interparty quibbling and reported outright fraud.  Even the firebrand Alex Jones, an advocate of libertarianism and paleoconservative ethos, on his radio program today wanted to believe that Rand and Ron Paul were more politically savvy than it would seem given the endorsement.  However, he argued that not only was this a bad move for Rand Paul, who has been on his show many times along with his father Ron Paul, but it was a move that the media elite and establishment agents may use to attempt to splinter the liberty movement.

Cynicism has its place, however, sometimes it gets in the way.  Jones does bring up a great point though, Ron and Rand most definitely coordinated the move, but to what end?  Cillizza points to something we’ve all suspected, but what about the Romney/Paul ticket?

We have speculated Ron Paul as a possible Vice President and gave the reasons why it would be a good idea.  We have also suggested Rand may be tapped for VP for the same reasons.  Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative gives a few more:

"The symbolic power shift of putting an anti-statist, non-interventionist Republican in the number 2 slot — in contrast to Cheney in the last GOP administration — would have real-world consequences. That would keep Romney more interested than he would otherwise be in placating constitutionalists, for fear of an embarrassing split within his adminitration.

And a public official never just occupies a single office: the staff that Rand would put into executive-branch positions (even those associated with the institutionally weak vice presidency) would gain experience that would make them powerful rivals to the neoconservatives in staffing future GOP administrations."

Unfortunately none of these scenarios are likely to come to fruition.  The motivation against Barack Obama is demonstrably more widespread than the enthusiasm for Rand Paul and other than enthusiasm and fresh ideas Rand Paul doesn’t bring much to the table – as far as an establishment politician is concerned.  Marco Rubio on the other hand offers Latinos and Florida, Nikki Haley offers women and ostensibly some libertarianism, while Rob Portman is simply a reassuring water carrier.

To be sure, this was a political decision; therefore it should be judged on those grounds.  If Rand Paul doesn’t get anything for his endorsement, while pulling the chair out from under his supporters, it will be to his chagrin.  However, speaking slots at the GOP convention, cabinet appointments and other tangible influence will be a victory for the liberty wing of the GOP.  Revolutions don’t occur overnight, at least the organic ones.

MSNBC RON PAUL GAFF: Ron Paul in MSNBC Graphic Represented as Rand Paul

In an interview with Tim Pawlenty yesterday, MSNBC "fudged" a polling graphic halfway through the spot illustrating Tim Pawlenty's low poll numbers thus far.  Ron Paul is shown with 6%, 3 percentage points above Pawlenty, except, MSNBC used Rand Paul's (Ron Paul's son's) picture!  


In the same vein FOX News "mistakenly" misrepresented last month what was a jubilant reaction by the audience at the 2012 CPAC straw poll result by playing a year old video clip embedded in a portion of the crowd ostensibly supporting Mitt Romney.  The clip featured his supporters booing and jeering amidst a larger crowd in thunderous applause.  In a subsequent follow up interview on Fox NEWS with Rep. Ron Paul FOX mislead the American public and even Ron Paul himself (whom wasn't present at the announcement of the results) in believing his victory was rebuked by those in attendance to one of America's most conservative gatherings.  


Yesterday, MSNBC subtly sabotaged the Paul's by not lending them the respect of corresponding face with name!  With all of the press Ron and Rand Paul have received over the last two years is MSNBC expecting us to believe those who created this graphic don't know the difference between father and son?  See below...

MSNBC, negligence or deliberate disrespect?  You be the judge.