Rand endorses Matt Gaetz

[Matt Collins]

Matt Gaetz Announces Endorsement from Senator Rand Paul

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) endorsed Matt Gaetz in his re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives for Florida’s First Congressional District. Senator Rand Paul is one of the nation’s leading advocates for liberty. Elected to the United States Senate in 2010, Dr. Paul has proven to be an outspoken champion for constitutional liberties and fiscal responsibility.

“Congressman Matt Gaetz has been my reliable partner in Washington fighting for more liberty, fewer wars, and less spending. Matt Gaetz works tirelessly against the corrupt D.C. swamp and has my full endorsement in his re-election campaign,” Senator Paul said in a statement.

For future updates, visit Matt Gaetz’s website HERE.

[PAF]

I guess he's "better" than others?

But, here again, it is important for people to know the bad votes, which negates the good votes, and how we have steadily declined in terms of freedom and fiscal responsibility.

Whether you are pleasantly happy and smile with the "trade-off's", want to hold him accountable during his terms in office, or wish to run a candidate who is grounded in principles, here it is:

- Matt Gaetz: "House Republicans must do better. We must be led better. We must return Trump to the White House.”

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 406 ASEAN Relations
We Oppose. ASEAN is a political and economic union, as opposed to an individual sovereign nation. Providing a permanent ASEAN mission in the United States with the same privileges and immunities as embassies further accelerates globalist designs of collectivizing nations into regional unions rather than dealing with them as individual sovereign states. Furthermore, two of the 10 member-states that comprise ASEAN officially have Marxist-Leninist governments: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. This resolution expands U.S. relations with the communist regimes that oppress those two nations and that heavily influence the policies of the ASEAN union.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 133 Appropriations/Coronavirus
We Oppose. Congress is failing to address its profligate spending that yielded an annual federal deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020. Moreover, Congress is minimizing its accountability to voters by combining all “discretionary” federal spending and coronavirus aid into one gigantic bill and only holding two votes on that bill in the House.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 266 Coronavirus
We Oppose. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to disburse loans to small businesses or cover the salaries of laid-off employees. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out businesses or the unemployed.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 5430 USMCA
We Oppose. Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to surrender our national sovereignty to any transnational regional government, including the nascent North American Union.

- Matt Gaetz voted NO on H R 2500 On Agreeing to the Amendment 33 to H R 2500
We Support. We support Representative Amash’s amendment. Indefinite detention without trial is a serious violation of the right to habeas corpus, the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a “speedy and public” trial (Sixth Amendment).

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H R 2157 Disaster Supplemental Appropriations
We Oppose. The federal government has no constitutional authority to rebuild areas stricken by natural disasters. Such activity should be undertaken by private companies and charities first, and, as a last resort, handled by local or state governments. Disasters would arguably be handled more effectively this way compared to the feds.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on S 47 Public Lands
We Oppose. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.J.R. 31 Consolidated Appropriations (H.J.R. 31)
We Oppose. Most of the bill’s spending programs are unconstitutional and unacceptably expand our debt and deficit.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 6157 Appropriations for Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, and Continuing Appropriations
We Oppose. Social welfare spending falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and lumping multiple appropriations bills into one mega bill reduces lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents. Moreover, even though defense spending is constitutional, the “defense” budget is bloated with funding for overseas military operations that have not contributed to the defense of our own country.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 302 FAA Reauthorization and Supplemental Disaster Appropriations
We Oppose. The bill is comprised of unconstitutional federal overreach in both aviation and disaster relief. One example is the TSA, which is known for groping and violating air travelers in the name of providing security. Instead of relying on an inefficient federal bureaucracy, security should be provided by the airlines, which have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe. Another area the feds should stay out of is the regulation of private-sector drones, which instead should be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. And the market, not the feds, should determine such issues as the dimensions of seats on passenger airliners. Regarding disaster relief, this should be handled by private charitable efforts, not the federal government.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on S. 1182 Flood Insurance
We Oppose. The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to get into the insurance business. Having the federal government as an insurer essentially subsidizes risky behavior, such as building in flood-, fire-, and earthquake-prone areas, and forces the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Insurance policies for natural disasters should be offered by private insurers, with the market setting the rates for such coverage.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 4909 School Violence
We Oppose. School safety is not a proper function of the federal government. School safety should be addressed at the local level. The nationalizing of local police and school security, as well as any other gun-control measures contained in the bill, are all strictly unconstitutional.

In a podcast interview with Conservative Review, Representative Thomas Massie (RKy.) said the “STOP School Violence Act was bad enough for nationalizing defense of our schools,” but he further revealed, “There is money in that bill that is going to go to gun control groups. It literally says in there you can give it to the 501-C3s, and then it also says in there it can’t go to train anybody on gun safety. It’s got to go for all the liberal sort of agendas.”

- Matt Gaetz voted NO on S.139 Warrantless Surveillance
We Support. This amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 3180 Intelligence Authorization
We Oppose. The very idea of Congress authorizing classified amounts of spending is unconstitutional, as well as frightening. Furthermore, some of the agencies that this “classified” spending is funding are themselves engaged in unconstitutional activities, such as spying on and gathering data from U.S. citizens without a warrant. While assessing (dubious) Russian influence in U.S. politics is an acceptable use of federal funds, much of this bill’s spending is unconstitutional and should be rejected.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.Res.397 NATO
We Oppose. The United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, which undermine the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 1616 National Computer Forensics Institute Authorization
We Oppose. Providing federal equipment and training to state and local law-enforcement officers not only is unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.

- Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 1628 ObamaCare Replacement
We Oppose. We have assigned pluses to the nays because ObamaCare should be repealed, not replaced with a Republican variant of unconstitutional government healthcare that more liberty-minded lawmakers have referred to as "ObamaCare Lite" and "ObamaCare 2.0."


https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-i.../congress-115/

[fisharmor]

Whether you are pleasantly happy and smile with the "trade-off's", want to hold him accountable during his terms in office, or wish to run a candidate who is grounded in principles, here it is:

Well it's nice to know how slimy he is... but everyone here wants to forget or not acknowledge that Rand endorsed Mitt $#@!ing Romney before his father Ron Paul, the guy this forum is named after, had dropped out of the race.

If I was running for reelection I'd politely ask Rand to please keep his endorsements pointed at the swamp creatures.

[Invisible Man]

Well it's nice to know how slimy he is... but everyone here wants to forget or not acknowledge that Rand endorsed Mitt $#@!ing Romney before his father Ron Paul, the guy this forum is named after, had dropped out of the race.

That's not true. Ron dropped out on May 14. Rand endorsed Mitt on June 7 after the last primaries of that year had been completed.

[acptulsa]

Ron Paul, the guy this forum is named after...

... endorsed any crappy Republican who asked him, except McCain and Romney . He wanted on committees.

[PAF]

That's not true. Ron dropped out on May 14. Rand endorsed Mitt on June 7 after the last primaries of that year had been completed.

That's not true. On May 14, Paul announced that he would end active campaigning for the remaining primary states and instead focus on delegate selection conventions at the state level.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm holding out for the Mike Johnson endorsement. Without that, I won't vote for Gaetz.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well it's nice to know how slimy he is... but everyone here wants to forget or not acknowledge that Rand endorsed Mitt $#@!ing Romney before his father Ron Paul, the guy this forum is named after, had dropped out of the race.

If I was running for reelection I'd politely ask Rand to please keep his endorsements pointed at the swamp creatures.

Won't acknowledge the endorsement or the timeline?

Just hairsplitting. We know Rand endorsed Romney. IIRC, Ron had been complimentary towards Romney at the time, because Romney had been cordial towards Ron, unlike some other politicians and pundits.

And at the time, Romney had not yet revealed his full neocon, leftist, big govt self. Very typical of neocon and RINO candidates.

[Invisible Man]

That's not true. On May 14, Paul announced that he would end active campaigning for the remaining primary states and instead focus on delegate selection conventions at the state level.

Ron Paul continued to support sending his supporters to the convention as delegates after he ended his campaign for the nomination on May 14, but only for the purpose of influencing the party, not for the purpose of him still trying to win the nomination.

Not all of his supporters understood that or agreed with it. But Rand did. Which is why he waiting until then to endorse Romney, not for the Republican nomination, but for the general election in his race against Obama, since Ron was no longer running.

[PAF]

Won't acknowledge the endorsement or the timeline?

Just hairsplitting. We know Rand endorsed Romney. IIRC, Ron had been complimentary towards Romney at the time, because Romney had been cordial towards Ron, unlike some other politicians and pundits.

And at the time, Romney had not yet revealed his full neocon, leftist, big govt self. Very typical of neocon and RINO candidates.

Yes he did. It was very well known that he fully endorsed, of all people, Paul Tsongas, was the author of Obam-ney Care in the state of MA, signed gun ban legislation, among many other things. All before he even ranked in the polls.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes he did. It was very well known that he fully endorsed, of all people, Paul Tsongas, was the author of Obam-ney Care in the state of MA, signed gun ban legislation, among many other things. All before he even ranked in the polls.

at the time, Romney had not yet revealed his full neocon, leftist, big govt self.

Thus the keyword "full". Everyone did know about Romneycare.

[PAF]

Ron Paul continued to support sending his supporters to the convention as delegates after he ended his campaign for the nomination on May 14, but only for the purpose of influencing the party, not for the purpose of him still trying to win the nomination.

Not all of his supporters understood that or agreed with it. But Rand did. Which is why he waiting until then to endorse Romney, not for the Republican nomination, but for the general election in his race against Obama, since Ron was no longer running.

I was directly involved in that campaign all the way to National Convention. Whatever happened, I was in it to win it, and did not stop. Had there not been the corruption, some of which I encountered first hand...

But then, since then, I have learned that government does not exist to save us.

[PAF]

Thus the keyword "full". Everyone did know about Romneycare.

I guess folks at that time didn't think that a few bad votes, or only a signature or two, was that big of a deal? Much like today?

[Invisible Man]

I was directly involved in that campaign all the way to National Convention. Whatever happened, I was in it to win it, and did not stop. Had there not been the corruption, some of which I encountered first hand...

But then, since then, I have learned that government does not exist to save us.

There were many rogue delegates like yourself. But it would be dishonest to pretend that Ron Paul was on board with that.

[PAF]

There were many rogue delegates like yourself. But it would be dishonest to pretend that Ron Paul was on board with that.

Rogue delegates, like myself? What on earth are you talking about?

If you are referring to the unbounds, that was part of the problem, among other things.

[Invisible Man]

Rogue delegates, like myself? What on earth are you talking about?

If you are referring to the unbounds, that was part of the problem, among other things.

You said yourself that you went all the way to the National Convention and were in it to win it. I understood you to mean that you went there intending to do whatever you could to help Ron Paul win the nomination, as though he were still competing for it at that point.

If this is correct, then you and others like you were rogue delegates, because you were pursuing something the official Ron Paul campaign openly repudiated.

[PAF]

You said yourself that you went all the way to the National Convention and were in it to win it. I understood you to mean that you went there intending to do whatever you could to help Ron Paul win the nomination, as though he were still competing for it at that point.

If this is correct, then you and others like you were rogue delegates, because you were pursuing something the official Ron Paul campaign openly repudiated.

Oh, brother. Well, this is for another debate, one that would take pages upon pages, and I'm not up to it this morning.

[Invisible Man]

Oh, brother. Well, this is for another debate, one that would take pages upon pages, and I'm not up to it this morning.

This gets to the entire nature of the claim that Rand was the one who went against his own father's campaign, which is what fisharmor accused him of (and I see this accusation made a lot).

That accusation is completely false. Rand was as much of an insider of team Ron that year as you can get. He wasn't going off on his own doing something contrary to what his dad wanted at that point. It was the rogue delegates who made up this fantasy that Ron had some kind of delegate strategy where he was hoping for them to nominate him at the convention with zero support from Ron himself who were doing that. The very fact that Rand did endorse Romney for the general election is one big piece of the proof of this. But there was plenty more. You and the other rogue delegates and advocates of the make believe "delegate strategy" may have chosen to ignore it. But it was there.

[PAF]

This gets to the entire nature of the claim that Rand was the one who went against his own father's campaign, which is what fisharmor accused him of (and I see this accusation made a lot).

That accusation is completely false. Rand was as much of an insider of team Ron that year as you can get. He wasn't going off on his own doing something contrary to what his dad wanted at that point. It was the rogue delegates who made up this fantasy that Ron had some kind of delegate strategy where he was hoping for them to nominate him at the convention with zero support from Ron himself who were doing that.

There was a lot communication back and forth, some publicly, some during round tables, some one-on-one with Ron himself. Unless you were part of those conversations, anything that I would offer would be considered hearsay. But don't blow smoke and tell me that the delegate strategy was some kind of fantasy. Were you actually there? If so, send me a PM, perhaps we actually met.

[fisharmor]

This gets to the entire nature of the claim that Rand was the one who went against his own father's campaign, which is what fisharmor accused him of (and I see this accusation made a lot).

I didn't make that accusation. I pointed out that Ron Paul had not dropped out of the race. PAF confirmed this, and so did you.

But I'm well aware the position of this site is that Rand did the right thing in 2012. I had intended to talk about Rand's endorsements, not the 2012 election.

I'm stuck with a binary problem here: either endorsements mean something, or they don't mean anything. I don't speak swamp creature and I don't respond to Schrodinger's Endorsement that is obviously intended to drum up support but also doesn't have any harmful political effects.
If the endorsement means something, then you don't give them to dirtbag politicians who support multiple positions ostensibly antithetical to yours.
If the endorsement doesn't mean anything, then it's a waste of time and attention.

I guess there's a third potential option: the endorsement means something but is essentially being traded for personal benefit.

I don't really see any other possibilities for why they happen.

[acptulsa]

If nothing else, it's a well deserved poke at Johnson.

[Invisible Man]

I didn't make that accusation. I pointed out that Ron Paul had not dropped out of the race. PAF confirmed this, and so did you.

He did drop out of the race on May 14, weeks before Rand's endorsement of Romney for the general election only.

When Rand endorsed Romney, Ron was no longer running for president.

[acptulsa]

He did drop out of the race...

Will you two be quibbling over the definition of "dropped out of" for very long?

[fisharmor]

Will you two be quibbling over the definition of "dropped out of" for very long?

I've tried twice to shift focus to the idea that Rand sucks at making endorsements. The endorsement of another RINO progressive big government anti-liberty candidate was the topic, right?
I don't need Rand to be the guy who slit the throat of the revolution to loathe what he does with endorsements.

[Cleaner44]

Rand Paul and Matt Gaetz are both in the small group of Republican politicians that oppose the uniparty in D.C. and that is about the only good thing coming out of the federal government.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul and Matt Gaetz are both in the small group of Republican politicians that oppose the uniparty in D.C. and that is about the only good thing coming out of the federal government.

Coincidently, Matt Gaetz attended a "Libertarian" discussion last night on X...

A good discussion on Trump speaking at the Libertarian Convention.

Features various LP members including LNC Chair Angela McArdle and Presidential candidate Michael Rectenwald, also John Dennis and Matt Gaetz...

https://twitter.com/BerryRazi/status...72611485053419

[PAF]

Coincidently, Matt Gaetz attended a "Libertarian" discussion last night on X...

Did he make the case that Trump is going to MAGA-A and will save us and that we should do everything in our power back him 10,000%?

All I get is the following when I click on the link:

[Cleaner44]

I am long past looking for allies that are 100% overlap with my beliefs. I have a solid overlap with the type of politicians that voted to dump Kevin McCarthy and those that are standing up to Mike Johnson. We will never see a Congress filled with Ron Paul type integrity people. I have learned that the best we can work for is Massie, Gaetz, MYG types, and hopefully have 75%+ overlap.

D.C. is satanic. The primaries are the only shot at cleaning that mess up and that is an extremely long shot.