CPAC–Rand Paul: Not a Penny to Countries That Burn U.S. Flag

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul didn’t disappoint on yesterday’s appearance at CPAC at one point in his speech saying of foreign aide, “I say not one penny more to countries that are burning our flag.”

When he kicked off his address he joked that he’d only been given 20 minutes to speak but had brought 13 hours of material. He went on to joke that because of his filibuster Obama might ant to “drone” him.

This set Paul up to discuss theObama’s drone program, the National Defense Authorization Act, and how it is borderline unlawful to use drones on American soil without the due process of law.

Paul also attacked the federal government over its incredible waste. He cited a robotic squirrel project and a study to look at how monkeys react to meth. “Does it really take $3 million to discover that monkeys, like humans, act crazy on meth,” Paul asked.

Senator Paul also said that he favors the decriminalization of drugs saying that few young people think the war on drugs is a good use of federal tax dollars.


Posted by on March 15, 2013.
Filed under Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, CPAC, Culture Of Corruption, Economics, Egypt.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's and,,,,, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on He is also the owner and operator of Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at."The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    “I say not one penny more to countries that are burning our flag.”

    That’s just silly. Mobs burning flags cannot be controlled by the government and we should not be demanding that the governments control their people in ways that our government would not be allowed to control us.

    I get his point, that we should not be sending money to regimes that are ideologically opposed to our freedoms and way of life and who whip up anti American sentiment that results in these flag burnings. So then why not just say this? Egypt and other nations need to be made to heel. We give them billions in aid and there should be demands placed on their rhetoric.

    The problem is not the mobs in the street burning our flags, it is the governments that use anti-American rhetoric to inflame their public against us for the main purpose of distracting the people from the oppressive conditions those very governments are imposing.

    • JWH

      I recall reading of a mob in Pakistan that didn’t quite have its act together. They wanted to burn Bush in effigy, but they hadn’t bothered to put together an effigy. They wanted to burn an American flag, but they couldn’t find one. So they settled for writing the letters “USA” on a piece of paper and burning that.

      Life as an SNL skit.

      But on a serious note, you’re largely right. The “no aid to countries that burn American flags” bit is an applause line, nothing more.

    • rodney dill

      I agree, I think he was using and overly ‘fancy’ way of saying we don’t want to support ideologically opposed regimes.

      There’s enough flag burning in this country to eliminate ourselves from our own support otherwise

    • JLawson

      “it is the governments that use anti-American rhetoric to inflame their
      public against us for the main purpose of distracting the people from
      the oppressive conditions those very governments are imposing.”

      True – and in a number of ways financed by the funds we give them.

      So how about this? For every publicly broadcast flag burning, the country loses $100 million in aid. We’re not going to tell them to stop it. We could even suggest that the people go ahead and do it, maybe even do some airdrops or random parcels dropped off at the hothead’s homes full of good-sized flags for public combustion.

      Obviously they like our money – so we’ll see how long they’ll keep up the anti-American hate and keep supporting the flag-burners. When the aid drops to $0, maybe they’ll reconsider.

      (For some reason, I’m a lot less forgiving of the two-faced crap any more. Tell the people you hate the US, but gladly accept the money we hope to buy your… tolerance, if not friendship with? Nope, seen it too much, time after time. Billions handed out, and for what? Good will? Tolerance? Support when needed? Yeah, that sure worked…)

      • JWH

        I don’t see that being workable.

        Consider this scenario:

        1) The United States, for strategic reasons, supports a semi-autocratic government, or even a government that doesn’t do its job very effectively.

        2) The nation’s citizens are ticked at the government.

        3) Either because of custom or because of law, the citizens cannot protect effectively against their government.

        4) They know the United States supports their government.

        5) They displace the anger at their government to anger at the United States, and start burning US flags rather than local government flags.

        • JLawson

          At this point, I’m thinking that any country that looks to the US as an ‘ally’ is nuts. Strategic reasons or not, our support lasts as long as it’s politically convenient, and that ally will be discarded in time.

          It used to be that support was almost continual – but our dumping of Viet Nam when it became politically expedient should have been a warning to everyone. Now, look how we’ve treated our long term allies like England – with a great deal of disdain and almost contempt. We promised the people of Iraq and Afghanistan support – but the current crap of ‘diplomatic experts’ have all but thrown that away. Obama was supposed to increase our standing the world – but they hate us more than ever.

          Whoever gets the job in ’16 is going to have one hell of a problem rebuilding what Obama’s fractured.

          Damn. Maybe isolationism is the way to go. Hate to think that – but…

          • JWH

            In all seriousness though, look at some of the qualities of our allies over time. Hamid Karzai? Hosni Mubarak? Ferdinand Marcos? These were/are not nice guys.

          • jim_m

            The difference is that the dictators you name all at least in some ways supported US policy. obama seems to be attracted to world leaders that do nothing but criticize the US and obstruct our interests.

            Leaders and nations who support our interests are treated like he UK, where obama has deliberately taken sides against them over the Falklands an island chain where the only inhabitant have ever come from Britain and where Agentina’s claims have just this last week been rejected by 98% of the population. But obama would rather support a leftist dictator over the people of the Falklands and an ally that has stood by us in every conflict we have had for over 100 years.

            obama has destroyed any trust we once had with our allies. They now know without a doubt that they cannot trust or rely upon the US to protect their interests or even its own. There is no incentive to ally one’s nation with the US. The incentive is to oppose the US and then obama will shower you with money so you can further damage our nation’s interests and security.

          • Brucehenry

            Has the US supported Argentine claims to the Falklands? Is there the SLIGHTEST risk that Argentina will try to pull off another 1982?

          • jim_m
          • Brucehenry

            None of which demonstrate Obama’s “backing” of Argentine claims, despite the biased tone of the reporting in all three links. What the US is doing here, it seems to me, is signing off on an absolutely toothless OAS resolution that the UK knows very well means NOTHING substantive. Nothing will change. UK will continue its sovereignty over the Falklands, Argentina will be cajoled, and the negotiations will never take place.

            It wouldn’t surprise me to find that the US’s position was made known to the UK government in advance. I see Murdoch’s papers, FOX News, and the Heritage Foundation’s howls of faux outrage — has Her Majesty’s government expressed displeasure?

          • jim_m

            despite the biased tone of the reporting in all three links.

            There were four links Mr Genius. Sorry if your inability to count degrades the credibility of the rest of your response.

            Calling the Falklands, the “Malvinas” sends a clear political message of support for Argentinian aggression and is a rebuke to the UK. Everyone but the ideologically blinded ass lickers that support obama figured this out.

            The administration position on the Falklands was stated as this

            We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.

            “We take no position on sovereignty”????? For an island chain that was first colonized by Britain back in the mid 19th century and which no permanent Argentinian settlement has ever existed? and for a people who voted 98% to remain a British colony? How much of an ignorant supporter of dictatorship do you have to be to say that a territory held for nearly 200 years and populated by people who overwhelmingly want to be part of the UK, that it is perfectly acceptable to your administration , which pretends to support freedom and human rights, to have that territory taken over by a hostile power with no legitimate claim to it?

            Bruce, your position is ignorant in the extreme.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, missed the Daily Mail one. So?

            In that one, the fact is recalled that DURING the initial stages of the 1982 Falklands conflict — you know, when the islands were being invaded by Argentina and British troops were actually being shot at and killed — the Reagan administration was initially “ambivalent” about supporting Britain. In other words, it didn’t want to piss off a hemispheric neighbor without a damn good reason. You know, like Obama now.

            If push comes to shove, and the “aspiring dictator” Kirchner (who was legally elected to her constitutional office, BTW) does anything rash, the UK will find the US in its corner just as in ’82, despite the fears (wishes?) of wingnuts like yourself.

            Worrying about Obama referring to the islands as Malvinas is on a level with the whole DVDgate affair. Teapot tempest.

          • jim_m

            The obama admin will back the UK? You wanna put money on that? I’ll give you RM’s traditional bet. $100 to the charity of your choice that obama does not back the UK.

          • Brucehenry

            In the unlikely event of an actual Argentine invasion of the Falklands, yes, Obama will send supplies, and facilitate British resistance to the invasion at least to the extent Reagan did.

            But I’m not betting so that you can claim my 100 bucks when a a Murdoch-paid British “journalist” claims butthurt about some innocuous Obama remark if and when Invasion Day ever occurs. (Hint: It won’t ever occur.)

          • jim_m

            Yeah, you are going to bet that the obam admin goes so far as to veto a UN Security Council vote calling for a cease fire and will offer the UK the support of a carrier group for any military action.

            You’re right. It isn’t ever going to happen. obama will never offer military aid to any pre 2008 allies.

            You said that obama will do at least as much as Reagan. Make the bet. We have at least those two objective standards to compare with.

          • Brucehenry

            UN SC Resolution 502 calling for immediate Argentine withdrawal and condemning the invasion was proposed by the UK on April 3 and passed on April 4. I find no mention of a resolution vetoed by the US in regard to the Falkland Islands. I also find no mention of an offer of a carrier group, although I did see that the US offered Britain the use of an amphibious assault ship, the USS Iwo Jima.

          • jim_m

            Correct. The Iwo Jima and not a carrier group.

            The US and the UK vetoed a further resolution demanding an immediate cease fire while the islands were still partially in Argentine hands. The UK vetoed it fearing that they would not get back the remainder if they did not press their advantage.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe you’re right. No mention of this veto is made in Wikipedia, but that doesn’t mean too much I guess.

          • jim_m


            You should also note that the Argentinian government has denounced the referendum on Falklands remaining a UK overseas territory as a mere publicity stunt, but declares the new Pope’s declaration that the islands belong to Argentina as definitive (not surprising since the pope is from argentina).

            You can call Argentina not a dictatorship if you like but if they are willing to overturn the wishes of the 1500+ inhabitants of the islands in favor of the pronouncement of one man who has never been there and will never go there, they are still essentially the same fascist dictatorship that was there in 1982, just only dressed up with periodic faux elections.

          • Brucehenry

            I stand corrected on the resolution attempt.

            Bottom line is the OAS resolution is toothless, US signing off on it changes nothing, Argentina is mollified and UK loses nothing. Win win.

            All this gnashing of teeth is just more Obamasux nonsense, with which voters grew increasingly bored and annoyed beginning shortly after Jan. 2011. Keep it up, you’re doing great!

          • Brucehenry

            I think the US signing off on this toothless OAS resolution is an attempt (which will be successful) to have it both ways — it will flatter Argentina without changing the situation on the ground, hence no damage done. I’m sure the UK knows that this resolution, and the fact that the US signed off on it, changes nothing.

          • jim_m

            Yes the UK is familiar with how little resolutions mean to aggressive powers. They did sign the Munich accords after all.

          • Brucehenry

            Argentina, now that is not under the control of a military junta, is not an “aggressive power.” This barking is just barking. There will be no biting.

          • jim_m

            One does not have to be a dictatorship to be an aggressive power. Argentina is an aggressive power in that it is demanding the Falklands regardless of the historical connection to the UK and regardless of the disposition of its inhabitants.

          • Brucehenry

            Argentina is demanding the Falklands in much the same way as Japan demands the “return” of the Kurils. It will never again — or at least not in the foreseeable future — attempt to physically wrest control of them from the current occupiers. Is Japan an “aggressive power” now too?

          • JLawson

            That’s true. We backed them when the alternates at least seemed worse.

            Now, the ones we’re backing are looking (at least to me) like the ‘worse’.

            Makes me glad I’m not a politician, or a diplomat.

          • Brucehenry

            Mossadegh was not “worse” than the Shah in 1953 unless you were an American oil company. Saddam Hussein’s opponents in the 1980s were not “worse” than he was. The opposition to Noriega was not “worse” than Noriega.

          • herddog505

            JLawsonAt this point, I’m thinking that any country that looks to the US as an ‘ally’ is nuts.

            I’m afraid that it’s been that way for a long time. We certainly sold out the Hungarians in ’56 and the Chinese Nationalists before that. It’s not always easy to convince the American people that they ought to concern themselves with countries / peoples halfway around the world. And, in fairness, we cannot be the world’s policeman.

            That being said, the behavior of Barry and his gang towards Israel and Britain… pfft. But what do we expect from democrats?

          • JLawson

            “And, in fairness, we cannot be the world’s policeman.”

            Unfortunately, that seems to be our default role. Either the world’s policeman, or the world’s fireman – called in to put out the fires of war with even more destruction…

            Sorry to be so cynical about this.

          • Brucehenry

            Please explain how we “sold out the Hungarians” in 1956 and what we could realistically have done to help them.

          • Brucehenry

            “It used to be that support was almost continual – but our dumping of Viet Nam when it became politically expedient should have been a warning to everyone.”

            A couple of things wrong there. One, we didn’t “dump Viet Nam” — we belatedly recognized that we had backed a regime that had never been supported by its own people, we didn’t quite understand how we had got ourselves into such a fix, and we “abandoned” (with seven YEARS notice) Thieu and Ky and their corrupt cronies. If we had allowed the elections called for in Geneva in 1954 the Viet Minh would have won THEN, and saved us the agony, not to mention 58,000 American and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lives.

            And two, when was our support “continual? Vietnam was “dumped” as you put it barely 35 years after the Isolationist era ended. What long term allies had we before 1941?

            “Look how we’ve treated our long term allies like England – with a great deal of disdain and almost contempt.”

            I call BS. That’s wingnut folderol, a tempest in a teapot about supposed insulting gestures re: Churchill busts and DVDs, not long term damage to the so-called “special relationship.” Is Britain hinting they will leave NATO? Have they voted against our interests in the Security Council? I’m surprised you bought into that GlennBeckian nonsense, Lawson.

            “Obama was supposed to increase our standing in the world – but they hate us more than ever.”

            I don’t think that’s so, either. Got any back-up for that assertion, like polls and what not?

    • herddog505

      jim_mMobs burning flags cannot be controlled by the government and we should not be demanding that the governments control their people in ways that our government would should not be allowed to control us.


      Otherwise, I completely agree. I think that Paul was trying to throw some red meat to the base, but it makes him sound rather dimwitted: it’s the sort of advice that I’d expect from somebody Who’s Forgotten More About Foreign Affairs Than Most People Ever Learn.

      jim_mThe problem is not the mobs in the street burning our flags, it is the governments that use anti-American rhetoric to inflame their public against us for the main purpose of distracting the people from the oppressive conditions those very governments are imposing.


  • Malcolm Kyle

    Prohibition has finally run its course: Our prisons are full, our economy is in ruins, the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans have been destroyed or severely disrupted. What was once a shining beacon of liberty and prosperity has become a toxic, repressive, smoldering heap of hypocrisy and a gross affront to fundamental human decency.

    If you sincerely believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy then you can stop helping to enforce it. You are entitled—required even—to act according to your conscience.

    * It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict.

    * You are not lawfully required to disclose your voting intention before taking your seat on a jury.

    * You are also not required to give a reason to the other jurors on your position when voting. Simply state that you find the accused not guilty.

    * Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. If the Judge and the other jurors disapprove, too bad. There is no punishment for having a dissenting opinion.

    We must create what we can no longer afford to wait for and end the most destructive, dysfunctional, dishonest and racist social policy since Slavery.

    If you wish to replace prohibition with a far more sensible system of legalized regulation, PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!

    • JWH


  • jim_m

    I would say that instead of taking money away from countries burning our flag we should give money to countries threatening to try our Hollywood celebs as war criminals. Unfortunately, these are the same countries.

    Perhaps the solution is that if people are going to burn our flag we demand that they directly threaten the lives of the people who are responsible for the popular culture they so detest. It’s a revenue neutral solution for Rand Paul.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Seems like a good idea to me.

    I’d also include any country that treats 9/11 as a holiday.

  • ljcarolyne

    You go, Rand Paul, man after America’s own heart. Speaking of drones, how about we the people get our hands on a few, send them to a few traitors we all know. . . three guesses.