Linguistic analysis of Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney contradicts his words: Rand Paul is disgusted with him!
Sunday, June 10, 2012
In the aftermath of the shock and the overwhelming feeling of betrayal following Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney for president, most people are trying to understand WHY it happened. But to my knowledge no one has yet analyzed the linguistics, the intonation and the micro-expressions that Rand Paul delivered as part of his announcement, because they may provide even more information than his words.
Here, I offer a brief linguistic and micro-expressions analysis of Rand Paul’s delivery of his announcement. What you’ll see here is that even Rand Paul is disgusted with his own endorsement.
Watch his announcement here:
If you watch Rand Paul deliver his announcement, pay particular attention to the part where he says:
But you know, now that the nominating process is over, tonight I’m uh happy to announce that I’m gonna be supporting Governor Romney.
During this entire sentence, his voice and intonation stay relatively high, in the “optimistic” range, including as he’s talking about his father. But the minute he utters the words “Governor Romney,” two things happen:
• The pitch of his voice drops sharply.
• The strength of his voice tapers off, almost as if the last part of “Romney” has no power behind it.
The overall feeling associated with this delivery is one of disgust. It’s almost as if Rand Paul is describing someone he is disappointed with or despises.
He most certainly did not do the things you would expect to hear if he were excited about Romney:
• Raising the pitch of his voice.
• Increasing the strength of his voice. “Government ROMNEY!”
That these telltale signs are completely absent, and that he instead dropped both the pitch and power of his voice, tells you that Rand Paul does not himself believe what he is saying!
He sounds disappointed in himself and very much uninspired about Romney. It is delivered as a surrender to disgust. This is hardly the tone we would expect to hear from someone who is excited about the endorsement.
Again, watch Rand Paul’s announcement to follow what I’m explaining here:
Talking about his father vs. talking about Romney
There is also a subtle but very real difference between the way Sen. Rand Paul talks about his father versus talking about Romney. Here are the overriding emotions as he speaks:
Happy, confident, expressive:
My first choice has always been my father, I campaigned for him when I was eleven years old, he’s still my first pick…
Reserved, cautious, neutral:
..but you know now that the nominating process is over, tonight I’m happy to announce that I’m going to be supporting…
Immediately after Rand Paul utters “Governor Romney,” his face freezes. His usual pattern of rapid blinking and eyebrow hikes grinds to a virtual halt. He goes “stone cold” for a few seconds.
He only smiles again when Sean Hannity mentions his father:
If you didn’t support your father, by the way, I would really question…
Rand Paul SMILES (i.e. he likes his father)
From there, Sean Hannity asks Rand Paul why he decided to support Mitt Romney. The answers that Rand Paul gives make no sense.
He starts out by citing a completely irrelevant, distracting “similarity” which is that both himself and Romney have fathers who once ran for President. Huh?
This is entirely irrelevant to his politics, philosophies and beliefs. Saying you would endorse someone for President because their dad did something that your dad also did strikes of a fabricated, poorly-thought-out series of excuses scripted as talking points.
Then he goes on to say that Governor Romney comes from “a big family” which is just like his own big family. Huh?
Does Rand Paul really think the American people give a damn how big his family is? What they want to know is how these bureaucrats are going to restore liberty and freedom for ALL families. The “big family” comparison is yet another scripted talking point.
He then goes on to say something that finally makes sense, that Romney and he share “family values.” That’s a reasonable point of discussion.
After that, he goes into total spin mode, describing how he met and talked with Romney, and how Romney was “very supportive” of the idea of auditing the Fed, but that claim doesn’t mean anything, especially when Romney is a banker globalist.
Sen Rand Paul’s endorsement for Romney has more deceptive layers than Obama’s birth certificate
What does all this means? If this linguistic and micro-expressions analysis is to be believed, it means Sen. Rand Paul despises Mitt Romney. That, in turn, means he held his nose and made a deal. Whether that deal is for a possible VP spot is being hotly debated right now, but it seems clear some kind of deal was made.
This is the very reason why Rand Paul is being berated by his (former?) support base: You don’t make a deal with the devil! Perhaps Alex Jones said it best in this up-front, uncensored and aggressively stated special video message to Rand Paul and Ron Paul:
Other explanations behind all this include the possibility that the Paul family was threatened with assassination, and the endorsement was the only way to avoid being killed (it happened to Ross Perot, remember?).
Either way, it nevertheless remains astonishing that the son of Ron Paul would, with his own lips, utter an endorsement for such a status quo globalist like Romney, especially given that Romney practically wrote Obamacare, which has remained one of the most offensive pieces of legislation ever witnessed by those who value liberty.
Is Rand Paul plotting to insert himself as a double agent?
The word on the street is that Rand Paul has just destroyed his political career. But I say don’t count him out yet. There remains a possibility he’s acting as a double agent, working to get inside the system and attempt to affect change from within. This well-intentioned plan almost never works out, however, as even those with the most ardent belief in liberty sooner or later get sucked into the system, compromised, and turned to the dark side.
It is the system itself that is broken, corrupt and defunct. This is the very point of Lew Rockwell, who explained in a recent interview with RT that the government itself is always the problem, and that no government can rescue the People from the problems of government:
(By the way, I just recently completed a video interview with Lew Rockwell, and that interview will be posted early next week.)
Lessons for us all: There is NO compromising with globalists!
In watching Rand Paul seemingly destroy a huge portion of his own support base literally overnight, there is a lesson here for all of us who fight for liberty: We only exist due to the support of our fellow fans and supporters.
And, just as importantly, any of us can lose it all in 24 hours if we openly betray our fellow Americans.
In a very real sense, people like myself, Alex Jones, Adam Kokesh, Lew Rockwell and others are literally just one interview away from destroying our own credibility if we were stupid enough to betray the People.
I get this. I know Alex gets it, too. Adam gets it. Lew Rockwell is unflinching in his philosophical opposition to large government. People like us aren’t about to sell out to anyone, but watching Rand Paul flame himself out of high orbit is a stark reminder to us all: Anyone who betrays the People will instantly lose their street cred. And from that, recovering any credibility is very, very difficult.
Personally, I completely agree with Alex in saying there is no compromise allowed. No doing deals with the devil. If we support liberty, we must deny our support for those who oppose it. We must never allow ourselves to become part of the very system that is destroying our economy, our liberties and our future. It is widely acknowledged now — even on the political left — that Obama is a traitor to America, but there is no indication that Romney wouldn’t be even worse. He’s practically a white version of Obama, with much the same platform: Government-run socialized medicine, high taxes, War on Drugs, secret military prisons, banker bailouts, gun confiscation and so on. Having Romney runs things in Washington will produce no better results than we’ve already seen over the last four years. It may even be worse, if you can imagine that.
I am not yet denouncing Sen. Rand Paul, as I still hope there is a double agent aspect to his actions and that somehow he will emerge as a defender of liberty. In my view, his track record has at least earned our patience in observing this situation a little longer. However, if Rand Paul continues down this path without explanation, it is all but clear he will destroy his political career and lose virtually his entire support base — the very people who put him in the U.S. Senate in the first place.
As with all lovers of liberty, my patience is running out, and I’m beginning to think Lew Rockwell was right all along: All government is inherently evil and destructive, and that we are all foolish to think government can ever be changed through elections.
This article was posted: Sunday, June 10, 2012 at 3:17 am