Author Topic: Rand Paul finally speaks up  (Read 3519 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lee51

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,732
Rand Paul finally speaks up
« on: June 20, 2012, 10:42:09 am »

Opposing Unconstitutional Wars

By Sen. Rand Paul
June 19, 2012 4:00 P.M.

Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray.

The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time.

I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention, fought to end mandatory minimum drug sentences, and voted against my party’s official budget because it didn’t cut enough spending.

I introduced a resolution against an unconstitutional war in Libya, and tried to repeal the authorization for the unconstitutional war before that in Iraq.

I don’t believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship — or partisanship of any kind. I have worked with Senate Democrats on civil liberties, and the House Black Caucus on the drug war. I have fought alongside the ACLU on civil liberties, and at times, I have fought all by myself on federalism issues.

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.

Where I don’t know if there is as much of a difference as I would like is foreign policy.

Let’s first be clear: President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever.

I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken.

I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:

I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.

This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war.

Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict.

No president is above the law or above the Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. They were quite concerned that the executive could rule like a king.

Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications, the authorization, and the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.

I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.

— Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the U.S. Senate.


Offline Modzilla_Kicker

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
  • V for Victory
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2012, 11:02:01 am »
Rand's popularity in the truth movement just went up by at least 25 points. From under 10.
Awareness. Resistance. Victory.

Offline lee51

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,732
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2012, 11:12:42 am »
I'm of the opinion that maybe Rand is second-guessing his own decision to support Romney. 

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,206
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2012, 11:53:51 am »

Everyone knows that Romney practically wrote Obamacare, so you're not fooling anyone by implying that a vote for Romney is a vote "against" Obamacare.

Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.

Anyone who thinks that economics is one of Wall Street puppet Romney's strong points (even when compared to Wall Street puppet Obama) either is (a) blissfully ignorant about what a flaming corporate fascist Romney is, or (b) has complete and utter contempt for the intelligence of his target audience: (When Mitt Romney Came To Town - Full, complete version)


Conservatives and Liberals Agree: Unparalleled Levels of Inequality Is Killing Our Economy and Society

by Washington's Blog
September 24, 2011

Conservatives Worry That Runaway Inequality Will Destroy The Economy and Society

Leading economists agree that rampant inequality leads to unstable economies and depressions, and makes the middle and lower classes poorer.

While the stereotype is that liberals care about inequality and conservatives don’t, that is actually a myth.

As Canada’s conservative National Post – Canada’s 9th biggest newspaper – noted Wednesday:

    According to the voice of Canada’s business establishment: “High inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions.


    A mounting body of research shows that, left unchecked, a growing income gap affects the rich, the poor and everyone in between.


    No matter your political leanings, most people understand that endless concentration of income, wealth and power is bad for the economy. After all, businesses rely on rising purchasing power of the many, not the few, to deliver growth and profits.


    No one knows the tipping point, but lock enough people out of the promise of gains and at some point, instead of stability and growth, you get social unrest.


    History has shown us, time and again: When too much is controlled by too few, something has to give. Continuously rising inequality is unsustainable.

    Everyone has a stake in fixing this. And the fix has no political colour.

(The Post is correct about the potential for social unrest.)

Moreover, IMF economists have demonstrated that inequality increases a nation’s debt. Because conservatives are passionate about reducing debt, reducing inequality is a conservative value.

And as I noted in February:


Renowned behavioral economist Dan Ariely (Duke University) and Michael I. Norton (Harvard Business School) recently demonstrated [.pdf] that everyone – including conservatives – thinks there should be more equality.

Their study found:

"Respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: all demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo."

Ariely comments:

    Taken as a whole, the results suggest to us that there is much more agreement than disagreement about wealth inequality. Across differences in wealth, income, education, political affiliation and fiscal conservatism, the vast majority of people (89%) preferred distributions of wealth significantly more equal than the current wealth spread in the United States. In fact, only 12 people out of 849 favored the US distribution. The media portrays huge policy divisions about redistribution and inequality – no doubt differences in ideology exist, but we think there may be more of a consensus on what’s fair than people realize.

How could the media portrayal regarding this issue be so wrong?

Well, for one thing, as a study the Pew Research Center found, the corporate media tends to take Wall Street’s view on economics. Indeed, the media is largely set up to spout propaganda which supports the view of the powers-that-be. The financial sector has been by far the biggest beneficiary of government policies over the past 10 years or so. So the media tends to defer to Wall Street’s own arguments against equality.


Everyone agrees that a system which uses the power of the state to reward the fraud and gambling of the largest banks and biggest corporations through socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else is not free market capitalism, and is downright anti-American.

As I noted last November:

Conservatives tend to view big government with suspicion, and think that government should be held accountable and reined in.

Liberals tend to view big corporations with suspicion, and think that they should be held accountable and reined in.

Irreconcilable difference?

Not really.

Specifically, a Rassmussen poll conducted in February found:

    70% (of all voters) believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

(and see this).

Remember that the government helped and encouraged the giant banks to get even bigger, and then has hidden their insolvency and shielded them from the free market, and helped them grow even during the severe downturn.

In return, the big banks and giant corporations have literally bought and paid for the politicians.

Conservatives might call it “socialism” and liberals might call it “fascism” – they are the same thing economically.

But all Americans – conservatives and liberals alike – can agree that it is not capitalism, and it is not American.

As I pointed out in December:

Conservatives hate big unfettered government and liberals hate big unchecked corporations, so both hate legislation which encourages the federal government to reward big corporations at the expense of small businesses.

As an example, both liberals and conservatives are angry that the feds are propping up the giant banks – while letting small banks fail by the hundreds – even though that is horrible for the economy and Main Street.

The Dodd-Frank financial legislation … enshrines big government propping up the big banks … more ore less permanently.

Many liberals and conservatives look at the government’s approach to the financial crisis as socialism for the rich and free market capitalism for the little guy. No wonder both liberals and conservatives hate it.

And it’s not just the big banks. Americans are angry that the federal government under both Bush and Obama have handed giant defense contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton no-bid contracts. They are mad that – instead of cracking down on BP – the government has acted like BP’s p.r. spokesman-in-chief and sugar daddy.

They are peeved that companies like Monsanto are able to sell genetically modified foods without any disclosure, and that small farmers are getting sued when Monsanto crops drift onto their fields.

They are mad that Obama promised “change” – i.e. standing up to Wall Street and the other powers-that-be – but is just delivering more of the same.

They are furious that there is no separation between government and a handful of favored giant corporations. In other words, Americans are angry that we’ve gone from capitalism to oligarchy.

So if both liberals and conservatives hate something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a compromise. It may mean that they feel disenfranchised from a government that is of the powerful and for the powerful.

In other words, while many conservatives are against raising taxes on the wealthy, they are overwhelmingly for stopping the use of the power of the state to increase inequality. See this, this and this.

This is an area of agreement between people of good faith on the left and on the right. As Robert Shiller said in 2009:



Romney's corporate fascist economic policies would make the nation-killing levels of inequality described above even worse.

That so many well-meaning people naively believe otherwise proves that the Austrian School propaganda machine has done its job all too well.

Allowing oneself to be duped over and over again into voting against one's own economic interests has become a virtual religion in this country.  ::)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,206
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2012, 12:01:26 pm »
-- "The budget [by Senator Rand Paul] provides two years of war funding, at the President’s requested levels."

-- "The food stamp program and the child nutrition program" (cut)

-- "The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program" (eliminate)

-- "Affordable Housing Program" (eliminate)


No wonder Rand thinks Romney isn't all that bad on economics. ::)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,206
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2012, 12:15:12 pm »
I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy.

Notice how Rand says this as though it's a mystery as to whether Twitt Romney is just another warmongering neocon or not, and how, in doing so, he displays total contempt for the intelligence of his readers:


Mitt Romney’s Neocon Foreign Policy Plan

by Prof. Lawrence S. Wittner

Global Research, October 11, 2011 - 2011-10-10

Presidential contender Mitt Romney has laid out his vision for a foreign policy in a Romney administration – and it looks like it could have been dreamt up by the same neocons who guided George W. Bush’s disastrous pursuit of permanent U.S. military dominance.

If current polls are correct, Mitt Romney seems likely to become the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and, quite possibly, the next president of the United States.

Therefore, we should carefully examine his first major foreign and military policy address — delivered on Oct. 7 at the Citadel, in Charleston, South Carolina — and ponder the question: Is Mitt Romney ready for the world?

Romney began his speech with a heavy dose of fear. Iran, he warned, could well become “a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, [and] dominating the world’s oil supply.” Indeed, “Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.”

In Afghanistan, the Taliban might well “find a path back to power,” with the country sinking “back into the medieval terrors of fundamentalist rule.” Pakistan’s instability could end up placing nuclear weapons “in the hands of Islamic jihadists,” while “the malign socialism” of Venezuela and Cuba could “undermine the prospects of democracy” in Latin America.

Then, of course, there are the heavy dancers. China’s leaders could well take that nation down “a darker path, intimidating their neighbors, brushing aside an inferior American Navy in the Pacific, and building a global alliance of authoritarian states.”

And Russia might well “bludgeon the countries of the former Soviet Union into submission, and intimidate Europe with the levers of its energy resources.” Nor should people forget “Islamic fundamentalism, with which we have been at war since Sept. 11, 2001.”

Fortunately, though, there is help for a beleaguered world on the horizon.

“God did not create this country to be a nation of followers,” Romney explained. “America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers.” Instead, “the United States should always retain military supremacy.”

As president, he would not “wave the white flag of surrender” but, rather, “devote” himself to building “an American century.” As he explained:  “The twenty-first century can and must be an American century.” He would “not surrender America’s role in the world.  . . .  If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your president.”

And how, exactly, would this American century be achieved? To provide the major pillar for the new order, Romney would “reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts.”

(The fact that there were no defense cuts during the Obama years — indeed, that Obama took office with an annual Defense Department budget of $513 billion and, as of Sept. 30 of this year, had an annual Defense Department budget of $530 billion, plus increased spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — seems not to have thrown Romney off stride.)

In the production of new U.S. warships alone, Romney promised to increase the annual number from nine to 15. He would also dramatically upgrade the (still unworkable) national missile defense system.

“In an American century,” he argued, America needed “the strongest military in the world.”

Of course, this military behemoth (currently costing almost as much as the military forces of all other nations combined) would have lots of work to do. In Afghanistan, for example, Romney would call a halt to plans for U.S. military withdrawal.

Meanwhile, he would “speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders” as to “the force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully.” That might require a lot of troops, a lot of money, and a lot of time.

Throughout his address, Romney never acknowledged that, at least on occasion, U.S. foreign policy might have been plagued by faulty judgments or methods. Naturally, then, he did not mention the unnecessary Iraq war, the past U.S. support of Osama bin Laden, or other embarrassing ventures.


President Romney, Secretary of State Lieberman and War Against Iran

Kurt Nimmo
May 29, 2012

On Memorial Day, the presumptive Republican nominee said the world is a dangerous place and the United States must remain the most formidable military in the world.

“The world is not safe,” Romney told veterans in San Diego. He said “social needs” must be sacrificed on the altar of war and never ending military spending. It is the duty of Americans “to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world.”

Flanked by senator John McCain, Romney said Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia threaten the hegemony of empire. Romney “believes in American exceptionalism,” McCain said. “He believes the 21st Century will also be an American century.”

Romney has the support of the neocons and their forever war ideology and pro-Israel bias will steer his administration if he beats Obama in November.

In January he said former U.N. ambassador John Bolton’s “wisdom, clarity, and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy. I look forward to consulting with him as we campaign to restore America’s standing abroad and ensure that this century is an American Century.” Romney said he “will restore our military, repair relations with our closest allies, and ensure that no adversary – including Iran – ever questions American resolve.”

According to Ari Berman at the Nation, over seventy percent of the neocons who staged the illegal Iraq war have signed up as Mitt’s foreign policy advisors. It is the same old pro-Israel rogue’s gallery, including Elliott Cohen, Robert Kagan (who is behind Romney “American exceptionalism” stance), Eric Edelman (one of Bush’s main neocons at the Pentagon), and Dan Senor.

“Many of these advisors belonged to the PNAC, an influential neoconservative advocacy group founded in the ‘90’s. It has morphed into the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) launched by Kagan, Edelman and Senor. They advocate for regime change in Iran and a more confrontational stance with Russia. They are opposed to cuts in military spending,” writes Nancy Lindsay. (Colin Powell on Romney's NeoCon Advisors)

In a recent article, Patrick J. Buchanan said Romney’s pick for Secretary of State will either be Bolton or the consummate neocon and Israel-centric warmonger Joe Lieberman.

Neocon fixture Bill Kristol said as much recently. “On Tuesday at Manhattan’s B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue during a debate with J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted that the next U.S. Secretary of State in a Romney administration would be Senator Joe Lieberman,” Maidhc Ó Cathail wrote on May 19.

Not only is Lieberman “the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress,” he is also an enemy of the Constitution. “It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman. Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the ‘global war on terror’ which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it,” Cathail writes.

It remains to be seen if Romney will win the game of musical chairs we colloquially call national elections. But it really does not matter. Obama is also committed to attacking Iran.



You can try to put lipstick on this establishment pig all you want, Rand, it's still a pig -- and you're still a sellout.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,206
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2012, 01:12:16 pm »
I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have...voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention

What Rand is conveniently failing to mention, here, is how he subsequently canceled that vote out by openly endorsing the very candidate who said that, as President, he would have signed the NDAA:


Romney Would Sign NDAA

Kurt Nimmo
January 17, 2012

During the latest “debate” in South Carolina, Mitt Romney said that if he were president he would sign the National Defense Authorization Act.

Prior to his recent assertion that it is perfectly normal to dispense with the Fourth Amendment and suspend habeas corpus, Romney said he wasn’t up to speed on the law and promised to post an analysis on his website, which he never did.

Romney said you don’t have the “right to join a group that has challenged America” and then mentioned al-Qaeda, the terror group that the FBI admits poses little threat to the nation.

The NDAA, however, is not about indefinitely detaining Muslim cave dwellers. It’s about disappearing American citizens who oppose the bankster cartel now in control of the government.

The law is a “violent and sudden usurpation” of the Constitution of the sort James Madison warned about. The founders considered habeas corpus the most fundamental of rights because it insured that the executive branch could not hold people without cause. It was so important the founders included it in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Truman tried to veto the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but he was overturned by Congress.Truman said it was “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly” since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and represented a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and was a “long step toward totalitarianism.”

In the years after Truman’s warning, the government slowly chipped away at the Fourth Amendment and habeas corpus as it passed the McCartney-Walter Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (following the Oklahoma false flag), the Patriot Act (following the 9/11 false flag), and has finally repealed the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights with the passage of the NDAA.

As Sherwood Ross notes, with the passage of the NDAA, we have returned “to the disgraceful Korematsu Era, when President Roosevelt ordered the military to round up law-abiding Japanese-American citizens and stick them in concentration camps for the duration of World War II.”

World War II, however, had an end, whereas the bogus war on terrorism is designed to last forever, as our leaders have stated on a number of occasions.

Romney has no opinion on the Constitution, Magna Carta, and centuries of common law. He is an empty vessel filled up with nonsense produced by the global elite who run the disgusting dog and pony shows that now pass as elections in the United States.



Is endorsing someone that contemptuous of the Constitution and Bill of Rights what you call never being "blinded by party"?

Rand, seriously, stop now before you embarrass yourself further.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,793
Re: Rand Paul finally speaks up
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2012, 03:01:50 pm »
 Rand speaks up allright, these guys are well versed in reading scripts & giving speeches.
Sorry guys, I can't buy into this lame claim he can single handidly controll the Prez and his gang, can you.
  Dad Paul was on the dime 90% of the time, Rand is another episode in the long line of sucklings.
End the wars, get the boys home, or its perpetual WAR and domestic suicide.