46 votes

Sen. Rand Paul Explains His Vote In Favor Of Sanctions On Iran

Today I attended a town hall in Alexandria, KY and was able to finally ask Rand Paul a question many have wondered about, namely why he voted in favor of sanctions on Iran.

As far as I know this question hadn't been posed to him yet...


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Normally, I love truth bombs, but not this one.

Hits so close to home it hurts. But I want the truth, so thanks for posting. This is very important to know.

I have friends in Iran

I have beloved friends in Iran. Sanctions against them is not some political gamesmanship sort of thing. They survived the U.S. supported attacks by Iraq, they had to endure SCUD missile attacks and now this, from a man who should know better. You can't compromise on immorality! That's why immorality has prospered. We've compromised too often! Would you compromise on the lives of YOUR children? Hell, NO! Rand Paul is showing himself to be a compromiser and it makes me very angry!

Unfortunately he is not his father.

Sanctions are an act of war. They rarely hurt the establishment in these countries. They always hurt the people. The people end up suffering greatly and sometimes it kills them by the millions. The people are generally innocent and have nothing to do with their government.

I'm sorry to say that I disagree wholeheartedly about playing politics with human suffering. Rand's vote for sanctions is the same as him personally taking away food and resources from the people of Iran. Except he can wash his hands of it, and sleep well at night knowing that he will have the necessities of life tomorrow.

This is not following the golden rule....Just saying.

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.

Rand has already blocked or

Rand has already blocked or held up a number of important issues trying to be passed the same way -the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, and recently a ban on synthetic drugs... none of these were politically popular positions to take but he was very brave in standing up for them.

Considering he would have had no chance of stopping these sanctions, and that he could not vote now without completely blocking a bill that would have been passed eventually anyway I see this more as he was picking his battles.

Again, he's never voted against the Constitution.

If his vote didn't matter (and it didn't) then he didn't have to

cast it for the Sanctions.

He could have abstained or voted no quietly.

He CHOSE to vote for them.

He knows it was wrong. Or at least he should.

If he doesn't, he's no better than the rest of the criminals in the Senate.

If he does and he does nothing to correct the error, he's worse.

Are sanctions on foreign

Are sanctions on foreign nations allowed in the Constitution? I don't think so. Not unless a declaration of war is had.

I'm not saying that Rand isn't probably the best senator on the hill, because, given the current & past senators, he is. Although, he plays politics too much and once you squish that toothpaste out of the tube, it won't go back in. Let history be your guide.

I would rather Rand filibuster every single bill that was unconstitutional....period.

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.


Article 1 section 8 allows for the U.S. congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. If our congress chooses not to allow trade with a country, that is their choice.

why wouldn't they be allowed to isolate themselves if they so choose? Is it stupid? sure. But they can still choose to do it.

My opinion as to what is really going on with Iran.

There is one hell of a big difference between the U.S. deciding not to trade with Iran and what the U.S. is actually doing, which is to freeze Iran's assets and to declare that no other nation on the face of the earth is allowed, or should be allowed to trade with Iran. Luckily, there are countries that are coming to Iran's defense. Such as Russia, China, South Korea, and I think that Japan is also on this latter list. For the U.S. to think is has the right to do that to another country is ridiculous. And I for one do not think it is because we think they might have a nuclear weapon. Iran has (from what I have read) had the gaul and the audacity to accept payment for their oil in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar survives for no other reason than that it is the currency that must be used when purchasing oil from OPEC. That is the only thing left propping the dollar up. So it is not about nuclear energy or a nuclear weapon. It is about money, it is about the dollar. But that is really what it always is about.

Everybody needs to go to youtube and watch the video titled: "Apologize to the World Mr. Wallace and Return that Emmy." It will show you what the Iranian president really said instead of the constant lies told by people like Rick Santorum about Iran and Israel. Go see that video. It is less than five minutes in length.

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

Don't disagree

I was attempting to educate the others as to what they said. We can't say our congress is unable to sanction(not allow U.S. citizens or companies to trade with a country). Congress is capable of doing that. Based on our treaties they can probably put pressure on other nations to do the same thing. you saying Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan is contradictory to what you said earlier. the U.S. can "declare" whatever they want, but many countries don't care what the U.S. "says."

Obama freezing Iran's assets is different from imposing sanctions. That seems like theft. Jimmy carter did the same thing in 79 and it didn’t work out for his presidency very well.

Regulate vs Dictate

Discern the difference here because using that logic, that "to regulate commerce" can be construed to mean "to force participation in OR PROHIBIT ENTIRELY" - that's the same reasoning the government uses to defend OBAMAcare.

Before you can regulate commerce, first you have to be engaged in commerce. So the presence of commerce MUST EXIST FIRST before the congress has the (Article I, sec. 8) authority to regulate it....but it can't END COMMERCE with a nation.

If 2 individuals freely choose to form a contract, congress can't nullify the contract simply because it doesn't like the leadership of the country.

That's an act of war, as was stated by Ron Paul, himself, during one of the debates.

yep, logic

Using that logic is exactly the point. For example Marijuana is illegal at the federal level, even at most state levels. The federal government can PROHIBIT the sale of Marijuana. The commerce doesn’t have to be legal, the federal government still has a right to regulate it. (Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1. (1996))

Contracts are voided if the activity becomes illegal. This happened during prohibition. Congress declared alcohol illegal. All contracts pertaining to alcohol became void.

If congress says trade with a country is illegal, then the contract you or your company had is then voided. They can end it or start it, because they regulate it.

There are few things I disagree with Ron Paul about, but stopping trade with a country is not an Act of War. Forcibly not allowing others to trade with that country may be.

That's a stretch trying to

That's a stretch trying to fit sanctions that could potentially starve and/or kill millions of people into regulating commerce. Sanctions are an act of war, not an act of commerce. It's just the same twisted notion that the "interstate commerce" clause somehow legalized abortion.

Who is isolating whom? Iran is isolating themselves? Really? We are isolating them by not allowing free trade, commerce and travel between nations. Nor, are we allowing other nations to trade with them. Ron Paul has it correct when he states that the people who want sanctions are the isolationists.

One of the most frustrating things to me, is sanctions and isolating nations. Nothing tears down oppressive regimes faster than a flood of goods, services and money into a nation. Free markets destroy tyrannical nations, sanctions do not.

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.

I was referring to congress isolating themselves

As I told the other poster. congress has the right to regulate commerce with foreign countries, it is far from a stretch. Sanctions are no more an act of war, then me telling my Son, his buddy can't borrow the car, I allow him to drive, for the weekend. My Son's friend may be pissed about it, but I am still acting within my authority.

Sanctions are a horrible idea, I agree. Bastiat was right when he said when goods don't cross borders soldiers will.

However, it is still within congresses authority to not allow our citizens to trade with Iran. They have a right to regulate that commerce.

Not sure about Rand

but to be honest I haven't researched him much.

What is his position on:

- The Fed
- Sound currency, Austrian economics
- Foreign interventionism
- Is he as fiscally conservative as Dr. Paul?
- What about state rights?
- About the role of government

Can someone help me here please?

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Why don't you just youtube it

Why don't you just youtube it for yourself? All the answers are out there, it's obvious by looking at this thread that there's a pretty big divide here over Rand so instead of taking someones opinion listen to it from his own lips.

Did it occur to you that

I searched and didn't find it? That is why I'm asking...

All I found is his positions on mostly social issues (which don't matter to me) and that he is fiscally conservative. does he support a fed audit, does he want to end it? Nothing on the role of government and foreign interventionism. Any links?

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

He is with Paul on most

He is with Paul on most things, except gay marriage, drugs, foreign policy.. so he is with most of the other candidates running for office... i.e. he believes in intervening in foreign affairs, he doesn't believe you should have the right to do drugs, or that gay people can marry..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Umm, you seemed to be misinformed (or something else)

Rand on gay marriage (like his father, not a government thing) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbBoY6vFJM

Rand on drugs (like his father) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAivehbrGk8

And hey, let's be fair, Rand is mostly like his father on foreign policy. I hate his vote to sanction, but it is unfair to lump him in with the neocons.

Thank you Road


"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Rand has the same position as

Rand has the same position as Ron on drugs, which is that it is a local state issue to decide and enforce, not the federal government. At the moment, he is currently the lone voice of dissent on a new bill to ban synthetic drugs (K2/Spice). He also believes gay marriage should be left to the states as well. With the exception of the Iran sanctions vote, and generally tougher sounding rhetoric, there's really not much difference on his foreign policy for the most part. He came through when it counted, blocking a move that quite possibly could have started a war with Russia. We are honestly dealing with people who are hellbent on starting WWIII here, so if he wants to jockey around a little bit for power and trade votes on a few bills where he can afford it, then I'm giving him a pass. I believe both Ron and Rand believe we are running out of time..

Here's the difference:

Ron Paul never wanted to be a politician.

If you're not a purist....

...you are Hitler. Or so many of you seem to think. I don't like the vote, but that one vote doesn't make Rand like GW Bush. I don't like the debt ceiling vote, but that vote doesn't make Rand like Woodrow Wilson. I think many of us are so sold on the Ron Paul religion that anything less than 100% compliance with him is like treason. I don't like those votes, but I also understand what a miracle it is that anyone has ever even heard of Ron Paul. Do I think Rand is just playing the game? Yes. Do I like it? No. Would it be a miracle if Ron wins this election? Yes. Would it be a miracle if Rand wins in 2016? Not really. Rand has a much better chance than Ron ever had, or will have. These two votes don't make me think that a Rand Paul presidency would be bad for the nation. I think Rand giving himself a chance to gain favor with the GOP and ending up as president, would be better for this nation than Ron being a purist and never being President. I still think Ron can win, but Rand would just have an easier time because the establishment isn't scared of him as much. Could I be wrong about Rand, and could I be utterly dissapointed with him after 4 or 8 years? Obviously that is a possibility, just like Ron Paul was dissapointed with Reagan. But you know what, Ron didn't take two things out of Reagan's entire history and decide he was a bag of shit because of them. Rand Paul has a much better shot at being the kind of President we all want than what Reagan did, and Ron still had hope or Reagan. This is Ron's own son we are talking about. I don't think two bad votes make him Hitler. They just don't make him Ron Paul, but seriously folks, who is?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

If you cast crucial votes for evil, does it really matter what

you really believe inside?

Are you a Democrat? That's the kind of nonsense I'd expect from that crowd - "It's the 'intent' that matters."

No, it's the action.

And in this case, Rand took an action that was an act of war. Unprovoked I might add. (Iran has committed no acts of war against us)

Doing evil and going along with evil never in any stretch of the imagination somehow plays out in the favor of good.

Either you have a consistent conservative record, or you don't.

Rand is not a neocon by a long shot, but I hate that he voted for this sanction.

Why is Ron's record so pure?

Why is Ron's record so pure? I think a lot of people tend to forget what it is that Ron has been trying to do all this time. Ron's primary mission, throughout his political career, has always been to teach. Read some of Lew Rockwell's writings about Ron. He has used his very office and voting record, his speeches, and campaigns all with a purpose-- to show you what liberty is, to show you the Constitution, and to teach you about our heritage that has been forgotten. It's working.



Lots of trolls out in full

Lots of trolls out in full force I see.


One of them



^^^ Amen to that Rand is 100%

^^^ Amen to that

Rand is 100% on our side, trust me on that, he just happens to be a little better at working within the GOP, that bodes well for his future (and ours)