78 votes

Rand Paul blocks Iran sanctions bill

Jack Hunter agrees


Like son like father who are against this coming world war.

What is interesting is this bill rushed through the senate banking committee. Funny how money and war go so hand in hand and death is always the sum of all fears.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I Wonder Whether Rachel Maddow Might Now Acknowledge

that Rand's views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act are, in retrospect, no so salient, relatively speaking.

This is my problem with the newsletters issue. Even if Dr. Paul were a racist, he'd still be a better candidate. At least he's not overly eager to commit mass murder, as the supposedly non-racist presidents of late have been.

And for those who say they will never forgive Rand for his initial sanctions vote, I encourage you to please view this move as a major act of contrition and redemption.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

This was after he voted

for the sanctions!
So much for consistency . . . .

Rand is no Ron!

Rand did his part: I'm doing mine . .

What a Healthy afternoon snack



it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

We are a warlike people, bloodthirsty.

Polls show that 50% of Americans want to go kill other people. This is a bad omen.

"When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy...we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...""

-- Spencer W. Kimball

Jonas Clark, the great pastor who's men died at Lexington on April 19, 1775 defending their right to bear arms, said this O.T. scripture was to be fulfilled with reference to England, but now, ironically it applies to the United States of America!

EGYPT shall be a desolation, and EDOM shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed INNOCENT BLOOD in their land. But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed; for the LORD dwelleth in Zion. (Joel 3:19-21)

Egypt/Edom is America.

We shall become a desolation, a desolate wilderness.

Why? Because we have shed and delight in shedding innocent blood of the the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Iraqis, the Libyans, and the Persians (Iranians) are looming.

We are a bloodthirsty people.

God cannot stay his hand. A cleansing is about to take place.

Rand Paul says he is "amazed" at his colleagues easy willingness to put boots on the ground.

He is surrounded by demons and bloodthirsty murderers.

It is sick.

I pray that Rand remains untainted by the evil men he is surrounded by.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

I don't agree that Americans

I don't agree that Americans are bloodthirsty. All people have the potential to exhibit bloodthirsty behavior, given the right opportunity. When "the government" tells Americans that terrorists are hiding behind every rock and bush, they don't know for certain if they're being lied to or not, and they don't fully understand the motivation for the untruths.

Blessed are the peacemakers...

Makes me glad to have contributed to his campaign. He represents me far more often then the Senators from my own state do.

He is brave.

Anyone who will vote against what the elite want is brave! Just wait till the mass amounts of youth for Paul grow old enough to run for office & vote on such matters! The Paul supporters are like guppies! Multiply!!!!

I think some of the criticism

I think some of the criticism of Rand on this site over the past few months has been unfair. I disagree with him on his vote for sanctions, but I don't think he has a sinister motive in doing so. I think he definitely wants to avoid war, and sees limited sanctions as an alternative to that. Now, I do not agree with that assessment, both in terms of principles and effectiveness at avoiding war, but Rand has given us no reason to doubt his sincerity. His philosophy may not be as developed or consistent as his dad's, but that's true for almost everyone. I do think that Rand is an ally in the greater fight for liberty, and if he were to run in 2016 or 2020, based on what I've seen so far, I would vote for him

We should Declare WAR!

we should declare war on war and fight for a world without war.

Kill all murderers!

ya i was surprised given that

ya i was surprised given that he voted to sanction Iran last time

Thank you..

...very much, Rand. NO MORE BLOODSHED..


Posted on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

SteveMT's picture

RT: Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran

Rand Paul alone stops harsher sanctions on Iran
Published: 29 March, 2012, 00:43
On Tuesday Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) summoned the US Constitution in an attempt to block even harsher sanction against Iran in fears of another war America could potentially be involved in.

Paul took the Senate floor to oppose the undivided approval of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment.

“My amendment is one sentence long; it states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in Iran or Syria,” Paul told his colleagues.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was eager to hastily authorize the bill, but Paul’s objection required that any use of military force against Iran had to be approved by Congress and wanted Congress to confirm that the US wasn’t rushing into another endless conflict.

“Before sending our young men and women into combat we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war and over the objectives of the war,” Paul added.

I get a funny feeling about Rand

Is he becoming a little too grand standingish when he can get the lime light? Didn't he vote for sanctions before? Isn't it the House that declares war and not the Senate? I hope he doesn't turn into the lesser of two evils politician to get along with the Republicans. Then he is just another go along to get along politician.

His one line amendment looks to me as just political cover.

Sounds to me like he's doing

Sounds to me like he's doing exactly the right thing.

I WANT someone on the grandstand making a short and to the point speech putting the issue right in their faces.

An amendment saying the sanctions bill is not a declaration of war or an authorization to use troops, along with an objection that blocks passage of the sanctions bill by unanimous consent if the amendment is not in it, is precisely what was needed.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

I would consider

sanctions acts of war. You would too if the government wouldn't let you buy stuff you need to survive. That is what the US is trying to do by preventing the Iranians to use international money transfer systems.

Whether it is called war or not by your enemy, if it was you, you would consider it war. Bullets will fly when the population starts dying from malnutrition.

Rand can win political points from his political supporters for proposing the amendment and still practically support his Republicrats senate colleagues when they decide not to ad his amendment.

I do consider sanctions an

I do consider sanctions an act of war.

I also consider bombing and sending in troops to be acts of war. Of an even greater magnitude.

Because a sanctions bill is already authorizing acts of war, a plausible argument exists that it is congress authorizing yet another war. Thus it NEEDS an EXPLICIT prohibition on the troops and bombing.

Further, demanding such an amendment is a very effective (and plausible even to the ease-into-war hawks) way to block the "unanimous consent" railroad.

A senator doesn't have to be in favor of a rotten bill to amend it to be a little less rotten. Nor does he need to vote for it if his amendment is accepted.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Way to go Rand.

Way to go Rand.

Right on Rand

Any day the rotted rat Harry Reid gets pissed of is a good day.

Reid appears ready for another war - That HE won't have to die in.

I wonder if he'll be sleeping with McCain tonight.

Or maybe Lieberman.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul