60 votes

Rand Paul Holds Up the Senate

Today, Senator Rand Paul offered legislation to strip Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya of all $4 billion in foreign aid sent to them each year, redirecting half of that to the veterans’ job bill, with the other half going toward deficit reduction. This would essentially triple the funding for veterans programs.

Video from CNN
http://youtu.be/Kg_kyjTcw2Y

All this week, Senator Paul has used every opportunity to bring attention to what he sees as the absurdity of foreign aid and to embarrass establishment senators by forcing them to vote for a very unpopular policy. Needless to say, John McCain and Harry Reid are not amused…and that’s probably a good sign!

More videos: http://iroots.org/2012/09/13/rand-paul-holds-up-senate-over-...

Comment viewing options

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

Rand's the REAL DEAL!!!

Rand WILL accomplish everything his father always wanted : )

updated with video from CNN

could a Mod kindly embed the vid?

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

Chess

I think Rand knows how to play a good game of chess. Sometimes you have to offer up one of your pieces to be able to checkmate your opponent. He keeps pushing his chess pieces forward, fighting all the issues such as the TSA, foreign aid, toilets that don't flush well, etc. Sometimes he lets a piece get captured. When that happens, some of us are screaming that he is throwing the game.

I think some of us will be surprised when he says "checkmate" to the powers that be and some of us will know that the man just plays a good game of chess.

________________________________________

.

.

Good

Then on to the next countries to cut aid to I hope.

Potential bone.

He is a politician. Most act the part on tv to put on a good show so that you believe they fought for something. Behind closed doors, well, it may have been scripted.

When have things worked in our favor? When??????

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

metalhed19's picture

Great speech from Rand, i was

Great speech from Rand, i was just talking about it with a friend (not very political) that stopped by, and he was dumbfounded why we are giving any money away at all. The status quo will never let this bill see the light of day though :(

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

Here come the bomb throwers

Can ALL of them be morons?

How many are agents of the PTB?

I have bitten my tongue on the rampant shenanigans roiling through the DP. My tongue will be getting ever more loose on stupids and infils.

The grown-ups have spent way too much time, money, effort and sanity to allow idiots and infils destroy in a few months what has taken years to build.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

I'm going to assume

that you mean me. Are you really accusing me of being an agent of the "Powers that Be"? LOL.

Listen friend - I spent 13 years of my life serving our country. Of those years, I spent six of them supporting Ron Paul.

If you guys can't see the WISDOM in the phrase "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." than you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Let loose your tongue, if that's what you want to do. I'd love to see what you got.

Short memories

Have you all just conveniently forgotten what Rand Paul did to us and his father's campaign? Sure he is doing good things in the Senate -
AS HE SHOULD BE.

It's going to take a helluva lot more then just attempts to right the wrong he did to us, his father, and the liberty movement. I still look back in shock when I remember him on MSM endorsing Mitt Romney.

Whether or not his actions changed the outcome of the election is debatable but regardless when we needed him and his support he turned on us, and this should not be forgotten lightly. That's all I'm saying.

Rand may be playing a game we dont like when

juxtaposed with the simple honesty of Ron Paul (dont get used to that, Ron Paul is an anomaly in politics-and I love him for it) but Rand Paul's voting record shows the truth, and it is pretty stellar so far. He returns money to the treasury like his father, he attempts to stop bad legislation if he has the power. Seriously think it through: do you really think that Rand Paul is a Romney supporter? Go back to 2008 when Rand was giving speeches for his father about how they (the establishment) were all laughing at us (the liberty movement) "but they arent laughing anymore" (after Ron Paul broke the 6 million dollar donation record). I am not saying that Rand (or any man) is infallible, or that they should not be scrutinized & brought into the light when they have strayed, held accountable...all I am saying is that I do not personally believe that Rand Paul is a traitor.

On that note, I also do not believe that Rand should EVER hire Jesse Benton, Trygvie Olsen, or any other type of shady characters like them. Though I dont believe that endorsing Romney will be political suicide for Rand (because he is playing the game, albeit not a game I would play) but letting Benton & Trygvie Olsen, or other insurgence who have a lot of experience in quelling liberty movements in other countries (see Trygvie Olsen Bio) would absolutely be political suicide. Trygvie worked in Rand Paul's Senate campaign (sent by Mitch McConnell) & he told Rand how to win (Trygvie knew Rand would win). After Rand won, and Trygvie Olsen gained Rands trust by showing him how to win, he hooked up w/benton (through Rand Paul) & entered Ron Pauls campaign. Then Trygvie Olsen went after the prize he had come for all the way through Rand Paul's Senate Race: Trygvie wanted "Ron Paul's Grassroots campaign CAPITAL" & he got it - some of it at least. He went through Rand Paul, built trust with Rand by giving him campaign advice that worked (purposefully building credibility) & in this way he wormed his way into the Ron Paul's campaign. But never did Trygvie intend on giving good political advice to Ron Paul's campaign (through Jesse Benton)... he only intended on attempting to dismantle RP's campaign through strategic decisions at specific times in the campaigns success. All the while, Benton was listening to Trygvies advice and becoming very wealthy as a result. Trygvie Olsen, jesse benton, and wannabe power brokers of the same kind, must not be allowed to infiltrate the grassroots any further. They will only lead us in the same exact direction we have been standing against, but with a different (libertarian on the surface) flare to keep the illusion that we are making progress. We must keep to the ideas, the solutions, the ideas of liberty, the solutions that liberty offers to many problems of power in our society. The politics is corrupt, the ideas will change hearts & minds & force the political change. Keep on educating yourselves & others - in peace.

Yes

Because meaningless endorsements mean more than actually dealing with bills on the floor that become law.

Yeah, because that makes total sense.

Eric Hoffer

Rand

should be doing that REGARDLESS. Why are we giving him props for doing something he should already be doing? He says he supports the liberty movement, so it logically follows that he would do things during his time in the Senate to support the movement.

Actions speak louder than words Eric. I've seen a grand total of 1 Action (negative) and a lot of words come out of Rand Paul. I'm holding my reservations until he shows some liberty minded results, not just words.

*EDIT* I know Rand Paul supports the liberty movement. That's not up for debate. I'm just saying that we should keep our eye on the prize, and not put blind trust into Rand given that he did pledge support for RMoney. Not even Ron Paul has given support to Romney. Rand could have gone that way...caution is ALL I'm saying.

F John McCain and Harry Reid

we don't die we multiply. I pray someday I don't end up in the Gestapo or whatever the hell these sociopaths have planned for us, but I am will ing to go there if I must and willing to breath my last breath free. I am not advocating starting violence, I just don't care if they bring violence to me to kill my flesh.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

mccain and reid looking more

mccain and reid looking more and more like the big gaping assholes they really are.

You can say that again

and I didn't think they could look any more like gaping assholes than last week, but I was wrong.

There you go

There you go Rand. NICE.

Eric Hoffer

Good job, Rand.

Rand has a lot to learn but I feel confident that he has the US best interests at heart. He will become his own man to be lauded for his own accomplishments. You simply can not grow up in a house with Ron Paul and not know which direction is the right one. He has been coached by his father who is telling him just how to take a different approach to the same goal. Kudos, Rand!

~Your perception becomes your reality~

“You have to remember, rights

“You have to remember, rights don't come in groups we shouldn't have 'gay rights'; rights come as individuals, and we wouldn't have this major debate going on. It would be behavior that would count, not what person belongs to what group.”

That quote is from Dr. Paul.

Now take that concept and apply to what Rand proposes is done with the money.

Half going towards deficit reduction helps all of us.

The other $2B is allocated in helping people get jobs. That's good, right? Oh, wait, my bad... made a mistake with that one. The other $2B, which comes out of all of our tax money, does not go towards helping everyone out of work to get jobs... it goes towards helping only members of a certain group to get jobs.

Why should employers who employ certain people get up to $9,600 in tax credits?

Any employer who employs anyone should be eligible for up to $9,600 in tax credits. Outside of that, there should be no special treatment for employing anyone whether based on their sex, religion, ethnicity, prior work experience, etc.

Maybe I should make one exception to that which would be special benefits for only those vets who were forced/drafted into the military. And even with them I have some reservations because they were sworn to our Constitution and had a duty under the UCMJ to disobey unlawful orders (unconstitutional orders ARE unlawful), yet they still participated in warfare that was not constitutionally and legitimately declared by Congress (for those who were drafted after the last legitimate declaration of war by Congress back in the 1940s).

People already join the military for all the fringe benefits (I have yet to meet anyone who did not join because they needed a job, needed a place to live, needed a way to support their family, needed college money, etc, etc). The more benefits they get means a more constant stream of new recruits to be used in all of our unconstitutional actions throughout the world.

That $4B should benefit everyone equally.

...

The phrase "Stop Loss" comes to mind

A lot of people serving right now had no idea what they were signing up for 10 years ago.

You're right that a lot of

You're right that a lot of people had no idea... but that in & of itself is part of the problem. 'Stop Loss' is part of the contract that these soldiers agreed to. It sucks, but they signed on the dotted line. That was part of the trade off.

That's just one way soldiers are 'manipulated' if you can call it that. Another way is paying them just enough so that when it comes time to re-up they have no choice because their family is close to broke & a $10k bonus is being dangled in front of them. I know several who wanted to get out but decided not to just to get the bonus, because they were broke & their family could not do without the bonus money.

And when you really analyze it, I bet what they are doing is not what they signed up for. They were all made to swear an oath to our Constitution, but many of the orders they are given are in violation of that oath when not a single one should be. Then there's the UCMJ that they are supposed to obey... but only certain parts because the section about disobeying unlawful (unconstitutional) orders is ignored.

Anyhow...

Some years ago I had a friend who was very close to signing up. The recruiter made all kinds of promises. Of most importance to my friend was that he be trained & work in a field that he would be able to use the knowledge gained in the private sector after getting out. Recruiter told him no problem, just sign the papers. My friend requested it in writing... they said they took care of it... just sign the papers. They probably didn't expect that he would actually READ the papers. Not a single word was mentioned regarding what he had been promised. He against requested what they were promising him to be written into the contract. The recruiter refused. They never had any intention of keeping their word to him.

People would have more of an idea about this stuff if they would read the contracts. And they would not be getting themselves into so much if they were actually willing to abide by their oaths to our Constitution & duties under the UCMJ.

...

And I should have to pay for their mistake why?

Most likely, they had a clue, and if truly not - it was their choice. I see no reason why I should be obligated to have to work for myself AND them because of their bad choices.

I didn't ask them to make that choice.

Hell, I don't even want a standing Army.

Tell me again why I have to pay for it because someone ELSE wants it?

Rand is trying to corner Reid

Rand knows most Americans agree with him about the foreign aid. Reid and the others don't want to have to vote on this ammendment because they know how bad they will look if they don't support it. Reid's excuse is that this has nothing to do with veterans benefits (the bill Rand is trying to attach the ammendment to). If you watch the long version, Reid is trying to shame Rand about holding up the bill, saying he doesn't care about veterans.

Harry Reid for 5 1/2 minutes, Rand answers, Reid objects (11:03)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld7kxq2ZVXw

Later, Rand responds, playing Reid's own game - he's adjusted his ammendment to use half the withheld foreign aid to triple the veterens benefit. What will Reid use as an excuse now? : )

Rand Paul Offers to Triple Funding in Veterans Bill 9/13‬/12 (7:19)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMmYGkEtsrc&list=UUeM9I-20oWU...

NJ

So Rand initially just wanted

So Rand initially just wanted to use all the money to reduce the debt/deficit but opted to send 50% to the veterans because Reid was playing some sort of veterans card?

Good move by Rand, but I still believe that if the gov is going to give up to $9,600 in tax credits for hiring people that it should apply to everyone equally and not just a select group of people.

...

Sorry

Have to disagree with you here.

We do some pretty awful things to the minds of soldiers. They already have trouble getting medical benefits and support. In my mind, taking care of these soldiers IS a function of government. Teaching someone to kill does things to them internally. We broke them, therefore we are responsible for them.

I'm fine with half going to debt reduction and half going to veterans benefits.

*EDIT* I have a soft spot for veterans and the military, as I feel that defense is the one area that the Federal Government SHOULD be totally in control of. Cradle to grave in my mind, for our soldiers. With the current situation of the perpetuation of our warfare state this is totally untenable, but if we had a correct foreign policy of defense, then it becomes completely doable and correct. *END EDIT*

Eric Hoffer

We do some pretty awful

We do some pretty awful things to the minds of soldiers.

I'm in agreement with you on this. However, the proper solution would be to cease & desist all of the awful things you are referring to. I do not believe that the solution to this problem is to handout other people's money & creating a group of second class citizens (those that businesses get zero incentive to hire).

They already have trouble getting medical benefits and support.

True. Although, none of this would be necessary if our politicians & soldiers would actually abide by their oaths to our Constitution (& UCMJ for the soldiers). The causes of all these medical needs (after WWII) would have not exist if Congress was held to do their duty under our Constitution in regard to declaring war. No declaration of war = NO WAR. But, our gov is not all that good at even following our own laws. Congress has not declared war since the early 1940s and they are the ONLY branch of government with the authority to declare war.

In my mind, taking care of these soldiers IS a function of government.

I agree. But the money is not going towards their healthcare, it's rather going to make sure one class of people has a better chance of getting jobs as compared to another class of people. Other American's are somehow less deserving of having these jobs?

Ironically, those who are passed over for the jobs are also being forced to pay the taxes which enable the incentives that are used to pass them over for the jobs.

I have a soft spot for veterans and the military

I think the vast majority of us here have a soft spot for veterans & the military.

The thing is, how far are we expected to go? When is enough, enough? Where I live teachers & police make a LOT of money. Police say they should be paid much more than their near 6 figure salaries because of the risks of their jobs. I tell them that there are a million soldiers who earn only a fraction & dodge bullets every day who would very gladly trade places with them.

Is $9,600 of other people's money (used to keep those people from getting the jobs)? How about $9,700? $15,000? $25,000 in incentives?

I bet not a single one of the members of Congress who vote for these programs offer to do it with their own money. I bet they would never conceive of giving similar incentives to replacing their own jobs in Congress with a veteran. Just like they refuse to be part of the healthcare plan that they are forcing on the rest of us.

If the money is going to be spent on jobs it should be available to everyone, equally.

...

Your point is correct under one assumption, and that

assumption is false - that they were forced into service.

They were not.

They volunteered.

I didn't ask them to.

I don't even support the policy that they should even be allowed to. Neither did George Washington.

We are not at war.

Congress has not called forth the Militia nor has it raised an Army to repel any invader or defeat any enemy force.

It has maintained a STANDING army in direct contravention to all decency and common sense, not to mention the spirit of the Constitution.

If someone volunteers for a standing army, they are on their own.

Disagree

It's absolutely not. I believe that taking care of veterans is part of the bargain for their volunteering. Whether or not they were conscripted doesn't enter in to the deal, because there is NOTHING the government can do to pay back conscription. Nothing in my mind justifies it and therefore it's totally off the table. If you get your arm blown off defending this country, ESPECIALLY if you volunteered to do so, then you should be taken care of. Volunteering to defend this country from foreign aggression takes a depth of spirit that deserves respect and admiration. Our part in that bargain, for those of us who are not defending ourselves, is to take care of them.

So no, my point isn't correct under forced conscription. You've provided no basis for my point to be incorrect, you've just called it false and given exceptions pulled out of nowhere.

Your not asking them to doesn't mean it isn't occurring as a legitimate function of our Constitutional government.

As it stands, I don't believe we should be hosting huge standing armies either, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of the troops that do. Even with a strictly volunteer army that was assembled at a moment's notice, we should be offering the same benefits package. If you are willing to risk your life so that those of us who do not fight can be free, our government should take care of you, and potentially a member or two of your family for a time.

A country must have a standing fighting force to patrol borders and for quick response times. A militia was fine when everyone knew how to shoot a gun and could be called up into service as an able bodied individual. Combat has changed since then. Our physical size and borders have changed. You no longer see ships appearing months out, ready with the navy. We now have jets flying in to drop bombs at a supersonic pace.

Does this mean we should maintain the military status quo? Absolutely not, but we do need a standing fighting force, and it is legally provided for in the Constitution. Those that are actually willing to defend this country deserve to be taken care of. The argument that the military should be smaller, or even non-existent unless we've been threatened with war is a totally different argument.

Eric Hoffer

I've talked to many people

I've talked to many people who have been in the military, are in or were in the process of joining. I always ask why they decided to join. Nobody ever says "patriotism" or "to defend our country."

To get a job, to be able to pay their child support & not end up in jail, to have somewhere to live, to be able to support their young family, to get a free house on base for their family, to be able to get access to on base discount shopping, to be able to retire at 39 years old (39!!??), to be able to afford living away from their childhood home, etc.

You're absolutely right that we need to provide for the continuing healthcare of our veterans. More resources should probably go that way. However, when it comes to jobs in the private sector the gov should not be taxing the private sector for a hiring incentives program that effectively creates two distinct classes of citizens: one that comes with a $9,600 incentive to hire and the rest of the people that don't.

...

If we didn't take care of people who volunteered for a

standing Army and put themselves at the disposal of tyrants, how many do you think would volunteer?

Don't confuse "defending this country" with volunteering into a group that primarily invades sovereign nations on the whim of trigger happy bureaucrats.

I would happily feel obliged to assist anyone that DEFENDED America when it needed defending. And I'd be right there fighting alongside them.

But America is not in need of defense at the moment - not from enemies on the battlefield anyway.

If they are injured, it's because they were following unlawful orders. They aren't required to follow unlawful orders. In fact, they're supposed to disobey them. I have no obligation to someone who volunteered to put themselves at the disposal of warlords and then got injured on the job. Tough cookie.

There's nothing legitimate Constitutionally about invading another nation when Congress has not declared war.

There's no "bargain" either. A bargain implies agreement and consent. You can't just forcefully do something, claim it benefits me, and then demand I pay you for it, or compensate you for any injury you incurred while you were doing whatever it was - that I didn't ask for, and don't even want. There's no "bargain" at all.

Your arguments in favor of a standing Army are specious at best. No, things haven't changed that much. Congress can maintain a Navy. That can certainly include an Air Force. (THAT STAYS HOME - same with the Navy)

Our ability to project power outward is the deterrent.

There's no need for a standing Army. If we need one, we raise one. When there isn't a need, they should be disbanded. If we get invaded, we'll be raising a bigger one anyway. The current volunteer force is wholly insufficient to handle a full scale continental wide fight. If we are attacked and Congress declares war, they'll be able to raise an Army in short order to end the war.

There are over 80 million gun owners in this country. No nation could oppose us if we had to fight. Are there things we could do to ensure even better odds? You bet. Congress has been derelict in its duty to maintain and govern the militia. Getting back to that, it would be clear that a Standing Army is not needed.

The only things a standing Army is good for are - fighting wars of opportunity and plunder against other nations, and oppressing the people back home when the economy collapses because you blew the treasury wad on those wars of opportunity.