35 votes

Obama Hammers Iran With New Tough Sanctions (Act of War)




Comment viewing options

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

F * THE WAR!

!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Nice

I bet Dr. Paul and Carol just love reading your brilliant post's when they drop by. Good job!

Why don't you just leave like you said here because it is apparent that this isn't your home anymore.
http://www.dailypaul.com/261621/ron-paul-write-in-vote-alive...
-12
Vote down!
It is the key
Submitted by legalizeliberty on Sun, 11/04/2012 - 22:56. Permalink

The mainstream media will report the numbers.
And it will showcase how FRINGE WE ARE IF WE DO NOT UNITE FOR GARY!!!

Anyways I got anough abuse here to quit.

I am out.

Daily Paul is not my home anymore.
It seems like a prison with prison guards shouting at me telling me how I should be.

Bigmikedude jefferson photoshopwis all are slaves here and they tell me what to do while I try to free them from their misery...

f** it.
I go back to making money so I can help myself.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Perhaps most disconcerting

It's not even clear if the president authorized a drone strike over Syria after the election. No one knows who is performing the final authorization (likely to deflect blame/responsibility). For some reason I can't imagine him winning the election that night and then being asked by the military if they could bomb Syria. Strange.

Start the war with "xxxx"

The cry of incompetent leaders to distract the ignorant.

Free includes debt-free!

Posted here before, but well worth watching if you missed it

Ever wonder how this situation with Iran came about? This video is both entertaining and very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0

Lets start a wager on when

Lets start a wager on when the first bomb hits or CIA agent kills someone. Before June is my guess.

Southern Agrarian

TwelveOhOne's picture

In the past...

The CIA (or Mossad, or possibly someone completely unrelated with this war-mongering speech, but less likely) has already murdered several scientists using car bombs delivered by motorcycle.

As a scientist, this concerns me greatly. I wonder, what project might I be innocently working on that bothers some murdering psychopaths enough to start removing the participants of said project?

So no bombs have hit (that I'm aware of), but I'm pretty sure the latter part of your wager is about events in the past. But your guess is also accurate, the events did happen before June. (I wanted to add a smiley there but I'm just not happy about these events. Even if logic is fun.)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

My guess is February 23/24, 2013.

This is the Feast of Purim when the Jews turned the tables on their enemies and killed them all in ancient Persia (Iran). The architect of the plan to wipe out the Jews was Haman the Agagite, an Amalekite, the chief advisor to the king Artaxerxes. He himself was hanged on a 50 foot high gibbet he had built for his nemesis Mordecai the Jew.

What is interesting in this scenario is that Ahmadinejad is not a descendant of Haman but the Jewish leaders may very well be since the Amalekites were merged with the Edomites in the 10th. century B.C. and then the Edomites were merged with the Jews in 126 B.C. This means that modern Jewry actually includes their Biblical enemies the Amalekites. They will never admit this of course but it is an irrefutable historical fact.

Netanyahu has called Ahmadinejad Haman and Ahmadinejad must retire from office in August 2013 so for this pattern to be correct the attack must take place in 2013 and the Feast of Purim is the most likely date for it. This will inevitably expand to involve the entire Middle East and perhaps other countries like China and Russia .

It is my belief that this war will end with the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish State with nuclear weapons being used either by Israel itself deploying the Samson Option or by some nuclear power, possibly even the United States itself . The most likely date for this is the 9/10 Ab on the Hebrew Calendar. This is when the city and nation of Judah/Judea were destroyed in 586 B.C. by the Babylonians and in 70 A.D. by the Romans. In 2013 that date is 16/17 July and in 2014 it falls on 5/6 August.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Two stories about Iran.

1. The propaganda story to JUSTIFY sanctions and war. The media story is that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. But like Iraq no sign of this was found when they were inspected.

2. The real story. The Zionists want Iran under central banker control and they want the OIL. Iran is rich in oil and does not have a Rothschild central bank that charges INTEREST like all the other nations that are OWNED and controlled by Rothschild and Rockefeller.

Iran dares to defy the Rothschild banking EMPIRE by having its own INTEREST FREE BANK and must be invaded so that a Rothschild interest charging central bank can be installed, as it was in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.

I wonder if Rand voted for them.

.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Just Rand?

.

He voted for them first time around.

I was just interested to know if he did it a second time. Somehow I doubt it.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Rand never voted for Iran

Rand never voted for Iran sanctions. The first time around he watered the sanctions down which is even better than voting against it and losing.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

That was not my impression.

Certainly I didn't read the roll call but their were a few posts on the DP indicating that he voted for the sanctions including those on the central bank which is of course independent of the global network.

I did hear that he put forward some amendments but what they were and whether they passed I don't know. Do you know the full story?

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Rand never voted for the

Rand never voted for the sanctions. Rand got an amendment put onto one version that said offensive military actions require a separate vote by congress and a sanction violation by Iran cannot be construed as a reason for offensive military actions.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

This would appear to suggest that he voted for the legislation.

If he attached such an amendment then he likely voted for the sanctions. He has in any event changed his mind and has voted against the latest bill.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

He attached the amendment,

He attached the amendment, but never actually voted for the sanctions. You are making assumptions.

And actually, adding the amendment watering down the bill is better than voting against the sanctions considering it would have passed 99-0 without Rand anyway. The amendment actually protects our liberty. Getting outvoted 99-1 all the time and then having a circle jerk with lew rockwell does not protect liberty. Rand protects liberty.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Then all the posts saying he did were wrong?

There were many posts at the time saying he had voted for the sanctions. As to making assumptions I would rather say that I am drawing a reasonable inference. Do you have the roll call for those sanctions? That would settle the matter for me.

At the moment all I have is your assertion against the testimonies of many others who said he did support the original bill. I accept that he attached the amendment and that means to me that he supported the amended bill. He is also quite happy to be the lone vote against these new sanctions so maybe he had some "blowback" on his original support for them and changed his mind. Again not an assumption but a reasonable inference. An assumption tends to precede evidence while a inference is based upon evidence. The evidence in this case would be the other posts I read at the time plus the fact that he attached an amendment to the bill and that it also passed.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

There are a small group of

There are a small group of extreme agitators who hate Rand Paul. They just want to attack him, no matter the facts. Rand Paul never voted for Iran sanctions. In the last vote, he was outvoted 90-1. In an earlier vote, he got the sanctions watered down and then abstained on the final vote. Getting the sanctions watered down is actually better than just voting against it. Rand had a clause inserted into the sanctions that said that a violation of sanctions by Iran or Syria could not be construed as a reason for offensive military operations unless there was a separate vote authoring it by congress. This is especially important as the war against Iraq was declared by Bush because Saddam violated sanctions.

What Rand is doing is something that Ron Paul never did; getting bad bills watered down so they are not as bad. What Rand is doing is a lot harder to so than to simply vote against everything.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Thanks for the information.

As you say there are those who believe Rand is not as principled as his father. If as you say Rand did not vote on these first sanctions then there must be many people who believe he did who are mistaken and hold it against him.

Perhaps if you could dig up the roll call to confirm this then do an original post to let everyone know about it that may alleviate some of the animus that some hold against him. For myself I am very surprised that this is the case since there was so much hullabaloo about it at the time and many must have been affected by it. If you can change that perception with clear evidence that he abstained then you may change quite a few minds about Rand.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Rand, though not his Dad(who is?), is still better than

the rest of the Senate. This is a more recent vote on Iran:

"In a bipartisan show of steadfastness on Iran, Senators passed a non-binding resolution - nearly unanimously - for the United States to pursue a policy other than containment, if necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Senate Joint Resolution 41 advises that time is running out on diplomacy, and it "rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran."
The bill reflects and supports President Obama's existing stance.

IT PASSED WITH ONLY ONE VOTE AGAINST IT, THAT OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR RAND PAUL FROM KENTUCKY.

"A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of preemptive war," Paul objected in his arguments before the Senate preceding the roll call ballot."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/politics/senate-votes/index.html

Thanks.

I seemed to recall something of the sort being mentioned. That clarifies it for me.

The article you linked to indicates that Rand proposed stopping foreign aid to countries that are not cooperating in the "war on terror". This includes Egypt Libya and Pakistan. That is an odd collection.

Libya under Qadhafe was very cooperative against the Islamists since they were his enemies also. Pakistan to my knowledge is also cooperating with the drone strikes against so called militants. If Egypt and Libya are no longer cooperating it is because the US and NATO have installed Islamic governments there. They also stole all of Libya's foreign assets and her gold...not to mention all her natural resources are now being plundered.

Rand may have another reason for cutting off foreign aid but I would rather see him asking for reparations for those countries that have been destroyed by US actions and compensation to families who have lost their loved ones in these genocidal campaigns. This would match the requirements of the judgements at Nuremberg against the Nazis who were also adjudged to be the aggressors in WWII.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

It's hard to know what is ever going on completely...

I do know that he stood alone against an aggressive policy and that will not make friends and took some guts to do.

A lot of us on the DP get frustrated with politicians who talk well, but vote poorly(unConstitutionally).

Rand is the opposite.

Rand is bizarre in that he talks foolishly at times(like endorsing Romney), but typically(besides his earlier support of Iranian Sanctions) votes in line with the Constitution.

I think it has probably been hard for him to watch his Dad suffer more from frustration than we can ever imagine and Rand is trying to find a way to stick to his guns without alienating himself.

It's probably easier for some to criticize him(not you) than to do what he does. Being a Senator who stands alone would not be easy.

He seems like a confused and conflicted

individual, hardly someone who should be considered as any kind of leader for the Liberty Movement. That's my 2 cents.