80 votes

UPDATE 3: Rand Paul Explains NDAA Vote & Justin Amash Responds

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/explanation-of-ndaa...

I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain.

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can't be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill.

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn't it.

This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year's bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.

That provision was in last year's NDAA bill.

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained.

I would never vote for any bill, anywhere, that I believed enhanced the government's power to abridge your rights and detain people. This goes against every principle I hold dear and the Constitution I took an oath to uphold and protect.

Government power and the many associated abuses have been piling up for years. We will not win all our liberties back at once. But we did win one battle this year, and we should be pleased that we did while also realizing the fight is really just getting started.

I hope you will keep fighting alongside me.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/explanation-of-ndaa...

UPDATE:

Justin Amash's response via Facebook:

Senator Rand Paul is correct in his description of the 2013 NDAA. It's the 2012 NDAA (not 2013) that authorizes indefinite detention without charge or trial. There's much more to be done to protect our rights and undo the harm of the 2012 NDAA (which doesn't expire), but thanks to the efforts of United States Senator Mike Lee and Sen. Paul, we are making significant progress in (re-)advancing the principle that all people in the United States have a constitutionally protected right to full due process.

UPDATE 2:

From my Oklahoman friend of Liberty QFish of the Liberty Live Stream Team:

I asked him this question: "Would the Feinstein-Lee amendment that Sen. Paul voted for be sufficient for this 2013 NDAA? I know you had come out against this amendment initially, so was curious what you would say about that?"

Rep. Amash answered with: "Qadoshyah, I believe we need more than the Feinstein amendment. I understand their logic, but I disagree that it is sufficient because I have a different interpretation of the 2012 NDAA. They still made significant progress in advancing the cause and putting some protections in law."

UPDATE 3:

Here's my thought process on this in pictures: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=502351526465633&set=...

______

FYI - Check out my website if you're looking for an awesome, inexpensive, and perfect Christmas gift or stocking-stuffer for all Ron Paul Liberty-lovers! I had them made and should be getting them next week according to the manufacturer!




Comment viewing options

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

I'll retract my pwnd

I'm uncalling it after seeing your post.

As a general rule, I assume no one else gets off a computer and does anything, so any actual representation within the party automatically wins.

I fully retract my statement, and thank you for the work done for Liberty, I really do appreciate it.

Eric Hoffer

"As a general rule, I assume no one else gets off a computer and

does anything, so any actual representation within the party automatically wins."

Perhaps because you're a dumbass.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

ProudAmericanFirst, I concur

ProudAmericanFirst, I concur with Hoffer and applaud your work. You can think what you like about Rand (even if I think it's counter productive), so long as you are pulling your weight, you're okay in my book.

I think guys like RP4pres get to hung up on names, as if joining the GOP in order to dismantle it and turn it into the Ron Paul party somehow changes you into a Romney fan. I've also found that a lot of the GOP members were going along to get along. Most we're miseducated, but like many, libertarian at heart. Once we outnumbered their neocon buddies, and it was safe, the were easy to convert.

There are no republicans, libertarians, or demo rates.... Only individualists and collectivists. The goal is every one of us should be to turn collectivists into individualists by surrounding them and educating them. Those like me are doing so by taking from the collectivists their power to pass laws against freedom by overpowering their vote, then converting the convertable and turning the diehard collectivists into a minority pariah without the power to sway votes.

We are all individualists here, so what is important is figuring out what grows our strength and reduces there's. battling ourselves about who is the most pure is pointless and stupid. Acting like an elitist who is to pure for everyone else, or lumping everyone who does not share your view of strategy is worse than stupid, it's counter productive. At this point, the liberty movement cannot afford counter productivity.

You have no idea about what you speak of..

I donated around 6000 last cycle in advertisement support to the local groups to help Dr.Paul with his plan to take over the RNC.. When people were bashing the idea I defended it vigorously.. I did that because I could see more than two feet before my own eyes. Don't think for a second that you've got me pegged if it's anything other than a Patriotic Constitutionalists.

As for me falling for labels? You just talked of me doing it then out of the other corner of your mouth.. labeled yourself. lol

Do you people not think before you post?

Oh and one more thing.. You responded to me.. not ProudAmericanFirst.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thanks for the 6k. Im sure

Thanks for the 6k. Im sure it helped. I paid my own way, but I know a lot of the people I brought needed help, and our local groups assisted with donations.

question though... if you donated 6k to help take over the party... and im one of the ones taking over the party... how is it you can see two feet in front of your eyes, and Im a whore? Aren't we both contributing to the same thing in our own way? You're trading an extention of your labor (money) while im trading my actual labor (and a few hundred in donations too).

I have no doubt you are a patriotic Constitutionalist. Its your ability to use diplomacy &tact I question, as well as your ability to dicern friend from foe. We've all read the same shit. We've all seen the same movies. Its laughable that any one RP supporter somehow thinks they have some lofty insight that the other fake-paul's lack. Its education that woke us all up in the first place. Like you, I own a sign shop and spend about 6 hours a day listening to Von Mises and every other internet video out there in the background while I work. Its not like you know anything I don't or vice versa, or half the other Ron Paul fanatics dont. I've probably spent 500 hours giving lectures to neocons and others concerning the business cycle, inflation and central banking economics.

Where we differ seems to be our threshold for what goes into a "traitor." Where you see "treason" I see strategy, not that I doubt there are plenty of infiltrators and plants (I caught one at my caucus). While some believe that gaining 2% of the vote until the world burns so they can be the sole survivors in a new libertarian society with the 10,000 surviving humans, I see a need to save America from the inside by making our ideas mainstream (and the urgency of disarming the collectivist voting machine). If you donated 6k to taking over the RNC, then it would seem this is your goal too. If it is, you have a strange way of showing it. Do you think we can take over the GOP, turning from a minority into a majority by walking into our local clubs and calling our opposition names and making them feel stupid? You don't have to sacrifice principal in order to win. But you do have to use a bit of tact.

You have to understand that the 90% will never "get it." They will never understand why freedom is important, or why the central bank is bad. However, if we can reach 10% and make our views mainstream, they will vote our way because it is "normal." We cannot stop the march of government unless we take over the offices doing the voting. To do that, we have to spread our ideas yes, but also take over the power centers of America one position at a time. Most of those in power will come our way once it is "normal and safe."

edit: I responded to the discussion, im sure PAF will find it.

"Thanks for the 6k. Im sure it helped."

Only an egomaniac would thank a person for something they are not even part of. You've made a few other comments as if you're the one with the power that's doing these things. That's usually a sign of a nutbag and a liar.

"We've all read the same shit. We've all seen the same movies. Its laughable that any one RP supporter somehow thinks they have some lofty insight that the other fake-paul's lack."

Some of us see things better than the next.. It's just part of nature buddy.. I was dealt a better hand possibly in that respect than you were. The rest of what you've said is just gibberish.. after realizing that you may be a little insane and egocentric, I don't feel this conversation is worth much more of my time.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

((Only an egomaniac would

((Only an egomaniac would thank a person for something they are not even part of.)) Like contributing to the Ron Paul campaign and his continuing efforts? I see your logic.

((You've made a few other comments as if you're the one with the power that's doing these things.))

Im am the district leader for Ron Paul's campaign out here. It was my job to find other supporters, and bring them together to win our caucuses and infiltrate the party. To that end I have been pretty successful. We have control of our GOP and 2 out of 3 council votes. We will be able to run nothing but RP repubs for state representative as a result. I certainly have not worked alone in my efforts, and there are those with more talent than I have making things happen along with me. Ive got a lot of dedicated RP supporters to help.

As for being delt cards and what not... what a joke. You're a pompus asshole, a paranoid zealot, and I hope you keep donating the bucks, because I have a feeling thats the only way you're going to be of any help to anyone. I wouldn't want you within 100 miles of my efforts. The irony of a rude thug with no tact and brimming with insults brow-beating people for not being "Paulish" enough is too funny. You claim to respect Dr. Paul, yet cannot even muster a shred of faith that the man knows how to raise his child. You insult his boy at every turn as though he doesn't see the crap you spew. Enjoy grumbling with the rest of the (L)ibertarian 2% each times your retarded views accomplish nothing.

Yes yes.. that's part of why people like you should never

be in a position of power.. it goes to your head..

"Like contributing to the Ron Paul campaign and his continuing efforts? I see your logic."

No you don't.. My contributions don't make me special bud.. no more than your contributions do.

I mean really.. Who the fuck do you think you are to thank me for my contributions.. I didn't do it for your benefit bitch. lol

I will be donating but it won't be to power hungry fucks like yourself and Rand who get off on playing politics. That's if anything your saying is true anyway lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Im not in a particular

Im not in a particular position of power. Unless you think PCO is a position of power.. or district leader for that matter. Lots of work yes, but im still waiting for the women, fancy cars and luxurious wealth. We selected those for chairman and treasurer who we thought had the best chance to win. No one particularly wanted to do it. Why would an individualist "want" power? To dismantle it. But I suppose your paranoid mind likes to find boogy men everywhere.

I thank anyone who helps my country, because you may be doing it for your own reasons, as any self interested person ought to, but it benifits me to be free. Therefore, im thanking you for that 6k that went to help smarter people than you, make a differance in my country. I may think you're a fucking retard, but every dollar helps, and im happy to see that the campaign accepts donations from idiots.

Even idiots dumb enough to donate large amounts of cash for a cause they are too stupid to understand when implimented. Good job.

"Im not in a particular position of power. "

Maybe next time say something like "we've put people into positions" instead of saying "I" did.. that's what gave the egotrip warning..

"I thank anyone who helps my country, because you may be doing it for your own reasons, as any self interested person ought to, but it benifits me to be free."

That's because you're a self-aggrandizing limelight seeking tard.. as if you are anyone lol.. I know how you meant it because there were red flags as I pointed out above..

"Therefore, im thanking you for that 6k that went to help smarter people than you, make a differance in my country."

Sure there are people smarter than me but you're not one of them and to be truthful.. You less principled people are destroyers not builders. YOU'RE just too stupid to see that.

"Even idiots dumb enough to donate large amounts of cash for a cause they are too stupid to understand when implimented. Good job."

Even dumbasses can get a little attention too by coat-tailing for an egotrip too.. so great job too sport. You got what you need.

Ohh and one more thing.. I'm for principled Liberty as Dr.Paul has put forth.. You and I ARE NOT on the same team. That's very clear.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Out of all that nonsense, you

Out of all that nonsense, you did say one thing that rings true. You see red flags. Red flags everywhere. You're surrounded in traitors.

Principled people don't mindlessly attack others who donate thousands of hours to the cause of liberty and human freedom. For a guy claiming to be the archetype of Ron Paul's non-aggression libertarian philosophy, you seem much closer to a small minded punk-ass trying to pick fights with the only people on your side working to make a difference. You're goddamn right I'm proud of what the Ron Paul people have been able to accomplish out here, myself included. If you think that is chasing glory, it's because you're an idiot

"Out of all that nonsense, you did say one thing that rings true

Out of all that nonsense, you did say one thing that rings true. You see red flags. Red flags everywhere. You're surrounded in traitors."

I see what I see.. I may not be right all of the time but I do just fine when it comes to that.

"For a guy claiming to be the archetype of Ron Paul's non-aggression libertarian philosophy, you seem much closer to a small minded punk-ass trying to pick fights with the only people on your side working to make a difference."

A: Not like you have room to talk lol
B: Non-Agression is a Libertarians stance. I'm a Constitutionalists.. I AM also much closer to his message than someone pushing Rand would be.
C: Absolutely I think YOU are chasing glory.. It's as plain as day.. No idiot here sweetpea.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thats funny. Well at least

Thats funny. Well at least you admit you think most of us are traitors. Its better to aknoweldge your insanity than to live in denial. However, I have discovered your problem.

But first... I must admit im having tons of fun trading insults with you. You had a few good ones... for a douche. But let me get to why you fail.

((you said: B: Non-Agression is a Libertarians stance. I'm a Constitutionalists.. I AM also much closer to his message than someone pushing Rand would be.))

This whole time, you've been talking about what a great supporter of Ron Paul's message you are, and how all the rest of us are fakers... but you don't even believe in non-aggression. Are you unaware that the core of the Constitution "IS" the non-aggression principal? The entire idea behind natural rights and just law? That no man may initiate force against another, or deprive him of his life, liberty or property without due process of law? This explains so much. You don't have the first idea what you're talking about. Before, I said we'd all read the same stuff and had the same basic understanding of liberty. I was sorely mistaken. The reason you are a hostile asshole who picks fights with those of us fighting to take our liberty back is because you are clueless about what we are fighting for. You're a self-described Constitutionalist who doesnt understand the essence of the document you claim to adore.

But thats only part of why you fail.

The reason you have a problem with Rand and the rest of us is because you adhere to ridiculous Christian principals based in bullshit rather than natural law, and don't have the sense to see self defense when its right in front of your face, fighting to keep your dumb ass free. You think Rand is evil because he uses deception in self defense against the collectivists who are using lies and fraud to steal our liberty. Yet you see no problem in using violence to kill when someone is trying to use violence to kill you or your family. This is what happens when you use a fucking book of lies written by men who wanted to control peasants in order to set your moral compass instead objective reason. You have a stunted view of natural law, and don't propertly understand self-defense because your religeon has pulled blinders over your eyes which you are too thick to see past. It is because you don't understand these things that you will always be at odds with those of us who do. Without the non-aggression principal, we are just collectivists. The non-aggression principal is the heart and soul of individualism and freedom. But it provides us one more important virtue.

It also provides us with our only true means of fighting back by affording us appropriate self defense in measure to the crime perpetrated against us. Your "principal" is good for nothing but martyrdom. Martyrs are effective to a point, but rights are taken on the battlefield. And while you're waiting for Jesus Christ to run for pres and magically wake everyone up to liberty, you will be getting 2% of the vote forever, and die in a camp. The rest of us will use our natural right of self defense to take by whatever just means neccessary our lives, liberty and freedom back. You would consider our tactics to be "unprincipaled" but that's because you don't understand natural rights and the right to self defense that comes along with it. And THAT, is why you fail. Wake up.

This might explain your problem with someone chasing glory. Its basic free market 101. What do you care what motivates me toward defending liberty? Do you have some problem with people who strive for achievment? Isn't working toward one's own long-term self interest what this is all about? Isn't glory, afterall just another form of profit? In truth, I actually try to stay low key as id prefer not to have my house drone missled in the future, however that doesn't mean I don't like getting credit when a plan works out. I take pride in the battles we win if I played a key role. That said, I have no problem with whatever motivates people to fight for liberty, be it glory, fame, base selfishness, or the promise economic prosperity in the future. So long as they work toward freedom, I benifit. Thats called the free market.

Class dismissed.

See that's where YOU fail.. You assumed

I was talking about the kind of non-aggression the Constitution implies but evidently, you need a history lesson..This country was founded on aggression.. Not passivity. As for the way I am here.. They are words.. not acts.. I in no way have forced anyone to do anything per the Constitutions implied non-agression principles.

Keep sucking Rands balls.. I'm sure, just be careful, not to choke on the pubes..

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Oh THAT non-aggression

Oh THAT non-aggression principal.. ha. Are you kidding me? You're like a deer in the freaking headlights. If you'd just stayed quiet, you could have at least preserved the dignity of having learned a valuable lesson and actually started to understand the philosophy you've choosen to base your life around. But no. You had to keep going. So congrats, you've brought your cluelessness into vivid new focus once again with another troubling error (not to mention obscene insults against Ron's kid. Im sure that would please the father of our movment). Ill try once more to cure your illiteracy of natural law. Though I have a feeling its a lost cause.

America wasn't founded on agression or passivity. Our founding fathers were acting in self defense of their rights which were activly being stripped from them by a ruthless tyrant. The colonists however stayed true to natural law for the most part. They paid back injustice with apropriate action. When liberty and property were infringed, they took from the Brits liberty and property in one way or another (Boston Tea Party? Hiding prohibited activity using deception from unjust laws). When the Brits escalated and began drawing blood, the founding fathers repaid murder with revolution. Self defense at every level of offense without crossing the line by becoming the aggressor. Self defense is not aggression.

You should just stop. The more you type, the stupider you look. You're a troll and clearly do not grasp the freedom movement nor grasp natural law and our founding documents. That a guy like you dares to contradict any one of us involved in the retaking of our country based on your incorrect perceptions of breaches in a code you don't even understand is just sad.

At this point, I feel bad for you. Look, im sorry about all the mean stuff I said. I know finding out you have been wrong about key points of a philosphy you based your life on must be hard. Don't get discouraged though, you can still learn if you apply yourself. Im there for you buddy. If you need a shoulder to cry on while you absorb these things and begin the slow process of finally understanding what it is to be a free man charged with the protection of your own rights, ill be there for you. If you want to coninue being a 2% Martyr following a broke ass code that disarms you and makes you a collectivist's bitch though, I can't help you.

I'm not using force on anyone. lol

but I'm not against using it on the government but what was said was about my "aggression" towards people.. Non aggression and being "aggressive" online isn't even remotely the same thing lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

.

.

What a vulgar nitwit you are

...did you learn English by listening to NWA albums?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Shut your pie hole

before I bring my nutz to rest on yo chest, biatch!

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

What will you think of Ron

What will you think of Ron when he endorses his son?

Are all endorsements

Are all endorsements enthusiastic? Cause Rand's was about as lukewarm as you can get. He took Romney, his party's nominee, to task on military spending and foreign policy during campaign season. That doesn't sound like something that someone would do if they "enthusiastically" endorsed that candidate

he caved

he does a lot of that...

Ah, but those are only facts...

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

LOL!

LOL!

Let me see if I got this straight....

Rommey supports the dismantling of the Bill of Rights, and since Rand endorsed Romney, Rand does to - you think that makes sense?

And I guess you forget that Rand is the most outspoken defender of the Bill of Rights in the US Senate? And that he's managed to translate that into actual legislation limiting the powers of government to encroach on the Bill of Rights?

How about you try finding an actual enemy of the Bill of Rights and direct your little diatribe against him. Your attack on Rand as an enemy of civil liberties is practically Orwellian. Next you'll be telling me Ron Paul was the greatest warmonger in the history of the US Congress.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

"Rand Paul enthusiastically endorsed Romney"

Bob-45, either you're a liar or you're mistaken or you're exaggerating. Which is it?

http://youtu.be/3c5odNzKVbk <-- this is painful to watch!

Hannity: Why do you support Gov. Romney?
Rand: We have a lot of similarities:His father ran unsuccessfully for president like mine. Gov. Romney then went on to support the nominee as did his dad. We both come from big loving families. I come from a family of 5 and Romney has 5 kids. He's had a long and happy marriage. So have my parents. We have similar love for our families and family values.

As many around here have said a bunch of times, it's a BS endorsement! Now...it appears Rand does actually say in that he believes sanctions on Iran were the right way to go, which I find worse than the endorsement and worthy of criticism and more debate.

Also, just because people defend Rand, doesn't mean we're cowards. Grow up.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

You grow up.

As Ron Paul would say, "Read the Constitution," particularly that section defining treason as including "giving aid and comfort". You are no better than a parent that stands idly by while his or her spouse abuses one of their children.

You are lame

Does endorsing mean anything at all? No.
What did endorsing Romney do, absolutely nothing. He didn't win, no laws were affected, no lives were lost, no money was wasted. Its just saying I am Republican and I am going with the default Republican guy.

I personally did not vote for Romney at all. I voted 3rd party. Endorsing someone's candidacy for president does not mean you agree with their stances on the issues. In fact, Rand went on record numerous times to talk about some of the differences he had.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

It absolutely does mean something

It shows character... If I endorsed a murderer who had killed one of your family members, you'd be all over that...

"Endorsing someone's candidacy for president does not mean you agree with their stances on the issues."

That's EXACTLY what it means lol.

en·dorse
/enˈdôrs/
Verb

1. Declare one's public approval or support of.
2. Recommend (a product) in an advertisement.

Seriously, pick up a dictionary, occasionally. It can be helpful.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.