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.

Use some context

Dictionary definitions are helpful in understanding the meaning behind the word but they do not help in applying the meaning of the word in different contexts.

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

Definitions come first..

Learn your definitions so that you are capable of using the words correctly instead of trying to change the meaning of a word and pretend it's taken out of context.

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.

Why did Romney want endorsements then?

If endorsements don't mean anything at all, then why would anyone care to get an endorsement? The fact is that endorsements are used to sway opinion. Romney was desperate to portray himself as a conservative, but most Tea Party conservatives and Libertarian-wing Repulicans didn't buy into it. The Rand Paul endorsement was a plea to get more of these conservatives to vote for Romney.

Why do so many Ron Paul supporters care about the endorsement? I think it is because it shows Rand Paul plays political games and doesn't stand on principles. Most people around here desperately want politicians to stand on prinicple, even when it is politically unpopular. As a result, I feel that Rand Paul is destroying the base of his political support at the national level, all in an effort to gain acceptance into the GOP.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

To get votes...

...why else do politicians ever want endorsements?

And, on the other hand, why did Rand give the endorsement? To get votes, lol, why else do politicians ever give endorsements? The whole point is that the endorsee gets some votes from the constituents of the endorser, and vice versa.

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

Raed what "slugnuts" posted above

The "slugnuts" post said "Does endorsing mean anything at all? No." That statement isn't true, and that is all I was trying to point out. I agree, endorsements are to get votes. They do mean something.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Gotcha

.

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

Romney was a traitor to the

Romney was a traitor to the NWO, he wanted to help Rand Paul in 2016. That's why the NWO killed his chances in 2012.

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

Lol, what?

.

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

Romney sold out when he

Romney sold out when he accepted Rand's endorsement.

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

Lol! I am so confused by this

Lol! I am so confused by this statement! Thanks though...it made me chuckle a little.

Again, lol, what?

.

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

Well Said!

VERY well said Bob. A lot of people have their blinders on and won't open their eyes to see exactly the true meaning of that endorsement.

When he not only so freely endorsed him, but even campaigned for him, he is just as bad as Romney.

The "true meaning" of the

The "true meaning" of the endorsement was simply that Rand had made a promise back in 2010 when he was running for the Senate that he would endorse the GOP Presidential nominee. It had nothing to do with Romney or his policies. It had to do with fulfilling a promise he made and making it possible for him to at least have some chance to win the GOP nomination in 2016.

The "true meaning" of the

The "true meaning" of the endorsement was simply that Rand endorsed Romney when he would without a doubt support:

Complete noncompliance to The Constitution
The Patriot Act
NDAA
FISA
The authority to execute US Citizens
The runaway Federal Reserve
Wall Street Bail Outs
The continuation of our illegal undeclared wars
More illegal undeclared wars
Obamney Care
Nation Building
The New World Order
Our involvement in The United Nations
Big Government
The continuation of us becoming a Police State
Complete support of The Military Industrial Complex
and so on......

So obviously

You feel the same about Ron Paul, who endorsed Newt Gingrich and John Boehner for Speaker of the House, correct?

Eric Hoffer

Oh come on! Rand is known for

Oh come on! Rand is known for being the most outspoken Senator on the Bill Of Rights. He is affectively passing legislation in our way.

Be logical here! He would never get anything done if he were like his dad. Then we get nothing. Get it?

Ron was a great messenger. Rand will be a great president. But things will not change over night. Be realistic.

An endorsement means nothing...

...other than that the two politicians in question think they can both benefit politically from a show of solidarity. It's like when politicians have the press take pictures of them shaking hands with big smiles on their faces. Doesn't mean they're pals in real life, does it? They might well slit each others' throats if they got the chance, yet there they are putting on a public display of friendship...gosh, it's almost as if appearance is different from reality, eh?

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

Not So...

When someone, such as a popular/powerful political figure, endorses something or someone, that directly tells the faithful-followers and others that this thing or person should be considered and/or supported by others.

Works the same in advertising with a swath of the populous. Put a sports-hero, a military hero or some other such influental person up endorsing a cause or a product and it sells.

That's why it is done. That is how it works.

Such endorsements carry a certain block of votes. Such endorsements lend credibility with certain portions of the electorate and definately with the 'party-faithful'. Such endorsement are meant to tell the electorate that this candidate, bill, program or other thing can be trusted and should be supported.

Only those who are either apologists or who are rationalizers and/or justifiers, make the effort to paint an endorsement such as the embracing and advancing of Globalist-Collectivism that Lil' Rand committed, as something of no meaning.

It is what it is.

Not if the faithful followers

Not if the faithful followers are as smart as us...

Unbeleivable...

I have seen the caliber of cognitive reasoning on full display here on these forums and the ability, or, rather, the lack thereof, to discern right from wrong and politics over principle.

The excuse making, rationalizing and justifying reference Rand is really no different than that heard and experienced during the recent POTUS election, where we were endlessly told by the republican-faithful that one must choose Mittens, since he was the only one who 'had a chance' and that there were only two 'viable' choices.

Now, we have the same mentality at work here, busily attempting to promote and defending the indefensible.

Except Rand is not Mitt.

Except Rand is not Mitt. Apples and oranges dude.

Let me clarify

When someone, such as a popular/powerful political figure, endorses something or someone, that directly tells the faithful-followers and others that this thing or person should be considered and/or supported by others.

Works the same in advertising with a swath of the populous. Put a sports-hero, a military hero or some other such influental person up endorsing a cause or a product and it sells.

That's why it is done. That is how it works.

Such endorsements carry a certain block of votes. Such endorsements lend credibility with certain portions of the electorate and definately with the 'party-faithful'. Such endorsement are meant to tell the electorate that this candidate, bill, program or other thing can be trusted and should be supported.

Yea, that's exactly right. The whole point of these episodes in political theater is for the endorsee to get votes from the constituents of the endorser, and vice versa. That's why they do it.

Only those who are either apologists or who are rationalizers and/or justifiers, make the effort to paint an endorsement such as the embracing and advancing of Globalist-Collectivism that Lil' Rand committed, as something of no meaning.

The endorsement doesn't mean that Rand actually agrees with Romney's policies - that was my point, that's what I meant when I said it had "no meaning." Of course it has meaning in a political sense, it has a political purpose, that's why they did it.

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

You Reinforce a Few of The Points I Made...

One, that the faithful and/or those caught up in the paradigm will and do defend, rationalize and justify the clear lack of principle such an endorsement of globalist-collectivism indicates.

Two, if you hawk the product/person/establishment, you own it,like it or not.

Three, using your own scenario, Lil' Rand is a POS liar and hypocrite, at best.

At least from where I stand.

An excellent analogy/exemplar/illustration of such principle vs endorsement can be viewed in the movie Sgt. York. They tried to trot Alvin York out to endorse a product he knew nothing about, for lots of money, and his principle wouldn't allow him to do so, therefor he decined.

What a concept, eh?

Lil' Rand would have made the endorsement, taken the money and he would have had droves of those like you, ready and willing to step up and rationalize, justify and excuse the clear lack of principle and wrongness.

A few points

One, that the faithful and/or those caught up in the paradigm will and do defend, rationalize and justify the clear lack of principle such an endorsement of globalist-collectivism indicates.

You call it rationalization, I call it accurate description of reality. I strongly believe that Rand doesn't agree with Romney's policies. I think the facts make that abundantly clear. Thus the rationale behind his endorsements lies in political expediency. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't be defending Rand.

if you hawk the product/person/establishment, you own it,like it or not.

Rand endorsed Romney, so he "owns" Romney's policies? You mean that people will think he agrees with Romney's policies, or that he actually does?

using your own scenario, Lil' Rand is a POS liar and hypocrite, at best.

I happen to believe that passing laws to save this country from socialism is more important than being honest. If one has to lie one's way into a position to make such laws, I have no problem with that. I guess we value things differently.

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

Yep, We Certainly Do...

Your Quote ("I happen to believe that passing laws to save this country from socialism is more important than being honest. If one has to lie one's way into a position to make such laws, I have no problem with that. I guess we value things differently.") END YOUR QUOTE.

Yes, sir...we certainly do value things in a vastly different manner. In fact, we are worlds apart.

I hold a far different view of what constitutes the 'measure of a man' and of the importance of trust and honesty.

You can, however, take comfort in the crystal-clear fact that those who hold your 'values' are in absolute control of society and of government.

Yes, me and mine are indeed scant few amongst a sea of those like you.

And so it goes...

Where are you? What is this? What are we all doing here?

I thought we were trying to put people in office in order to change the laws. But you're rambling on about the "measure of a man" and truth and honesty and blah blah blah...what's that got to do with it? As much as I enjoy hearing about you philosophy of life, what I'm trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with our objectives as a political movement...this is a political movement, isn't it? Or did I wander into a self-help group?

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

Obviously...

First off, I am not part of your 'we', nor am I a part of a 'political movement'. Neither am I a part of the cultist-rabble who I frequently see posting here at the DP.

I am an individualist, a liberty 'advocate' and a constitutionalist. that makes me a man who doesn't play stupid insipid games or make stupid insipid excuses for 'politicians'. I certainly do not attempt to defend the indefensible, as many do.

Next, I do not want laws 'changed', I want them removed, disappeared, eradicated. Tweaking, aka changing them merely provides the illusion of lesser government. I want peoples hands out of my pocket and their concern out of my affairs.

A politician working within the 'system' ain't gonna get it done. I will not elaborate on the 'what and why' of what I assess as the only solution, because it would be lost on anyone who holds your stated positions.

As I see it, you are an apologist and one who sees any end as justifying any means, as long as that end and those means are perpetrated by someone on 'your team'.

Lying , cheating, I also have to assume stealing (since that is what government does) and any other forms of chicanery are fine with you and yours, therefore and by excusing and accepting that, that is what you will get, but it will predictably and certainly be practiced and perpetrated against YOU and the rest of us. Hell, Lil' Rand is living up to it even as we speak and with the cover of your excuse-making and your support.

Gee, thanks...

I do not have any need to defend my position, I merely assess and state things as as I see them and just so you know, I abhor politics and do not see it and those who practice it as any solution at all, given where we are as a confederation of sovereign and united states (theoretically).

What I do see as a beginning solution is people ceasing to make excuses even when their 'darling de jour' comes up short.

Frankly, my firmly held belief is that the 'ballot box' solution is no longer viable. It is going to eventually come to another type of solution at some point, one way or the other.

What your arguments and advocacy are, is nothing more than a degree of what the main-line dems and repubs do with their 'darlings de jour'...believe in them, support them, elect them, advance them, rationalize & justify for them and otherwise continue to empower them to work their ills on those of us who simply want to live our lives free from intrusion.

Without a firm, clean and unwavering philosophical and ethical underpinning, you have conceded the ground that must not be conceded.

Congratulations, you do not 'display' such an underpinning, therefore your approach and your desired gamesmanship mean squat to a man who does and it will prove ineffective in removing the boot of predatory government from the neck of individualist-America.

That is all.

There seems to be 2 schools of "thought"

and I'm being generous when I use the word "thought" concerning our counterparts.

There are people like you, me and many others who stand on principle. Those who support the true message of Liberty. Those who refuse to compromise.

Then there is the other side.. They'll lie, cheat, steal and blow someone in a dark alley to get a foot in the door, even though, it's to the detriment of what they say they want. They don't realize or care that lower the bar means watering down and it opens the door to people who would try to co-opt.. That's if this isn't the plan from those to start with.

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.

Yep...

Sycophants, minions and quislings, in my opinion.

No different, other than the person/position supported, than any other mainline party-faithful hacks.

I have always maintained that if one actually has and holds fundamental principles, one cannot and will not compromise or betray them.

To see some of these pieces of work openly champion lying and chicanery as an appropriate means to an end, speaks volumes. They are naught but compromising gerbils, busily gnawing away at the very foundatons of Liberty, the Republic and of Truth & Honor, as I see it.

Well I'm personally glad to see you around

I think there are many here that are principled but just don't say anything for the sake of staying out of arguments and harms way in general from the gerbil's teeth. lol

The same thing happened when Gary was floated as the next turd.

Meh.. what can ya do. :)

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.