81 votes

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


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.



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.


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."


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!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Nothing New to See Here...

The rationalizers & justifiers are, as usual, out in force...attacking those who stray from the new, smaller, 'purported-liberty herd' of group-think-herd-beasts.

You don't like something of what Lil' Rand does and you dare to speak out against it or put in, dare I say, a larger context or call his actions for what they are...and you get attacks and references that are akin to what the NRA has used when it got it's hand in the gun-control cookie-jar, that being to throw up rationalizations and justifications, aka, 'gorilla dust' and claim that 'we average thinkers' wouldn't understand, but that the NRA was involved in a very complex game of 'three-dimensional chess'.......yeah, that's it.

This phenomenon is merely a microcosm of the larger-herd's attacks on those who do not follow the herd-think or the paradigm de jour.

The 'Cult of Rand' is alive and well.

Anything he does, no matter how blatant, will be rationalized away, as has been evidenced since his deliberately timed back-stab of his father and his campaign and his endorsement of neocon-collectivist Romney and the globalist-collectivist establishment

Flame away, but it is what it is.

I kind of understood the outrage of some

eaelier because I thought the NDAA WAS the military appropriations bill. Finding out it's not and that Rand has said he will most likely vote against the final appropriations bill if he can't get cost-cutting amendments passed, it's becoming obvious that those that are still butthurt over this have something PERSONAL against Rand, his personality, or his methods and are just using this as an avenue to vent their disdain for him as a person.

To those people I say, go waste the next four years of your life trying to get Jesse Ventura elected president.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

No, Jesse's out...

...didn't you hear? He endorsed one of our reptilian overlords for a House seat. NO COMPROMISE! /sarc

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

as much as I respect Rand

I trust Downsize DC to give me the full story. The Feinstein amendment may actually do the opposite of what Rand supposes it will.
So I hope he will vote against the final bill if NDAA does not strip the detention clauses.

If he does not, it will be very hard to trust him again.

Downsize link:


"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Rand and Justin

Rand is Senator, Justin is Congressman. We need both and a whole lot more.

Like any other politician, both should be scrutinized and fully vetted.

Name game and popularity should not enter into this. We should be promoting the best Liberty, Freedom candidate no matter who he/she may be.

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

"We should be promoting the

"We should be promoting the best Liberty, Freedom candidate no matter who he/she may be"......... But....... We should NOT EVER promote "The Lesser Of Two Evils"

if you think rand is evil you

if you think rand is evil you need to have your head checked out. he is fighting for our liberty in the senate and you are NOT being rational if you think he's a turncoat. he lived with and was mentored by ron paul.

UPDATE: Let me try to make this as simple as possible...

I'll even use pictures!

OP updated to add this at the bottom:


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


UPDATE: Let me try and make this as simple as possible.....

A "Yes" vote for this bill is a vote from someone who either beleives in it or someone who is too much of a coward to vote no.

A "No" vote for this bill is from someone who is a man/woman of princible and integritty who actually beleives in Liberty and our Bill Of Rights that I could have respect for.

But thats just me.......


Where's my badges! I want them! I need them! I will do anything for them!

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


The manufacture said they will ship Monday at the earliest, whatever that means! Check out the latest update fb.com/revolutioncarbadges

I am 99% sure I will be shipping product before the end of next week!

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


Thanks Rob :-)

Sooner the better, if quality is great then I will want to purchase more as gifts.

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

I'm confident they will be awesome!

If you're that anxious, imagine how I'm feeling!!

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


Think globally, not nationally

9/11 was a UN/NATO lead operation to find out who in our government was loyal to the UN. Benghazi was a UN/NATO lead operation to find out who was loyal to the UN. While people in Washington sat with their thumbs up their behinds for seven hours watching Americans being slaughtered, and whoever this is in the White House went to bed and woke the next morning to fly off to a fund raiser in Las Vegas, they did nothing to help Americans, they are loyal globalists. Those removed, Ham, Patreaus, Ward, Kelly weren't loyal and were replaced.

The politicians in Washington, all of them, understand that the next test of loyalty is going to include nuclear devices going off in US cities killing not thousands, but millions if they don't toe the line.

The people behind the scenes at the UN are amoral. They have no loyalty to anything other than their agenda. They could care less how many people they murder as long as they are advancing their goal. Unless or until we all understand what's happening, we are going to continue asking questions nationally, when we should be asking questions globally.

I think the people who are

I think the people who are criticizing Rand for this vote are the same ones who criticized him for making an endorsement that he promised to make way back in 2010. These people are a lost cause anyway. It wasn't really necessary for Rand to have to explain this. The Rand haters are really just a vocal minority anyway, and there's really no point in trying to win them over at this point. Rand has a responsibility to represent the people of his state, not a bunch of extremists on the internet.

I'm not a Rand Hater....

I just don't like him.
I criticize him for his voting record
I cricize him for his promise in 2010
And I cricise him for his endorsement

Unlike a lot of people who judge him soley on who his Dad is, I judge him on his actions and his voting record just as I did for his father.

One thing is for sure. I wouldn't be here today if Ron had the record that Rand has.

They have the exact same

They have the exact same record with the exception of this vote and Rand's vote in favor of sanctions on Iran. You really need to look at the big picture and look at Rand's entire voting record, not just focus on one or two votes. If you looked at his entire voting record, you would see that Rand votes like Ron 98% of the time.

Not the same at all

Unlike Rand,

Ron didn't vote for Iran sanctions twice

Ron didn't just vote to fund the Millitary Industrial Complex

Ron would NEVER have voted for this bill

Ron didn't vote to fund Israels military and to train them

Ron refused to endorse


Did you even read Rand's response

to your kind's bull crap?

"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."

Now what was that you were saying about Rand funding the MIC?

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

What I was saying about Rand

What I was saying about Rand funding The Military Industrial Complex was simply pointing out the fact that he voted for the $631 billion so called U.S. "Defense" legislation.

If he "secretly" don't agree with it, why would he vote for it?

Failure to read

Did you not notice that this wasn't the final form of the bill and that he'll be voting against the bill in its final form?

Eric Hoffer

Rand didn't vote to "fund

Rand didn't vote to "fund Israels military and to train them." The other things you mentioned are part of the 2% of issues where Rand disagrees with Ron, so I guess you're just another person who demands perfection. Good luck finding the perfect politician.

Rand did vote to fund

Look up

‘‘United States-Israel Enhanced
Security Cooperation Act of 2012’’

I have told you many reasons why I don't like Rand. Would you please tell me why you do like Rand?

Some people on the DP managed

Some people on the DP managed to get a video of that voice vote a few months ago. They found he wasn't present when the vote was held.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

That bill was passed by voice

That bill was passed by voice vote, meaning that there was no roll call vote on it, and Rand didn't vote. Rand may not have been in his office, and even if he was, simply didn't see the point of forcing a vote on a bill that would pass 99-1.

I like Rand because he's a Republican who actually stands up for the Bill of Rights by opposing the Patriot Act, warrarentless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and the federal war on drugs. He's the best Senator on foreign policy issues since he supports withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes pre-emptive war, supports closing down foreign military bases, and supports cutting foreign aid. I also like his strong pro life stance.

Why wasn't it necessary?

I'm not a Rand hater but there is no problem with his constituents questioning his vote. I think it was very wise of him to explain why he voted the way he did. If he did not explain his position and the difference between the 2012 and 2013 NDAA bills many people (including me) would not really understand how the two bills differed.

We must all question the actions of government officals we don't understand or agree with.

Finally pissed off enough to spread the word of Dr. Paul
Here's song I wrote for a close friend and wounded Iraq war veteran:

If his constituents were

If his constituents were questioning his vote, then it was probably a good idea for him to post this explanation. But, he shouldn't have to explain himself every time a few of the hardcore, no compromising ideologues here at the Daily Paul throw a temper tantrum over one of his votes.

We are all his constituents.

We are all his constituents. It's the peoples house.

dave anderson

Here's what PANDA (People

Here's what PANDA (People Against the NDAA) have to say about all the amendments to the 2013 NDAA.

The version that passed, that Rand voted for, contains the Feinstein-Lee Amendment.

I STRONGLY suggest everyone read this analysis, and actually go read the bill that passed. It's not good, and NOT something Ron Paul would have voted for.

Rand should not have voted for this bill. He should have introduced his dad's idea (to eliminate the offending section entirely) and NOT COMPROMISE on something so important as the MILITARY INDEFINITELY DETAINING ANYONE.

It's hard to believe we are even having this discussion. Do we believe in Liberty, or not here??