-35 votes

Rand Paul interview regarding Iran and immigration


Published on Feb 2, 2013
Senator Rand Paul discussed immigration reform, the Iranian nuclear situation and the Benghazi terrorist attack on WMAL.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Rand Who? is a Neocon.

Don't EVER forget that.

real conservative doesn't mean left leaning commie only good

on civil liberties.. i know ron has drawn in some wrong kinds here that never knew what he stood on free markets and health care, which is what most people hate rand for, but they disguise it under nitpicks of foreign policy, since that is the only place they intersect with the paul movement other than civil liberties. just go back to the ralph nader hole


"you must be a liberal or gary johnson/ralph nader supporter" meme is getting old.

I am a jeffersonian old right minarchist who declared war on Gary Johnson in these forums and I couldn't more of the exact opposite of Nader when it comes to govt intervention in any realm of govt policy.

Baseless innuendo and guilt-by-association character smears are just plain cheezy, lazy and dishonest. Reminds me of littlegreenfootballs and redstate...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Words "preemptive war" misleading, voting record says opposite

He never used the words “preemptive war” so using those words was slanting the issue against Rand. Rand, in fact, argued against preemptive war when he voted against the resolution introduced last summer by Lindsey Graham, Bob Casey and Joe Lieberman.
Rand Paul sole vote against U.S. Senate resolution on Iran (a non-binding resolution that would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons).


In the video Rand states at 3:47 minutes, repeating again at 11:20 minutes
“Pre emptive war, going to war and saying we will go to war to prevent you from doing certain activities is a new concept in our lexicon of foreign policy, and I think it’s a dangerous one. “

Paul said in Senate:
“A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war.”

In his Senate speech Rand clearly emphasized his reluctance to go to war preferring instead exploring all other options.

I know, and I loved that

I know, and I loved that speech. That's why what Rand said in this interview was extremely disappointing.

Ron opposed preemptive strikes but stated

he would act if Congress directed him to. Perhaps Rand was effectively stating it depends on the circumstances.
Q&A with Ron Paul
Q: Under what circumstances, if you were president, would you intervene outside the borders of the US in some sort of crisis around the world?
A: When Congress directed me to in the act of war. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, “Our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act.” And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the commander in chief, and then he acts.


Ron said if a country attacked us he'd ask Congress for a declaration of war. You pose the argument as if Congress wanted a pre-emptive war Ron would approve.

Wrong Interpretation

We both know the likelihood of Ron’s ever asking for a declaration of war in the first place is only if there is a resounding hue and cry for it since he is plainly anti-war. Of course he would ask Congress in that case for a declaration. The intent of my statement was not to argue Ron would “approve” of a preemptive war. Your use of the word “approve” is subjective. My point was to state Ron would abide by an official declaration of war by Congress if they insisted on it. Ron has consistently emphasized, "if you insist on going to war may I insist that you do it the right way and that's presenting your case to the people, that is the Congress and get an act of war!” He has consistently framed the issue of declaring war only as the last resort vs. something he would approve.

This Particular Argument Is Moot

Since we haven't been threatened and we go to war on a regular basis anyway without the congress ever declaring it.


I think it is sad

when something I stated to clarify what Ron Paul’s position is with respect to declaring war is rendered moot. If you are anti-Rand that is one thing, but relegating Ron Paul’s actions and statements or clarifications thereof to irrelevancy to put a negative spin on it does not accomplish anything. Anti-Rand people seem to assume
that just because someone tries to clarify a point, we are gung ho Rand thus we need to be shut down. I am more apt to listen to your point of view if I feel you acknowledge my point as A Real Conservative did which I appreciate rather than automatically discarding or spinning it because you assume I support Rand. Judging from this thread and the intensity of contention on both sides, I have to wonder where the Liberty movement will wind up.

Is there any chance that Rand

Is there any chance that Rand will ever address the concerns that people in the liberty movement have about his foreign policy views? Or does Rand just not care about us anymore?

Rand cares

He cares about those who followed his dad in the GOP, faced the Neocons, withstood the abuse, loyalty oaths, and shenannigans, and are staying in the good fight.

You probably have NO clue how much Rand has helped us. The Neocons have their knives sharpened for us, ready and willing to out us any chance they can.. and Rand is changing that.. they are listening, and they like him, and this is HUGE when it comes to chainging a party from within.

WE ARE THE FUTURE and Rand cares very much about that. My committee is far more Liberty than I dared imagine just two years ago. The Neocons are quitting and Ron Paul republiCANs are stepping up.

I upvoted your topic post. Thank you for correcting the title.


a neo-con lite who

i predict by 2016 can drop lite from the title.

Yeah He Cares SO Much

he went on Hannity and said that he was HAPPY to announce that he was endorsing Romney. WHILE his dad was giving the speech of all speeches in Fort Worth! ON HANNITY! Then he avoided Luke like the plague, then he went to Israel and sucked up then he-----well there it is! Vote me down for doing nothing more than pointing out the truth! I didn't make this stuff up. HE DID THESE THINGS! Like I have said over and over here, time will tell. I don't like his track record so far!


YES HE DID and you know what?

People like me, who never dreamed of being a Republican, but joined the party, took a committee seat, became a delegate, and faced the Neocons, who were angling to out us, THOUGHT we could, "be like Ron Paul".. that we could vote for whoever we wanted. Loyalty oaths?? Ron Paul apprantly didn't have one, or no once cared.. but they sure cared about the loyalty oaths we took.. so what Rand did was WAKE US UP.. HELLO You signed a loyalty oath and they will OUT YOU.

So, Rand woke us up and we cooled it (stealth) to stay in, because it was clear to many of us, Ron Paul wanted this IN THE GOP.

Had Rand not made that annoucement, many of us would have been kicked out and never made it to Tampa.

So Basically What You Are Saying

is that we need to all lower ourselves to their standards and play along to get along? Ron Paul never did that and if he had he never would have started a revolution and awakening. He would have fallen by the wayside as just another fake hypocrite politician! Granger, please, don't fall into that trap! That is how it starts! If we start telling ourselves that it's okay to lie and cheat for the greater good then we are no better than those we oppose! I only believed in Ron Paul BECAUSE he never would bend! I don't CARE if he didn't get to be on top, he started something that nobody else could do! HE woke up people to the truth! He did it because he stayed constant! That is something that will grow and strengthen if we stay focused! It won't die away like so many things do. Rand doesn't have that power. I prefer to hold on to RON'S teachings not Rand's flip flopping politics!


I took a loyalty oath and kept it

Keeping an oath despite it not working out the way one planned does not lower me at all. What would have lowered me is taking an oath and when it wasn't working out, quitting, or cheating.

Do what you want, adn when Ron comes out supporting his son, continue to do what you want.

If Ron

endorses his son and his sons policies, then Ron will have become a Neocon like his son.
And that will be a sad day...IF it happens.
It's not the MEN, it's their ideas and their actions. Rand and the Nerocons lie, cheat and steal and you yammer on about some "oath" you MUST keep to the Neocons.
Makes zero sense...except as an excuse for state worship.

Oh my. So now Ron will be a

Oh my. So now Ron will be a neocon if he endorses his son! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day! Boy, I'd be willing to bet you have not been involved in politics long. Perhaps you should find another hobby.


endorses a RINO Neocon prematurely and helps destroy his fathers campaign. That means Rand is a Neocon, supporting Neocon policies. If Ron endorses his Neocon son it means he endorses his policies.

I see you're still fucking retarded

kind of unfortunate, really.


Neocon RandiCON ad hominem response.

Omg...Rand did not destroy

Omg...Rand did not destroy his fathers campaign. They were never going to let him win. As demonstrated at the RNC convention in Tampa.

And if they "LET"

Rand win, what does that mean, brainiac?

What's the purpose of this thread

Instead of attempting to interpret possible hidden meanings behind what Rand Paul DOESN'T say, how about you focus on what he DOES say? And what he DOES, period?

Rand Paul is not Mr Super Libertarian, here to save the day and scare the authoritarians away. But what he is, is a fellow liberty-minded individual like you and I who agrees with us on 95% of the major issues. So please lets try focusing on that instead for once.


If I gave you a cookie that was ninety five percent good wholesome oatmeal and raisins with only five percent RAT POISON included, would you eat it? Besides i am not looking for a "Libertarian" superman, just one who follows the constitution.

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

I believe that is the FDA standard currently.


Glad to have you on board!

Glad to have you on board! Rand Paul 2016!

Double post


What were Ron's...

hidden meanings?

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~