62 votes

RAND: If you are reading The DP, then please...

Would you filibuster for the President to actually Declare war? I sincerely think the time to do so is now. Let's bring awareness to all those that are allowing this undeclared war to go on..and on...and on...

Imagine the implications of putting Obama on the spot. If he doesn't answer, then he looks like he's evading. If he does, well then it sheds light on the entire misuse of power. Let's keep the momentum!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

RAND: If you are reading The DP, then please...

Just keep doing what you are doing. Since it is working very well.

Don't take others' advice. Follow your own path.

You can almost sense Republicans coalescing around you daily.


Are Declarations of War able to be originated out of the Senate? I'm assuming no, please correct me if I am wrong, and here's why: Original Intent of the Constitution provided for Senators to be appointed by the State Legislatures. Declarations of War are meant to be "by the people" and seeing as how the House of Representatives was the only branch of Congress (Pre-Amendment XVII) that was publically elected it seems to me that the founders had intended to have Declarations of War originate in the House (I could be wrong!).

While I would support Rand if he were to filibuster Declarations of War, I would like to see Amash raise a stink (he can't filibuster) about Declarations of War.

Please give feedback and correct me if I am wrong!!!!!

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Totally Agreed. We need to

Totally Agreed. We need to stop this madness.

Trygve Olson

Rand please separate yourself this guy before the '16 campaign kicks off.

Way too soon for another

Way too soon for another filibuster. The media will just make fun of him.



we all know

that Rand will never talk about ending the Fed

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Forgive me for my ignorance

but can you say why? I am still trying to figure out my leanings toward Rand. Why won't he end the Fed? Thanks for anytime you have to send my way.

Hi, bear :)

There is one main reason why Ron Paul was blacked out during his candidacy, and that was because he talked about the Fed. Rand Paul wants to be taken seriously by both the Party and the media, and he knows that if he talks about the Fed, he will be blacked out.

Here's Murray Sabrin talking about why Ron Paul was blacked out:

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

WOW! Thank you for the Ed Ucation!

I have never heard Murray Sabrin before. Perhaps he could be the Secretary of the Treasury under Rand Paul?

IMO that video would have been a powerful infomercial during the campaign.

Maybe Rand Paul can just do it instead of talk about it...

Appreciate your time this morning :)

Murray Sabrin ran for US

Murray Sabrin ran for US Senate in 2008 in New Jersey but didn't win the primary. I had forgot about him, so thanks for reminding me.

Perhaps he could be persuaded to run for Senate again, with the open seat up for election next year, I think it's the right time to go for broke. Either Sabrin or Andrew Napolitano in New Jersey.

or ending all the wars... I

or ending all the wars... I have yet to see a single bit on ending the wars. Maybe reducing them and cutting costs... but not ending. Im afraid he is only neo-con light. It sucks, I was really feeling it after the filibuster... now.. its gone again


And if you become president will you pardon Bradley Manning?


From the interviews after the filibuster, it's become clear to me that Rand has a bag of tricks. We'll see what he does in the near future.

I trust he'll do strategic things at the appropriate time.

Uhhmm, Rand isn't reading the

Uhhmm, Rand isn't reading the DP. But you should give him a call..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...


This is an opportunity to transition from a popular position to an unpopular position, but one that could end the violence, or at least lead to a place where victory is possible.

For me, it doesn't matter if it's a drone, a missile, or grunt, without a declaration of war, the oath says people get due process.

Rand Introduced Life At Conception Act

which means he can't win POTUS. I am pro-life in my mind, thinking abortion should be allowed in case of rape or doctor determines it willendanger a woman's life (ultimate decision always being the females', but definetly think term limits should be considered for the procedure. Rand will be branded as against pro-choice,which is basically political suicide for POTUS in today's mindset of the general populace.

Also, Hillary announced her reversal on gay marriage, so that basically confirms that she will run and win. I am certain that the GOP will be on the losing side of federal level politics for some time to come.

Democrats have tapped into, no limits, pro welfare-warfare state better than the GOP. And with the amnesty coming, immigration will work against the GOP.

If the GOP becomes basically the same as the Dems, then they will have better chance to win sooner.

gay marriage

As far as I know Rand is opposed to changing the definition of marriage tight?

Rand, you need to... Rand: "I

Rand, you need to...

Rand: "I need to"

I actually

wish Rand would have done this over the drone subject. Although, the drone subject and limit of presidential powers was good. This is just my opinion, but idk if it would be a good idea for Rand to do another filibuster so soon. I think doing them too often would cause the filibuster to lose its effect and cause Rand to be painted as a whiny obstructionist. I may be wrong, but that's how I feel.

The things about domestic drones

Is that is was an issue that most people agree on, he might as well have asked the same question but internationally, the difference is that he would risk being marginalized.

Keeping it at the domestic level made it a safe bet, and has shifted the whole debate in out favor.

Going out on limb like the OP suggests is taking a big risk of being marginalized, being labeled a "kook" and so and so forth. I don't believe it would be a succesful way to forward our agenda.