Backstabbing Republicans Publish Open Letter To Iran Undermining Negotiations

[juleswin]

I am once again shocked, but not surprised, at the lengths Republicans will go to to undermine the President of the United States while he is conducting negotiations with the government of a foreign country.

Bloomberg News reports on an open letter signed by 47 Republicans warning Iran that whatever they negotiate with President Obama can be undone in two years by the next President, who they presume will side with them.


Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Here are the traitorous Senators who serve Israel and their biillionaires over their own country:

Tom Cotton
David Perdue
Joni Ernst
James Inhofe
John Cornyn
Mitch McConnell
Marco Rubio
Roger Wicker
John Hoeven
Richard Shelby
Thom Tillis
Richard Burr
Steve Daines
Jeff Sessions
John Boozman
Cory Gardner
Shelley Moore Capito
Ron Johnson
Mark Kirk
James Lankford
Chuck Grassley
Roy Blunt
John Thune
Mike Enzi
Pat Toomey
Bill Cassidy
John Barrasso
Ted Cruz
Jim Risch
Mike Crapo
Deb Fischer
Ben Sasse
Orrin Hatch
Dean Heller
Pat Roberts
John McCain
Rand Paul
Rob Portman

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/how-not-to-do-diplomacy/

Someone please help me confirm that the dailybanter is not a satirical site

Lindsey Graham
Mike Rounds

[dillo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRR_n_yQGA

[YesI'mALiberal]

Someone please help me confirm that the dailybanter is not a satirical site



Oh, this is true, alright. And yes, Rand Paul signed it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/09/world/middleeast/document-the-letter-senate-republicans-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html

[ZENemy]

Fun with words

Backstabbing Republicans Politicians., goverment..........wait...........Control freak scumbags


fixed.

[Suzanimal]

How Many GOP Neocons in the Federal Senate?


Now we know: 47. That’s the number of chickenhawks and other war criminals who signed a threatening letter to Iran. The 47 salivate at the prospect of mass murder. They, like their funders, want the subjugation and destruction of yet another anti-jihad Muslim power (like Iraq, Libya, and–they hope–Syria) so that the empire and its satrap can divide and conquer. Of course, the US has a special hate for Iran–a poor. threatened, and non-aggressive country–for tossing out the US shah. The list of US anti-Iranian crimes is a long one. Always remember, in this and other areas: GOP means Gathering of Predators.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-many-gop-neocons-in-the-federal-senate/

[Sola_Fide]

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Hmm. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

[specsaregood]

Hmm. I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Yeah, seems fairly factual.

[Brett85]

There's nothing wrong with the letter. Apparently some here support unfettered executive power.

[69360]

I think we should negotiate with Iran.

But the letter signed by the senators is indeed factual and correct.

[Brian4Liberty]

The letter was written in such a way to make it seem like it could be a friendly informational letter. Probably helped to get more signers.

[rpfocus]

I am once again shocked, but not surprised, at the lengths Republicans will go to to undermine the President of the United States while he is conducting negotiations with the government of a foreign country.


And yet each and every single one of them would cry bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot. This kind of idiocy is why I'm Lib and refuse to join either of the garbage parties. My smile only grows larger when I hear I'm "wasting my vote" if I don't vote Republican and instead write in Ron Paul. Heard on this very board, in fact. Given that 2016 is coming up, I'm sure I'll sure that will be all over the board again.

[Brett85]

And yet each and every single one of them would cry bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot. This kind of idiocy is why I'm Lib and refuse to join either of the garbage parties. My smile only grows larger when I hear I'm "wasting my vote" if I don't vote Republican and instead write in Ron Paul. Heard on this very board, in fact. Given that 2016 is coming up, I'm sure I'll sure that will be all over the board again.

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

[green73]

If Rand had not signed it, say he'd not been a last-minute hold-out to sign it, I wonder how some of the above comments would be very different.

[juleswin]

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

It wouldn't be a problem if this letter was a routine letter to anyone that the president is in talks with. But I would bet my life savings that this is not the case. This is probably the order from the Israeli president and Tom "the motherfucking neocon" Cotton is the person behind it.

My biggest problem is that the letter is unnecessary and a silly move to undermine a good opportunity for peace. I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.

[Brett85]

I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.

He's never been a pure non interventionist. He's made that clear, and I've also criticized some of his past positions, such as his votes in favor of sanctions on Iran. But you can sign a letter like this and still be a non interventionist. All this letter says is that our Constitution requires Congress to authorize any deal with Iran that President Obama enters into. I would've signed it had I been in the Senate, and I support a non interventionist policy towards Iran.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And yet these same Republicans would have happily endorsed the Bush administration's far more abusive/tyrannical executive overreaches (Iraq, Patriot Act, etc).

[specsaregood]

My biggest problem is that the letter is unnecessary and a silly move to undermine a good opportunity for peace. I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.

Well, really Iran should be thanking them for the letter and for clearly laying out that negotiations are a complete waste of time and the nature of US govt is so whimsical that no sane country on earth should ever bother to negotiate or enter into a treaty with it. And instead they should spend their time attempting negotiations with other more willing countries.

just saying...

[Brett85]

And yet these same Republicans would have happily endorsed the Bush administration's far more abusive/tyrannical executive overreaches (Iraq, Patriot Act, etc).

Except for Rand.

[Brian4Liberty]

Text of the letter:


An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Condescending, and basically is pushing for Congress to ratify any agreement.

[Rudeman]

If Rand had not signed it, say he'd not been a last-minute hold-out to sign it, I wonder how some of the above comments would be very different.

If a similar letter was directed towards Israel the responses would be different...

[69360]

If Rand had not signed it, say he'd not been a last-minute hold-out to sign it, I wonder how some of the above comments would be very different.

The same. This isn't a cheer leading squad.

[69360]

If a similar letter was directed towards Israel the responses would be different...


Not mine

[Rudeman]

Not mine

Your response would have been unnecessary.

[Brett85]

I don't know, this is really getting a lot of negative press. Rand signing on to letters like this helps him with GOP primary voters but hurts him among moderates, independents, and the liberty movement. I have no problem with the content of the letter but can see how it comes across to some as overly partisan.

[YesI'mALiberal]

Now on BenSwann.com:

Republican Senators Vow to Sabotage Iran Deal

by Jason Ditz, March 09, 2015


With progress having been made on the Iran negotiations, Republican Senators opposed to a deal have been threatening the administration left and right over it. Today, they took a different tack, issuing an open letter to Iran, (http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/mar/09/part-i-gop-letter-iran) warning them against the deal on the grounds that they’re just going to sabotage it (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last) in the future.

The letter was pushed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R – AR) and signed by 47 senators. Surprisingly, this included Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY), who had previously expressed opposition (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/01/30/3228081/rand-paul-iran-sanctions/) to Congressional attempts to sabotage the negotiations.

Just a month ago, Sen. Paul had admonished the Senate against standing in the way of negotiations in good faith. Now, with Iran a key issue in the upcoming presidential primaries, he seems to be wavering on the matter, and towing the party line.

The letter provoked a sharp criticism (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31796235) from the White House over the Senate’s attempt to interfere in diplomatic efforts, and a dismissal from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif,who said Iran didn’t take the threat seriously (http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/mar/09/part-ii-iran-responds-gop-letter).

Whether Zarif’s comments reflect the view of the entire Iranian government remains to be seen, however, and opposition from US hawks, and a threat to sabotage the deal, should only add to the calls from Iran’s own right-wing to ditch the negotiations on the grounds that the US can’t be trusted to keep its bargains.

The argument has been pushed for a long time by Iran’s Conservative parliamentarians, who have been averse to the deal. With US Republicans now confirming as much, and explicitly writing a letter saying they can’t be trusted to keep any deals reached by Obama, the talks will surely suffer at least somewhat.

image by Gage Skidmore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/15608569121/) via Creative Commons license.


Rand Paul Caves on Iran, Backs Move to Kill Deal (http://benswann.com/rand-paul-caves-on-iran-backs-move-to-kill-deal/)

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know, this is really getting a lot of negative press. Rand signing on to letters like this helps him with GOP primary voters but hurts him among moderates, independents, and the liberty movement. I have no problem with the content of the letter but can see how it comes across to some as overly partisan.


The press is just looking for any excuse. It helps not to give any to them, but if not this then something else. A little condescending, perhaps, mostly it demonstrates Congressional distrust in our President. It's pretty unprecedented. There is this little threat of war-ish at the end, but the target of this isn't Iran, it's Obama. I mean, Congress going directly to Iran to express a lack of faith in the President's power to negotiate? I can't imagine such a thing ever happening before.

Now Obama has to beg the Senate for 3/5 approval on something he will never get. They just said, "Hey Ayatollah, don't bother listening to this guy, he's a lame duck, and he doesn't speak for us." Whatever Obama was trying to accomplish it just ended right there like that. Now it's just a visit for old time's sake. Congress just chopped Obama off at the knees as he started walking into Iran. I am sure that was not by accident. The only thing the Republican Senate will accept now is capitulation, which Iran will never give. If they got wind of Obama planning to give up something considered horrible (who knows, just speculation) they may have broke this to stop something of an emergency matter. Honestly, with Obama's history I wouldn't be surprised. God knows what the man could do at any moment.

All I'm saying is doing this kind of thing is profound, unprecedented, and impossible to do by accident. Our own Senate just chopped our own President off at the knees, as he walked into negotiations with Iran. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's big. Imagine Congress telling China that Nixon didn't actually represent them. Imagine Congress telling Gorbachev that Reagan was not our guy. Whatever is going on here, it's not a joke.

[The Gold Standard]

Eh. I've never been shy about criticizing Rand's warmongering, but the letter reads like a lesson in American government. I wish he would get involved in sending these lessons to a lot of other people before bothering Iran, but whatever. I'm indifferent. Hell, when I saw the headline I expected much more in the way of direct threats and saber rattling, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see Rand sign a letter like that either.

[cindy25]

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/03/09/rand-paul-caves-on-iran-backs-move-to-kill-deal/

[UWDude]

Bleh. I have seen Rand get weak easily when it comes to foreign policy, he is becoming one of them. I have seen recent interviews with him. One false flag, and he would be just another neocon were he president.

[Anti Federalist]

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

Oh come on...stop.

You don't think they know what the basic system of power (at least on paper) is here in AmeriKa?

It was a veiled threat, simple as that.

"Hey, you might skate with this current moron, but let our plans come to fruition and we'll be stomping mud holes in your asses come next election."

And it was a disgusting, cheap, political whore of a move by Rand to sign on to this dreck.

Shame on him.

[YesI'mALiberal]

All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

No.


Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.

He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.

Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.

The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.

He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.

Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."

Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://en.mfa.ir/index.aspx?siteid=3&fkeyid=&siteid=3&fkeyid=&siteid=3&pageid=1997&newsview=330948)

[The Gold Standard]

Yeah, international law means less than nothing to me. To me, this is like when Ron would endorse a neocon scumbag to score political points in the party. I wish Rand wouldn't have signed the letter, but the letter, while ridiculous, is technically correct and doesn't directly threaten anyone, so whatever. He can sign on and score some points with the idiot Republicans, and tell libertarians that he wanted to force the president to bring the treaty before Congress like he is supposed to. When he calls for sanctions against Iran or calls for creating a Kurdish state, that disgusts me. This letter is nothing compared to other stuff he has advocated.

[enhanced_deficit]

I am once again shocked, but not surprised, at the lengths Republicans will go to to undermine the President of the United States while he is conducting negotiations with the government of a foreign country.

Bloomberg News reports on an open letter signed by 47 Republicans warning Iran that whatever they negotiate with President Obama can be undone in two years by the next President, who they presume will side with them.



Here are the traitorous Senators who serve Israel and their biillionaires over their own country:

....

EM.

While Cotton is a war monger cheerleader in his own right, I doubt that this is as simplistic as it seems. These Republican, Christian Evangelica-based politicians are probably mostly interested in money and causing infighting within money factored jewish lobby behind Dems. They do not really care that much about Israel or jewish people. That is why real Zionist Bill Maher gave $1 Million to Obama, as did Goldman Scahs many times X.

WaPo: "This week, Schweich seemed to be getting anxious about some comments he alleged Hancock made about his faith. He told the AP that he had heard rumors that Hancock made some comments last year that Schweich was Jewish and he thought Hancock should step down from his position as party chairman, to which he was just elected. Messenger, from the Post-Dispatch, said in his statement that Schweich told him he thought Hancock meant to “harm him politically in a gubernatorial primary in which many Republican voters are evangelical Christians.”

Schweich suicide: Missouri GOP chairman denies spreading rumors about Schweich’s religion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469879-Schweich-suicide-Missouri-GOP-chairman-denies-spreading-rumors-about-Schweich%E2%80%99s-religion&)


Brilliant move by Boehner to invite Netanyahu; Jewish lobby behind Dems is getting fractured (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470200-Brilliant-move-by-Boehner-to-invite-Netanyahu-Jewish-lobby-behind-Dems-is-getting-fractured&)


It's politics as usual. Left wing / moderate neocons in team Obama are less war mongering in this case than Right Wing neocons but they are no peace corpse. And GOP President would never attack Iran for Israel.. it is just lip service to get some jewish lobby money, Iran war lobby's best hope is a democrat.

Recall GOP President Bush prosecuted AIPAC Israel lobby for espionage and FBI raided pro Israel "journalists" when the lobby got bit too noisy about Iran war, it was Israel lobby's puppet Obama who quietly dropped AIPAC Espioange prosecution right after getting selected to the White House.

[cindy25]

What problem in particular do you have with this letter? All it did was basically just explain our Constitutional system of government to Iran.

it was childish. while the senate is technically correct, it's intent is to interfere with the negotiations, and cause a war. I still don't see the need for USA permission for Iran to have nukes. Israel and Pakistan did not.

I see something strange with this letter. nothing like was ever done before. Almost as if it was meant to embarrass Rand. all the others had no political or moral risk.

[Saint Vitus]

What is your opinion on the fact that Rand Paul is aligning himself with the likes of Tom Cotton and signing letters such as these?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republican-senators-iran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

[specsaregood]

What was threatening about the letter? Did you read it?

[supermario21]

The letter itself isn't threatening but the people behind it are diametrically opposed to Rand's position. The catch is Rand is really in a no-win situation. The Ron Paul Institute put out a video with Ron and Dan McAdams talking about the whole thing. Even they said it should be handled like a treaty, although as we know that would likely submarine the talks. Rand really has no chance to look good as he's trying to uphold both the peace position and the constitutional one.

[Saint Vitus]

Yes, I did read it. It basically threatens Iran that any deal that they make with Obama is likely to be voided by a future president or congress. It is very unordinary for the Senate to send such letters. The fact that it was written by Tom Cotton, a raging neocon who is itching to go to war with Iran, makes me wonder why Rand Paul would sign it. Not every Republican senator signed it.

[specsaregood]

Yes, I did read it. It basically threatens Iran that any deal that they make with Obama is likely to be voided by a future president or congress. It is very unordinary for the Senate to send such letters. The fact that it was written by Tom Cotton, a raging neocon who is itching to go to war with Iran, makes me wonder why Rand Paul would sign it. Not every Republican senator signed it.

Can you point out in the letter where it "basically threatens"? I admit to only having quickly read it yesterday and it appeared factual and informative. Why should Iran not be fully briefed on how our govt works and what Obama could actually achieve in negotiations? I contend that Iran should be appreciative of the letter.

[Saint Vitus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically Obama is attempting to meet with leaders of Iran and work out an agreement that would suspend Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions on the country. This would lead to reduced tensions between us and them. I'm not an Obama fan, but I believe diplomacy and trade with Iran is a good thing. Why is Rand Paul seemingly working with Tom Cotton to undermine this?

And specsaregood, the very idea that they sent this implies that they will work to overturn any treaty that Obama works out with them, which is threatening.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-many-gop-neocons-in-the-federal-senate/

[phill4paul]

Can you point out in the letter where it "basically threatens"? I admit to only having quickly read it yesterday and it appeared factual and informative. Why should Iran not be fully briefed on how our govt works and what Obama could actually achieve in negotiations? I contend that Iran should be appreciative of the letter.

When negotiating with a country does one not think that the countries in negotiations would have full understanding of the other countries government processes? Do you believe that the Iranian negotiators are ignorant of whom they are dealing with? It was a veiled threat aimed at undermining the negotiations. It can be spun as innocuous. But, it wasn't.

[EBounding]

I'm not thrilled about it even though there's nothing factually incorrect in the letter and doesn't diverge from Rand's position on Iran. The words aren't threatening, but it's obviously a threat considering the source--like a mafia guy offering to sell you insurance. It's just not very "statesman-like".

It's just another thing Rand has to do. I think the problem though is that the presidency is a reflection of the electorate--not the other way around. Until the culture changes, or gov't at the state and local level, it's not going to matter who is president.

I'm still supporting him for president when he declares though. Soon we'll know once and for all whether this "top-down" strategy works or not.

[specsaregood]

And specsaregood, the very idea that they sent this implies that they will work to overturn any treaty that Obama works out with them, which is threatening.

It is not threatening, its informative telling them not to waste their time with a lame duck like Obama.


When negotiating with a country does one not think that the countries in negotiations would have full understanding of the other countries government processes?

I would hope so; but having the processes and the legislative branches intentions spelled out certainly wouldn't hurt Iran in the negotiations. It hurts Obama.



Do you believe that the Iranian negotiators are ignorant of whom they are dealing with? It was a veiled threat aimed at undermining the negotiations.

Meh, I don't see it that way. I see it as a threat undermining Obama, not Iran or the negotiations (since it basically says the negotiations are a waste of time).


It can be spun as innocuous. But, it wasn't.
No, I don't believe it was innocuous either. I just think we disagree as to which party of the "negotiations" should be offended.

[mit26chell]

Was pretty shocked to see Rand's name attached with all of these other republican idiots on this letter. I think this is unprecedented stupidity.

[phill4paul]

It is not threatening, its informative telling them not to waste their time with a lame duck like Obama.


I would hope so; but having the processes and the legislative branches intentions spelled out certainly wouldn't hurt Iran in the negotiations. It hurts Obama.



Meh, I don't see it that way. I see it as a threat undermining Obama, not Iran or the negotiations (since it basically says the negotiations are a waste of time).


No, I don't believe it was innocuous either. I just think we disagree as to which party of the "negotiations" should be offended.

And negotiations are bad..how? It matters not who is doing it. It is within the executives purview to hold negotiations without being undermined. If you want to know what Tom Cotton's goal was, he lays it out here...


“The point we’re making to Iran’s leaders — who, if you talk to many of the Iran experts, will say don’t understand our Constitution — is that if Congress doesn’t approve a deal, Congress won’t accept a deal. Now or in the future,” Cotton said.

When asked what an acceptable deal would look like to him, Cotton answered “complete nuclear disarmament by Iran.”

“They can simply disarm their nuclear weapons program and allow complete intrusive inspections,” Cotton said.

MSNBC’s hosts pressed Cotton on the idea of complete disarmament, arguing that Iran would never agree to those terms.

“I think we have to have a credible threat of military force on the table but the real alternative … to a bad deal is a better deal,” Cotton said. “With more sanctions, with confronting Iran, with only giving them the choice that would completely disarm their nuclear weapons.”

Cotton said that a “credible threat of force on the table… would only enhance the ability” of the U.S. to disarm Iran.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html#ixzz3Tzn0yt1L

So, America as the world's policeman with everything on the table including a military threat. Because...that has worked so well in the past.

[mit26chell]

When negotiating with a country does one not think that the countries in negotiations would have full understanding of the other countries government processes? Do you believe that the Iranian negotiators are ignorant of whom they are dealing with? It was a veiled threat aimed at undermining the negotiations. It can be spun as innocuous. But, it wasn't.

This. And all it does is make it look like all of the repubes in the Senate think they're better than the Iranians, when they're not. The letter is very condescending and such a stupid move. What right do these idiots have to talk down to leaders of a foreign country (one who has not threatened us)? What is the point? All 47 look like a bunch of assclowns.

[jmdrake]

Yes, I did read it. It basically threatens Iran that any deal that they make with Obama is likely to be voided by a future president or congress. It is very unordinary for the Senate to send such letters. The fact that it was written by Tom Cotton, a raging neocon who is itching to go to war with Iran, makes me wonder why Rand Paul would sign it. Not every Republican senator signed it.

Not every republican senator is running for POTUS and courting teocons to do it.

[specsaregood]

And negotiations are bad..how? It matters not who is doing it. It is within the executives purview to hold negotiations without being undermined.

I don't believe I said negotiations are bad. I think Iran should take the letter and say, "fine, screw you". Then make it known to the rest of the world that they are ready to start negotiating treaties with everybody except the US.

[Brian4Liberty]

it was childish. while the senate is technically correct, it's intent is to interfere with the negotiations, and cause a war. I still don't see the need for USA permission for Iran to have nukes. Israel and Pakistan did not.

I see something strange with this letter. nothing like was ever done before. Almost as if it was meant to embarrass Rand. all the others had no political or moral risk.

No doubt trapping Rand was one of the motivations for some people. Kind of a bonus. Primarily this is just Tom Cotton proving that he's going to be the most aggressive neo-conservative ever in the Senate.

[jmdrake]

Was pretty shocked to see Rand's name attached with all of these other republican idiots on this letter. I think this is unprecedented stupidity.

I'm not. Absolutely nothing surprises me that Rand does. Those actually paying attention caught onto what Rand was doing back when he was first running for U.S. Senate back in 2007. When I did, I threw up a little in my mouth, choked it down, and moved on. At least half of Rand's supporters are hardcore teocons and he stands the chance of loosing them by showing too much common sense on foreign policy. He's pushing the edges of domestic policy (medical marijuana bill for instance) to let his original supporters know he's still with us and to gear up for the general election. (If Rand is the GOP nominee he will destroy Hillary when talking about the war on drugs).

[Suzanimal]

Thoughts on this?

Honestly, I don't know enough about the Logan Act to have an opinion yet. I posted it looking for input from someone more knowledgeable.


Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders

We’ve repeatedly pointed out that America is being decimated by the break down in the separation of powers between different branches of government.

The latest example is Congressional violation of the Logan Act. Specifically, the Logan Act – enacted in 1799 – states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:

[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:

The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.

I happen to think that Obama is a tyrant who – like Bush – should be impeached for trampling the Constitution. But two wrongs don’t make a right …

In inviting the leader of Israel to speak directly to the American Congress without the U.S. president’s assent, Congressional Republicans violated the Logan Act. See this, this and this.

Likewise, directly telling the leaders of Iran that America won’t honor Obama’s negotiated commitments is a violation of the Logan Act.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/republican-congressmen-violating-constitution.html


There's also a petition to charge the Senators on WhiteHouse.gov.


WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement.
On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

At a time when the United States government is attempting to reach a potential nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, 47 Senators saw fit to instead issue a condescending letter to the Iranian government stating that any agreement brokered by our President would not be upheld once the president leaves office.

This is a clear violation of federal law. In attempting to undermine our own nation, these 47 senators have committed treason.

Published Date: Mar 09, 2015

SIGNATURES NEEDED BY APRIL 08, 2015 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000: 92,674

TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION: 7,326

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

[Brian4Liberty]

One of the goals of letters and votes like this is to "get people on record". It could be used against any Senator that did not sign. The "informational" tone of the letter would be spun as "why would anyone oppose some friendly education?"

[NewRightLibertarian]

Rand can't look 'soft on Iran' to the zombie idiot GOP primary voters. That's why he signed the letter.

[The Gold Standard]

Thoughts on this?

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.



My thoughts are that I am anxiously awaiting the arrest of the bunch that invited Netanyahu. But I won't hold my breath.

[Snowball]

The letter is insulting to the people and leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I read it, and it has an arrogant tone that is unbefitting.
I do not support Rand "Paul" and will never vote for him.
He has sold out to the Zionist Lobby.
Congrats to the other 7 Republican Senators who refused to sign, they have more
courage than Rand ever will. Rand "Paul" is morphing into Mike Huckabee.
That is all I have to say. Oh, one more thing.
Congrats to Obama for standing up to the Zionist thugs.

[specsaregood]

II do not support Rand "Paul" and will never vote for him.


I don't understand the use of the quotes in "Paul". Do you mean to imply that is not his given last name?

[AuH20]

Thank you, Daily News. This will make the isolationist stuff roll off his back.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DailyNewsIran.jpg

[luctor-et-emergo]

One of the goals of letters and votes like this is to "get people on record". It could be used against any Senator that did not sign. The "informational" tone of the letter would be spun as "why would anyone oppose some friendly education?"

This, besides, the letter has more to do with executive overreach than the Iranians. The Iranians aren't stupid either and wouldn't have expected anything else I'd say.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Thoughts on this?

Honestly, I don't know enough about the Logan Act to have an opinion yet. I posted it looking for input from someone more knowledgeable.




There's also a petition to charge the Senators on WhiteHouse.gov.

I'd say it's baseless. This letter is not part of any negotiations, it may be in relation to negotiations but it is a letter stating something. Also there were no negotiations when Netanyahu held his speech in front of congress, it was just a speech.


On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

[Brett85]

He's pushing the edges of domestic policy (medical marijuana bill for instance) to let his original supporters know he's still with us and to gear up for the general election. (If Rand is the GOP nominee he will destroy Hillary when talking about the war on drugs).

Except that Republican voters are actually coming closer to our positions on some of the domestic issues. The polls show that close to 50% of Republicans are now in favor of both full legalization of marijuana and gay marriage. (I understand that "gay marriage" isn't the libertarian position, but people think it is, and Rand taking the position of getting the government out of marriage won't hurt him nearly as much as it would've several years ago) The Republican Party is actually becoming more socially libertarian, but foreign policy wise they're getting more hawkish again.

[AngryCanadian]

Bleh. I have seen Rand get weak easily when it comes to foreign policy, he is becoming one of them. I have seen recent interviews with him. One false flag, and he would be just another neocon were he president.

This is what happens when The Israeli lobbies get to you.

[jon_perez]

Oh, this is true, alright. And yes, Rand Paul signed it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/09/world/middleeast/document-the-letter-senate-republicans-addressed-to-the-leaders-of-iran.html

Rand Paul is not his dad. I NEVER believed in him.

Rand is just your typical pandering politico.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul is not his dad. I NEVER believed in him.

Rand is just your typical pandering politico.

Why is every mainstream politician and media source gunning for him? All you need to know about a man is his enemies.

[jon_perez]

I also get that he has to pander every once in a while but he has been pandering a lot lately and this could have been his opportunity to show his supporters that he is still a non interventionist.LOL!

The thing I like about Ron Paul (unlike Rand) is that no one has to be an apologist for him.

[nikcers]

What is your opinion on the fact that Rand Paul is aligning himself with the likes of Tom Cotton and signing letters such as these?

I honestly think if a bad agreement was made with Iran that Rand would not vote for it. I think its sending a clear message that no presidential agreement that is bad for our country will last. I think its so they can't make a fake agreement to kick the can to the next president or congress down the line so the Obama administration doesn't get blamed for installing terror or putting iran back into the stone age to put up or shut up.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Got people so riled up that there's an online petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9


On March 9th, 2015, forty-seven United States Senators committed a treasonous offense when they decided to violate the Logan Act, a 1799 law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

At a time when the United States government is attempting to reach a potential nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, 47 Senators saw fit to instead issue a condescending letter to the Iranian government stating that any agreement brokered by our President would not be upheld once the president leaves office.

This is a clear violation of federal law. In attempting to undermine our own nation, these 47 senators have committed treason.

[twomp]

This is the kind of letter that should be sent to leaders of every country. The President isn't King. He doesn't get to go around the world making deals without Congress approval.

[enhanced_deficit]

AIPAC's main man in Senate hits back at GOP :

Haaretz.com @haaretzcom · 5h 5 hours ago

WATCH: Reid: 'Republicans are undermining Obama while empowering the Ayatollahs'

http://htz.li/1TS (http://t.co/a2rCUhGr9c)


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_vY3N-U0AAtcVD.jpg:large




Related

The problem of anti-Semitism in the Republican Party (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fnews%2Ffeatures%2F471 65%2Findex3.html&ei=0EX_VPfCF8W6ggTGn4G4AQ&usg=AFQjCNG7e1AABgX14QvI0T69mK_at7hJMA&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY)
nymag.com/news/features/47165/index3.html
New York Magazine
Whatever one's view on the issue, the vice-president's tone as much as his phrasing made many people uncomfortable, clearly echoing the populist anti-Semitic ...

Cantor Suggests Anti-Semitism Is A Problem Within The House GOP Caucus (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/04/19/467439/cantor-anti-semitism-house-gop/)

[specsaregood]

Rand Paul is not his dad. I NEVER believed in him.

Rand is just your typical pandering politico.

So what exactly about the letter did you disagree with? I'm thinking his father would agree pretty much everything in the letter.

[Brian4Liberty]

Tom Cotton says that Obama can't negotiate anything on his own, yet according to Cotton, some "agreement" with Ukraine signed by President Clinton in 1994 with no Congressional vote or approval, is iron clad and we must follow it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr2FDa42RCY

[dannno]

Bleh. I have seen Rand get weak easily when it comes to foreign policy, he is becoming one of them. I have seen recent interviews with him. One false flag, and he would be just another neocon were he president.

That's like, just your opinion...man....

[mosquitobite]

The press is just looking for any excuse. It helps not to give any to them, but if not this then something else. A little condescending, perhaps, mostly it demonstrates Congressional distrust in our President. It's pretty unprecedented. There is this little threat of war-ish at the end, but the target of this isn't Iran, it's Obama. I mean, Congress going directly to Iran to express a lack of faith in the President's power to negotiate? I can't imagine such a thing ever happening before.

Now Obama has to beg the Senate for 3/5 approval on something he will never get. They just said, "Hey Ayatollah, don't bother listening to this guy, he's a lame duck, and he doesn't speak for us." Whatever Obama was trying to accomplish it just ended right there like that. Now it's just a visit for old time's sake. Congress just chopped Obama off at the knees as he started walking into Iran. I am sure that was not by accident. The only thing the Republican Senate will accept now is capitulation, which Iran will never give. If they got wind of Obama planning to give up something considered horrible (who knows, just speculation) they may have broke this to stop something of an emergency matter. Honestly, with Obama's history I wouldn't be surprised. God knows what the man could do at any moment.

All I'm saying is doing this kind of thing is profound, unprecedented, and impossible to do by accident. Our own Senate just chopped our own President off at the knees, as he walked into negotiations with Iran. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's big. Imagine Congress telling China that Nixon didn't actually represent them. Imagine Congress telling Gorbachev that Reagan was not our guy. Whatever is going on here, it's not a joke.

Agree.

I just do not like it. At all. Makes me very uneasy with how Obama will respond.

This is very "House of Cards" type BS.

[Saint Vitus]

It's sad that a Socialist senator from Vermont has more foreign policy sense than Ron Paul's son.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-iran-letter-war-115934.html

[Sam I am]

I think that if Obama comes to an agreement with the leaders of Iran, he should try to get it approved by congress anyway so that they can't just renege on it in a couple of years.

[The Gold Standard]

I think that if Obama comes to an agreement with the leaders of Iran, he should try to get it approved by congress anyway so that they can't just renege on it in a couple of years.

Barack doesn't give a shit about the agreement. He is playing games so that Boobus believes we really gave peace a try before Hillary bombs the fuck out of Iran in the first month she is president.

[Badger Paul]

" All this letter says is that our Constitution requires Congress to authorize any deal with Iran that President Obama enters into."

Like the Iranians don't already know this. What a waste of time! It was stupid and boderline treacherous. If Leftists Democrats in the 1980s had encouraged Daniel Ortega to not negotiate with Reagan Administration for Central American peace or invited Field Casto to speak before Congress without telling the President, what do you think the reaction would be? And they think they can do the same thing because it's not the Cold War? What a joke.

What's sad is Rand's utter political shamelessness. Obviously he signed this document for political reasons. Fine then. It will do him no good. He's going to find out the hard way no matter what he does or says, nobody is going to believe he's as neocon as every other Republican. They will attack him all the same. And if he's not willing to stand up for the principles of the movement that put him into office, he might as well not even run. He's useless in that capacity.

[Smitty]

The letter is just another way for certain members of Congress to suck up to Netanyahu.

[dannno]

The letter is just another way for certain members of Congress to suck up to Netanyahu.

It also makes Obama look like a "rebel" and "the good guy".

Be careful.

[Suzanimal]

From FB

Will Grigg's comment on this article - speaking of Tom Cotton.


William N. Grigg This corn-pone Fuhrer-manque makes my fist itch.


IMMEDIATELY AFTER LAUNCHING EFFORT TO SCUTTLE IRAN DEAL, SENATOR TOM COTTON TO MEET WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS

In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As The New Republic’s David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”

...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/09/upon-launching-effort-scuttle-iran-deal-senator-tom-cotton-meets-defense-contractors/

[phill4paul]

At what point will the Rand supporters on this forum say "enough?" Or is there even a limit to be reached if the end goal is the presidency? If he signed onto a war resolution granting limited strikes against Iran would it still be excused because of the need to win at all costs?
Had Ron won there would be no end to the condemnation for the neocons that would pull this move during negotiations by his administrations. SMDH. Seems the "liberty movement" motto has become "the presidency over all else, at any cost."

[r3volution 3.0]

IIRC, Rand's position all along has been:

(a) We should give negotiation a real chance (more or less in line with the POTUS)

but (b) Any agreement must have congressional approval (as a constitutional matter).

So what about the letter? It has a couple purposes; (1) undermine the negotiations (though not really - the Iranians already knew full well of the neocon opposition), (2) chest-pounding for the base, and (3) assert congressional prerogatives per the constitution. Different signers of the letter presumably signed it for different reasons. The necons signed it for purpose 1 and, mostly, purpose 2. Rand signed it for purpose 3, I would think.

I don't see any reason to get excited about this, one way or the other. It's a peculiar action but it doesn't represent any meaningful change in either the ongoing Iran saga, nor in the domestic political situation, nor in Rand's public persona, nor in his actual policy position.

[Brian4Liberty]

At what point will the Rand supporters on this forum say "enough?" Or is there even a limit to be reached if the end goal is the presidency? If he signed onto a war resolution granting limited strikes against Iran would it still be excused because of the need to win at all costs?
Had Ron won there would be no end to the condemnation for the neocons that would pull this move during negotiations by his administrations. SMDH. Seems the "liberty movement" motto has become "the presidency over all else, at any cost."

And who is the alternative Senator you would like to support? Mike Lee? Gary Johnson? Oh yeah, he tossed aside his chance to get elected to the US Senate, and even if he had been elected, I'd give it 20 to 1 odds that Gary Johnson would have signed this letter too.

[jkob]

It's disgusting, I wish Rand was his father but he's not. Having the same last name doesn't mean anything to me, I want a leader that will stand up for liberty not one that will suck Fox New's balls.

[GunnyFreedom]

At what point will the Rand supporters on this forum say "enough?" Or is there even a limit to be reached if the end goal is the presidency? If he signed onto a war resolution granting limited strikes against Iran would it still be excused because of the need to win at all costs?
Had Ron won there would be no end to the condemnation for the neocons that would pull this move during negotiations by his administrations. SMDH. Seems the "liberty movement" motto has become "the presidency over all else, at any cost."

Politically this letter was a big deal. It spoke directly to an alleged Enemy of the State, to tell them that this President does not have the support of Congress. Legislatively it was meaningless. I think you will find in Rand's history, that he makes a habit of pandering to Republicans on almost anything that is legislatively meaningless. That's the pattern I've observed, anyway. If Congress did something that was "all talk," you could expect Rand to line up with the Ted Cruz wing, but if Congress did something that was "actual law," then he was 85%-90% more likely to end up where Ron came from. I may be slightly disappointed, but I'm not surprised that Rand is on this, it fits his pattern. It's "all talk and no law" so he's going to act out with Cruz and company. That's not an excuse, that's just Rand. Go back and look for 5 years and tell me it doesn't match up.

I don't like it, I'll say again that it's unprecedented, but if I try hard enough I can think of a couple (highly unlikely) scenarios where I might legitimately sign the thing too. This President has done some pretty stunning things. If I believed the President was about to do something extraordinarily reckless, I might be tempted to torpedo his negotiations too. That doesn't mean that any such thing was happening, only that it's plausible.

Wake me up when Rand authorizes the President to send bombers and troops or whatever. This is just his same pattern for the last 5 years. Anything that's legislatively meaningless, then chorus with the Republican hard right. Anything that's legislatively meaningful, stick as close as you can to the Paulian Base. Some exceptions, but largely this pattern since he got elected. It's why I don't worry about him.

Seriously though, chart every vote he's ever taken for X "Delta Effect on Actual Law" against Y "Rand's staked position on the vote as a function of our philosophy" and with the odd outlier, you will get a neat stack to the left, where the greater impact on actual legal liberty issues returns a higher chance of his staking with us, while a lesser legislative impact on actual law returns a higher chance of him staking with the intractable right line.

Take any given bill and if it has a profound impact on actual law expect him to stick with us, but if it has no, or only a glancing effect on actual law, then expect him to sound like a neocon. That's neither judgement nor support, that's just the path Rand has chosen in an attempt to bring our philosophy to power. He strides in the front door like a neocon, and then cracks open the back door to let the liberty in. Good bad or indifferent, this has been his way for 5 years. As big of a deal as the letter is politically, I'm not sure how it would change the minds of his supporters.

I support Rand because I can see the pattern. I see what he's trying to do, and while it's not what I would do it is a legitimate strategy for the promotion of a common ideal. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but he the closest of us with a shot at the White House, so it's his play. I'll get worried when he starts voting wrong on stuff that has real legislative meaning rather than mere political balderdash.

[phill4paul]

And who is the alternative Senator you would like to support? Mike Lee? Gary Johnson? Oh yeah, he tossed aside his chance to get elected to the US Senate, and even if he had been elected, I'd give it 20 to 1 odds that Gary Johnson would have signed this letter too.

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

[phill4paul]

Politically this letter was a big deal. It spoke directly to an alleged Enemy of the State, to tell them that this President does not have the support of Congress. Legislatively it was meaningless. I think you will find in Rand's history, that he makes a habit of pandering to Republicans on almost anything that is legislatively meaningless. That's the pattern I've observed, anyway. If Congress did something that was "all talk," you could expect Rand to line up with the Ted Cruz wing, but if Congress did something that was "actual law," then he was 85%-90% more likely to end up where Ron came from. I may be slightly disappointed, but I'm not surprised that Rand is on this, it fits his pattern. It's "all talk and no law" so he's going to act out with Cruz and company. That's not an excuse, that's just Rand. Go back and look for 5 years and tell me it doesn't match up.

I don't like it, I'll say again that it's unprecedented, but if I try hard enough I can think of a couple (highly unlikely) scenarios where I might legitimately sign the thing too. This President has done some pretty stunning things. If I believed the President was about to do something extraordinarily reckless, I might be tempted to torpedo his negotiations too. That doesn't mean that any such thing was happening, only that it's plausible.

Wake me up when Rand authorizes the President to send bombers and troops or whatever. This is just his same pattern for the last 5 years. Anything that's legislatively meaningless, then chorus with the Republican hard right. Anything that's legislatively meaningful, stick as close as you can to the Paulian Base. Some exceptions, but largely this pattern since he got elected. It's why I don't worry about him.

Seriously though, chart every vote he's ever taken for X "Delta Effect on Actual Law" against Y "Rand's staked position on the vote as a function of our philosophy" and with the odd outlier, you will get a neat stack to the left, where the greater impact on actual legal liberty issues returns a higher chance of his staking with us, while a lesser legislative impact on actual law returns a higher chance of him staking with the intractable right line.

Take any given bill and if it has a profound impact on actual law expect him to stick with us, but if it has no, or only a glancing effect on actual law, then expect him to sound like a neocon. That's neither judgement nor support, that's just the path Rand has chosen in an attempt to bring our philosophy to power. He strides in the front door like a neocon, and then cracks open the back door to let the liberty in. Good bad or indifferent, this has been his way for 5 years. As big of a deal as the letter is politically, I'm not sure how it would change the minds of his supporters.

I support Rand because I can see the pattern. I see what he's trying to do, and while it's not what I would do it is a legitimate strategy for the promotion of a common ideal. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but he the closest of us with a shot at the White House, so it's his play. I'll get worried when he starts voting wrong on stuff that has real legislative meaning rather than mere political balderdash.

Yes, but if, if, he attains the presidency then a precedent is set to thwart any negotiations his administration is in deals with. He can't come back to the neocons and say "Look guys. We are in the middle of negotiations. Why don't we just see how this plays out before undermining my administration."

[jkob]

Is Rand supporting liberty or is Rand supporting himself? I know we are to believe that he is in a some long con to trick Neocons but how do we know it isn't the other way around? The Junior Senator from Illinois circa 2008 was all about hope and change, a constitutional scholar that would stand up for civil liberties and oppose war, what did we get? Matthew 6:24 comes to mind when I think of Rand now, there might not be an alternative but that doesn't mean I support what Rand is doing. He should tread lightly.

[69360]

What is your opinion on the fact that Rand Paul is aligning himself with the likes of Tom Cotton and signing letters such as these?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republican-senators-iran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html

I don't have a problem with it. It was factual. Obama is trying to bypass congress. I would have signed it.

But on the other hand I support diplomacy with Iran and don't have a problem with Iran getting a nuke.


Thoughts on this?

Honestly, I don't know enough about the Logan Act to have an opinion yet. I posted it looking for input from someone more knowledgeable.




There's also a petition to charge the Senators on WhiteHouse.gov.

They are fine legally. They didn't negotiate anything. They informed.

[r3volution 3.0]

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

Not asking me, but I'll answer anyway. Even if this were a betrayel of Rand's or our principles (which it isn't, at all: see my post above), yes - I for one would still vastly prefer Rand to all other candidates even if he got on TV and did a rendition of "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." There are other issues besides foreign policy, and there's also a lot more to foreign policy than the Middle East (which is messy but fairly trivial in comparison to things like, say, global nuclear war with Russia).

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, but if, if, he attains the presidency then a precedent is set to thwart any negotiations his administration is in deals with. He can't come back to the neocons and say "Look guys. We are in the middle of negotiations. Why don't we just see how this plays out before undermining my administration."

I never said it was a good idea, just that it fits his 5 year pattern. I did say that I could envision a highly unlikely scenario where I would sign the thing myself, but that doesn't mean that's what I believe happened. I think he was just doing his old "pander to the hard right on anything that doesn't affect real legislation" thing. If anything leads me to the belief that Obama was in the process of doing something really, really stupid, it's the surprising large number of Senators who signed the thing.

So my thinking is, "Rand did this because he always does this when it doesn't write actual law, but look how many of them signed on, and this thing is really unprecedented. This (the quantity of support, NOT whether Rand was on it) makes me wonder if Obama wasn't about to do something really reckless and the Senators caught wind of it ahead of time."

The difference is when Ron did something we could count on him as our compass. Rand has never been a compass, I figure him for a sailboat, trying to tack against the wind. Catching the wind in full bluster when it's going nowhere, and then pushing ahead to the goal in the lees. I get it. I get what he's trying to do, so maybe it's just easier for me. I'm not a sailboat, I'm a compass, but I am willing to let the sailor sail, while I will keep pointing north. If he carries us into the rocks, oh well, I tried, and I did my part. If he doesn't then, well, we will have won the day.

Is this the kind of mess I would put up with normally? No, but 'normally' the United States is not on the very brink of imminent total devastation. So...............

I mean this is it, right? Last call. Throw your chips in for one last battle before we all go over the cliff together. So I'll put up with a lot of stuff I don't put up with even if it's just to mark history that we didn't go down without a fight. For what it's worth, I don't think Rand wants to tack this hard, but, well, the opinion-makers they have lost their minds. What can you really do in the face of such madness?

Bad decision. Signing it was the wrong call, but it fits his long established pattern of processing legislation. Could also be something going on we are not privy to.

[phill4paul]

I never said it was a good idea, just that it fits his 5 year pattern. I did say that I could envision a highly unlikely scenario where I would sign the thing myself, but that doesn't mean that's what I believe happened. I think he was just doing his old "pander to the hard right on anything that doesn't affect real legislation" thing. If anything leads me to the belief that Obama was in the process of doing something really, really stupid, it's the surprising large number of Senators who signed the thing.

So my thinking is, "Rand did this because he always does this when it doesn't write actual law, but look how many of them signed on, and this thing is really unprecedented. This (the quantity of support, NOT whether Rand was on it) makes me wonder if Obama wasn't about to do something really reckless and the Senators caught wind of it ahead of time."

The difference is when Ron did something we could count on him as our compass. Rand has never been a compass, I figure him for a sailboat, trying to tack against the wind. Catching the wind in full bluster when it's going nowhere, and then pushing ahead to the goal in the lees. I get it. I get what he's trying to do, so maybe it's just easier for me. I'm not a sailboat, I'm a compass, but I am willing to let the sailor sail, while I will keep pointing north. If he carries us into the rocks, oh well, I tried, and I did my part. If he doesn't then, well, we will have won the day.

Is this the kind of mess I would put up with normally? No, but 'normally' the United States is not on the very brink of imminent total devastation. So...............

I mean this is it, right? Last call. Throw your chips in for one last battle before we all go over the cliff together. So I'll put up with a lot of stuff I don't put up with even if it's just to mark history that we didn't go down without a fight. For what it's worth, I don't think Rand wants to tack this hard, but, well, the opinion-makers they have lost their minds. What can you really do in the face of such madness?

Bad decision. Signing it was the wrong call, but it fits his long established pattern of processing legislation. Could also be something going on we are not privy to.

As a Navy vet I get your nautical comparisons to the game that many here believe is being played. That game is not an easy one to play. But, there does come a time when one has to step back. This, I believe, was one of those times. I'm not believing that the neocons were privy to certain information. It was a partisan (neocon) shot to undermine the administration in its negotiations. It's purpose was to bolster the political bank accounts by the very industrial complex that we abhor. And it will do so. Not for Rand in my estimation.

[Brett85]

I think that Rand's moving towards the mainstream of the GOP on foreign policy issues in general is probably going to dampen enthusiasm among the liberty movement and make it harder for him to raise a lot of money in the money bombs. He's probably going to have to figure out ways to raise a lot of money outside of the liberty movement if he wants to have any chance to win the GOP nomination.

[specsaregood]

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

I have no problem with the letter whatsoever, no matter who signed it or any presidential aspirations. it was factual, promoted constitutional government and a weaker executive branch. what exactly is the problem with it? I just don't get it, I agree with it.

[phill4paul]

I have no problem with the letter whatsoever, no matter who signed it or any presidential aspirations. it was factual, promoted constitutional government and a weaker executive branch. what exactly is the problem with it? I just don't get it, I agree with it.

The problem with it is the point of it. Neocons signed on to undermine negotiations with Iran. Rand joined them. As Gunny pointed out it is unprecedented. On the heels of the Netenyahoo speech do you not think that this is not a play for further involvement in military action in the middle east? Is that what you want? This letter wasn't just sent out as a missive to every other government. It targeted Iran. Is that what we really have come to on the "Liberty" forums?

[Brian4Liberty]

So you are fine with this? You feel that it is alright for Rand to have signed on to this as long as he achieves the presidency?

Whether I like it or not does not matter. I don't have to like every single thing that a politician does.

[mosquitobite]

This was a catch-22 gotcha thing for Rand. And the neo-cons KNEW it.

[cajuncocoa]

The problem with it is the point of it. Neocons signed on to undermine negotiations with Iran. Rand joined them. As Gunny pointed out it is unprecedented. On the heels of the Netenyahoo speech do you not think that this is not a play for further involvement in military action in the middle east? Is that what you want? This letter wasn't just sent out as a missive to every other government. It targeted Iran. Is that what we really have come to on the "Liberty" forums?
I owe you another rep. If there's anyone else around with the principles we used to stand for, could you please cover Phil for me?

[phill4paul]

Whether I like it or not does not matter. I don't have to like every single thing that a politician does.

You should. When it gives power and impetus to those that would keep us at war. We used to believe in that on "Liberty" forums. Guess not anymore.

[specsaregood]

The problem with it is the point of it. Neocons signed on to undermine negotiations with Iran. Rand joined them. As Gunny pointed out it is unprecedented. On the heels of the Netenyahoo speech do you not think that this is not a play for further involvement in military action in the middle east? Is that what you want? This letter wasn't just sent out as a missive to every other government. It targeted Iran. Is that what we really have come to on the "Liberty" forums?

So your problem isn't the content that Randal signed; but the supposed "intent". meh to that. He undermined negotiations that were pointless anyways exactly because of the issues addressed in the letter? meh to that. Obama has been running the govt by executive fiat for years now, if any president needed to be kneecapped publically it is him. so meh to the unprecedented bit. I see nothing in that letter that says anything about further military involvement in the middle east, Randal certainly didn't sign something promoting that. In fact, much of his legislation and positions have been the exact opposite.

So pardon me for not getting upset about him signing some letter that actually promotes positions that I support!

As for Randal losing my support or our support. I am infinitely more disappointed in his vote to renew the terrorism risk insurance act which is pure crony capitalism so much so that CATO even called it that than I am this silly letter. More votes like that one and he would lose my support. But nobody around here really seemed to care about that one which was actually a vote that affects our pocket books. no instead people want to handwring and bitch and moan about this letter promoting a weak executive branch. meh.

edit: hell you guys should cheer the neocons for the positions they agreed to in this letter.

[phill4paul]

So your problem isn't the content that Randal signed; but the supposed "intent". meh to that. He undermined negotiations that were pointless anyways exactly because of the issues addressed in the letter? meh to that. Obama has been running the govt by executive fiat for years now, if any president needed to be kneecapped publically it is him. so meh to the unprecedented bit. I see nothing in that letter that says anything about further military involvement in the middle east, Randal certainly didn't sign something promoting that. In fact, much of his legislation and positions have been the exact opposite.

So pardon me for not getting upset about him signing some letter that actually promotes positions that I support!

As for Randal losing my support or our support. I am infinitely more disappointed in his vote to renew the terrorism risk insurance act which is pure crony capitalism so much so that CATO even called it that than I am this silly letter. More votes like that one and he would lose my support. But nobody around here really seemed to care about that one which was actually a vote that affects our pocket books. no instead people want to handwring and bitch and moan about this letter promoting a weak executive branch. meh.

edit: hell you guys should cheer the neocons for the positions they agreed to in this letter.

OK. meh.

[phill4paul]

At what point does playing them become being played?

[Brian4Liberty]

You should. When it gives power and impetus to those that would keep us at war. We used to believe in that on "Liberty" forums. Guess not anymore.

This was pretty much a symbolic measure. The face-value meaning was that Congress needs to approve international agreements. Of course the neoconservatives have other plans, but the letter itself did not spell them out. And one of their motives was to try to trap Rand into not signing, and attack him on that.

We all have our own opinions on a whole range of subjects, including everyone here on this forum. When it comes to candidates, I try to go by the 80/20 rule. More agreement is better. We will never find another 99% agreement candidate. There was only one. ;)

[phill4paul]

This was pretty much a symbolic measure. The face-value meaning was that Congress needs to approve international agreements. Of course the neoconservatives have other plans, but the letter itself did not spell them out. And one of their motives was to try to trap Rand into not signing, and attack him on that.

We all have our own opinions on a whole range of subjects, including everyone here on this forum. When it comes to candidates, I try to go by the 80/20 rule. More agreement is better. We will never find another 99% agreement candidate. There was only one. ;)

It wasn't symbolic. It had tangible results. It wasn't happenstance that Tom Cotton did an M.I.C. gig afterward. The money will not flow from this avenue to Rand. It won't gain him "brownie points." It will flow to the neocons. That's "aiding and abetting" in my book. If those on this forum are declaring that he is just running a game do you really believe that the opposition does not know that and are leading him by the nose? There's a winner here. It ain't Rand. And it ain't the "Liberty" movement....

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HH739_Cotton_G_20150309110624.jpg

[Natural Citizen]

At what point does playing them become being played?

I think that, ultimately, the real game was just to re-popularize the GOP in a short term way for the purpose of putting a Republican in the White House. Rand, really, is the only mechanism for that to be able to happen. And I think Rand understands his role here.

At the end of the day, though, if he does get a nomination I'd certainly vote for him. I don't think that will happen. And I don't think he is serious about actually running for the office anyhow. Again, he is a Republican, and I think he understands his role in the short term scheme of things as it pertains to the political interests of the Republican party.

[Natural Citizen]

We will never find another 99% agreement candidate. There was only one. ;)

Yeah? Who? I don't personally believe that 99% of the critical the issues have been presented and debated. Heck, 90% of them haven't even been mentioned as far as I can recall.

When we talk about 99%, what are we actually talking about? In other words, what is on the 100% version of that "issues" list?

[phill4paul]

I think that, ultimately, the real game was just to re-popularize of the GOP in a short term way for the purpose of putting a Republican in the White House. Rand, really, is the only mechanism for that to be able to happen. And I think Rand understands his role here.

At the end of the day, though, if he does get a nomination I'd certainly vote for him. I don't think that will happen. And I don't think he is serious about actually running for the office anyhow. Again, he is a Republican, and I think he understands his role in the short term scheme of things.

I joined the Ron Paul "Revolution" to stop the pendulum swing. Not give weight to pushing it into an equally destructive bob.

[Brett85]

I think I've just kind of come to the conclusion that I'm going to just have to continue to hold my nose on stuff like this, because Rand is the best we have. I think he just feels that he has to move closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party to have any real chance to win the GOP nomination. Whether that strategy will work or not remains to be seen.

[phill4paul]

I think I've just kind of come to the conclusion that I'm going to just have to continue to hold my nose on stuff like this, because Rand is the best we have. I think he just feels that he has to move closer to the mainstream of the Republican Party to have any real chance to win the GOP nomination. Whether that strategy will work or not remains to be seen.

You just go ahead and hold your nose. Winning means holding your nose. Even if it is the lesser of evils. You are a winner. A man of conviction. One to be applauded.

[Natural Citizen]

I joined the Ron Paul "Revolution" to stop the pendulum swing. Not give weight to pushing it into an equally destructive bob.

Well. I haven't got to the Revolution part yet. I'm still working on the Renaissance. There can be no so called Revolution if a Renaissance isn't able to run it's course or even come into fruition. At the moment, what we are seeing happen is a kind of political disruption of that awakening. In fact, an opposing force. Is why I bring up that old phrase about the Stalking Horse once in a while. Look that up, btw. There is a wiki page. ;)



I agree with you though. I do. I just don't accept that a so called Revolution exists. Need a Renaissance before that can happen. And this is happening despite so called "games" that, frankly, exist as a roadblock to the phenomenon.


Phil, I'm going to share 3 minutes of reality with you. I hope you take the time to have a listen. Because you aren't alone. You're not. Not by a long shot. Regardless of what anyone says, the numbers speak for themselves. And it scares the hell out of the them. Make no mistake about that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rfMbw-3e0

I'll tell you, though, it's not Rand Paul that I take issue with. I like Rand. It's his "supporters" that pluck me. But specifically the ones who narrate the terms of controversy in such an American Idolish kind of way and in a public setting. Like we're stupid or something. And we have a kind of new brand of political people who have blended into our circles that compound it. I think they actually do junior more disservice than they know. Of course, I'm not the smartest person in the world and I certainly don't claim to be but I know a little bit about a little bit in terms of local and geo-political issues and goings-on.

[fr33]

The Iranian government is not stupid. They probably have read and understand the US constitution. Do the Republicans and Iranians realize how irrelevant the constitution has become to the US government? I don't know. Probably a lot of both groups do.

[phill4paul]

Well. I haven't got to the Revolution part yet. I'm still working on the Renaissance. There can be no so called Revolution if a Renaissance isn't able to run it's course or even come into fruition. At the moment, what we are seeing happen is a kind of political disruption of that awakening. In fact, an opposing force. Is why I bring up that old phrase about the Stalking Horse once in a while. Look that up, btw. There is a wiki page. ;)



I agree with you though. I do. I just don't accept that a so called Revolution exists. Need a Renaissance before that can happen. And this is happening despite so called "games" that, frankly, exist as a roadblock to the phenomenon.


Phil, I'm going to share 3 minutes of reality with you. I hope you take the time to have a listen. Because you aren't alone. You're not. Not by a long shot. Regardless of what anyone says, the numbers speak for themselves. And it scares the hell out of the them. Make no mistake about that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rfMbw-3e0

I'll tell you, though, it's not Rand Paul that I take issue with. It's his supporters. But specifically the ones who narrate the terms of controversy in such an American Idolish kind of way and in a public setting. Like we're stupid or something. I'm not the smartest person in the world and I certainly don't claim to be but I know a little bit about a little bit in terms of local and geo-political issues and goings-on.

That Renaissance started, here, in 2007. It should still be flourishing. It should have gained momentum. All there is now is a rehash of the "secret delegate" stratagem of 2012. If that doesn't sound like a reprise of the current political run then I don't know what does.

[Brett85]

You just go ahead and hold your nose. Winning means holding your nose. Even if it is the lesser of evils. You are a winner. A man of conviction. One to be applauded.

You can't implement any of your ideas if you don't win. That should be obvious. So it's important to win.

[GunnyFreedom]

As a Navy vet I get your nautical comparisons to the game that many here believe is being played. That game is not an easy one to play. But, there does come a time when one has to step back. This, I believe, was one of those times. I'm not believing that the neocons were privy to certain information. It was a partisan (neocon) shot to undermine the administration in its negotiations. It's purpose was to bolster the political bank accounts by the very industrial complex that we abhor. And it will do so. Not for Rand in my estimation.

No, it's not good for Rand. It was a bad idea. It's barely possible there was an "impossible choice." I disagree with the strategy, but I understand it. Because I understand it, I don't hate what he is trying to do, even if I do hate some of the things he's doing to get there. I would be less forgiving if the death of America were not immanent. I also think he would make fewer mistakes if the death of America were not immanent.

[Anti Federalist]

This was a catch-22 gotcha thing for Rand. And the neo-cons KNEW it.

Which is precisely why he should not have played.

[phill4paul]

Well. I haven't got to the Revolution part yet. I'm still working on the Renaissance. There can be no so called Revolution if a Renaissance isn't able to run it's course or even come into fruition. At the moment, what we are seeing happen is a kind of political disruption of that awakening. In fact, an opposing force. Is why I bring up that old phrase about the Stalking Horse once in a while. Look that up, btw. There is a wiki page. ;)



I agree with you though. I do. I just don't accept that a so called Revolution exists. Need a Renaissance before that can happen. And this is happening despite so called "games" that, frankly, exist as a roadblock to the phenomenon.


Phil, I'm going to share 3 minutes of reality with you. I hope you take the time to have a listen. Because you aren't alone. You're not. Not by a long shot. Regardless of what anyone says, the numbers speak for themselves. And it scares the hell out of the them. Make no mistake about that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rfMbw-3e0

I'll tell you, though, it's not Rand Paul that I take issue with. I like Rand. It's his "supporters" that pluck me. But specifically the ones who narrate the terms of controversy in such an American Idolish kind of way and in a public setting. Like we're stupid or something. And we have a kind of new brand of political people who have blended into our circles that compound it. I think they actually do junior more disservice than they know. Of course, I'm not the smartest person in the world and I certainly don't claim to be but I know a little bit about a little bit in terms of local and geo-political issues and goings-on.

In my defense "Revolution" was in quotation. And I agree. I am just getting to the point of disappoint anymore. This forum is not what it used to be. Or maybe I'm just mal-nostalgic. It's probably me. Ron's not Rand. I came here for Ron. I came here for those of like mind that supported him. With Rand I've gone from "I support him. He's Ron Pauls son." To "I won't contribute any money but I'll help him by giving time because he is Ron Pauls son." To " I'll not help in any way I'll still vote for him." To "Fugg it."

[Anti Federalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.



It wasn't symbolic. It had tangible results. It wasn't happenstance that Tom Cotton did an M.I.C. gig afterward. The money will not flow from this avenue to Rand. It won't gain him "brownie points." It will flow to the neocons. That's "aiding and abetting" in my book. If those on this forum are declaring that he is just running a game do you really believe that the opposition does not know that and are leading him by the nose? There's a winner here. It ain't Rand. And it ain't the "Liberty" movement....

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HH739_Cotton_G_20150309110624.jpg

[The Gold Standard]

The Iranian government is not stupid. They probably have read and understand the US constitution. Do the Republicans and Iranians realize how irrelevant the constitution has become to the US government? I don't know. Probably a lot of both groups do.

The U.S. government hasn't read, and doesn't understand, the U.S. constitution.

[phill4paul]

You can't implement any of your ideas if you don't win. That should be obvious. So it's important to win.

Winning is everything. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

[Natural Citizen]

That Renaissance started, here, in 2007. It should still be flourishing. It should have gained momentum. All there is now is a rehash of the "secret delegate" stratagem of 2012. If that doesn't sound like a reprise of the current political run then I don't know what does.

Nah. What happened here in '07 was a product of the footwork that happened in the '80s. An extension of that which existed. Technology came along and many forgot how to pound pavement or never really learned to do it in the first place and in what was a tough environment to be heard. Of course, the opposite happened as well. A lot of good people became part of a new era of an awakening. And during the beginnings of an information infrastructure that simply didn't exist in the '80s. I read the forum a lot back then (07) but never participated or signed on until a few years later. I'd say that what evolved in '07 was an evolution stage in an existing cultural/political renaissance. It went digital. And for the better, to be fair.

Just have to keep on keeping on, man. Short term visionaries seldom finish the game. Sure, they get in the way sometimes. But then they go way. Has always been that way.

I've actually been taking a break from it myself but only to the extent of this kind of setting. I come in to check my messages and whatnot and maybe post a couple of updates on threads that I have that are pretty important. I'll tell you, it's nice getting back to 30 minute lunch meeting kind of routine and whatnot. Kind of like the good old days, really. Heh.

[phill4paul]

No, it's not good for Rand. It was a bad idea. It's barely possible there was an "impossible choice." I disagree with the strategy, but I understand it. Because I understand it, I don't hate what he is trying to do, even if I do hate some of the things he's doing to get there. I would be less forgiving if the death of America were not immanent. I also think he would make fewer mistakes if the death of America were not immanent.

You lost your seat on principle. You did not compromise. You earned my respect.

Do you regret your stance and subsequent actions?

[fr33]

The U.S. government hasn't read, and doesn't understand, the U.S. constitution.

Oh they've read it. Most of them don't care about it except for working out ways to get around it and ignore it. I'm sure the Iranian government (and every government) knows this.

[The Gold Standard]

It wasn't symbolic. It had tangible results. It wasn't happenstance that Tom Cotton did an M.I.C. gig afterward. The money will not flow from this avenue to Rand. It won't gain him "brownie points." It will flow to the neocons. That's "aiding and abetting" in my book. If those on this forum are declaring that he is just running a game do you really believe that the opposition does not know that and are leading him by the nose? There's a winner here. It ain't Rand. And it ain't the "Liberty" movement....

I'm with you 100%. And I take it as a good sign that there aren't as many people attacking this sentiment as there were a few years ago. I piled up the neg reps back in the day. Playing along with the warmongers serves him no purpose. Even if he did by some miracle get elected, you'll have a huge false flag immediately and Boobus will call for his head if they aren't sent somewhere to die for Uncle Sam.

[KingNothing]

Well, really Iran should be thanking them for the letter and for clearly laying out that negotiations are a complete waste of time and the nature of US govt is so whimsical that no sane country on earth should ever bother to negotiate or enter into a treaty with it. And instead they should spend their time attempting negotiations with other more willing countries.

just saying...

As if Iran didn't already know these things.

This is obviously nothing more than a political move by the Republicans. Why are we wasting breath talking about it? If this had to do with, say, North Korea I doubt it would have even been posted. But it has to do with a country that is close to Israel, so the Israel haters around here needed to pipe up.

[phill4paul]

Nah. What happened here in '07 was a product of the footwork that happened in the '80s. An extension of that which existed. Technology came along and many forgot how to pound pavement or never really learned to do it in the first place and in what was a tough environment to be heard. Of course, the opposite happened as well. A lot of good people became part of a new era of an awakening. And during the beginnings of an information infrastructure that simply didn't exist in the '80s. I read the forum a lot back then (07) but never participated or signed on until a few years later. I'd say that what evolved in '07 was an evolution stage in an existing cultural/political renaissance. It went digital. And for the better, to be fair.

Just have to keep on keeping on, man. Short term visionaries seldom finish the game. Sure, they get in the way sometimes. But then they go way. Has always been that way.

I've actually been taking a break from it myself but only to the extent of this kind of setting. I come in to check my messages and whatnot and maybe post a couple of updates on threads that I have that are pretty important. I'll tell you, it's nice getting back to 30 minute lunch meeting kind of routine and whatnot. Kind of like the good old days, really. Heh.

In my defense, "here" was separated by colons from the sentence. I'm 50. I've been a part of this for awhile. Not as long as some. For me the '80's wasn't all big hair and spandex.

[phill4paul]

As if Iran didn't already know these things.

This is obviously nothing more than a political move by the Republicans. Why are we wasting breath talking about it? If this had to do with, say, North Korea I doubt it would have even been posted. But it has to do with a country that is close to Israel, so the Israel haters around here needed to pipe up.

Just shut the f*ck up. Seriously. Unless you want to enter a debate without casting aspersions.

[GunnyFreedom]

In my defense "Revolution" was in quotation. And I agree. I am just getting to the point of disappoint anymore. This forum is not what it used to be. Or maybe I'm just mal-nostalgic. It's probably me. Ron's not Rand. I came here for Ron. I came here for those of like mind that supported him. With Rand I've gone from "I support him. He's Ron Pauls son." To "I won't contribute any money but I'll help him by giving time because he is Ron Pauls son." To " I'll not help in any way I'll still vote for him." To "Fugg it."

Man, I'm disappointed by the whole universe, and all too often the liberty movement. I'm living day to day with no end in sight. I expected the dollar collapse by now, but I didn't expect them to dump the oil reserves to cling to dollar dominance. I don't know when the whole house of cards is coming down, but when it does it will be dramatic. It is the recovery side of that crash that is important now, and the people in charge of what government does when the time for that recovery comes, are the people now vying for leadership today. And if we descend into mad-max like madness, and all of this political stuff was for nothing anyway, then I can say I really tried to stop it, and so I will be able to do whatever I have to in the hour of crisis.

[Natural Citizen]

In my defense, "here" was separated by colons from the sentence. I'm 50. I've been a part of this for awhile. Not as long as some. For me the '80's wasn't all big hair and spandex.

Yeah, I wasn't picking you apart or anything. I understand your frustration. I have the same frustration with the whole thing. A lot of folks around here, it's obvious by discussing some of the things that go on that they have been involved with this for a very long time. Long before this digital age of information and works/activism evolved. You know what it is, phil? I get to responding to people and then end up responding to the whole board more so than the person I was responding with. And then I get to talking about other things.

Phil, in my defense, I never wore spandex, though. Heh. That's gey.

[presence]

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/09/401063/Impeach-GOP-senators-over-Iran-letter


GOP letter to Iran betrays senators’ oath to defend US Constitution: International lawyer




Home (http://www.presstv.ir/)
US (http://www.presstv.ir/Default/HSection/103)
Interviews (http://www.presstv.ir/Default/Section/10307)

Mon Mar 9, 2015 5:25PM


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (3rd L) poses for a photograph with US Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (2nd L), Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (4th L), and Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (L) prior to a meeting at the US Capitol, March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC.











International lawyer Barry Grossman says a letter by US Republican senators to undermine President Barack Obama's efforts to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran probably “amounts to a breach of the oath taken by senators to ‘support and defend the Constitution’”.
In an open letter to Iran on Monday signed by some 47 Republican senators, the lawmakers warned Tehran that any deal signed by the Obama administration must be approved by Congress or it could be abandoned by next president after Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017.
Grossman said the Republican senators are clearly attempting to derail the talks underway between Iran and the P5+1 countries – the US, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany, which have entered a sensitive final stage.
http://217.218.67.233//photo/20150228/e87887fe-3008-4135-a9af-1733a50dc43e.jpg
Grossman, who is based on the Indonesian island of Bali, told Press TV on Monday that the “reckless and outrageous” letter provides “grounds for them to be impeached, if not actually prosecuted for treason.”
“The terms of the letter make it clear that these congressional dullards do not even know that the consensus of informed opinion is that Iran HAS NO nuclear weapons program,” he said.
“The concern being addressed by the 5 +1 talks is that, by exercising its rights as a sovereign state and as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to advance a non-military nuclear program, Iran will be in a better position to develop a nuclear weapons program should it ever decide to start such a program at some point in the future,” Grossman stated.
“However, the 17 agencies comprising the US security apparatus have consistently said since 2003 that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has not decided to start such a program,” he added. “Nobody - except these renegade senators - genuinely claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This is not open to debate.”

http://217.218.67.233//photo/20150305/ecbc6abc-3c0e-4899-af2b-caf121eb2ed8.jpg
Iran and the P5+1 are holding negotiations to work out a final deal aimed at ending the longstanding standoff over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
The scale of Iran’s uranium enrichment and the timetable for the lifting of anti-Iran sanctions are seen as major sticking points in the talks.
The illegal sanctions on Iran have been imposed based on the unfounded accusation that Tehran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear program.
The Republican-dominated Congress is pushing a new round of sanctions on Iran. Obama has warned Congress not to impose more sanctions on Iran, saying he will veto any such move.
Grossman said, “These cretins are clearly attempting to derail a process which falls squarely within the president's foreign affairs power and derives any such legitimacy as it may have from [what many would consider] already dubious claims made by the US security and political apparatus that the 5+1 talks deal with a matter of US national security.”

“If that is not enough, even before any agreement is made, these senators are also announcing to the world that the US Congress does not consider itself bound by Treaties or Agreements made by the United States and doing so in the most arrogant, ignorant and insulting terms imaginable,” he noted.
“This can only be seen as an attempt to advance Israel's agenda and derail the delicate process which, through its presidential administration, the US is participating in as one of six nations negotiating with Iran.”
http://217.218.67.233//photo/20150215/b97aae9d-24c4-4868-8879-63486d9a43e1.jpg
Grossman said, “The issue is not whether Congress has some residual role to play in ratifying treaties. The issue here is that these renegade senators have attempted to derail a delicate process by interfering with the president's executive powers, and by announcing to Iran, indeed threatening even before the terms o f any agreement which might be reached are known, that Congress will not abide by any agreement made by the executive branch.
“This arrogant and unprecedented letter also ignores the fact that the 5+1 in these 5+1 talks refers not to the USA alone in all its exceptional glory but rather to the group of six world powers which in 2006 joined the diplomatic efforts with Iran with regard to its NON-MILITARY nuclear program.
“The term refers to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, China, and France, plus Germany.
“Of course, it’s no surprise that these rogue senators are incapable of appreciating America's limited but important role in this process, let alone the limits of their own role as individual senators and those applicable to the Congress as a whole.”
GJH/GJH

(32)
Comments










Cabin 9 hours ago
Interesting that a letter stating what is required by the constitution is in some way a violation of the constitution. Only a lawyer can come up with that kind of twisted logic.

Reply





yakubu 19 hours ago
Americans should free themselves from subordination to Israeli dictates.

Reply
1





Fire-Land 20 hours ago
Non of these 47 Khazars criminal cabals know anything about nuclear science - Non of them can even differ the diffrence between a Nuclear Weapon and a nuclear energy ! It is the delema with the USA and it's infilterated USG by those who luanched 911 attacks.

American needs now to ask their Congress to back the US president, better to arrest these Double US-IsraHell Citizen, Israel first , to kick them out of decission making. World Power must demonstrate unity and consequence against a hidden handfull of Crypto -Khazars inside western Administration. IAEA must now show independence and act urgently to get the Fabricated lais out of the Energy Programe !

Reply




Fire - Land 20 hours ago
Is any one onformed about stolen US nucs by Jewish-Khazarian Conspiracy ! Where they are located ! Some black market Khazar - Dealers are selling those Stolen nucs !

Reply





RJ 20 hours ago
Ha, what a bunch of idiotic comments. It's Obama that should be impeached! King Obama has committed so many impeachable offenses, the only thing these senators should be impeached for is for dereliction of duty for not beginning impeachment proceedings on King Obama. The constitution states that King Obama, or any US president for that matter, cannot make nuclear agreements with other countries without Senate and Congressional approval!

Reply



http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/015f9b48d6875c08563623d72331400c?d=http://static.hypercomments.com/data/avatars/0/avatar.jpg
Abbas » RJ 17 hours ago
The " nuclear agreement " you are pointing was ineffective when Israhel was getting the nuclear weapon arsenal from USA.
By the way, the talks have been in proses in several years by now and no such a constitutional law have been pointed before, how comes that you " the expert in US constitutional law " are taking it up now? Do you mean the other experts involving in the negotiations are less cleaver than you are ?????????????

Reply





http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/0cec7af52eed46a4ec5c4d86466f0777?d=http://static.hypercomments.com/data/avatars/0/avatar.jpg
iran iran 21 hour ago
that is why u.s is in such mess.these are israeli senators,not americans,they believe their power is unlimited.

Reply
1




http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/209a0ca0bd320dabd7aa1b6ebc10bf56?d=http://static.hypercomments.com/data/avatars/0/avatar.jpg
headline 21 hour ago
THEY COMMITTED TREASON AGAINST CONTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

Reply





headline 21 hour ago
IT IS A KOODETA A REGIME CHANGE ATTEMPT AGAINST THE VOTERS OF UNTED STATES WHICH IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY ACTED LIKE A GANG GROUP SIMILAR TO ORGONIZED CRIME WE HEAR OR READ ABOUT THEM LIKE MAFIA ORGANIZATION.

Reply





kayam yesterday at 20:42
salam
this show how the american are lack of wisdom from their politician to the priest
imagine what will be the public and they call theme self smart or educated

Reply





TheLastPatriot yesterday at 19:41
The impeachment issue goes back to the invitation to let Netanyahu demand that congress override the Presidents legal and constitutional authority. This is an ongoing mutiny.

Inviting the leader of another country inside the U.S. Congress with the expressed intention of subverting the powers of the president is a crime only compounded by the fact that every argument made by Netanyahu was as bogus as Iraq's WMDs.

Reply





Nonyank S yesterday at 18:37
A clear case of a government out of control and a sound reason to (do whatever it takes taking nothing off the table) to either straighten things out or completely overhaul the US's rogue government.

Reply
1





J.J. yesterday at 18:24
Netanyahu's biggest supporter, Casino king Sheldon Adelson who spent $100 Million
trying to put a Republican in the White House in 2012, was watching Netanayahu speak
the other day in front of The U.S.A. Congress, and while there, he dropped off 150
Million Dollars, mostly for The Republicans, and that's why they are singing the Tune
he paid them to Sing.
These Republicans in Congress are the biggest Criminals in The World, and they'll
do anything for money.

Reply
2





Iyam Nobaudi yesterday at 18:05
We're waiting! While your at it, don't forget Obama.

Reply





Colour-coded yesterday at 17:54
"Cretins" is a fitting description of these brainless, childlike and imbecilic US senators threatening Iran, and history shall record their actions for their offspring to deprecate and ridicule.

Reply
1





urad yesterday at 17:46
Far from teaching Iran, they received a response with a civic lesson from Iran's foreign minister that what the senators espoused showed their collective ignorance of their own Constitution and the international law.

Reply
1





Bahram Nayeb-Yazdi yesterday at 17:40
Why people keep electing these foreign agents? They have no interest or loyalty to USA.

Reply
2





Chas Holman yesterday at 16:42
My good lord.. SO now the GOTea in the Senate, (all but 7 of them) write and signed a letter to Iranian leaders WARNING them to not make a deal with THIS President.. wow.. just wow.. These guys just HATE the USA.. It's all I can figure.. If the Democrats would of sent a letter to China when Nixon went over, WARNING the Chinese that the negotiations were only as good as who is in office, the nation would of been in an uproar.. What the hell is WRONG with the 'patriots'> ?

Reply





Rodney Martin yesterday at 16:22
Mr. Grossman is incorrect. The Senators are well within the discretion and purview of their Office. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. For example, the U.S. Senate never ratified the Treaty negotiated by Woodrow Wilson at the end of WWI. The problem is the Senators say, "they may well remain in Office for decades", which speaks to the fraudulent American political System. The real issue is the Jewish Lobby choke hold on U.S. Institutions which includs the U.S. Senate. These Senators are abusing the Senate's role over Treaty ratification to serve Jewish Lobby interests.

Reply





reality yesterday at 16:20
these senators are double dipping the American tax payers by getting exclusive paycheck from us in USA and also from Israel to support them in congress from the same money we help Israel with , I would of lost my job if I would of done that !!!??? GOD help us when salt starts to get rotten.



N Smith yesterday at 15:37
Iran should apply to the ICC as well as the Palestinians against Satan and his mob, its clear Satan wants war.The zios were hoping Obama would fulfill his duty and starts wars in Syria, then Iran.Obama knows this is a huge burden to deal with.Obama has enough blood on his hands, While Satan is too coward to fight his own battles.

[GunnyFreedom]

You lost your seat on principle. You did not compromise. You earned my respect.

Do you regret your stance and subsequent actions?

I regret nothing. If I had it to do over again, I might try being more 'gentle' in some of my methods, more aggressive in others, and my LA would be versed in law to help me find the traps in the bills ahead. I don't actually think I would have been capable of pretending to be someone's back bencher until after redistricting was finished, but from a strategic perspective that would have actually been the best call. I'm too pig-headed to sit down and shut up until after redistricting is over, but I won't pretend that doing so is not the smarter course of action. I don't make a very good politician. I've never pretended to. Hell, I'm awful with names. I was removed from the committee on justice because I said that one senior Republican's plan to database DNA tests of all arrestees was "horrifying." Loudly, in public, and during the meeting. A mistake someone like Rand would not have made, and he would have had far more impact simply be staying on that committee.

[Brian4Liberty]

It wasn't symbolic. It had tangible results. It wasn't happenstance that Tom Cotton did an M.I.C. gig afterward. The money will not flow from this avenue to Rand. It won't gain him "brownie points." It will flow to the neocons. That's "aiding and abetting" in my book. If those on this forum are declaring that he is just running a game do you really believe that the opposition does not know that and are leading him by the nose? There's a winner here. It ain't Rand. And it ain't the "Liberty" movement....

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-HH739_Cotton_G_20150309110624.jpg

Symbolic in that there was no law, legislation or regulation forwarded by the letter.

Of course there are a lot of political ramifications. That was the whole point. The coronation of Cotton as the new young neoconservative in the Senate is certainly one of them.

[dillo]

Not every republican senator is running for POTUS and courting teocons to do it.

name these republican senators that arent rand paul and arent neo cons

[cindy25]

there were 7 who did not sign.

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)

[RandallFan]

there were 7 who did not sign.

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)

Problem is all of them are RINOs who don't want to upset the media or Obama.

Forget it's Iran war mongering for argument's sake, there are Dems and RINOs who don't want to buck Obama or go against conventional wisdom of staying out of trouble.

Some of these RINOs and Dems would vote for all out war against Iraq or Syria if it was convenient with other issues they wanted to vote. I think Corker and Flake voted to bomb Assad while Rubio and Rand voted no.
Corker and Flake voted to kill people so they could prove: "The GOP can govern".

Jeff Flake voted to bomb Assad becaues Flake was worried the longer the bomb-Assad debate went on the harder it was to pass his pet issue: amnesty for illegals.

The fact that some Republicans dissented makes Rand's vote look better to Republican primary voters.

[cindy25]

Flake was considered a libertarian at one time.

but more importantly, does Rand really believe in this stupid letter? if to win votes, those voters will vote for Graham, or Cruz. so it was all for nothing. Tom Cotton (L-Ark) is nuts. he should move to Israel (the L is not a typo, it stands for Likud)

[Suzanimal]

The White House Petition has reached 136,300, I'm curious to hear Obama's response.


TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION 136,300
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

[Snowball]

Excellent piece by Justin Raimondo today about this and other problems with Rand "Paul".
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

[Chieppa1]

Excellent piece by Justin Raimondo today about this and other problems with Rand "Paul".
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

Was just going to post this. Comes a time when I personally have to stand on principle. I became what I am today politically because of Ron Paul's debate speech versus Rudy. My confusion and coming of age after 9/11 is what drew me to understand libertarian views. Rand's play here and complete political fear to stand up to the Neocons (which continue to attack him anyway) is too much for me. Ron's complete disrespect for those empire loving sociopaths sparked me to give a shit.

Rand gives me none of that. He can say all the right things domestically. But continuing to drag the US down the path to another 9/11 type attack, and playing games with human lives to please some geo-political wet dream is the OPPOSITE of anti-statism. I can't support it.

[Brett85]

Was just going to post this. Comes a time when I personally have to stand on principle. I became what I am today politically because of Ron Paul's debate speech versus Rudy. My confusion and coming of age after 9/11 is what drew me to understand libertarian views. Rand's play here and complete political fear to stand up to the Neocons (which continue to attack him anyway) is too much for me. Ron's complete disrespect for those empire loving sociopaths sparked me to give a shit.

Rand gives me none of that. He can say all the right things domestically. But continuing to drag the US down the path to another 9/11 type attack, and playing games with human lives to please some geo-political wet dream is the OPPOSITE of anti-statism. I can't support it.

Keep in mind that Rand is the only candidate in the race who hasn't asked John Bolton for foreign policy advice. That's something to consider.

[enhanced_deficit]

This may be another smart move by Republicans. They are weakenening dDG team, Dems and Israel lobby at the same time. What is wrong with that? It is good for non-interventionism.


Brilliant move by Boehner to invite Netanyahu; Jewish lobby behind Dems is getting fractured (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470200-Brilliant-move-by-Boehner-to-invite-Netanyahu-Jewish-lobby-behind-Dems-is-getting-fractured&)


Soldier who stood with Michelle Obama at SOTU speech now serving in Israeli military (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?468482-Soldier-who-stood-with-Michelle-Obama-at-SOTU-speech-now-serving-in-Israeli-military&)


With zionists in charge of White House, Palestinian homes demolition palooza on going (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467939-With-zionists-in-charge-of-White-House-Palestinian-homes-demolition-palooza-on-going&)

SWC administration votes against Freedom for Palestinians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465688-SWC-administration-votes-against-Freedom-for-Palestinians&)


US blasts ICC war crimes probe of Israel as 'tragic irony' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467031-US-blasts-ICC-war-crimes-probe-of-Israel-as-tragic-irony&)


As David Cohen becomes CIA’s No. 2, Jews appear to have smoother path at security agencies (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469178-As-David-Cohen-becomes-CIA%E2%80%99s-No-2-Jews-appear-to-have-smoother-path-at-security-agencies&)


CAUTION GRAPHIC-Obama WH: Attack on the Israeli soldiers "barbaric"; Israeli soldier captured (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456901-CAUTION-GRAPHIC-Obama-WH-Attack-on-the-Israeli-soldiers-quot-barbaric-quot-Israeli-soldier-captured&)


Wired: Two Israeli companies helping Obama admn's bugging of Americans (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417129-Wired-Two-Israeli-companies-helping-Obama-admn-s-bugging-of-Americans&)

James Woods on Obama: He’s the ‘gift from hell’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/james-woods-obama-hes-gift-hell/#ixzz2fkNuLAHx)
The Washington Times Thursday, September 12, 2013
The latest came this week, in response to a report from British press that revealed the National Security Agency commonly provides Israel with intelligence data — without first stripping out private and personal information on American citizens. The Guardian in London reported the item, the latest in its coverage of document leaks from Edward Snowden.

Why Israeli settlements expansion surges when a democrat is in the White House? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464888-Why-Israeli-settlements-expansion-surges-when-a-democrat-is-in-the-White-House&)


SWCnomics: US debt nearly doubled under Obama, going up $2.38 Billion per day (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460166-SWCnomics-US-debt-nearly-doubled-under-Obama-going-up-2-38-Billion-per-day/page2&)


(http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/israelaid021412)Obama Requests Largest Amount of Military Aid to Israel Ever (http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/israelaid021412)
NJDC — February 14, 2012


U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Feb 2015 at 08:48:47 PM GMT is:



http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif



The estimated population of the United States is 320,058,595
so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,694.22.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/




http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/AP_obama_aipac_address3.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=wlTXP7nraPPFcM&tbnid=M0zZ7gr7CGXpPM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthdig.com%2Freport%2Fitem% 2F20080608_the_iran_trap%2F&ei=xZlAUuPKHOT84AOy1oCICg&bvm=bv.52434380,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNEbL3ToWTMwwMyA_csfi3KgPp0FLA&ust=1380051491540450)http://weeklyworldnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama_passover_seder.jpg?w=375&h=200 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=F0Q3t_h4fr-nNM&tbnid=Rx_VGVa5egu_tM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweeklyworldnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F 7454%2Fobamas-passover-seder-dinner%2F&ei=no5AUp_iGef_2wWlqYCgDg&bvm=bv.52434380,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNGuH5E6Xc953x6e7FjgJgFPa-e_Aw&ust=1380048807783872)

[Chieppa1]

Keep in mind that Rand is the only candidate in the race who hasn't asked John Bolton for foreign policy advice. That's something to consider.

True. But if a host on FOX News says "Senator Paul, you are the only candidate who has not met with John Bolton for foreign policy advice. Many view him as an important expert on Middle East policy. What is your opinion on Mr. Bolton and his views?"

What will Rand say? Because what any sane human being should say is that John Bolton's view of the world is not rooted in the reality of the situation. Doesn't Rand like to call his policy "rational libertarianism" or something?

Or will he throw John Bolton a compliment and meet with him a week later for fear of upsetting some clueless 'Merica-loving voters in western Pennsylvania?

[Brett85]

True. But if a host on FOX News says "Senator Paul, you are the only candidate who has not met with John Bolton for foreign policy advice. Many view him as an important expert on Middle East policy. What is your opinion on Mr. Bolton and his views?"

What will Rand say? Because what any sane human being should say is that John Bolton's view of the world is not rooted in the reality of the situation. Doesn't Rand like to call his policy "rational libertarianism" or something?

He could say something like, "I like John Bolton's willingness to be tough with the United Nations and his willingness to stand up for American sovereignty." Because even though we strongly disagree with him and others like him on foreign intervention, there's actually some common ground on issues like the United Nations and U.S sovereignty.

[Chieppa1]

He could say something like, "I like John Bolton's willingness to be tough with the United Nations and his willingness to stand up for American sovereignty." Because even though we strongly disagree with him and others like him on foreign intervention, there's actually some common ground on issues like the United Nations and U.S sovereignty.

Just curious. What was Bolton's stance on the Libyan war?

[AuH20]

Who would Rand Paul pick as his State Department head? Any ideas?

[Brett85]

Just curious. What was Bolton's stance on the Libyan war?

He supported it. I can't really think of any war that he's opposed, except for military action against Assad, but only because he thought that Obama wouldn't go all out in bombing Assad, and that no response is better than a weak response.

[Chieppa1]

Who would Rand Paul pick as his State Department head? Any ideas?

Dennis Kucinich. Kidding. Seriously I have no idea. I hate politics at this point. Just nominate Hulk Hogan and the American population (and Jack Hunter) will give you the highest approval rating ever.

[Chieppa1]

He supported it. I can't really think of any war that he's opposed, except for military action against Assad, but only because he thought that Obama wouldn't go all out in bombing Assad, and that no response is better than a weak response.

Well that war was approved by the United Nations not the Congress. So Bolton is for American sovereignty unless outside influence is asking us to go to war for them. Then, he's all in.

[Brett85]

Rand talks about this at about the 2: 20 mark of this video. The interview was on the Today Show.

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRandPaul

[Brett85]

Well that war was approved by the United Nations not the Congress. So Bolton is for American sovereignty unless outside influence is asking us to go to war for them. Then, he's all in.

True.

[Chieppa1]

True.

I'm just over the election already. I'll do my part to get Rand elected because just his executive order power is enough for me to be happy if he wins. But I can't run around going to sold out shows at Webster Hall to hear him speak the truth like his father.

[r3volution 3.0]

It wasn't symbolic. It had tangible results. It wasn't happenstance that Tom Cotton did an M.I.C. gig afterward. The money will not flow from this avenue to Rand. It won't gain him "brownie points."

Moderating on foreign policy (or anything else) is not about gaining brownie points with the establishment (it's not as if Rand thinks Haliburton is going to help fund his campaign now :rolleyes:). Those guys are not going to be fooled. It's about influencing news coverage. Now, you might think: but surely the media magnates are not going to be fooled either, so where's the pay-off? Well, the media cannot fabricate facts so easily (i.e. without discrediting themselves), and without certain facts they cannot spin certain narratives. The idea is to deny them the facts required to spin certain hostile narratives. In other words, the idea is not so much to get positive coverage but to take a dagger out of their hands (this has worked remarkably well when you compare the media's coverage of Rand's foreign policy versus Ron's). And, of course, the ultimate purpose of any act of compromise/moderation is to influence public opinion - specifically, to soften up that "Aw, well, I really like Ron Paul....except he's crazy on foreign policy."


It will flow to the neocons. That's "aiding and abetting" in my book.

MIC's gonna MIC, regardless of what Rand does.

Rand signing the letter didn't cause them to have more money nor change the way they dole it out.


Winning is everything. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

More like: winning is a necessary prerequisite to anything.

By way of analogy; is keeping your heart beating all there is to life?

No, of course not, but it's a necessary prerequisite to achieving anything else.

[AuH20]

MIC's gonna MIC, regardless of what Rand does.




Correct. It don't matter. This is so beyond the common man's comprehension.


".... Agent Tanner interrupted. “Conspiracy? Come on Don. Are you saying, Conspiracy at the highest levels? You fellow that line or track and you’ll be seeing a team of doctors all dressed in little white coats, crowded in a little padded room, asking you funny questions. Perhaps you can get a room next to this Pearson character you’ve been telling me about."

Agent Kendrick looked Tanner ‘square on’ and stated flatly. “Don. It’s gun running financed by drug running, covert government ops, off the books.” He threw his hands in the air." "High-impact, high quality military weapons from our stock pile. US weapons going across international borders to hot spots scattered throughout the world. The Middle East, Central America, and Mexico are the hottest spots at the moment. As an example, US weapons account for over two thirds of the weapons found at crime scenes in Mexico—that’s just one example. I believe it’s an ongoing operation patterned much like the old Iran-Contra program of the eighties and the CIA-Cuban projects of the fifties and sixties. These US weapons are showing up in the middle east in record numbers, on both sides of the conflict.

"Some of that profit, as we know today, was being kicked back into political contributions and organized crime figures here in the United States and other countries. It was an international operation for profit and to finance and push minor conflicts into major wars. It’s been ongoing for many years in one form or another. They use people like Will as Shields, castaways. That’s what I believe. And that’s what that file, that Pearson file there indicates. This guy Pearson, Will, has been programed somewhere to forget various past operations and other events of his youth. But now with his advancing age the programing appears to be warring off. His dreams are based on real memories. He’s starting to remember things he should have forgotten. His memories are becoming to detailed to be fabrications.

"To me it looks like some in high places are getting nervous about what this guy might have storied inside, and they are about to launch counter measures."
It’s those highly classified secrets, embedded within those national security files that’s the key. It’s their methods and procedures and the fear of being compromised and what it would lead into, that they are so worried about? Those secrets are the keys to determine if this Pearson character and the events he describes to Doctor Yancey are real or just the imaginations and ramblings of an old, perhaps senile, old man.

If that report and the details embedded within that file are true, then it appears we, the United States government and our foreign policy, play a major roll in instigating the conflicts, which start the wars. It appears we manipulate and escalate that conflict. We supply weapons to both sides at premium, black market prices. We open the doors to the World Wide Arms race. We coddle the International weapons market. It’s Special Ops ‘black operation’ controlled and ran --off the books --by the National Security Council; the White House and its political appointees. It’s their secret army--their Praetorian Guard.

"If you believe what’s in that file, this Will Pearson, in one form or another, has played in that game for a very long time. I’m sure he’s played in more than one sand box, “Perhaps today, some in high places, gathered around that sacred flagpole in DC are still playing the weapons game--still playing both ends against the middle. Perhaps that’s why we can’t get out of Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Middle East. Perhaps that’s why we are constantly bogged down in international ‘brush wars’. Wars that go nowhere except into political rhetoric. It’s little wars in Central America, like Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and the flashing hot spots of the Middle East, and the Drug War just to name a few. They drain our resources” That Pearson file is the tip of the iceberg. It’s a hard peek into another world; a secret world that few are allowed to see or even allowed to know of its existence. I’m sure there are hundreds of other ‘Pearson files’ locked away out there somewhere; files we at the Bureau will never be allowed to see, let alone John Q citizen." taken from the book Deep Cover Shallow Graves by Robert Plumlee, former CIA asset and pilot

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI7zVFIEwC8

[paleocon1]

Considering that every single Act of Usurper-in-Chief barry is in fact illegal and illegitimate I believe it to be a Good Thing when he is thwarted for any reason.

[ChiefJustice]

Ron Paul was an icon and a hero to me for standing up against the establishment. He accepted being chastised in order to speak the truth and NEVER pander, even if it meant he couldn't win over his party.

Rand Paul has slowly betrayed the Liberty movement. Sure there are other issues but foreign policy is a HUGE issue that affects us economically as well. People keep saying, "it was technically right". But in truth it was a condescending, detrimental letter written by a pack of lying neocons who want us at war or militarily intervening in the Middle East. Hell I came out of it having more respect for Jeff Flake's decision to not sign it.

He may try to win brownie points with the establishment that libertarians want gone, but he has lost many people who would have supported him fully instead of a bunch of GOP hacks who, in the end, don't give a shit about him.

If Rand Paul has to cozy up so much with the Republican establishment, who is to say he won't do their bidding if he ever did become President?

Rand is not a true leader of the Liberty Movement and that has been clear for a while. He has betrayed us, and to think I was all about voting for him just a few years ago. I bet he never wins the nomination and he'll blend in with the establishment, having compromised his supposed libertarian-esque beliefs. And for what?!

[Slave Mentality]

Ron Paul was an icon and a hero to me for standing up against the establishment. He accepted being chastised in order to speak the truth and NEVER pander, even if it meant he couldn't win over his party.

Rand Paul has slowly betrayed the Liberty movement. Sure there are other issues but foreign policy is a HUGE issue that affects us economically as well. People keep saying, "it was technically right". But in truth it was a condescending, detrimental letter written by a pack of lying neocons who want us at war or militarily intervening in the Middle East.

He may try to win brownie points with the establishment that libertarians want gone, but he has lost many people who would have supported him fully instead of a bunch of GOP hacks who, in the end, don't give a shit about him.

If Rand Paul has to cozy up so much with the Republican establishment, who is to say he won't do their bidding if he ever did become President?

Rand is not a true leader of the Liberty Movement and that has been clear for a while. He has betrayed us, and to think I was all about voting for him just a few years ago. I bet he never wins the nomination and he'll blend in with the establishment, having compromised his supposed libertarian-esque beliefs. And for what?!

I fear we may never see another Ron Paul in our lifetimes. It is very unfortunate, but I feel the same as you about his boy. This dying idea of personal liberty is a long game and it looks like Rand is in it for the short gains so far.

[dannno]

If Rand Paul has to cozy up so much with the Republican establishment, who is to say he won't do their bidding if he ever did become President?

That sounds like an opinion, mine is different.




Rand is not a true leader of the Liberty Movement and that has been clear for a while. He has betrayed us, and to think I was all about voting for him just a few years ago. I bet he never wins the nomination and he'll blend in with the establishment, having compromised his supposed libertarian-esque beliefs. And for what?!

He isn't the leader of the liberty movement, he is a member of the liberty movement working toward liberty. He has the best chance of anybody to affect real change. So that means he is probably the most successful member of the liberty movement at the moment. That doesn't make him a leader or a standard bearer like his father. There are plenty of people in the liberty movement who see how this is all playing out and that is why many of us continue to support him.

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul was an icon and a hero to me for standing up against the establishment.

Please quote me one thing from the letter in question that Ron Paul would disagree with.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul could go back home and make a comfortable living as an ophthalmologist, but he decided to be a senator and give it the Ole college try.

[JK/SEA]

''…and here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States, I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to.”

---Sen. Lindsey Graham

[cajuncocoa]

Ron Paul was an icon and a hero to me for standing up against the establishment. He accepted being chastised in order to speak the truth and NEVER pander, even if it meant he couldn't win over his party.

Rand Paul has slowly betrayed the Liberty movement. Sure there are other issues but foreign policy is a HUGE issue that affects us economically as well. People keep saying, "it was technically right". But in truth it was a condescending, detrimental letter written by a pack of lying neocons who want us at war or militarily intervening in the Middle East. Hell I came out of it having more respect for Jeff Flake's decision to not sign it.

He may try to win brownie points with the establishment that libertarians want gone, but he has lost many people who would have supported him fully instead of a bunch of GOP hacks who, in the end, don't give a shit about him.

If Rand Paul has to cozy up so much with the Republican establishment, who is to say he won't do their bidding if he ever did become President?

Rand is not a true leader of the Liberty Movement and that has been clear for a while. He has betrayed us, and to think I was all about voting for him just a few years ago. I bet he never wins the nomination and he'll blend in with the establishment, having compromised his supposed libertarian-esque beliefs. And for what?!
Apparently there were some crystal balls on sale somewhere and I missed out on the deal. But those who were lucky enough to have scored one know that everything will return to normal once Rand is elected. This pandering business is only something he loathes to do while trying to secure the nomination. Once he has it in hand, he will turn back into Liberty Champion Rand....just watch and see, it will all work out in the end! At least that's what I heard. I didn't get a crystal ball of my own.

[paleocon1]

Any action which mocks, belittles, undercuts Obama is Good for America.

[ChiefJustice]

Apparently there were some crystal balls on sale somewhere and I missed out on the deal. But those who were lucky enough to have scored one know that everything will return to normal once Rand is elected. This pandering business is only something he loathes to do while trying to secure the nomination. Once he has it in hand, he will turn back into Liberty Champion Rand....just watch and see, it will all work out in the end! At least that's what I heard. I didn't get a crystal ball of my own.
Fine takeaway the opinions. I can't predict the future.

The reason I give flak to Rand Paul is that this was a bill pushed forward by neocons whose obvious goal is torpedo the negotiations. Rand knows this. It goes directly against the notion that he supports the talks. Rand can certainly make a case for congressional approval and present it to the public in an honest way

Instead Rand signed this letter to a foreign leader and supposed arch enemy, basically thrashing half of America's political spectrum and displaying how divided we are. It also had a clear aim that it wanted to undermine ongoing negotiations which is disgraceful. Why did he need to sign this stupid and unnecessary neocon endorsed letter instead of just presenting his case to the public. I saw a couple Senators had the balls to say no to signing the letter. Particularly Jeff Flake. It showed that Rand didn't have the guts to do the right thing.

This argument that he voted for it because it was technically correct isn't equivalent to Ron Paul's reasons for voting to impeach Clinton (ie. unapproved military intervention).

I don't understand how people can defend Rand on this one.

[UWDude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI7zVFIEwC8

well, the video makes me feel a bit better. thanks. :/

[rpfocus]

He may try to win brownie points with the establishment that libertarians want gone, but he has lost many people who would have supported him fully instead of a bunch of GOP hacks who, in the end, don't give a shit about him.

He'll have to learn the hard way. When it comes down to Rand and Jeb and Rand gets the slap in the face while Jeb gets the nomination, then the light will come on.
The MIC/Chickenhawks/CockBrothers/WallSt have already decided who will get the nomination. Rand may brown nose, but a Bush is a no brainer for them. It seems as if Rand learned absolutely nothing even after seeing the dirty tricks they pulled on Ron.

"The Ayes Have It!"

[Cabal]

If Rand Paul has to cozy up so much with the Republican establishment, who is to say he won't do their bidding if he ever did become President?


For the sake of argument, let's pretend you are all as psychic and all-knowing as you imagine yourselves to be regarding Rand's "true" self, since apparently we can't take his word as a representation of that. If Rand has to lie his way to the WH, how does this qualify as a victory for liberty? Great, he's in the WH, now what? What do you imagine will happen next? He'll suddenly flip script and undergo a transformation that hasn't been seen since Clark Kent walked through a revolving door?

If he wins this way, he will have won by appealing to the established thought, not by appealing to the philosophy of liberty, and thus he will be expected to toe the line. So why isn't that exactly what he'll do? You think if he drastically changes rhetoric they'll support him? That he'll be able to get anything done? He'll be stuck playing political gridlock for however many terms he's able to squeeze out, and in the meantime what will actually change. Probably not much, if anything. Why? Because nothing has actually changed. Winning elections doesn't change thought unless you won the election by changing thought. Ron tried to change thought; and he did, but it wasn't enough--it was just the wind up. Rand's not picking up where Ron left off though. He's not trying to change thought, he's seemingly just trying to win a popularity contest by conforming to established thought. And if he wins by conforming to established thought, he'll continue to be beholden to that established thought.

So, even if you're right about Rand just 'playing the game' and being such a 'masterful strategist' the victory will be entirely hollow, because the people haven't been enlightened, they've just been conned. And after all is said and done, it'll be business as usual, one way or another.

Cancer doesn't cure itself.

[Natural Citizen]

The White House Petition has reached 136,300, I'm curious to hear Obama's response.


https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9

The letter wasn't the violation. It was Boehner's invitation to the foreign leader that was clearly a violation of the Logan Act. A couple of other no nos in there as well but the Logan Act violation is the major one. Well...for the moment. Heh...

[cindy25]

maybe Rand (and the others) have accepted Jeb as the nominee, and are auditioning for VP? not a totally bad idea, as that is how the progressives got Teddy into the White House.

still, if a 3rd party can work in France, and UK, and Canada it could work in the USA

[ClydeCoulter]

Rand is getting hit hard in comments on FB on a post about his interview with Glenn Beck on the letter to Iran from the Senators.

The following is one of the comments:


We should extend a heartfelt "Thank You" to the conservative Republicans. This is an early Christmas gift to the President; both domestically and internationally. If ever there were a catalyst for our allies and others to stick it to American hardliners, this letter ignited it. The President will secure a nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran despite Republican attempts at interference----perhaps specifically because of such interference. The Iranian foreign minister handed Republicans their asses in his response. Iran will work that much harder to achieve an agreement just to shove it in the face of both American hardliners and those in Israel. Iran will help reach a deal----any deal it can sell to the Ayatollahs---and later hold America's feet to the fire in the post-Obama era. If we back out on our word, Iran will publicly accuse us of being "liars," and enablers of the State of Israel. This "open letter" from the Republicans will be used as proof of America's subservience to Israeli interests, and make any attempt at avoiding the deal we reach with the P5+1 appear to be the "Benedict Arnold" moment of international nuclear proliferation diplomacy. As always, President Obama is three steps ahead of the Republicans.

President Obama will continue to do what he's always done in the face of Republican obstruction and sabotage: win. The ACA, executive action on immigration, protection of equality in the right to marry and the protection of LGBT citizens in the workplace and public sector, expansion of access to college education, and on and on. We are watching the beginning of The Boomerang Effect on the GOP. They have, at long last, taken that one step too far.

And another:


Keep saying you have "No Regrets " and later don't try to back track your words like you always do Rand Paul because I won't have "No Regrets " when you're reminded and watch you try to lie your way out of it.

[ClydeCoulter]

The letter wasn't the violation. It was Boehner's invitation to the foreign leader that was clearly a violation of the Logan Act. A couple of other no nos in there as well but the Logan Act violation is the major one. Well...for the moment. Heh...

Some are arguing it otherwise:


It's called the Logan Act, and it says, essentially, that a U.S. citizen can be fined or tossed in jail for trying to influence a foreign government's policy toward the U.S. in a way that would "defeat the measure of the United States."

So, could the 47 Republican senators who signed the letter to Iran, essentially trying to undermine President Obama's discussions with that country, be charged with a crime?


http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2015/03/10/senators-letter-iran-president-obama-president-bush-iraq-maliki-logan-act/24710959

[enhanced_deficit]

This may be another smart move by Republicans. They are weakenening dDG team, Dems and Israel lobby at the same time. What is wrong with that? It is good for non-interventionism.


Brilliant move by Boehner to invite Netanyahu; Jewish lobby behind Dems is getting fractured (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470200-Brilliant-move-by-Boehner-to-invite-Netanyahu-Jewish-lobby-behind-Dems-is-getting-fractured&)


Soldier who stood with Michelle Obama at SOTU speech now serving in Israeli military (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?468482-Soldier-who-stood-with-Michelle-Obama-at-SOTU-speech-now-serving-in-Israeli-military&)


With zionists in charge of White House, Palestinian homes demolition palooza on going (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467939-With-zionists-in-charge-of-White-House-Palestinian-homes-demolition-palooza-on-going&)

SWC administration votes against Freedom for Palestinians (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?465688-SWC-administration-votes-against-Freedom-for-Palestinians&)


US blasts ICC war crimes probe of Israel as 'tragic irony' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467031-US-blasts-ICC-war-crimes-probe-of-Israel-as-tragic-irony&)


As David Cohen becomes CIA’s No. 2, Jews appear to have smoother path at security agencies (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469178-As-David-Cohen-becomes-CIA%E2%80%99s-No-2-Jews-appear-to-have-smoother-path-at-security-agencies&)


CAUTION GRAPHIC-Obama WH: Attack on the Israeli soldiers "barbaric"; Israeli soldier captured (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?456901-CAUTION-GRAPHIC-Obama-WH-Attack-on-the-Israeli-soldiers-quot-barbaric-quot-Israeli-soldier-captured&)


Wired: Two Israeli companies helping Obama admn's bugging of Americans (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417129-Wired-Two-Israeli-companies-helping-Obama-admn-s-bugging-of-Americans&)

James Woods on Obama: He’s the ‘gift from hell’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/james-woods-obama-hes-gift-hell/#ixzz2fkNuLAHx)
The Washington Times Thursday, September 12, 2013
The latest came this week, in response to a report from British press that revealed the National Security Agency commonly provides Israel with intelligence data — without first stripping out private and personal information on American citizens. The Guardian in London reported the item, the latest in its coverage of document leaks from Edward Snowden.

Why Israeli settlements expansion surges when a democrat is in the White House? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464888-Why-Israeli-settlements-expansion-surges-when-a-democrat-is-in-the-White-House&)


SWCnomics: US debt nearly doubled under Obama, going up $2.38 Billion per day (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460166-SWCnomics-US-debt-nearly-doubled-under-Obama-going-up-2-38-Billion-per-day/page2&)


(http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/israelaid021412)Obama Requests Largest Amount of Military Aid to Israel Ever (http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/israelaid021412)
NJDC — February 14, 2012


U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Feb 2015 at 08:48:47 PM GMT is:



http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif



The estimated population of the United States is 320,058,595
so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,694.22.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/




http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/AP_obama_aipac_address3.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=wlTXP7nraPPFcM&tbnid=M0zZ7gr7CGXpPM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthdig.com%2Freport%2Fitem% 2F20080608_the_iran_trap%2F&ei=xZlAUuPKHOT84AOy1oCICg&bvm=bv.52434380,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNEbL3ToWTMwwMyA_csfi3KgPp0FLA&ust=1380051491540450)http://weeklyworldnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama_passover_seder.jpg?w=375&h=200 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=F0Q3t_h4fr-nNM&tbnid=Rx_VGVa5egu_tM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweeklyworldnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F 7454%2Fobamas-passover-seder-dinner%2F&ei=no5AUp_iGef_2wWlqYCgDg&bvm=bv.52434380,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNGuH5E6Xc953x6e7FjgJgFPa-e_Aw&ust=1380048807783872)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLIJc7YE_jw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLIJc7YE_jw

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Fine takeaway the opinions. I can't predict the future.

The reason I give flak to Rand Paul is that this was a bill pushed forward by neocons.

It's not a bill. Get a grip.

[Weston White]

From what I am gathering, the core issue surrounds whether or not to permit Iran continue possessing nuclear technologies for internal use, such as to provide power, under a "breakout" timeline. Iran Talks Closer on One-Year Nuclear ‘Breakout’ Demand (http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-talks-closer-on-one-year-nuclear-breakout-demand-1425476621).

Also see flashback: G.O.P.’s Foreign Policy Hawks Wary of Paul’s Evolving Views (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/us/politics/gops-foreign-policy-hawks-wary-of-pauls-evolving-views.html).

The Logan Act would not really apply here, they are representatives of the United States writing in their official capacities, and the context appears to pertain to an covert and not a overt contact--not to mention there is no blatant means of negotiating made within their open letter. Still further, the Logan Act is legally desuetude (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/):


§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


The Southern District of New York in Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., 231 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), mentioned in passing that the Act was likely unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the terms "defeat" and "measures," but did not rule on the question.


In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with officials there. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State concluded:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba, was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country.

Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: "I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn..." (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.

Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.


Kevin Kearney, writing in the Emory Law Journal, described Dr. Logan's activities in France:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails. Even so, it seems that Logan's actions were not the primary cause of the Directory's actions; instead, Logan had merely provided convenient timing for the implementation of a decision that had already been made.

Despite the apparent success of Logan's mission, his activities aroused the opposition of the Federalist Party in Congress, who were resentful of the praise showered on Logan by oppositional Democratic-Republican newspapers. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, also of Pennsylvania, responded by suggesting that Congress "act to curb the temerity and impudence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States." The result was the Logan Act, which was pushed through by the Federalist majority with a vote 58–36 in the House, and 18–2 in the Senate.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Has the Senate even provided "Obama" with any such advice to date or is he again acting rogue?

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

[jon_perez]

So what exactly about the letter did you disagree with? I'm thinking his father would agree pretty much everything in the letter.You're "thinking" Ron Paul would agree with the letter, huh?

Why don't we let Dad Paul himself make a statement on that. By his silence alone it means he probably totally disagrees with his unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind son, Rand.

[paleocon1]

Tom Cotton
David Perdue
Joni Ernst
James Inhofe
John Cornyn
Mitch McConnell
Marco Rubio
Roger Wicker
John Hoeven
Richard Shelby
Thom Tillis
Richard Burr
Steve Daines
Jeff Sessions
John Boozman
Cory Gardner
Shelley Moore Capito
Ron Johnson
Mark Kirk
James Lankford
Chuck Grassley
Roy Blunt
John Thune
Mike Enzi
Pat Toomey
Bill Cassidy
John Barrasso
Ted Cruz
Jim Risch
Mike Crapo
Deb Fischer
Ben Sasse
Orrin Hatch
Dean Heller
Pat Roberts
John McCain
Rand Paul
Rob Portman

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/how-not-to-do-diplomacy/

Someone please help me confirm that the dailybanter is not a satirical site

Lindsey Graham
Mike Rounds

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.

[cindy25]

not when it helps Cotton, McCain, Graham. they are far worse than Obama. the letter is overblown, and sadly taking attention away from Hillary's e-mails. its not treason, but damn stupid.

[cajuncocoa]

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.
Team Red would find a way to oppose Obama if he merely said the sky is blue. :rolleyes:

[cindy25]

Team Red would find a way to oppose Obama if he merely said the sky is blue. :rolleyes:

let's see if they vote down the ISIS war resolution.

[juleswin]

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.

Patriots like McCain, Graham and Tom Cotton. Some of the same patriots who said nothing while Obama was spending $600m a month bombing Libya, or said nothing when the US was negotiating secret free trade agreements with multiple countries. But somehow his talking to Iran has somehow brought out the constition support in them? Don't buy it.

This is just their way on making sure the only deal Obama agrees to is a good deal for Israel and a horrible deal for Iran. This is what they want, they want any peace deal to fail so that bombing Iran would still be on the table. I am under no impression that Obama wants peace either but by signing up for this letter, he just shows everyone watching that he Rand Paul is one of them too.

Btw, can someone please get Rand Paul to answer what he means by a "good deal" when it comes to negotiations with Iran cos if its anything close to what Netanyahu said in his speech to congress, then we have a problem.

I also know that signing this maybe him playing the game his father did not play so as to get elected but this means that he has to do a lot more for people that believe in this theory that he is with us. Trying to decriminalize medical marijuana is one step forward but proposing to arm the Kurds and carve out a home land from Iraq and Syria is 2 steps backwards. This just means he has to work doubly hard to re convince me to not just to vote for him but to support his candidacy.

[specsaregood]

You're "thinking" Ron Paul would agree with the letter, huh?

Why don't we let Dad Paul himself make a statement on that. By his silence alone it means he probably totally disagrees with his unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind son, Rand.

And yet you can't even fulfill the simple request I laid out of quoting one thing from the letter that he would disagree with. pfft.

I absolutely think that Ron Paul would agree with nearly every word in that letter. He might think it bad diplomacy to send it right now, he definitely would not agree with the ulterior motives of some of the signatories; but I have no doubt if you asked him to sign that statement as true and factual he would do so. get over it.

[charrob]

You're "thinking" Ron Paul would agree with the letter, huh?

Why don't we let Dad Paul himself make a statement on that. By his silence alone it means he probably totally disagrees with his unprincipled, finger-in-the-wind son, Rand.

Ron said in a speech a long time ago he had no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon; he said something to the affect that: "why shouldn't they? They're surrounded by people who do have nuclear weapons and who have threatened Iran." Personally, I feel the same way; they could never win a war with the Israelis (and they know this) but at least it would somewhat re-balance some of the powers in the middle east -- which would be a good thing.

Although Ron didn't write this (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2015/march/10/sen-cottons-shocking-ignorance/), it's from the 'Ron Paul Institute':


Take the rising star of neoconservatism, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). By now many Americans are familiar with the letter he sent to his Iranian counterparts warning them that the current US president is an unreliable partner for negotiations: any deal reached would simply be overturned by a future president. The politics of this move are not within the portfolio of this Institute, but the Senator's rationale for sending the letter most certainly is.

Today the Senator was asked what Iran must do in order for an acceptable deal to be struck with the United States, and he responded:

“They can simply disarm their nuclear weapons program and allow complete intrusive inspections.”

Where is he getting his information? Neither the entire US Intelligence Community nor even the Mossad believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon or that it has even made a decision to start work on a nuclear weapon.

How can the Iranians disarm something they have never armed? It smacks of the neocon demand that Saddam Hussein give up the WMDs that we now know he never had.

Likewise, as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has allowed its nuclear energy program to be under the eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has never ruled Iran to be in violation of the treaty.

[Christian Liberty]

You just go ahead and hold your nose. Winning means holding your nose. Even if it is the lesser of evils. You are a winner. A man of conviction. One to be applauded.

Yeah. I don't care for this. At the same time, nobody is perfect, not even Ron Paul. I'm willing to give Rand a shot at this point, but I won't say nothing he could ever do would change my mind on that.

[rpfocus]

Thanks for the List of American Patriots in the Senate. Opposing that slimy usurper in the WH is always the Right Thing to do.

But will you still feel the same way when they oppose the Republican "slimy usurper" president? The problem with this sort of idiocy is that it works both ways. If in the unlikely event Rand were to win the nomination over the WallSt/MIC choice and then win the presidency, do you really think he wouldn't face the same level of obstruction? Would you start crying if a Dem controlled Congress openly sent a letter to torpedo any negotiating Rand tried to do as President? Of course you would. This is an incredibly stupid move, a new low, and changes the game for any future elected president. Partisan stupidity has ruined both parties which I believe will lead to a viable 3rd party much sooner than later.

[ChiefJustice]

It's not a bill. Get a grip.
It was just a mistake. I saw it a bit later after I posted but forgot to edit it. Didn't think someone would make it an issue and have it cancel out he rest of my post. Yes I know that a bill is a piece of legislation and a signed, unapproved partisan letter is not.

How about you answer to the rest of it?

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

This argument that he voted for it because

He didn't vote on anything. It's not a bill, it's a statement.


it was technically correct

So you're mad that he stated something that was correct and true? Does the truth always make you so upset? Why?


I don't understand

No argument there.

[jon_perez]

BAH.... it should be obvious to all but the most blinded that the ONLY thing this current crop of Republicans care about is to undermine Obama no matter what. Why do they hate him so much? Maybe because he's black and popular with the youth?

I remember the scare stories about how Obama would bankrupt the country further, and yet in the previous two decades it has been *DEMOCRATS* who have made the government spend less while it is has been Republican presidents which have spent and thrown money, like drunk sailors, to enrich the military-industrial complex.

Under Obama, the deficit has actually gone lower, which is precisely why the Republicans have shut up about this issue and you don't hear a single peep out of them anymore regarding spending. So now they try to turn their focus on 'foreign relations'.

When it came to Syria and drones, Republicans chided Obama for 'violating the constitution' for considering and/or backing hawkish policies.

But ironically enough, in the war against ISIS, Obama gets chided for being a sissy and not assertive (read: hawkish) enough.

Now, Obama wants to forge peace, which counts as progress, and these nutty Reps - including pandering Rand Paul - want to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Rand Paul himself probably doesn't hate Obama much, if at all, but what he clearly wants is to WIN - no matter what. The only thing that figures into Rand Paul's calculations is popularity of a position and most certainly NOT principle.

I never believed in the son, EVER. Rand is nothing but a cynical-to-the-bone politico trying to capitalize on the Paul name as a brand, and it seems to be working for some of the people here. Rand supporters should try to ask him tough questions, the kind that his Dad had no problem giving unpopular answers to, in the name of principle.

When it comes to balanced and well-considered policies, Republicans don't have a leg to stand on anymore, so they have to rely on cheap stunts like this. And if these continue, and assuming that the electorate as a whole possess brains and enlightened self-interest, it is likely that the future will see the Republican party fade to irrelevance, especially as the Democrat platform becomes ever more centrist. And just maybe, a Libertarian-minded Party will be what arises to challenge the Democrats.

[cindy25]

this was still just a meaningless childish letter. the real test will be the ISIS war resolution, which is coming within a month.

[Southron]

this was still just a meaningless childish letter. the real test will be the ISIS war resolution, which is coming within a month.

I agree. Unfortunately, I think it is going to be tough to win the GOP primary if you are seen as weak on ISIS.

[ChiefJustice]

He didn't vote on anything. It's not a bill, it's a statement.



So you're mad that he stated something that was correct and true? Does the truth always make you so upset? Why?



No argument there.
Once again a mistake of wording it. Screw off with that and don't insult my intelligence when you don't have any good answers yourself.

I am upset with Rand for signing it because even if "it is technically correct" the letter stank of a desire to undermine negotiations by neocons. Rand did not NEED to sign it. He gained no points with the liberty movement. He COULD have been smart and refused to sign the letter and separately argued that the Congress has the right to vote on it. Instead he signed this flaming piece of trash of a letter.

Take off the blinders and realize what Rand Paul has done. He is blending more and more into the Republican mainstream which is something the liberty movement stands against. You can cover your ears and say "la la la technically correct" all you want.

[Brian4Liberty]

The letter itself was probably written or edited by Bill Kristol (Cotton's mentor). He likes writing "letters (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm)".

[DFF]

Our nation has a high real unemployment rate. Debt is exploding to unsustainable levels. Since 2007 40% of the nations wealth has been vaporized. Also, there are over two million Americans in prison.

...yet, our politicians are fixated on a third world country thousands of miles away, which poses no threat to the continental United States.

[rpfocus]

...yet, our politicians are fixated on a third world country thousands of miles away, which poses no threat to the continental United States.

3899

Gotta love Ron. He never bent the knee to the chickenhawks no matter how many dirty tricks they pulled on him. Ron Paul 2016.

3900

[jon_perez]

- duplicate -

[jon_perez]

Gotta love Ron. He never bent the knee to the chickenhawks no matter how many dirty tricks they pulled on him. Ron Paul 2016.

There is Paul the Principled and then there is Paul the Panderer. It's surprising how many people on this forum are apologists for the latter. People get the government that they deserve.

[JohnM]

I don't think everyone here should worry so much about this.

America is not going to go to war over Iran. On the contrary, America is going to go to war over Memories Pizza. Nukes could be used. Scary.

[PaleoPaul]

Have any of you even READ the letter? It was nothing more than an 8th grade civics lesson, and it was entirely correct. No deal can be reached unless the Senate approves of it.

I hate neo-con warmongers too, but let's not let our emotions cloud our judgment, shall we? If we're going to have any sort of diplomatic deal with Iran, the Senate MUST approve it by a 2/3 vote.

[cindy25]

There is Paul the Principled and then there is Paul the Panderer. It's surprising how many people on this forum are apologists for the latter. People get the government that they deserve.

but Paul the Panderer could actually get elected. and once elected do what he knows is right. and he does know. you can tell by the expression on his face when Bibi gave his infamous speech. I would suggest he make a one term pledge, so any thoughts of pandering and fund raising can be put to rest.

serve one term, then pass it to Amash in 2020, and then to Massie in 2024.

[enhanced_deficit]

I don't think everyone here should worry so much about this.

America is not going to go to war over Iran....

Correct.. but still some would try hard to get America to go to war over Iran.

U.K. parliament candidate resigns after calling for kidnapping of Obama (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472017-U-K-parliament-candidate-resigns-after-calling-for-kidnapping-of-Obama&)





Related

Poll: Should Iran be held to same standards as Israel on nuclear program? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472045-Should-Iran-be-held-to-same-standards-as-Israel-on-nuclear-program&)

[timosman]

bump