Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Thomas Massie signs letter to Obama against voting on additional Iran sanctions

  1. #1

    Thomas Massie signs letter to Obama against voting on additional Iran sanctions

    February 12, 2014

    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Dear Mr. President,

    As Members of Congress—and as Americans—we are united in our unequivocal commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would threaten the security of the United States and our allies in the region, particularly Israel.

    The ongoing implementation of the Joint Plan of Action agreed to by Iran and the “P5+1” nations last November increases the possibility of a comprehensive and verifiable international agreement. We understand that there is no assurance of success and that, if talks break down or Iran reneges on pledges it made in the interim agreement, Congress may be compelled to act as it has in the past by enacting additional sanctions legislation. At present, however, we believe that Congress must give diplomacy a chance. A bill or resolution that risks fracturing our international coalition or, worse yet, undermining our credibility in future negotiations and jeopardizing hard-won progress toward a verifiable final agreement, must be avoided.

    We remain wary of the Iranian regime. But we believe that robust diplomacy remains our best possible strategic option, and we commend you and your designees for the developments in Geneva. Should negotiations fail or falter, nothing precludes a change in strategy. But we must not imperil the possibility of a diplomatic success before we even have a chance to pursue it.

    Sincerely,
    104 Congressmen signed the letter, including 4 Republicans: Duncan, Hanna, Jones and Massie

    Full list of signees:
    http://price.house.gov/press-release...acy-with-iran/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    104 Congressmen signed the letter, including 4 Republicans: Duncan, Hanna, Jones and Massie

    Full list of signees:
    http://price.house.gov/press-release...acy-with-iran/
    Good for Thomas!

    But no Justin Amash ... I am disappoint ...

    (Does anybody know what's up with that? Did Justin know about this & decline to sign? I hope not ...)
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Good for Thomas!

    But no Justin Amash ... I am disappoint ...

    (Does anybody know what's up with that? Did Justin know about this & decline to sign? I hope not ...)
    ^^^ THIS ^^^
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Good for Thomas!

    But no Justin Amash ... I am disappoint ...

    (Does anybody know what's up with that? Did Justin know about this & decline to sign? I hope not ...)
    It's hard to infer anything from members not signing onto letters. Remember, there are 435 of them and I doubt they personally contact each one. He could have been busy when the letter was circulating or he may not even have been aware of it. There could be a million reasons why he didn't know about the letter.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    It's hard to infer anything from members not signing onto letters. Remember, there are 435 of them and I doubt they personally contact each one. He could have been busy when the letter was circulating or he may not even have been aware of it. There could be a million reasons why he didn't know about the letter.
    I wasn't inferring anything. I am just honestly curious as to why he didn't sign it - and I expressed my hope that it was not ("worst" case) because he had explicitly declined to do so. Beyond specifically indicating that he might not have known about it ("Did Justin know about this ..."), I didn't really think it was necessary to try to list the various other possibilities (he knew & approved but didn't sign off on it in a timely manner, etc.).

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I wasn't inferring anything. I am just honestly curious as to why he didn't sign it - and I expressed my hope that it was not ("worst" case) because he had explicitly declined to do so. Beyond specifically indicating that he might not have known about it ("Did Justin know about this ..."), I didn't really think it was necessary to try to list the various other possibilities (he knew & approved but didn't sign off on it in a timely manner, etc.).
    Perhaps he's shifted his stance to the point that he doesn't want to endorse this language:

    As Members of Congress—and as Americans—we are united in our unequivocal commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would threaten the security of the United States and our allies in the region, particularly Israel.
    The above was essentially the rhetoric he used in questioning Ron Paul's stance on Iran (and voting for a round of sanctions, no less). Perhaps, due to pressure placed on him by members of the liberty movement, he changed his perspective?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    The above was essentially the rhetoric he used in questioning Ron Paul's stance on Iran (and voting for a round of sanctions, no less). Perhaps, due to pressure placed on him by members of the liberty movement, he changed his perspective?
    Yea maybe but it was only four months ago when he said he supported sanctions to prevent Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Yea maybe but it was only four months ago when he said he supported sanctions to prevent Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
    It would be nice to have a non-interventionist in Congress again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    It would be nice to have a non-interventionist in Congress again.
    Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan?
    Read the opening of the statement:

    As Members of Congress—and as Americans—we are united in our unequivocal commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
    That's interventionist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    That's interventionist.
    That could mean diplomacy to some people.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Perhaps he's shifted his stance to the point that he doesn't want to endorse this language:
    Now THAT is an interesting possibility which had not occurred to me. It only increases my curiosity.
    In that case, he would have what I would regard as an excellent reason for declining to sign. (But perhaps it is a bit too much to hope for ...)
    I noticed (and cringed) at the usual arrogant "nukes for us but none for you" stuff - but I just chalked it up to tedious pro forma "boilerplate."

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Perhaps, due to pressure placed on him by members of the liberty movement, he changed his perspective?
    It's happened before ... (just one of the reasons Amash is my favorite Congressman - even including Rand).
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 02-12-2014 at 08:10 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Good for Thomas!

    But no Justin Amash ... I am disappoint ...

    (Does anybody know what's up with that? Did Justin know about this & decline to sign? I hope not ...)
    Personally I wouldn't sign because it presumes that it is still the US's job to prevent Iran from getting a nuke and that Iran is somehow a "security threat." I'm not going to hit Massie on that point because he's better on this issue than pretty much anyone else, but maybe Amash wouldn't sign it for some similar reason to this? I'm not saying that's the case, but its worth checking, I think.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  17. #15
    I hadn't read the thread when I posted, seems the rest of you have similar thoughts to me.

    Yes, Amash >>>>>> Rand Paul any day. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him be Ron Paul's replacement before too long.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I hadn't read the thread when I posted, seems the rest of you have similar thoughts to me.

    Yes, Amash >>>>>> Rand Paul any day. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him be Ron Paul's replacement before too long.
    Replacement at what?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Replacement at what?
    Why, "quixotic gadfly" in the House, of course!

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TaftFan View Post
    Replacement at what?
    Meaning, actually having a pure noninterventionist libertarian... no compromises, no excuses, in the House of Representatives...
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Yea maybe but it was only four months ago when he said he supported sanctions to prevent Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
    Remember that this is during diplomacy. Rand supported sanctions before but opposes them while negotiations are ongoing. Amash likely takes the same stance.

    The reason Amash did not sign this was the primary challenge. Amash does not want Ellis using this against him.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I hadn't read the thread when I posted, seems the rest of you have similar thoughts to me.

    Yes, Amash >>>>>> Rand Paul any day. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him be Ron Paul's replacement before too long.
    Honestly. this kind of a mindset just confuses me. Amash and Rand are so similar that exaggerating their superficial differences to me is just splitting hairs.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by compromise View Post
    Remember that this is during diplomacy. Rand supported sanctions before but opposes them while negotiations are ongoing. Amash likely takes the same stance.

    The reason Amash did not sign this was the primary challenge. Amash does not want Ellis using this against him.
    This. It's just a resolution anyway, and the GOP knows where he stands. Why would he open himself up to attacks? In order for him to continue to fight for liberty in Congress, he must be in Congress. Some people don't seem to get this.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 01:24 PM
  2. Senators introduce another Iran sanctions bill, Cruz signs on
    By tsai3904 in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-08-2014, 11:40 AM
  3. Obama Signs Executive Order to Tighten Sanctions on Iran
    By FrankRep in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-10-2012, 10:23 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 05:45 PM
  5. Flake, Jones join Ron Paul in voting against Iran sanctions
    By Chieftain1776 in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 11:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •