Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades

[jmdrake]

I think Rand should be stronger if we get attacked like...

"We should mind our own business, but if a country or organization attacks us first, we will respond by bombing and killing them, kill their families/friends and destroy their homes and living. Kill all of them."

I believe in a strong response if someone does try to do something or attack USA, but we should be neutral for the majority of the time. I believe if we go to war, we gotta win. War is about killing people until the people don't want to fight anymore. Not $#@!ing nation building and worrying about casualties (which increases the time we are at war).

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

If popular uprisings could be defeated by killing enough civilians than the Soviet Union should have won in Afghanistan. Hint. They didn't. Please watch this documentary and rethink your position.

[acptulsa]

What Ted Cruz said in this piece is nothing extreme. He used Ronald Raygun, and basically said the same rhetoric as Rand in this speech about America leading. So, perhaps now Rand is more like Ted Cruz on foreign policy?

You have time to nitpick Ted Cruz' own claim that his foreign policy opinions are not like Rand Paul's but you have no time to address the points I made above?

Well alrightey then...

[Occam's Banana]

If popular uprisings could be defeated by killing enough civilians than the Soviet Union should have won in Afghanistan.

And the United States should have won in Vietnam. (I guess "we" just didn't kill enough "gooks" ...)

[jjdoyle]

Hmmm...

So, cutting off aid to Israel before (or without) cutting off aid to Israel's enemies (which adds up to a greater amount) is non-interventionalist? Really? Sounds like taking sides to me. Admittedly, the aid to Israel's enemies shouldn't be happening. But to say two things--related things--shouldn't be happening, and we will throw a situation which is in some kind of uneasy balance out of any semblance of balance if we end one of the related things without ending the other one simultaneously, but I will end one whenever I have a chance on principle without regard to that balance, is the kind of 'principle over pragmatism' that makes voters really, really nervous. As they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in both 2008 and 2012.

What's more, Rand Paul has promised that, much as he wants to end all foreign aid, he won't start with Israel. And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

Not non-interventionalist. And if, just for the sake of argument, China was supporting Israel and Russia was supporting several of Israel's enemies, and we made China stop without doing anything about Russia, would that be non-interventionalist as well...?

Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon. Ron Paul knew there is a difference between being the contrarian one-of-435 Congressmen raging against the machine and being president, but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

And you can. You've gotten over worse these last two administrations.

So, the resident Rand haters say that someone who wants to take a moment to find (or build) a safe bridge to the other side of the bottomless chasm obviously doesn't really want to cross the chasm or he'd just jump and make us jump too. Goebbels would be so proud of that propaganda.

They gave him some rope and he didn't hang himself. How horrible.

Rand Paul doesn't have to start with Israel, he has to start with ALL foreign aid. Doesn't matter who it is for.

Rand Paul SHOULD be championing ending GOVERNMENT aid to Israel, because it makes US less safe, and MORE likely to be attacked in the future. Our foreign aid and blind-eye to Israel is ONE of the THREE reasons given for us being attacked on 9/11.

Israel is no ally of the U.S. as far as I can see, except in taking money from us.

I would say Rand should read the 9/11 Commission Report's 28 pages that are classified, to see what they say before pledging and voting for more foreign aid to Israel.

This isn't about hating Rand or hating Israel, this is about minimizing the chances of us being attacked again. If you, as a U.S. citizen, want to donate to Israel's government, charities, or volunteer time over in the country, you should be able to do so. But, my bankrupt government should not be spending one dime doing so.

And if Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, they should be cut off from foreign aid immediately:

[Brett85]

What Ted Cruz said in this piece is nothing extreme. He used Ronald Raygun, and basically said the same rhetoric as Rand in this speech about America leading. So, perhaps now Rand is more like Ted Cruz on foreign policy?

So I guess Cruz is just confused and actually agrees with Rand on foreign policy even though he thinks he disagrees?

[Brett85]

Rand Paul doesn't have to start with Israel, he has to start with ALL foreign aid. Doesn't matter who it is for.

Rand Paul SHOULD be championing ending GOVERNMENT aid to Israel, because it makes US less safe, and MORE likely to be attacked in the future. Our foreign aid and blind-eye to Israel is ONE of the THREE reasons given for us being attacked on 9/11.

Israel is no ally of the U.S. as far as I can see, except in taking money from us.

I would say Rand should read the 9/11 Commission Report's 28 pages that are classified, to see what they say before pledging and voting for more foreign aid to Israel.

This isn't about hating Rand or hating Israel, this is about minimizing the chances of us being attacked again. If you, as a U.S. citizen, want to donate to Israel's government, charities, or volunteer time over in the country, you should be able to do so. But, my bankrupt government should not be spending one dime doing so.

And if Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, they should be cut off from foreign aid immediately:

Why the obsession with Israel? We give foreign aid to a lot more countries than just Israel, but yet your obsession is with the foreign aid that we give to Israel. This is one reason why social conservatives and evangelicals are so skeptical of the liberty movement, because you have a lot of people who appear to take much more of an anti Israel point of view rather than a neutral point of view.

[jjdoyle]

Why the obsession with Israel? We give foreign aid to a lot more countries than just Israel, but yet your obsession is with the foreign aid that we give to Israel. This is one reason why social conservatives and evangelicals are so skeptical of the liberty movement, because you have a lot of people who appear to take much more of an anti Israel point of view rather than a neutral point of view.

Obsession? Ask Rand that, not me. Rand voted for the foreign aid to Israel, not the other countries that I'm aware of.

Social conservatives and evangelicals are skeptical of the liberty movement, because of their ignorance. Not because of some anti Israel claim that you say. I said it in my post above, if YOU want to donate to Israel's government, charities that support efforts in the country, or go and volunteer time in the country, you should be able to do so. But my bankrupt government should not be giving one dime to another country, especially if that country perhaps knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, as the video says.

This has nothing to do with being anti Israel, it has to do with being pro U.S. and doing what makes us safe here in the states.

[kcchiefs6465]

Hmmm...

So, cutting off aid to Israel before (or without) cutting off aid to Israel's enemies (which adds up to a greater amount) is non-interventionalist?

Cutting off aid to everyone would be considered a non-interventionist position. People tell me all the time, ignore the rhetoric, ignore the rhetoric.... well, I suppose I'll somewhat oblige. His rhetoric is wishy washy stating that he favors eliminating foreign aid from every country. Then he turns and votes for more of it. Repeatedly.

Just playing the game, you'll insult the man with.

Really? Sounds like taking sides to me.

What are you talking about, "taking sides?" Where did I say I wasn't taking sides? What does that have to do with anything?

You are referring to me taking the side of the Arab world over Israel, yes? Implying that I support that "aid" (the aid to Arab countries)? Tsk. Tsk.

Admittedly, the aid to Israel's enemies shouldn't be happening.

Yes, not on any grounds that they are enemies of Israel though. I couldn't find myself giving a single $#@! if they went The Wall annually, they shouldn't receive [stolen] money regardless. Israel's diplomatic stance with nations ought hold no bearing on anything. Why does it, and why do you pay lip service to it (even going so far as to accuse me in a seemingly negative (and totally irrelevant) way of "taking sides")?

But to say two things--related things--shouldn't be happening, and we will throw a situation which is in some kind of uneasy balance out of any semblance of balance if we end one of the related things without ending the other one simultaneously, but I will end one whenever I have a chance on principle without regard to that balance, is the kind of 'principle over pragmatism' that makes voters really, really nervous.

I believe you may have forgotten a portion of this sentence. I don't quite know what to make of it.

I would end foreign aid whenever possible as well. And to top it off, I wouldn't vote for any additional foreign aid. What a radical concept.

As they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in both 2008 and 2012.

The people listen to the media.

What's more, Rand Paul has promised that, much as he wants to end all foreign aid, he won't start with Israel.

He wouldn't have started with Israel (and that's not quite what he said. He said that the enemies of America ought have their foreign aid ended first while acknowledging that all foreign aid should be ended). There is a difference (and one that if you wish to even presume to defend Rand Paul's position, you'd be wise to note).

For instance, Egypt (number one), Pakistan (number two), Libya (number three)........ Israel (number four)? But that's not what he's talking about and that's not what he said.

All I have to do is look at what he said, look at how he votes, and then become made out to be the bad guy by my saying that they are by and large in line. It isn't plain rhetoric. He says what he means and he votes accordingly. I disagree with some of what he says (in particular positions that prove in point that he is not a non-interventionist, as I held out hope that he would be). He will rely on a team of foreign policy advisers, all of whom probably should be in a prison cell (what's his AG going to start impeachment proceedings against countless heads of these ran amok agencies?). He would continue much of the intervention. The troops would not be coming home in large scale, the war games would not cease, the bombing campaigns for this or that would not end. Sure, he'd require Congressional authorization, which I suppose is some sort of improvement, but regardless Congress would oblige, the people dumbed down by various media circuses and the show would go on.

I'm sorry to rain on parades... or be the bad guy... but it is what it is. His foreign policy is flawed. Perhaps over the years you may have realized that foreign policy is a big issue to me? I find it outrageous that people listen to that speech and gain hope. I could barely make it through reading it let alone actually endorsing it or sending it to someone who isn't a Reaganite. That's the target crowd, I understand. Regardless, Rand Paul means what he says when he says it.

And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

What an unfunny joke.

Not non-interventionalist. And if, just for the sake of argument, China was supporting Israel and Russia was supporting several of Israel's enemies, and we made China stop without doing anything about Russia, would that be non-interventionalist as well...?

You keep using that 'word' and I truly think you do not know what it means.

This is just beyond me.

You are asking that if 'we' forced the Chinese to not give aid to Israel without forcing Russia to not give aid to Israel's enemies.... if that would be a non-interventionist position?

What the hell do I care who gives aid to Israel for so long as I'm not? And furthermore, what the hell do I care who gives aid to Israel's enemies so long as I'm not?

Come on, man. This is just ridiculous.

Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon. Ron Paul knew there is a difference between being the contrarian one-of-435 Congressmen raging against the machine and being president, but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

You are so delusional it is not even funny. Trying times; I understand.

Rand Paul will veto every piece of unconstitutional legislation that comes to his office? Give me a break. There's always reelection and regardless they'd impeach his ass before sundown. Not to mention a few might become annoyed with him for such a move.

And you can. You've gotten over worse these last two administrations.

Yawn.

So, the resident Rand haters say that someone who wants to take a moment to find (or build) a safe bridge to the other side of the bottomless chasm obviously doesn't really want to cross the chasm or he'd just jump and make us jump too.

Resident Rand haters, huh? Have you read his books? I have probably some hundred hours of Rand Paul speeches on this computer. Not that I've watched them all, though... though I've probably watched more than a hundred hours of Rand Paul speaking.

Goebbels would be so proud of that propaganda.

$#@! you. You're a punk for that comment.

They gave him some rope and he didn't hang himself. How horrible.

And the propagandists who control the media will be taken as fools once Rand Paul is in control (somewhat of the White House, that is).

[Crashland]

Rand's foreign policy is moderate. He's not going to satisfy the most purist non-interventionists like his father did. Stop expecting him to.

[kcchiefs6465]

Rand's foreign policy is moderate. He's not going to satisfy the most purist non-interventionists like his father did. Stop expecting him to.

Is this directed at me?

If it is, I don't consider myself a "purist" though I can't say I'd much compromise on certain issues (I take morality to a certain point and live within that code).

More importantly, I do not expect him to. I know how he'll vote. I know what he says. I am not surprised that this address sounded as it did. The people that are annoying me are those who claim that he is a non-interventionist, or more specifically those that claim he does not mean what he says.

It's like Dennis Kucinich for me. I respect the man personally even though I don't agree with a very important portion of his views. I respect Rand Paul personally even though I don't agree with a very important portion of his views.

But let these people not come out and claim that their stated views are different than their stated views or try to concoct fantasies that their stated views will drastically and immediately change at some point in time. Sure, Rand Paul may come around on foreign policy at a later point. Dennis Kucinich might come around on economic issues.

Don't insult my intelligence and their character by stating that things are what they are not or implying, especially in Rand Paul's case, that he is dishonest or simply a showman. He's written books, given speeches, written essays, given interviews, and voted and they are all by and large in line from best I can see.

[Brett85]

I said it in my post above, if YOU want to donate to Israel's government, charities that support efforts in the country, or go and volunteer time in the country, you should be able to do so. But my bankrupt government should not be giving one dime to another country, especially if that country perhaps knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, as the video says.

I support ending all foreign aid, but like Rand, I don't think it makes sense to specifically target Israel for cuts in foreign aid.

[Matt Collins]

He is not a non-interventionist.

Please tell me which votes he has cast in order to intervene militarily abroad?

[kcchiefs6465]

Please tell me which votes he has cast in order to intervene militarily abroad?

How about Senate Amendment 3232?

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting
Heller (R-NV), Not Voting
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Not Voting

But you'll tell me that sanctions abroad are not intervening militarily I'm sure (probably citing international lawyers). A game of semantics, no doubt, when what I am talking about is non-interventionism, but I digress.

Same as you'll tell me that approving aid to a country which is somewhat responsible for a multiple trillion dollar couple of wars (that is to say that Israeli aid incites a certain region to attack this country leading us into a war), has nothing at all to do with militarily intervening abroad, until it does.

Lest I forget Rand Paul's position on the war in Afghanistan.

Rand Paul says he supports limited strikes in Iraq... I'll take his word for it (I have no reason not to). If the text was limiting in its scope and clearly defined, Rand Paul would certainly vote for it.

I now expect to be offered a pragmatic outlook or even a fantasy.

Text of the amendment:

(2) FACILITATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.--Except as provided in this section, the President shall prohibit the opening, and

[Page: S7244] GPO's PDF
prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, conducts or facilitates a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of goods or services described in paragraph (3).
(3) GOODS AND SERVICES DESCRIBED.--Goods or services described in this paragraph are goods or services used in connection with the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran, including the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

(4) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996.--The following provisions of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) shall apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under paragraph (1) to the same extent that such provisions apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under section 5(a) of that Act:

(A) Subsections (c), (d), and (f) of section 5 (except for paragraphs (3) and (4)(C) of such subsection (f)).

(B) Sections 8, 11, and 12.

(e) Humanitarian Exception.--The President may not impose sanctions under this section with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.

(f) Applicability of Sanctions to Petroleum and Petroleum Products.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall apply with respect to the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran only if, at the time of the purchase, a determination of the President under section 1245(d)(4)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(B)) that the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly their purchases from Iran is in effect.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES.--

(A) EXPORTATION.--This section shall not apply with respect to the exportation of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran to a country to which the exception under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) applies at the time of the exportation of the petroleum or petroleum products.

(B) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.--

(i) IN GENERAL.--This section shall not apply with respect to a financial transaction described in clause (ii) conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution if, at the time of the transaction, the exception under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) applies to the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(ii) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED.--A financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution is described in this clause if--

(I) the financial transaction is for the purchase of purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran;

(II) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(aa) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(bb) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(III) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(g) Applicability of Sanctions to Natural Gas.--

(1) SALE, SUPPLY, OR TRANSFER.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall not apply to the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas.

(2) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.--This section shall apply to a foreign financial institution that conducts or facilitates a financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas unless--

(A) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(i) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(ii) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(B) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(h) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under this section for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 1255. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE, SUPPLY, OR TRANSFER OF CERTAIN MATERIALS TO OR FROM IRAN.

(a) Sale, Supply, or Transfer of Certain Materials.--The President shall impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, sells, supplies, or transfers, directly or indirectly, to or from Iran--

(1) a precious metal;

(2) a material described in subsection (c) determined pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to be used by Iran as described in that subsection;

(3) any other material described in subsection (c) if--

(A) the material is--

(i) to be used in connection with the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran or any sector of the economy of Iran controlled directly or indirectly by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(ii) sold, supplied, or transferred to or from an Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury; or

(iii) relevant to the nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs of Iran; or

(B) the material is resold, retransferred, or otherwise supplied--

(i) to an end-user in a sector described in clause (i) of subparagraph (A);

(ii) to a person described in clause (ii) of that subparagraph; or

(iii) for a program described in clause (iii) of that subparagraph.

(b) Facilitation of Certain Transactions.--The President shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, conducts or facilitates a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of materials the sale, supply, or transfer of which would subject a person to sanctions under subsection (a).

(c) Materials Described.--Materials described in this subsection are graphite, raw or semi-finished metals such as aluminum and steel, coal, and software for integrating industrial processes.

(d) Determination With Respect to Use of Materials.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and publish in the Federal Register a report that contains the determination of the President with respect to--

(1) whether Iran is--

(A) using any of the materials described in subsection (c) as a medium for barter, swap, or any other exchange or transaction; or

(B) listing any of such materials as assets of the Government of Iran for purposes of the national balance sheet of Iran;

(2) which sectors of the economy of Iran are controlled directly or indirectly by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps; and

(3) which of the materials described in subsection (c) are relevant to the nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs of Iran.

(e) Exception for Persons Exercising Due Diligence.--The President may not impose sanctions under subsection (a) or (b) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person has exercised due diligence in establishing and enforcing official policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that the person does not sell, supply, or transfer to or from Iran materials the sale, supply, or transfer of which would subject a person to sanctions under subsection (a) or conduct or facilitate a financial transaction for such a sale, supply, or transfer.

(f) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under this section for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(g) National Balance Sheet of Iran Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term ``national balance sheet of Iran'' refers to the ratio of the assets of the Government of Iran to the liabilities of that Government.

SEC. 1256. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISION OF UNDERWRITING SERVICES OR INSURANCE OR REINSURANCE FOR ACTIVITIES OR PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the President shall impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section

[Page: S7245] GPO's PDF
6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, provides underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance--
(1) for any activity with respect to Iran for which sanctions have been imposed under this subtitle, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public Law 106-178; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note), or any other provision of law relating to the imposition of sanctions with respect to Iran;

(2) to or for any person--

(A) with respect to, or for the benefit of any activity in the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran for which sanctions are imposed under this subtitle;

(B) for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of materials described in section 1255(c); or

(C) designated for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) in connection with--

(i) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction; or

(ii) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(3) to or for any Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (other than an Iranian financial institution described in subsection (b)).

(b) Iranian Financial Institutions Described.--An Iranian financial institution described in this subsection is an Iranian financial institution that has not been designated for the imposition of sanctions in connection with--

(1) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction;

(2) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(3) Iran's abuses of human rights.

(c) Humanitarian Exception.--The President may not impose sanctions under subsection (a) for the provision of underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance for a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.

(d) Exception for Underwriters and Insurance Providers Exercising Due Diligence.--The President may not impose sanctions under paragraph (1) or (3) or subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) with respect to a person that provides underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance if the President determines that the person has exercised due diligence in establishing and enforcing official policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that the person does not underwrite or enter into a contract to provide insurance or reinsurance for an activity described in paragraph (1) of that subsection or to or for any person described in paragraph (3) or subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) of that subsection.

(e) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under subsection (a) for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(f) Application of Certain Provisions of Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.--The following provisions of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) shall apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under subsection (a) to the same extent that such provisions apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under section 5(a) of that Act:

(1) Subsections (c), (d), and (f) of section 5 (except for paragraphs (3) and (4)(C) of such subsection (f)).

(2) Sections 8, 11, and 12.

SEC. 1257. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT FACILITATE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF SPECIALLY DESIGNATED NATIONALS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in this section, the President shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines has, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction on behalf of any Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (other than an Iranian financial institution described in subsection (b)).

(b) Iranian Financial Institutions Described.--An Iranian financial institution described in this subsection is an Iranian financial institution that has not been designated for the imposition of sanctions in connection with--

(1) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction;

(2) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(3) Iran's abuses of human rights.

(c) Humanitarian Exception.--The President may not impose sanctions under subsection (a) with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.

(d) Applicability of Sanctions to Petroleum and Petroleum Products.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a financial transaction for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran only if, at the time of the transaction, a determination of the President under section 1245(d)(4)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(B)) that the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly their purchases from Iran is in effect.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a financial transaction described in subparagraph (B) conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution for if, at the time of the transaction, the exception under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) applies to the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(B) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED.--A financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution is described in this subparagraph if--

(i) the financial transaction is for the purchase of purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran;

(ii) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(I) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(II) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(iii) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(e) Applicability of Sanctions to Natural Gas.--Subsection (a) shall apply to a foreign financial institution that conducts or facilitates a financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas unless--

(1) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(A) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(B) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(2) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(f) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under subsection (a) for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 1258. INCLUSION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN BROADCASTING ON THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting has contributed to the infringement of individuals' human rights by broadcasting forced televised confession and show trials.

(2) In March 2012, the European Council imposed sanctions on the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ezzatollah Zargami, for broadcasting forced confessions of detainees and a series of ``show trials'' in August 2009 and December 2011 that constituted a clear violation of international law with respect to the right to a fair trial and due process.

(b) Inclusion of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on the List of Human Rights Abusers.--The President shall include the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ezzatollah Zargami, in the first update to the list of persons complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran or their family members submitted under section 105 o

[Brett85]

...

[kcchiefs6465]

So you're going to criticize Rand for supporting a war that Ron voted for, a war that we got involved in as a result of an attack on our soil? I don't think anyone here really takes you seriously at all.

You are the joke amongst jokesters and you're questioning if anyone takes me seriously?

You fail quite considerably in most every thing you mention. You misinterpret and deliberately misrepresent every position in any 'debate' you have held. You recycle tired cliches as if they are an argument and offer nothing with regards to substance. I mean, quite frankly, Matt Collins could have offered me that and I'd be less offended. International lawyers are better sources than you've ever offered. This is just absurd.

You wouldn't get such a response if I had not already responded to you multiple times with some regard to this matter (and if you didn't purposely misrepresent pretty much every single thing you've responded to of mine, as well as your usual nonsense... I could explain a sentence word for word and beg you not to take this to mean that, and what do you do?).

Ron Paul has apologized for, clarified that vote, and accepted responsibility for it... as awful as it was. Rand Paul has defended that vote, as awful as it was. There is a difference.

[Brett85]

...

[kcchiefs6465]

Again, you are an absolute joke. No one in their right mind is going to argue that we should be completely pacifist after we get attacked and 3,000 of our people get slaughtered, that we don't have the right to self defense. You are trolling Rand's sub forum and need to leave. You're not a supporter of Rand and not someone who is even in his right mind, from what I can see.

And of the thousands of words I've typed to you, and probably dozen or two dozen books I've recommend, have you read any of them? A page of them?

People ask why I am pessimistic. You are case in point.

I don't think you are a shill, I don't think you are malevolent.

Regardless, you wouldn't remember the name of a title if it flew across the room and smacked you in the face.

And thus fails democracy.

You don't have to demand I leave... I don't much care for these parts anymore regardless.

Completely pacifist...? -neg for that.

[Brett85]

And of the thousands of words I've typed to you, and probably dozen or two dozen books I've recommend, have you read any of them? A page of them?

People ask why I am pessimistic. You are case in point.

I don't think you are a shill, I don't think you are malevolent.

Regardless, you wouldn't remember the name of a title if it flew across the room and smacked you in the face.

And thus fails democracy.

You don't have to demand I leave... I don't much care for these parts anymore regardless.

Completely pacifist...? -neg for that.

Oh well. Go Royals.

And Chiefs. We can at least agree on that.

[acptulsa]

Rand Paul doesn't have to start with Israel, he has to start with ALL foreign aid. Doesn't matter who it is for.

Well, you don't want to discuss this in a rational way at all. You just want to stir up the libertarians to abandon Rand Paul or pressure us to pressure him to do something stupid. You bitched at his father for not doing what it takes to win and now you're bitching about the son doing what it takes to win. You've moved from pragmatist to purist just so you can continue bitching uninterrupted.

Here, have your negrep back. With interest.

You are referring to me taking the side of the Arab world over Israel, yes? Implying that I support that "aid" (the aid to Arab countries)? Tsk. Tsk.

No, but I'll say outright that, having not a leg to stand on, you're putting words in my mouth. Build all the straw men you want, but don't hang my name on any of them.

I would end foreign aid whenever possible as well. And to top it off, I wouldn't vote for any additional foreign aid. What a radical concept.

Why, yes, son, it is a radical concept, at least everywhere but here. Are you so dense that you don't see that the Paul one-two punch consisted of Ron Paul introducing a bunch of concepts that worked up until fifty years ago, but have been gone so long people forgot all about them, and Rand Paul not shoving people a more sensible direction but trying to lead them a more sensible direction? You don't need to appeal to people to shove them, but you do to lead them.

This is just beyond me.

Sorry to go over your head.

Not that the psychology of the herd isn't beyond me, too. But though it's hard to understand, it isn't that hard to predict, or to cater to. And I'm glad one of our candidates has enough sense to cater to the voters. Beats losing all the time.

$#@! you. You're a punk for that comment.

Yawn.

[jmdrake]

Saying that there's no difference between Rand and Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson on foreign policy is simply ridiculous. You don't see the neocons criticizing those guys the way they do Rand. The only Republican who is a threat to them is Rand. I already pointed out how Rand's foreign policy is quite a bit different from theirs, but whatever.

Let's see. Ben Carson has spoken out against both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's concerned about what Russia is doing but doesn't seem interested in doing anything beyond sanctions. That's different from Rand Paul's foreign policy how exactly? Note that I don't think Carson is an interventionist either. Rand catches hell from the neocons because of his father. Ted Cruz can get away with saying stuff that McCain et al would excoriate Rand Paul over. For instance Ted Cruz said the problem with Iraq is that we stayed too long. Imagine McCain's reaction if Paul said that.

[jmdrake]

You are the joke amongst jokesters and you're questioning if anyone takes me seriously?

You fail quite considerably in most every thing you mention. You misinterpret and deliberately misrepresent every position in any 'debate' you have held. You recycle tired cliches as if they are an argument and offer nothing with regards to substance. I mean, quite frankly, Matt Collins could have offered me that and I'd be less offended. International lawyers are better sources than you've ever offered. This is just absurd.

You wouldn't get such a response if I had not already responded to you multiple times with some regard to this matter (and if you didn't purposely misrepresent pretty much every single thing you've responded to of mine, as well as your usual nonsense... I could explain a sentence word for word and beg you not to take this to mean that, and what do you do?).

Ron Paul has apologized for, clarified that vote, and accepted responsibility for it... as awful as it was. Rand Paul has defended that vote, as awful as it was. There is a difference.

Ron Paul never apologized for the idea that going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a noble thing to do. Rather he expressed regret that we didn't really go after Al Qaeda and instead started nation building.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

[Peace&Freedom]

Well, you don't want to discuss this in a rational way at all. You just want to stir up the libertarians to abandon Rand Paul or pressure us to pressure him to do something stupid. You bitched at his father for not doing what it takes to win and now you're bitching about the son doing what it takes to win. You've moved from pragmatist to purist just so you can continue bitching uninterrupted.

In partial defense of both people, what jjdoyle's critique is focused on is neither Ron's purity nor Rand's pragmatism, but Paul Inc.'s dishonesty. "Can we trust the same campaign apparatus that has bungled things twice, or was not out to win at all, and cut a secret deal with Romney last time?," is the elephant in the room he keeps pointing to. Truth be told, that is worth complaining about.

No, but I'll say outright that, having not a leg to stand on, you're putting words in my mouth. Build all the straw men you want, but don't hang my name on any of them.

Why, yes, son, it is a radical concept, at least everywhere but here. Are you so dense that you don't see that the Paul one-two punch consisted of Ron Paul introducing a bunch of concepts that worked up until fifty years ago, but have been gone so long people forgot all about them, and Rand Paul not shoving people a more sensible direction but trying to lead them a more sensible direction? You don't need to appeal to people to shove them, but you do to lead them.

We all HOPE Rand is just finessing foreign policy issues to get elected and (on balance) deliver a non-interventionist change in direction, but kcchiefs pointed out both substance and language from several bills Rand voted for that suggests otherwise, and wonders why more people aren't concerned. How do you lead people in the right direction, when they are walking in the opposite direction? How do you lead them in the path, when you seem to be walking with them the wrong way?

[kcchiefs6465]

Ron Paul never apologized for the idea that going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a noble thing to do. Rather he expressed regret that we didn't really go after Al Qaeda and instead started nation building.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

Ron Paul has said that knowing now what he does, he would have voted against it.

That's somewhat doesn't cut much as the text of the AUMF was clearly vague and knowing what he did, he should have known it would be abused. It was a bad vote. Much as Rand Paul's votes for sanctions are, his vote for the further subsidization of Israel (including the building of a joint intelligence operation, cyber warfare provisions etc.).

Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention. Rand Paul does. Anyone who thinks that he would not vote for airstrikes if the text was limited and clearly defined (when he has explicitly stated he would) is drinking some particularly strong Kool Aid. And anyone who thinks that I would support such a stance in text or spirit, or promote such a stance, clearly has not been around here long enough.

People's issues with Rand Paul's foreign policy are legitimate. I'd much prefer not to have my intelligence insulted or my concerns belittled or even being called a shill for calling Rand Paul out on his bad stances. Who knows, maybe one day he'll change his position? Ron Paul was rather 'hawkish' during the Cold War era, now he is one of the loudest proponents for non-interventionism. Just to state the obvious, it does not make me a "Rand hater" to disagree with a few of his votes or his overall foreign policy, for that matter. He has done much good and is the best Senator in US history.

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention.

And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

[Peace&Freedom]

And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

In 18 months, say by March 2016, we will see if Rand's pragmatic finesse approach works any better, or not. If it's NOT, the movement will have to make a choice going forward about taking the beat around the bush approach, or go back to supporting going with open principle, as per Ron.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

So you're going to criticize Rand for supporting a war that Ron voted for, a war that we got involved in as a result of an attack on our soil? I don't think anyone here really takes you seriously at all.

Says the guy who bought into the ISIS propaganda hook, line, & sinker.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Again, you are an absolute joke. No one in their right mind is going to argue that we should be completely pacifist after we get attacked and 3,000 of our people get slaughtered, that we don't have the right to self defense. You are trolling Rand's sub forum and need to leave. You're not a supporter of Rand and are simply wasting everyone's time by posting here. Go away.

Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

And Rand's approach will be victorious? As someone else pointed out earlier, Rand's "going along to get along" approach on foreign policy isn't doing much to separate him from the rest of the Republican pack, aside from Christie or Bush (if they were to run).

[supermario21]

And Barbara Lee got death threats and needed extra security after that. I doubt Ron would have had anywhere near the success he had in 08 and 12 (and thus, sparking the movement) if he had voted no like Rep. Lee...

[Brett85]

Says the guy who bought into the ISIS propaganda hook, line, & sinker.

I do happen to view them as a threat, unlike many here. But I still understand that they're only a threat because of past U.S policies in the region, such as destabilizing Iraq as a result of our invasion, training and funding ISIS in Syria, and toppling Gaddafi which led to radical extremists taking over Libya. So although I do agree with Rand that ISIS is a threat and that the air strikes against them were necessary, I understand that ISIS rose to power because of too much intervention overseas, not too little. The neocons claim that ISIS rose to power because we didn't have enough intervention overseas.