Posted on 09/08/2013 12:55:47 PM PDT by JSDude1
Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday he would not filibuster the president's request to launch strikes against Syria but that he would insist Barack Obama abide by Congress's demands if it votes to prohibit military intervention in the civil war.
The Kentucky Republican told "Fox News Sunday" a filibuster would only delay a vote authorizing use of force.
"I will insist there is full debate on this and I will insist that I get an amendment and my amendment will say that the vote is binding -- that the president cannot, if we vote him down, decide to go to war anyway," Paul said.
"That's the way I interpret the Constitution, and I will insist on at least one vote where we say, 'Hey guys, this is not political show, this is not constitutional theater, this is a binding vote,'" Paul said.
Asked if he would support impeaching Obama if he disregarded the will of Congress, Paul cited several examples in which he believed the president had already done so
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rand-paul-syria-filibuster/2013/09/08/id/524416#ixzz2eKhLO2Da Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
A filibuster may have helped when it wasn’t clear how congress would vote.
Now, even NPR admits there are not enough votes in Congress to authorize war.
Why delay the vote then? You want to give obama the advantage of more time to bribe and blackmail congress?
Why?
I agree.
What was the last piece of action stopped for good by a filibuster?
Well, the dems own the Obamacare vote but there’s no consequences from that.
I’ve written to my rep and both senators and told them that I want an up or down recorded vote.
The democrats would love to avoid a vote on this. They can vote to throw Obama overboard or they can vote for a war that the vast majority of Americans don’t want.
The disasterous effects of Obamacare aren’t evident to the low info voter yet.
This disaster will become quickly evident and the blame will be on Obombypants.
That’s a small victory compared to the potential problems related to this Quixotic attempt at very-limited war.
It may have been a strategy to filibuster, if it was thought congress would vote to approve.
However, evidence points to the contrary, so it may be in the best interest to hold the vote ASAP, with, as Dr. Paul suggests, a binding resolution to prohibit further war-making on Syria by the executive branch.
An interesting aside, I saw yesterday the Brookings Institute,(headed by Strobe Tablot of the Clinton administration) co-author of the Patriot act the the creation of the Department of Homeland security, has provided the Syrian war strategy to the White House.
In no way are the American people asking elected Representatives for war on Syria. This plan is entirely out fo the hands of the citizens, and it reeks.
Exactly correct, and Rand said as much.
The fix is in and a filibuster won’t do a damned thing except slow a vote down - in which case Obama can cite Republican obstructionism by one of their “tea Party Conservatives” and bomb Syria anyway. Anything bad happening Obama will blame Rand Paul’s filibuster from preventing Congress a ‘voice’.
No. I think Rand’s strategy on this is good. Make Obama own it all - because the entire reason Obama relented to have Congress vote on it, is for them to wear the failure of bombing Syria and handing it over to Al Qaeda - just like he almost got away with doing in Egypt.
The real onus is on Boehner and McConnell - but word has it that they are all in for Obama on this and everything else.
The Ruling ClassOne more thing - we have NO representation in Washington DC aside from two or three, Rand being one of them.
That’s just fact. Obama is a dictator with a palm-licking politburo that gives him whatever he wants.
>> I want an up or down recorded vote.
Agreed. I want a CLOTURE vote in the Senate, though. I want to force them to clear the 60-vote hurdle.
The (R)s don’t need a physical filibuster to make this happen.
I say you are right. If the Dims can’t even get 50 + 1 favoring bombing, filibustering would be a mistake. The purpose of filibustering is to delay the proceedings, continue debating and force 60 votes in the Senate in favor of invoking cloture, which ends debate on the issue and voting can proceed.
So....filibustering unnecessarily will only give the Dims and the press the leverage to blame Republicans for being obstructionists, etc.
There is no point in filibustering if #1 you have no chance of winning and #2 it appears the House will vote it down anyway. Ostumbles is not going to get permission so why waste a filibuster?
Folks, in case you haven’t noticed, I intensely dislike the gop/’rat uniparty and am more than willing to call out skulduggery. I don’t see it here.
A filibuster is a delay technique. It delays legislation, but it rarely causes the legislation to go away. In this case time is not on our side. If a vote were held today, dear leader would lose and lose badly. We want that vote. And we want it recorded. And we want dear leader impeached should he ignore that vote.
Failing to bring this to a vote quickly would allow dear leader the time to further twist arms, or to do whatever he wants absent any clear guidance from Congress.
Sen. Paul I believe has read the tea leaves and knows it’s time to act rather than delay. And I think he’s right.
My favorite post EVER (nice save, elcid. Didn’t miss a beat) My girl Mia is also a “typist”, but I wimp out & start over.
MHO from what I’ve read re Clinton/ Bosnia is that if the House doesn’t vote, 0 may think he has cover to attack anyway. Both houses *need* to vote.
Rand Paul= all BLOW No SHOW! Typical “Libertarian” WUSS!
BS. He knows it has no chance of passing in the House.
He’s wanting to hold obamar accountable. Some things are more important than grandstanding — safety of those serving in our military is one of them.
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3055253/posts
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
Rand Paul’s immigration speech
03.19.13 | Hon Sen Rand Paul (KY)
Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2998395/posts
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[but he’s not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Here's the passage at issue:In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]
...told "Fox News Sunday" a filibuster would only delay a vote authorizing use of force. "...I will insist that I get an amendment and my amendment will say that the vote is binding -- that the president cannot, if we vote him down, decide to go to war anyway... That's the way I interpret the Constitution, and I will insist on at least one vote..." Paul said.IOW, he won't filibuster, but will 'insist' on an amendment, but if the amendment doesn't pass, that's okay too.
Asked if he would support impeaching Obama if he disregarded the will of Congress, Paul cited several examples in which he believed the president had already done so...IOW, he didn't answer the question.
I hope that saying this is a tactical thing, and he goes ahead and tries to round up 41 votes against cloture. How can he allow Obama-Kerry to win if he has any means at his disposal to stop it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.