Sen. Rand Paul Questions EEOC Nominees- November 13, 2014
Sen. Rand Paul attended the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on the nomination of P. David Lopez to serve as General Counsel and Charlotte Burrows to serve...
By: SenatorRandPaul
Go here to read the rest:
Sen. Rand Paul Questions EEOC Nominees- November 13, 2014 - Video
By Ashley Killough, CNN
updated 7:45 PM EST, Wed November 12, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul made clear to his team of political advisers Wednesday that he'll run for re-election to the Senate in 2016 and reiterated that he won't make a decision on a presidential run until next spring, according to a spokesman.
His strategists met behind closed doors at a Washington hotel Wednesday to sketch out a road map for 2015 and review the past two years, during which Paul traveled to 35 states campaigning for candidates and raising his national profile.
Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, attended most of the meetings as well as a group dinner in the evening, said spokesman Sergio Gor.
The sessions, led by RAND PAC executive director Doug Stafford, covered fundraising performance, grassroots engagement, communications, outreach and other areas of interest, though Gor did not give specifics.
Paul has long made it known that he plans to campaign for a second term in the Senate, but questions have emerged over whether he can run for his seat and for the White House at the same time. Kentucky law prohibits candidates from appearing on the same ballot for two different offices.
Attempts to change the law were made last year in the GOP-controlled state Senate but stalled in the Democratic-controlled state House. Attempts by Republicans to retake control of the state House in last week's elections were unsuccessful, meaning the law will likely stay in the books for 2016.
Some of Paul's supporters have argued the law could be challenged, while others say there are ways he can get around it so that his name won't appear on the ballot twice. One such scenario would mean the state party changes its presidential primary to a caucus system.
View original post here:
Rand Paul meets with advisers on 2016 - CNN.com
President Rand Paul will keep you safer than the president who brought America into Iraq and Afghanistan, the same man who in 2000 argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. He'll keep you safer than the president who just doubled America's military presence in Iraq, yet in 2011 promised, "The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year." Rand Paul will also keep you safer than Hillary Clinton, a centrist with a neoconservative advisor named Robert Kagan who is quoted in The New York Times as saying, "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy." Rand Paul will also defend you against terrorism and other national security threats better than Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson and any of the other sycophants in American politics. Why? The answer lies in who doesn't want Senator Paul to be the next president of the United States.
Let's assume you've never heard of Rand Paul. The mere fact that John Yoo, author of Bush's Torture Memos, thinks Paul should not be president is reason enough to consider voting for the Kentucky Senator. Yoo, a man The Guardian has stated "continues to defend the indefensible" by claiming waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods are not torture, explains his viewpoint in a recent National Review piece titled, Why Rand Paul Is Wrong about the ISIS War Being Illegal -- and Shouldn't Be President:
We should never put someone in the Oval Office who thinks that the United States can only use force when it is actually attacked, as he argues. That is the mindset that led the United States to ignore events in Europe as they spiraled out of control 100 years ago and to withdraw from the continent in the interwar years, leaving it to fascists who ultimately drew the U.S. back into another destructive war...
...Congress enacted in 2001 an authorization to use force against any group connected to those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. If the Islamic State is linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, as it appears to be (though this depends on the facts), they fall within the AUMF.
In classic Bush era fashion, Yoo makes the link between 9/11 and Islamic State, an egregious leap of logic that would also warrant a military strike against Saudi Arabia. Yoo also ignores Paul's repeated statements like "Taking military action against ISIS is justified" only with Congressional approval.
The issue at hand is a debate within Congress, not a surreptitious memo advocating the questionable legality of torture, or returning America to early 20th Century isolationism. Yoo's lack of historical knowledge also correlates with the standard knock on both Rand Paul and his father among staunch conservatives. American isolationism had nothing to do with the causes of WWI or WWII; to claim that it did is not only historical revisionism, but a brazen form of neoconservative propaganda. Even Sean Hannity is too frightened of being waterboarded, so Yoo's viewpoints on torture and his criticism of Paul share a great deal in common. Regarding the issue of torture, Rand Paul is vehemently against Bush era interrogations and even accused both parties of complicity in condoning torture.
Ironically, people like John Yoo and liberals who side with Obama on Iraq haven't uttered a word about the over 3,000 U.S. soldiers the president just recently sent back into the region. A Democratic president has just doubled the size of America's presence in Iraq and nobody seems to care, even though the war was supposed to have ended in 2011. Ask yourself if you feel safer after two costly wars in the Middle East, the government spying scandals, and all the other consequences of the terror war. Did they prevent the two Boston bombers from killing three Americans and wounding hundreds in 2013? Do you feel that our strategy against terror, from Bush to Obama and perhaps onto to Hillary Clinton, will keep you any safer from a domestic terrorist? Ultimately, Rand Paul's greatest sin towards the good people at the National Review, staunch conservatives, and mute liberals (who seem voiceless in the face of Obama's troop deployments) is a statement like, "I'm not willing to send my son into that mess" on the crisis in Iraq.
There's a morality within Paul's foreign policy mindset that both Bush and now Obama seem to lack. How many politicians can you name, especially after the ISIS beheading videos that scared 40% of Americans, who make reference to their own children when discussing a current conflict? Furthermore, like The National Review's criticism of Paul, The Weekly Standard is also concerned with the prospect of his presidency. According to the publication headed by William Kristol (a man who in 1998 wrote a New York Times article titled, Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough) Rand Paul isn't the right man for the job:
Paul agrees with President Obama that the U.S. objective should be to destroy ISIS, yet he "doubt[s] that a decisive victory is possible in the short term," even with greater support from regional powers. Since Paul is on the record as an opponent of sending in American ground troops, he seems to be saying that it is acceptable for ISIS to hold on to its statelet indefinitely...
If Paul is content to remain the junior senator from Kentucky, there may not be too much pressure for him to define his strategy more clearly. Yet if he throws his hat into the presidential ring, he will be have to show that he has a real plan for protecting the nation from terrorism.
Read more:
Why President Rand Paul Will Keep America Safer Than Bush ...
By Ashley Killough, CNN
updated 11:32 PM EST, Fri November 14, 2014
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, says the rhetoric in the climate change debate can be exaggerated.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who hails from Kentucky coal country, tried to find some "middle ground" with HBO host Bill Maher on climate change, saying Friday night that he supports deregulating alternative sources of energy.
"We need more energy, and maybe cleaner energy will supplant less clean energy over time--and it already is--but I don't think that shutting down dramatically one form of energy is a good idea for an economy," the first-term senator said on "Real Time."
Bill Maher: I had drinks with Rand Paul
While saying he's not against some regulations, such as on carbon emissions and clean water, Paul said he plans on introducing legislation "in the next month or so" that would cut regulation of alternative fuels.
"I'm for trying to get the government out of the way of converting your trucks from diesel to natural gas, or from gasoline to ethanol," he said. "And try to let the marketplace take care of this, because some of these fuels are actually cheaper, too, and if they're cheaper then people will go for a cheaper alternative that also is cleaner for the environment."
His comments come as Paul, who's planning a presidential run but says he hasn't made a final decision yet, has blasted President Obama and other Democrats for supporting policies that would negatively affect the coal industry in his home state.
See the article here:
Rand Paul talks climate change
Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican. (Associated Press) ** FILE ** more >
Sen. Rand Paul plans to oppose a Senate bill to halt the NSAs phone-snooping program on the grounds that it doesnt go far enough.
Sen. Paul does not feel that the current NSA reforms go far enough, an aide said. There are significant problems with the bill, the most notable being an extension of the Patriot Act through December 2017.
The Kentucky Republican has been one of the most outspoken voices against the governments surveillance techniques, going as far as suing the president over them earlier this year in a case that was later put on hold.
Under the program revealed by former government contractor Edward Snowden, the government logged information about Americans phone calls and stored the data to track potential terrorist links. A revamped version of the bill would ban bulk collection of data and require the government to more selectively seek it.
The legislation from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has a broad array of supporters, ranging from Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, to Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican and a possible rival for Mr. Paul in the 2016 GOP presidential contest. Both men are co-sponsors of the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, took the first steps on Wednesday toward setting a final vote on the bill, which will have to pass the House or be reconciled with a House version before it gets sent to President Obamas desk.
CNN first reported on Mr. Pauls opposition to the bill on Friday.
The Obama administration has defended the program, saying it had approval of a special court and that it helps the country prevent terrorist attacks.
But Mr. Leahys legislation has attracted support from interest groups that range across the ideological spectrum, from the ACLU to the NRA. And Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and the author of the 2001 Patriot Act, has questioned the governments interpretation of a section of the law it has used to justify the program.
Read the rest here:
Rand Paul to oppose NSA surveillance reform bill