More Secret Dragnet Surveillance Revealed!
Rand Paul to oppose weak NSA reform bill http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-to-oppose-weak-nsa-reform-bill/ dragnet surveillance ...
By: TheAlexJonesChannel
Read more:
More Secret Dragnet Surveillance Revealed! - Video
FILE - In this June 20, 2014 file photo Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaks in Washington. Their party has seized the Senate majority. Now, an ambitious class of Republican senators faces unique challenges, and opportunities, in a GOP-led Senate under ... more >
Sen. Rand Paul told HBOs Bill Maher Friday night that the lives of thousands of U.S. troops were wasted during the Iraq War.
Im not for sending any troops into Iraq and I will oppose sending any of our people back into Iraq. It was a mess from the beginning. I would have voted against the Iraq war. We wasted a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, the Kentucky Republican said.
Doug Stafford, Senior Aide to Senator Rand Paul, sought to clarify Mr. Pauls remarks Saturday in an email to The Washington Times.
SEE ALSO: Bill Maher: To claim Islam is like other religions is naive and plain wrong
Senator Rand Paul strongly supports our men and women in uniform, and to suggesting otherwise because of a disagreement on the merits of a failed war is beneath even the media, Mr. Stafford said. The American people are sick and tired of people trying to twist words for their own gotcha games. Most Americans stand strongly with Senator Paul, with our troops and against endangering their lives in unnecessary wars.
The senators Senior Communications Director, Brian Darling, added, If you watch the interview, Senator Rand Paul was interrupted by applause before he completed the sentence in question. He intended on saying we wasted trillions of dollars and also thousands of lives were lost. Senator Paul recognizes and honors those who sacrificed life and limb in Iraq. Senator Paul sees their sacrifice as done in the defense of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights but believes that politicians should not escape blame for bad decisions.
During his interview, Mr. Paul also toldHBOs Bill Maher that he was against sending U.S. ground troops to fight against Islamic State terrorists because he feared history would repeat itself.
Every time we talk about toppling a secular dictator, chaos has ensued and radical Islam has become more of a threat, Mr. Paul said. Why Ive decided now to do something is that ISIS is now a threat to our embassy and to our consulate, and I do think we need to defend American interests, and there are lines that occasionally have to be drawn.
The conversation between the senator and controversial late-night talk show host remained friendly. The Real Time host expressed his interest in Mr. Paul, saying he was the one Republican who was willing to go places where Republicans dont usually speak. [] I think its only a good thing for America when Im not sure who Im going to vote for next time.
View post:
Rand Paul tells Bill Maher: Lives of U.S. troops 'wasted' in Iraq War
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 ...