GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist

[Chef Ramsay]

HuffPost: Why President Rand Paul Will Keep America Safer Than Bush, Obama, and Hillary

"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."

In closing,

President Rand Paul will keep you safer than the others because while the danger of terrorism will always exist in some manner, our values as a nation might not withstand the test of time with politicians paranoid over the next big threat. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but I'm tired of terrorism causing us never-ending wars and political paranoia at home. If it's a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul (Elizabeth Warren would be a different story) in 2016, I'm jettisoning many of my liberal values to vote for the Kentucky Senator. I'm tired of fighting against a word that sends our soldiers into perpetual counterinsurgency wars and only Rand Paul seems to be addressing this sad political reality. At least I'll know that the next big threat America faces will be addressed by a president who consults Congress, engages in a national debate about military action, and puts long-term security above short-term political expediency.

More...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-president-rand-paul-w_b_6150868.html

[Chef Ramsay]

Article: Rand Paul to oppose Senate NSA reform bill, aide says

Sen. Rand Paul, a fierce critic of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance programs, will oppose the NSA reform bill in the Senate in large part because it includes an extension of the Patriot Act, a senior Paul aide said Friday.
Known as the USA Freedom Act and proposed by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the bill bans bulk collection of Americans' phone records by placing narrower limitations on government searches.

The legislation also extends the Patriot Act's sunset from June 2015 to December 2017.
The Senate will vote probably next Tuesday whether to take up and begin debate on the bill. It's unclear if they'll have the votes to move forward, but with Paul's opposition, it will make it that much tougher to clear that procedural hurdle.
Paul "strongly favors reforming the NSA" and while he may have been expected to support the current bill, a senior aide said the Kentucky Republican won't back the legislation.

"Due to significant problems with the bill, at this point he will oppose the Leahy bill," the aide told CNN. The aide pointed out the extension of the Patriot Act as a key issue, but declined to name other "significant problems."
Obama, Congress working on changes to NSA

The aide said that if the Patriot Act provision were dropped from the bill and if some of the reforms were strengthened, Paul would be more likely to support it.

The bill's Republican sponsors include Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Dean Heller of Nevada. Democratic sponsors include Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Dick Durbin of Illinois, among others.

NSA reform efforts began in earnest after former contractor Edward Snowden revealed the scope of the agency's domestic spying program last year.

Paul earlier this year filed a lawsuit against the government over its phone metadata collection effort, but the lawsuit was eventually put on hold.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/rand-paul-nsa/

[Chef Ramsay]

(The Hill) Rand Paul's correct: Sending Americans back to Iraq is illegal

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is correct in claiming that President Obama’s decision to send 1,500 more soldiers back to Iraq is illegal. We now have over 3,000 American soldiers back in a country we left in 2011, when the president fulfilled a promise of ending the Iraq War. The illegality of the Obama’s decision lies in the fact that Congress has not been consulted on matters that could easily lead to another war. Sending military advisers to train Iraqis seems to be a last ditch effort at succumbing to media and political pressure on the part of our president. Nobody wants to be in the White House if Bagdad falls to ISIL, but Saigon fell in 1975 and Gerald Ford didn’t send Americans back to Vietnam. ISIL indeed poses a threat, but not enough of threat to jettison Constitutional principles in the name of national security.

Paul, in a recent Daily Beast op-ed, explains exactly why Obama is breaching certain laws by increasing troop levels without consulting the American people. The Kentucky senator cites both the Constitution and the War Powers Act to highlight Obama’s overreach in doubling the size of our military presence in Iraq:


"If the Constitution were not enough, the War Powers Act reiterates the legislature’s prerogative. The War Powers Act does not allow for any military action to take place that is not authorized by Congress or to repel imminent attack. Period. The only exception is military action to repel an imminent attack. In that case, the president has 60 days to report to Congress. Obviously, it’s an exception that doesn’t apply to any of our current wars."


....

I’m a liberal, a Democrat, and I’m waiting for fellow liberals to be as outraged as I am about the president’s decision to send soldiers back into a quagmire. Is Paul right about the hypocrisy of Democrats? I hate to say it, but he’s absolutely correct in this respect, and in regards to this issue.

It’s an interesting time in American politics when Rand Paul is protecting liberal values and Democrats haven’t uttered a word of indignation over Obama’s decision to send troops back into war. Congress and the American people should be debating the troop level decisions, and until then, the legality of sending more American soldiers back into a war that already ended is highly questionable. Paul is correct, Obama has exceeded his authority on this matter, succumbed to media and political pressures, and has ignored the lessons of the Iraq War. Most importantly, he’s ignored the laws already in place limiting his authority to send Americans into battle and everyone should be outraged.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/223731-rand-pauls-correct-sending-americans-back-to-iraq-is

[Chef Ramsay]

Lexington Herald-Leader: Will Rand Paul's New Friends Show Him the Money?

Former presidential candidate and Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul raised about $40 million when he ran for the nation's top office in 2012.

That seems like a lot of money, and a heck of a fundraising base for the ex-congressman's son, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, to build from should he decide to make a run of his own in 2016.


But the man who won the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, spent more than $75 million, and that doesn't include another roughly $50 million in super PAC money spent on his behalf. And that was just to win the nomination.


So one of the many big questions still facing Paul, weeks from announcing his re-election effort and a winter away from announcing whether he will run for president, is whether he can raise the big money necessary to mount a winning presidential run.


Mitch McConnell, the incoming U.S. Senate majority leader, certainly knows a thing or two about big-time fundraising, and Kentucky's senior senator has certainly opened doors to establishment donors for his junior colleague.


When the final Federal Election Commission finance reports from the 2014 election come out, McConnell will show he raised more than $30 million for his re-election effort, shattering the record he set in 2008.


The woman who spearheaded that effort, Laura Sequeira, who was finance director for McConnell's campaign, has signed on to help Paul, along with Erika Sather, who raised big bucks for successful Arkansas Senate candidate Tom Cotton.

The interesting overall perspective is developed a little further...http://www.kentucky.com/2014/11/17/3544175_sam-youngman-will-rand-pauls-new.html?rh=1

[Chef Ramsay]

VICE: The One War Rand Paul Wants to Fight

​Over the past 18 months, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has made a habit of showing up places where he's not expected—at UC Be​rkeley and the National Urban League Confer​ence, co-sponsoring Kirsten G​illibrand's bill on sexual assault in the military, at Larry Ellison's house, in ​Ferguson. So I wasn't totally surprised to see him pop up on HBO this weekend, chatting it up with Bill Maher about climate change, the drug war, and the Islamic State.

Wearing one of his mock turtlenecks, the Republican senator was friendly, even chummy, with his liberal host, dropping dad jokes about politicians and Maher's misspent youth. It was classic Paul: affable, earnest, occasionally tone-deaf—but nonetheless interesting, the word m​ost often used to describe Paul and his political ambitions. Even on climate change, an issue where he and Maher obviously disagree, the senator was conciliatory, looking for some environmental policy "middle ground" where Democrats and Republicans could agree. And as the interview wound down, and Maher's questions turned to the drug war and foreign policy, Paul won him over.

"I think it's only a good thing for America when I'm not sure whom I'm going to vote for next time," was how Maher signed off.

This, of course, was exactly the reaction Paul was looking for. The Kentucky Tea Party darling has positioned himself as the bridge between Republicans and the world outside the GOP bubble, building his all-but-declared presidential campaign around the idea that his libertarian views can broaden the party's appeal beyond old white men. Now, with that campaign basically underway, Paul's willingness to break with the hawks in his party—and to openly court a Hollywood liberal like Maher—is also an invitation to throw down with his Republican opponents, only intensifies internal party divisions over national security and foreign policy that will likely define the GOP race in 2016.

The groundwork for this battle was laid last month, with Paul's speech to the Center for National Interest, a realist foreign policy think tank founded by Nixon acolytes. In a stuffy hotel ballroom on Central Park South, he laid out his foreign policy doctrine, christened "conservative realism," moonwalking the line between Republican hawkishness and non-interventionism.

"America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate," Paul told the ballroom. "America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory. America shouldn't fight wars that aren't authorized by the American people, by Congress. America should and will fight wars when the consequences—intended and unintended—are worth the sacrifice. The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world."

Unlike his remarks to Maher, the CNI speech was obviously tailored to a Republican audience—in this case, a motley crew of Orthodox Jewish leaders, Nixon-era State Department wonks, and Grover Norquist. But beyond the obligatory praise of Ronald Reagan and equally obligatory jabs at Barack Obama, Paul's message seemed to be a repudiation of the post-9/11 foreign policies that have dragged the US through more than a decade of wars. "Stalemate and perpetual policing seem to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria," he said. "A precondition to the use of force must be a clear end goal. We can't have perpetual war."

The speech didn't go nearly as far as some doves—including some fans of Paul's famously irascible father Ron—would have hoped. And his support for military intervention in Afghanistan, and against the Islamic State, seem particularly inconsistent with his not-fighting-any-wars-that-lack-a-plan-for-victory. But it succeeded in pitting Paul against his likely Republican presidential opponents—most of whom are still banging the drum for Bush-era "Mission Accomplished" jingoism—and also against the drone strikes and selective interventions of Obama and Hillary Clinton, the all-but-guaranteed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

The speech was also remarkably well received ("I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking," quipped Norquist), elating Paul and his staff and emboldening his nascent campaign to take on the hawks. His camp's argument has always been that while the political establishment continues to buy into the post-9/11 war on terror doctrine, Paul is poised to tap into a growing isolationist streak among voters disillusioned and alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Paul is looking for a fight, he's going to find one. The neocon wing of the GOP is in the midst of a resurgence thanks to public discontent over Obama's handling of foreign policy. All the new Republican senators elected in 2014 embrace more hawkish positions than Paul, which means that the neocon caucus will have a clear majority when the GOP takes control of the upper chamber next year. "The cavalry is coming over the hill!" South Carolina hawk ​Lindsey Graham gleefully told Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post's resident neocon. That leaves Paul as a lone voice of dissent as the Senate grapples with questions like whether to send combat troops in to fight against the Islamic State, whether to keep troops in Afghanistan, and whether to approve a possible nuclear agreement with Iran. Since returning for the lame-duck last week, Paul has already said he will vote against the ​NSA​ reform package currently being considered in the Senate, in part because it extends the Patriot Act until 2017.

Paul's positions put him in the center of an internecine battle that will, in all likelihood, define the Republican 2016 presidential race. In recent months, a steady parade of Paul's potential rivals have tried to pick fights over his supposed isolationism, jockeying to position themselves in relation to the libertarian-ish senator's foreign policy views. But Paul has mostly stayed steady, confident that this is a battle he will win. Win or lose, there's no question that he's got the party fighting on his terms.

http://www.vice.com/read/the-one-war-rand-paul-wants-to-fight

[Chef Ramsay]

First on CNN: Rand Paul hires Ted Cruz's digital guru

(CNN) -- Vincent Harris, Ted Cruz's top digital operative, is leaving the Texas senator's team to work for Sen. Rand Paul's political operation, as the jostling for staff ramps up ahead of the 2016 GOP presidential primary contest.

Harris will join Rand Paul's political action committee and his 2016 team as a chief digital strategist, according to Doug Stafford, executive director of RAND PAC.

Stafford said Harris will sit at the "top of the leadership team," as Paul and his inner circle carry out what's expected to be a dizzying political schedule. Paul will likely announce his Senate re-election bid in the coming days, and he's said he'll make a decision on a White House run in the spring.

Paul's team was attracted to Harris' push for Republicans to make digital operations a more robust part of campaigns, Stafford said. "We want to be leaders on that," he continued, saying Harris will focus on strategies involving data, websites, and social media among other things.

Harris, 26, runs Harris Media, a digital strategy firm based out of Austin that has more than 20 employees. The firm helped reinvent Sen. Mitch McConnell's digital presence ahead of the Kentucky senator's successful re-election win this fall.
...
While Harris has had a number of widely-known clients — Rick Perry, Rick Scott, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich — he gained a higher profile of his own after helping Cruz defeat Lt. Gov David Dewhurst for the GOP Senate nomination in 2012, throttling Cruz from a long-shot candidate who had never run for office to one of the biggest upset candidates of the year.
...
A staunch opponent to the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, Paul has sought to make himself a key ally for Silicon Valley and the tech world. His team plans to open a San Francisco office, where he's traveled multiple times this year, and he's trying to use his tech-savvy focus to connect with young voters on college campuses.

Harris, who lives in Austin but plans to travel frequently to Washington and Louisville, said there's a host of programmers and designers in Austin who "aren't excited about a lot of potential 2016 candidates but who are very excited about Rand Paul."

"I don't think there's going to be any problem in finding top-tiered talent," he said, adding Paul's team "will be embracing the tech community with open arms."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/rand-paul-digital/

[Chef Ramsay]

EXCLUSIVE: Rand Paul sounds off to Salon on race, 2016, Hillary and Republicans
GOP senator tells Salon about his potential White House bid, the GOP establishment and race in America

With an eye on a potential 2016 bid for the White House, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continues to test whether his libertarian-leaning message can attract new voters to the Republican Party. His appearance on liberal commentator Bill Maher’s HBO talk show last Friday (along with this interview) helped fuel the notion that unlike most other key figures from either major party, Paul is willing to talk with audiences who may not be disposed to agree with him.

Of course, there are plenty who scoff at the idea of a Tea Party icon being the face of a sweeping coalition. Skepticism has been especially fierce — including at this site — when Paul has attempted to reach out to African-American voters, with critics noting Paul’s disapproval (as a Senate candidate four years ago) of a key provision of the 1964 Civil Right Act barring discrimination among private business.

On the other hand, for a younger generation of voters feeling ignored by Democrats, Paul’s present-day position on U.S. drug laws and criminal justice reforms have appeal:
 
Embedded tweets at site


The senator, who has been referred to as the “most interesting man in Washington,” seems intent on testing whether a candidate who has openly courted the fringe of American politics can successfully attract wider support in this current political climate.

Paul talked to Salon this week about this attempt to broaden his appeal, particularly to non-white and young voters, why his party establishment still seems to have Romney fever, and whether he’d give up his Senate seat to seek the White House in 2016. Our conversation follows, lightly condensed and edited.

Full interview...http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/exclusive_rand_paul_sounds_off_to_salon_on_race_2016_hillary_and_republicans/

[Chef Ramsay]

Zerohedge: This Is Why Rand Paul Is Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare

As Hillary Clinton starts to ponder the curtains she wants to hang in the Oval Office, there is only one person who can realistically stand in her way: Rand Paul.

Readers of this site will be well aware that I spend very little time focusing on Presidential politics. There are many reasons for this, but more than anything else, I believe there are two key components to genuine cultural change, and none of them have to do with electing a savior.

...

I am not considering Rand because I think he will “save America” or because his father is Ron Paul. I am considering Rand because I agree with him on enough positions that are important to me. Don’t take it from me though. Read the following article from H. A. Goodman, titled: I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why. Here are some excerpts:

...

What is so interesting to me about the above list, is that although I would strongly disagree with Mr. Goodman on many issues, I concur with his assessment of the importance of the above. NSA spying, aggressive and unconstitutional foreign policy, reforming the criminal justice system and drone strikes. These aren’t side issues to me. They are core issues. He didn’t even mention Audit the Fed, which Rand sponsored in the Senate and would almost surely continue to push for.

...


The reason is the establishment GOP is part of the status quo, and the status quo likes things as they are. Hillary Clinton would be merely a more militant version of Barack Obama with even deeper Wall Street ties (read: Glenn Greenwald on Hillary Clinton: “Soulless, Principle-Free, Power Hungry…”).

. A less hillbilly version of George W. Bush. I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. I dare them to prove me wrong.

Rand recently appeared on Bill Maher’s show. At the end, Bill said:

I think it’s only a good thing for America, when I’m not sure who I’m gonna vote for next time.
Full clip -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc

Think about that for a minute. Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get all the libertarian votes, all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office), and a lot more genuine liberal/progressive votes than you might think.

He is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. That’s why Rand Paul is Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.

More...http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-20/why-rand-paul-hillary-clintons-worst-nightmare

[Kluge]

...

... I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. ...

...

Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get ... all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office)...

[Chef Ramsay]

...

... I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. ...

...

Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get ... all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office)...

I think they're differentiating between the GOP establishment insiders that are war hawks vs. the party base (rank and file) that is for a strong national military and is constantly used by the former to support each intervention abroad by fusing and obfuscating the two all the time. Rand has been trying to unlink them in his own way. It's safe to say that considering the insiders' main issue is more war profits at any cost, they would undoubtedly go for Hillary over Rand. However, in the minds of the party base that so hates Hillary for Benghazi and everything else she's known for, they would easily go for Rand or whatever other republican that gets the nod. I still think the thesis of the article is correct in that only the likes of Rand could build a broad enough coalition to take her down and the war hawks know how clever he's becoming at doing so. He knows how to avoid the traps that were laid down to trip up his dad so he's repackaging the message to be bullet proof yet still drive the concept of liberty that his dad has been purveying for 30 years and serve him the legacy that he deserves. The media demagoguery will still be there but no where near what it could've been had he continued his dad's particular MO.

[Chef Ramsay]

Sen. Paul Releases Declaration of War Against Islamic State

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today released a draft Declaration of War resolution against Islamic State (also known as ISIS) that he intends on introducing when Congress comes back into session in December.

As the New York Times reported today, Sen. Paul plans to introduce a resolution to declare war against the Islamic State, terminate the authority under the 2002 Iraq AUMF, and set a date for expiration of the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF.

“When Congress comes back into session in December, I will introduce a resolution to declare war against ISIS. I believe the President must come to Congress to begin a war and that Congress has a duty to act.Right now, this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,“ Sen. Paul said.


__________________________________________________



TEXT OF RESOLUTION:

Whereas Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution provides, ‘‘The Congress shall have the Power to . . . declare war’’;

Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ‘‘The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.’’;

Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.’’;

Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ‘‘In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.’’;

Whereas the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies; And

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and

Whereas the Islamic State presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, and consulate in Erbil, Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State’’.


SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.—The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(c) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as declaring war or authorizing force against any organization—

(A) other than the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS); or

(B) based on affiliation with the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

(2) LIMITATION ON USE OF GROUND COMBAT FORCES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the use of ground combat forces except—

(A) as necessary for the protection or rescue of members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens from imminent danger posed by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS);

(B) for limited operations against high value targets; or

(C) as necessary for advisory and intelligence gathering operations.

(d) WAR POWER RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).


SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.
The authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107–243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.


SEC. 4. NO EXISTING AUTHORITY.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) does not provide any authority for the use of military force against the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, and shall not be construed as providing such authority.


SEC. 5. SUNSET OF 2001 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall terminate on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.


SEC. 6. EXPIRATION.
The declaration and authorization in this joint resolution shall expire on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.

Before the inevitable freakout ensues, I'd like to point out what this declaration puts on the table:
1. forces the hill critters to stake out their territory and vote on actually declaring a contained war w/ an expiration date.
2. guts the behind the scenes regime change against Syria/Assad that the intelligence communities are and have been orchestrating.
3. guts/sunsets the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) that has been used to allow the Prez to do whatever the hell he wants w/o consulting Congress and getting a formal declaration of war which has been the problem ever since.
4. considering our own intelligence community has been stoking the flames of ISIS from the get-go, it would force these so-called war hawks and surveillance staters to declare war on the CIA too and/or start a debate that they don't want.
5. w/ point #2, narrows the scope to ISIS and nobody else.

There are other points that don't exactly meet the eye but this would be a start to permanently trending declaration of wars by Congress again which are a pain in the ass which is why the MIC loves the AUMF and giving the Prez the autonomy to handle business w/o having to buy off a majority of Congress in the likely event that the public would be stirred up prior to any future war vote. I think it's a great way to control the narrative and take it away from the neocons especially by coming up w/ the terms on his own and driving a stake in the isolationist bs that they hope to use on him coming up here.

[Chef Ramsay]

And to piggy-back on my last post about his move:

Rand Paul's Not-So-Secret Plan to End the War on Terror by Declaring War in Iraq

The Kentucky senator lays out an end to Bush-Obama foreign policy.

For five months, Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine has been calling on Congress to assert itself in the war against ISIL. "The current crisis in Iraq, while serious and posing the possibility of a long-term threat to the United States, is not the kind of conflict where the president can or should act unilaterally," said Kaine in June. He and Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican, started working together on the contours of a new Authorization of Military Force, superseding and ending the 2002 authorization passed by a spooked, pre-election Congress.

In September, Kaine released a draft of the new authorization that repealed the 2002 AUMF and would allow the administration "to use all necessary and appropriate force to participate in a campaign of airstrikes in Iraq, and if the President deems necessary, in Syria, to degrade and defeat ISIL."
The draft stayed on the table. As recently as last week, the Kaine version of the AUMF was an idea that (many) Democrats and the White House were able to ignore.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul swooped in. He gave an interview to New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters, which was splashed on the newspaper's website with the headline "Rand Paul Calls for a Formal Declaration of War Against ISIS." Instead of a sleepy issue that the administration could sit on for a while, Paul made a new AUMF a subject of debate—on libertarian terms.

That was clear to anyone who read the resolutions. Kaine's began with some throat-clearing "Whereas-es" about ISIL terror, such as:
Whereas ISIL’s grisly execution of United States hostages, recruitment of United States citizens and others to serve as foreign fighters that threaten to return to the United States and other nations, and pledges to carry out additional acts of violence directly against the United States make it a threat of growing significance to the United States.

Paul's version started 200-odd years earlier.
Whereas President George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, lectured: ''The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress. Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'';
Whereas James Madison, father of the Constitution, elaborated in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: ''The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.'';
Whereas James Madison wrote in his Letters of Helvidius: ''In this case, the constitution has decided what shall not be deemed an executive authority; though it may not have clearly decided in every case what shall be so deemed. The declaring of war is expressly made a legislative function.''

Unlike Kaine, Paul made no mention of specific ISIL threats against the continental United States. As he's said in many speeches, Paul saw ISIL as "a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region." Also, as Peters first reported, Paul's version included a sunset provision to terminate the 2001, post-9/11 Authorization of Military Force against al-Qaeda and allies, "on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution."

This was important. Last year, Paul told me that most of the War on Terror's over-reaches came from "a very expansive understanding of the use of the Authorization of Force in 2001." He had been trying to get Congress to officially declare the Iraq war over, and finding very few takers. Same was true for repealing the 2001 AUMF. "I think it would have absolutely no chance of going anywhere if I were to introduce it right now," he said.

Kaine's version of the AUMF remains the one with the most potential support in Congress. Paul's, unsurprisingly, is the bolder version, the one that would separate the senators who support an unending War on Terror from the ones who want to handle foreign policy threats individually. Meanwhile, there's no AUMF far enough along in the legislative process for the White House to worry about it.

"We will continue to engage with the Congress on the elements of an AUMF to ensure that they are appropriately tailored, while still preserving the authorities the President needs to execute his counter-ISIL strategy and to respond as might be necessary to defend the United States," said National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-24/rand-pauls-notsosecret-plan-to-end-the-war-on-terror-by-declaring-war-in-iraq

[Chef Ramsay]

Here’s why a surprising number of liberals are supporting Rand Paul

In 2010, when Rachel Maddow cornered Rand Paul over his lack of support for the entire Civil Rights Act of 1964, most liberals proceeded to streak through the streets waving bloody shirts. We told you they were all racists and we were right!

The late Alexander Cockburn, at the time one of the most outspoken progressives alive, refused to join in. Though he said Paul had seemed “dumb,” he also burned Maddow for her “grandstanding.” “You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?” he asked rhetorically.

At the time Paul was locked in a Senate race with Kentucky’s Democratic attorney general Jack Conway. Cockburn called Conway “an awful neo-liberal prosecutor,” and then came this: “Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers’ bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA’s full torture history?” The answer, of course, was Paul. It wasn’t exactly an endorsement, but it was pretty damned close.

If you’ve never read Cockburn, do yourself a favor and pick up one of his books. He was a flamboyant writer, a refreshing contrast to today’s liberal wonks who communicate in the sort of prose usually found in Sharper Image instruction manuals. Long after the sixties ended, Cockburn remained the id of the anti-authoritarian left. This meant he was often spectacularly wrong, but also that he harbored little sympathy for the Democratic Party of JFK and Johnson. Watching Rand Paul was probably cathartic for him.

Last week progressive writer H.A. Goodman made ripples when he endorsed Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton at the Huffington Post. And while most liberals haven’t gone as far as Goodman, some, especially those who remember the ethos of last century’s counterculture, have developed a muted affinity for the Kentucky senator.

...

More...http://rare.us/story/heres-why-a-surprising-number-of-liberals-are-supporting-rand-paul/

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul to seek re-election to US Senate, presidential run pending

It's official! Rand Paul is running for re-election to the US Senate in 2016! He has received the endorsement of the entire Republican Kentucky delegation, including McConnell and Agriculture Commissioner James Comer.

Presidential announcement is still pending, and the decision will likely be announced in 4 to 6 months.

Full press release...http://www.randpaul2016.com/2014/12/rand-paul-to-seek-re-election-to-u-s-senate/

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul: McCain Wants "15 Wars More"

Republican Sen. Rand Paul escalated his ongoing foreign policy feud with John McCain on Monday while arguing this his non-interventionist military views are supported by a sizable amount of GOP presidential primary voters.

"I want less, McCain wants more [military intervention]," Paul said at an event sponsored by the Wall Street Journal. "He wants 15 countries more, 15 wars more. But the thing is, is that there is a more and a less argument. When you poll that in Iowa, 45 percent agreed with McCain and 41 percent agreed with me."

Paul was referencing a Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll from early October that asked:

"The Republican Party has two main views on foreign policy. Which is closer to your view—should the U.S. be quicker to intervene in conflicts overseas, as John McCain suggests, or should the U.S. pull back current military engagements to be less interventionist in foreign policy, as Rand Paul suggests?"

Paul was asked how he would deal with the possibility that his opponents and Super PACs would attack him for being weak on defense. But the Kentucky Republican said his viewpoint is gaining steam and would not necessarily be a hindrance if he runs for president in 2016.

"This is not a small movement, nor is it easy to say people like myself, who believe in less intervention, can be characterized as people who don't believe in a strong national defense," Paul said. "That is a caricature and I will have to fight that, but we'll see what happens."

McCain and Paul have sparred over the role the United States should play in the world. But the two seemed to be turning a corner recently when McCain said Paul was "evolving with experience" and told The New Yorker he would support Paul if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

More...http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rand-paul/rand-paul-mccain-wants-15-wars-more-n260051

[Chef Ramsay]

Four potential Republican challengers who worry Hillary

Hillary Clinton allies are focusing on four potential Republican challengers for the White House: Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and Scott Walker.

Clinton World believes Paul has run the best “pre-campaign” of the group. And the fact that the Republican senator from Kentucky has worked to attract Republicans and Democrats to his cause has made him someone to watch.

Yet, time and again, Bush is the top name to roll off everyone’s tongue.

Mitch Stewart, a senior adviser to the Ready for Hillary PAC who served in key roles in both of President Obama’s presidential campaigns, acknowledged that two contenders in particular jump out to him: Walker and Paul.

“Rand Paul in a primary could be someone that excites a group of people who would not normally participate,” Stewart said.

At a Ready for Hillary fundraising event in New York two weeks ago that drew hundreds of staunch Clintonites and donors, Paul was discussed as someone Democrats needed to watch.

Paul has “demonstrated a charisma and a presence” in the lead-up to a potential run, said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who worked in the Clinton White House and attended the meeting in New York.

“To the extent that there’s been a pre-campaign winner, it’s him,” he added.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/225957-four-republicans-who-worry-hillary-clinton

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul: "No Excuse" For Someone To Die Over A Cigarette Tax

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reacted to a grand jury's decision to not indict a New York City Police Officer in the death of Eric Garner by saying he was "horrified" by the video and blasting politicians for passing "bad laws" that "put our police in a difficult situation" in an interview broadcast on Wednesday's "Hardball" on MSNBC.

"I think it's hard not to watch that video of him saying 'I can't breathe, I can't breathe' and not be horrified by it. But I think there's something bigger than just the individual circumstances. Obviously, the individual circumstances are important. But I think it's also important to know that some politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes so that['s] driven cigarettes underground by making them so expensive. But then some politician also had to direct the police to say 'hey we want you arresting people for selling a loose cigarette.' And for someone to die over breaking that law, there really is no excuse for it. But I do blame the politicians. We've put our police in a difficult situation with bad laws" he stated.

Video of Rand on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews and article...http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/12/03/Rand-No-Excuse-for-Someone-to-Die-Over-a-Cigarette-Tax

[Chef Ramsay]

Balko: Rand Paul is right that seemingly innocuous laws are enforced with violence

Sen. Rand Paul took some heat this week for pointing out that Eric Garner was essentially executed for selling untaxed cigarettes. I’m not sure why this is a controversial thing to say (especially since Paul also explicitly said the video itself was “horrifying”). Every law, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is enforced with the threat of violence: If you fail to follow it, the state is saying it reserves the right to use violence to force you to comply and/or force you to submit to a penalty for violating the law. Every law passed also creates more opportunities for interaction with police officers, the people entrusted to use the violence necessary to enforce the laws. How a proposed law will be enforced, and potentially abused, ought to be considered in addition to the content of the law itself.
[...]

Now, I doubt that New York city council anticipated that failure to comply with this particular law would result in a man’s death, any more than legislators in Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, or Florida anticipated that seat belt enforcement could end in tasings, shootings, or arrests. But you enforce the laws with the police institutions you have, not the police institutions you want. Low-level offenses are a tool police sometimes use to do sweeps for outstanding warrants, or as part of a “broken windows” strategy of law enforcement. These are tactics overwhelmingly deployed on low-income and minority communities.
[...]

It may be that the lives saved by seat belt laws and cigarette taxes are well worth the added police-citizen interactions needed to enforce them, and any incidents that might occur during those interactions. But I don’t see the harm in pointing out that these laws will result in more such interactions, or in pointing out which communities are likely to be on the receiving end of most of them.

More...http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/04/some-thoughts-on-eric-garner/

Radley Balko has been quite the aficionado on police over-stepping their bounds through the years, just fyi.

[Argwai96]

Rand Paul: "No Excuse" For Someone To Die Over A Cigarette Tax

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) reacted to a grand jury's decision to not indict a New York City Police Officer in the death of Eric Garner by saying he was "horrified" by the video and blasting politicians for passing "bad laws" that "put our police in a difficult situation" in an interview broadcast on Wednesday's "Hardball" on MSNBC.

"I think it's hard not to watch that video of him saying 'I can't breathe, I can't breathe' and not be horrified by it. But I think there's something bigger than just the individual circumstances. Obviously, the individual circumstances are important. But I think it's also important to know that some politician put a tax of $5.85 on a pack of cigarettes so that['s] driven cigarettes underground by making them so expensive. But then some politician also had to direct the police to say 'hey we want you arresting people for selling a loose cigarette.' And for someone to die over breaking that law, there really is no excuse for it. But I do blame the politicians. We've put our police in a difficult situation with bad laws" he stated.

Video of Rand on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews and article...http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/12/03/Rand-No-Excuse-for-Someone-to-Die-Over-a-Cigarette-Tax

I don't think this is good politics. This case was regarding someone resisting arrest and the use of force to arrest someone who was breaking the law. If the man was not resiting arrest then nothing bad (medically) would have happened to him. It has nothing to do with taxes

[Chef Ramsay]

I don't think this is good politics. This case was regarding someone resisting arrest and the use of force to arrest someone who was breaking the law. If the man was not resiting arrest then nothing bad (medically) would have happened to him. It has nothing to do with taxes

Obviously, the victim isn't exactly the poster child of all that's righteous in a capitalist world but the point stands that the bad laws/taxes codified by politicians is to blame for this incident even happening in the first place. God forbid if Rosa Parks resisted arrest for her act of civil disobedience and suffered the consequences such as this. I think it's great politics because it transcends the racial pimps of sensationalism on both political sides trying to distract from what is the point here: cops doing the bidding of idiot politicians that are the states' coffers defenders. It's a slick ancap hustle/rebuttal that has been being discussed on multiple MSM shows as of late and by default is being used as conservative ammo against the left because their own rhetoric doesn't cut deep like this is doing.