# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Sen. Rand Paul Blocks New Iran Sanctions

## Matt Collins

Sen. Paul Blocks New Iran Sanctions

_Demands Amendment to Stop Administrations Unilateral Use of Force 
_



*WASHINGTON, D.C. * Today, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to oppose unanimous consent of a new set of sanctions on Iran and introduced an amendment that would ensure that nothing in the act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria, and that any such use of force must be authorized by Congress.


Below is video and transcript of that exchange:












*TRANSCRIPT:*



> _Reserving the right to object, Im amazed the Majority Party objects to an amendment which simply restates the Constitution. 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power declare war to the Executive. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king. 
> 
> Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran. We dont just send boots to war. We send our young Americans to war. Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate.
> 
> 
> Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war.
> 
> ...

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

But.. But.. But.. He's really bad and stuff!

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Neocon! Garrote him!

----------


## Jeremy



----------


## RickyJ

The first sanctions he voted for are bad enough.

----------


## jmdrake

+rep to Rand!

----------


## LatinsforPaul

Truly impressed

----------


## jmdrake

> The first sanctions he voted for are bad enough.


If voting for sanctions against Iran's central bank is the price to pay for the political capital needed to block sanctions against the Iranian people and to slow down the steady march to war with Iran that we seem locked into....well to me that's worth it.

Please read: http://www.dailypaul.com/217658/rand...iran-sanctions

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

So why did he support the first set of sanctions?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Randtastic!

----------


## specsaregood

> The first sanctions he voted for are bad enough.

----------


## RickyJ

> If voting for sanctions against Iran's central bank is the price to pay for the political capital needed to block sanctions against the Iranian people and to slow down the steady march to war with Iran that we seem locked into....well to me that's worth it.
> 
> Please read: http://www.dailypaul.com/217658/rand...iran-sanctions


From the email response from Rand Paul: 



> The Iranian regime is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe. I supported S.Amdt.1414 because the sanctions are targeted to the regime's financing of those activities through the central bank and unlike other sanctions, not against the Iranian people.


This is flat out wrong. The Iranian regime is not in pursuit of nuclear weapons or supporting terrorism around the globe. And despite his claims that these sanctions do not hurt the Iranian people they do! Inflation is sky high in Iran now, believe me, it is hurting them!

----------


## RickyJ

> 


Facts are not hate. I never expected a Ron Paul supporter to act like a mind numb robot.

----------


## Crotale

Good news. I really hope that Rand turns out like his father.

----------


## specsaregood

> Facts are not hate. I never expected a Ron Paul supporter to act like a mind numb robot.


And when somebody comes around and votes the way you want them to; the best response is to not piss in their cherios but congratulate them on coming around and changing their point of view.   I never expected a Ron Paul supporter to be an unforgiving absolutist, oh wait, nm.

----------


## jmdrake

> From the email response from Rand Paul: 
> 
> 
> This is flat out wrong. The Iranian regime is not in pursuit of nuclear weapons or supporting terrorism around the globe. And despite his claims that these sanctions do not hurt the Iranian people they do! Inflation is sky high in Iran now, believe me, it is hurting them!


Oh I believe you.  Well...let me qualify that.  I believe that this hasn't been proven.  I agree with Rick Santorum (the one who tells the truth when he thinks nobody is looking) that if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons it's for defensive purposes only and not to attack Israel.  I also don't believe that Obama's "raid" killed Osama.  But those positions are not politically expedient.  Rand took a politically expedient position that not only got him elected senator of Kentucky, but that gives him political cover to actually slow down the anti-Iran war machine.  I give him kudos for doing that.  I was critical of Rand before it was popular to be critical of Rand and caught hell here for doing that.  I think I've paid my dues.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Facts are not hate. I never expected a Ron Paul supporter to act like a mind numb robot.


I think that it's better that Rand is a little more compromising than his father. It makes our movement more effective than having two Ron's

----------


## trey4sports



----------


## Seraphim

Good for Rand.

I was not impressed with the first round of sanctions, but this is certainly very positive.

No one is perfect. This time he's got it right.

----------


## moderate libertarian

Democrats (war wing)  are not going to be happy about this.

----------


## PaulSoHard



----------


## tsai3904

*Harry Reid's response to Rand Paul's objection:*

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/S...136/stop/12273

----------


## CTRattlesnake

Very good to hear..Rand may be sane after all



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYn_4...ature=youtu.be

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

I love him more each day.

----------


## tsai3904

Highlights of the bill Rand Paul was objecting:

http://banking.senate.gov/public/_fi...illSummary.pdf




> *Expanding Human Rights Sanctions:*
> Imposes broad sanctions, including visa denial and freezing of assets, on persons and firms which supply Iran with technologies  including weapons, rubber bullets, tear gas and other riot control equipment, and jamming, monitoring and surveillance equipment  which the President determines are likely to be used by Iranian security forces to commit human rights abuses. Also requires: sanctions against individuals and firms found to have engaged in censorship; a strategy to promote Internet freedom in Iran; and 90-day expedited processing of Iran-related humanitarian, human rights and democratization aid. 
> 
> *Extends US sanctions to Iranian Energy Joint Ventures:*
> For the first time, extends US sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) to firms engaged in energy-related joint ventures anywhere in the world established after 2002 in which Irans government is a substantial partner or investor, or by which Iran could otherwise receive critical advanced energy sector technology or know-how not previously available to its government. 
> 
> *Applies mandatory US sanctions to Iranian Uranium Mining Joint Ventures:*
> Requires at least 3 Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) sanctions to be imposed on firms who knowingly engage in jointventures with Irans government, Iranian firms, or persons acting for or on behalf of Irans government in the mining, production or transportation of uranium anywhere in the world. Exempts from sanctions persons who agree to withdraw from such projects within 6 months after the effective date of the bill.
> 
> ...

----------


## kill the banks

well this is v cool , hmmm

----------


## kuckfeynes

I don't think he said anything we didn't already know. He is very anti-war.

The problem is the idea that you can commit an act of aggression like sanctions, and as long as you write "this is not an act of war," that somehow makes it cool.

There may be some dispute between the definition of an act of "aggression" or "war," but one thing is for sure... It ain't an act of peace.

I like Rand, I really do, and who knows, maybe he'll be the real agent of change we've been looking for... But he'll never be able to stand up and claim consistency like Ron.

----------


## GraniteHills

> *Harry Reid's response to Rand Paul's objection:*
> 
> http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/S...136/stop/12273


"This is a wonderful piece of legislation ... not to [pass] this is really unfortunate. ... We are slowing down these sanctions and [sanctions are] the way to avoid war."
- Harry Reid

Thanks for posting this. It's important to be reminded just how bereft of sense and humanity scumsuckers like Harry Reid are.

----------


## tttppp

> The first sanctions he voted for are bad enough.


He's probably gotten a lot of crap from his supporters over that, and is trying to make up for it.

----------


## thoughtomator

Rand just took a step up in my eyes. Much better than his supine act with the TSA!

----------


## jbauer

Is there even a remote chance that anyone will live up to what we expect of Ron?




> I like Rand, I really do, and who knows, maybe he'll be the real agent of change we've been looking for... But he'll never be able to stand up and claim consistency like Ron.

----------


## DonovanJames

Didn't Rand vote in favor of the sanctions to begin with...

----------


## CTRattlesnake

> Didn't Rand vote in favor of the sanctions to begin with...


Yeah thats what I thought at first. It seems like he's channeling more of his father now

----------


## EBounding

> The first sanctions he voted for are bad enough.


Maybe he's changing his mind?   Up until 8 months ago,  I would have been A-OK with all sanctions.

----------


## tsai3904

> Didn't Rand vote in favor of the sanctions to begin with...


This is a new round of sanctions.  The first sanction dealt with the Central Bank of Iran.

This sanction is farther reaching.  You can see the effects here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4315994

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> But.. But.. But.. He's really bad and stuff!

----------


## Brett85

But if the sanctions actually came to the floor for a vote, would Rand vote for the sanctions?  He voted in favor of the first round of sanctions.

----------


## nbruno322

Go Rand!

----------


## Stupified

Good for him.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I think that it's better that Rand is a little more compromising than his father. It makes our movement more effective than having two Ron's


I fully agree.

----------


## Brett85

I think that Rand is trying too hard to please everyone, and by doing that, ends up pleasing no one.  I think he needs to either pick one side or the other.  The neo-cons are never going to like Rand unless he comes out in support of all out war with Iran.  He's not going to get any credit from them for voting for the first round of sanctions.  They'll be just as much against Rand as they were against Ron when Rand actually runs for President.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Reasonable and rational. Go Rand! The rubber is hitting the road, and Rand is ensuring that everything is above board and Constitutional.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I think that Rand is trying too hard to please everyone, and by doing that, ends up pleasing no one.  I think he needs to either pick one side or the other.  The neo-cons are never going to like Rand unless he comes out in support of all out war with Iran.  He's not going to get any credit from them for voting for the first round of sanctions.  They'll be just as much against Rand as they were against Ron when Rand actually runs for President.


Neocons are an endangered species. Social conservatives and traditional conservatives such as yourself may be more warmongering than Ron who is staunchly anti-war, but they're not as bloodthirsty as the neocons. Neocons only have dominated the party because they dominate the mainstream media. The mainstream media is dying now, along with their empire. Their days are numbered, and Rand can frame Ron's anti-war talking points in a way that is more palatable for regular conservatives.

----------


## Agorism

I was just going to post this...
beat me to it

----------


## rockerrockstar

Great job Rand!  Rand is the future.

----------


## No Free Beer

Future President.

----------


## sailingaway

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/201...-fails-in.html

----------


## PolicyReader

+rep to Rand

----------


## TakeThePowerBack

> +rep to Rand


Video:

http://www.youtube.com/my_videos?feature=mhee

----------


## Origanalist

Good news and a new site for me to peruse, cool. As you say though, for now...........the war pigs aren't going away.

----------


## cooper56

Good glad to know there are some good people still in Washington when paul is gone.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

A good person raises good children (for the most part). I am sure Carol and Ron raised their children and grandchildren the best they can with good values.

I have some reserved confidence that Rand will be a great senator and possible future president. At any rate, it is a good start for getting people to like him again. A lot of people got turned off with Rand when he wanted to impose sanctions on Iran.

----------


## JJ2

He wasn't trying to stop the sanctions from ramping up.

He just "accidentally" killed the bill because they refused to even "consider" his amendment which said that the bill could not be construed as authorizing war in Iran or Syria! Even when he comes up with the most "mild/reasonable" bills or amendments, they won't even consider them. It's insane.

I wonder if he really expected them to object!

EDIT: It looks like the story made it to Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ll-118887.html




> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who tried to quickly pass the measure on Tuesday, protested Paul's decision to stand in the way.
> 
> "I really am terribly disappointed," Reid said on the floor. "There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. In fact, it's quite to the contrary. ... I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That's a strange version he just stated."
> 
> Reid now can decide to file cloture to overcome the senator's objection with 60 votes, or he can cut a deal and allow the Paul amendment to be considered by the body.


I bet what Sen. Paul is doing is that he does not expect anyone to construe the bill as authorizing war, but since he has seen that Obama will go to war *without* any legislation (Libya), *he is trying to preemptively deny Obama any authority to go to war in Iran or Syria* (notice that the bill doesn't even have anything to do with Syria ).

WOW! I just realized how clever this is!

----------


## Indy Vidual

> ...
> WOW! I just realized how clever this is!



(Reuters) - A U.S. Republican lawmaker on Tuesday blocked Democrats from passing legislation designed to further punish Iran for developing its nuclear program, and each side blamed the other for its failure in a presidential election year that will put extra scrutiny on President Barack Obama to be tough on Tehran. The legislation, which had the backing of many Democratic and Republican Senators, focused on foreign banks that handle transactions for Iran's national oil and tanker companies...Senator Rand Paul formally objected to taking up the legislation unless the Senate would also consider his amendment to it saying that nothing in the bill could be construed as an authorization of war against Iran or Syria. This effectively blocked the bill from advancing. The timing of the next step was not immediately clear.

----------


## dbill27

I'm sure the Rand haters will still find something to be mad about

----------


## sailingaway

> He wasn't trying to stop the sanctions from ramping up.
> 
> He just "accidentally" killed the bill because they refused to even "consider" his amendment which said that the bill could not be construed as authorizing war in Iran or Syria! Even when he comes up with the most "mild/reasonable" bills or amendments, they won't even consider them. It's insane.
> 
> I wonder if he really expected them to object!
> 
> EDIT: It looks like the story made it to Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ll-118887.html
> 
> 
> ...


that was how I read it too. Ron had done that in a prior authorization for funding bill, gotten an amendment in (years ago) that the 'authorization of force' in Afghanistan was clarified to say it did not authorize force anywhere else but Pelosi got it killed in conference.  I'm sure Rand knew what he was doing.

----------


## Edu

You guys do understand that he just prevented us from going to war don't you?

The whitehouse and Bama would have ran with it and acted like they had authority to go to war.

Going to war is a big problem now because of what Ron Paul has been doing in the campaign, telling EVERYONE over and over that you can't go to war without out congress's approval. A lot of people didn't know that simple fact, now they do.

So now Bama has to do it right but yet they still try to sneak it through the back door.

Maybe later they might say this didn't actually give any authority, but then their excuse would be "we thought it did" and by that time we are already over there with troops and "pulling out now would cost lives" etc... and etc.... and so on....

We have seen this before.

So this is much bigger than you think. The guy is a super hero!

Ron Paul is also a hero for pushing his views and educating the general (ignorant) public.

Now we have to hope they are waking up to the federal reserve scam.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

Now let's see if he actually sticks to a position and runs with it (he votes for sanctions but then comes out against them...)

----------


## Matt Collins

New video by Jack Hunter:
http://youtu.be/lUxXkPrR6fs

----------


## Jeremy

> I think that Rand is trying too hard to please everyone, and by doing that, ends up pleasing no one.  I think he needs to either pick one side or the other.  The neo-cons are never going to like Rand unless he comes out in support of all out war with Iran.  He's not going to get any credit from them for voting for the first round of sanctions.  They'll be just as much against Rand as they were against Ron when Rand actually runs for President.


 Maybe he's not trying to "please" anyone and is just doing his best to follow the Constitution and do what's best for the country?

----------


## ZanZibar

> This is flat out wrong. The Iranian regime is not in pursuit of nuclear weapons


Really? Are you sure about that? Even Ron asks the question "_why wouldn't they want nukes, it's natural for them to want them_?"

----------


## ZanZibar

> Good news. I really hope that Rand turns out like his father.


He's essentially identical to Ron, he just shapes his rhetoric in more friendly and less caustic language.

----------


## ZanZibar

> The problem is the idea that you can commit an act of aggression like sanctions, and as long as you write "this is not an act of war," that somehow makes it cool.
> 
> There may be some dispute between the definition of an act of "aggression" or "war," but one thing is for sure... It ain't an act of peace.


Sanctions are not an act of war unless the country they are imposed upon considers them as such.

----------


## 69360

Rand might have just prevented WW3. All the Rand haters here can just stfu now.

----------


## Travlyr

Good deal! Nice work Rand Paul.

----------


## TheGrinch



----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Sanctions are not an act of war unless the country they are imposed upon considers them as such.


And as Kuck already pointed out, they are not an act of peace.  Just ask the Japanese during World War 2.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

*Rand Paul Stands Between US War With Iran*

Senator blocks sanctions bill saying it could be used as a means to go to war

Steve Watson
 Infowars.com
 March 28, 2012



Rand Paul has effectively single handedly blocked a bi-partisan bill to place yet more crippling economic sanctions on Iran, by demanding an amendment to prevent the White House using the legislation as an authorization to attack the country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to immediately pass the sanctions bill by unanimous consent Tuesday. However, Paul intervened and blocked it, in order to ensure that unauthorized use of military force against Iran does not transpire.

Pauls one sentence amendment reads: To clarify that nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria.

Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power declare war to the Executive, Paul said on the Senate floor. They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king.

Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war, he added.

Paul noted that in the lead up to the NATO led conflict in Libya, several Senators, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), were beating the war drums. The Kentucky Senator warned that the same rhetoric is now being used in relation to Iran and Syria.

Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran, said Paul. [I] urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate, without a vote, without careful consideration of the ramifications of a third or even a fourth war in this past decade.


rest of article here:
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-st...war-with-iran/

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...anctions-bill/

----------


## carclinic

Now STFU haters.  Rand 2016 is our last hope before I seriously consider leaving this country.  Obama must win for this to happen and we have to go all in with Rand.

----------


## Lishy



----------


## Agorism

> 


That's pretty funny

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Rand rocks, and I liked his citation of James Madison.

----------


## Lishy

> That's pretty funny


Thanks. I drew the pic myself! (Of rand and the Aqua Buddha, at least..)


Only Rand Paul is baddass enough to beat the Minus World in Mario!

----------


## trey4sports

is this why Mr. Hannity hasn't invited him back on tv?

----------


## anaconda

> So why did he support the first set of sanctions?


See post #8 directly above yours.

----------


## anaconda

I love how Rand is always foiling the establishment Senators "unanimous consent" votes.

----------


## anaconda

> Really? Are you sure about that? Even Ron asks the question "_why wouldn't they want nukes, it's natural for them to want them_?"


Google laptop of death. There is no credible evidence. It's as cheesy as Curveball and Iraq.

----------


## anaconda

> He voted in favor of the first round of sanctions.


He voted against the NDAA which contained the sanctions amendment.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> He's probably gotten a lot of crap from his supporters over that, and is trying to make up for it.


It is called throwing those of us who didn't like his first vote and don't believe what he says about Iran developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism, a bone.  Remember the wmd's that were in Iraq?  Remember how al queada was linked to Iraq?  Is that all they need to say these days, that a country is developing nuclear weapons and supporting world wide terrorism?  Isn't out military industrial complex and our CIA number one at this?  

When will Rand vote for sanctions against them?  Or at the very least call them out for it?  These are the liberty candidates I will get behind.  Not these guys who are going to become part of the current structure, i.e. part of the problem.  The current governmental structure is the problem, we are fast becoming a failed state because of it.  Only 40% of the population turns out to vote and they are the important ones?  They have voted this country to the $#@!s with their failed presidents and a congress that cannot seem to do anything but screw their constituents.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Yeah thats what I thought at first. It seems like he's channeling more of his father now


He's allowing Lew Rockwell to write bat $#@! crazy things under his name and then refusing to unveil his identity?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> He's allowing Lew Rockwell to write bat $#@! crazy things under his name and then refusing to unveil his identity?


Any proof of what you are saying or are you just talking out of your ass?

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Any proof of what you are saying or are you just talking out of your ass?


Other than everyone and their mom knowing it's Rockwell. $#@! a Lew Rockwell.

I'm tired of everyone thinking Ron is some saint that has never made a bad vote. The dude is big on earmarks and got tangled up with some $#@!ty people in the early 1990s. Kool-Aid drinking is bad, no matter who it's for.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Other than everyone and their mom knowing it's Rockwell. $#@! a Lew Rockwell.
> 
> I'm tired of everyone thinking Ron is some saint that has never made a bad vote. The dude is big on earmarks and got tangled up with some $#@!ty people in the early 1990s. Kool-Aid drinking is bad, no matter who it's for.


That literally has nothing to do with Rand Paul voting for the first round of sanctions on Iran.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Other than everyone and their mom knowing it's Rockwell. $#@! a Lew Rockwell.
> 
> I'm tired of everyone thinking Ron is some saint that has never made a bad vote. The dude is big on earmarks and got tangled up with some $#@!ty people in the early 1990s. Kool-Aid drinking is bad, no matter who it's for.


So where is the proof? You haven't presented it. You're still just talking out of your ass.

----------


## UWDude

> But.. But.. But.. He's really bad and stuff!


Or... maybe he felt a little heat from the torches and pitchforks.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Other than everyone and their mom knowing it's Rockwell. $#@! a Lew Rockwell.
> 
> I'm tired of everyone thinking Ron is some saint that has never made a bad vote. The dude is big on earmarks and got tangled up with some $#@!ty people in the early 1990s. Kool-Aid drinking is bad, no matter who it's for.


1.  This thread is about RAND.
2.  You clearly do not understand earmarks.
3.  What "$#@!ty people" are you talking about?
4.  Do you have any proof whatsoever to back up your rhetoric?

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> 1.  This thread is about RAND.
> 2.  You clearly do not understand earmarks.
> 3.  What "$#@!ty people" are you talking about?
> 4.  Do you have any proof whatsoever to back up your rhetoric?


1. It's littered with "He's not his father," and "Maybe he's becoming his father." This hero worship of Ron painting him as the perfect man is insane. Ron is a political hero of mine but I know political heroes make mistakes. Ron makes them all the time. He is more concerned about winning an argument than elections. 
2. I Clearly understand earmarks. I don't care how Ron spins it. I get it. He doesn't want the money to blah blah blah. This is a point the rational will always bring up and the zombies will defend.
3. Lew Rockwell, Murrary Rothbard and any other race baiting person he got tangled with. These associations (or unwillingness to expose the writer) killed his Presidential run every time.
4. I won't mention the names of people who have told me they know the writings were by folks we've all discussed. I will point to John Robbins. It's the same stuff people privately say: http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008...-lew-rockwell/

Then you add all the good Rand does in a chamber that matters and people are here $#@! on him daily. If we're going to hold everyone accountable.... let's hold everyone accountable. Truth hurts but it's liberating.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> 1. It's littered with "He's not his father," and "Maybe he's becoming his father." This hero worship of Ron painting him as the perfect man is insane. Ron is a political hero of mine but I know political heroes make mistakes. Ron makes them all the time. He is more concerned about winning an argument than elections. 
> 2. I Clearly understand earmarks. I don't care how Ron spins it. I get it. He doesn't want the money to blah blah blah. This is a point the rational will always bring up and the zombies will defend.
> 3. Lew Rockwell, Murrary Rothbard and any other race baiting person he got tangled with. These associations (or unwillingness to expose the writer) killed his Presidential run every time.
> 4. I won't mention the names of people who have told me they know the writings were by folks we've all discussed. I will point to John Robbins. It's the same stuff people privately say: http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008...-lew-rockwell/
> 
> Then you add all the good Rand does in a chamber that matters and people are here $#@! on him daily. If we're going to hold everyone accountable.... let's hold everyone accountable. Truth hurts but it's liberating.


So let's excuse someone's mistakes by pointing to someone else's mistakes. Which, I should mention, are entirely unrelated to the subject at hand.

Yeah, man, nothing like rationalizing.

John Robbins isn't an objective source, he hates Catholics. Surprise, Lew is a Catholic. Also:




> If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign


That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Lew Rockwell has reached millions more than Robbins, and Lew literally writes Ron Paul propaganda on a daily basis - and has done so for years. Without Lew, there'd be no Mises Institute. No Tom Woods. No Ron Paul Revolution. No explosion of Austrian economics.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Lew Rockwell has reached millions more than Robbins, and Lew literally writes Ron Paul propaganda on a daily basis - and has done so for years. Without Lew, there'd be no Mises Institute. No Tom Woods. No Ron Paul Revolution. No explosion of Austrian economics.


Some people won't be happy until all of Ron Paul's most dedicated and loyal supporters are alienated and drummed from the movement.

----------

