Epiphany! Why Rand Paul voted to sanction Iran...

[Matt Collins]

What movement collins? The one you repeatedly, purposely, sabotaged? No, thanks. We don't need your help.

I haven't sabotaged anything. Quit trying making stuff up.

 

[KingNothing]

What movement collins? The one you repeatedly, purposely, sabotaged? No, thanks. We don't need your help.

^--- paranoid psychobabble.

 

[tttppp]

I was laying in bed this morning shortly before sunrise pondering on the future of the movement, where we are going, and what the next steps are. And then randomly a thought entered my brain which I believe explains why Rand voted to sanction Iran late in 2011.

Rand and myself and his staff had some very informative and deliberative e-mail exchanges after his vote because it did upset a great amount of us in the liberty movement. I wanted to ensure they were aware of this and pointed them to some threads here and on the DP as well as ask for their rationale behind the vote. The rationale they explained was that 'central banks should be sanctioned'

The important thing to realize was that this sanction was actually against Iran's central bank!

Read the following:


S.Amdt. 1414 to S. 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012) - here is the roll call.





Now as we get closer and closer to a full audit of the Federal Reserve, there are some things to keep in mind. Remember that the Fed was caught giving money to the Libyan central bank just before our government bombed them?

The Fed's FOMC operations, and specifically any deals with foreign central banks or foreign governments are NOT subject to an audit.


Here is my point in sequence:

- What if the Federal Reserve is giving money to the Iranian central bank or government?
- What if the us government attacks Iran?
- What if we get a full audit of the Fed?
- What if the audit of the Fed reveals that the Fed is giving money to the Iranian central bank in direct violation of US law, specifically if the Iranian central bank is indeed involved in funding "terrorism" or money laundering?

Now that it is now illegal to do business with the Iranian central bank, if an audit of the Fed reveals that they are conducting such business anyway and outside of the bounds of the law, they would be defacto in violation of US law, right?

Would being able to decisively show that the Federal Reserve was breaking US law and "funding a declared terrorist organization" help turn public tide against the Fed?

Was this perhaps Rand's plan all along on that specific vote? Was Rand trying to prevent the Fed from conducting business with the Iranian central bank? Was Rand trying to set up the Fed to eventually be found in violation of US law thus forcing a microscopic inspection of everything they do?

I think this very well could have been Rand's mindset, it fits his style, and he does tend to think things 3 or 4 steps ahead. Although this is just speculation on my part it makes perfect sense - make an underhanded activity the Fed is about to engage in illegal, and when they get caught, throw everything you have at them.






Thoughts?

Wouldn't just be easier to vote for sanctions against our central bank? Just a thought.

 

[presence]

In my eyes, sanctions are an act of war and aggression not peace and diplomacy. Sanctions kill. If you vote for sanctions you need to be falling asleep at night thinking about starving children. If you want to sanction, declare war. I can't get behind Rand on this one.

of the threat to government and financial institutions resulting from the illicit activities of the Government of Iran, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for international terrorism, and efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and evade sanctions.

Iran's nuclear is none of our business.

Its military support of other nations... until they attack the US: none of our business; we're just as (moreso really) guilty, we just have different friends.

Iran's efforts to evade sanctions are a defensive act, to be expected, again none of our business.

 

[Matt Collins]

Wouldn't just be easier to vote for sanctions against our central bank? Just a thought.

No, because that would never see the light of day.

 

[Darguth]

Nope, Mr. Collins, I don't buy it. Perhaps that is Sen. Paul's end-game, but I doubt it. It's much more likely based on his own comments about sanctioning Iran that he genuinely thinks this type of foreign intervention is the right thing to do in this particular scenario. I disagree. I think this is a bad vote on his part.

I still think he's a fabulous Senator and I support him 95% of the time and will continue to do so when he fights for good causes (as he very, very, very often does), but this was a bad vote. Plain and simple.

 

[Matt Collins]

Looks like the Pentagon has already violated this -

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/u-s-violating-own-sanctions-on-iran/

 

[eleganz]

It makes sense because Libya was so damn blatant.

I think Rand's heart is always in the right place, just like his father. Their styles are what differentiates them.

I wonder if it has anything to do with this story:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/report-german-check-bust-man-ex-iran-bank-head

BERLIN (AP) — The German newspaper Bild am Sonntag reports that a man caught last month trying to enter Germany with a check worth about $70 million was Iran's former central bank chief.

 

[BarryDonegan]

The important thing to realize was that this sanction was actually against Iran's central bank!

I thought everyone knew this all along, and that's why I was confused as to why this was such a big issue. Technically, central banks are private, so a purist libertarian could argue that it shouldn't restrict their actions, but the effect of this bill was to interfere with direct transactions going to Iran's central bank from the Fed.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I thought everyone knew this all along, and that's why I was confused as to why this was such a big issue. Technically, central banks are private, so a purist libertarian could argue that it shouldn't restrict their actions, but the effect of this bill was to interfere with direct transactions going to Iran's central bank from the Fed.

Oh, well since it's only the rich banksters that are starving and unable to procure basic necessities....

 

[talkingpointes]

Nope, Mr. Collins, I don't buy it. Perhaps that is Sen. Paul's end-game, but I doubt it. It's much more likely based on his own comments about sanctioning Iran that he genuinely thinks this type of foreign intervention is the right thing to do in this particular scenario. I disagree. I think this is a bad vote on his part.

I still think he's a fabulous Senator and I support him 95% of the time and will continue to do so when he fights for good causes (as he very, very, very often does), but this was a bad vote. Plain and simple.

But ant one point in 30 yrs RON did it. LOL

 

[amy31416]

But ant one point in 30 yrs RON did it. LOL

That too was a bad vote worthy of criticism.