Rand Paul: "Proud to sign a resolution welcoming Netanyahu to Congress"

[Natural Citizen]

As a legal matter, the Republican invite to Netanyahu is indeed a violation of the Logan act and FEC rules. As a practical matter, no one is going to prosecute them, including the Obama adminstration.

Yep and yep...

It's right there in black and white. Of course, you're correct. Nobody will do anything about it.

 

[TheGrinch]

Yep and yep...

It's right there in black and white. Of course, you're correct. Nobody will do anything about it.

No it's not. First the very first sentence: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States: Clearly putting it up to a vote would be authorizing, giving authority to Congress. It's not like Congress is going rogue to meet him privately. It would be authorized by vote and public.

Then: with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof: If Netanyahu is speaking to Congress, there is no evidence congress is trying to influence him, so that doesn't fall under it either.

Though the second part doesn't matter so much, since the first part allows for authorized discussions under the law. It's unauthorized meetings with foreign nations that were clearly the intent of the Logan Act to prohibit.

That is not even close to Congress voting to authorize a speech on the floor to a member of another nation to speak to them.

 

[Working Poor]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Can we not have diplomacy without "pomp and circumstance?" How about a handshake? Or must our political leaders always bow down to the heads of foreign governments?

Honestly...

 

[Natural Citizen]

No it's not. First the very first sentence: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States: Clearly putting it up to a vote would be authorizing, giving authority to Congress. It's not like Congress is going rogue to meet him privately. It would be authorized by vote and public.

Then: with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof: If Netanyahu is speaking to Congress, there is no evidence congress is trying to influence him, so that doesn't fall under it either.

Though the second part doesn't matter so much, since the first part allows for authorized discussions under the law. It's unauthorized meetings with foreign nations that were clearly the intent of the Logan Act to prohibit.

That is not even close to Congress voting to authorize a speech on the floor to a member of another nation to speak to them.

I'll say it again. Pay attention, now.

They are using a foreign leader to lobby for their own legislation. Recall that they invited him to speak premised upon "the grave threats that radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life". The announcement comes as Republicans in Congress are pushing for new sanctions against Iran.

Also, the Logan Act makes it a crime for unauthorized American citizens to negotiate with foreign governments. That is a felony. Punishable by up to 3 years in prison. It is also possible that he (Boehner) is in volation of the Federal Elections Commission law. Section 441e makes it illegal for a person to solicit, accept or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national. Simply by using the speech to raise money for republicans in any way he's guilty of violating FEC law...Rand. While one can certainly say that “He’s always welcome" outling factors relative to such "invitations" remain.

And this is why Obama won't meet with him in a situation like that.

 

[sylcfh]

Rands Twitter is getting loopy. He just defended Rick Perry.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rands Twitter is getting loopy. He just defended Rick Perry.

This explains that:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Rand-Paul%92s-rise-to-%91troller-in-chief%92

 

[LawnWake]

Anyone who is surprised and disappointed that Rand should do this should ask themselves why libertarians are supposed to be opposed to diplomacy with foreign nations.

I agree with Rand's move and language, since this is necessary in a Republican primary. But don't frame this move as being solely about "diplomacy". It's not the diplomatic aspect that people are opposing but the Israel brownnosing.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Anyone who is surprised and disappointed that Rand should do this should ask themselves why libertarians are supposed to be opposed to diplomacy with foreign nations.

I don't think its so much that as its opposition to American obsession with Israel. This is really symbolic of that. But, that's not Rand's fault (ie. I don't really object to this. I do object to any GOP idiots that would actually care about like this.)

 

[Brett85]

I don't think its so much that as its opposition to American obsession with Israel. This is really symbolic of that. But, that's not Rand's fault (ie. I don't really object to this. I do object to any GOP idiots that would actually care about like this.)

The obsession with Israel is equally bad with people here in the opposite direction.

 

[Smitty]

If Rand is elected President will he invite Israel's PM to address Congress?

 

[erowe1]

The obsession with Israel is equally bad with people here in the opposite direction.

+rep

 

[69360]

Obviously done looking toward the primary.

But there really is nothing wrong with resolutions or diplomacy, it's not law.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, if precedent means anything...

 

[H. E. Panqui]

traditional republicrat becks: The obsession with Israel is equally bad with people here in the opposite direction.



(...'opposite direction??!!' ...?you zionist shill$ are in favor of americans being robbed of unknown illion$ and the proceed$ going to the murderous iZraeli warmongers!!...the opposite of that would be NOT robbing americans and NOT sending said warmongers any stolen 'proceed$'..

...maybe YOU ought to become 'obsessed' with the 'opposite direction' as it's obviously the decent, just policy...)

...(i sense there are many crack users who understand right and wrong better than these busybody republicrat warmongers, interventionists..

 

[Brett85]

(...'opposite direction??!!' ...?you zionist shill$ are in favor of americans being robbed of unknown illion$ and the proceed$ going to the murderous iZraeli warmongers!!...the opposite of that would be NOT robbing americans and NOT sending said warmongers any stolen 'proceed$'..

No, I'm opposed to all foreign aid. I'm just not going to single out Israel when we give foreign aid to all kinds of other countries as well.

The subject of this particular thread also has nothing to do with foreign aid either.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

69360 whistles: But there really is nothing wrong with resolutions or diplomacy, it's not law.



(69360 and traditional zionist interventionist: DO/CAN YOU SEE ANYTHING WRONG HERE?!:

http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/...hanges-course-on-israel-funding#.VOXqK_nF8mc=

RAND PAUL EXPLAINING HIS $UPPORT OF FUNDING FOR 'IZRAEL'S IRON DOME': "I've never said oh my goodness! Let's target aid to Israel…I said you know what, to get to an ultimate goal maybe we should start by eliminating aid to countries that hate us, countries that burn our flag. I've been very up front to acknowledge that Israel isn't one of the countries. Israel is our friend. I have never had a bill that had Israel's name in it to eliminate aid to Israel," Paul told an audience at the Campbellsville Chamber of Commerce in Kentucky Monday, reported the local news channel WBKO.
Paul also defended his previous record on funding to Israel to Yahoo Newspolitical reporter Chris Moody on Aug. 4.
“We’ve never had a legislative proposal to do that…Israel has always been a strong ally of ours and I appreciate that. I voted just this week to give money — more money — to the Iron Dome, so don’t mischaracterize my position on Israel,” he added.
Shortly after Paul’s comment to Moody, his office doubled down on the statement, saying: “Sen. Rand Paul has never proposed any legislation that targeted Israel's aid and just last week voted to continue and increase funding to the State of Israel. Sen. Paul is a strong supporter of the Jewish state of Israel.”
“I think he has, in his own words, a new appreciation of the true security needs of Israel and I don’t think there’s any issue about him voting against any specific military aid to Israel,” said Texas businessman and Republican activist Fred Zeidman, who has met with Paul to discuss his stance on Israel, among other important campaign issues.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

The obsession with Israel is equally bad with people here in the opposite direction.

Yes, some people here go way too far in the other direction. I criticize Israel all the time but I don't believe (like some do here) that they are behind every conflict and that they "own" America, etc.

But RPF represents a very small segment of America. Say something negative about Israel among Republicans down here in South Carolina, and people start asking you to prove that you didn't vote for Obama.

 

[Brett85]

(69360 and traditional zionist interventionist: DO/CAN YOU SEE ANYTHING WRONG HERE?!:

You're an unabashed idiot. You really just need to shut up at this point before you embarrass yourself any further. I already said that I'm opposed to all foreign aid, including aid to Israel. So I'm not advocating "intervention."

 

[Brett85]

Screw it, I'm just going to put the idiot on ignore. What a complete waste of time.