Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
preacherman76

Im officialy done supporting Rand Paul

30 posts in this topic

The Senate passed the much ballyhooed Feinstein-Lee amendment last night, which supposedly partially nullifies the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing for Americans to be kidnapped by the government and disappeared without any charge or due process. Senator Rand Paul put out a press release declaring victory. But as Congressman Justin Amash points out, the wording of the amendment effectively codifies tyranny:

The heart of the Feinstein amendment:

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, UNLESS AN ACT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES SUCH DETENTION."

Well, that Act of Congress is the 2012 NDAA, which renders the rest of the Feinstein amendment meaningless.

http://www.lewrockwe...ves/127446.html

I refuse to believe he is dumb enough to think anything actualy changed here. So why on earth would he declare this a victory??? He is the worst kind of traitor. A wolf in sheeps clothes. The apple fell real far from the tree when it comes to Rand Paul.

Edited by preacherman76
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Amash is awesome. He has a facebook page ,and despite any of his alleged political alliances ,he posts relative stuff ,people even outside his jurisdiction should know .

He should be frigging president .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that not a change for the better? The president can't just do it on his own now. I understand that no due process and vanishing into the night is still bad but it seems far less likely to happen if it takes an act of congress. Not saying its good, but it does seem better. Or are you just mad at rand Paul for declaring victory instead of progress for lack of better terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heart of the Feinstein amendment:

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, UNLESS AN ACT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES SUCH DETENTION."

Well, that Act of Congress is the 2012 NDAA, which renders the rest of the Feinstein amendment meaningless.

That IS amusing... Good morning world. Looks like nothing changed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that Act of Congress is the 2012 NDAA,

which will pretty much be nullified by the 2013NDAA, 2014NDAA, 2015NDAA, 20x.......

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that not a change for the better? The president can't just do it on his own now. I understand that no due process and vanishing into the night is still bad but it seems far less likely to happen if it takes an act of congress. Not saying its good, but it does seem better. Or are you just mad at rand Paul for declaring victory instead of progress for lack of better terms?

Yes he can still do it on his own. Congress already authorised it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which will pretty much be nullified by the 2013NDAA, 2014NDAA, 2015NDAA, 20x.......

Why would you assume that? Nothing has been taken out from past NDAA to this point. And even if that part was nullified next year, how many people have or are going to vanish between now and then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This fist pumping by Rand was the trade in exchange for his endorsement of Mitt during the primaries when he sold out.

**** him

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you assume that? Nothing has been taken out from past NDAA to this point. And even if that part was nullified next year, how many people have or are going to vanish between now and then?

I'm not one for conspiracy theories without substance but this really begs the question - if people go missing how will you KNOW whether this was the cause?

After all, people dissappear all the time either through personal choice or as victims of crime ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not one for conspiracy theories without substance but this really begs the question - if people go missing how will you KNOW whether this was the cause?

After all, people dissappear all the time either through personal choice or as victims of crime ....

Allow me..

You don't but it's great cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not one for conspiracy theories without substance but this really begs the question - if people go missing how will you KNOW whether this was the cause?

After all, people dissappear all the time either through personal choice or as victims of crime ....

What conspiracy? 0bama has asked for the power to do this long before NDAA was renewed. Actualy used the words "indefinite detainment" and "rule of law" in the same sentance.

Anyhow, good point. They can wipe you off the face of the planet, and never even have to say they had anything to do with it. This is out right treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Amash is awesome. He has a facebook page ,and despite any of his alleged political alliances ,he posts relative stuff ,people even outside his jurisdiction should know .

He should be frigging president .

Interesting coming from a diehard Obama supporter... Hmm...

The Senate passed the much ballyhooed Feinstein-Lee amendment last night, which supposedly partially nullifies the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing for Americans to be kidnapped by the government and disappeared without any charge or due process. Senator Rand Paul put out a press release declaring victory. But as Congressman Justin Amash points out, the wording of the amendment effectively codifies tyranny:

The heart of the Feinstein amendment:

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, UNLESS AN ACT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES SUCH DETENTION."

Well, that Act of Congress is the 2012 NDAA, which renders the rest of the Feinstein amendment meaningless.

http://www.lewrockwe...ves/127446.html

I refuse to believe he is dumb enough to think anything actualy changed here. So why on earth would he declare this a victory??? He is the worst kind of traitor. A wolf in sheeps clothes. The apple fell real far from the tree when it comes to Rand Paul.

I hate to say this, believe me I do, but I think Rand is just playing the game that needs to be played for him to gain support within his party. I had that feeling when he endorsed Mitt, and I still do now. Ron Paul said it himself - we have a better chance of becoming the influence of the Republican party than starting a third party. Rand has his father's principles at heart. I just don't believe otherwise.

Edited by Legaia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before automatically hitching a ride on the anti-Paul bandwagon, let's at least hear Rand Paul out for his reasoning on this issue before only listening to others tell us what it is.

Where's the "treason"at exactly?

It's worth noting here that the federal government's detention power is currently facing legal challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting coming from a diehard Obama supporter... Hmm...

I hate to say this, believe me I do, but I think Rand is just playing the game that needs to be played for him to gain support within his party. I had that feeling when he endorsed Mitt, and I still do now. Ron Paul said it himself - we have a better chance of becoming the influence of the Republican party than starting a third party. Rand has his father's principles at heart. I just don't believe otherwise.

If you actually read any of my posts,you would know I am not a die hard Obama supporter ,at all.

He stepped all over no less than three amendments .He allowed Monsanto omnipotent power over our food supply .He is just waiting to declare martial law

I just thought ,that despite all of this,he was STILL a better choice than Romney .

I will NEVER buy into Obamacare ,ever. Let them fine me .I will NEVER stop protesting GMOs ,forced vaccinations ,and bull**** Medicine ,tracking private citizens and eugenics.

Try reading more then two posts I make during an election,and you will find out how much of "diehard" I am .Obama is the biggest disappointment in two decades of elections ,and he was STILL better than Romney ...

Edited by Simbi Laveau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you actually read any of my posts,you would know I am not a die hard Obama supporter ,at all.

He stepped all over no less than three amendments .He allowed Monsanto omnipotent power over our food supply .He is just waiting to declare martial law

I just thought ,that despite all of this,he was STILL a better choice than Romney .

I will NEVER buy into Obamacare ,ever. Let them fine me .I will NEVER stop protesting GMOs ,forced vaccinations ,and bull**** Medicine ,tracking private citizens and eugenics.

Try reading more then two posts I make during an election,and you will find out how much of "diehard" I am .Obama is the biggest disappointment in two decades of elections ,and he was STILL better than Romney ...

Romney was no gem, but calling him the worse of two evils makes absolutely no sense.

Source : everything you wrote that I have quoted here. Not to mention the fact that Mitt actually worked a day in the private sector. That is so critical, regardless of how often liberals dismissed it.

(Sorry for getting off track)

Edited by Legaia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before automatically hitching a ride on the anti-Paul bandwagon, let's at least hear Rand Paul out for his reasoning on this issue before only listening to others tell us what it is.

[media=]

[/media]

Where's the "treason"at exactly?

It's worth noting here that the federal government's detention power is currently facing legal challenge.

Rand Paul is a ******* in sheep clothing after all he sold out his own father. His reasoning is that we shouldn't let fear detract us; however, he's saying this amendment is alright thought the rest of NDAA will nullify this amendment respectfully he can kiss my ass.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is a ******* in sheep clothing after all he sold out his own father. His reasoning is that we shouldn't let fear detract us; however, he's saying this amendment is alright thought the rest of NDAA will nullify this amendment respectfully he can kiss my ass.

Nice language. What bureaucrat in Washington DC do you prefer?

You might be right but you haven't validated this claim. What basis do you have to claim that the NDAA nullifies this amendment? Don't just keep repeating the same assertion and hoping I believe it. Legal minds are worried about this and rightly so, but I don't see the "express authorization" in the NDAA, and this issue is a lot more complicated than that when some of our bureaucrats think they already have this power without the NDAA being necessary. So we're all over the road here and not everyone can be legally right at the same time. Throwing stink bombs at Rand Paul first when there's so many richer targets out there looks pretty ridiculous though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're done supporting Rand Paul, who are we supporting? If Rand Paul isn't good enough to be President, what President was good enough to be President in the past 100 years in this country? If Rand Paul is so bad for our future, who isn't? As if we can't find 99 other Senators far more worthy of all this hateful blubber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention tools.

Rand Paul is the replacement for his father Ron Paul who's function was to make you believe that despite the rampant corruption in our nearly dead system, there is someone fighting for truth, justice, and for the voters. If like preacherman 76 you pay attention to what he does (or does not as the case may be) you will see that nothing will change and he will never put through an effective piece of legislation, just keeps telling the truth but really does nothing to stop the liars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am listening to college lectures about Hitler and the development of NAZI power. The professor begins with a question, asking if such a thing happened in the US would we stand against it. Yeah, right, like the wheat stands against the wind storm. Some of us know the reasoning of our past laws, and we would stand against changes that have been made or are being made, but what good does that do?

Only when the masses are educated for democracy and only when they stand together for their liberty, is their democracy and liberty defended. That begins with education and it was stopped in 1958, and replaced by Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. It is hard for me pay attention to the college lectures, because they do not say enough about what happened when the Prussians took over, and centralized public education. Our constitution prevents our government from doing this, but it has been done.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice language. What bureaucrat in Washington DC do you prefer?

You might be right but you haven't validated this claim. What basis do you have to claim that the NDAA nullifies this amendment? Don't just keep repeating the same assertion and hoping I believe it. Legal minds are worried about this and rightly so, but I don't see the "express authorization" in the NDAA, and this issue is a lot more complicated than that when some of our bureaucrats think they already have this power without the NDAA being necessary. So we're all over the road here and not everyone can be legally right at the same time. Throwing stink bombs at Rand Paul first when there's so many richer targets out there looks pretty ridiculous though.

What do you mean it isnt validated? Did you read the OP? You dont see how NDAA authories the indefinite detention of Americans? Basicaly what happened is they tryed to quite oposition to parts of NDAA by pretending to reverse those parts. But they said it in such a way that it allows them to do it anyway. They are counting on the people to be dumb. And the fact the Rand see's this as some kinda victory means he is counting on you to be dumb too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention tools.

Rand Paul is the replacement for his father Ron Paul who's function was to make you believe that despite the rampant corruption in our nearly dead system, there is someone fighting for truth, justice, and for the voters. If like preacherman 76 you pay attention to what he does (or does not as the case may be) you will see that nothing will change and he will never put through an effective piece of legislation, just keeps telling the truth but really does nothing to stop the liars.

Sure Blame Ron cause he couldnt single handedly implement, or denie legislation. What proof do you have that its his function to pretend to care about liberty? A single congressmen doesnt have anywhere near the power you aparently think they have.

Folks 30 years and under are overwhemlingly now in support of freedom, the constitution, and the bill of rights. It wont be 10 years and we will be the majority. All because of Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're done supporting Rand Paul, who are we supporting? If Rand Paul isn't good enough to be President, what President was good enough to be President in the past 100 years in this country? If Rand Paul is so bad for our future, who isn't? As if we can't find 99 other Senators far more worthy of all this hateful blubber.

There isnt anyone. All are corrupt, all elected today fall short of what the people deserve. I gotta be honest I dont understand your loyalty. First the man fully supported what represents everything wrong with American politics in putting all his chips on Romney. Now he his declaring victory over legislation that has no teeth to do what we were told it suppossed to.

Anyhow, as of right now there isnt anyone in the spot light worth trusting. Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, I will never leave my integrity at the curtain of a voting booth ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before automatically hitching a ride on the anti-Paul bandwagon, let's at least hear Rand Paul out for his reasoning on this issue before only listening to others tell us what it is.

[media=]

[/media]

Yea great speech. He certainly knows how to talk the talk. Problem is this legislation doesnt do what he is claiming it does. Talking the talk means nothing if you arent going to walk the walk. It still leaves the door wide open for them to indefinitly detain Americans through legislation already passed by congress.

Where's the "treason"at exactly?

There isnt any treason on Rands part. He voted no on NDAA. The treason spoken of is the indefinite detention of Americans with no due process.

It's worth noting here that the federal government's detention power is currently facing legal challenge.

We can only hope the courts have more sence then our elected officails. I wont hold my breath though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea great speech. He certainly knows how to talk the talk. Problem is this legislation doesnt do what he is claiming it does. Talking the talk means nothing if you arent going to walk the walk. It still leaves the door wide open for them to indefinitly detain Americans through legislation already passed by congress.

There isnt any treason on Rands part. He voted no on NDAA. The treason spoken of is the indefinite detention of Americans with no due process.

We can only hope the courts have more sence then our elected officails. I wont hold my breath though.

The courts aren't rewriting the law though, they're interpreting it as is their job. If they interpret it to mean that there is no treason, then you're jumping the gun. That's the point I was making by telling you that the whole idea of this detention is being challenged. And if Rand Paul voted no to the NDAA and he's not the treason you were speaking of, then why are you bringing it up in your narrative, and taking it out on Rand Paul?

So let's get this straight. Rand Paul would have avoided the treason by voting no to Feinstein Lee? Why is voting Yes for Feinstein Lee mutually exclusive to voting down the NDAA later? Can't there be a future with Feinstein Lee and not the NDAA even if the courts rule that your worst fears are true? Of course there can! :) You're wanting too much too fast. Ron Paul didn't part the oceans in his first year either. He barely got anything done in 30+. This is just strategy not indication that Rand Paul isn't true to the liberty movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.