The U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 65, sponsored by Lindsey Graham, which reinforces support for sanctions against Iran and the U.S. government's alliance with Israel. In other words, it is meant to stoke the flames of war, while continuing to harm the innocent people of Iran. Of course, it is also full of lies and distortions. (Thanks to Daniel McAdams on the LRC blog.)
The most incredible thing about this legislation is that it passed unanimously in the Senate. Whenever something passes unanimously in Congress, you can be virtually assured that it is terrible legislation.
When Ron Paul was in the House, it was common to see him as a lone vote against many pieces of legislation. This would usually mean that the legislation was extremely harmful and, of course, unconstitutional. Even the vote after 9/11 for the Authorization for Use of Military Force was nearly unanimous. The one "no" vote was by Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California. It turned out that this was also horrible legislation, as it has been used by the executive branch ever since as an open invitation of war against anyone.
It is no surprise that the so-called Tea Party senators from the Republican Party voted in favor of provoking war against Iran. Rubio and Cruz have already shown that they are pro war. Unfortunately, Rand Paul is also part of this crowd. He has proven once again that he is not even close to his father.
I believe that Rand Paul felt compelled to vote for this legislation. He has presidential aspirations and he knows he cannot get the Republican nomination if he appears too "soft" on the so-called enemies. I don't know just how pro war he is in his blood, but he is not anti war enough to take a stand. Instead, he continues to do the politically expedient thing. I hope libertarians are not fooled into thinking that he is just pretending here so that he can carry out his libertarian agenda once he gets elected president.
That never happens and we shouldn't expect it to happen this time. If anything, most politicians become more pro war and more in bed with the establishment once they are in office. If Rand Paul can't take a stand against this horrible legislation, it is unlikely he will take much of a stand in favor of liberty. In fact, he might even hurt the cause, much in the same way that Reagan did. He will be labeled a libertarian and then the bad results from his anti-liberty policies will be labeled libertarian by the media.
I much prefer when someone like Obama is in office when the economy is bad. Most everyone will acknowledge that he is not in favor of a completely free market. So when the economic news is bad, at least free market capitalism doesn't get the blame.
I have already resolved that I will not support Rand Paul for president, unless something drastic changes. He has little in common with his father. I'm sure Rand is a decent guy to hang out with, but we don't need another politician who is not going to take a stand against war and tyranny.