Rand Paul Lying on Fox News and Why He CAN do it Without Fear of Being Challenged

As Lawrence O'Donnell said, "This is what Rand Paul looks like when he is lying". This is what his face looks like when he is telling a blatant lie and knows the audience, the network he is on, and no one in the Tea Party will bother holding him accountable for telling an outright lie.

Do you know why he can do this without fear of being held accountable for his lie? Because he knows even though several reputable news organizations will call him out for doing so, his base supporters in the Tea Party have no such standards. They don't fact check, they don't believe more than one source of information, and they are as low as low information voters get. When you have been suckered for so long, you'll believe anything your single source of information says.




“Lawrence O'Donnell just crucified Rand Paul for blatantly lying on FOX about the unanimous consent vote that he cast to authorize the action in Libya. S. RES. 85 passed unanimously on March 1st. Rand is counting on the fact that nearly all FOX viewers get ALL their news from FOX and right-wingnut radio. Idiocracy here we come.

 

What actions did S. RES. 85 authorize the US to do?

 

S.RES.85 -- Whereas Muammar Gadhafi and his regime have engaged in gross and systematic violations of human rights, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, that have... (Agreed to Senate - ATS)


SRES 85 ATS


112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 85
Strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 1, 2011
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RESOLUTION
Strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes.

Whereas Muammar Gadhafi and his regime have engaged in gross and systematic violations of human rights, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, that have killed thousands of people;

Whereas Muammar Gadhafi, his sons and supporters have instigated and authorized violent attacks on Libyan protesters using warplanes, helicopters, snipers and soldiers and continue to threaten the life and well-being of any person voicing opposition to the Gadhafi regime;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council and the international community have condemned the violence and use of force against civilians in Libya and on February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed to refer the ongoing situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, impose an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the provision of mercenary personnel, freeze the financial assets of Muammar Gadhafi and certain family members, and impose a travel ban on Gadhafi, certain family members and senior advisors;

Whereas Muammar Gadhafi has ruled Libya for more than 40 years by banning and brutally opposing any individual or group opposing the ideology of his 1969 revolution, criminalizing the peaceful exercise of expression and association, refusing to permit independent journalists' and lawyers' organizations, and engaging in torture and extrajudicial executions, including the 1,200 detainees killed in Abu Salim Prison in June 1996;

Whereas Libya took formal responsibility for the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, 189 of whom were U.S. citizens and high-ranking Libyan officials have indicated that Muammar Gadhafi personally ordered the attack; and

Whereas Libya was elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council on May 13, 2010 for a period of 3 years, sending a demoralizing message of indifference to the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 and Libyan citizens that have endured repression, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance or physical assault in their struggle to obtain basic human and civil rights: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;
(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the `disproportionate use of force in Libya' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and

(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.

 

Just so I can learn the liberal US (supposed) government, just what authority does the United Nations Security Council have over our people or armed forces?

 

Lawrence O'Donnell falsely implied Senator Paul supported the US led "Nato Libyan war/conflict/jaunt/policing/hand holding/let me be clear/camping trip." There is absolutely no evidence of a vote on the US Senate page. A Paul staffer explained it best that Mr. O'Donnell is wrong.

A staff member for Sen. Paul stated, "There wasn't a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution--which is non-binding-- was in and out before he made it back to the floor."

Moen, do you have proof that Sen. Paul voted "yes" on this resolution? For that matter, do you have proof that he even voted on this resolution? I'd like to see your proof that he voted "yes", "no", "maybe", "present" or anything else or even that he was on the Senate floor when the unanimous consent vote was passed by the Democratically-controlled Senate.

 

Apparently, you don't understand unanimous consent. It only takes one senator to say "Stop the process, I want to discuss this on the floor". Rand Paul voted by unanimous consent by not doing so.

 

We ARE one of the 5 permanent members of the UN. WE offer the resolution. The other members only agreed with us by voting in favor or our resolution. That is my understanding. WE did something through the UN, they did not do something to US.

 

That still gives them ZERO authority over anything in the USA - except maybe the building they are in and I am not sure about that even.

 

We know, we know the Right's distain for the UN already. The Right wing Neocons would never try to get the UN's approval for any military action when they can act unilaterally. Although, later, they may pretend that they did receive UN approval for their unilateral actions...

Hannity, Wash. Times Suggests UN Supported Bush's Invasion Of Iraq

Wash. Times Suggests Bush Had U.N. "Mandate" For Iraq Invasion. In a March 31 editorial, The Washington Times compared President Obama's actions in Libya to Bush's invasion of Iraq and stated that Obama's "United Nations mandate" regarding Libya "is much weaker than that enjoyed by his predecessor and of questionable legality." From the Times editorial:

Mr. Obama's motive - trying to dislodge an authoritarian regime in the name of the Libyan people - are solidly within the neoconservative framework. Aside from programs to develop weapons of mass destruction - and Mr. Gadhafi's were substantial - the fundamental belief in universal human liberty is at the root of the classic neocon foreign policy approach. When the White House talks about supporting the "legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people," the word "Libyan" could be replaced with "Iraqi" and we'd be right back in 2002.

[...]

The problem is that as a novice neocon, Mr. Obama has made some rookie mistakes. His "coalition of the willing" is smaller than the ones assembled by President George W. Bush; in fact, he has the weakest international support for any combined kinetic operation since the end of World War II. His United Nations mandate is much weaker than that enjoyed by his predecessor and of questionable legality. Mr. Obama's leadership style - imploring other countries to get involved so he can hastily bow out - leaves much to be desired. Agreeing to arm and train the rebels before anyone outside of Libya knows exactly who they are is sloppy. Not seeking congressional buy-in was politically unwise. On top of all this, the odds of Mr. Obama having a "Phase IV" post-conflict reconstruction plan for Libya ready to go are exactly zero. [The Washington Times, 3/31/11]

 

OK! I will play your game. Please show me anything in our Constitution that says the UN has any authority over anything we do.

 

Show me anything in the Constitution that says corporations are people. Heck, show me the word corporation in the Constitution. Show me how the Bush Doctrine would be interpreted by the Founding Fathers. Here, let's make it easier:

The Air Force
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force.

Congressional Districts
Congressional Districts divide almost every state in the United States into two or more chunks; each district should be roughly equal in population throughout the state and indeed, the entire country. Each district elects one Representative to the House of Representatives. The number of districts in each state is determined by the decennial census, as mandated by the Constitution. But districts are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The Electoral College
The concept of the presidential elector is certainly in the Constitution, but never is the group of people collectively referred to as "The Electoral College." Article 1, Section 2 speaks of "Electors," as do several of the Amendments, but never the college itself.

Executive Orders
Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time.

God
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments.

All I can say is that if you have to fall back on the old "show me it in the Constitution" line of reasoning, you've already lost the argument.

 

Really, I am not sure that voting to urge the UN to impose a no-fly zone is the same as voting for the US to take the lead and/or participate in a no-fly zone. Several countries on the security council voted for the no-fly zone and they aren't leading or participating in it. Personally, I am all for the UN resolution-ing themselves silly over every country in the Mid East or North Africa that is in upheaval. I am not so enthused about us participating or leading the enforcement of the resolutions when we haven't finished our last two wars yet.

And just for fun...here is the Mar 1 vote on S 85. The video is the last 5 minutes of that day's session and the resolution was passed in the last minute before adjournment.

Senate Session, Part 2 - C-SPAN Video Library

 

You problem is that we were not talking about the Air Force, Congressional Districts, Electoral College, Executive Orders, or God. Back to topic: Please show me anything in our Constitution that says the UN has any authority over anything we do.

 

No, Moen I understand Unanimous Consent perfectly well. You stated about Rand Paul, "the unanimous consent vote that he cast to authorize the action"

Please show your proof that he cast a vote or even that he was present in the Senate when the vote was taken.

You can't do it because you know he didn't cast a vote and that he wasn't even on the Senate floor when the Unanimous Consent vote was taken. That's pretty sneaky - even for you...

 

I see tumbleweeds in our future!

 

I believe the point I was making was that we do many things that the Constitution doesn't specifically cover. In other words, you can't win an argument just by saying something isn't in the Constitution because we do lots of things, countless things, that aren't covered in the Constitution. The actual topic was Rand Paul's unanimous consent vote and his lying about it on Fox.

 

Maybe it's just that you don't understand how the Senate works. Nobody has to vote from the floor unless they object. They vote from behind closed doors. The only reason they have to actually go to the Senate floor is to challenge a vote UNLESS" they agree by unaimous concent to let the resolution pass as is. What part of that confuses you?
You either unaimously agree or one lone Senator objects and the whole thing is brought to floor vote. Rand Paul did not object and now he wants to say that he did not consent. The only conclusion that you can come to is that he agreed with the resolution or he is an idiot. If you're saying that he is an idiot, now that's another argument entirely.

 

So what you are saying is that it makes no difference what the Constitution says. The only thing that counts is what you say it says.

 

Perhaps the part where you said, "... the unanimous consent vote that he cast to authorize the action" yet Rand Paul's staffer said, "There wasn't a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution--which is non-binding-- was in and out before he made it back to the floor."

Now, Moen you can't have it both ways; either he cast a vote or he didn't. You've made the assertion that he cast a vote for the resolution. Please be so kind as to show us proof of your assertion keeping in mind that abstention from voting is not "casting a vote".

 

Urging the United Nations Security Council to take such further action IN NO WAY authorizes the president to take the UNITED STATES to war! If the U.N. votes to take some action, the President then needs to take that to the Congress in order to authorize U.S. action. There is no way to do this by proxy. It's called separation of powers. Only Congress can declare war.

It is rather obvious that everyone would consent (not necessarily approve of, but consent to) the Senate condemning Gadaffi and urging the U.N. to consider the matter because that action DOES NOT COMMIT THE U.S. TO ANYTHING.