Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said it's time for "civilized Islam" to step up to defeat the Islamic State (IS) while condemning President Barack Obama's executive action.

Paul said Saudi Arabia, one of America's few allies in the area, has let this go on too long and has aided and abetted the rise of ISIS.

"Ultimately, civilized Islam will have to step up. We need to do everything we can to protect ourselves, I'm all in for saying we have to combat ISIS," Paul told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Wednesday. "So I think it is important not only for the American public but for the world and for the Islamic world to point out that this is not a true form of Islam, this is an abhorrent form."

Paul criticized Obama for his response to IS, asserting that the president should have taken his address to the Hill and asked for military authorization from Congress.

"This is an intervention, and I don't always support interventions but this is one I do support. But I think the president would be more powerful, the country would be more united -- he should've come before a joint session of Congress, laid out his plan as he did tonight, and then called for an up or down vote," he said. "It is unconstitutional what he's doing."

2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.

Original post:
Rand Paul: 'Civilized Islam will have to step up'

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says the U.S. has "gone too far in thinking we can re-create an American democratic paradise in the Middle East." LM Otero/AP hide caption

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says the U.S. has "gone too far in thinking we can re-create an American democratic paradise in the Middle East."

In a prime-time speech Wednesday, President Obama called on Congress to support his fight against the extremist group known as Islamic State. That call has been getting mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, including from Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. He says that while he supports the fight against ISIS, he believes the president is "going about it in the wrong way."

His father, Ron Paul, twice ran for president as a candidate who never strayed from a firm libertarian path.

And the younger Paul has been shoring up support in places like Iowa this year, presumably to explore the possibility of his own bid for the presidency in 2016. His supporters see him as a more viable candidate, with broader appeal, than his father.

Rand Paul sat down with NPR's Robert Siegel to discuss the president's strategy to fight Islamic State, as well as the government's role in job creation and immigration reform.

On President Obama's plan to fight Islamic State

The Constitution's pretty clear. The Federalist papers are pretty clear. ... They very specifically delegated the power to declare war to Congress. They wanted this to be a congressional decision; they did not want war to be engaged in by the executive without approval of Congress.

In this particular instance, I do support combating ISIS. I think that ISIS is a threat to our embassy, to our consulate, as well as potentially to the American people. So I support the effort; I just think he's going about it in the wrong way.

Basically, military intervention should be done constitutionally, by Congress, and in the deliberations there should be a discussion of whether or not there's a vital American interest or a vital American need in that area. I would say that the previous engagements in Libya and in Syria have led to a stronger ISIS, have led to a safe haven for ISIS.

See the original post here:
Rand Paul: U.S. Must Be More Realistic In Foreign Policy Approach

As hes made his way, methodically and relentlessly, toward launching a 2016 bid to be the Republican Partys nominee for president, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has had to evolve on some issues while disowning his prior stance on others.

One of the areas where hes most conspicuously given himself a makeover is foreign policy. Paul used to be the standard-bearer for the rights anti-interventionists and opponents of empire, but lately hes been sounding more and more hawkish, and less and less like the smoother, more accessible version of his father that many conservative doves hoped he would be.

Yet according to reports, these increasingly crestfallen supporters have found themselves a silver lining: While Paul will support the presidents plan to increase the number and intent of airstrikes against ISIS, he still opposes that other major request of the hawks, arming the moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The news came via the Huffington Post, whose reporter was told by Paul senior aide Doug Stafford that the senator believes arming the same side as ISIS was and is a strategic error and [he] would oppose such action.

By dissenting against arming the rebels which is all he can do, given that Obama is not asking for, and Congress is not demanding, official authorization to fight ISIS Paul is siding with those who argue that the U.S. should be less willing to supply foreign fighters with weapons, lest they one day fall into the hands of Americas enemies. President Obama was formerly the most influential member of this group, but has shifted position in response to heightened fears of a future ISIS attack.

Despite the words of Pauls spokesperson, however, it should be noted that Paul did not emphasize his concerns about the FSA when he appeared on Sean Hannitys Fox News show after the presidents speech. Rather than burnish his dovish credentials, Paul instead focused on the element of the ISIS strategy he agreed with, and then criticized the president on constitutional grounds.

Obamas not seeking an authorization vote from Congress, Paul said, [didn't] in any way represent what our Constitution dictates nor what our Founding Fathers intended.The march to the White House continues.

Follow this link:
Rand Paul to Obama: Dont arm Syrian rebels

Adrian Wyllie Libertarian Candidate for Florida Governor Town Hall
Online Town Hall on Wednesday, September 17th at 7pm at the Datex Center in Clearwater, FL . He will be taking questions from Twitter and Google as well as from the audience in attendance....

By: Adrian Wyllie

Read more:
Adrian Wyllie Libertarian Candidate for Florida Governor Town Hall - Video

The Republican Party's libertarian tide, which waxed strongly over the last four years, has begun to recede in the face of growing public fears about Islamic militancy in the Mideast.

The latest evidence of the shift comes from a Pew Research Center survey released Wednesday that shows, among other things, fewer conservatives are worried that government anti-terrorism activities will lead to violations of civil liberties. Concern over the tradeoff between civil liberties and security had risen sharply after Edward Snowden's revelations of the widespread surveillance by the National Security Agency, for which he had been a contractor.

Just a little more than a year ago, 47% of Americans said they were more concerned that government anti-terrorism policies had gone "too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties" compared with 35% who said they were more concerned those policies "have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country." A second Pew poll later in the fall found a similar result.

Now, however, only 35% say they are concerned that anti-terrorism policies have gone "too far" and 50% say their greater worry is that the policies will not go "far enough."

The Pew survey, conducted Sept. 2-9, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

The shift in public opinion comes mostly from the GOP side. Republicans went from an almost even division in November, 43% "too far" and 41% "not far enough," to a lopsided 24% "too far," 64% "not far enough" response in the current survey. Among Republicans, the shift was particularly strong among those who said they identify with the tea party movement.

Democrats remain closely divided on the issue, with self-identified liberals more likely to say they fear the government has gone "too far."

The split among Democrats has been notable in Congress, where a group of mostly western Democratic senators, led by Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, have been prominent critics of the NSA and the Obama administration's continuation of some surveillance policies adopted during the George W. Bush administration.

Among Republicans, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has led the critics of the NSA. His denunciations of government surveillance, highlighted by a 13-hour filibuster against the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan in March 2013, catapulted him into the first ranks of Republican presidential prospects.

But if the shift in the Republican mood persists, with growing support for the use of military force overseas and declining concern over civil liberties, Paul's appeal could wane. Notably, the senator has appeared to shift ground in recent days. Wednesday night, after Obama's speech, he said in an interview on Fox News that he was "all in for saying we have to combat ISIS.

Read the original post:
Libertarian mood in GOP wanes as Mideast concern rises