RSS

Rand Paul: “I have a bill in Congress that says we should read the bills before we pass them”

25 Oct

The reason we vote to elect one man or another to Congress is that we believe that our particular candidate has a system of values pretty much like our own.  Therefore, when our candidate is in Congress and a new law is proposed, he will vote for or against that law just like we would because his system of values is just like ours.

However, if your candidate doesn’t even read the bills he votes for or against, what difference does his system of values make?  We could just as easily vote in a child molester, a serial killer or a chimpanzee.  Their system of values makes no difference if they don’t read the laws they vote for or against.

More, if your congressman doesn’t read the laws he votes for or against, how does he know how to vote?  Because he doesn’t actually read the bills, he’s not making up his own mind, so who does?  Who tells your congressman or senator whether to vote for or against a particular bill?  The Psychic Hotline?  The Daily Horoscope?  Voices in his head?  Or could it be some particularly powerful individual or institution in Congress?

Whoever tells your congressman how to vote, it’s not you or me or the people of your district.  Whoever tells your congressman how to vote on legislation he has not even read is the person or entity that your congressman truly represents in the Congress.

A congressman who votes on bills he hasn’t even read is controlled by some entity other than himself who does his thinking for him.

video   00:04:07

 
 

Tags: , ,

7 responses to “Rand Paul: “I have a bill in Congress that says we should read the bills before we pass them”

  1. Adrian

    October 25, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    That CONGRESS does not represent America or the American People.
    THEY are a private foreign interest group.
    No one should waste time with THEM.

     
  2. palani

    October 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    Any congressman who votes against the party line is generally going to have a hard time getting re-elected. I guess they figure if they ran as a Democrat (or Republican) and got elected with that designation then the party itself is what was voted into office and the party line is what is touted.

     
  3. Yartap

    October 26, 2013 at 3:59 AM

    Al,

    I agree. It’s one thing to be able to read a bill – it’s another to understand it. Congress’s new way of law passing (You must pass it to see what’s in it.) will be the evil Americans except. We will not have a better society until we get a better class of people. Keeping a congressman with our votes is the evil that We the People commit.

     
  4. Shahzad

    October 26, 2013 at 10:55 PM

    “A congressman who votes on bills he hasn’t even read is controlled by some entity other than himself who does his thinking for him.”
    – The Council on Foreign Relations

     
  5. CoNsTiTuTiOnaL CoNsErVaTiVe ChRiStiaN

    October 27, 2013 at 10:58 PM

    Passing The Bill By Passing The Buck. (Dollars, That Is)

    Anyone That Doesnt Agree With Rand Paul Here, Whether They Are Democrat, Republican Or Independent, Must Have Tripped Over Their Arrogance And Bumped Their Head. I’m Just Sayin’.

     
  6. johannabernays

    October 29, 2013 at 3:44 AM

    June 3, 1997

    American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

    We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

    As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

    We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

    We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

    Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

    Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

    • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
    responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

    • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

    • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

    • we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

    Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

    Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

    Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

    Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

    Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

    Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

    Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

     
  7. johannabernays

    October 29, 2013 at 3:45 AM

    PNAC Project for a New American Century.
    THESE PEOPLE pull OBAMA’S STRINGS

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s