Rand Paul Responds to President Obama's Address 03/28/11 VIDEO FULL TEXT

Following President Obama's national address this evening regarding the situation in Libya, Sen. Rand Paul released the following remarks in response to the President.

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Rand Paul Response to President Obama’s Address Time to consult Congress, follow Constitution before action Monday, March 28, 2011.

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.

Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden’s radical jihad?

In 2007, then-candidate Obama said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval

What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States’ vital national interest.

Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.

Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.

But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.

At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.

When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.

Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.

The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:

The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.

If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.

The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.

The Constitution says Congress – all of Congress – is responsible for declaring war.

While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.

We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.

We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.

The subtext to the President’s speech concerning Libya tonight was “What if we had done nothing?” But a better question might be, What if helping Libya’s interest actually hurts America’s interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?

It’s time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don’t have. And we can’t afford to address every other nation’s problems before we can address our own.

Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress – the People’s House – deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.

We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.

Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.

TEXT CREDIT: Senator Paul, U.S. Senator for Kentucky:

VIDEO IMAGE and TEXT CREDIT: SenatorRandPaul

John Boehner asks Five Simple Questions for Democrats on Spending Cuts

It was 37 days ago that House Republicans passed H.R. 1, a clear plan for cutting spending to create a better environment for job growth and keeping the government funded for the rest of this fiscal year. But here we are, more than a month later, and nobody knows where the Democrats who run Washington stand on cutting spending – including Democrats themselves. To help move the process along, we’d like answers to these five simple questions: * 1) When will Senate Democrats offer a serious plan for cutting spending and funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year? AP noted that “[t]he House has voted for $61 billion in cuts” – H.R. 1. But Politico says “Senate Democrats haven’t put forward a long-term spending plan that can move through their chamber.” In fact, Democrats have “shown no ability to rally behind a long-term budget proposal.” So where is their plan?

* 2) Where does the White House stand on cutting spending and funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year? “Democrats on both sides of the Capitol say they have no idea where the White House stands or who’s running the show,” reports Politico. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said on the Senate floor, “Our president has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for.” And Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) asked, “Where is the president going to lead? And are we going to follow?”

* 3) What exactly is the White House willing to cut? The Washington Post says “Democrats are being disingenuous by suggesting they have already worked hard to reduce spending or to reach out to Republicans.” Despite repeated claims by the White House and top Democrats, “when they're translated into real numbers, the White House is arguably meeting the GOP just one-sixth of the way — not halfway at all,” says AP.

* 4) What exactly are Congressional Democrats willing to cut? “The top two Democratic leaders in the House have twice split on whether to approve short-term government funding bills that cut billions from federal accounts,” reported Politico. And remember: the House-passed H.R.1 received more votes in the Democrat-run Senate than the status quo spending plan put forward by Democratic leaders.

* 5) Do Democrats intend to shut down the government because they can't agree among themselves? Politico says Democrats have been “wobbly in their budget message, divided on major votes and out of sync…” To mask these ongoing divisions – and their desire to keep the job-crushing spending binge going – Democrats have repeatedly rooted for a government shutdown. As CNN reported, “it is the Democrats talking most about shutting down the government.”

The new Republican Majority is working to clean up the mess left behind when “the Democratic-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget” last year. But we need to know – as Speaker Boehner asked the other day – “when it comes to cutting spending and keeping the government running, where are Washington Democrats?”

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117