Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s "Stop Arming Terrorists Act" has garnered support in the Senate from someone with a history of arguing for legislation that pushes a more "non-interventionist" foreign policy in the face of the current political establishment -- U.S. Sen. Rand Paul.

This is the latest development in IVN's continued coverage of the bipartisan legislation, which seeks to end American taxpayer funding of “weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.”

The bill, which currently has 9 cosponsors, was most recently referred to the House Intelligence Committee.

Gabbard’s bill, H.R.608, a mere seven pages long, is based on the premise that if the war on terror is ever going to end, we need to stop funding it. And Sen. Rand Paul agrees.

That’s why Paul introduced a companion bill to the Senate, S.532, which has now been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

“One of the unintended consequences of nation-building and open-ended intervention is American funds and weapons benefiting those who hate us,” said Dr. Paul. “This legislation will strengthen our foreign policy, enhance our national security, and safeguard our resources.”

Both Gabbard and Paul have a history of advocating for non-interventionist policies, and Paul has advocated for an end to funding terrorists in the past. In 2014, he argued against the U.S. funding Syrian rebels on the Senate floor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DveDwEk122Y

“I warned a year ago that involving us in Syria’s civil war was a mistake. That the inescapable irony, is that someday the arms we supply would be used against us or Israel. That day is now. ISIS has grabbed up from the U.S., from the Saudis, from the Qataris, weapons by the truckload.”

It is not strange to see Gabbard and Paul join forces on this particular issue. However, it does say something that both lawmakers are willing to put partisanship aside on an issue they are both passionate about -- especially in the current political environment in Washington.

The legislation recently gained some traction on Reddit, as many users pessimistically comment on their hopelessness that, as they see it, no brainer, bipartisan legislation such as this can be passed.

Such cynicism in not uncommon among voters given the hyper-partisan environment in Washington. However, will the Reddit commenters be right? Or can we actually “stop arming terrorists”?