Rand Paul Stop Brennan Nomination With Filibuster; Update: Cruz Joins In!; Update: Democrat To Join In; Update: Rubio Joins! Update: Reid Tries To Shut Down Filibuster…Fails!

Loading

paul filibuster

Rand Paul began filibustering the Brennan nomination about 4 hours ago. Mike Lee has now joined him.

Paul vows to continue the filibuster until Obama declares drone strikes on American citizens on American soil as unconstitutional and that he has no authority to make any such decision:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has launched a talking filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

“I’m here to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination to be director of CIA,” Paul said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “I will speak for as long as it takes.

“I will speak today until the president says, ‘no’ he will not kill you at a café.”

Paul has said he wants more answers from the administration on whether American citizens can be targeted by armed drones inside the United States before he’ll lift his filibuster on Brennan’s nomination. …

“Has America the beautiful become ‘Alice in Wonderland’?” Paul said. “When I asked the president can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer — an unequivocal no.

“But his answer was, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet and I have no intention of killing Americans, but I might.’”Paul said the possibility that a citizen could be targeted without being charged in the courts went against the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which gives citizens the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

“The Fifth Amendment should also protect you from a president who might kill you with a drone,” Paul said. “No American should be killed in their house without a warrant. … But [Obama] says trust him, he hasn’t done it yet.

“Mr. President that’s not good enough. … I will not sit quietly in my office and let him shred the Constitution.”

He spoke about the Posse Comitatus Act, how Obama and pals are barred from using the military on American soil unless an insurrection or war is declared.

The point, Paul says, is that military and police power are separated from judicial power for a reason, and the reason is due process. Without that separation, the executive will be transformed into a tyrannical power, regardless of whether the executive chooses to exercise that power or not. The answer from Eric Holder that “we probably won’t exercise that power” doesn’t address the issue.

…Paul just asked whether this power would have been so acceptable to Democrats 40 years ago. What if, Paul wondered, someone had dropped a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda or college students at the time who were raising money for the Viet Cong? Would the same Democrats who are sitting on the sidelines now have protested such tactics at the time? After all, raising money for the enemy is arguably treason, and Paul said he’d have called it that — but those students would have deserved to get their day in court.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/zBpYkzYL-TM[/youtube]

Great points….BUT where was he during the Hagel nomination? A nominee just as dangerous as Brennan.

He should of done this during Hagel as well….but he didn’t. So letting a dangerous clown like Hagel slide is ok but when Paul wants to talk about drones than he is going to fight?

Come on….

Given all that I still support what he is doing but as Malkin said, I just don’t get how you square the circle.

UPDATE

Via Ed Morrissey:

Ted Cruz has just joined in to ask questions of Paul, in what looks like a pretty smart strategy. Paul has specifically stated that he will take questions without relinquishing control of the floor, and both Cruz and Lee are asking oddly lengthy questions. In other words, they’re providing Paul with short opportunities to rest his voice, and to add more ammunition to his rhetorical magazine. Puns very much intended, by the way.

UPDATE

Democrat joins in

UPDATE

Rubio up and speaking:

Just when you thought the #filiblizzard couldn’t get any better:

Rubio…joins in. And he starts with a water joke.—
DrewM (@DrewMTips) March 06, 2013

Heh… @marcorubio tells Rand Paul to have water nearby. LoLoL—
Bryan Tupper (@BryTupper) March 06, 2013

Rubio: “Let me give you some free advice. Keep some water nearby.”—
Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) March 06, 2013

Anyone notice this filibuster is turning into a preview of the GOP Presidential Debate 2016?

UPDATE

Poor widdle Hairy:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to drop his filibuster so that the Senate could proceed with votes this evening, but Paul declined to do so.

“I have no problem with people talking a long time,” Reid said, before asking if Paul and two other senators would limit themselves to speaking for 30 minutes more each.

Reid asked for unanimous consent, but Paul objected. “The only thing I would like is a clarification,” Paul said, proposing that Holder retract his claim that “it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

Paul noted that Holder seemed to contradict that statement during testimony this morning; he said he would end the filibuster immediately if Holder put his apparent retraction into a “coherent letter.”

Reid decided to continue with Senate business tomorrow rather than fight for time today.

And then he tried to take his ball and go home:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Richard Wheeler: Unfortunately, we may not have enough lead time to prevent an imminent attack. When you think about it, we would have to have boots on the ground in the near vicinity. The same goes for drones. How do you suggest we take care of those issues? Having drones flying around the country 24/7 in anticipation of an imminent terrorist threat from an American seems a little impractical unless of course a targeting list is made out which means those people will have had to been identified as terrorists in advance. What would the criteria for that be? In my personal case, I fit around 5 or 6 criteria identified by this administration that would make me a potential terrorist threat. That’s more than an Islamic fundamentalist or someone like Bill Ayers who used to blow up police stations.

@another vet: A.V. “Drones flying around 24/7 looking for American terrorists” What the H are you talking about.No one of right mind suggesting that.

@Richard Wheeler: Of course it’s absurd. Please re-read what I said. If people are to be targeted in drone strikes to stop an imminent threat which is one of the arguments here, the drones would have to be very close to the target. Unless that target is id’d well in advance, how would you know where to position them to stop the attack?

@Richard Wheeler: Well Rich, what if I became president and decided that your comments on this blog posed an imminent danger to the country? Can I kill you with a drone?It looks like I could based on this administrations definition. Would you agree you are an imminent danger? Maybe you would like a better definition of imminent danger if you were the target. See, once we give this power to a president, we lose our freedom. You could lose your life if the wrong person became president.

@another vet, #101:

A situation where an attack drone might save our butts would likely involve suspected terrorist activity in some remote and relatively inaccessible location, where a drone had been pre-positioned for surveillance and armed as a precaution. Maybe there would be a sudden realization that events were unexpectedly escalating very quickly toward an actual attack. For example, remote operators might see a helicopter’s spray tanks being filled by hostiles wearing bio-hazard gear; maybe there’s a similarly attired flight crew waiting to depart; there might be a sudden realization that an open-air sport stadium is filling with fans 150 miles away. In an instant, all of the pieces might drop into place.

I wouldn’t expect a scenario like this to actually unfold, except maybe in a novel or a movie theater. The problem is that I have very little trouble imagining them. We can’t safely dismiss what we don’t expect.

I sure wouldn’t want to be the guy who would have to call the shot.

It seems as if some here are still missing the biggest question surrounding the use of drones against US citizens on US soil. That is, is that action Constitutional?

That was the point of Rand Paul’s “stunt”, as some of you put it. To elicit the response from the WH that eventually came.

johngalt
hi,
THANK YOU TO RAND PAUL PEACEFUL DEMAND,
why would they take so long to answer,
is in it the CONSTITUTION QUESTION a matter of prompt answer from the PRESIDENT,
AN UNEQUIVOCAL ANSWER, WAS ASK BY AN ELITE MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT,
HE REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, WHO WANT TO KNOW,
HE USED A RIGHTFULL WAY TO GET HIS ANSWER, WHY DID HE HAVE TO BE ON HOLD SO LONG FOR SUCH IMPORTANT QUESTION,
AND BY WAY OF MOUTH, SHOULD THE PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN GIVEN SO MANY LIES,
WHY SHOULD THE ANSWER BE BELIEVED?
BYE

Randy
yes,
beside it failed in BENGHASI, where there was imminent danger,
even that the call for help was sent and surely detected , by the AMBASSADOR FOUR MONTHS IN ADVANCE,
WHY DIDIN’T AN ARMED DRONE BE POSITION LIN ADVANCE LIKE WISE,
OR BE READY TO GO AT THE LAST CALL FROM THE AMBASSADOR,
AND WHY NOT,
I remember watching it and someone mention ,
there is a drone there they add is it armed,
so the predator should have been there or on it’s way at one point of the 7th calls for help,
yes?

another vet
I had the opportunity some times ago to visit a place where the military are sitting in front of a huge screen and their jobs is to check for foreign planes not suppose to be there , they see it far away, before they enter the AMERICA, BOTH CANADA AND USA, THEY CAN SEE AND CALL TO TELL OF IT IN SECOND TIMING,
I WAS VERY IMPRESS TO GET THERE WHERE NO ONE SUSPECTED THAT PLACE EXIST,
WE WHERE ACCOMPANY BY A TOP GENERAL , I REMEMBER ASKING IF THEY SEE ALIENS NON EXPLAINED, AND ONE SAID YES WE DO,
SO IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO HAPPEN SURELY IT WOULD BE DETECTED AND TOLD AT ONCE,
TO PREPARE FOR IT, DEPENDING ON THE ATTACK,
THE FACT THAT THE 9/11 01 WAS NOT DETECTED IS THAT THEY TOOK OUR OWN PLANES,
I always wonder how come the one at the desk did not have a q from the plane being hijack by just checking a second opening the mike to listen , they could have capture the terrorist voices, i don’t know if that is implement or not,
it should
BYE

@Greg:

Maybe the question should have been phrased that precisely to begin with. Then we could have dispensed with unnecessary hours of the Rand Paul Show.

Really? So a US Senator from a sovereign State needs to phrase questions in a letter to get a policy response from the most transparent administration evah?
So, it John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales had sent a letter to Chuck Schumer saying they could envision a situation where drone strikes might be necessary on US citizens on US soil, you guys on the left would have be just fine with it?
The difference with Rand Paul is he would have done the same thing had Bush been president. Much respect for Ron Wyden for breaking ranks. Also, Harry Reid actually had some nice things to say about Rand Paul. The only a$$ clowns that said anything negative were McCain and Graham. And Lindsey-boy is probably in big trouble in 2014.

THAT’S WEIRD, I was watching the big white clouds racing from the EAST TOWARD WEST
and I notice a lean belt like cloud making his way from opposite side which is WEST,
AND LIKE A KNIFE GOING THROUGH THE MASS OF RACING WHITE CLOUD AHEAD LIKE THEY WHERE PUSH BY A BULDOZER, BUT THIS TINY STRAIGHT AS A STEEL BAR GOING IN AT THE SAME SPEED COUNTER-CLOCK WISE.
I never seen that before,

@Randy: As a “blogger” am I in a “combat” role, the only ones considered for a drone attack? Well maybe when I’m dealing with RETO5.
Now you got me worried.
A.V. Think Greg’s 105 answered your 103 pretty well.
Bees Based on your comment immediately above—–you should probably worry about someone coming to get you.lol

@Richard Wheeler:

Well maybe when I’m dealing with RETO5.

Seems you want to continue to stir the pot and hey, didn’t you learn how to spell? Or was it your intention insult by changing my moniker?

Tell me, are you locked and loaded for combat against me? Just how far are you will to go to continue to act juvenile?

retire05
it’s too late for Rich Wheeler to improve higher, he has a brain blockage,
no chances of improvments,
but he still know many insults, but it too will melt down
eventually, he will be like his own wash out libtard alike,
unable to think for themselves.

@retire05:retire05 That was a joke—-dang you’re tightly wound. Have a nice day.

@Richard Wheeler:

I can think of no case where the government would have the authority to take someone out with a drone. Even if a person was presenting an immediate danger (pointing a RPG at the Capitol) it would be up to law enforcement officers to demobilize that person, not a drone which would take out blocks. If a person is not presenting an immediate danger, like sleeping in their bed or having lunch at a diner, they should be captured, if possible, but damn sure not taken out with a drone which would kill innocent by-standers.

You may not like that the Constitution gives you the freedom to be tried by our courts, but hey, I don’t like that CodePinko has freedom of speech. You take the good with the bad, and you deal with the bad Constitutionally, not with dictatorial powers.

@retire05: You should be happy to know CodePink is in complete agreement with you on this issue.
I’ m fine with the agreement reached between Congress and the Admin.

retire05
yes that’s what the SWATTEAM IS FOR,
REMEMBER HOW SMART THEY DID FOR THE GUY IN HIS SHELTER,
THEY HAD A VISUAL OF HIM CAMERA, I could not figure it out but they are smart beyong.
look how they figure out that smart police guy killing his own brother police officers,
they got him, again had me scratching my head of how,
and they did not tell half of it to the public.
no one mess with AMERICA, WITH THE SWATTEAM AROUND

@Richard Wheeler:

You should be happy to know CodePink is in complete agreement with you on this issue.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

@Greg: If there was suspected terrorist activity in an area, don’t you think we should do something BEFORE it becomes an imminent threat? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As you point out, the situation where we would have only minutes to react is very remote. Therein lies the point, what about all the other times? If you look at what this administration put out for labeling people extremist and terrorist threats, it first laid out what their policy was going to be as far as expanding government, gun control, taxes etc. Then it went on to classify people who could be considered a threat and it was essentially everyone who opposes one or more of their policies as well as Vets. Based on the 2012 election results, that’s about half the country. History is ripe with examples whereby people who didn’t tow the party line were classified as being a threat- terrorists, heretics, witches etc. and the result was the government/Church using it as an excuse to rid themselves of opposition. Could it happen here? Maybe, maybe not. It’s something that isn’t to be taken lightly.

another vet
the fact that they have promoted abortion on AMERICAN WOMAN,
IS TO ME A PROOF AND A VISIBLE REASON TO CUT ON THE FUTURE OF AMERICA
AND AMERICANS,
TO CUT ON HUMAN CITIZEN WHICH HAVE ROOTS IN THE GROUND IS AWFULL AND IS TRYING DELIBERATLY TO EXTINT A CULTURE AND THE OTHER FACT IS TO WELCOME ILLEGALS NO MATTER IF CRIMINALS AND TURN MANY THOUSANDS FREE TO WANDER AMONG CIVILIANS REENFORCE WHAT POINT I AM MAKING HERE
AND IT SHOULD BE A GREAT CONCERN FOR AMERICANS,
LOOK AT BLOOMBERGS WHAT PUBLICITY HE PAY FOR ON TEEN TO ABORT BY HIM USING OTHER WAY TO TELL IT,
HE SURE LIKE TO LET THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY TO PROCREATE, THEY DON’T GET THAT MESSAGE,

@Aqua, #110:

Really? So a US Senator from a sovereign State needs to phrase questions in a letter to get a policy response from the most transparent administration evah?

A U.S. Senator should ask the precise question that he or she wants a precise answer to. Initially, Rand Paul didn’t. That allowed people to pretend the issue under consideration included such possibilities as using drones to assassinate political opponents.

The only a$$ clowns that said anything negative were McCain and Graham.

Apparently the far right hasn’t terrorized them into total silence. Neither is what anyone would think of a fan of Barack Obama.

@ilovebeeswarzone: There are certainly those who actually enjoy giving up protections and rights. My guess is if this were an administration with an ‘R’ next to it, not that there is much difference these days, they would be taking to the streets in protest.

@retire05: You do have some interesting allies in addition to CodePink-Voting NO on Brennan confirmation-lefties Leahy,Merkely and SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders. Libs Boxer and Lautenburg abstained. Strange bedfellows for you.

@another vet:

If there was suspected terrorist activity in an area, don’t you think we should do something BEFORE it becomes an imminent threat?

On rare occasion, doing something before might come down to pre-positioning armed surveillance drones at suspected locations. Suppose you know an attack is coming, but have half-a-dozen or more remote sites that it could originate from?

All I’m suggesting is that armed drones should be one of the tools in the toolbox. Maybe Congress needs to define the acceptable parameters, rather than asking the Executive Branch what they are.

@Greg: Once again Greggie, you fail miserably to understand the issue. I am coming to the conclusion that you don’t even read what people post; you just simply blather on, making absolutely insipid statements having nothing to do with what is being discussed.

You are advocating that we NOT take any option away from the President, correct?

Well neither is Sen. Paul, and neither am I. What he is saying is that he wants the President to state publicly that he WILL NOT USE DRONES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS ON AMERICAN SOIL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS UNLESS THEY ARE INVOLVED IN COMBAT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Once again, here are Sen. Paul’s remarks about this issue of drone use during terrorist attacks on US soil:

If there’s a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don’t get due process if you’re involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. You don’t get due process if you’re overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers. – Sen. Rand Paul

During the third hour of his filibuster, Sen. Paul revealed President Obama’s inclination to think he was able to kill Americans on American soil:

When he was at Google campus a couple weeks ago, they asked him the question, can you kill Americans on American soil? And he said, well, the rules will probably be different outside the U.S. Than inside, which basically means yes, he thinks he can kill Americans on American soil but he’s going to have some rules. Don’t worry about it because he will maybe some rules and there will be a process but it won’t be due process. It will be a process that he sets up in secret in the White House, and I – I – I don’t find that acceptable. The only answer really acceptable – you know, we asked a question that could be “yes” or “no.” Can you kill an American on American soil? It’s a yes or no question. They’ve been evasive and they have never really answered the question. But when we asked it, we pretty much knew only one answer was acceptable and that answer’s no. And if you don’t answer it, basically by not answering it, you’re saying yes. I was actually a little bit startled when I finally got the answer, “yes, we can kill Americans on American soil.” – Sen. Rand Paul

Now without going on about how it would be horrible for an option of dealing with terrorism taken off the table and tying the president’s hands, would you please respond to this question!?

Why is it okay with you for Obama to say that it’s okay to kill Americans on American soil, just with different rules, not the rule of law, but “different” rules?

@Richard Wheeler: You said:

Are you suggesting there was ANY problem with Mc Veigh’s conviction and death penalty.Honestly,wouldn’t you prefer he was taken out BEFORE he murdered and injured over 900 people.

Um, no. That isn’t what I’m saying and you know it. For goodness sake, Rich. Stop trying to stir shit up long enough to have a coherent discussion, or are you capable of that?

You know my point was that if you believe our president can summarily execute American citizens that are not engaged in terrorist acts against the United States, then you are throwing out the rule of law.

How stupid is that? You want to give this, or any other president the power of execution because he deems someone as a threat? Even if they have not yet committed an act of aggression?

If you do that, then you are saying that investigations into the targets of execution (American citizens killed by the POTUS) are the last word and you no longer see a need for due process?

No one on this earth can see into the future, so no one on this earth should have the power to slate folks for execution BEFORE they commit terroristic acts.

@Greg: Going back to square 1 on this issue, as anticrocks pointed out in 15 and again in 126 this is not about taking away a tool to deal with an imminent threat. Paul specifically stated that and even gave an example. It’s also not about taking out terrorists who infiltrated this country and set up shop on our soil. It’s about Americans being classified as terrorists and then being targeted and eliminated with no due process. There is a big difference there.

@anticsrocks: KISS I’m good with the agreement between Congress and the Admin. Let them work together to find agreement on other important issues. This is what the American people want. Divisiveness and macho posturing are fine and often fun on these blogs, but in the REAL WORLD our Reps should be looking for bi-partisan agreement wherever possible’.

Semper Fi

anticsrocks
he miss his drone on the mob terrorist who killed 4 people,
HE WOULD HAVE MADE AN EFFECT THEN, AND SEND THE MESSAGE, BUT HE WENT HIDING INSTEAD,
and now we learned wounded some in the 30 others, THERE WAS A PERFECT SET UP TO HAVE A ARMED DRONE ON TOP OF THE BENGHASI SURE TO COME ATTACK ,AS HE WAS TOLD A MANY MONTHS IN ADVANCES
and after having been humiliated by the alqaeda burning his effigy along with the FLAG,
this, after killing an alqaeda top guy and his AMERICAN SON,
NOW I DON’T THINK HE WILL GET THE DRONES FLYING SOON
ABROAD AFTER THAT,
UNLESS HE USE IT NEVERMIND WHAT HE SAID NO,
IN AMERICA.

Once again Greggie, you fail miserably to understand the issue. I am coming to the conclusion that you don’t even read what people post; you just simply blather on, making absolutely insipid statements having nothing to do with what is being discussed.

What he is saying is that he wants the President to state publicly that he WILL NOT USE DRONES TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS ON AMERICAN SOIL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS UNLESS THEY ARE INVOLVED IN COMBAT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

As I have said—repeatedly—Rand Paul didn’t have to engage in a 12-hour filibuster to get a clear and straight answer to that simple question. What he should have done was ask a straight and clear question to begin with. Once he got around to it, he got his answer.

Now without going on about how it would be horrible for an option of dealing with terrorism taken off the table and tying the president’s hands, would you please respond to this question!?

Why is it okay with you for Obama to say that it’s okay to kill Americans on American soil, just with different rules, not the rule of law, but “different” rules?

Obama never said it was OK. Obama never implied it was OK. Right wing politicians, right wing media personalities, and right wing bloggers were engaging in their usual pastime of connecting random dots to reveal imaginary pictures. (OMG! Obama is going to start using drones to whack his political enemies!) They blew up a scary balloon animal, got hysterical about their own creation, and then bravely fought it until it finally popped. Well done!

The other matter came up because some people seemed unable to imagine circumstances when it would be proper for a president to order a drone attack on an American inside the United States. Such circumstances could conceivably arise—as Rand Paul himself should know, assuming he isn’t a complete idiot. My assumption is that Rand Paul is not an idiot. He deliberately ignored that point initially, because he didn’t want the discussion to focus on obvious rare situations where any responsible president should order a fellow citizen killed. Cutting to the chase with a straight question would have spilled the wind out of his sails.

@Richard Wheeler: Looking for bi-partisanship just for the sake of being able to say that a bill is bi-partisan is very foolhardy.

Bi-partisanship comes about when a bill is brought forward making so much sense that legislators on both sides of the aisle put Country before Party.

@anticsrocks: Couldn’t agree with you more. I believe in recent days both sides are reaching out more on many issues. A good thing for this great country.

Semper Fi

@Greg: If Sen. Paul didn’t need to filibuster for 13 hours, then why don’t you show us where his question was answered. In committee, AG Holder would not come out and implicitly state that the President of the United States did not have the Constitutional authority to use weaponized drones against US citizens on US soil without them being involved in combat.

You said:

Obama never said it was OK. Obama never implied it was OK. Right wing politicians, right wing media personalities, and right wing bloggers were engaging in their usual pastime of connecting random dots to reveal imaginary pictures. (OMG! Obama is going to start using drones to whack his political enemies!) They blew up a scary balloon animal, got hysterical about their own creation, and then bravely fought it until it finally popped. Well done!

Really? Hmm, I already covered this here

Sen. Paul stated why he was seeking a definitive answer on this. The President was very evasive on this very question –

“When he was at Google campus a couple weeks ago, they asked him the question, can you kill Americans on American soil? And he said, well, the rules will probably be different outside the U.S. Than inside, which basically means yes, he thinks he can kill Americans on American soil but he’s going to have some rules. – Sen. Rand Paul

From that Google interview:

There “has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil,” Obama responded, noting “safeguards” surrounding counterterrorism operations. Rules will vary domestically and abroad, he added.

So you have an American president merely stating that it hadn’t happened yet and that if so, the rules would “vary.”

Gee, I wonder why that wasn’t good enough? /sarcasm off

Get real, Greggie. Had that exchange been between a Google blogger and G.W. Bush you would be saying exactly what Sen. Paul did and wanting to pin the president down on his exact answer to this question.

Stop being so two-faced, Greg.

And just for the record, YOU are the person who, on this thread anyway, first mentioned the idea of Obama using weaponized drones for political enemies.

another vet
on your 101
we us the people should get some ROCKETS THROWER, WITH A FOCUS ON IT
AND A POWER OF DETECTING FOCUSSING AND DISENTAGRATE THE OBAMA DRONE,
THEN WE WILL FEEL SAFE ENOUGH, AND TELL OBAMA, WHAT THE PRESIDENT BUSH
SAID TO HIS ENEMIES, : BRING IT ON.
A FEW OF THOSE WOULD DO,
HOW MUCH DO THEY GO FOR?
BYE

@anticsrocks: Do you REALLY think that BHO or even an unbalanced Richard Nixon type would drop a drone directed missive on a NON COMBATANT American citizen? Paul’s was a gotcha question.The 13 hour filibuster,basic grandstanding to the right,though he also garnered support from Code pink and the far left.If you wanna score one for R.P. go ahead. Repubs. could use a win. However if Repubs don’t graciously accept the new wording and move on it could backfire on them.
At some point young Paul will need to distance himself from his dad. I expect that could get tricky..

Richard Wheeler
many think he would sent a drone to kill an AMERICAN,
IF HE FELL THREATEN,
WHY DO THEY THINK THAT WAY?
because they found him unstable, in character , MAYBE BECAUSE OF HIS DRUG USE, AT SOME TIMES AND OTHER, and unable to capture a credibility for having never disclose the truth about his profile when ask many times he lied many times on his words and promises,
he simply make fun of any important laws of the land,
he lost his credibility, and the TRUST OF THE PEOPLE

@Richard Wheeler:

Do you REALLY think that BHO or even an unbalanced Richard Nixon type would drop a drone directed missive on a NON COMBATANT American citizen?

Did you ever think that a BHO or even an unbalanced Richard Nixon type would facilitate a seige on private citizens on private property eventually killing those citizens as we saw at Ruby Ridge and Waco? Americans died at the hands of the federal government, once under a Republican president and once under a Democrat president.

@retire05: I trust YOUR concerns have been answered and you can move on.
Bees re your concerns—-they’ll most likely continue to live within YOUR mind.

Re Ruby Ridge and Waco Armed, stubborn, misinformed or underinformed people will do stupid things. In both instances,both sides made decisions that were faulty and eventually deadly. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen again.Unfortunately,IMHO,regardless of laws or statements in place, it probably will.—human nature.

@Richard Wheeler:

Ruby Ridge and Waco Armed, stubborn, misinformed or underinformed people will do stupid things.

So unknown people come on your property, armed, and start firing on you, and you are just going to blithly submit to their power? Is that what you were taught in the Marines, that you can only be a victim so you must submit?

What about Jose Guerena? Granted, that was local idiots who murdered him. But what guarantee do you have that the next time it will not be federal agents doing the same thing?

We know that Obama has ordered the assassinations of American citizens on foreign soil. Are you so confident in the man who usurps the U.S. Constitution with regularity that you think there is no possibility that he won’t do the same thing to Americans on American soil?

@retire05: I’m honestly not worried about govt. agents coming to get me.Also not worried about unknown armed assailants. I can’t speak to your inner fears or concerns.Maybe in your case they are warranted? I certainly can’t project why that might be.
Weaver had unresolved problems with the Feds. Obviously he knew they were trying to bring him in, To put his wife and son in danger was stupid. His first thoughts should have been to protect them. He wasn’t gonna outgun the Feds.
Marines taught me when outgunned dig in and call for the arty.

Semper Fi

@Richard Wheeler:

Weaver had unresolved problems with the Feds. Obviously he knew they were trying to bring him in, To put his wife and son in danger was stupid. His first thoughts should have been to protect them. He wasn’t gonna outgun the Feds.

It was later proven that Randy Weaver was set up. And his wife and son were at their own damn home, Richard. The one place were Americans have a right, a Constitutional right, to be safe. She walked out of her front door, holding a baby, and was shot to death by federal agents. Randy Weaver was exonerated, and his children won multi-million dollar awards against the federal government that we taxpayers had to fund.

Marines taught me when outgunned dig in and call for the arty

The Branch Davidians did “dig in” only they lacked the “arty.” So our government torched them. Of course, Janet Reno testified that there was nothing used in Waco that would have started the fire, well that is, until the Texas Rangers found the casings of the gas that was used that was flamable.

The problem with Waco is that those people didn’t have to die by fire. If it was really Koresh the feds wanted, hell, he went into Waco on a regular basis and was known to also jog on the county road by the compound regularly. The feds could have picked him up at any time. But they wanted to make a big splash by showing how tough the feds were going to be on radicals, and because of it, women and children were burned alive.

Ever heard of the Singing Nuns, Richard? They are Catholic nuns that make religious recordings. The SPLC just put them on the SPLC list of “Hate” Groups. Now you may trust this administration, but I don’t.

@retire05: As usual you are all over the map.You’re even worried about the Feds going after The Singing Nuns. You must stay up late to come up with this stuff. Funny.
I ask again. Are you personally worried about the Feds or you just worrying for everybody else. Paranoia?

@Richard Wheeler:

.
I ask again. Are you personally worried about the Feds or you just worrying for everybody else.

I’m personally worried about an Administration that has made a mockery out of the U.S. Constitution. Too bad the Administration didn’t release those over 2,000 illegals on your block. I guarantee you would be locked and loaded if it had.

As usual you are all over the map.

Not my problem if you can’t connect the dots.

@retire05: My beautiful Latina is so nice she might invite them all in for empanadas.Have a great evening and try getting some sleep.

SemperFi

@Richard Wheeler: It doesn’t matter what I think, Rich. The sad fact is that whether this was a gotcha question or not, any other POTUS would have been very quick with an, “…Of course I don’t have the Constitutional authority to use weaponized drones on US citizens on US soil, unless they are engaged in combat against the United States.”

Odd that Holder, Brennan and even the President himself weren’t able to answer that question, don’t you think?

Let me remind you the contortions that the left went into about “warrantless wiretapping” under Bush.

From Boston.com by Teddy Kennedy back in 2005:

THE PRESIDENT is not above the law; he is not King George. Yet, with sorrow, we are now learning that in this great land we have an administration that has refused to follow well-crafted, longstanding procedures that require the president to get a court order before spying on people within the United States. With outrage, we learn that this administration believes that it does not have to follow the law of the land.

Not just above the law, this administration seems to be saying that it IS the law. It contends that it can decide on its own what the law is, how to interpret it, and whether or not it has to follow it. I believe that such an arrogant and expansive view of executive power would have sent chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers — as it does for every American hearing these startling revelations today.

The president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and the attorney general tell us that the president can order domestic spying inside this country — without judicial oversight — under his power as commander in chief. Really? Where do they find that in the Constitution? Time and time again, this president has used his express, but limited, constitutional power to command the military to justify controversial activities — after the fact. – SOURCE

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts – SOURCE

Justice Department to declare warrantless wiretaps legal – SOURCE

Democrats call for investigation of NSA wiretaps – SOURCE

Top 10 Reasons Why NSA Wiretapping is Bad For America – SOURCE

@anticsrocks: Contortions from the Left Contortions from the Right—-It’s a dangerous world—-whether Bush or Obama, Patriots Act or Drones, WireTapping or Waterboarding. Invade or abstain. Not everyone is going to be happy with the CIC.
Personally more worried about terrorist infiltration than being taken out by my own govt.But that’s just me.

Semper Fi

Richard Wheeler
MARINES DEAD AND OTHER WOUNDED IN EXPLOSION IN NEVADA,
NOW THEY SAY 7 DEADS