Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
F3SS

Rand Paul filibustering

236 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Apparently this is what's called an old school filibuster and I like it. The administration is on the spot.

‘I WILL SPEAK UNTIL I CAN NO LONGER SPEAK’: SEN. RAND PAUL IS DOING AN OLD-SCHOOL FILIBUSTER OF OBAMA’S CIA NOMINEE RIGHT NOW

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12 to 3 on Tuesday to confirm John Brennan as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

However, Brennan may have at least one more hurdle to clear before final confirmation, namely, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has vowed to block his nomination until the White House provides more information on its secretive drone program.

The Kentucky senator doesn’t have the 41 votes necessary to prevent a cloture vote, which would block Brennan’s confirmation, so he’s doing the only thing he can do: He’s stalling all senate business with an honest-to-goodness, old-fashioned filibuster.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA,” Sen. Paul at approximately 11:45 a.m ET on Wednesday.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your right to trial by jury is precious, that no American should be killed on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court,” he added.

And it looks like he’s in it for the long haul.

Continued... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/i-will-speak-until-i-can-no-longer-speak-sen-rand-paul-is-doing-an-old-school-filibuster-of-obamas-cia-nominee-right-now/[/Quote]

He sure is. It's been around twelve hours now. I'm not sure any democrats have found this issue important yet but it looks like Obama's got some splainin' to do tomorrow. Do you think Obama will address this personally and publicly?

For fairness, here is the huff link. Looks like even a lot of their liberal commenters are liking it too and wondering where their party's at.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster_n_2819740.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cipad%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D279777

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be the ultimate proof of political decadence, when our people are so politically misled that they don't even find the idea of using drones to attack our own people is important enough to take a stand on. This is symptomatic of the end of our greatness.

Neocons, liberals and zionists all, the chickens have come home to roost.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to his ostensible allies, on both the left and right sides of the political aisle, who claim that they support civil rights and the Constitution? He sounds like the lone voice of reason as he questions why the State should have the right to kill Americans on our own soil before we are even tried in courts of law. He *should* have a chorus of support! The silence is troubling.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For liberty! Great job so far Rand. Nice to see a Senator actually working for the people.... that means everybody.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be the ultimate proof of political decadence, when our people are so politically misled that they don't even find the idea of using drones to attack our own people is important enough to take a stand on. This is symptomatic of the end of our greatness.

Neocons, liberals and zionists all, the chickens have come home to roost.

I agree with your main point. I think that one can be pro-Israel and anti-statist at the same time, though. It could be that Israeli citizens face similar challenges from the Israeli government. We all want true representation, not ownership.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I guess Senator's have a right to do this. Though I can't imagine talking for 12-hours.

Reminds me of this:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone standing for us. Finally :). 2016

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be the ultimate proof of political decadence, when our people are so politically misled that they don't even find the idea of using drones to attack our own people is important enough to take a stand on. This is symptomatic of the end of our greatness.

Not all are misled. That's why the inner circle has already been planing using drones because they are afraid of an uprising. They have no intention of doing the people's work. They're out to usurp the authority of the Constitution. They don't dare talk about that. And the MSM only dares report this is a general manner. They will only go as far as covering using drones to kill US citizens on US soil. Putting the emphasis on the individual as being the bad guy and nothing on the reason why. So I'll ask, why would it be necessary to target law abiding US citizens? It was totally unbelievable how long it took Holder to respond to Senator Cruz on the Constitutionality of using drones. After seeing drones flying around myslef, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to his ostensible allies, on both the left and right sides of the political aisle, who claim that they support civil rights and the Constitution? He sounds like the lone voice of reason as he questions why the State should have the right to kill Americans on our own soil before we are even tried in courts of law. He *should* have a chorus of support! The silence is troubling.

Truth is, sometimes you have to shoot the terrorist with the suitcase nuke, regardless of their citizenship.

Holder's already said that theres no plans to use drones domestically, and that it's totally hypothetical, but for it to occur, there would have to be exceptional circumstances, such as to stop another Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, and that it wouldn't be used if it were possible for law enforcement authorities to otherwise stop the said terrorist threat.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that under exceptional circumstances, the government reserves the right to use military assets to protect itself from terrorist attacks on US soil.

Or let me out it another way: No-one was filibustering on the floor of the Senate the day after Bush gave orders for military jets to shoot the planes out of the air on 9/11.

Presumably the difference today is that Rand needs the publicity for his 2016 Presidential nomination run.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this needs to be said....I do NOT trust our government. They could careless about it's people, but it's our fault because we chose them to represent us. Having drones fly over the heads of Americans is not something to take lightly. It's only a matter of time before the Americans start to speak out, get mad and do something like overthrow the people who are in government because a person can only take so much before they decide that they have had enough.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all are misled. That's why the inner circle has already been planing using drones because they are afraid of an uprising. They have no intention of doing the people's work. They're out to usurp the authority of the Constitution. They don't dare talk about that. And the MSM only dares report this is a general manner. They will only go as far as covering using drones to kill US citizens on US soil. Putting the emphasis on the individual as being the bad guy and nothing on the reason why. So I'll ask, why would it be necessary to target law abiding US citizens? It was totally unbelievable how long it took Holder to respond to Senator Cruz on the Constitutionality of using drones. After seeing drones flying around myslef, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the possibilities.

It's necessary just like you think it's necessary to target law-abiding Pakistanis, Yemenis, Afghans, Uzbekis, Georgians, Sudanese, Palestinians, etc. The principle fails, the chickens come home to roost, because we have contradictory opinions of the role of government and its behavior, dependent entirely on what side of an arbitrary line drawn by governments called borders we're on. You're intensely nationalist and you can't be nationalist without being statist. They're twin sisters and kissing cousins. You have all kinds of great ideas on how you want to go around the world with big government force, you just don't want to eat your own cooking. Foreigners are guilty until proven innocent (i.e killed) and we don't know what we are anymore with the unconstitutional attitudes and entitlement complexes people have these days. What side of the magic line we're on might be important for a myriad of reasons, it is not important enough of a reason to throw common sense and principle out the window because the rule of law will follow. The rule of law secures common sense, it provides that principle. It is totally unbelievable but not merely when it happens in our own backyard.

There is no secret conspiracy to usurp the Constitution, it's a shameless bipartisan exercise right in front of our faces. It's been happening for decades, it builds a little at a time, every year and every President, it gets worse and worse.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that under exceptional circumstances, the government reserves the right to use military assets to protect itself from terrorist attacks on US soil.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is, sometimes you have to shoot the terrorist with the suitcase nuke, regardless of their citizenship.

Holder's already said that theres no plans to use drones domestically, and that it's totally hypothetical, but for it to occur, there would have to be exceptional circumstances, such as to stop another Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, and that it wouldn't be used if it were possible for law enforcement authorities to otherwise stop the said terrorist threat.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that under exceptional circumstances, the government reserves the right to use military assets to protect itself from terrorist attacks on US soil.

Or let me out it another way: No-one was filibustering on the floor of the Senate the day after Bush gave orders for military jets to shoot the planes out of the air on 9/11.

Presumably the difference today is that Rand needs the publicity for his 2016 Presidential nomination run.

Listen to rand actually speak. He agrees with the exceptional case. The problem is the president will not give a straight forward answer to the question and that there are no guidlines to dictate what an "exceptional" case is.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Drone strike usually kill multiple individuals. This is a horrible law loaded with unintended consequences just waiting to happen.... typical of GOV and those who defend ignorant ideas to 'keep us safe'.

Edited by acidhead
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Weapons of mass destruction, mass graves, torture chambers, imminent threat, immediate danger, Saddam is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda, terrorists, has chemical weapons, terrorists, probably has biological weapons, yellow cake, Saddam Hussein 9/11, uranium from Africa, 9/11 Saddam Hussein, in 45 minutes, September 11th, there is no threat greater than Saddam Hussein, terrorists, terrorists, terrorist attacks, the final proof the mushroom cloud, massive quantities of VX nerve gas September 11th and Cyclosarin toxin September 11th, buh blah buh blah bu blah blah blah buh blah buh blah bu blah blah blah".

Well it seems the kool aid has finally stained the fabric. Yeah the gubmint has the "right" to protect itself from Americans with military force because when it talks about "terrorist attacks on US soil" it's so eminently believable after the past 12 years of its bloodthirsty BS.

Lucy, I'm home!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to rand actually speak. He agrees with the exceptional case. The problem is the president will not give a straight forward answer to the question and that there are no guidlines to dictate what an "exceptional" case is.

No-one fifteen years ago would have imagined that an exceptional case would be flying civilian aircraft into buildings. Exceptional, by definition, is something that is not currently legislated for.

Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drone strike usually kill multiple individuals.

You think that an F-15 taking out a civilian airliner doesn't?

No-one in their right mind would ever order either, if there were any other available options.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means.

Very much correct, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long it will be before our government starts killing it's citizens for sport. I can't believe that we live in a world like this where governments go after their own people just because it feels like it. It's not right and I'm tried of it. Something needs to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long it will be before our government starts killing it's citizens for sport. I can't believe that we live in a world like this where governments go after their own people just because it feels like it. It's not right and I'm tried of it. Something needs to change.

The more things change the more they stay the same. The current people who idolize Odrama don't seem to get it yet. He's one of them. He's a Bush 2.0

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is pro-wrestling for people who think they're smart. Democrats now invoke 911 to justify the president's action. Same

old good guy/bad guy flip-flop roles. Might as well put Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage in there. --Cameron Day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more things change the more they stay the same. The current people who idolize Odrama don't seem to get it yet. He's one of them. He's a Bush 2.0

Yeah it's a function that can be mathematically modeled by the sine function. Temporary peaks and troughs that always return to the same value in time.

Two parties wearing different costumes that are permanently either complacent or complaining depending on who's in charge, all the while the bipartisanship that defines them both is believed to be the wise consensus in the middle.

I used to think they differed in spending priorities, but the more I see how horrible our policymakers really are, the more I see it's just a matter of moving their snouts to the side so another pig can stick his maw into the trough.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More and more as time goes on, I'm growing more and more respect for Rand Paul. In all the good ways, he's in the same mold as his father. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched several hours on and off. It’s hard to put the huge importance of the basic question into perspective.

Considering that at this point, an executive assassination order can be called on anyone “suspected” of being a threat…and the list of definitions on who or what can be a threat…is down right scary. Stockpiling food? Stockpiling weapons and ammo? Missing a finger? You might be a threat according to this administration.

But the basic question is a very simple and extraordinarily deep one…

Does this administration think it has the authority to use deadly force against American citizens on American soil without a trial?

Regardless what Rand may have done in the past, this is a very important question and we deserve to know the Executive office's thoughts on this issue.

I was not happy when Rand endorsed Romney btw…but that has nothing to do with my support for what he did yesterday.

If you have not done so, I would ask all that appreciated what Rand did for us to go to his .gov website and send him a thank you email showing your support for what he did.

Rand Paul's Senate webpage

We the People… need to show our support and gratitude when these rare kinds of things happen and maybe they won't be so rare anymore.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this administration think it has have the authority to use deadly force against American citizens on American soil without a trial?

If people think the answer to this question is yes, what don't they think the government has the authority to do to us? What the hell's left?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.