T Nation

Rand Paul's Live Filibuster

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Rand Paul is trying to individually filibuster John Brennon’s nomination. This is live

Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of filibuster.

Rand Paul is a doctor by training.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer by training.

What is John Brennan by training again?

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Rand Paul is a doctor by training.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer by training.

What is John Brennan by training again?
[/quote]

I have no clue. Is Rand the doctor or was it his father Ron? Both might be but I am lazy and not wanting to look it up myself.

Rand is not is only holding up the vote just so he can get the American People to listen and make the President clear up what he is planning on doing with Drone Strikes on American Citizen’s on Domestic Soil. If there is a Drone strike on US soil on a citizen then we have Martial Law and the President become a tyrant.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Rand Paul is a doctor by training.
Ted Cruz is a lawyer by training.

What is John Brennan by training again?
[/quote]

I have no clue. Is Rand the doctor or was it his father Ron? Both might be but I am lazy and not wanting to look it up myself.

Rand is not is only holding up the vote just so he can get the American People to listen and make the President clear up what he is planning on doing with Drone Strikes on American Citizen’s on Domestic Soil. If there is a Drone strike on US soil on a citizen then we have Martial Law and the President become a tyrant.[/quote]

The important part of that post was “What is John Brennan by training?” Unlike Paul and Cruz, He isn’t a doctor, nor a lawyer. Rather, he is a subject matter expert in a very relevant regard.

Christ, he has been talking ALL DAY. Although I don’t agree with what he is doing, I’m impressed by his endurance and conviction.

Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever.

Kudos to this. The scary ass shit our Presidents seem to think they are entitled to do simply because of 9/11 scares me way more than what someone in Afghanistan is plotting.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

No, I’m with Paul on this 100 percent.

Edit: but I tend to disagree with him on a lot.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

No, I’m with Paul on this 100 percent.

Edit: but I tend to disagree with him on a lot.[/quote]

He is his father’s son, which means he is batshit for every bit of great he is, but seeing McCain’s and Graham’s responce leads me to believe Ran did 1000% the correct thing yesterday.

McCain can go fly a kite, along with the rest of the shitty establishment GOP.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

No, I’m with Paul on this 100 percent.

Edit: but I tend to disagree with him on a lot.[/quote]

x2 on both points. Too bad he isn’t more coherent.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/338154.php#338154

Ace pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

Warning: there are a lot of inside jokes in there, and if you don’t follow his blog, you will not get.

[i]Only the Designated Hero Wins Applause.AP edits out the standing ovation Paul received at the conclusion of his filibuster.

Even though Paul is making the same objections AP (and Erin Burnett) used to make – and considered themselves quite Heroic for so objecting – he can’t be the Hero because we already know King Barack is the Hero.

So Paul must be the Clown or the Villain. A movie can only have one Hero.[/i]

hahahahaha, AP = All Propoganda

I was watching him last night, and was hoping he would still be going this morning when I got up.

This needs to happen more often, and hopefully McCain and Graham get beat in the primary the next time they come up for election.

Here in Texas there are starting to be talk of making sure John Cornyn gets beat in the primary in 2014.

Establishment GOP is going down. A new, young, Conservative GOP group is coming up, and the American People will get behind it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

Does anyone think that Paul’s filibuster may have been intended to put himself in the national spotlight for a run in 2016? Regardless, I was impressed by his speaking ability and conviction.

The first and foremost concern of the State is achieving and maintaining national security. However, when American citizens are involved, due process is mandated by the Constitution. When substantial intelligence indicates that an American citizen residing abroad is effectively waging war against the American people as a non-state unilateral actor, these individuals have directly or indirectly renounced their citizenship, and hence they have also relinquished any protections they would have had under the Constitution. If the political and military realities on the ground dictate that the only reasonably successful course of action to neutralize the individual in question is the use of lethal force, it follows that such action is justified in the interest of American national security.

If the suspected terrorist is residing in the United States and consequentially within the jurisdiction and capabilities of American law enforcement, of course the paradigm must be reevaluated. Who is advocating that the government should reserve the right to rain high explosives on densely populated when there are much more appropriate and prudent courses of action to address a threat? Would I burn my house down to kill a home invader? No, I would call the police and precede to defend my home. Just because America has a hammer doesn’t mean that it sees every problem as a nail, which is a fallacy that the anti-drone advocates don’t seem to comprehend. If one of your main concerns is a ludicrous hypothetical scenario such as “there is an American citizen who is also an American al-Qaeda operative drinking a vanilla latte at Starbucks: does the government have the authority to use a drone strike on American soil?” you may need to evaluate you understanding of some very basic concepts of American law enforcement and the application of military force.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

If the suspected terrorist is residing in the United States and consequentially within the jurisdiction and capabilities of American law enforcement, of course the paradigm must be reevaluated. Who is advocating that the government should reserve the right to rain high explosives on densely populated when there are much more appropriate and prudent courses of action to address a threat? Would I burn my house down to kill a home invader? No, I would call the police and precede to defend my home. Just because America has a hammer doesn’t mean that it sees every problem as a nail, which is a fallacy that the anti-drone advocates don’t seem to comprehend. If one of your main concerns is a ludicrous hypothetical scenario such as “there is an American citizen who is also an American al-Qaeda operative drinking a vanilla latte at Starbucks: does the government have the authority to use a drone strike on American soil?” you may need to evaluate you understanding of some very basic concepts of American law enforcement and the application of military force. [/quote]

This was the whole point of the filibuster. Rand got a letter from Attorney General Holder. Holder would not answer the question about using drones on US soil. Holder basically stated that it is alright for the POTUS to use drone strikes on US soil. That is when Rand Paul went into action on the filibuster. He wanted to bring to the American Public not that Obama would do such a thing, but what President in the future would use it. Rand Paul wants clarification from the Obama administration that it IS UNconstitutional to use drone strikes on US Soil on US citizens. The Obama administration is very quiet about this. The US has been put on point by Rand Paul.

I do think Rand will run for president in 2016. I think he has a very good shot. A much better shot than his father ever did.

[quote]Legionary wrote:
[/quote]
The first and foremost concern of the State is achieving and maintaining national security.[/quote]


You might be de facto right but you are wrong as a matter of legality and policy. The first and foremost concern of the State should be operating lawfully and within its Constitutional mandate to achieve its goals, which includes respecting basic human and constitutional rights. The “State” is a legal/political institution and “achieving and maintaining national security” might be one important goal, but this goal doesn’t justify it operating unlawfully or trampling on basic human and constitutional rights.

[quote]Legionary wrote:
you may need to evaluate you understanding of some very basic concepts of American law enforcement and the application of military force. [/quote]

LOL, yes teh military and police have such an impressive record as to never having made a lapse in judgement. Neither has the Whitehouse or CIA for that matter.

I tell ya what. I’m not about to give up my rights, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. And if someone wants to come and take them, then I’ll die on my feet before I live on my knees.

This boils down to bare bones basic fundamental human rights. If you can sleep sound at night knowing there are weaponized drones flying over your head, watching you and your family, good for you.

I can’t, and I won’t.