Rand Paul

3 Takeaways from Rand Paul's #StandwithRand #Filibuster About Drone Strikes

|

courtesy us senate

For all of the late-night punch-drunkiness that eventually ensued on Twitter (well, at least on my feed), yesterday's 12-hours-plus filibuster led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is among the most electrifying and insipiring events in recent political memory. The point of the filibuster—which derailed a confirmation vote on John Brennan as Barack Obama's CIA head—was to call attention to the president's insufficient answers to questions about his policy of targeted killings via drones and, one assumes, other methods.

Here are three takeaways from yesterday's epic event:

1. It shows what one man can do to call attention to a hugely important issue that nonetheless is largley ignored by the mainstream media and the political establishment.

Elected in 2010, Rand Paul has rarely been the Republican—or the Democrat's—media favorite. He's been heckled big time from his own side (which initially worked against his election) and across the aisle as an irresponsible ideologue (he's a dirty tea-bagger don't you know!). Among a good chunk of his father's most devoted followers, he's been assailed as a neo-con war hawk who was willing to trim his libertarian bona fides to win favor with the D.C. party crowd. His sad-sack opponent in the general election the GOP primary, Jack Conway, set new lows with the infamous "Aqua Buddha" ad that accused Paul of everything short of devil worship; his general election opponent in the GOP primary, Trey Grayson, had already trotted out many of the same pathetic lines.

reason

Yet since showing up in D.C., Paul has been exactly what Reason dubbed him: "The most intersting man in the Senate" who has offered specific legislation and made extended arguments for a unified vision of limited government that is not only fully within some great lines of American political tradition but urgently needed in the current moment. Senators who pride themselves on their foreign policy expertise and have free-loaded for decades in D.C. haven't made a speech as thoughtful and out-front as the one he delivered a while back at The Heritage Foundation, for god's sake.

Rand Paul didn't speak or act alone yesterday, of course—and props to the dozen or so colleagues (including a Democrat or two) who joined him on stage or otherwise engaged him. But the opthamologist from Bowling Green, Kentucky almost singelhandedly brought the news cycle to a halt yesterday by insisting that the American government answer some basic questions about how, when, where, and under what circumstances it thinks it has the right to kill its own citizens.

2. It shows the power of transpartisan thought and action. Make no mistake: Despite the presence of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), yesterday's filibuster was a GOP-conducted orchestra. But what was most bracing and ultimately powerful thing about the filibuster was that none of the speakers exempted the Republican Party or former President George W. Bush, whose aggrandized view of executive power still roils the sleep of the Founding Fathers, from withering criticism and scrutiny. How else to explain that hard-left groups such as Code Pink were proud to #standwithrand yesterday on Twitter? The same with reliable Rand and GOP critic Eugene Robinson and many others who up until yesterday thought little of Rand Paul.

The filibuster succeeded precisely because it wasn't a cheap partisan ploy but because the substance under discussion—why won't the president of the United States, his attorney general, and his nominee to head the CIA explain their views on limits to their power?—transcends anything so banal or ephemeral as party affiliation or ideological score-settling.

The chills started early in the filibuster as Paul said things along the lines of, "If you're gonna kill people in America [as terrorists], you need rules and we need to know your rules," and "To be bombed in your sleep—there's nothing American, nothing constitutional, about that" (these quotes are paraphrases). Those are not the words of a career politician trying to gain an advantage during the next round of horse-trading over a pork-barrel project. They are the words of a patriot who puts his country first and they inspire accordingly.

reason

3. It ties a direct line between the abuses of power and the growth of the state.

Despite using various self-identifiers over the years (he's called himself a libertarian, a conservative, a constitutional conservative, etc.) Rand Paul has always been rightly understood as an advocate of sharply limited and small government. During his Senate race, for instance, he said questions about drug legalization should be pushed back towards the states, where different models could be tried in accordance with the wishes of the people most directly affected. He presented a budget that was heavy on spending cuts that would have balanced the budget in five years. He has called for either actually declaring war on countries such as Iraq and Libya or getting the hell out. What unites his positions is a default setting against giving the federal government a free hand to do whatever it wants irrespective of constitutional limits.

A year or so ago, we were debating whether the government had the right to force its citizens to engage in particular economic activity—that was the heart of the fight over the mandate to buy insurance in Obamacare. That overreach—and the fear that a government that can make you buy something can also theoretically make you eat broccoli—was at the heart of Rand Paul's opposition to the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court ruled that in fact, the federal government not only has the right to regulate commercial transactions that take place anywhere in these United States, it has the right to force them to take place.

And now, we're arguing over whether the president of the United States in his role as commander in chief in an ill-defined, barely articulated "global war on terror" has the right to kill U.S. citizens without presenting any sort of charges to any sort of court. In fact, it's worse than that, since the president won't even share his rationale for what he may or may not believe with the country's legislature.

By foregounding the issues of limited government, transparency, and oversight as they relate specifically to the most obvious and brazen threat to civil liberties imaginable, Rand Paul and his filibuster have also tied a direct line to a far more wide-ranging and urgently needed conversation about what sort of government we have in America—and what sort of government we should have.

Watch this March 2011 interview with Rand Paul by Matt Welch and me:

NEXT: Russell Crowe Captures UFO on Camera

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 3. It ties a direct line between the abuses of power and the growth of the state.

    But, but, but the only way to reign in abuses of power is with more government, not less!

    /Tony

  2. yesterday’s 12-hours-plus filibuster led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is among the most electrifying and insipiring [sic, Nick] events in recent political memory.

    But it will pale in comparison to the President’s speech answering the Senator’s question.

    1. I literally cannot listen to the President speak any more. Sound off – or – change channel – when he starts talking.

      I’d much prefer it if he’d just sounded like Charlie Brown’s teacher, Miss Othmar….

      “Maw maw mawwww mawww mawww….maww maw maw mawwwww…” That I could at least palate.

      1. Me too. I can’t even read things that he has said because I read it in his voice and I can’t stand it. I need to teach myself to read his speeches and interviews in Joker’s voice. (Not Ledger’s Joker, but Hamill’s cartoon Joker).

        1. He was the best Joker.

          1. Indeed.

      2. Isn’t there an app for that?

        1. I’m on it!

      3. Now, let me be clear…. There are those who would turn down the sound…. uh, uh, There are those who would deny their President the right to be heard. But will we allow ignorance to flourish? …

        See, we really need the joke handle back…

        1. You can do it, it just takes more effort.

        2. “Now, let me be clear…. There are those who would turn down the sound…. uh, uh, There are those who would deny their President the right to be heard. But will we allow ignorance to flourish? …”

          Well, that pretty much sums up every speech he gives.

      4. This is why I love Reason – I learn something new every day. It never occurred to me that Charlie Brown’s teacher has a name!

        1. Good God man! Miss Othmar was Linus’ teacher, not Charlie Brown’s.

    2. But it will pale in comparison to the President’s speech answeringavoiding the Senator’s question.

    3. Somehow, I worry that it will involve a drone and a hellfire missile.

  3. Also,

    ERMAGERD, RERND PERLL!!

    1. +1 PLERS WERN

    2. ERMAGERD! FERLERBERSTER!

  4. I think this was a great move for Rand Paul. He put himself in the national spotlight, but in a way that that inspired many people, including some who otherwise hate him. I can only hope this propels him to greater responsibilities and influence in the Senate. Perhaps it will even lead to an executive branch position. He may just be the hero libertarians need right now.

    1. All I want is life beyond the Thunderdome.

      1. I could do without that, thanks. I freely admit I’m addicted to the internet.

    2. He may just be the hero libertarians need right now.

      Exactly right. He’s not the hero the movement deserves, but he is the one we need right now.

    3. Even people that don’t like him at all were moved not to be inspired by Paul, but be disgusted by their team. Durbin kicking a non-binding resoution to commitee was pretty telling.

    4. I applaud his filibuster, but he more or less preached to the choir. The lefties (code pink isn’t all that revered among their rank, I think) who temporarily joined him on this one issue isn’t likely to embrace his overall libertarian philosophy.

      In Kentucky, he could run as a straight up libertarian or tea partier and win. His true character will show in the presidential race, where many GOP candidates shift so delicately to the center.

      I’ll vote for Rand Paul (over Rubio, bless his fish tacos). But he gets trounced by Hillary Clinton, Reason may retire the notion that the country is secretly libertarian, and get bothered just a TAD about the shifting demographics that does not embrace their views, despite their immigration friendly policies.

      1. “But if he gets”

  5. I like him better than his Dad.

    He’s not as vulnerable to the charge of being a kook, too, which is a big plus.

    And Rand Paul’s probably the only guy that can make a legitimate run at editing or getting rid of the AUMF. And that’s the long term solution to a lot of our WoT problems, right there.

    The AUMF gives the president a blank check, and we need to cancel it. It just isn’t 2001 anymore.

    1. Except the AUMF, DOESN’T give a blank check. Words have meaning.

      1. Except when people ignore those words of course. Whether or not the AUMF grants the plenary authority to murderize whomever he wants, that is the way all three branches of government have interpreted it. Nobody has managed to curtail any of the excesses Bush/Obama have claimed form the AUMF.

        1. If they ignore those words, what’s the point of adding more words to ignore, really?

          Seems the problem isn’t the words…

      2. “Except the AUMF, DOESN’T give a blank check.”

        You’re right.

        You have to somehow be associated with Al Qaeda in the personal opinion of the president…but if you are? Then the president can go after you–anywhere in the world. And there’s no time limit, so he can go after anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, for as long as he wants, using most any method he deems appropriate.

        If that isn’t a “blank check”, then I don’t know what a blank check is.

        1. “(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..med_Forces

          Dear Mr. President,

          Do whatever you want.

          Love,

          Congress (Both Parties)

          P.S. XOXOXO

          The time to rip up the AUMF was years ago.

          1. Read it Ken. It is not a blank check. It says he can kill those responsible for 9/11. He is killing people who were 8 years old when 9/11 happened.

            planned, authorized, committed, aided or harbored

            All past tense. And then it goes on to say “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism…”

            If he’s killing people not specifically involved in 9/11, he has overstepped his authority. It is perfectly clear that he has.

            1. He’s also killing people who were 8 years old when they were killed.

            2. “If he’s killing people not specifically involved in 9/11, he has overstepped his authority. It is perfectly clear that he has.”

              You’re not reading what’s actually there.

              “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons…”

              Anyone associated with the “organization” is a legitimate target as is anyone else who the president determined “planned, authorized, committed, or aided…or harbored such organizations or persons.”

              Anyone who helps someone who is in the organization “Al Qaeda” is a legitimate target.

              Any nation that has Al Qaeda members in it is a legitimate target. Anyone in the United States who the president determines is in any way affiliated with the Al Qaeda organization is a legitimate target.

              This wasn’t an authorization against a country. It wasn’t against the people who perpetrated 9/11. It was against the organization, Al Qaeda and anyone who might be affiliated with it in any way, anywhere in the world–as determined by the president.

              Read it again. It was meant to apply to the U.S. going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban (who harbored them) anywhere in the world–from Afghanistan to the Philippines.

              1. Wrong.

                …the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,…

                If OBL’s grandma gave him a cookie, was she responsible for 9/11? Did OBL’s driver have anything to do with 9/11?

                Complete bullshit Ken.

                1. he determines

                  1. You are allowed to kill people who you determine pose an imminent threat to your life.

                    The caveat is that *your* determination isn’t what makes a murder a justifiable homicide – it’s the determination of cops and prosecutors and possibly a judge and jury upon reflective analysis of your actions that make it so.

                    When you are given authority to kill people – but only the people who really need killing – and then further are given authority to decide who exactly the ‘people who need killing’ are, yeah, that’s a blank check.

  6. Great post, but a minor correction to point #1:

    Jack Conway — who ran the Aqua Buddha ad — was the Attorney General and the Democrat candidate against Sen. Paul in the general election.

    Sen. Paul did have a “sad sack GOP primary opponent,” but that guy’s name was Trey Grayson, and I don’t believe he ever referenced anything about Aqua Buddha worshiping.

    1. Trey Grayson was the hand picked boy wonder, guy who was gonna take over as senior senator for McConnell one day.

      Mitch doesnt really resonate with KYians.

      1. True, Rand was the underdog in both the primary and the general election. Grayson and Conway are both polished pretty boys who would have won in any year other than 2010.

    2. That whole Aqua Buddha thing was one of the stupidest non-issues I’ve ever heard. The trendy progressive kids who tried to make it an issue in the election are among the group that insults religion most often.

      I don’t give a crap about the insults either way, but the hypocrisy and blind devotion to party over principle pissed me off to no end.

  7. John Cusack of all people actually called the Demofascists out on Twitter. I thought I had stumbled into an alternate dimension where Cusack wasn’t a completely loathsome piece of shit.

    1. Is this the beginning of the end of the media/entertainment honeymoon with Obama? Will this drive them to actually call him out on his liberal hypocrisies? Only time will tell…

      1. “Is this the beginning of the end of the media/entertainment honeymoon with Obama?”

        No.

        They still think Obama’s the one that really cares about our civil liberties.

        They don’t understand why he doesn’t just wake up!

        It happened that way with Stalin, too. He’d run a purge and send his former supporters to some death camp in Siberia, and they’d write him letters back explaining that some terrible bureaucratic snafu must have happened–because they knew Stalin would never do something like this!

        In real time, it always comes as a surprise to the left when their heroes turn out to be authoritarians–it’s often only in retrospect that they end up championing those authoritarian heroes anyway. He may have been an authoritarian bastard, but he meant well!

        1. Cognitive dissonance FTW.

    2. Ultra-liberal Obama cocksucker Bill Press gave Paul kudos on his radio show this morning. Of course he specifically stated that his support begins and ends with Paul’s stance on drone policy.

    3. Cusack has been vocal against drones from the beginning and highly critical of Obama over their use.

  8. 1) Rand Paul isn’t a perfect champion of limited government and libertarian principle, but nobody who manages to get elected in this climate could be.

    2) I have no illusions that yesterday will have any lasting effect on either policy or national opinion regarding the use of murderbots.

    But I still found the whole thing quite inspiring despite myself. Not only did Rand manage to steal headlines from Obama’s transparently manipulative State Dinner, but he also forced plenty of people on the left to look at themselves in the deep dark truthful mirror about what their principles really are. Some of the less mendacious among them actually brought themselves to voice weak support for Rand, if only on this one narrow issue.

    Again, this won’t do much to stop or even slow the progress of the Unmanned Steamroller of State, but Rand Paul did a good thing yesterday.

    1. forced plenty of people on the left to look at themselves

      I checked the Kos Kidz occasionally during the filibuster, and was pleasantly surprised at some of the comments.

      1. For a brief, shining second, even the microcephalic retards on Gawker managed to shed their partisan blinders.

        1. not everywhere: he’s a clown who was grandstanding …. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..omplished/

          1. Yeah, but don’t read the comments. One guy even suggests that Paul “trivialized a very serious issue.” I’m not kidding, kiddies!

            1. I saw another of the comments that someone here had mentioned – more than one person ‘knows’ that Rand Paul is a lying weasel hypocritical Rethuglican because he didn’t filibuster Bush when Bush was doing the same sorts of things.

              At least a follow-up commenter did point out that Paul didn’t filibuster Bush because the Senate has a rule about only allowing senators to filibuster and not random ophthamologists from Kentucky.

              I wouldn’t bet on the OP understanding the comment.

              1. Not just the comments, one of the senators (I think it was Graham) said the same thing. But there is a bigger problem with that argument than the fact that Rand Paul wasn’t a senator; Boooosh never assassinated a U.S. citizen. Obama has assassinated at least three that I know of. That seems to me be the crux of the argument, not whether you kill them with drones, guns, or pyrokinesis.

          2. I’ve heard that from some people that count themselves as libertarian. To them, any move Rand makes is just a ploy. Because they can read minds, you know.

          3. Twitter was awash with lefty butthurt too. A KY Republican made them look bad.

            HIlarious.

    2. You are giving to much credit to the average american… who really has no idea what a filibuster is or even who Rand is.

  9. People act as if the constitution matters

  10. So, out of curiosity I bounced over to MSNBC.com to see what their take was. The story is burried down the page under “Rand Paul Ends Filibuster”.

    Their big-headline lead stories?

    North Korea Threatens Preemptive Nuke Attack!

    Poll: Clinton crushes most GOP presidential hopefuls in 2016

    Riots, revenge and royal rigging: A history of controversial conclaves

    So… Off to huffpo. They have it as their top story, huge headline.
    As expected the comments were almost 90% “Paul is a nut” or “Hypocrite” or my personal favorite “I believe the Republicans were responsible for 911, so I can’t believe they are really worried about killing americans” (no kidding, that was really a comment).

    To their credit, or to the libertarian minority’s credit, most of the top-rated comments are pro-Paul.

    1. did the HuffPo crowd notice that Ron Wyden was in the pro-Paul camp or was that not in their talking points report?

    2. “I believe the Republicans were responsible for 911”

      Really, all of them? It’s amazing how such a large and stupid organization can keep that under wraps for so long. Presumably this person thinks that they are all knuckle dragging members of the reptilian right too. And yet they have the ability to allow or even orchestrate 911 and keep it a secret for over 10 years.

      1. I assumed they meant Shatner’s finest television moment: hosting “Rescue 911”

  11. Mitch doesnt really resonate with KYians.

    Which is where Missus Franchitti comes in.

    Seriously, are Kentuckians so fucking dumb they think a female action B-movie star is the solution to their problems?

    1. They’re all brainwashed by that device she got from that Star Trek episode.

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Game

      Also, +1 for knowing she was married to Dario Franchitti.

  12. Here is another takeaway; any Republican who is willing to stand up and actually take on the Democrats is going to automatically be a star. Kooks like Gingrich and Trump were forces in the Republican primaries last year for the single reason they were willing to stand up and go after Obama. I doubt as many Republicans agree with Paul on this issue as Reason would like to believe. But it doesn’t matter. After five years of a totally subservient media and Republican boot licking, they will anyone who will stand up.

    1. and the absence of many Repubs is just as noteworthy as the unprincipledness of the left. Lee, Cruz, and maybe one or two more did better than token appearances but teh Cheney/Bolton nexus has largely spoken for the GOP mass by favoring the drone policy.

      1. They have principles. You just don’t like them. They never had a problem with drones under Bush and they don’t have under Obama either. If they lacked principles, they would all be joining Paul and pretending they never supported Bush on the issue.

        1. I’m well aware most Repubs are perfectly okay with the drone policy. That was mentioned in the first post. In a sense, that makes their silence even worse than the naked political opportunism of the Dems.

          1. Lindsey Graham called opposition to the drone program, in essense, “libertarian and hard left paranoia.”

            1. Lindsey Graham is one of the biggest pieces of shit the republican party has ever embraced.

              Never met a brown person he didn’t want to kill.

              1. That’s an accurate summary. Goose-stepping our way to a brighter tomorrow!

        2. They have principles. You just don’t like them.

          Oh? Can you explain what they are please?

          1. That the war powers include the ability to whack American citizens found to be making war on the United States even if said citizens are within the US.

            1. That’s NOT a principle.

              1. PRINCIPLE
                1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption

                It might be a wrongheaded principle, but it is a principle.

                1. The above is a belief. Beliefs stem from principles. I’m asking what principle that belief stems from. Your definition is inadequate. Here is the actual definition:

                  prin?ci?ple Noun /?prins?p?l/

                  Synonyms:
                  noun: tenet, rule, basis, law

                  principles plural
                  1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning
                  the basic principles of Christianity
                  2. A rule or belief governing one’s personal behavior
                  struggling to be true to their own principles
                  she resigned over a matter of principle
                  3. Morally correct behavior and attitudes
                  a man of principle
                  4. A general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field
                  5. A natural law forming the basis for the construction or working of a machine
                  these machines all operate on the same general principle
                  6. A fundamental source or basis of something
                  the first principle of all things was water
                  7. A fundamental quality or attribute determining the nature of something; an essence
                  the combination of male and female principles
                  8. An active or characteristic constituent of a substance, obtained by simple analysis or separation
                  the active principle in the medulla is epinephrine

                  1. I had a long response, but the squirrels ate it. I don’t know what you’re raging about; John’s paraphrase of Cheney’s principle pretty clearly fits definition 1:

                    “That the war powers include the ability to whack American citizens found to be making war on the United States even if said citizens are within the US” is a fundamental proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or for a chain of reasoning. You disagree with the proposition.

                    Likewise, refusing to criticize somebody that agrees with you on policy grounds simply because of political affiliation fits definitions 2 and 3. So there you go, they at least have 2.

                    1. It is not A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

                      It is not a fundamental truth nor nor does it serve as a foundation.

                      It is a belief. I asked him to explain what principles led them to such a belief.

                      WHY do war powers include the ability to whack civilians….?

            2. I have to sort of agree. The Civil War certainly had plenty of US citizens get killed by artillery, minie balls, etc. So, if Texas were to secede tomorrow and march on DC, why no drone strikes?

              1. Irrelevant, Rand isnt talking about use of force against an immidiate threat, he is talking about use of force against people not posing and imminent threat and there lack of due process.

          2. ‘Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State’, the same as the Democrats.

  13. Is this the beginning of the end of the media/entertainment honeymoon with Obama?

    It could be. It’s tax season, and I suspect some of them, at least, are having sit-downs with their accountants and portfolio advisors.

    1. The Hillary buyers’ remorse has already started among the liberals I know.

          1. Per Google digging, “What difference at this point does it make?” (Hilary @ Benghazi hearing)

  14. So does Ron have any other sons that we can talk into moving to Iowa to take over Harkin’s seat, cause the leading republican candidate for the seat is that shit weasel from western Iowa.

  15. Am I crazy to hope that something like this will start to drive a wedge between the liberals and the “progressives” (who are actually the most reactionary element in contemporary politics)?

    1. Yes.

      Alright, that’s cynical. Truth is, the loudest voices are always going to be the partisan hacks on both sides. For the past two decades the left has been more comfortable in avoiding dissent in their ranks. I don’t think this will be enough to change it.

      Among my lefty friends, they view the Paul bit as nothing more than a joke. My lefty girlfriend (in fairness, she’s a lawyer. She can’t help it.) made an argument that it should wait for the *next* administration before the policy changes….for national security reasons.

      1. let me guess, before the election it was,”wait until his second term?”

    2. There are no liberals left in the Democratic Party. They are all progtards. They have gone full fascist.

      1. I note that the ACLU does not oppose the Citizen United decision, which is universally condemned by your “progtards,” John.

        1. I prefer the term Proglodytes

  16. the “progressives” (who are actually the most reactionary element in contemporary politics)?

    The people who fetishize stasis? Reactionary?

    You jest.

  17. How about Americans just not drone anyone, foreign or domestic. Remember, what goes around comes around.

  18. “The Supreme Court ruled that in fact, the federal government not only has the right to regulate commercial transactions that take place anywhere in these United States, it has the right to force them to take place.”

    A small quibble: this is not what the court actually decided. Roberts adopted the minority’s position regarding the commerce clause.

  19. By foregounding the issues

    Would a spell-checker cost that much?

    1. Firefox gives it to you free.

  20. Still glowing with the satisfaction of a well fought battle, made sweeter by Holder’s snippy one-word answer: “No”.

    STAND WITH RAND!!!

  21. If you think Vincent`s story is impressive,, one week ago my brother’s mom in law worked and got paid $7370 working fourty hours a month from their apartment and they’re friend’s ex-wife`s neighbour done this for 8-months and errned over $7370 part-time at there mac. applie the information here, http://www.wow92.com

    1. OK – we will make you the one exception to the general rule of ‘no killing people without due process of law’.

      1. moneybot is not a person, it’s an unwitting person’s infected computer. We can drone that all day long.

  22. One of the biggest points I think overlooked in this debate is the principle involved. If the president claims that an open-ended war gives him the right to kill anyone, anywhere, any time merely on his say-so that that person is an enemy combatant, what limits this to just the US president?

    When Ahmadinejad starts sending drones into Miami after Iran declares war on infidels and grants their president the authority to use all necessary and appropriate means to pursue infidels, how are you going to argue that he has no right to do so if you claim that right for our president?

    1. Jerryskids| 3.8.13 @ 11:42AM |#
      “One of the biggest points I think overlooked in this debate is the principle involved. If the president claims that an open-ended war gives him the right to kill anyone, anywhere, any time merely on his say-so that that person is an enemy combatant, what limits this to just the US president?”

      Not one damn thing.

  23. We never knew U.S. Senator Rand Paul ever had protective feelings for the future life & death of our fellow little Anonymous Americans wearing masks in videos on You Tube being hacked apart with U.S. drone missiles?

  24. til I saw the receipt four $6575, I be certain that…my… friends brother was like they say realey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop.. there sisters roommate started doing this less than fifteen months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on there home and bought a top of the range Citro?n DS. I went here, http://www.wow92.com

  25. “they [the Germans] voted in Hitler”??

    Uh, no, Senator. In fact, Hitler was never elected to office, although he did stand for election for the presidency in 1932. He lost to Hindenburg, but in Jan. 1933 Hindenburg used his powers under the great Weimar republic to name Hitler as chancellor. In fact, the foundation of Hitler’s regime until the bitter end was the constitution of the Weimar republic. And were it not for the know-it-all leftists and republicans of 1919, the central government of Das Deutsche Reich would have been much weaker in 1933, as it was during WWI. But leftists knew better than to tolerate a weak central government.

    That’s right, boys and girls. I’m suggesting that leftists bear enormous reponsibility not only for making Hitler’s despotism possible but also for causing World War II.

  26. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was $16116 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site

    http://fly38.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.