Posted on 03/06/2013 11:21:56 AM PST by Nachum
Sen. Rand Paul launched into an old-fashioned filibuster on the Senate floor Wednesday as he tried to hold up the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director over concerns about the president’s authority to kill Americans with drones.
Paul, R-Ky., is one of several lawmakers – on both sides of the aisle – who has raised concerns about the legal justification for launching drone strikes against Americans overseas. But Paul took to the floor after receiving a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder that creaked open the door to the possibility of using a drone to kill an American inside the United States.
“To allow one man to accuse you in secret -- you never get notified you've been accused,” Paul said on the floor. “Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?”
Paul said he’d be raising the same complaints under a Republican president.
“No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Of equal or greater concern is Brennan’s conversion to Islam.
The Constitution says there shall be NO religious test for any position in the govt. Does our side throw the Constitution under the bus when it suits us? People tried to go in this direction when Catholics were new arrivals and their loyalty was suspected.
The Constitution says there shall be NO religious test for any position in the govt. Does our side throw the Constitution under the bus when it suits us? People tried to go in this direction when Catholics were new arrivals and their loyalty was suspected.
Cruz is now speaking. This show is fun to watch!!
True, but that simply means that a person can not be "constitutionally" barred because of their religion, which would mean they couldn't even be nominated in the first place. Individual Senator's can choose not to vote for a nominee for any reason they see fit, or for no reason at all, heck a Senator is free to vote against every nominee with brown hair if he or she so chooses.
You can be sure they are working on some way to Palinize Paul and Cruz full time now. The talking communists on the All Obama news drones will be handed their talking points by the White House "Communications" office and their walking army at Media-Traitors, JournOlist, and Hollywood spin-meisters.
I can hear it now: By 8 O'clock tonight they will be called "racists", "wackos", "dangerous", and "out of control". They will be said to be "fomenting civil unrest".
The administration will trot out their various communist czars to declare that these senators are "giving aid to our enemies", "making our jobs harder", and "need to be investigated" for their own "unconstitutional obstructionism".
Then the White House controlled print media will come out with scathing articles about how Paul is a closet homosexual, Cruz gave somebody herpes, and that he cheated on his papers at Harvard- or whatever they can invent; all from unnamed sources.
The patriotism of the Republican politicians has grown so stale. Only the sons of Cuban immigrants such as Cruz and Rubio show any passion for the freedom our elected officials now take for granted.
Cruz, so far so good. Rubio? The guy in favor of amnesty/DREAM????
Hell no.
Playing devils advocate here (maybe), but that only holds if one views Islam purely as a religion.
It no longer holds if one views it as a totalitarian political and economic system that happens to have a religious component.
It would be perfectly acceptable then to employ a test, the same as we would for Communism or Fascism.
I agree with you about Rubios stance on amnesty. Was just referring to the filibuster.
I don’t expect perfection from these guys, but dear God, is it too much to ask for them to hold to the really big points of the party line?
Instead, they just change the line and their shills browbeat us for not calling the crap ambrosia.
Believe me, I’m very happy Rubio has a lor of conservative positions. But he’s willing to throw them all out with giving the Dems millions of new voters. Ergo, he is as big or worse a problem than the Pelosis of the world. And he proved untrustworthy.
Unlike some people here, I’m all for killing Americans that “go home” and are then at training camps in the Middle East.
But I do draw the line in this country, even if they belong to the ROP. They still need to be given a chance to explain that they’re into the killing of infidels.
The butt kissers at the New York Times seem more concerned about radical Muslims getting water up their noses than about American citizens being murdered by the government - without a hint of due process. Guess the New York Time's dem handlers didn't tell them much about this story.
No one said he could not be presented as a candidate for the position, barred by a religious test. But as you are probably aware, Islam permits/encourages/requires lying for the advancement of the faith. Therefore nothing a Muslim says can ever be trusted.
The goal of Islam is to rule the world; nothing less is acceptable. Therefore Muslims in government will be working covertly to destroy our system and supplant it with their own. So a vote to confirm a Muslim to a position of authority and power is a vote to overthrow the America we used to know.
Don't ban them, but don't confirm them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.