Rand Paul is Cordially Invited to Kiss My Ass

[bigtree]

from the Angry Black Lady Chronicles:


Rand Paul has been droning on about drones for 7 hours. In that time, he could have introduced a damn bill that would repeal the AUMF, which is the reason motherfuckers are freaking out that the Black Dude in the White House is going to drone strike them in the Whole Foods parking Lot.

Rand Paul won’t take the time to introduce a bill to repeal the AUMF (because that would require him to put his money where his pie hole is), but he WILL take the time to try to attach a Personhood Amendment to a fucking flood insurance bill. That’s right. A personhood amendment. To a fucking flood insurance bill.

Oh, and while he quotes Glenn Greenwald and and feigns outrage about drone strikes, he enthusiastically supports the Stand Your Ground laws that are the direct cause of the deaths of so many black people in this country — like Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis.

If he gave a true fuck about drone strikes? He would try to change the goddamn AUMF. But he’s not. He’s filibustering Brennan’s appointment. It’s political kabuki theater, and it’s horseshit . . .


read more: http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-is-cordially-invited-to-kiss-my-ass/

[madokie]

1. Yes he can kiss

my rusty ass too while he's kissing. Promise he won't want to come back for more

[Skidmore]

2. Rand Paul is one of the people in this world who

will never get a vote from me for any office. Ever.

[HappyMe]

3. Just looking at the guy pisses me off.

Asshat.

[Snake Plissken]

7. As if he really gives a shit

he's just being a typical Republican douchebag who has a terminal case of diaper rash over Obama being in the White House.

[Robb]

10. Thanks for joining DU to post in favor of more guns and Rand Paul.

Really, I don't know how we got on without you all these years.

[kyeshinka]

24. There's a first time for everything

It may have been political, like everything else, but I agree. I can't stand Rand Paul, but at least he stood up while the "liberal" democrats who are supposed to be rolling back the police state stood by silently, just like when the Occupy protesters were attacked. It's bad enough we're using drones to wipe out Pashtun wedding parties. It's worse to think our government thinks it can do that here, except we'd probably protest less.

[kurtzapril4]

38. I hate Rand Paul, and everything he stands for

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

But I have to give him some props for standing up and actually filibustering. No Democrat would ever do such a thing. It would be evidence of having a collective spine, and that just wouldn't do.

[Glaisne]

43. If it was a tea bag president

and it was the same policy, he wouldn't have filibustered. It was more about being against Obama than anything else.

[kurtzapril4]

49. I agree with that.

But instead of merely threatening a fillibuster, he did it. Anyway, I don't like him, never have, never will. I just happen to agree with him on the drone issue. It is the ONLY issue I agree with him on, to make it crystal clear.

[fadedrose]

44. I totally agree with you...

We should have more filibusters from both sides of the aisle. Some of these guys are very articulate, even tho they're full of baloney.

The Dem Senators should not let jealousy keep them from joining in. It would be a wonderful government if they went back to debating one another..

[Dorn]

14. True and I expected more from Democrats

I disagree with 99% of what Rand Paul says but I too wonder if the President has the authority order the killing of a "non-combatant". Don't forget how George Bush made up evidence to start the Iraq war. Is it too far fetched to say that a president Jeb Bush might decide that you or I are a threat to the US of A and have us killed?

Koch TP (tea party) member Paul is a useful idiot when he questions if the executive branch has the right to kill us at home in our beds because we might be a threat. Unfortunately I only saw one Democrat (Ron Wyden) support Paul -- I expected more from Democrats.

[pangaia]

28. The issue has been in the spotlight for anyone watching.

ps--I don't mean YOU haven't been watching.

[randome]

5. Such an ethical filibuster, too! It lasted all of 15 hours!

Now that's a man with a sense of morals! Not.

[colbertforpresident]

6. He's right

The dems should also be filibustering this.

[randome]

12. Filibustering what? It's Congress' responsibility to propose legislation.

All filibustering does in this case is allow politicians time in the spotlight without actually having to do their fucking jobs!

If Congress wants the situation changed, they need to change it.

[G_j]

9. It makes me sick

that this mean spirited, hypocritical ogre is bringing attention to an issue that Democrats should be addressing.

[magellan]

27. +1

Apparently because it's Rand Paul we aren't allowed to agree, even in principle. No matter what the enemy says, we have to take the opposite position.

Never mind the drones. I'm still trying to come to grips with the simple idea that a Democratic President, constitutional lawyer and all, put that monster Brennan forward for CIA Director. Nothing wrong with rendition, nope. It's okay, because if we send someone from Egypt back there they'll get to see their family. Golly gee! USA! USA! Reuniting terrorist suspects with their "families" out of pure altruism!

[G_j]

35. +1

I registered as a CO during the Vietnam war and have been la life long peace activist.
The assertion that I am being punked by Paul is ludicrous and insulting.

I completely agree with you about Brennan and rendition. ...

[TommyCelt]

47. Seeing far more attacks

on RP's bad rug and asshattery than I'm seeing about the actual issue.

Isn't this the complaint about Republicans in Congress? Just because it comes from the Obama White House, it must be opposed...even if it's a good idea? Seems to me that Democrats have flipped this around on Paul. If this statement had come from the previous administration's Attorney General, about the mere possibility of drones being used on American citizens, this page would be all pitchforks and torches about W fascism.

The drone issue is the bastard child of the Patriot Act (which is unconstitutional; when drafted under the Bush administration, and when re-authorized by the Obama).

I'm no social conservative, and I generally find Rand Paul's pet issues repugnant. But I'm incredulous to find so few liberals backing him and so ready to accept Holder's "but it's only for really bad guys in really rare/hypothetical situations" explanation. This is a civil rights issue.

[magellan]

72. Well said on all counts

And as someone else wrote, if the cons really have a problem with the drone issue then they should craft a bill to repeal or amend the AUMF. It's patently clear they're using this issue for nothing more than their usual cynical and hypocritical motives.

That being said, it's incredibly disappointing that the Dems and Obama are actually defending those unconstitutional powers. It's behavior I expect from the cons, not the party of civil rights. I think that party disappeared long ago.

Welcome, TommyCelt.

[AnnieK401]

11. Maybe that thing on his head is getting to his brain.

Sorry.

[randome]

13. I think it's related to Trump's piece. A sad clone, perhaps.

[woo me with science]

15. Democrats should have led this filibuster, en masse.

The fact that they did not tells us all we need to know.

For the corporatists in both major parties, this is a gravely dangerous moment, because it threatens to expose to Americans the shallowness of Democratic claims to stand for something better than Republicans. It draws back the curtain to expose what the Blue Party/Red Party game has really become. It shows that policies and arguments for the corporate, authoritarian state really don't change anymore, no matter which party is in charge.

It reveals the depth of the corporate corruption that has taken root, and the fact that what was once the party of democratic values, principles, and laws has now been purchased and subverted by corporate authoritarian power and money.

That is why the partisan corporate propaganda on this will be relentless.

That is why you will see every distraction in the book. You will have dangled in front of you every single outrageous and disgusting thing that a libertarian or a Republican has ever said, proposed, or done. *Anything* to get Democrats to circle the wagons and shift the conversation from what we are really talking about here: the claim by a corporate Democratic President of the right to murder Americans on our own soil, without due process, and to continue torture and rendition by the United States of America.

The propaganda MUST be relentless on this one. This one strikes at the heart of our guaranteed civil protections. This is where the corporate authoritarians hold their breath to see if Americans will erupt in outrage, or passively accept the subversion of our very Constitution, and our fundamental human rights.

Look over there! Remember how much you hate Republicans and Libertarians! Remember....You are on the Blue Team. Cheer for your Blue Team!

What does the Blue Team stand for now?

When it is no longer possible to defend what they are doing, but instead we see the rhetoric of blind loyalty and distraction, we have a serious, serious problem.

We have a serious problem.

[Dorn]

19. I agree

Very well put, thank you. Question: Mr. President can you kill Americans without due process?

[Puzzledtraveller]

20. It is less about principal than it is tribalism today.

It exists on both sides to be fair.

[davidthegnome]

33. I fear you're right.

I don't know what the solution is. Campaign finance reform would be a good start. Clean elections. Without some method of making corporate bribery illegal, I suspect we'll see more of the same. The Supreme Court isn't on our side in this one - as proven by the Citizens United Ruling. Petitions, protesting, civil disobedience...

I don't know. Maybe we all have to suffer more, on a more personal level, before the majority becomes angry enough to do something about it. Maybe it will require the power going out...

[99Forever]

37. Yes sir.

The curtain has been pulled back. Both cops are bad cops. No one of any significance is on the side of We the People. Your Nation has been stolen from you.

The Corporate take over of both major political parties is done. Fascism is now firmly in place. Look on the horizon, people, what's coming is going to rock your world and not in a good way.

[SemperEadem]

16. he needs to be drug tested

every picture of him I see, he looks like he just hit the bong.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Could use more republicans hitting the bong, to be honesst.

[mwrguy]

54. He's sort of a libertarian

So aside from wanting to starve poor people like rethugs, they also smoke a lot of dope.

[truth2power]

17. I don't care for Rand Paul; but what about giving credit where it's due?...

black/white

[still_one]

23. I would bet if this was done during bush's administration, 99.9% on DU would be outraged on the

abuse of power.

To me it demonstrates that for some it is strictly an issue of politics and not about the issue

[colbertforpresident]

31. yes and yes

I agree with you 100%.

[still_one]

32. What is bothersome, is why isn't a Democrat in Congress bring this up. I guess Ron Wyden(sic), and

if I recall he took a lot of flak because he criticized the administrative policy on drones

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. I'm glad all of the Democrats licking Rand Paul's ass...

Are living comfortably enough to trouble themselves with the trivial issues that Rand Paul concerns himself about.

[davidthegnome]

36. Give it a few years.

Let's wait until drone strikes have killed Americans on American soil - let's wait until they've killed innocent citizens and shrugged it off as collateral damage. Perhaps then this issue won't seem so trivial to you.

As much as I despise Rand Paul, this is not a trivial issue. With such wide potential for abuse, we are simply expected to trust our leaders not to misuse drone technology? Not me. I want oversight. I want clear language on what can and cannot be done with these drones. Until I have that, I'm in the uncomfortable, depressing position of having to agree with assholes like Rand Paul when they are the only ones to stand up and demand this...

I'm not living comfortably. It's freezing here in my tiny apartment in Northern Maine, I spent my last dollar on a quart of milk - and I have no idea how I'm going to keep my heat turned on, already falling behind in electric payments. This doesn't mean that I'm not going to be aware of what's going on here, that I don't see the dangerous power grabs that are demanding the power to kill indiscriminately, without oversight.

In any event, I'm glad you're living comfortably enough to think this is trivial.

[toby jo]

50. David - you're right on point.

i've worked on an issue for years - spaced based radio frequency weapons systems, that is largely ignored and widely abused by both parties. I was supposed to testify at hearings by kennedy back in the day, late 80s', they were 'put off'. Dennis Kucinich finally brought up a bill,
but, it too has been sidelined.

It is indiscriminate, it is used for torture among other dynamics. People die.

You have a weapons system that is advanced through the breaking down of people's bodies and minds. We have to excel, don't we? We have to beat the 'bad' guys, right? It's disgusting on multiple levels.

It is political mojo for whomever is in office. The hypocrisy cuts both ways.

David, I've been that broke and that cold, hang in there. Spring is coming. Shut it out and work the light. Damn.

[davidthegnome]

62. Thanks for the kind words.

I've never heard of the space based radio frequency weapons systems, which goes to prove your point that it's largely ignored. What exactly do they involve? I mean, how do they break down bodies and minds? It's probably beyond my ability to comprehend the science of it, but it sounds scary.

What really gets to me the most is that we have these advanced weapons that people in power, whether the white house or the CIA, are going to use - but in too many instances we don't seem to have sufficient oversight. Are we even going to know what's going on? If some official decides that an American somewhere, in our own Country... is a threat that requires elimination - and they kill this person via drone strike, are we even going to hear about it if someone doesn't make a cell phone video?

It's sort of this question of who is going to watch the watchers, who is going to supervise those who have the power to kill indiscriminately. I think any stable form of government requires competent systems of checks and balances... and this is way too one-sided for me.

I'll make it. It's not nearly as cold as it was last month... as long as the temperature stays above zero, I can't complain too much. Really looking forward to spring - and to seeing the sun again.

[still_one]

21. Even if it is political theater, the issue is being brought to public attention. Every since the

Patriot Act, which many Democrats voted for, Congress has been relinquishing its responsibility. The IWR was also another example of Congress putting its head in the sand

Would people here be equally upset if a Democrat brought it up?

Oh, ron weyden also agreed with Paul on this, and has been a critic of our drone policy.

Should he be silenced also.

In fact, what is paul doing that bothers so many? Is he violating the law, or are those who are utilizing the drones violating the law?

Was invading Iraq based on a lie ok? What if Congress actually did their job then, how many people could have been saved, and how much money saved?

[abelenkpe]

22. Did Rand Paul or any republican have a problem with drone strikes

While Bush was in office?

Personally I think anyone who didn't express outrage over drone strikes before they thought they might be used against americans is a hypocrit democrat or republican.

And the filibuster drama? Puleeze. It was just a diversion so people wouldn't pay attention to the other ongoing shenanigans of republicans blocking judicial nominees, continuing to not do anything about the economy and generally fucking over the people who voted for democrats and against the policies of the right. But people want to applaud Rand Paul? Please don't be so gullible.

[TommyCelt]

51. Tu quoque <nm>

[JoePhilly]

26. K&R

[Coolest Ranger]

29. The fact that some from our own side are agreeing with him makes me ill

[Autumn]

30. Please insist he brush his teeth first.

It's a matter of disease control.

[raindaddy]

34. Not A Fan OF Rand Paul The Libertarians But I Agree With Him

Embarrassing that a Libertarian was able to expose the hypocrisy of the current leadership of the Democratic party. Simply answer the question, "does the President have the right to murder and American on US soil without due process?"

And at this point I'm not going to speculate about Paul's motives, why add to the kabuki theater? The Obama administration is continuing down the road that Bush paved and they're wrong. If Paul comes out looking like a champion of civil liberties, the Obama administration only have themselves to blame.

“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?”

“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,”

If these statements were made by a Democrat during the Bush administration he would be cheered.

[msanthrope]

42. I suspect that those who agree with Rand Paul have never taken a basic civics class, nor have any

understanding what "due process" actually means.

So I'll try something with you....

"does the President have the right to murder and American on US soil without due process?" No. But you knew that.

So answer this---If President Bush had ordered the shootdown of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, how would the due process rights of Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, and Saeed al-Ghamdi been violated?

[TommyCelt]

52. As none of the people you mentioned

were American citizens, they do not have due process rights under our Constitution. An argument could have been made for the rest of the passengers and crew of the flight who WERE American citizens.

However I would say legally, America was in a state of war at that point.

[msanthrope]

55. That is utterly incorrect. It is also the viewpoint of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who thinks that the

undocumented people he arrests have no due process rights under the Constitution because they are not American citizens.

Due process is not dependent on citizenship. (Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590)

Try again.

[TommyCelt]

57. OK...

My original response may need a bit of tweaking, but before I do so, I will ask a question; do enemy combatants in the process of committing acts of war against the United States have the same rights under the Constitution as an American citizen?

[msanthrope]

58. Custodial or non-custodial enemy combatants have the rights under the Constitution as outlined in

Hamdi and its progeny.

[TommyCelt]

59. So...

Your answer is "Yes"?

[msanthrope]

68. To what, precisely? nt

[TommyCelt]

69. To the question I asked you...

"Do enemy combatants in the process of committing acts of war against the United States have the same rights under the Constitution as an American citizen?"

[msanthrope]

70. You are asking an imprecise question. Citizenship isn't the issue. The better question is

"Do enemy combatants have the same rights whether or not they are citizens?" Yes.

The gravamen isn't citizenship--it's acts committed.

[raindaddy]

63. Without a trial who makes the decision....

on whether a killing is murder?
Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, and Saeed al-Ghamdi were in the act of a crime. A little different than handing a government official the right to make the decision to kill someone who may or may not be associated with a terrorist group or may or may not be planning an attack without a trial. But of course you knew that.

[geek tragedy]

65. "were in the act of a crime" well, did a jury say they were committing a crime?

Innocent before proven guilty, right?

So legally, they were not committing a crime and were never found to have committed a crime.

Since we're harping on the red herring of due process . ..

[raindaddy]

66. My belief is if there were the slightest...

discrepancy whether the 9/11 terrorists were guilty of murdering 3000 Americans there should've been a trial.
Do they put every cop who kills someone in the obvious act of a violent crime on trial? So you're more than willing to place the power to determine who may or may not be a terrorist, possibly plotting an attack in a Rand Paul or Jeb Bush administration and take their word for it without any oversight?

[geek tragedy]

67. In terms of preventing an unfolding attack in real time, there is no place

for judicial review.

[niyad]

39. I adore ABL. but I have to say--I don't want that man's lips (or, indeed, any part of him) anwhere

near my physical person. ewwwwww.

[BREMPRO]

41. my impression:

look at me!
i'm Rand Paul son of prophet Ron
i'm principled
i'm important
i can put many sentences together and repeat myself saying the same thing over and over and over again in slightly different ways adding nothing substantial to my opportunistic argument
look at me!
btw i am going to run for president so as boy king i can be bigger than hillary clinton.
i'm important

[IrishAyes]

48. I hope he does run

... in 2016 so Hillary can clean his clock. I don't know that it really matters too much who her running mate turns out to be; we've got several fine candidates. But I think she will mop the floor with any GOP who opposes her. Heck, even a lot of the female Repugs like her and probably always will! I think their ability to switch votes w/o blinking an eye has less to do with ideology and more to do with wanting someone who "looks just like me." Very shallow, of course. But votes are too precious to turn our collective noses up at any of them.

[louis-t]

45. Didn't take him long to compare Obama to Hitler, did it?

By the way, that photo looks like it's from the original Star Trek series.

[IrishAyes]

46. As to constant comparisons

... when the GOP yells "Hitler!" at President Obama, they're projecting. They're the fascists.

[mwrguy]

53. freaking out that the Black Dude in the White House is going to drone strike them in the Whole Food

LOL perfectly captures Rand's retarded mindset.

[TommyCelt]

60. I don't care if he's purple...

I don't want ANY "dude in the White House" with that kind of control.

[Romulox]

56. I don't think all of this attack-the-messenger, friend-of-my-enemy type logic speaks well

for people's support of the actual underlying policy.

Rand Paul isn't the issue. It's what kind of society we want to live in that's the issue. If process-less assassinations at the executive's sole discretion is that society, then own up to it. Quit hiding behind Rand Paul.

[geek tragedy]

61. Rand Paul is attacking a straw man. No one has suggested that the President can assassinate people

inside the US.

[geek tragedy]

64. Fuck Ron Paul. Fuck Rand Paul. nt

[colsohlibgal]

71. I Would Never Vote For This Guy But....

I think a lot of democrats are being pretty hypocritical.

My president right or wrong is a dangerous, dangerous concept.

Both Pauls are nut cakes but a clock is right twice a day and he's right about this.

It's a slippery slope and even if you believe Obama would never abuse drone power in the US, who is to say a future prez might use this precedence - some dufus wingnut like Bush 2. So I'm glad this action got Holder to issue the statement he finally issued.

[sagat]

73. Fuck Rand.

No "buts", fuck him and his toupee.