111 votes

Rand Paul On Hannity: Drone Strikes on US Citizens on US Soil

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The person who uploaded this

The person who uploaded this to youtube is a douche. I spent the time to record and upload it and they just ripped my work off without even a H/T.

Look at the watermark: "uploaded by eduardo89rp"

This is a textbook definition

This is a textbook definition why Sean Hannity has no credibility despite all the President has done. He tries to sneak in his propaganda on torture in a piece outlining the President asserting he can kill US citizens on American soil with drones.

I wish Rand had corrected him on torture.

Sean, please just retire. You've got enough money. Buy a ranch somewhere and stop damaging the cause.

Notice how scoundrel Hannity tries to make this a left right

thing. Rand skillfully includes Democrats that also appose drone assassination.

isn't obama anti-death penalty?

forget torture, isn't obama anti-death penalty?

Go Rand...

I love how he totally sidesteps Hannitys obvious agenda to justify "Waterboarding" and to demonize the Democrats... what a fucking dinosaur!

- Despite all the monkey shit hannity flings at the Democrats, Rand ever so gently reminds the viewers that Both Democrats and Republicans worked together to get this information.

I can't even watch it

Just seeing Hannity's face along with his stupid hand gestures he does while he holds his pen and talks is enough to make me cringe. I seem to remember him and Limbaugh fighting to keep Gitmo open during the Bush years and loving upon the Patriot act. The fact that Hannity now claims to be all for the Constitution makes my mind numb- just another "Johnny-come-lately" Hijacker of the Constitutional/Liberty movement that Ron Paul spearheaded.

"I am Troll fighter, number one"




The guy is pro torture but Anti Execution? What a joke, and how he tries to link torture to the capture of Bin Laden is an out right lie and he knows it. Just another neocon war monger trying to justify war crimes. Rand should put Hannity in his place for uttering such rubbish, however it seems clear his presidential ambitions will be the undoing of his character.

At first I was like, will this be the first time I find Hannity

agreeable? Nope. It only took about a minute for my bile to start rising.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Rand is filibustering Brennan's nomination

on the Senate floor right now.

From his twitter:
Senator Rand Paul ‏@SenRandPaul
Speaking on the Senate floor at length & actively filibustering Brennan’s nomination until further notice Tune into @cspan now #filiblizzard

Live stream:

Any one find it interesting

that when Hannity brings up torture Rand remains silent and does not comment. It's amazing how effective Rand is at cozying up to the establishment/fox news watching/faux-tea partiers while seeming to still hold onto his libertarian views, but he's afraid to defend them, or even mention them. Even though he may be our snake, he's a snake.

This was a great opportunity to call Hannity out, but Rand knows he needs him, he's already made the decision to compromise.

It's just like his stance on foreign aid. He says he wants to end foreign aid to egypt and Pakistan not because foreign aid is immoral (stealing from the poor of this country to give to the rich of another) but instead uses the lens of a neo-con to argue "well they shouldn't receive foreign aid because they don't like us, they're our enemy" (gets support from the islamaphobes)

I do sense that deep down he wants to say "we should end foreign aid altogether, to israel and to egypt," just like I think he wants to argue that we should never torture and no human should be stripped of due process, US citizen or not. I do think he understands the non agression principal and other tenants of libertarianism, but he's ashamed or embarrassed.

but because he's so willing to compromise, I can never trust him. And that's why he won't have the full support of the rEVOLution.

Yes, I find it interesting...

...that Rand is not stupid.

He spoke on what HE wanted to speak on - and that is drones. It's a winning position, and he's been taking the lead on it, and that's a powerful political combination.

There's no political gain - only likely loss - to going down the 'torture' road with Hannity: it's played out and it distracts from the winning message he's there to blare.

So he pivoted like a pro, and smartly praised the Democrat Senator so as to come off as objective and credible and different than Hannity the homer.

Home run.

I agree

that it was an excellent political move. Rand is an excellent politician. But doesn't that make you nervous? Even if he were president would he compromise on taking a pro liberty agenda because it would be too politicly costly? Sure he'll be better than any of the establishment primary choices, but I'm not calling him my savior yet and certainly not the leader of this movement.

I take issue with your...

...stating that Rand's "afraid or ashamed or embarrassed" to speak about torture, or foreign aid, etc.

This is Ron Paul's SON. When he was a kid he was going door-to-door for his dad. He grew up talking politics at Ron's dinner table. He vigorously campaigned for Ron in the last two highly visible prez campaigns. OF COURSE he knows, appreciates and subscribes to the purely libertarian positions.

On top of that, since winning his seat, he's staked out principled libertarian positions that no doubt hurt him within the Republican Party. And he name-drops 'libertarian' in practically every interview he does, which is no small thing for this movement.

On these stupid but vital three-minute, soundbite-laden interviews, he can't squeeze everything in. It's impossible. If he even tried, it would drown out the subject he is there for, and it would defeat the purpose.

Does he say what I want him to say in every interview? Absolutely not. But neither did Ron.

But, like Ron, I'm glad he's slick to the extent that he is. He's trying to win, and there is every indication that if he wins the pulpit, he's gonna do everything he can to move the needle. He already is.

Rand was on Fox News twice yesterday

Was also on Cavuto.

His frequent appearances on Hannity are HUGE. There's a simple reason Santorum and Gingrich did as well as they did in the primary - they had a nightly presence on Fox News, which is Republican TV, that Ron did not have. Fox News tells the Republican primary voters/sheeple who to vote for.

With Rand's Fox News access AND his dad's base - particularly in the early states of iowa and NH - the only way Rand can be stopped in the '16 primary is if Fox News turns on him, and it's becoming less and less clear that is a given.

Hypocrisy squared...

A hypocrite calling a hyocrite a hypocrite. There's no doubt in my mind that if this exact situation was the same, but Bush was prez, Hannity would be 100% behind it.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Down with Hannity

Being aligned with Hannity is like being aligned with Dick Cheney. They are the PAST

Ron Paul has been bounced....whew!!!

Open the flood gates about EVERYTHING he and his supporters have been saying since at minimum, the fall of 2007.....

Fox News, right-wing talk radio, you've exposed your FRAUD and complicit silence(we'll NEVER FORGET or forgive the mockery of OUR liberty movement)....

Silence, Sean???? Really??? Your traitorous behavior, in exchange for fame & a paycheck, should earn you a special place in hell....

Take the gloves off folks, I said it yesterday!


Don't leave Rand out there to speak these things ALONE, he needs allies and colleagues in 2014 & 2016....candidates, local Party leaders, where are we all at???

I hope we're not going to lay down and just take it!
BTW: One DP member watched my video, and bought me a GIFT membership to Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom last night!!! THIS movement is the pulse of this nation....let's get out there and LEAD!

Sons of Liberty beware

What is this devolution
To Article One of our Constitution?
Guilty without trial
Is un-American and vile

For what possible purpose
Do we surrender Habeas Corpus?
Colonial time wisdom
A cornerstone of the American system

Due process extended
And herein granted
Shall not be suspended
With the exception
Of rebellion or invasion attempted

Sons of Liberty beware
Today in Boston and elsewhere
The liberties you won
Are fastly being undone

Rebellion or free speech?
What is the line
That separates each?
I don’t know
But it’s a thin line to breach

So we better beware
Now with drones in the air
If you step over the line
You can be killed on Main street
With a Hellfire missile from midair

Is this really new?

Hasn't the permanent government considered that it has always had a right to execute Americans on American soil? A few historic examples would be JFK, MLK, & RFK. If I were as well informed as many others I'm sure I could come up with more recent and less glamorous examples.

Pro-Life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-worker, pro Ron Paul

It certainly is new

I dont remember anybody saying it was ok to kill Kennedy. I remember them sealing off the documents and calling everyone crazy who thought the CIA did it.

Here you have the AG coming write out and SAYING they can do it.
Before they may have thought they had the right - but they knew to shut up and make it look like some random act. Now they have no such fear - which means they are pretty sure they have the upper hand.

I wish not to fan the fires of revolutionary/civil war talk. But to quote Henry:
Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.
We are the enemy in the eyes of the governement, plain and simple.

I do not feel we have exhausted all other means, as the colonists had. We, for now, still have some good men like Rand trying to use those peaceful petitions. We have a liberty movement that has started to gain local traction with local people gaining election.
But let us not sit idely by while those who wish to do us harm gain immesurable strength to such point that they will have no need to listen to peaceful petitions(as George felt was his position after all having the strongest military in the world).

Remember - Henry drew his line in the sand when the British took the gun powder. He and his militia forced its return.

I ask you on the DP - where is our line?

sonny bono

sonny bono


What I have a problem with

is why didn't Rand confirm 'waterboarding' is torture? If it's not about left vs right, he should have brought up that we concluded 'waterboarding' was torture during WWII and people were executed for using these techniques. If Hannity wants to talk hypocracy, that's hypocracy to the core! I do commend Rand for going after the possible drone attacks on Americans, but he should have talked more against the whole police state being created, both by the Bush admin and the Obama admin, and how these actions are completely contrary to our foundation of Liberty and the intent created by our Founders. He could have smacked down that 'chicken hawk' Hannity, and educated the 'brainwashed' Faux News crowd with empirical facts.

Hannity tried to troll him,

Hannity tried to troll him, Rand saw through it and stayed on topic.

One step at a time.

At least we have someone similar to Ron, now that he is retired. Patience is or best friend. I hope they see, in the future, that it was a bloodless coup that brought this country back to its origins.

While my heart and my moral compass agree

with you, however, my experience with Ron tell me Rand is playing to win - not to get the message out. That is not a knock on Ron - it is just that Ron was about a cause, he was about getting people to wake up - and he did. Rand is playing to actually win the presidency, and to do that - he knows, as we should, that you have to hold your nose sometimes and deal with the BS.
Hannity is repulsive when he speaks of "enhanced interigation". He is absolutely the poster child of hypocracy - and cowardice. But notice how by ignoring it - Rand was able to get his message out completely. This is what will make him a strong candidate - he knows when to fight and when to let it go. And like it or not - Hannity has a HUGE audience - so everytime he speaks on that show some 15 million people are hearing the message.

You have to pick your battles and Rand is playing it very smart.

Rand was on Sean's bad list during the election, so he's playing

Rand was on Sean's bad list during the election, so he's playing nice now. He's keeping to the topic at hand: The President wants the power to drone strike his enemies anywhere, anytime. Its always Sean's propensity to fly off on a torture tangent.

I wish, I just wish Sean would have the manliness to strap himself down and undergo a waterboarding session JUST ONCE, to see for himself what he thinks of it. "Its harmless" after all.

Even better, I wonder what Sean would be saying if it was a President Romney demanding these extreme powers right now? If Presidnet Romney wanted to drone strike an American citizen by the name of Anwar Awlaki on, say, Route I-95 Southbound, just outside New Rochelle?

And What if President Romney's drone strike killed Awlaki's 16 year old American son on the highways of New Rochelle, New York?

"Well, Awlaki was a terrorist. He wasn't a real American. And his son and other passengers and those other cars on the highway that were burnt up, well, that's casualties of war. There's a war on, you know! President Romney did what he thought was right to protect American freedom!"

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

TwelveOhOne's picture

Note: separate strikes

The drone strikes that killed Al-Awlaki and his son occurred about two weeks apart; the son was not collateral damage from when his father was killed - he was separately targeted.

Which I find even more reprehensible than if he had "merely" been collateral...

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Clearly It Was The Son's Fault Though

Anyone with half a brain could tell you that he should've had a more responsible father.

Are you freakin kidding? That's the worst!!

Are you freakin kidding? That's the worst!! And here I'm usually the cold-blooded well of bloody facts and figures...

I've got to look this one up.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"


They would not get anywhere water-boarding my wife. She fears drowning and would die of fright, before they got any answers from her! It is, definitely, torture, if you can die from it!.