-11 votes

4409 - Rand Paul's 13 Hour Publicity Stunt



I imagine I will get a lot of hate mail for this but the truth is the truth.

If you read the description I do give him credit for bringing awareness to the drone problem but Rand is distorting the truth by acting like the President admitted that he cannot drone Americans.

If Rand stood there and advocated NO AMERICAN could be droned to death and the Administration agreed then I would have mad respect but that was not the case. He quit for political capital PERIOD.

I am just a messenger.

I say Filibuster FAIL because he did not accomplish what I believe he was trying too but ran around claiming that he did.

Let me say I think Rand Paul is doing a good job and I like him but that does not give one a free pass to compromise, lie or distort things in my book. Because perception is reality what he accomplished yesterday was good in some ways but also bad in others.

In my opinion you can't be a half ass “due process patriot” or claim the constitution in a strict way when it’s convenient or politically correct at the moment.

People can be labeled "combatants" by anyone but that does not mean they are waging war on America and allowed to be droned by the President and condoned by Senator Paul. Due process 5th amendment rights do not magically disappear for “American citizen” because he is labeled a “combatant” by the “decider.”

Many people are labeled felons everyday by lying prosecutors and cops but they have the opportunity to free themselves of that government label in court. What if the Prosecutors were giving the authority to drone you?


The 5th Amendment does state that the government can capture and hold you (American Citizen) during “war-time” or in cases of “public danger” but it does not say is can kill you with a drone.

Very convenient for them if they just claim they are at perpetual war with the American people :)

Article 1 Section 9:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall NOT be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Remember a “Rebellion is an “organized” effort to overthrow the government.

Article 3 Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Maybe Paul has a grand scheme but I don't think the men in charge are that stupid to not know what that scheme is. I do however appreciate him bringing awareness to the drone problem.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

What Rand did was awesome

I missed the first 30 minutes or so but was glued to the set for all of the rest of the filibuster.

Please don't misunderstand me, I love your positive attitude and I have no intention of surrendering to the doom, nor am I advocating that anyone else do so.

What I'm saying, and I'm saying it quite emphatically, is that there are no political solutions, because Liberty or the lack thereof is not a political problem. I am a free man, bound hand and foot in the deepest darkest dungeon of the political machine, I would still be a free man. : )

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

That's the spirit!!!

Never give up!=)


What the hell difference does it make? I think it took a lot of physical strength for Rand to stand there for 13 hours, but you can see a past of filibusters that were just plain wrong. I'm not saying that this one was, but Rand pulling a 13 hour filibuster doesn't inherently make it heroic.

He literally spent 13 hours just to get an answer that could be construed by government lawyers any way they want - to clarify: they can construe "engaged in combat" as pretty much anything.

True that.

...but he did a hell of a job and something I highly doubt I could do. I don't think he would have done what he did if he didn't believe in all he said. I know he isn't perfect, but I bet he still made daddy proud! Not to mention, he woke up people that had no clue this was going on and he also drew out what McCain and Graham are all about.

I agree

I don't think I could do it either. I'm sure he believed everything he said and that Ron was proud, but I don't think Ron would agree with the Constitutionality of the question Rand was asking.

I think the filibuster woke some people up. In fact, I had a conversation with a women at my local grocery store this afternoon and it started because she saw my Ron Paul sticker, but it likely wouldn't have occurred had Rand not filibustered because that's what made her spark the conversation.

If I could use a metaphor, it would be that oh-so famous bus driving towards a cliff.

Obama/McCain/Establishment: Drones full force = Bus going 90 mph towards cliff

Rand: Drones used on combatants (even American citizens on American soil) = Bus going 50 mph towards cliff.

Ron: Drones never used on Americans = Bus driving in reverse at 100 mph away from cliff.

No.7's picture

lol.... good one

"In my opinion you can't be a half ass “due process patriot” or claim the constitution in a strict way when it’s convenient or politically correct at the moment."

We've all got that same problem buddy. I think 80% of what government does is unconstitutional but I still willingly participate in the system. Even with our problems America is still the best country in the world with the highest standard of living. Poor people in America live like middle to upper class people in poor countries. I will continue to pay my taxes and follow state and federal laws meaning I, and most likely you are "a half ass 'due process patriot' or claim the constitution in a strict way when it's convenient or politically correct at the moment."

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the whole conversation echoed the ghosts of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams back into politics. Rand took the lead by setting an example doing everything in his power to make a stand and stir the voices of liberty throughout the land. Tweets being read on the Senate floor, open outpouring to Senators online pleading them to do the right thing. This filibuster was unlike anything anyone I know has ever seen before.

It's time to take this thing to cheesy professional over enthusiastic tour guide mode! Jump on the Randwagon and stand with Rand

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

LOL.... great

LOL.... great comment....
"It's time to take this thing to cheesy professional over enthusiastic tour guide mode! Jump on the Randwagon and stand with Rand"

Rand = Cheesy Professional!

When was the last time you left the United States? Because I seriously doubt you'd say the things you said in paragraph 2 if you have ever left these borders.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Here's where Rand got it wrong

Under what circumstances would drone strikes ever be Constitutional on Americans on American soil? The answer is a resounding never.

Drone strikes usurp the rights of citizens to speedy and fair trial.

Who decides who dies via drones? Not the courts.
Which citizens deserve to be bombed instead of sent to jail? None.

Rand's question should have been: "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on U.S. soil?"

Drones shouldn't even be a consideration in the U.S. - it's a combative weapon and surveillance tool. What's the justification? There is none except authoritarianism.

No.7's picture

never say never

An American with a weapon aimed at someone else is a target. You don't get miranda rights or a jury trial when you pose an imminent threat, or clear and present danger to another's safety. Drones could save lives if used correctly. Rand also mentioned at considerable length the Obama Administrations attempt to redefine what an imminent threat is.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

I see.

So, from the inception of drones in the U.S. we can expect that every time someone pulls out a gun (under the circumstances, this situation would "pose an imminent threat, or clear and present danger to another's safety") there will be a drone ready to shoot us?

If that's the implication, based on the cost and ease of distribution of drones, we can place them anywhere and everywhere, including your home.

In your scenario, I imagine a pleasant world where no violence occurs and we're constantly surveillanced. But then again, I'm not planning on living in the U.S. much longer, so "we're" isn't the proper wordage.

So, I simply say, enjoy 1984.

Failed, hahaha hardly

C'mon guys, does he have to give you a wink wink and a nudge nudge for you all to realize what is going on.

4409, I like your videos, I even agree with your general assessment here but you are forgetting that perception is reality. Doesn't matter if he actually won. What most Americans are taking away tonight from all of this is that Rand Paul defeated the President and he can't use drones on Americans in this country. If more people believe that regardless if the President said it or not that's more people that are going to be aware if drones are used against the population. He won because the people agree with that premise. If the President makes an exception to this based on his statements its political suicide at this point. The ball has been advanced in debate. This is just one of many more debates to come!

The next day you have the likes of:
Rush Limbaugh
Chris Matthews

....on and on singing your praises and making digs at the neo-con era of yesteryear.

And somehow he has failed?!?
Do you not know how politics works. I can smell the fear of the likes of John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Barack Obama 1,000 miles from D.C.

The Statists took over the country by taking over the culture over several decades, incrementally. Did they ever bite off more than they could chew? They bide time and advanced their arguments a spoon at a time. The liberty movement is doing it in a matter of years. Grassroots conservatives are coming our way to create the base of support necessary to turn things around. They are questioning those they once looked up to and the pundits are toning down their message to fit in to the new paradigm.

Where you see the fundamentalist path as the only way, I see a tactical strike from all week points.

Regardless, what you think of Rand, the mainstream considers him to be another crazy libertarian at the end of the day that just keeps bringing common sense to the debate. THAT, is political capital.

So Alex Jones yelled a lot in the Piers Morgan affair. Ron Paul was always right. Now Rand didn't go far enough. Recognize success when its right there in front of you. The masses are eating it up and we are squandering the moment nitpicking when we should be supplementing the messages with further education.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

what i think is

some libertarians are so self destructive that they will never get anything done. that's what i think. news flash rand paul will not legalize all drugs the first day he is sworn in. oh no he's a statist neocon authoritarian oh no. rand is not a fan of the war on drugs but if he runs on full legalization day one he will lose. people aren't ready for that yet and it will be a slow process. sorry that rand won't immediately transition the whole country to a libertarian utopia the day after he is sworn in, that's not how it works, these things take time. the sheeple need convincing. the all or nothing approach will fail. looks like rand will be the nominee unless the no comprise libertarians fuck it up. if you think you can do better stop complaining and start fundraising and run for office.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Common sense doesn't bode

Common sense doesn't bode we'll here. I voted you up.

"no comprise libertarians

"no comprise libertarians fuck it up"

So is Ron Paul a total F Up because he never compromised?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown


because he's not a rand hater that has given up on voting. i hope you're not either.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Marijuana Legalization Poll

RE: "people aren't ready for that yet"

Marijuana Legalization Poll Finds Americans Want Federal Government To Leave States Alone


Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use


Poll: Nearly half support legalization of marijuana


Poll: Calif. Voters Back Marijuana Legalization


New Poll Shows 58% Support Marijuana Legalization


Q-poll shows majority favor marijuana legalization


"full legalization"

as in all drugs. poll that.

lot's of down votes but no rebuttals? never been down-voted to where my comment disappeared before. i love it. bring it on.

Rand Paul 2016

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

I will be more than happy to

I will be more than happy to concede there are probably no polls to legalize heroin, etc.

However, if the game is politics one takes whatever reduction in the size and scope of government they can get whenever they can get it.

Ending the so called drug war and decriminalizing plants found in nature would be a nice first step.


this filibuster failed in that Holder's answer indicated that the president CAN drone an American citizen in a situation that is considered "combat". Since the whole country is considered part of the battlefield, that is a combat area. Since the president can declare any citizen at any time an enemy of the USA, that now places that person in a combat situation in a battlefield. Thus, that person can be killed by the government (according to the gov't), including by drones. Unfortunately, Rand said he was satisfied with that answer. This will have two bad consequences. First Americans hearing this will erroneously think the government can't and won't kill it's own on our soil. Second, it will actually benefit the President and crew, because it will tend to put the citizens to sleep on this subject. The other beneficiary of this filibuster is Rand, who has increased his political profile mightily.

AD in NV

I don't see

The difference in drones and planes in warfare overseas, attacking US citizens on US soil is against the Posse Commitatus Act and the Constotution.

A drone can be anonymously

A drone can be anonymously controlled and hacked. They can be controlled by a constitutional judge with an honest track record like Ron Paul, the Mossad, or Russia. College students in Texas were able to hack one. The possibilities for things to go wrong are endless.


I thought this was about personal freedom, and spreading IDEAS! I bet the number of anti-domestic drone individuals TRIPLED, QUADRUPLED! There are literally millions of more people talking about and concerned about domestic drones. This idea is now spread coast to coast and in every town and city.

There is no army or government that can stop an idea whose time has come.

Unless you are a "combatant"

Unless you are a "combatant" indeed. Basically Rand and many members at the DP are cheering that it is constitutional and morally correct to use drones throughout the world? Here comes the drone strikes guys.

Hopefully, none of you and the people around you are "mistakenly" targeted because none of you will be alive to defend yourself in the court of law. Thats ok though. The people who have the power over drones wouldnt dare murder innocent people like what happened on 9/11. Also, did Rand concede that the death penalty is constitutional?

You guys need to clean out your ears

honestly you haven't listened or understood a word of what he said.

more and more I think you all are as thick headed as neocons

These are very legitimate

These are very legitimate concerns. Why people are voting this down is baffling to me.

Don't be confused. The

Don't be confused. The softheaded Rand fanatics will buy anything with his name on it.

robot999's picture

Okay, so

here we go - fighting amongst ourselves when a GREAT VICTORY was achieved. No, I'm not talking about the letters and the lawyer-speak language contained within - we can all read and we know the truth in our hearts that the Administration did not capitulate.

The victory that I'm talking about is the ever-important: Victory of principles. What Rand did (IMO) is educate millions of people that the Constitution matters, the President is not "all powerful", and that the people have a champion for liberty in the US Senate.

That is no small victory, that is a HUGE victory. In fact, I would go on to say that RAND has now established (started/laid the foundation) in the Senate that Ron Paul had in the House. DR NO!

Rand: No, I will not stand by and let them get away with everything they want without SHINING A LIGHT on it.

People, they will do what ever they want - if you don't understand that by now, you've not been paying attention. What Rand is doing is Exposing them, so that We the People will see the truth.

Sorry, but I think it IS a big deal.

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa

I agree. This isn't about winning a political battle and while

I think 4409 makes a lot of good points concerning what Rand 'accomplished' in that arena, he is also pointing out that Rand really didn't change anything concerning the law.

HOWEVER, I don't think that it's a small thing that he had 13 hours on national TV that caught on and drew attention from all over the world. 4409 knows that it's more about US than it is about the politicians, and I think he appreciates how many people heard things on the Senate floor while Rand was speaking they have never heard before in their lifetime. I certainly haven't.

The victory is in the discussion it has caused. I sent out emails at 7 pm and 10 pm central that Rand was still going. The next day my neighbors son who was visiting questioned why I was interested in this! He's around 40 years old! Maybe he checked into it.


This accomplished nothing but name recognition for Paul and even that will fade soon enough. The beauty of the "WAR ON TERROR" is that anyone at any time can be labeled a combatant.

Some people are confusing...

Rand Paul's political manuvering with what really happened. If not for millions of individual citizens standing up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Rand may not have even bothered to filibuster. The victory, albeit a small one, is the people's.

Rand proved that taking a stand of principle, in spite of the opposition, can be a force for good in the world. Check out this post, "Rand Paul: One person can make a difference"


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)