73 votes

Kokesh slams knee-jerk reaction to Rand's drone comments, says liberal media trying to divide Rand's base!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This reminds me of a statement

made by a civilian survivor of American strategic bombing of a German city during WWII. He asked "How do you surrender to a bomber plane?"
Police are not mobile executioners. They don't go around with a license to kill on a judge's orders. Police can only kill, supposedly, in self-defense. They have to believe there is a threat to themselves while they attempt to make an arrest.
Is a drone permitted to fire in self-defense? Is it's survival more important than the right to due process of law? Does a LEO have who is in a safe location have the authority to kill a "suspect" using lethal force from a robot? I can see if there is a hostage situation, maybe.
I regard the flying taser and the sniper drones to be fantasies at this point. Even if they existed, their practical application, even in hypothetical situations, is pretty dubious.
We all know what local governments are going to use drones for. It is going to be for issuing citations and collecting revenue. In rural areas the counties are going to fly over property looking for unregistered improvements to tax. They are going to make sure a tree is not cut down without their permission.
And they will ultimately be used to kill troublemakers without having to put a LEO on paid leave. They will be abused and the police will review the abuse and state it was all within department policy.
You can fantasize all you like about fairy drones with court issued warrants spreading pixie dust to put convenience store robbers to sleep, but that is not what is going to happen when local law enforcement starts using drones.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Wow, some common sense on

Wow, some common sense on this website.

I'm sure all the Conspiracy Nuts will still refuse to back Rand because their leader Jeff Rense, or whomever they now kneel down to, says not to.

The Conspiracy Nuts are a collective that every individual should stay far away from.....

Governemnt conspiracy

The federal and state governments conspire everyday.I think you need to look up the definition of a conspiracy.

I use it loosely defined

I use it loosely defined because I know it makes all AJ's post-teen fanboys and other idiots here pissed off.

My new hobby is pissing off the tards that grab onto everything AJ or Jeff Rense say and hold it as gospel.

i concur


Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

"you presumptuous twat" PAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

gotta love this guy

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Whether this is true, I still

Whether this is true, I still don't agree with or like what Rand said.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

My goal is to be part of the non-voting majority

Since the majority rules, democracy would be impossible.

That leaves a Constitutional Republic.

Free includes debt-free!

"media trying to divide

"media trying to divide Rand's base"...What base? Surely you don't think Rand Paul's base is the leftovers after Ron Paul abandoned them. Rand Paul does not inherit Ron Paul's base because he is Ron Paul's son who is politically different in too many ways.

file this under, duh

anyone who needs clarification on the matter aught to have their heads examined.

thank you adam

Thanks Adam

he's spot on.


Killings in the US

1st we have cops killing people and dogs for no reason and beating people and now you want to add drones into the mix???Just wait,this will be a disaster!

Well, if Adam says I have to be OK with Rand's position, then...

I guess I'd better go bicycles for my fish.
Rand's clarification on Hannity was sort of funny, mostly sad. He kept referring to his filibuster analogy, saying it is the same analogy, and now everyone is twisting his intent... I did not like it in the filibuster. All in all, I appreciated the filibuster but the comment made the hair stand up on the back of my neck then.
Does Rand hear what Rand says? I wonder. He wants the cops to have the ability to kill people remotely, with no risk to themselves. I do not want that. I am trying to STOP the police state, Rand wants them to be able to kill me, then put a gun on me and pretend I was an "imminent threat." Or does Rand think that would never happen?
I think Rand is probably a decent human doing the best he can, but I do not think the victory we seek is available politically. The compromises are too great for me to support.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

but I do not think the victory we seek is available politically"

Correct, but it makes no difference.

Full court press.

Free includes debt-free!


Truth can be pretty damned ugly.
Don't make me do politics daddy, PLEASE!!!! It makes my head hurt.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Winning isn't going to come from making buddies with the Borg.

Winning is spreading the message of liberty.

Congress has bankrupted the US 3 times in 100 years.

Congress is selling our rights to pay for the fourth bankruptcy.

We are between a rock and a hard place. Are the agents in Boston the advance workers for the repo team, coming to collect the debt Congress created.

Free includes debt-free!

I hear you but consider that

I hear you but consider that weaponry has been a continuing quest to kill while minimizing risk.

When I have carried a gun (aside from hiking and backpacking), it's been because I wish to know that I could help someone being attacked without recklessly endangering me or my kids. In other words, to know that I had a weapon I could use from a safer distance. Yes, remotely.

A sword provided that distance, then a longer sword, then a arrow, then a gun, now a drone. The progression is ancient.

And it serves a purpose. I'm not likely to jump in with my fists to save someone who's being knifed on the highway with some road rage incident. I'm a woman, and after years of various martial arts training, I'm still rather slow and lame. I'm just not going to endanger myself or my kids by going up to a man knifing someone with only my fists. I'm more likely to intervene when I have a way to do so that minimizes my risk. I keep a collapsible baton in the car, but even that I probably wouldn't risk if my kids were around. I would need to minimize with a gun, which I do carry when my kids and I take solo adventures.

The risk I minimize to myself and my kids by having more remote weapons that decrease my risk and increase my willingness to be heroic is good. From my point of view. I want to increase my ability to help others while decreasing the thing that will stop me -- fear.

In your post, you seem to not want the police to have that ability. Guns are most certainly a remote killing weapons. You don't want the police to have them? Do you likewise not want me to have them? Yourself?

Or is your point that because a drone operator has zero chance of being harmed/kill, that makes the crux of the difference. So if you have zero change of being harmed if you intervene in a violent act, you shouldn't do so? The chance of harm is the deciding factor?

Political power in democracy comes from the barrel of a gun.

from someone else comment on this thread

"The true intent of the 2nd Amendment was that We the People would ALWAYS retain more power than the federal government. Yes, more. In the George Washington administration, who had more power? The federal government had limited taxing ability and no standing army. The power was in the people and state militias and the states. Not so today. Today, the federal government is overbearing, overspending and over reaching. Stop the federal government."

In an ideal world the government would only have drones because the populace has drones. the government has guns because we do. we have allowed the country to become a military state when we allowed them to out firepower the populace.

While i completely agree with what you say i can also see why some are worried that the government having drones just makes it easier for them to kill/oppress us. I see the drones DARPA makes and it is worry some that they would be used to wage war without a second thought about human life because "casualties" would be one sided. if you out gun someone as you said you can capture the world. (as the bow did)

---Want to discuss politics with Mormons? Please read:

"Latter Day Liberty"-Connor Boyack(forward by Ron Paul

Doctrine and Covenants sections 134 & 89

Watch Secretary of Agg Ezra Taft Benson's discourse on "The Proper Role of Government"

There is a LONG history of cops not getting charged with the

murders they commit. No, I do not want it made easier for them. There is no real risk of prosecution, so giving them the ability to sit at the donut shop and drone the "trouble makers" is unwise in the extreme, if you give a damn about JUSTICE.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

deacon's picture


to minimize their risk,so they can kill more of us
and all the while have immunity from murder
now lets look at the const,wherein it anywhere are the words
law enforcers mentioned? or controversial laws based in or on the color of them?
how about,this fact the const was written to reign in gov abuse
for a checks and balances for the reps,it was not written
to put us in chains,but the governments
this has been twisted to mean,we are all guilty,but haven't been found out yet
yes they want to minimize their risk,and it is at our expense
we pay them to kick our doors in and kill our sogs

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Getting away with murder because of drones or because of tyranny

"kill more of us
and all the while have immunity from murder"

while it may be easier for public officials to get away with murder a drone killing an american vs a gun killing an american there is little difference in the legal implications.

using a drone, a gun, or an rpg. the person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger

---Want to discuss politics with Mormons? Please read:

"Latter Day Liberty"-Connor Boyack(forward by Ron Paul

Doctrine and Covenants sections 134 & 89

Watch Secretary of Agg Ezra Taft Benson's discourse on "The Proper Role of Government"

I would only correct one thing

We don't really "pay" them to bully us, they steal our money then use it to bully us.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

deacon's picture

yes indeed

that little tidbit is a biggie
and is more on spot
thank you for the correction

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I'm not a kokesh listener,

I'm not a kokesh listener, but he nails it! A must listen!

Can Any

Anybody name any one better to run for 2016 that even remotely has a chance to win? Rand might be the best option we have. And I don't agree that I am choosing the lesser evil because Rand is not evil. The men in charge now are evil.

And what proof do you have

And what proof do you have that Rand is not buddying up to(becoming one of)the evil men in charge?

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

I don't

Have any proof. I am still keeping a close on eye on Rand. But as of now, I like him. Yeah, he might make mistakes but so did Ron. Rand is not Ron but he is trying. Cut him some slack.

Who cares?

I heard statements from Rand and I don't care for them.If Rand likes drones move to N.Korea.I haven't the least bit of respect for him anymore and his mitt the twitt endorsement.Bye Rand!


Rarely do I agree with Kokesh these days, but he is 100% right in this case. I'm sure some Internet Anarchists heads will be exploding momentarily....