Comment: I actually saw exactly what Warren asked, from videos

(See in situ)


I actually saw exactly what Warren asked, from videos

she or her staff posted on her own YouTube page.

Must say, if you think that's someone who's actually 'going after' someone, then Al Roker creates weather himself.

Warren never once threatened them with subpoena, nor stated how utterly illegal all of it was; granted merely even citing the fact that HSBC et al actually directly laundered $$ for drug cartels at a Senate hearing SHOULD be a big news, but by your own stated line of questioning Rand's motives, she's admitting the fact that banks CAN launder, by focusing on monetary compensation...to the govt Treasury's coffers (NOT the banks' customers or in specific cases its shareholders, or hell even the victims of the Cartel's brutal murder streak). THAT my friend, is the very definition of grandstanding.

Now, don't get me wrong, in the finality, all of this issue surrounding Rand's filibuster did NOT negate their BS nonsense that the POTUS has 'the RIGHT to murder anyone,' period. The entire argument is based on the premise that somehow a govt scum CAN murder its citizens; they're just arguing how and when that's 'appropriate.' Likewise, Elizabeth Warren is doing the same: her line of chiding already admits the fact that 'no one can or should go to jail over drug money laundering.' Her issues is "gee...when is enough, enough?" That's not the same as 'Hey, SEC tools, why the fcuk didn't you press the AG to indict and FBI to SWAT these motherfrakkers???'

Also, not for nothing, but a few minutes in a Senate hearing televised on CSPAN is targeted for politicos, wonks, and frankly us, the geopolitically awake, not the sheeple populace; in applicable terms: no body gives a shiite about a typical Senate hearing.

But, a 13hr filibuster that takes over an otherwise slow snowed out day in DC, that got EVERYONE in the political and many in the pop-culture world talking? That, people pay attention to.

That, is a net benefit, to all.

It raised a REAL issue of the possibility of a govt tyrant proclaiming powers it does not have to assassinate you me and anyone else it deems arbitrarily to be a threat. If you think that falls in the realm of useless granstanding... makes one believe you're focusing on the broken twig, and not seeing the forest, my friend.

"Instead Rand goes on a 14 hour rant about what might happen, what could happen or what might never happen."

If you consider the fact that they've already murdered 4 innocent Americans abroad, and in a letter Holder already proclaimed that in 'extreme' circumstances the POTUS would have the power to assassinate (just as John Yoo did under GWB), makes this a non-hypothetical.

It's like, really does govt legalese have to specifically state that 'FBI, DHS, & POTUS' own Praetorian Guards aka. Detachment Delta & DEVGRU have the 'right' to murder a DailyPaul blogger!' for this concept to sink in??

Seriously, where are we, the 1940's where everyone and anyone believed govt at their word?

Now, but here's where I differ. Knowing the reality of the Senate subpoena, where a single Senator cannot willy nilly demand to draw up subpoena as it has to be 'sanctioned' as there's the unfortunate reality of pecking order, I thank Liz Warren for bringing up an issue that likes of Alex Jones, Zero Hedge, LewRockwell et al and those in the alternative media have already pointed out these obvious facts (well... to those paying attention) yrs ago, WHEN the news about major Wall St. banks being charged by SEC for drug money laundering broke, as everyone who bothers to pay attention while shouldn't have to press Senate on these things, but always do, and at least for the public consumption (regardless of the fact that Senate hearing have no net effect on actual change, in any level), it got covered.

But a Senate filibuster, a 13hr speaking one? Gets the general populace talking. And it's always been about a Culture of Liberty. The more people know and are brought to question what govt can or cannot do, on a mass populace scale, it does in fact become slightly more difficult for govt scums to regularly 'get away with something.'

Sure, it may not stop them, but the seed of doubt has been planted in the public's subconscious. THAT, was Rand's whole point. That is why he narrowly focused on a specific point that no American politico can really deny: sure if you're a neoCon scumf*ck, you want everyone not you dead, but drone striking you or 'an American citizen...on American soil? No f'ng way Jose!' Same for liberals.

So yes, for the Constitutionally aware who are equally pointing out the fact that no, 'Rand's filibuster did not focus on questioning the fundamental basis for ALL drone strikes, nor POTUS' non-existent 'power' to murder on whim, a 'power' as cited on paper at least.' But, like I said, this is Rand's chess: it's to change public perception. Because ALL tyrannies exist on consent. What the F?? you say?? Yes, all tyrannies exist on the consent of the governed, as it's what level of tyranny any given populace is willing to put up with that sustains a tyranny be it a covert or an overt one. And when publicly it loses its legitimacy, no amount of self-proclaimed power it deludes it has, will be allowed to continue. It's as old as history.

So, Rand's tactic is so clear, viscerally, to understand for anyone who chooses to pay attention, all the legitimate criticisms against Rand on the specifics of the filibuster and others qualms, it really does not bother me much: he's definitely got momentum behind him. Now, all that matters is what the People do with it.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul