Full Video: Rand Paul Filibuster

From the trusty folks at c-span.  His filibuster starts at the 2 hour 17 minute mark:

Loving the Rand Paul Filibuster

This good old-fashioned talking filibuster of Brennan's nomination is a really nice surprise, like something out of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  At first I thought it would just be Rand Paul doing this for a few hours and then sitting down.  But now, it seems that Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and even Ron Wyden (a Democrat, how's that for bipartisanship!) are joining in.  It's amazing how if one person stands up for liberty, other people start joining in.  One of my favorite moments so far is when Ted Cruz read the Travis letter, written by Colonel Travis at the Alamo, asking if it gives Rand Paul encouragement and sustenance:

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World:

Fellow citizens & compatriots—I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna—I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken—I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch—The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country—VICTORY OR DEATH.

William Barret Travis

Lt. Col. comdt

WashPo: Rand Paul's Unpredictable Streak Makes Him a Danger to Opponents

An interesting article to read while Rand Paul conducts a good old fashioned "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type filibuster (even people who don't agree with Rand Paul seem to be loving him for it):

So what do Paul's moves suggest? For one thing, he marches to the beat of his own drum in the Republican Party. Now, that's not wholly a new observation, considering the Paul's libertarian brand of conservatism and the issues over which he has found himself at odds with members of his own party during his time in the Senate.

But as Paul is mentioned with increasing seriousness as a potential 2016 presidential candidate, his unpredictability makes him a difficult candidate to read in the context of the potential GOP field, which includes the likes of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), New Jersey Gov. Christie, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush.

And difficult to read translates to dangerous for his potential opponents. Yes, Paul has long opposed the administration's drone program and criticized its lack of transparency. But it wasn't clear that he was ready to elevate that opposition with a talking filibuster until today. He opposed Hagel, which means it certainly wasn't clear that he would ultimately vote for him.

In other words, anticipating Paul's net move is next to impossible. And in a presidential campaign, that could mean headaches for the opposition. Half the battle in politics is anticipating what your opponent is going to do and how to hit back against it. The first part of that task looks to be a tall order when it comes to Paul.

Paul is also signaling that he is more than willing to champion the issues he cares about  even if he has to go it alone — literally.

Holder to Rand Paul: Yes We Can (Target Americans on American Soil)

Rand Paul finally received a response from the Obama administration on the question of whether they can target Americans on American soil.  It boils down to, we haven't, we don't want to but yes we can:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Notice the wording of the last sentence.  He could use such force to protect the homeland in circumstances like a catastrophic attack.  Does that mean to protect us from a catastrophic attack before it happens or protect us in the aftermath of one?   Thinking about it, both possibilities give me heartburn.  Could anyone who is planning a mass casualty attack be targeting by a drone in the US even without the threat being imminent?  Could the US military be sent in to restore "order" after a 9/11 style attack with authorization for the use of force against American civilians?  How long before they start using this belief in the lack of limitation on executive power against Tea Party groups?

Video Guide on How to Not Be Targeted in an Obama Drone Strike

Rand Paul Column on the Sequester

Here is the Senator's latest column in the Washington Times:

You may have witnessed Mr. Obama's histrionics recently, where President Chicken Little tried to persuade us all that if the sequester happens — and barely 2 percent of government spending is cut — we will all die. OK, he may not have said that, but I wouldn't be surprised if we learned that such hyperbolic rhetoric was removed from his speech at the last minute.

I have rarely witnessed such a performance in public by anyone, let alone the president of the United States.

There are many things the president got wrong or didn't tell us last week, but I will focus on just two.

First: He said the sequester wasn't his idea. Actually, the president asked for it and signed it into law. I voted against it, not because it had too many cuts, but because it didn't have enough. The sequester deal also left too many open questions as to how the cuts would be handled.

For all his brash statements about this last week, Mr. Obama has no one to blame but himself. Now, however, he wants a deal. Are we supposed to forget this was his last deal — for which he received as much as a $1.5 trillion increase in his ability to borrow money and increase our debt?

Second: What the president is forgetting to tell you concerns the enormous growth of the federal budget under his watch, which increased by 25 percent, or nearly $750 billion annually, during his first term. This administration has accumulated nearly $6 trillion in new debt, and we continue to spend a trillion dollars per year that we do not have. Yet, Mr. Obama still wants to stop the relatively minuscule spending cuts envisioned for this week.

This is not sustainable. Over the next 10 years, we will spend $47 trillion, yet the president would have us believe that spending a little less than $46 trillion instead will somehow ruin the country.

National Journal Interview of Rand Paul

Rand Paul talks about Obama's killer drone program and how it could be applied to Americans in America:

NJ You've asked the Obama administration whether it believes it can kill an American citizen on U.S. soil. Have you received an answer?

PAUL We've been sending questions to Brennan for weeks, and we've gotten no responses. I think there's a certain bit of arrogance that they're not even willing to respond to us at all. I've gotten some indirect response from Chairman [Dianne] Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee. [Brennan told Feinstein] that they have not done such strikes as of yet and don't have any intention to do so. I want to hear the answer that they are not assuming the authority, or they do not believe they have the authority to kill Americans on American soil with a program from the Department of Defense or the CIA.

NJ President Obama also said there has never been a strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil and that rules for the use of drones outside the country are going to be different than for those inside.

PAUL That sort of implies they're assuming they have some kind of authority inside the United States.

NJ Why is it so important to get a yes or no answer?

PAUL Americans thought it was important that you get a warrant before tapping someone's phone. I think they would want some due process before they were killed. This pales in comparison to even warrantless wiretapping, because that's an invasion of your privacy; now we're talking about killing you. There has to be some kind of judicial oversight. We have terrible people who commit terrible crimes in our country, murderers and rapists. But we don't summarily execute any of them. They all get a trial, a lawyer on their side. We want to make sure the people who are punished are the guilty ones.

NJ Did something lead you to believe the government is considering this?

PAUL What they're saying is, "We have the right to do this, not only in Afghanistan." They're using the Authorization for Use of Force that was for the war in Afghanistan; they're using it for war all around the world now. The obvious follow-up question would be: "If you have no geographic limitations, does that also include the United States?" And [Brennan] won't answer the question.

...

NJ You're also concerned about the use of drones at home for surveillance. Congress has paved the way for U.S. skies to be open to domestic drones by 2015. Do you see a policy window to regulate their use before then?

PAUL I have a bill that says you have to have a warrant. If I'm a policeman and want to see what you're doing in your house, I cannot come to your house without going to a judge. That is a basic fundamental process that we have. In fact, one of the things we fought the war with Britain over was that Britain was writing general warrants—writs of assistance—that James Otis really fought against in the 20 years leading up to the American Revolution. They were saying, "We can go into any house when we feel like it."

When we wrote our Constitution, the Fourth Amendment says it has to be specific to the person and the place. If I've got 40 acres, whether it's open or not, the government doesn't have the right to come on my property, unless I'm accused of committing a crime or a judge gives permission. We shouldn't just be crisscrossing the skies with drones. The Environmental Protection Agency is using them on farmers, and every sheriff's office and state patrol is trying to buy them. I'm not against the technology; I just think it needs to be used properly.