Ron Paul ~ Congress, Drones, And The Imperial Presidency

The Jeenyus Corner March 12 2013

Last week the US Senate took a break from debating the phony cuts known as “sequestration,” for Senator Rand Paul to hold a 13-hour filibuster to force the Obama administration to state whether it believes the President has the right to kill American citizens with drones on US soil. I find it tragic that there has to be a discussion on an issue that should be so self-evident.

However, feeling the pressure, the administration finally said “no,” but in language so twisted that no one should feel in the slightest bit reassured. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the president does not believe he has the right to use the military to kill an American who is “not engaged in combat on American soil.” Left undefined is how the administration defines “combat.” As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley wrote last week, “one can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of ‘combat’.”

The administration’s outrageous response to the most serious Constitutional question of all — when a government can kill its own citizens — is clear evidence of an executive branch out of control.

Many of the drafters of the Constitution envisioned the presidency as an office with very limited powers, but even the most dedicated proponents of a strong presidency at the time would be shocked to see the concentration of power in the modern presidency.

Today the presidency is viewed as the center of the federal government, with each successive administration expanding the power of the executive at the expense of Congress and the people.

Continue reading

Coldwarrior ~ Senator Rand Paul Issues a Warning

The Blogmocracy March 9 2013

Coldwater writes ~ And I hope he means it.

Sen. Paul ~ The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers.

Read on, do you see those names listed by the good Senator from Kentucky? Those are your new Conservative Leaders. Those representatives still have spines, unlike Senators Graham and The Traitor John McCain and the rest of the ‘establishment’. Its time for the broken down, the sold out, the go along to get alongs to go. I hope they leave quietly into the night and let the these new, real leaders to get on with restoring America to its rightful place.

Sen. Rand Paul ~ My filibuster was just the beginning (published March 8)

If I had planned to speak for 13 hours when I took the Senate floor Wednesday, I would’ve worn more comfortable shoes. I started my filibuster with the words, “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak” — and I meant it.

I wanted to sound an alarm bell from coast to coast. I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right.

Continue reading

A Non-Combatant Terrorist? Holder Issues New Statement On Obama’s Right To Kill Citizens Without Charge or Conviction

Jonathan Turley’s blog March 8 2013

We previously discussed how Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter confirming that the President would have authority to kill citizens on U.S. soil without a charge or conviction. His answer triggered a principled filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul and another embarrassment to Democratic Senators who, again, chose personality over principle in staying silent. Now, Holder has issued a new statement. No, President Obama still claims the right to kill U.S. citizens on his sole authority. However, Holder now says that, if the citizen is “not engaged in combat on American soil,” the President cannot vaporize him. The answer leaves the constitutional claim of Obama even more confused and conflicted. Does this mean we have a third category now under the policy: citizen, citizen terrorist, and citizen non-combatant terrorist? The difference appears to determine whether you can be vaporized or speak to counsel but Holder is not explaining to the citizenry.

In his prior letter, Holder answered a question about whether the President was claiming the right to kill citizens on U.S. soil. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration. A memo leaked to the press shows that the Administration has adopted a virtual limitless definition of imminence: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Last week, Holder said “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.”

After the filibuster, Holder wrote a short terse response to Paul: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

Continue reading

Greg Hunter ~ Weekly News Wrap Up March 8 2013 [Video]

USA Watchdog

The answer is NO.  The president cannot kill Americans on U.S. soil with a drone attack who are not engaged in combat.  It took a gutsy 13 hour filibuster from Senator Rand Paul and some other Republican and Democratic Senators to get that answer from the White House.  When liberal Democrat Ron Wyden joined the Republicans, it became very hard to blow it off as partisan politics.  My question is where have the liberals been?  Actually, some liberals stepped up today and applauded Senators Paul and Wyden for asking the tough questions–not just about killing Americans on U.S. soil, but killing Americans without “Due Process” abroad.  Oddly, some of the harshest criticism about the filibuster came from Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain.  Those two supported indefinite detention, and they also support killing Americans abroad without charge or trial.

The drone targeting killing program has exploded overseas under the Obama Administration.  Thousands of attacks have occurred in countries that we have not declared war with.  The Obama Administration has, in fact, killed Americans without charge or trial.  Many say this is totally unconstitutional and want total transparency.  This killing, or some say murder policy, is clouded in secrecy, and there is zero congressional oversight.

Continue reading

Holder Tells Senator That Obama Does Have Authority To Kill Citizens With Drones On U.S. Soil Without Criminal Charge or Conviction

Jonathan Turley’s blog March 6 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder this week held out the possibility that the President could kill an American citizens with a drone attack on U.S. soil without any criminal charge or trial. After Holder announced President Obama’s kill list policy, many apologists for the Administration insisted that the policy was limited to targets outside of the United States and was subject to a form of due process of the President’s own making. At the time, I wrote that these arguments were nothing but spin by the Administration and its supporters since the underlying claim of authority would have no such limitations. Holder now appears to have confirmed that even they do not believe in such limitations. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration.

Holder was responding to a letter from Sen. Rand Paul concerning the nomination of CIA director John Brennan on the use of lethal force. Holder said “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.”

Continue reading

Greg Hunter ~ Weekly News Wrap Up February 15 2013 [Video]

USA Watchdog February 15 2013

The big story this week was the State of the Union address by the President and the rebuttals. Please note “rebuttals” plural. Everyone knows Senator Marco Rubio, but not much coverage was given to Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. I thought President Obama and Senator Rubio did a fine job of presenting their points and vision. (I do not care about the stupid controversy over Rubio picking up a bottle of water.) I thought the most important points made in the State of the Union address were given by Senator Paul, but most people didn’t hear or see what he had to say because of the near blackout by the mainstream media (MSM.) Senator Paul called for a balanced budget amendment to get the U.S. fiscal house in order. He noted we are borrowing $50,000 per second.

The Republicans are blocking Chuck Hagel’s confirmation for Secretary of Defense. They want more information on Benghazi where four citizens were murdered by terrorists. In the end, the Secretary of Defense will do what the President says no matter who is in charge over there, but before there is a confirmation, there will likely be more information disclosed about that terror attack.

Continue reading

Sen. Paul Introduces Bipartisan Audit the Fed Bill

Activist Post February 6 2013

Sen. Rand Paul has introduced the bipartisan Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013. Known widely as “Audit the Fed,” the bill calls to eliminate restrictions on Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the Federal Reserve and mandating the Fed’s credit facilities, securities purchases, and quantitative easing activities would be subject to Congressional oversight.

“The Fed’s operations under a cloak of secrecy have gone on too long and the American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation’s money supply,” Sen. Paul said. “Audit the Fed has significant bipartisan support in Congress and across the country and the time to act on this is now.”

During the 112th Congress, Audit the Fed legislation (H.R. 459) passed the House of Representatives handily, 327-98.

Sen. Paul’s version, S. 209, currently has 19 bipartisan co-sponsors in the Senate and companion legislation was introduced earlier this year in the House of Representatives and currently has over 100 co-sponsors.

Below is text of Sen. Paul’s legislation:

S.209

A BILL to require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

Continue reading

Alex Newman ~ Clinton Testimony On Benghazi Leaves Real Questions Unanswered

The New American | January 24 2013

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came under fire during and after her Jan. 23 congressional testimony on the scandal that has become known as Benghazigate, with Republican lawmakers asking some tough questions but getting little in the way of real answers. Indeed, the most serious concerns about the deadly attack on U.S. personnel in Libya remain as unaddressed today as they were before Clinton’s testimony, which was supposed to come last month but was delayed due to illness that many pundits noted was suspiciously well timed.

Instead of telling Congress why the administration lied about the terror attack for days, falsely claiming that it was a “protest” gone awry, for example, Clinton claimed it did not matter anymore, urging everyone to just move on. Analysts and officials have also suggested the administration was running guns and heavy weapons to Islamic terrorists in Syria out of Benghazi, too, but despite the opportunity to get answers during the House and Senate committee hearings, it remains unclear what was going on at the U.S. mission there.

While accepting responsibility for the deadly attacks that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Clinton was continually trying to deflect attention from the real scandals — the days of official lies after the assault, the allegations of Obama gun-running to Islamist “rebels” in Syria, support for al-Qaeda forces during the Libyan “revolution,” and more. Even with the establishment press running cover for Clinton and the administration, however, criticism about her testimony and Benghazigate more broadly continues to boil.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was among the few who sought serious answers from Clinton, but he made little progress. “Is the U.S. involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, any how transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?” the liberty-minded senator asked her, echoing well-founded suspicions that have been raised by top American military officials, analysts, journalists, Middle Eastern security officials, and others.

Clinton acted surprised — almost as if she did not realize Sen. Paul was referring to the administration’s well-known and well-documented scheme to arm Islamist “rebels” in Syria via the Islamist Turkish government, similar to Obama’s lawless schemes in Libya. “To Turkey?” asked Clinton incredulously, face contorted. “I will have to take that question for the record; nobody’s ever raised that with me.” She later backtracked slightly, saying the question would have to be raised with “the agency” that ran the annex in Benghazi — presumably she was referring to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Sen. Paul then continued, slamming Clinton for allowing U.S. personnel to be placed virtually unprotected in such a dangerous city recently ravaged by Obama’s war — an unconstitutional war that unleashed and empowered al-Qaeda forces and other Islamic extremists to run wild. “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi … I would have relieved you of your post,” the senator said in one of his most widely quoted remarks. “It was a failure of leadership not to be involved. It was a failure of leadership not to know these things.”

Continue reading

Aaron Klein ~ Media Ignore Hillary’s Bombshell Benghazi Claim

WND Exclusive | January 24 2013

JERUSALEM – During the Senate hearing on Benghazi yesterday, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. special mission attacked on Sept. 11 was involved in gun-running.

The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks.

Yet Clinton’s answers were largely unreported by U.S. news media.

The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

That section of the exchange with Paul was almost entirely ignored by media, which instead focused on the Republican senator’s earlier statement that if he were president he would have relieved Clinton of her post.

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who describe the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.

In September, WND also broke the story that the slain U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Continue reading

Mollie Reilly ~ Rand Paul Plans Legislation To Nullify Gun Control Executive Orders

Govt Slaves | January 17 2013

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is proposing legislation to nullify President Obama’s executive actions on gun policy, claiming that the president’s actions are a breach of constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

During a Wednesday appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” the Republican senator outlined his plan to challenge Obama’s anti-gun violence package.

“Our founding fathers were very concerned about us having separation of powers. They didn’t want to let the president become a king.” Paul said. “In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation.”

Paul continued: “I’m afraid that President Obama may have this king complex sort of developing … I think there’s a history of this arrogance.”

Talking Points Memo offered more details on Paul’s plan:

“We only have descriptions of the executive actions, yet many could be construed to describe an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment,” reads the one-page summary of the Paul plan shared with TPM by his staff.Paul’s bill will set out to nullify Obama’s executive actions, deny any federal funding for their implementation, and allow members of Congress and state officials to challenge the actions in court.

Paul acknowledged that he may have trouble garnering support for his proposal in the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority.

“This idea of checks and balances and separation of powers should be a fundamental one,” Paul said. “I’m afraid that there isn’t much support on the Democratic side, but we’ll see.”

Continue reading

Megan Scully ~ Rand Paul Holds Up NDAA Bill Over Indefinite Detention Amendment

Govt Slaves | November 15 2012

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is holding up consideration of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill over an amendment he plans to offer that would require a jury trial for Americans detained in terrorism investigations.

A Paul spokeswoman said the senator wants “an agreement in principle to get a vote” on the amendment, which would likely produce some fireworks on the floor.

Paul’s demand for a vote comes as Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the panel, are working behind the scenes to limit debate on the sprawling policy measure (S 3254) to ensure it receives floor time during the lame-duck session.

On Thursday, Levin said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had given him and McCain control of the length of time needed for the bill. Their goal, he added, is to get it on and off the floor in three days.

But, in order to do so, the two lawmakers must try to steer clear of amendments that could take up significant floor time and potentially jeopardize passage of the bill.

Continue reading

Jim Hightower ~ The Corporate Mad Dogs Of Citizens United

Nation Of Change | October 31 2012

As feared, our people’s democratic authority has been dogged nearly to death by the hounds of money in this election go ’round, thanks to the Supreme Court’s reckless decree in the now-infamous Citizens United case.

That rank political power play by five black-robed judicial partisans unleashed the Big Dogs of corporate money to bite democracy right in the butt this year, poisoning our elections with the venom of unlimited special-interest cash. But there’s also been another, little-reported consequence of the malevolent Citizens United decision: It has unleashed mad-dog corporate bosses to tell employees how to vote.

Prior to that 2010 Court ruling, top executives were barred by federal law from using corporate funds to instruct, induce, intimidate or otherwise push workers to support particular candidates. No more, thanks to the five Supremes. Having been given a legal pass, bosses have openly and aggressively conscripted employees to be political troopers for corporate-backed candidates.

For example, CEO David Siegel of Westgate Resorts, a major peddler of time-share schemes, warned his 7,000-strong workforce against voting for Obama. To do so, he wrote in a letter to each of them, would “threaten your job.” Obama, Siegel declared, planned to raise taxes on multimillionaires like him, which would give him “no choice but to reduce the size of this company.”

Likewise, Dave Robertson, president of the Koch brothers’ industrial empire, notified 30,000 workers that they would suffer assorted “ills” if they helped re-elect Obama. In case that message was too subtle, Robertson helpfully included a slate-card of Koch-approved candidates for them to take into the polling booth.

Of course, corporate chieftains say they’re not making threats — just suggestions. As Boss Siegel disingenuously put it: “There’s no way I can pressure anybody. I’m not in the voting booth with them.”

Continue reading