Skip to comments.Ron Paul fans furious over Rand Paul's drone flip-flop
Posted on 04/23/2013 4:18:10 PM PDT by BfloGuy
Ron Paul's vibrant fan base is in open rebellion today over Rand Paul's reversal on domestic drone strikes. The Kentucky senator, whose famous 13-hour Senate floor filibuster did much to strengthen his ties with his father's hardcore following, told Fox Business Network on Tuesday he's OK with drone strikes on American citizens who, for instance, rob a liquor store
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.foreignpolicy.com ...
Too many FReepers seem to think that we must all rally 'round a candidate for 2016 quickly. We can't.
We have the luxury of watching them and watching them screw up. Then we get to hear them walk back what they said. This is a very disappointing statement from Paul and seems to go against everything he supported in his famous filibuster.
Now, it may well turn out that he's been misquoted. But caution is always advised. We mustn't make up our minds too soon. Had already been watching Cruz -- will continue to do so.
And, yes. He is eligible. He's a natural-born citizen. He didn't have to be naturalized. So, don't start that stuff.
They are trying to discredit him. There has been NO flip flop.
None, Zero, Nada.
If you go back and watch his filibuster he says.... except in cases of an imminent threat.
He has not changed his position one iota.
Rand Paul DID NOT say he was for drone strikes, he said SURVEILANCE
using them to search for the bombers with infra red is no different than the helicopters that were doing it
he said nothing about drone STRIKES - but they immediately jumped on him as if he did
Was that a drone that had the IR camera looking into the boat where Terrorist #2 was caught?
I think its probably too soon for Cruz but he’s pretty solid.
Of the 2012 stable Santorum is the only one who looks like he might be running which is OK with me. Cruz would certainly be a fine VP pic.
This guy is just making it up based on his one preconceived notions of how is a Rand Paul “fan” thinks.
Does he even know there are two Pauls?
The cult is trying to lay claim to all future generations of RonPaul.
He basically said all citizens are the property of the government, and they can do whatever they want with their property.
How true those words are these days.
Well I was ready to go all in on Rand but between his ill conceived immigration stance and this drone carpola forget it.
We sure miss him!
Why not instead push Cruz as Senate Majority leader, something he is qualified for and would find wide and earnest support for? How I long for such a person in that position!
Cruz for President is Constitutionally divisive and you will turn off those whose votes you need to win. You will never convinced them, just like Romney couldn't change minds against him and those otherwise reliable voters stayed home.
I hope the GOP powers that be will not overplay the Cruz card which, if well played, could go a long way to restoring Constitutional governance.
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
Sounds like he’s ok with a bit more than just surveillance here.
I was ready to go all in for Rand but this is insane. He apparently has no clue of what a hellfire missile does. Not to mention he seems to have no more problem with the drones suveilling everything as long as its not your backyard barbeque. Rand you have some maturing to do before you are ready for primetime.
I know. So some guy say comes out od a liquor store in downtown Chicago or New York or wherever with 50 bucks in one hand and a 22 in the other and Paul is just fine with taking him out with a missile or two?
Cavuto should have asked him if he’d be ok with a B1 or maybe an AC130 if the predator can’t get the job done
Ive never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on, Paul said. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I dont care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
Sounds like hes ok with a bit more than just surveillance here.
The point was never the technology, it was the use. If it's ok for a cop to shoot an armed robber why wouldn't be ok to use a drone? That's not the point.
“I know. So some guy say comes out od a liquor store in downtown Chicago or New York or wherever with 50 bucks in one hand and a 22 in the other and Paul is just fine with taking him out with a missile or two?”
I have to say I still cannot believe I heard Rand Paul say it was OK to drone a guy running out of a liquor store with $50 in his hand. Its unbelievable.
Our only hope is that Jim DeMint will run.
Natural-born...in Canada. lol.
Much ado about nothing.
After the quoted line he says something about “a killer on the loose”.
Not a big Rand fan but his enemies can be pathetic sometimes.
” told Fox Business Network on Tuesday he’s OK with drone strikes on American citizens who, for instance, rob a liquor store”
Seriously??? Why on earth would anyone support that?
What kind of nut job would uses a done to go after a simple rober?
1: The Structural collateral damage from such a strike could easily reach a million dollars, well in excess of the value of any possible stolen contents(which would also be destroyed).
2: If hes an american citizen he should be tried not killed until convicted, which he wouldn’t be for simply robing a liquor store.
3: Why have a drone flying around at tax payer dollars for surveillance when you could far more cheaply simply have video cameras in such camera & urban settings. Heck the most cost effective and secure option of all is an armed population.
Rand Paul must have been misquoted I can’t believe anyone would say such at thing.
So far, Paul said or did something I can agree on, then next day something totally unexpected comes from him.
I just don’t know how I can trust the guy.
Rand Paul comes out of the closet and now everyone knows he is a New World Order socialist.
Oh, great one, where is it written that a natural-born citizen cannot be born in Canada?
By electing BHO twice, given all of the non-NBC info available, the American people have effectively changed the definition of NBC to having one USA citizen parent.
If Cruz runs, expect silence from the Democrats, lest they have to play out Obama’s BC in court with the Federal Rules of Evidence allowing examination of the BC by experts.
I would support Cruz because he is the most Presidential and electable conservative in the mix. IMHO, Santorum is not cut of Presidential timber and is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Before long the Police will need armed drones equipped to take out the armed drones of Islamists, Cartels and homicidal ex-lovers!
Drone dogfights are coming to the skies of the USA, IMO!
(see my tagline)
I can not imagine a better use for a drone than this exact instance.
I saw a car today with a Ron Paul bumper sticker and beside it a COEXIST bumper sticker.
A guy robbing a liquor store is an “imminent threat”? I don’t think that was what Paul meant when he originally said it during the filibuster.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
LATimes.com | March 19, 2013 | Michael A. Memoli
Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
obama has done a lot to try to change the Constitution, but there is a process to make those changes and, thanks to a variety of forces, we haven't followed it.
Be like the demonrats and go for that short term gain and do whatever it takes get it, if that is how you approach things, but don't be surprised if that's not an easy sell for you and don't expect a lot of help from the one stream media like obama has gotten.
If Cruz runs, I most certainly do expect a great deal of challenge from the demonrats against a guy who wasn't even born in the US, unlike obama who supposedly was, as they have supposedly convinced the masses.
Those who push Cruz as President make me suspicious of their motives and agenda, since I know how divisive his nomination would be and how wasteful it would be.
At best, presidents get 8 years. A Senate majority/minority leader could be in office for decades.
Imagine how different our world would be with someone like Cruz putting the Constitutional test to all that the Senate does and compare that to what we have now with Dingy Harry.
Or we could fight about Cruz's eligibility all through the campaign and have once reliable GOP voters sit out another Presidential election...again.
LOL! Now that post made me laugh.
How to jam a drone.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I agree that Ted Cruz as senate majority leader is a great idea.
I also now think leaving Paul Ryan in the House is a great idea.
While I like Rand Paul. I am not sure he is electable against HRC.
There is no one from the 2012 primary season that I would like to be the R nominee. Where is our next POTUS coming from? Rubio? I do not like the grand compromise on immigration, but recognize the reality of the demographic shift. Is Susanna Martinez POTUS timber? She would give HRC a challenge if she is smart on her feet.
Were it up to me, my preference is for someone with some command and leadership experience, such as a Governor or a business CEO with a proven track record, rather than another congress person.
Time will tell and the 2014 election season likely will paint some potential target candidates on voter radar that are off that radar in stealth mode now, just doing the jobs they currently have.
I'm far more concerned that our elections have been so thoroughly corrupted and are out of our control.
Unless this is addressed, it won't matter who the candidates are if the outcome has been decided before or regardless of how the votes are cast. The election is just for show.
Neither of which prevents his being a natural-born citizen. As I said, he was born a citizen -- he did not have to naturalized. He is eligible.
As for those who want to put on their hair shirts and preclude a potentially powerful conservative candidate from running, I can only say that they will never be happy with anyone. It is extremely self-destructive and even self-loathing to come up with a definition of natural-born that excludes Ted Cruz.
It is just so much chest-beating to show they're such huge patriots that they're willing to exclude a potentially excellent candidate that would well represent their views.
I am a profound believer in our Constitution, but the term "natural born" was not defined by the Founders nor has it been satisfactorily defined by the Supreme Court. The term "natural born" was coined to mean those who were citizens at birth and had no loyalties to foreign heads-of-state.
I'm really getting tired of the made-up controversies.
Otoh, run Cruz as majority leader and you have my undivided and enthusiastic support, along with my open check book.
Nothing made up. No hair shirts. Just those facts and those promises, with plenty of historical citations to back up the reasoning behind them.
Fwiw, I am not alone in this belief and you obviously know that.
If and until you change the Constitution or hash this out in the open such that counters history and firmly establishes your opinion over the historical one, you will NEVER change those minds or mine.
All you'll do is raise suspicions and lower trust and those voters stay home. Good plan.
People pushing Cruz for President know or should know how divisive that will be and they know or should know it will taint him, thus taking him out of the position of influence he now enjoys.
Which is why I suspect you are doing it now. Cruz is clearly a scary guy if you're not on the same side he is. Better to take him out this way than to face him.
It's rather ironic that you would run someone like Cruz, who could restore the Constitution, for a position he isn't Constitutionally eligible for. Only a couple of reasons someone would try to do that.
I do not understand the compulsion to make the term "natural-born" more rigorous than it was meant to be. Cruz was born an American citizen -- he did not have to be "naturalized". He was natural born.
The rest of your comment speculating on my motives doesn't merit a response.
I bet you do, but I'll play anyway and say that I don't understand the determination to make it less that it is legally meant to be, but that's the world we live in now.
Can't change a rule, law or opinion to suit your needs, then just redefine things until it does.
Works for citizenship. Alien, natural born, native born, dual, whatever, they each used to be defined differently, but now they are all the same thing.
Works for marriage. Man and a woman and any other combination...all the same now. Marriage is whatever you want it to be.
Same for the 2nd amendment, though we are at least going to fight about changing those definitions.
Those are just a few off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can think of other examples.
The country of Cruz's birth is Canada. His mother is American citizen and his dad is Cuban citizen, but YOU say Cruz is born a Natural Born American Citizen.
Good luck selling that idea, but these days you can if you just redefine NBC until you get it to mean what you want it to.
All courts of the three countries and all their citizens will recognize this class of citizen because you want it to be so. And if they don't, Alinsky them with ridicule and ad hominem until they do. Or maybe the Senate will come up with a law to make it all legal like with McCain.
If you read between those lines, you will understand the "compulsion" you referred to.