Posted on 04/23/2013 4:18:10 PM PDT by BfloGuy
Much ado about nothing.
After the quoted line he says something about “a killer on the loose”.
Interview here:
http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/rand-paul-talks-bill-of-rights/4209
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.
Thanks BfloGuy.
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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3010596/posts
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.
http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb907234/killuav.htm
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.