web analytics

Cosmic Convergence

By Patty On March 7th, 2013

The Conservative Tea Party and Far Left Code Pink unite against the Obama Administration’s drone policies.

Tea Party favorite, Senator Rand Paul has launched a filibuster against Obama’s CIA nominee, Brennan and Code Pink is in attendance protesting, as well.

From The Telegraph:


“…Mr Paul on Wednesday evening took to the floor of the Senate to launch an old-fashioned filibuster in an effort to delay a vote on the approval of Mr Brennan for CIA director. “I won’t be able to speak forever, but I’m going to speak as long as I can,” he said, before embarking on several hours of criticism of Mr Obama’s compliance with the US constitution.

Mr Obama has been sharply criticised for the secrecy surrounding his extension of America’s “targeted killing” campaign against al-Qaeda terrorist suspects using missile strikes by unmanned drones.
The secret campaign has killed an estimated 4,700 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. A quarter are estimated to have been civilians prompting anger among human rights campaigners….

…Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, told him his reference to “extraordinary circumstances” such as September 11 or the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour were “extremely concerning”.
“It is imperative that we understand the operational boundaries for use of such force,” Mr Grassley said. “American citizens have a right to understand when their life can be taken by their government absent due process.”

47 Responses to “Cosmic Convergence”

  1. You can follow the excitement on CSPAN


    He has been at it almost 9 hours now.

  2. The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  3. Patty you missed the whole thing that triggered Rands Rant.

    He put forth the question to the Atty General if the Administration believed it could use drone strikes on American Soil against American Citizens without due process.

    The answer he got was “Well we can’t rule that out”

    That’s what triggered this.

  4. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/05/revealed-holder-letter-leaves-open-possibility-of-drone-strikes-on-u-s-soil/


    two pieces you should watch an read

  5. I actually didn’t miss it, Troll but many thanks for the links for anyone who might have. It’s hard to believe that we have an administration that won’t rule out killing Americans on American soil without due process.

    I mean, even if it were a terrorist under surveillance – if said person is on American soil, he/she should be arrested and tried in the courts

    btw, we still have the youtube film maker in prison – the one falsely accused of starting a riot in Benghazi – who knows what else the Administration could cook up if allowed free rein.

    i think killing with drones is Obama’s way of keeping his hands clean – he doesn’t want to have to try someone and face the scrutiny.

  6. Oh man, this is good.

    Thanks for the link, Fews. Ted Cruz has the floor and is asking Rand Paul the world’s longest question right now. He’s making some very good points as he “sets the table” – as the MSM is so found of saying – in preparation for his actual question.

  7. Remind me not to watch this

    Cruz and Paul, two of the worst of the worst of US politics

  8. Phantom, do you think the Obama Administration should be able to kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone?

  9. You don’t set policy based on what Obama alone could do.

    Police and soldiers have weapons which they are supposed to use in certain situations

    Drones are tools, and pretty ethical ones when used properly. I don’t rule them out.

  10. Rand Paul stands for 13 hours to ensure the White House cannot arbitrarily murder Americans.

    Phantom calls him “the worst”.

  11. Paul, who has modeled his life after his career politician Daddy, is a self-absorbed Drama Queen.

  12. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military to operate inside the US, it is also Illegal for the CIA run operations in the US.

    This administration just said it would do Both. They the Administration believe it can use drone strikes on American Soil against American Citizens without due process.

    The Police and the FBI are governed by the rule of law. They are only powers that can act internally.

    You know the left screamed bloody murder when the Patriot act was passed. Oh it was outrage the Bush Administration can know what book I checked out of the Library, yet there is silence or actual support when the Bolsheviks throw due process right out the window, and say they can blow up the coffee shop your in with a drone strike without a warrant, and without imminent threat.

    They reveal the contempt that they have for our constitution on a daily basis. And those that support them reveal how phoney they are by both their silence and acceptance.

  13. Phantom –

    For future reference, Rand Paul is more of a foreign policy hawk and a bit less of a libertarian than his illustrious father. You’re welcome.

    Yesterday’s magnificent filibuster could have been avoided if the Obamses regime had simply confirmed that it has no constitutional authority to use drones against Americans who present no immediate threat.

    Should that even need to be raised? In the US? Quite clearly it must be raised, because the White House still cannot answer. This is government gone seriously awry.

    And while Rand Paul was standing between you and a drone, the Caudillo was dining out, in a fancy hotel, on your dime, with a pack of old GOP establishment types. What a picture!

    What’s your knee-jerk response? To damn the man who protects your liberties instead of the cabal of bloated parasites stuffing their fat faces across town. I’m not surprised. It’s the natural response of the statist power worshipper.

  14. Rand Paul is a showboating politician of dubious motives and often dubious policies. But he has a point here and attention should be paid. The Drone Issue is one that has not faced enough scrutiny whether employed previously by Bush or ramped up now by Obama. Even if it is good intentioned it has legal and constitutional issues that have been shrugged aside by the Administration.

    Accordingly I welcome his forcing light on the drone program (that weirdo Brennan will likely get confirmed anyway) and the issues it raises.

  15. Let’s just home that the Drama Queen doesn’t initiate another staged incident at an airport.

    The TSA blue collar workers don’t need the hassle, and travelers don’t need to be delayed.

    He gets a pat on the head for his performance. A C Span 2 star is born.

  16. Aren’t the Pauls leeches; thieving other people’s hard earned dough with their salaries and expenses?

  17. Obviously, if it were a Republican President supporting drone killings of Americans on American soil, the MSM would be going ballistic.

    Code Pink and the ACLU are principled organizations and stand with Rand Paul and the Tea Party on this issue.

  18. “He gets a pat on the head for his performance. A C Span 2 star is born.”

    Phantom: because you find the Constitution trivial, you find this debate trivial.

  19. There is no Tea Party. It’s a confusion. They can’t stand with people on issues.

  20. Who mentioned the TP?

    This was a somewhat libertarian GOP senator making an explicit stand for constitutional liberties and against unchecked imperial power.

    The result? Support from mainstream conservatives and liberals, but also from everyone from hardcore libertarians to way out Leftists like Code Pink. That’s what you call reaching out and attracting support.

    Last night demonstrated the GOP folly of blindly believing the state media and marching in lockstep with the approved candidate last year. Ron Paul said he was the only GOP candidate who attract support from all of the spectrum. Last night he was proved right.

    Phantom – you’re sabotaging every thread you appear on. Have respect for the blog and readers.

  21. I have to agree with Patty on this. It is important, and Code Pink and the like are part of the non-hypocritical, principled left. The Obama Zombies are nothing to do with the left and never were.

  22. Who mentioned the TP?


  23. Pete

    Just because someone doesn’t fall in line with your libertarian anarchism does not mean that they are sabotaging anything.

    Responding to Patty’s Tea Party mention is not sabotage.

    And there is no Tea Party anyway. It’s a confusion.

  24. So she did. Patty mentioned the TP. It’s still a typically oafish contribution from Phantom. Try giving an opinion instead of attempting to simply negate what others think.

    Come on, add something for a change.

  25. You know the left screamed bloody murder when the Patriot act was passed. Oh it was outrage the Bush Administration can know what book I checked out of the Library, yet there is silence or actual support when the Bolsheviks throw due process right out the window, and say they can blow up the coffee shop your in with a drone strike without a warrant, and without imminent threat.

    Here we have the fake left-right template, and one of its prisoners. Troll has little problem with the (right-wing and authoritarian) Patriot Act but the left’s subversion of Posse Comitatus etc is cause for outrage. The left and right wings of the Establishment are marching in unison and it is noteworthy that Rand Paul is one of the politicians least integrated with that Establishment. The only independent voice in Congress is the Independent, Bernie Sanders.

  26. Pete

    Learn how to tolerate criticism. Here, not even made against you, but against the Drama Queen from Kentucky. Crankiness does not suit.

    There is no Tea Party.

  27. I mention Tea Party because Tea Party stands for limited constitutional government – just like Rand Paul – There are groups of people calling themselves “Tea Party” all over the country -dispersed and unfocused at the present time – it’s not a Washington DC lobby or in any way centrally organized – now if you, Reader, think the Tea Party stands for crazy racist or something, you, Reader, whoever you are, need to stop reading moveon.org propaganda and turn off MSNBC.

    The reason I mention “Conservative” and Tea Party in conjunction with Rand Paul for the purposes of this post is to point out the fact that the Right-wing and the Left-wing groups like Code Pink and the ACLU are in agreement over drones.

    Sure, there are Republicans like Lindsey Graham now mocking Rand Paul – the Republican Party is split and if the politicians in Washington DC don’t start representing the Rand Paul supporter types there will be a 3rd party. Constitutional , Limited government libertarians and Tea Partiers are not going away. A 3rd Party is not what I recommend but the old guard Republican Party are no longer representing a huge swathe of the country.

  28. If the Republican Party splits over stuff like this, the Democratic Party better have a big tent, because they’ll be in power for the next few decades.

    Guys like Obama are much better on issues of terrorism and defense than the Paul Father and Son Act. Defense hawks will never follow libertarian types on defense issues. Can’t happen, ever.

  29. That’s your opinion, Phantom.

  30. That can’t be accurate Patty, according to Pete’s 4.11 comment, Phantom doesn’t express opinions !

  31. Basically, Phantom thinks he is negating,say, my opinion by expressing empirical “facts” like “there is no Tea Party”

    – when actually, he is just expressing his opinion and sadly (for him) his opinions are usually incorrect.

  32. I believe that this is an opinion based site. God help anyone coming here searching for anything else.

  33. Political parties have leaders, and some kind of organization, and they agree more than they disagree.

    There is no Tea Party organization of any consequence and while they may agree on generalities ( ” taxes are way too high man ” ) or platitudes like Limited Government ( which means ” limit the things I don’t like but keep the pork coming for my bennies ” )

    There is wild and total disagreement on things like National Defense and Social Safety Nets.

    It is a mess. There is no Tea Party.

  34. Well regardless of what we may think of each others opinions, I would hope we can agree that Pete was wrong in his attempts to claim that Phantom is sabotaging threads just because Pete is intolerant of Phantoms views.

  35. No, Colm, I think Pete is correct.

    Phantom is intolerant of any dissent and with his omnipresence manages to sabotage many a thread.

    For example, I don’t agree with Phantom about Sarah Palin or the Tea Party – he’s not interested why I don’t agree – he just wants to call Palin stupid or to The Tea Party “nonexistent” or any non-Establishment figure “children” etc. This effectively stifles debate.

  36. Pete is constantly calling people he doesn’t like names and has repeatedly called for politicians and bankers and god knows who else to be hanged.

    I’ve not called for any politicians or business leaders to be hanged.

    And that’s not stifling but my spot on mocking isn’t?

    Allan’s blatant Jew baiting – which neither you nor Pete AFAIK have ever criticized, all these years – is OK but my occasional mockery isn’t?

    Whats up with that?

  37. Patty

    You and Pete are wrong. How can Phantom (or anyone else) stifle debate regardless of what he says. There is nothing stopping anyone posting their comments following a thread line however it develops. The only way a debate can be stifled is technically, by those with editing powers closing threads, or deleting comments and banning individuals.

  38. Phantom –

    “Political parties have leaders, and some kind of organization, and they agree more than they disagree. There is no Tea Party organization of any consequence ..”

    You seem to have missed the point of the TP. The “Party” refers to something which once happened in Boston. It’s not a reference to an organised political party. One of the points of the movement is to eschew politics and government, not ram even more of it down throats. It’s about local, decentralised organisation. It’s about taking control of your stuff locally, taking control back from Washington.

    It’s not about a formal, organised, national organisation with a national leadership.

  39. Colm –

    ” .. just because Pete is intolerant of Phantoms views.”

    What views? I’d welcome some of his actual views. All we usually get is selfish, childish retorts after someone else gives an actual opinion.

  40. You have my views. Which do you and your bud Allan not understand?

    I am:

    Supporter of taxation to run government services as decided by democratic government

    Supporter of drugs legalization, taxation, treatment

    Defense hawk, but not eager to enter war, as some here are

    Supporter of responsible gun controls.

    Supporter of social safety nets, but against all waste

    Supporter of tight immigration controls and removal of all incentives to illegal immigration

    Supporter of a mixed economy, with a proper but not heavy handed govt role

    Fierce supporter of capitalism as the best creative force on the planet

  41. So address posts with comments based around those principles, or any others which might be handy on any particular thread.

  42. Have done so, repeatedly, over the past years, in an intellectually coherent body of work, which one may choose to agree or disagree with.

    How many times does one have to say things like ” you can’t keep supplying tanks to the Desert Rats unless they are paid for via taxation “?

    My feet are firmly on the ground on these matters. Those who want their endless wars and unemployment and social security paid for by voluntary subscription or very low taxes do not – and we have a good few of them here.

    I want systems that work, in the world, as part of an organized society. I want to steal every good idea that anyone ever had and put it to work for my country and yours. Thats what I want.

  43. Pete

    I suggest you stop diverting threads by expressing annoyance at Phantom’s presence and just present your arguments leaving others to respond as they wish.

  44. “You seem to have missed the point of the TP. The “Party” refers to something which once happened in Boston. It’s not a reference to an organised political party.”

    Exactly, Pete.

    however, as they say: “You can’t wake up someone who is only pretending to be asleep.”

  45. Patty cast no pearls, because they are what they are.

  46. //One of the points of the movement is to eschew politics and government//

    What? So what was all that Tea-Party candidate this and Tea-Party-Endorsed candidate that stuff that was thick in the air for the last few years, especailly after the “Teanami” of the mid-term elections?

    I’ve a funny feeling the Tea Party decided to eschew politics when they realised they were the party of election losers.

  47. Allan like on so many things you are wrong.

    If the Patriot Act had been abused I would be against it. During the whole Bush administration it was not abused. It comes down to the character of those we give power to.

    In the case of Obama and his regime we erred greatly.

    I also have to agree with Phantom to a point. There is no Tea Party. He does not however understand what that movement is about. It is beyond his ability to grasp, as many things are.

    As for Rand what he did was a righteous thing, and it was recognized by many across all spectrum’s. He however is his fathers son, and has a long way to go to prove that he is not as crazy as his old man. The Pauls are a dynasty of inbred hillbillies that have achieved power and a following. They have their good points, but are outweighed by their bad ones. Just as the Kennedy Dynasty was an Irish Mafia pack of scum that achieved great power. They too had their good moments but those moments were far outweighed by the bad.