Third Party & Independents Archives

Sen Rand Paul Filibusters Brennan Nomination

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is filibustering the Brennan nomination live on C-Span.  Much more than the fact that he has decided to filibuster is what he saying and why he is filibustering.  I recommend everyone watch what he is saying today, he intends to speak for as long as he can.  Sen Paul did vote for other Obama nominations, this is not a ‘oppose Obama at all costs’ filibuster threat, this is a person who is sincerely concerned about liberty in the US, the accumulation of power by the President to be prosecutor, judge and jury on who should be killed and restraint on the abuses of power of the government.

From Sen Paul's Facebook page:

Over the next few hours, I will be speaking on the Senate floor to discuss at length my opposition to John Brennan’s nomination to be director of the CIA, as well as my concern over the constitutionality of the use of drone attacks on Americans and on U.S. soil.

See Paul's inquiries to Brennan about domestic drones here, here, and here.

A excerpt from a Paul press release:

Attorney General Holder stated in a letter to Sen. Paul dated March 4, 2013: "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."

"The U.S. Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening - it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Sen. Paul said.

Sen. Paul also received a letter in response from Mr. Brennan, clarifying the CIA does not have the power to authorize such operations. Notably missing from Mr. Brennan's response are answers to the myriad other questions Sen. Paul posed to him in previous correspondence.

Posted by Rhinehold at March 6, 2013 12:32 PM
Comments
Comment #362357
“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” Paul said.

Police, of course, regularly and lawfully use deadly force inside the U.S. in cases where criminals are presenting a imminent threat to others. They can also use lethal force under the so-called “fleeing felon” rule to stop a dangerous individuals.

However, the Obama Administration has claimed authority to use armed drones abroad under a more relaxed standard of imminence, embracing situations where an individual has organized terrorist attacks in the past and has not renounced such activity. In addition, the administration has carried out so-called “signature strikes,” where a group of suspected terrorists is attacked based on their pattern of activity even though the U.S. lacks specific intelligence about their identities.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/03/holder-obama-could-order-lethal-force-in-us-158548.html?hp=l1

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2013 2:29 PM
Comment #362358

Now being joined by Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. Paul is not giving up the floor but is taking questions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2013 3:09 PM
Comment #362359

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has joined in on the filibuster as well. He’s just earned a lot of respect from me in putting principle over party. It’s shame there are so few…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2013 3:55 PM
Comment #362360

Rhinhold

I just cannot believe this. I supported tough fight against terrorist, but I draw the line at the U.S. border.

Re Obama - this is a “say it ain’t so” moment.

Posted by: C&J at March 6, 2013 4:11 PM
Comment #362361

I’m fine with a filibuster on this. The issue needs to be discussed and objections addressed.

If a hijacked airliner with American passengers is heading for a stadium full of people, and a drone with a missile is the closest weapon…

It’s possible to come up with unlikely scenarios where an administration may actually be right in using military force to kill American citizens without due process, but boy oh boy, that needs to be spelled out, openly and publicly and with great care.

Otherwise, next thing you know, some garbage about the War on Drugs will be used as justification to target Americans with drones. It’s a slippery slope. Boundaries need to be defined. The military cannot be used for domestic law enforcement. That goes double for the CIA.

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2013 4:21 PM
Comment #362372

What exactly is the issue here? Holder’s response seems pretty vanilla to me. He simply says that “it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance,” such as 9/11, that the president under the Constitution and laws could authorize lethal military force within the US. We had military jets scrambled during 9/11 without concern about whether the hijackers were US citizens, foreigners or within US airspace. What’s so controversial about his response?

Of course that avoids the issue of whether US civilian law enforcement or CIA could use lethal force such as drone strikes within the US against US citizens without due process. Is that the question?

Well, perhaps further clarification on those issues is reasonable. But, it also seems a stretch to use Holder’s response as some sort of approval by the administration for the proposition that drone strikes against US citizens within the US without due process were permissible. I just don’t see it. Holder, in his letter, explicitly says that the US has relied on traditional law enforcement for incapacitating terrorists and their are no plans to change that.


Posted by: Rich at March 6, 2013 7:00 PM
Comment #362373

a drone with a missile is the closest weapon…
There had better not be ANY loaded drones flying over US soil!!!
If it can be loaded w/conventional weapons, then it can be set up with newer much less conventional types to include nuclear…I hope you all understand this fully. Cameras, Laser, anything currently in US arsenal could be authorized. Officially the only time armed acft flew over US was enroute overseas and all weapons systems were locked-out. It has to be an Emergency situation for acft to fly armed in our airspace.
There are laws preventing the use of military here..yes I know about the KWar issue. Yes I know these laws have already been pushed by this prez.
There is no way to prevent collateral damage ie innocents being killed by weapons that make big holes in the ground. That is the point Sen. Paul is trying to get across and Obama knows it. It is apparent O doesn’t give a dam about the lives of victims of collateral damage.

Posted by: Kathryn at March 6, 2013 7:12 PM
Comment #362376

“It is apparent O doesn’t give a dam about the lives of victims of collateral damage.”

That is an absolutely despicable thing to say. You should be ashamed.

Posted by: phx8 at March 6, 2013 8:14 PM
Comment #362377

Code Pink and the ACLU are supporting Rand Paul’s filibuster. Still almost no mention of the filibuster on CNN or MSNBC…

Posted by: rhinehold at March 6, 2013 8:18 PM
Comment #362378

Well, looks like Anderson Cooper is finally talking about it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2013 8:19 PM
Comment #362387

How is it possible that these illogical things make it to the floor of the Senate or similar? It’s just common sense, existing law I believe, that the gov’t can’t do anything to a citizen until a warrant has been issued and some court has heard the case.

Where then, would such nonsense come from? Does the President or Brennan or some agency want the right to drone someone because they may be going to conduct a terrorist act? We have several laws that may not serve justice in every situation but we stand by them because they represent the closest we can come to delivering fair justice. Like, double jeopardy and so on - - -.

Where we are lacking, IMO, is to enact and enforce laws that we can legally do under the constitution. Such as making it illegal for a mentally incompetent person to purchase/own a firearm. How hard is that? Let each state determine their own gun law and if a person violates that law and crosses a state line then let the Fed’s get involved. No reason for the federal gov’t to trample state rights.

But no, we are going to globalise, harmonize, one world everything. Reason for allowing small knives thru TSA checkpoints is because ‘that’s what europe does’. Doesn’t matter what the US citizens like/want. It matters that the workings of the world be harmonized for maximum efficiency.

Brennan or the President doesn’t want to drone anybody. So who does? Think corpocracy, big corporations who see the drone program as one possible program with $$signs in its future. They want to build drones, outfit them with cameras, sensors, gatlin guns, anti tank guns, small bombs, big bombs, nuclear bombs, etc. It is the corpocracy that will push such laws onto the books, IMO.

Likely the Corpocracy will win out, if not this year then in 50 or 100 years from now. But, doesn’t have to be. The American way is to preserve the constitution and find a better way to achieve security. Like, maybe using drone technology as a backup for all passenger carrying aircraft. Dump some gas or noxious stuff into the cockpit to disable the culprits and remotely fly the plane to some preplanned destination airport. Write a search warrant for any citizens found culpable in the crime.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 6, 2013 11:12 PM
Comment #362404

13 hours, that’s it! Grandstanding and the nomination goes forward. What a dismal showing by these guys, have they no backbone whatsoever?

Rep Barbara Lee has a suggestion, how about the Congress does their job and re-visit the Patriot Act and decide exactly what is acceptable. The carte blanche re authorization of the Patriot Act Congress is the problem. Not Brennen, Not Obama.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2013 10:28 AM
Comment #362408

J2 that was a real Filibuster and not one of those “A Taste of Armageddon” Fiibusters we usually have. Wasn’t up to Strom’s standard but I’m still proud of the Sen for KY for doing it right.

Posted by: George in SC at March 7, 2013 12:15 PM
Comment #362415

George in SC, yes they do deserve credit for doing a real filibuster. I believe all filibusters should be real one not the in name only ones we see. But what was accomplished? Brennen’s nomination went thru, the Patriot Act has not been clarified, and Obama has stated the obvious to Paul. Twitter went wild over Paul, but he is swimming in the shallow end of the pool. If the call from Lee to revisit the Patriot Act is taken up by Rand and his band then they all look like paper tigers. They need to step up and deal with the issue now that they have the attention.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2013 5:57 PM
Comment #362420

J2t2, while I am not a fan of the patriot act, and am upset that the Democrats and Obama allowed it to be extended, it isn’t the cause for concern here or what the Obama administration is using for defense of their actions. That is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

Funny thing is, it was limited to use against members of Al Qaeda and anyone who was part of the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many of them anymore, so the Obama administration is now asking for it to be extended to ‘any terrorist or enemy of the US’, ultimately giving them supreme power to decide who is an enemy and how to attack them.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/friends-of-friends-qaida/

According to The Washington Post, the Obama administration is reconsidering its opposition to a new Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, the foundational legal basis of the so-called war on terrorism. That short document, passed overwhelmingly by Congress days after the 9/11 attacks, tethered a U.S. military response to anyone who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” Nearly all of those people are dead or detained.

There are two ways to view that circumstance. One is to say the United States won the war on terrorism. The other is to expand the definition of the adversary to what an ex-official quoted by the Post called “associates of associates” of al-Qaida.

And that’s the one the administration is mooting. “Administration officials acknowledged that they could be forced to seek new legal cover if the president decides that strikes are necessary against nascent groups that don’t have direct al-Qaeda links,” the Post reports. Examples of the targets under consideration include the extreme Islamist faction of the Syrian rebellion; the Ansar al-Sharia organization suspected of involvement in September’s Benghazi assault; and Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the one-eyed terrorist who broke with al-Qaida but is believed to be behind the January seizure of an Algerian oil field.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2013 8:09 PM
Comment #362422

BTW, some prominent progressive Democrats were asked why they weren’t supporting Rand Paul’s filibuster concerning the defense of liberty in the US, here are some of the answers…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/rand-paul-filibuster-democrats_n_2830850.html?1362689097

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): “I don’t know, there’s a lot of debates I don’t join that I agree — I’ve got stuff to do and was doing a lot of other things.”…

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt., who caucuses with the Ds): “I’m working right now on many, many, other issues.”…

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.): “Everyone’s got a lot of priorities and people are busy.”…

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon): “”I’m not supporting blocking the opportunity for [up or down votes on presidential appointees].”…

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.): “We all were shocked Republicans were doing a real filibuster instead of a procedural filibuster.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2013 8:14 PM
Comment #362432

You know how it is, Rhinehold. Most of a rep’s time is taken up dialing for dollars, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at March 7, 2013 10:35 PM
Comment #362433

There was a time when these clowns would have been tarred and feathered and labeled as traitors.

Posted by: DSP2195 at March 7, 2013 10:41 PM
Comment #362434

While I can see the point of supporting Constitutional rights, this stunt did NOT work out well. It encouraged the far right to delve even further into conspiracy theories. We had Rand Paul standing on the Senate floor and wondering aloud about drone strikes on Americans in cafes in San Francisco. Comments on this site throw around nut-job stuff about Obama not caring about collateral damage, or how Senators are “traitors.”

My first impression was that a standing filibuster would be a good idea. I was wrong. It was not a good idea at all. This country just isn’t up for it.

The standing filibuster encourages silly grandstanding. In this case, the appointee was approved almost immediately, rendering the entire exercise pointless. This kind of stunt dimishes the dignity of the entire country, and encourages the least among our politicians to chase the cameras while tying up the nation’s business.

We’ve already got a political party in which a substantial number of people believe all kinds of whacko stuff- Birthers, Global Warming Denialists, people who believe evolution is “just a theory,” and heaven knows what other craziness. This kind of filibuster over hypothetical drone strikes in the US just makes the crazies crazier.

As Senator John McCain so devastatingly put it: “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 7, 2013 11:52 PM
Comment #362435

Rhinehold I watched some of Rand’s “filibuster” and he seems to be grandstanding, getting the crazies up in arms as he runs for President himself. While the issue may be important he comes across as completely paranoid. Claiming the president would use a drone attack on a tea party member and other foolishness, these dems were smart to avoid this guy. The issue does need to be dealt with. Intelligent repubs should distance themselves as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 7, 2013 11:53 PM
Comment #362438

The White House clarified their policy. It is,always was and will be illegal for the federal government to use a drone strike, shoot or drop a safe on “non-combatant” citizens in the US. Now the right can iron out its wrinkled panties ,step aside and let the grown-ups deal with real problems. Fat chance. More likely they will concoct another fake crises to showboat about. Of course when Dick Cheny ordered the Air Force to shoot down passenger planes it was okay, but he was a Republican.

Posted by: Bills at March 8, 2013 3:39 AM
Comment #362444

I find it interesting that the Obama administration would go to such great length to bring Bin Laden’s son-in-law to the US for a Constitutional trial, instead of sending him to GITMO, and at the same time determine it is legal for a sitting president to ignore due process of the aw for American citizens and just murder them, at Obama’s bid.

Regarding the filibuster; Rand Paul is setting a defining moment in the Republican Party. It’s time to separate the RINO”s from the conservatives. McCain and Graham have done nothing to help themselves, while McConnell (also a RINO) has the sense to see the handwriting on the wall:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/lindsey-grahams-very-bad-day-on-twitter-88602.html#ixzz2Mu63luo2

Posted by: DSP2195 at March 8, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment #362445

Senator Paul ended the filibuster when Attorney General Eric Holder wrote the following:

“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.”

The previous comment typifies the extremism dogging the far right of the GOP. The link in the above comment goes to a Politico article showing some wingnuts want Lindsey Graham primaried for his devastating mockery of wingnuts. And the link? Oh no! Call-ins on Glenn Beck want Graham primaried! A Jim DeMint staffer wants to primary Graham too!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I would feel sorry for the GOP. But I don’t. You conservatives brought it on yourselves by giving credence to extremist entertainers such as FOX, Limbaugh, and Beck. You’ve entertained Birthers, Global Warming Deniers, and every ridiculous conspiracy that comes along as long as it attacked Obama.

Now, here you are. Tea baggers, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and more are sitting at your dinner table. Their manners are terrible, their conservation moronic. They are loud, uncouth, and they refuse to be excused. A final course of richly earned just desserts is being served. Bon appetit!

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2013 11:26 AM
Comment #362449

Democratics are subversives. They brainwash people into thinking Wilson and Roosevelt were great presidents when, in reality, they subverted the constitution.

Democratics are subversives. They put people like Hugo Chavez and Christopher Dorner on a pedestal.

Democratics are subversives. They insert words like “choice” and “privacy” into our constitution to redefine it and weaken it.

Democratics are subversives. They ignore plain english written in the constitution.

Democratics are subversives. They brainwash our children to undermine the constitution and our american way of life in our public school system.

Democratics are subversives. They use the media to divide and conquer an ignorant public.

Democratics are subversives.
Democratics are subversives.
Democratics are subversives.
Democratics are subversives.

Maybe if I say it enough it will be true. You know, like conservatives are tea b******.

Otherwise….Democratics are subversives. :)


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 8, 2013 12:45 PM
Comment #362451

Rhinehold

I’m sure you expected such knowledgeable comments, so it looks like we are going to have to wait until 2016 before the lemmings once again care about such things.
The only things that matter nowadays are smoking pot, gay-marriage, having somebody else pay for your abortions, demonizing and making fun of Christians, and getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2013 12:48 PM
Comment #362452

Rhinehold the AUMFAT is specific to terrorist involved in the 2001 attack on the twin towers. How does one get to the point they think it feasible a tea party member can have drones used against them here for protesting? The far right are seeing things that just ain’t there. Rand the tin foil hat leader of these extremist is just stirring up the pot.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2013 12:50 PM
Comment #362459

“How does one get to the point they think it feasible a tea party member can have drones used against them here for protesting?”

Geez J2, lets see:
Leftists and their media are constantly demonizing Tea Party members, intentionally giving them sick nicknames like TeaHadist and intentionally lying and saying they are responsible for all the ills in the country. Telling the sheeple the Tea Party is really no different, or even worse, than AQ.
And then we also have our leftist government labeling its citizens who carry a pocket Constitution, have a certain bumper sticker, question the government, support the 2nd Amendment, as extremists and possible domestic terrorists.

“The far right are seeing things that just ain’t there”

Just like the far-left is with their claims of government brutality against the OWS losers? Just as the far-left does with their claims of businesses running government?

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment #362465
Rhinehold I watched some of Rand’s “filibuster” and he seems to be grandstanding, getting the crazies up in arms as he runs for President himself. While the issue may be important he comes across as completely paranoid. Claiming the president would use a drone attack on a tea party member and other foolishness, these dems were smart to avoid this guy. The issue does need to be dealt with. Intelligent repubs should distance themselves as well.

Rand filibustered after trying to get Brennan to make a clear statement and not getting it, then trying to email him several times to get that answer and simply not getting it. The filibuster actually did get the WH to respond, finally, to the question.

Remember, people like you were calling people like me ‘crazies’ for bringing up the drone war, the targeting of groups of unknown people who MAY be involved in something bad, the killing of many innocent people, etc, just a few short six months ago. You’ll have to excuse us for being concerned about protecting you when you don’t seem overly concerned about doing so yourself. We’ll take the hit on that one.

The White House clarified their policy.

After the filibuster, that is what it took.

It is,always was and will be illegal for the federal government to use a drone strike, shoot or drop a safe on “non-combatant” citizens in the US.

It’s actually illegal for them to do it overseas too, but they have been doing it… With your support as well.

let the grown-ups deal with real problems.

Point me to a ‘grown up’ and we’ll talk.

Of course when Dick Cheny ordered the Air Force to shoot down passenger planes it was okay, but he was a Republican.

It would be ok if Obama did it as well, as Rand stated REPEATEDLY. That is not what this was about. And I suspect you know that or just parrot the party line and don’t actually do any real investigation into the issues yourself.

You’ve entertained Birthers, Global Warming Deniers, and every ridiculous conspiracy that comes along as long as it attacked Obama.

Just as the Dems have entertained Truthers, Plamegaters, TPMers, and every ridiculous conspiracy that came along as long as it attacked Bush. It’s a shame that the ‘far right wingers’ (who are more liberal that conservative, btw) are the only ones who are consistent and don’t bend to the political process…

Rhinehold the AUMFAT is specific to terrorist involved in the 2001 attack on the twin towers. How does one get to the point they think it feasible a tea party member can have drones used against them here for protesting? The far right are seeing things that just ain’t there. Rand the tin foil hat leader of these extremist is just stirring up the pot.

Because of things like this, j2t2:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03/friends-of-friends-qaida/

Thought the post-9/11 law that gave the president power to wage a global war against terrorists was expansive? Wait till you see the 2.0 upgrade.

According to The Washington Post, the Obama administration is reconsidering its opposition to a new Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, the foundational legal basis of the so-called war on terrorism. That short document, passed overwhelmingly by Congress days after the 9/11 attacks, tethered a U.S. military response to anyone who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” Nearly all of those people are dead or detained.

There are two ways to view that circumstance. One is to say the United States won the war on terrorism. The other is to expand the definition of the adversary to what an ex-official quoted by the Post called “associates of associates” of al-Qaida.

And that’s the one the administration is mooting. “Administration officials acknowledged that they could be forced to seek new legal cover if the president decides that strikes are necessary against nascent groups that don’t have direct al-Qaeda links,” the Post reports. Examples of the targets under consideration include the extreme Islamist faction of the Syrian rebellion; the Ansar al-Sharia organization suspected of involvement in September’s Benghazi assault; and Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the one-eyed terrorist who broke with al-Qaida but is believed to be behind the January seizure of an Algerian oil field.

Ansar al-Sharia may be the hardest such case, since it attacked sovereign U.S. soil in eastern Libya. None of those organizations and individuals, however, are substantially tied to al-Qaida. Which raises the challenge of any new legal authority: defining an adversary in a rigorous way, such that it both encapsulates the scope of the actual threat posed to the U.S. by associates of associates of al-Qaida and sets up the U.S. to actually end that threat. The bureaucratic mechanisms of the war are already outpacing a new AUMF, as drone bases get established in places like Niger, far from any al-Qaida operations, and the Obama administration codifies its procedures for marking terrorist targets for death.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 8, 2013 3:43 PM
Comment #362466
As Senator John McCain so devastatingly put it:

You can see my response to John McCain in the Red column, how you take that is left up to you.

I do find it particularly pathetic that people who are concerned about how the US conducts itself in foreign lands and how that may be brought to bear at home are dismissed by people who are just either so hopelessly partisan that they can’t break out from under the party cloth to see what is going on in front of them or are so scared that they may have been supporting despicable things that they can’t fathom having done so…

As was eloquently stated on HuffPo yesterday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/drone-strikes-barack-obama_b_2832172.html

Of course, there is one other thing, which is that most Democrats cannot get themselves to believe that the beloved Barack Obama would authorize things like this, so they just turn a deaf ear to it or try to make some sort of comical excuse for it. The reality is that he does do these things and that’s why progressives who are paying attention have been so disgruntled with him. It’s not like we didn’t like the guy or vote for the guy; we’re not like the conservatives who have Obama Derangement Syndrome and think he’s a Muslim from another planet and oppose everything he does. No, we oppose him on this because it is clearly and unequivocally wrong.

Personally, I think that the ‘grandstanding stunt’ worked perfectly, because we are now TALKING about the issue and people are being forced to stand up for or speak against the horrendous drone campaign that has been waged for the past several years. Some Democrats that were hoping to just hide in the sidelines and not be put to the test are now being forced to stand in the light. And there is nothing, at all, wrong with that.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 8, 2013 3:49 PM
Comment #362467
Rand Paul is not alone in his concern about the government’s drone program and the assassination of Americans without due process. According to a recent Reason-Rupe poll, 57 percent of Americans say it is unconstitutional for the president of the United States to order the killing of American citizens who are suspected of being terrorists. Thirty-one percent believe it is constitutional. (Mike Riggs writes about these results here.)

Fifty-nine percent of Americans are also concerned the government may abuse its power when it comes to its use of drones to kill American citizens who are terror suspects.

The poll was taken two weeks ago, before Rand’s filibuster. Newer numbers are coming in now that show that they have moved upwards.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 8, 2013 3:56 PM
Comment #362469
Just a day after Rand Paul’s 13 hour filibuster in the Senate on the use of drones domestically, a committee in the Florida House unanimously passed a bill that would heavily restrict the use of drones by law enforcement.
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 8, 2013 4:12 PM
Comment #362522
Leftists and their media are constantly demonizing Tea Party members, intentionally giving them sick nicknames like TeaHadist and intentionally lying and saying they are responsible for all the ills in the country. Telling the sheeple the Tea Party is really no different, or even worse, than AQ. And then we also have our leftist government labeling its citizens who carry a pocket Constitution, have a certain bumper sticker, question the government, support the 2nd Amendment, as extremists and possible domestic terrorists.

kctim, Tea Party members deserve the names they are called, they seem to have a few of their own that they call people. However this isn’t a crime nor is it a terrorist act. The baggers are responsible for many of the ills they have inflicted on the country, however that still is not a crime. Pledging allegiance to Grover Norquist instead of the people of this country is even a crime.

The government doesn’t call them possible domestic terrorist for carrying the constitution in their pocket it is the hate they preach that attracts the attention of government officials. When they organize with the intention of training for a fight with the duly elected government they attract attention of the government and rightfully so.
Here is some pertinent advice

“The reaction of the political right to our report is misinformed. Really, I wish they would just read the report. Our purpose is not to demonize every conservative in the country or describe them all as potential Timothy McVeighs. It’s sad to listen to some of the commentary from the political right about the report. It’s obvious that these people are just listening to one another. They don’t read our reports. They read each other’s reports about our reports. You’re arguing with a shadow.”


Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2013 1:15 AM
Comment #362523

j2t2, that’s a report? It sounds like it’s a political propaganda group focused on condemning people for their opinion. If the opinion of the SPLC describes hate groups then you and Stephen Daugherty and most of the Democratics on this blog are a hate group preaching hate against conservatives and Republicans.

The SPLC disagrees with opinion and labels those speaking as haters. You guys would be on the SPLC website also if it wasn’t a partisan brainwashing sight focused on liberal propaganda.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 10, 2013 3:39 AM
Comment #362618

Willie,

“It sounds like it’s a political propaganda group focused on condemning people for their opinion.”

So can we count you in as agreeing with the KKK?

It appears you have no idea what the SPLC is or what it’s history is.

Perhaps you should learn before you make ignorant statements like those above.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 10, 2013 8:53 AM
Comment #362619

It sounds like it’s a political propaganda group focused on condemning people for their opinion.

Not their opinion Weary their actions, big difference. Kinda shows us why it is you say-

If the opinion of the SPLC describes hate groups then you and Stephen Daugherty and most of the Democratics on this blog are a hate group preaching hate against conservatives and Republicans.

We never call for violence against conservatives Weary. We do not commit acts of violence against conservatives. We don’t wear tea bags around our hat brims in public telling others to get government out of our medicare. But we sure do call them out for doing so. It’s not hate Weary, can you see the difference? Conservative propagandist abound, conservatives follow tails wagging eating up every scrap of myth and mythinformation they peddle, without question. They comfort themselves with the myth the MSM is liberal and doesn’t tell the “real news”, they keep trying to eat the poisoned meat thrown over the fence by the propagandist. We just take the meat away before they get to sick. Of course they don’t like it the truth hurts many times. But it isn’t hate, surely you can see that.

You guys would be on the SPLC website also if it wasn’t a partisan brainwashing sight focused on liberal propaganda.

Weary the first sign of a cult is believing everyone else is against you.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2013 11:33 AM
Comment #362622

j2t2

There were no significant acts of violence committed during the times when millions of Tea Party people came out to protest government policies. On the other hand, the generally left-leaning Occupy Wall Street and various union demonstrations in places like Wisconsin were chechered with violence.

Tell me the truth. Which would you feel more danger in doing - going to a Tea Party rally and claiming you were in favor of Obama or going to a union rally in Wisconsin and telling them you were a Walker supporter?

Posted by: C&J at March 10, 2013 12:56 PM
Comment #362623

j2t2

Re Tea Party violence - I forgot. There was violence by union activist AGAINST tea party supporters.

you can watch videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPQjnPhIvDo & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmk_HZYhlJs & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic

I understand that you guys like to push the myth of Tea Party violence. Unfortunately for you, people have pictures.

Posted by: C&J at March 10, 2013 1:04 PM
Comment #362628
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) proposed a law that would nullify any executive gun control actions by Obama, accusing the president of having a “king complex.”

Woah! Lots of blood and guts spilled there, eh j2t2, Rocky Marks!

U.S. Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) said the president could be impeached for those actions.

That’s got to have Obama and the family cowering in the closets!

State lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee proposed laws that sought to prevent federal gun control from applying to their states.

Wow! Legal action = state sponsored hate.

Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who sued the Clinton administration over the Brady Bill’s imposition of background checks on gun buyers, claimed that of 200 sheriffs he’d met with, most “have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control.”

Standing up for the constitution is now hate acording to Democratics.

Matt Barber of the anti-gay Liberty Counsel said he feared that the nation, which he described as already on the brink of civil unrest, was headed for “a second civil war.”

Is that opinion, or is it hate?

“Freedom ends. Tyranny begins,” tweeted Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes. “Get ready,” TeaParty.org said. “Right now government gun grabbing plans are being covertly organized.”

I guess Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Samuel Prescott were haters too!

“MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOW A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY!” added the ConservativeDaily.com’s Tony Adkins, responding to Obama’s use of executive orders to further gun control with a doomsday prediction that could have come straight from the Patriot movement.

Opinion = Hate according to Democratics.

“SUSPENSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY!” The Conservative Monster, a similar website, concluded that the president was conspiring with a variety of foreign enemies “to force Socialism on the American people.”

More opinion. More Hate?

Chuck Baldwin, a Montana-based Patriot leader long associated with the Constitution Party, made the unusual claim that Christ had ordered his disciples to carry “their own personal arms” and vowed to refuse to register or surrender his firearms.

Conviction = Hate? Wasn’t Christ’s advise to his disciples, wasn’t “their own personal arms” the word of God?

The Oath Keepers, a conspiracy-oriented Patriot group of current and former military and law enforcement officials, issued a threat — “MESSAGE TO THE OATH BREAKERS AND TRAITORS: We will never disarm” — and added that gun control plans were “unconstitutional filth.”

This was a threat towards …Who? Where is the threat? What threat was made? I only see someone vowing to keep what is theirs.



Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman called the proposals “a declaration of war against the American people” and demanded “liberation” from the “evil clutches” of proponents.

Opinion.



The one sector of the radical right that shrank dramatically last year was the “nativist extremist” groups that go beyond advocating for immigration reduction and confront or physically harass suspected unauthorized immigrants. From a 2010 high of 319 groups, they fell over the following two years by about 90%, to 38 groups. The collapse was due to criminal scandals, internecine sniping within the movement, and the co-opting of their issue by state legislatures.

State legislatures took up the issues that were being promoted by these so-called radical right extremist groups.

Are these state legislatures classified as hate groups now?

Rocky Marks, why don’t you read the article, and go a step further and comprehend what was being written. Who’s being ignorant here, Rocky Marks?

j2t2, no you don’t wear tea bags around your hats, your people just shit on police cars and rape people, use drugs, break windows and paint vile grafiti on private property. Your people only demand others apoligize for their opinion when it offends them. Your people propose laws demanding people stop expressing their opinion when it is disagreed to. Your people suspend 7 year olds for possessing gun-shaped pastries in schools.

j2t2, the first sign of ignorance is burying your partisan head in the sand and allowing the destruction of your country to go forward with your apathetic blessing.

Am I a hate group now, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 10, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #362634
There were no significant acts of violence committed during the times when millions of Tea Party people came out to protest government policies.And no drone attacks by the Obama administration. But it seems you are saying it is the tea party that are the extremist targeted by the SPLC, which I didn’t notice. Perhaps you should try the link and see the hate groups for yourself.
Am I a hate group now, j2t2?

No just a typical conservative Weary. A Faux watching Limbaugh listening, movement cool aid drinking, Beck cultist conservative. And you think I have my partisan blinders on!

Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2013 7:34 PM
Comment #362635
And you think I have my partisan blinders on!
Posted by: j2t2 at March 10, 2013 7:34 PM

Don’t forget ignorant, j2t2. I think your opinion of my habits is ignorant, also.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 10, 2013 11:01 PM
Comment #362636
And no drone attacks by the Obama administration.

Actually, there were quote a few drone attacks by the Obama administration, three US Citizens non-combatants were killed (along with many innocent adults and children) without being given due process. (of course, this administration said they were doing nothing at all and killing no innocents, after claiming that any male between the age of 12 - 50 was an ‘enemy combatant’ and therefore not innocent regardless of what they were actually doing).

You seem to think we should just say ‘hey, but he wouldn’t do that HERE, right?’ I didn’t think he would do that THERE, now I am unconvinced he wouldn’t do it here, if he thought it would help his party in some way…

I’m old enough to still remember Ruby Ridge and Waco… What was the name of the Deputy Attorney General who was involved in those actions again?

Posted by: rhinehold at March 11, 2013 2:06 AM
Comment #362637

BTW, when a group of people (progressives) constantly say that ‘rights are not absolute’ and there has to be some instances when the government can violate those rights, you’ll have to forgive some people for not assuming that those same people won’t violate their rights…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2013 2:08 AM
Comment #362640

Willie,

“Rocky Marks, why don’t you read the article, and go a step further and comprehend what was being written. Who’s being ignorant here, Rocky Marks?”

When the difference of opinion leads to intimidation and murder it’s a bit more complex than just a petty difference of opinion.
Perhaps you disagree with the tactics of the SPLC and the ADL.
But then again maybe you do sympathize with the tactics of the KKK, and the Aryan Nation.

That would be ignorant, but it would explain a lot.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 11, 2013 7:44 AM
Comment #362644

J2

Yes J2, people who speak support of what the Constitution actually says deserve to be called racist rednecks. And yes, people who believe in the principles this country was founded on, individual freedoms and limited government, are responsible for the “ills” of this country.
Sigh.

Perhaps if you took the time to actually learn what people support, instead of simply believing everything the media and liberal talking heads tell you to believe, you would be able to make a rational argument based on the facts rather than emotion.

It is a very sad time for this country when promoting individual freedoms instead of government dependency is considered preaching hate.
Even sadder when leftists, in their desire for total government dependency, dishonestly lump the whole in with a few, in order to get support through lies, misinformation and fear.

The problem isn’t that we haven’t read the reports J2, it’s that we have.

Posted by: kctim at March 11, 2013 11:24 AM
Comment #362645

kctim, Perhaps we all should take the time instead of simply believing. You would have us believe it is only the conservatives who support and defend the constitution, you would have us believe it is only the liberals that call names. You would have us believe we favor total government dependency simply for demanding of government that they do their job. I could go on but I’m out of time kctim, I think however you have gotten my point.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 11, 2013 12:22 PM
Comment #362646

The sad part, j2t2, is that you do understand what it is like to be called names or lumped in with a group, and you don’t like it. But your response is to lash back in kind, call others names and try lumping other in groups, etc.

If those things bother you, perhaps you shouldn’t be so free to do it yourself? It adds nothing to the political discussion, in fact it takes away from it. It may feel good, for you, but in the end it accomplishes nothing.

It also prevents you from seeing the concerns of those you agree with and come to consensus and prevents you from growing as a human being.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2013 12:34 PM
Comment #362647

Don’t jump to conclusions, Rocky Marks. Ignorant people believe what they want to believe without bothering to find out what is the truth.

If one person expresses an opinion and an unrelated person acts, it cannot be the fault of the person expressing the opinion. Is Russ Carnahan responsible for the union thugs that beat Kenneth Gladney? By your standards and the standards of the SPLC, Yes!

An angry mob attacked a black man outside a town hall meeting on healthcare in St. Louis last Thursday. The group was “invited” to the meeting by U.S. Representative Russ Carnahan (Dem., Mo.), who had a reserved seating section for them inside the hall, while security guards posted outside refused entry to members of the Tea Party Coalition.

So, why don’t you condemn Russ Carnahan, Rocky Marks?

And why do you compare apples to oranges when you accuse me of sympathizing with the KKK when I am only drawing a conclusion about the SPLC’s retoric and expressing an opinion? I am to understand the KKK is an openly racist party that believes in white supremacy. Why would you think I am a white supremacist, Rocky Marks? What motive do you have to draw that unrelated conclusion?

Perhaps you simply want to tarnish my reputation in retaliation for speaking in a way you disagree with. Perhaps you are intolerant and cannot accept criticism. You cannot dispute the facts I lay out so you associate me a group in bad standing. You do this without knowing whether I sympathize with that group or not. In fact, you do not care if I sympathize with that group. You associate me with that group to serve your purpose. You simply want to discredit my opinion.

That sir, is ignorant behavior.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 11, 2013 12:50 PM
Comment #362649

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives

But most Democratic Senators ran away as fast as possible from having anything to do with the debate: see here for the pitifully hilarious excuses they offered for not supporting the filibuster while claiming to support Paul’s general cause. All of those Democratic Senators other than Merkley and Leahy (and Sanders) voted to confirm the torture-advocating, secrecy-loving, drone-embracing Brennan as CIA chief.

Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat - led, as usual, by the highly-paid DNC spokesmen called “MSNBC hosts” and echoed, as usual, by various liberal blogs, which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it - degraded all of the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted themselves to reading from the only script they know: Democrats Good, GOP Bad.

To accomplish that, most avoided full-throated defenses of drones and the power of the president to secretly order US citizens executed without due process or transparency. They prefer to ignore the fact that the politician they most deeply admire is a devoted defender of those policies. After stumbling around for a few days in search of a tactic to convert this episode into an attack on the GOP and distract from Obama’s extremism, they collectively settled on personalizing the conflict by focusing on Rand Paul’s flaws as a person and a politician and, in particular, mocking his concerns as “paranoia” (that attack was echoed, among others, by the war-cheering Washington Post editorial page).

Just as conservatives feared non-existent black helicopters in the 1990s, they chortled, now conservatives are hiding under their bed thinking that Obama will kill their neighbors or themselves with drones while they relax at a barbeque in their backyard. In this they echoed Bush followers, who constantly mocked objections to Bush/Cheney executive power abuses as nothing but paranoia. Besides, they claim, Attorney General Eric Holder has now made crystal clear that Obama lacks the authority to target US citizens on US soil for execution by drone, so all of Paul’s concerns are nothing more than wild conspiracies.

The reality is that Paul was doing nothing more than voicing concerns that have long been voiced by leading civil liberties groups such as the ACLU. Indeed, the ACLU lavishly praised Paul, saying that “as a result of Sen. Paul’s historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins”. In particular, said the ACLU, “Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration’s vast killing program.”

But almost without exception, progressives who defend Obama’s Terrorism policies steadfastly ignore the fact that they are embracing policies that are vehemently denounced by the ACLU. That’s because they like to tell themselves that only Big, Bad Republicans attack the ACLU - such as when George H.W. Bush tried to marginalize Michael Dukakis in 1988 by linking him to that group - so they ignore the ACLU and instead pretend that only right-wing figures like Rand Paul are concerned about these matters. It’s remarkable indeed how frequently, in the Age of Obama, standard partisan Democrats embrace exactly the policies identified by the ACLU as the most menacing. Such Obama-defending progressives also wilfully ignore just how much they now sound like Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, and George Bush when ridiculing concerns about due process for accused Terrorists

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2013 1:01 PM
Comment #362686
The sad part, j2t2, is that you do understand what it is like to be called names or lumped in with a group, and you don’t like it. But your response is to lash back in kind, call others names and try lumping other in groups, etc.

The sad part is it is necessary to fight fire with fire, Rhinehold.

If those things bother you, perhaps you shouldn’t be so free to do it yourself? It adds nothing to the political discussion, in fact it takes away from it. It may feel good, for you, but in the end it accomplishes nothing.

The only useful purpose it serves Rhinehold is to give conservatives a taste of their own medicine.

It also prevents you from seeing the concerns of those you agree with and come to consensus and prevents you from growing as a human being.

Yet Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity Savage and Royal Flush continue to grow….

Posted by: j2t2 at March 11, 2013 10:06 PM
Comment #362687
The sad part is it is necessary to fight fire with fire, Rhinehold.

It’s not. All it does is lower you to the other person’s level and makes you no better than them.

Which is fine if you want to do that, but don’t get upset when you get treated as such…

The only useful purpose it serves Rhinehold is to give conservatives a taste of their own medicine.

And the conservatives say they are giving the progressives a taste of their own medicine for decades of the same behavior. It’s the same childish bullshit that is causing so much grief in the middle east.

Yet Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity Savage and Royal Flush continue to grow….

As do the Maddow, Olberman, Matthews, Sharpton, Shultz, etc…

Either you are better than that or you aren’t.

Obviously you aren’t. Stop acting like you are…

Posted by: rhinehold at March 11, 2013 10:18 PM
Comment #362697

Willie,

“Ignorant people believe what they want to believe without bothering to find out what is the truth.”

That has to be the single most intelligent thing you have written in your time here Willie, but then you go and ruin it with this remark;

“And why do you compare apples to oranges when you accuse me of sympathizing with the KKK…”

You see Willie, I never did write that. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I asked if you did. You didn’t reply the first time so I asked again.

The SPLC has a long history of fighting against discrimination. They also have a long history of working with the FBI to close down the KKK, and the Aryan Nation, and other hate groups. They take no money from the Federal Government to aid their cause.

“You associate me with that group to serve your purpose. You simply want to discredit my opinion.”

The irony of that statement is breathtaking.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 12, 2013 7:52 AM
Comment #362705

J2

Past and current actions show that those on the “right” side of the aisle support and defend the Constitution, and that those on the “left” side of the aisle support changing the Constitution in their desire to “progress.”
The “right” supports and defends the rights we were given, while the “left” supports creating and taking rights in the name of “fairness.”
This is the fundamental difference between “left” and “right.”

BOTH sides engage in name calling J2, it’s just that the “left” takes it to the personal level in their quest for power. Cries of ‘socialist’ for those who support more government don’t compare to cries of ‘teahadist,’ ‘terrorist,’ ‘homophobe,’ ‘racist,’ ‘sexist’ etc… for those who dare have a differing opinion.

“You would have us believe we favor total government dependency simply for demanding of government that they do their job.”

Governments job is to run government, not lives.
You support government dictating and providing for the day to day lives of individuals. You support government taking the individual rights of one in order to provide for another.

I don’t have to have you believe anything, the facts show that you favor government over the individual.

Posted by: kctim at March 12, 2013 11:17 AM
Comment #362741
But then again maybe you do sympathize with the tactics of the KKK, and the Aryan Nation.
That would be ignorant, but it would explain a lot.

That’s not a question, Rocky Marks. It’s an insinuation.

And you insinuated I associate with the KKK to discredit my opinion of the SPLC. Now I know why Democratics act this way. You simply don’t know what you’re saying.

Isn’t that ignorance?

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 12, 2013 7:45 PM
Comment #362794
Past and current actions show that those on the “right” side of the aisle support and defend the Constitution, and that those on the “left” side of the aisle support changing the Constitution in their desire to “progress.”

I would disagree kctim, the Patriot Act and DOMA come to mind. The various states that have tried to suppress the vote were all repub led states as were the states that have enacted anti choice laws. You are just trying to establish the right as something it really isn’t.

BOTH sides engage in name calling J2, it’s just that the “left” takes it to the personal level in their quest for power. Cries of ‘socialist’ for those who support more government don’t compare to cries of ‘teahadist,’ ‘terrorist,’ ‘homophobe,’ ‘racist,’ ‘sexist’ etc… for those who dare have a differing opinion.

I offer up for your comment Royal’s constant “doughboy” as just one example, Limbaugh “slut” comment also comes to mind. The fact is conservatives have been calling us Islamist commies and such for so long I find it funny you have missed all these remarks from the right wing shock jocks. Here is but one.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2761.Ann_Coulter

Governments job is to run government, not lives. You support government dictating and providing for the day to day lives of individuals. You support government taking the individual rights of one in order to provide for another.

I favor the rule of the majority kctim. No one likes too much government or a government that doesn’t take care of the weakest amongst us. The right wing hates these weaker individuals and thinks their rights are alright to be trampled on, Which IMHO is the main difference between us kctim, individual rights for the corporations or the people.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 13, 2013 8:16 PM
Comment #362803

Here’s the thing about the left’s way of thinking. They’re concerned about the poor and the weak and the elderly, as are the right. The right believes there are many ways these people can be helped, among those are the church and family. However, the left believes there are, well, just government.

The right believes in the good in people and the charity they provide. The left believes in just the bad side of people and government must force them to do their bidding.

The right believes people who are left to their own devices can excel and better themselves and the people around them. The left believes people left alone will do harm, get greedy, hoard all value, and destroy everything and everyone around them.

The right believes government is a tool used for a specific purpose. The left believes government must cure all of society’s imagined ills.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 14, 2013 3:22 AM
Comment #362804

Here’s the thing about the left’s way of thinking. They’re concerned about the poor and the weak and the elderly, as are the right. The right believes there are many ways these people can be helped, among those are the church and family. The left believes there are, well, just government.

The right believes in the good in people and the charity they provide. The left believes in just the bad side of people and government must force them to do their bidding.

The right believes people who are left to their own devices can excel and better themselves and the people around them. The left believes people left alone will do harm, get greedy, hoard all value, and destroy everything and everyone around them.

The right believes government is a tool used for a specific purpose. The left believes government must cure all of society’s imagined ills.

You really can’t please a Democratic. They are dishonest in their rhetoric. They are motivated by a need to dominate, much like the monarchies of the 18th century.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 14, 2013 3:31 AM
Comment #362887

willie,

“And you insinuated I associate with the KKK to discredit my opinion of the SPLC.”

Wow, nothing gets past you, does it Willie”

Let’s go back to your original post on the subject;

“It sounds like it’s a political propaganda group focused on condemning people for their opinion. If the opinion of the SPLC describes hate groups then you and Stephen Daugherty and most of the Democratics on this blog are a hate group preaching hate against conservatives and Republicans.”

The SPLC disagrees with opinion and labels those speaking as haters. You guys would be on the SPLC website also if it wasn’t a partisan brainwashing sight focused on liberal propaganda.”

Seems to me, discrediting peoples opinion is your modus operandi. You seem perfectly capable of attempting to discredit others, but when it happens to you, you whine like a little girl.

“Rocky Marks, why don’t you read the article, and go a step further and comprehend what was being written.”

This seems to be your favorite retort. You see, I do read the articles and my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.

I do understand that the groups listed on the SPLC website don’t just get together to play bingo once a week. You accuse others on this thread of thinking they are superior. Curiously though, the groups you defend against the big bad SPLC actually believe they are superior, and they are willing to create mayhem, and commit murder to prove it.

They wish to further their opinion by taking away all of the rights, including the lives of those they oppress.

You’re welcome to your opinion Willie, but my opinion is that you couldn’t be more wrong.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 15, 2013 10:44 AM
Comment #362930

Well, Rocky Marks, opinions are like assholes. Everyone’s got one.
Let’s take a look at this asshole’s opinion on your precious SPLC hate website.

Electoral Extremism: 23 Candidates on the Radical Right
By Robert Steinback (asshole)

…electoral process will filter out extremists, radicals and dangerous ideologues.

He’s calling people he writes about extreme, radical, and dangerous. Then he quotes the word “patriot” like it’s a dirty word.

..while an antigovernment “Patriot” who grossly exaggerates the criminality of undocumented immigrants..

What really bothers this asshole is that the guy he disagrees with got elected. Much like a real asshole, he is full of shit when he says Donnelly exaggerated.

Donnelly claimed undocumented immigrants accounted for “nearly one-third of our prison space” — a demonizing assertion, once also pushed by CNN’s Lou Dobbs, with no basis in fact.

Demonizing! No basis in fact!

As Investors Business Daily reported in March 2005:
“The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California’s prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.”
Up to a third of the U.S. federal prison population is composed of non-citizens, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

That’s the U.S. Justice Department, Rocky Marks. Not some partisan political hack that makes shit up for his gullible readers. This guy is the hater, Rocky Marks. He labels people because he disagrees with their politics. You ought to take something to heart, Rocky Marks. The guy this asshole is calling a dangerous person, an extremist, a hater, GOT ELECTED in District 59 with 57.3% of the vote!
This asshole at your SPLC hate website is just a pissed off child with a pencil.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2013 4:45 AM
Comment #362934

Willie,

Let’s talk about Donnelly for a minute.

From the article you cited;

“Donnelly in 2005 founded what became the largest anti-immigrant Minuteman chapter in California.”

Jim Gilcrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, in an interview stated;

“Am I happy at the outcome of this whole movement? I am very, very sad, very disappointed”. He also added, “There’s all kinds of organizations that have spawned from the Minuteman Project and I have to say, some of the people who have gotten into this movement have sinister intentions. …I have found, after four years in this movement…I very well may have been fighting for people with less character and less integrity than the ‘open border fanatics’ I have been fighting against”, Gilchrist concluded. “And that is a phenomenal indictment of something I have created.”

Now, that in itself is not an indictment of Donnelly, but the Minuteman movement has attracted some rather unsavory characters. President George W. Bush expressed his dislike for “vigilante” border projects.

Just last year Donnelly was discovered by TSA trying to carry a loaded gun in his carry-on bag onto an airplane.

I don’t know about you Willie, but how does anyone that stupid get elected with 57.3% of the popular vote?

Donnelly also wanted a California version of Arizona’s SB 1070, a flawed bill who’s sponsor, Russel Pearce, also on the list, was recalled.

So, Willie, did Robert Steinback lie, or is your boy Donnelly just misunderstood?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 16, 2013 11:05 AM
Comment #362936

Why didn’t your asshole child-reporter write about this, Rocky Marks?


Netkin’s car was surrounded as he arrived at the location and demonstrators rocked the vehicle and banged on it. Garden Grove Police Lt. Mike Handfield said some of the 300 demonstrators were there “not to protest but to commit criminal acts” and “A small contingent of people that were troublemakers had backpacks filled with full cans of soda that they were throwing and also cans filled with marbles that they threw.”

or this?

approximately forty students and demonstrators stormed the stage of Alfred Lerner Hall during a Minuteman presentation at Columbia University in New York City, where Board Members Marvin Stewart and Gilchrist had been invited to speak. The student protesters rushed onto the stage with a yellow banner toward Stewart and disrupted the presentation by exciting the crowd, who cheered the protesters on and heckled the speaker.

Your bias reporters only gave one side of this story, Rocky Marks. One-sided reporting helps keep readers ignorant, doesn’t it?


He then contacted the Border Patrol. He gave $20 to the man as the U.S. Border Patrol arrived and took the man into custody. Critics of the MMP raised questions about the incident, but an investigation by the Cochise County Sheriff’s office cleared the volunteer of any wrongdoing. The Border Patrol and the Mexican consul agreed that no crime had been committed.

In January 2006, the actions of California Minutemen helped influence the cancellation of a program sponsored by Humane Borders and the government of Mexico to supply over 70,000 maps to migrants to aid their illegal entry into the United States.
I suppose helping illegals to break the law is ok but stopping crime is hate, eh Rocky Marks? You better wipe that asshole’s shit off your shoes, Rocky Marks. You really stepped in it this time.


Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2013 2:05 PM
Comment #362937

Willie,

“In January 2006, the actions of California Minutemen helped influence the cancellation of a program sponsored by Humane Borders and the government of Mexico to supply over 70,000 maps to migrants to aid their illegal entry into the United States.”

Ge, Willie, you forgot to mention that the maps were to point out where there were water stops so that the illegals wouldn’t die of thirst in the desert.

Perhaps you would rather they die, regardless of how misguided their quest for a better life was.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 16, 2013 2:25 PM
Comment #362938

Willie,

Or maybe your thinking is more in line with William Daniel Johnson chairman of the American Third Position Party, who under the name “James O Pace” and authored the “Pace Ammendment” which includes;

“No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is in the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.”

This guy wants an America that looks only like him.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 16, 2013 2:40 PM
Comment #362940

How about them staying in their own home where there is water available! There are legal ways to get into this country and water is readily available to them while doing it, also!

Your logic sucks, Rocky Marks. Help people break the law and call it humane. That’s retarded! That’s backwards! That’s counter-productive.

You support lawbreakers, Rocky Marks. Why don’t you support changing the way people enter this country legally? Why must you insist people have to break the law? Why do you berating and malign people who insist the law be enforced?

You’re promoting lawlessness with your rhetoric and you ought to be ashamed of it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 16, 2013 2:57 PM
Comment #362942

Willie,

Where did I say I supported it?

Come on Willie, show me where.

I merely stated that I would rather have people survive than die in the desert. You assume that I support illegal immigration.

I live in Arizona. I know how unforgiving the desert is.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 16, 2013 3:42 PM
Comment #362973

OK. Support legal behavior-101

Instead of saying:

Ge, Willie, you forgot to mention that the maps were to point out where there were water stops so that the illegals wouldn’t die of thirst in the desert.
Perhaps you would rather they die, regardless of how misguided their quest for a better life was.

You should say:

They shouldn’t be handing out maps that facilitate breaking the law.
They should stay home and do things the right way while we work towards changing the system.


So now do you see how you support breaking the law with your rhetoric? If not, you never will.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 17, 2013 10:23 PM
Comment #362980

Willie,

Have you ever been to a “Third World Country”? People are going to do what they’re going to do.

The original intention of giving out the maps was so that people would survive the trek across the desert. The maps showed where the water was. These people are going to come to this country looking for a better life regardless of whether I support them coming here or not.

If you want to stop people from coming to this country illegally, put the people in this country that hire them in jail for a long time, and close their businesses.
Don’t just threaten to put them in jail, actually do it. We need to quit screwing around.

Putting the illegals in jail and deporting them repeatedly does nothing but cost the taxpayers money. It is a futile exercise, and they are going to come back if there is work here they can get paid for. Unfortunately they are quite willing to put up with all the crap because it is a better life here, even with the crap, than it is there.

There is no logic at all in trying to stop the flow by simply hoping they will die crossing the desert. It hasn’t stopped them in the past and it isn’t going to stop them in the future.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 17, 2013 11:14 PM
Comment #363008

MEXICO’S IMMIGRATION LAW: LET’S TRY IT HERE AT HOME

The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens

Let’s put politics aside and agree on a policy that Mexico has established and is following concerning it’s immigration problems, both legal and illegal.

Read the article I’ve linked to and tell me you agree with Mexico’s approach. Write a letter to your representative and senators expressing an approach to immigration that the Mexican government has taken.

Or, defend the current approach our government has taken. Remember, we have put politics aside.

Posted by: Weary Willie at March 18, 2013 12:05 PM
Comment #363237

Willie,

After a while away, I’m back.

“Read the article I’ve linked to and tell me you agree with Mexico’s approach.”

Yeah, Willie this is perfect. Let’s round up 10 or 11 million people, charge them with felonies, and house them while we try to figure out how to deport them.

There’s a reason why vast numbers of people aren’t sneaking into Mexico, and it ain’t their illegal immigration policy.

Here’s a hint;
Mexico sucks.

“Or, defend the current approach our government has taken. Remember, we have put politics aside.”

There are a lot more colors in the Crayon box than black and white Willie.

I already gave you my views on the subject, but you seemingly refused to acknowledge them.

Let me refresh them for you.

The people that hire the illegals are cheating. They are cheating you, me, and the illegals. They are thumbing their noses at a system that has laws in place that makes their actions just as illegal as those they hire.

So, screw’em. Put the lawless owners of the businesses that hire illegals in jail, and close their businesses. The other legal employees that work for these people are just as guilty for not reporting their employers illegal activity.

I have no pity for them either.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at March 23, 2013 1:21 PM
Post a comment