Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning

Aug 20, 2009
12,824
7,899
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning.

Senator Rand Paul
Infowars.com
March 9, 2013

Rand Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.

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

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

My official starting time was 11:47 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

I had a large binder of materials to help me get through my points, but although I sometimes read an op-ed or prepared remarks in between my thoughts, most of my filibuster was off the top of my head and straight from my heart. From 1 to 2 p.m., I barely looked at my notes. I wanted to make sure that I touched every point and fully explained why I was demanding more information from the White House.

Just before 3 p.m., Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) came to the Senate floor to help out. Under Senate rules, I could not yield the floor or my filibuster would end, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could have shut me down. The only way for me to continue and allow Sens. Lee and Cruz to speak was to yield the floor for questions.

Their presence gave me strength and inspiration. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) also arrived to help. Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the only Democrat who came to my defense, explained how we have worked together to demand more information from the White House about the rules for drone strikes. At about 4:30 p.m., Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) joined. I was flagging for a while, but these senators kept me going.


Sen. Reid came to the Senate floor to ask me when I would be done so he could schedule a vote. But I wasn’t ready to yield. I felt I had a lot more explaining to do.

At about 6:30 p.m., something extraordinary happened. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who has been recovering from a stroke, came to the floor to give me something. I was not allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything but the candy left in our Senate desks. But he brought me an apple and a thermos full of tea — the same sustenance Jimmy Stewart brought to the Senate floor in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That was a moment I will never forget.

Sen. Cruz came to the floor again just before 7:30 p.m. and said, “Given that the Senate rules do not allow for the use of cellular phones on the floor of the Senate, I feel quite confident that the senator from Kentucky is not aware of the Twitter-verse that has been exploding.”

I had little idea of what was going on. I was allowed only to talk and listen to questions. As I started to walk around the Senate chamber to loosen up my legs, I was energized by the responses on Twitter. Sen. Cruz really lifted my spirits when he read the tweets.

Then something unexpected happened. House conservatives started appearing in the back of the chamber to show their support. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who stayed for five hours, offered me his boots when I complained that I had not worn my most comfortable shoes. My good friend Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky came over. And then came the conservative cavalry of Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Garland “Andy” Barr (Ky.), Trey Radel (Fla.), Michael Burgess (Tex.), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Raul R. Labrador (Idaho), Keith Rothfus (Pa.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Steve Daines (Mont.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Richard Hudson (N.C.) and David Schweikert (Ariz.).

Over the evening I had the support of Republican Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), John Cornyn (Tex.), John Thune (S.D.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.). And Sens. Cruz, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) used the opportunity to make their first speaking appearances on the Senate floor. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) came at the end to speak, but after midnight, I had said enough.

By the end of the night, I was tired and my voice was cracking. I ended by saying, “The cause here is one that I think is important enough to have gone through this procedure.” I talked about the idea of compromise, but said that “you don’t get half of the Fifth Amendment.” I argued that we need more extended debates. And finally, at 12:40 a.m., I yielded the floor.

On Thursday, the Senate confirmed John Brennanas director of the CIA. But this debate isn’t over.

The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers. The president still needs to definitively say that the United States will not kill American noncombatants. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans; there are no exceptions.

The outpouring of support for my filibuster has been overwhelming and heartening. My office has fielded thousands of calls. Millions have followed this debate on TV, Twitter and Facebook. On Thursday, the White House produced another letter explaining its position on drone strikes. But the administration took too long, and parsed too many words and phrases, to instill confidence in its willingness or ability to protect our liberty.

I hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free. “Due process” is not just a phrase that can be ignored at the whim of the president; it is a right that belongs to every citizen in this great nation.

I believe the support I received this past week shows that Americans are looking for someone to really stand up and fight for them. And I’m prepared to do just that.

This article was posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 7:18 am
 

Are only Rand supporters allowed on this one without it being locked?
 

I feel like a jilted taxpayer - there's no drones flying over my house. Maybe they're only flying over Kaintucky.

I watch Faux New every day, and I ain't seen no Americans killed by drones. Am I missing something?

Rand is droning on and on to prevent drones? Is that like sympathetic magic?
 

I feel like a jilted taxpayer - there's no drones flying over my house. Maybe they're only flying over Kaintucky.

I watch Faux New every day, and I ain't seen no Americans killed by drones. Am I missing something?

Rand is droning on and on to prevent drones? Is that like sympathetic magic?

But I sure as hell bet he saw his contributions go through the roof!!
 

The filibuster by Pail Rand was to get Obama to state he does not have the right to kill americans on U.S. soil, it is about u.s. citizens defending theirselves, the filibuster accomplished it purpose.

This thread is related to 2nd amendment and citizens rights to defend theirselves.....

Suggest some members need to read our rules....

Per our rules...........

"Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators, however, disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the forums. Please feel free to PM the person directly....... "

If someone disagrees with how moderators moderate TN and wish to discuss it with moderator or friends via PM, feel free, but DO NOT do it on the open forum, your posts will be deleted and if the offending members continues they will earn time outs.....
 

Last edited:
I am sitting here trying to come up with .....................don't you think it is an important question? A damn simple question at that.
Do you naysayers really pay attention, or do you just wait for Red to post something and then attack. And once again I would like
to politely point out that I do not consider anyone outside of the united states as having any validity within American political
discussions.
 

I am sitting here trying to come up with .....................don't you think it is an important question? A damn simple question at that.
Do you naysayers really pay attention, or do you just wait for Red to post something and then attack. And once again I would like
to politely point out that I do not consider anyone outside of the united states as having any validity within American political
discussions.

Spot on Bevo thats exactly what they do :laughing7:
 

I am sitting here trying to come up with .....................don't you think it is an important question? A damn simple question at that.
Do you naysayers really pay attention, or do you just wait for Red to post something and then attack. And once again I would like
to politely point out that I do not consider anyone outside of the united states as having any validity within American political
discussions.

Treasure net is a world wide forum and not just for a select few. So your post are not limited to a select group of individuals.Get over that. This forum is for everyone. If you do like their post you may put them on ignore or not respond.
 

I am sitting here trying to come up with .....................don't you think it is an important question? A damn simple question at that.
Do you naysayers really pay attention, or do you just wait for Red to post something and then attack. And once again I would like
to politely point out that I do not consider anyone outside of the united states as having any validity within American political
discussions.

I think many people pay a lot of attention, agreeing with some posts, disagreeing with others. Why does everything have to boil down to an "us vs them" proposition. We are all different people with different views on different subjects. What do you believe the purpose of the board is - a place where everyone can post their opinions, information, etc. or a site where only one opinion /belief / world view is posted? And if anyone puts a post out there they are certainly opening themselves to have a response posted - or do you believe no one should respond? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a "chat board"?
 

I am sitting here trying to come up with .....................don't you think it is an important question? A damn simple question at that.
Do you naysayers really pay attention, or do you just wait for Red to post something and then attack. And once again I would like
to politely point out that I do not consider anyone outside of the united states as having any validity within American political
discussions.

One other thing is that I don't think anyone is disagreeing with "red". I think people disagree with some of the items that red posts. He is certainly entitled to post anything he wants within tnet rules, and then people have the right to comment on those posts - correct?
 

A Police Officer already has the authorization to use deadly force if deemed necessary, this is done without due process. I'm not on the side of the drones here so don't take it that way please. Do people not realize that a citizen can already be "taken out" by a law enforcement official without a Judge and Jury of their peers?
 

I merely stated that "I" do not consider their opinions valid. It is not an insult, though derogatory statements directed at our system
and rights is very offensive to me. That being said, I am not going to raise a stink. Reading through the threads I have found many statements that are seemingly direct put downs, and it takes some self control to remain civil, yet I believe it is my duty to remain so. Thank you all.
 

When faced with no other option an officer may use deadly force, anything beyond that is murder.
 

Can anyone post a reliable list of what "they" consider threats? How come it took a filibuster to extract any kind of answer to the question? It should make our blood boil, yet rand is considered by some to be droning on and on.
 

some highlights
 

I merely stated that "I" do not consider their opinions valid. It is not an insult, though derogatory statements directed at our system
and rights is very offensive to me. That being said, I am not going to raise a stink. Reading through the threads I have found many statements that are seemingly direct put downs, and it takes some self control to remain civil, yet I believe it is my duty to remain so. Thank you all.

I think an easy solution is for posters to stop making comments directed at other posters. Discuss the topics and the issues. That way no one has to worry about what is and what is not an insult.

And just as you find comments about rights and systems "insulting" many fund derogatory and insulting comments against the president or other elected officials to be "insulting" and inappropriate. It really all depends on your opinions / beliefs and luckily here in America we are all entitled to our own whether people agree with us or not. Correct.
 

Can anyone post a reliable list of what "they" consider threats? How come it took a filibuster to extract any kind of answer to the question? It should make our blood boil, yet rand is considered by some to be droning on and on.

Droning on .... No pun intended.
 

caught that one did ya stocky? hahaha!
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top