Rand Paul's #Filiblizzard Enters Its Sixth (Now Tenth) Hour

Tyler Durden's picture

Starting at 1147ET, Rand Paul began his James-Joycean discussion on US-based Drone strikes, six hours later (and with some minor aid from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)), he is still going. Have you ever felt so strongly about something that you were willing to talk about it for over six hours? From Cruz's note that today is the 177th anniversary of the fall of (or stand at) the Alamo to Paul's rhetorical (we think) question to the President: "Are you going to just drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?" We suspect the night is yet young as the snowquester continues.

The Atlantic summarizes:

Rand Paul spent Wednesday doing something you don't see very often—an honest-to-goodness, non-stop filibuster speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Lacking the 41 votes necessary to prevent a cloture vote that would block the nomination of John Brennan to be the CIA director, Paul chose to stall the old-fashioned way, through the original meaning of the talking filibuster. As long as Paul spoke (and stood), he held the Senate captive — and he had a lot to say about drones.


Paul opened by vowing to "speak until I can no longer speak." He held true to that, though senators from several other states (including a Democrat from Oregon) came to the floor to ask questions, during which breaks Paul presumably attended to necessary personal needs.


Paul's was the first talking filibuster since Bernie Sanders spoke for 8.5 hours back in 2010, beginning at around 11:45 a.m. and lasting well into the evening. Whether or not Paul's intended audience — the president — paid any attention remains unclear.

By way of reference (via About.com), The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records. Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents along the way.


Some choice, totally out-of-context quotes, so far (via The Atlantic):

"If there was an ounce of courage in this body, I would not be here alone."


"The point isn't that any body in our country is Hitler..."


"If you're going to kill people in America, you need to have rules and we need to know what those rules are. ... I don't want to find out that having seven days worth of food in your house is on the list."


"To be bombed in your sleep? There's nothing American about that."

Live video (via The Washington Post):


The Twittersphere's take on it all:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
otto skorzeny's picture

grandstanding from a Israeli boot-licker

otto skorzeny's picture

"Any attack on Israel shall be considered an attack on the US"-Rand Paul to The Chosen People as he toured over there a few weeks ago with some Christian NeoCons . what is with the hero-worship of this guy-he went grovelling up to Wall St when he was trying to get elected

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

OK, Rand Paul isn't perfect. But he's just about the only person in Congress who actually seems to give a shit about the Constitution.

Careless Whisper's picture

"If there was an ounce of courage in this body, I would not be here alone."


Apparently there isn't an ounce of courage there, or an opposition party. You're it dude.

The Shootist's picture

Only person grand standing is Granny Warren.

McMolotov's picture

Is she Grand Standing With A Fist?

ParkAveFlasher's picture

I stand with otto s.  Don't look for heros in Congress.  Be your own hero.   

knukles's picture

He virtually stands alone atop the path of the Leviathan shouting "Stop"
Would one rather he do otherwise?
Does he offend or threaten by this behavior?
Does he not stand in this case for that in which we might profess to believe, Adherence to Natural Laws as Embodied in the Constitution?

It is ever so easy to be disappointed by alternative agenda and perspectives when another simply does the next right thing, recognizing the great disparity between good and evil when focusing upon personalities rather then principles.

I am saddened that at possibly a very last moment, when one accepts the weighty cause, he might be diminished.

pods's picture

I would have to agree with the both of you.  The message that Paul is saying is half right.  But it is always couched in terms of US citizens on US soil.

Just what the fuck is so special about US citizens?  Or US soil?

From what I have read in the Declaration of Independence, it was said that ALL MEN are created with inalienable rights.  One might argue that this statement is also half right, as women are the equals of men, but that is a digression.

So because of where I was born I am provided these protections?  By whom?  The US Government upholding the rules?

These rules apply to all men throughout the world.  (by men I am including women, transgendered, midgets, scientologists, etc)

I am sorry, but you cannot stand up for liberty by trying to protect the asses of those who "voted" you into your position of influence.

Maybe I am just not suited for politics, but I think sand niggers, chinks, jews, and even polacks have the exact same rights that I have.


fonzannoon's picture

In the little I heard him speak he did not seem to distinguish at all between strikes on U.S soil or abroad.

I am all tapped out of being hopeless. I am looking for some inspiration. This is about as good as it will get. I'll take it.

Ignatius's picture

Watch out for the rise of the demagogues, these times are ripe.

Lore's picture

Oh, they're risen. But there are so many!  The European "Troika" is one obvious cesspool that seems to harbour hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of them.  See their explicit disdain for the interests of their citizenry?  If that's not psychopathy, what is? 

Moe Hamhead's picture

Pods-  Maybe he should be filibustering at the UN!?!

pods's picture

No, he is speaking at the right venue.  I cannot determine if your comment is sarcasm or derision, so I will play both angles.

The UN being supranational authority is more abhorrent than our federal government, which is more abhorrent than the state, county, etc.


I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
—Thoreau, Civil Disobedience


My problem with members of the US government are inherently hypocritical, as they can espouse some lofty ideals about US citizens, but do unimaginable things in our name.

Rand Paul stopping a nomination to a body of the government which was not spelled out in the Constitution is a good thing, but it should not be because of anything more than the agency in question was never authorized by we the people.  I don't care who runs the CIA, the agency was never authorized and wages undeclared war around the world in my name.

But always these arguments are from the point of view that the constitution protects us.  The constitution was meant to spell out exactly what a national government is allowed to do.  The BOR had to be included to get it passed, and it is kind of ironic that the declaration of rights in the BOR was the downfall for the republic and all our rights.  If the constitution stayed as merely the functions delegated to the federal government then we would never be having an argument about the constitution protecting us.  The constitution was to protect the government from the wrath of the people, as every duty was spelled out.  The inclusion of any of MY rights in the constitution opened the door to have them arguable in front of the nine (lord of the rings analogy that is quite fitting), and also allowed the arguments about rights not specified and whether they are rights, again arguable in front of the nine.  How many times have you heard the saying "There is no right to..............."?

I would say that most arguments for liberty, though they may be correct, are spawned from organized power, which is anathema to liberty.



nmewn's picture

Pretty kick ass pods.

All are created equal, we here just recognized it & codified it in our law under the BOR...the Constitution being, how we would accept the structure of government, that is, consent to being governed at all by that parchment, provided it and the rules did not change.

Now, what happens to someone, when they exercise their rights after birth, depends on which nation-state they are born in IMHO. Rights are not given by any nation-state as you know, they can only be recognized as reality or banned, prohibited, restricted, licensed, infringed on or otherwise held invalid by a nations man-made laws.

Natural rights & law (what we're speaking about here) absolutely exist, for if they did not, it would be impossible to have a revolution or rebellion anywhere against the tyrant, as he would obviously make that illegal for his own good...as absurd as that sounds, it has to be pointed out for idiots...its the best way to describe the difference between laws of convenience & oppression vs natural law.

Liberty2012's picture

Liberty requires that people agree to live together in a manner that supports individual freedom. The US Constitution describes much of that manner, and if you study the history of it, you will find most of the rest of it - namely a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles built upon Natural Law.

People use the US as a shorthand to describe all of the above. The term "exceptionalism" also refers to the sane thing. No one is excluded, unless they exclude themselves. If they make another choice, if they chose to put any other person or group ahead of God and the individual, such as a king, dictator, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, theocracy, etc., then they will not have Liberty.

The US is just the place that discovered the value and truth of the individual and liberty. It is both a simple and a complex thing, so it is easily lost if one focuses on only one aspect of it.

It requires a lot of responsibility and participation on the part of individuals. It doesn't mean those people are better than anyone else, it just means what they are doing achieves a lot.

Personally, I chose liberty and responsibility. For those who want something else, that's fine with me, as long as they don't try to force me to abandon my free will.

God is Truth. Anything that tries to separate you from yourself is evil.

Everything good in life requires free will.

We the People create the world we live in with every choice we make.

Truth => Individual => Responsibility => Freedom

Live long and prosper ;)

SMG's picture

My God, watching this, I'm actually getting hopeful about the future and our freedom.  Wow, I must be getting delusional in my old age.

FEDbuster's picture

Maybe he can keep talking for the next three and a half years?

RideTheWalrus's picture

Someone get Rand a phonebook!

FEDbuster's picture

And a Scarface pile of coke.

Midas's picture

Say hello to my leetle friend!

redpill's picture

There is nothing you can do to me that Castro has not already done!

RideTheWalrus's picture

"Manny, look at this pelican flyy? comee onn peliccaannn!!"


John Bigboote's picture

Proud of my fellow Kentuckian. Keep it up RP!

The fact that the media has to cover this and tell the average American idiot that Obama actually wants to assisinate US citizens on our soil is the best part of this whole episode.

Ignatius's picture

"The fact that the media has to cover this and tell the average American idiot that Obama actually wants to assisinate US citizens on our soil is the best part of this whole episode."

Nailed it.

fuu's picture

Last week they admitted that without government spending there is no economy. This week they want to kill you. Next week...

New_Meat's picture

Fauxcahontas ain't heard from, nor is our very own GW.

Gonna make GW's head explode to have an actual US Senator pitching for his own views.

And I've said to GW: "You Can Do It!"

That is, defend liberties without blaming Bush.

- Ned

{we'll see}

{{I hold no hope for my SENIOR Senator (and thank the gods, the only one from the Commonwealth as of today) who will stand up for the "people."  Gives us a new meaning to the term "hammered."}}

{{{Waterboarding illegal combatants picked up outside CONUS is anathema, but acing AMCITS within CONUS is "appropriate".}}}

{{{{Action Jackson just  signed up for some more action!}}}}

Pants McPants's picture

Ned's an original...I've always enjoyed his input.

New_Meat's picture

{{{{Ness, ya gotta' get to WB7's archives to see who "Action Jackson" is.  Before doing same, please void all liquid and solid waste.  You'll see.}}}}

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Give 'em hell!!! It's not like they were going to get anything done today anyway. These days it seems like the only time Congress gets anything done is when they're foaming at the mouth to strip Americans of their rights.

EscapingProgress's picture

Rand Paul isn't doing this for "the people" he is doing this for Israel. This is the second Senate filibuster against someone who has publicly spoken in an ever so slightly negative way towards Israel. The first being the filibuster of Chuck Hagel. This is all rhetoric. Ignore the words. Only actions count. Please, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Everything coming out of D.C. at this point and in the future will result in a net loss for liberty. The rhetoric is just getting better.

Mussolini 2016!

P.S. The 2001 AUMF authorized the assassination of Americans. Recently the WH has just been more open about it.

nmewn's picture

"This is the second Senate filibuster against someone who has publicly spoken in an ever so slightly negative way towards Israel."

Name the first.

EscapingProgress's picture

"The first being the filibuster of Chuck Hagel."

Rand Paul voted "yes" during the second vote of confirmation for Chuck Hagel, however, he cast the deciding vote of "no" for cloture which resulted in Chuck Hagel being subjected to a filibuster. Rand Paul's second vote of "yes" wasn't the deciding vote, so it was irrelevant with respect to the final outcome. Rand Paul is an excellent politician, but he is still a neocon. A neocon-lite at best.


nmewn's picture

You have a different idea of filibuster than I do apparently...what Rand is doing is a filibuster.

Senators wanted more information on Hagel...which he refused to provide, initially or in-toto...things like...

The Chairman of the Committee expressly asked you to submit your response by Monday, February 4.

Monday came and went, and you still did not respond.

At the end of the day on Tuesday, February 5, you submitted a short “response” to our request. In that response, you explicitly declined to answer many of the questions asked of you.

You were asked to disclose all compensation over $5,000 that you have received over the past five years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – the Atlantic Council has received foreign funding in the past five years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – McCarthy Capital has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – Corsair Capital has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – Wolfensohn and Company has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – M.I.C. Industries has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – the National Interest Security Company has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – Elite Training and Security, LLC has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

You were asked to disclose if – and to what specific extent – Kaseman, LLC has received foreign funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.

Your own financial records are entirely within your own control, and you have flatly refused to comply with the Committee Members’ request for supplemental information.

The records from the other firms – more than one of which, you have disclosed, paid you $100,000 or more – are highly relevant to the proper consideration of your nomination. Your letter discloses no affirmative efforts on your part to obtain the needed disclosure, and your lack of effort to provide a substantive response on this issue is deeply troubling.

If it is the case that you personally have received substantial financial remuneration – either directly or indirectly – from foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds, lobbyists, corporations, or individuals, that information is at the very minimum relevant to this Committee’s assessment of your nomination. Such remuneration may be entirely appropriate, but that determination cannot be made without disclosure.

If you have not received remuneration – directly or indirectly – from foreign sources, then proper disclosure will easily demonstrate that fact.

Your refusal to respond to this reasonable request suggests either a lack of respect for the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent or that you are for some reason unwilling to allow this financial disclosure to come to light.

This Committee, and the American people, have a right to know if a nominee for Secretary of Defense has received compensation, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources. Until the Committee receives full and complete answers, it cannot in good faith determine wither you should be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.

Therefore, in the judgment of the undersigned, a Committee vote on your nomination should not occur unless and until you provide the requested information.

RockyRacoon's picture

Sounds like a HUAC manifesto to me.  But what do I know, I'm just a lowly coon.

nmewn's picture

And of course, you know that ain't my arrow...but anyways...

It is interesting though, once one starts rooting around in the nets trash cans that we frequent...lol...the quality morsels can be had.

Hagel and Atlantic Council funding...


I can see good cause for the Senate wanting full financial disclosure...Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Barclays...quite a few Turkish interests as well...very interesting...and thats just the Atlantic Council.

EscapingProgress's picture

Precisely, Mr. Coon. A HUAC manifesto indeed.

"Hagel is no libertarian: I never said he was. He voted for the Iraq war, with reservations, like many Republicans, but later became one of its most passionate and articulate critics. This is the real reason why the War Party in Congress opposes him, and why Sen. Paul’s neoconservative buddies are expending so much energy in their relentless jihad against him. In voting against cloture – and giving as a reason the desire to get more "information" about alleged contributions from North Korea (!) and the nonexistent "Friends of Hamas" to Hagel’s speaking fees – Sen. Paul is aiding and abetting a disgusting McCarthyite campaign against an honorable man."


I can't believe so many people have been bamboozled by Rand Paul. This is reminiscent of the bamboozlement of the Obamanauts in 2008.


nmewn's picture

Hagel is opposed because he is wholly unqualified (in many peoples eyes, mine as well) for the position.

“If confirmed, I intend to learn about the Defense Department.” Chuck Hagel, Jan. 31 2013 in testimony, in front of the committee.

Would you hire him after he said that? For what position, toilet swabbie or gardener? ;-)

citizen2084's picture

"Everything coming out of D.C. at this point and in the future will result in a net loss for liberty."


Except Chuck Hagel??



EscapingProgress's picture

I'm indifferent to Chuck Hagel at this time because I am not aware of any crimes against humanity that he has engaged in. During his time in office, however, I'm sure that he will engage in many.

My opposition is principally to the machine. The machine must be dismantled. Only an immoral bastard or a delusional fool would seriously attempt to seize the levers of power that control the machine at this point. The machine has taken on a life of its own. Its general course cannot be altered. These apointments and elections mean nothing. Nobody can control the machine for good. It can only be used for evil. Only inconsequential changes can be made now. For example, by pulling on its levers the machine can funnel loot into different pockets, but the looting itself cannot be stopped.

McMolotov's picture

This used to be mainstream thinking, and now Paul is an "odd ball" for standing against the summary execution of American citizens by the president. I find that fact incredibly disturbing.

The relentless statist propaganda has evidently been effective.

JLee2027's picture

He's only an oddball for politicans. Reading message boards over the years, there's been some significant attitude shifts away from trusting and toward not believing the Government. 

yabyum's picture

Rand Paul gives more of a shit about Rand Paul.