Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Government

Sen. Rand Paul Will Introduce Legislation to ‘Nullify’ Obama’s Executive Orders on Guns

Jan. 16, 2013 10:45pm Jason Howerton

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. pauses during a press briefing at a hotel in Jerusalem, Monday, Jan. 7, 2013. In his first visit to Israel, Paul on Monday called for a gradual reduction of American foreign aid. Israel is among the largest recipients of American assistance. Credit: AP

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will propose legislation early next week to “nullify” President Barack Obama’s executive actions on guns, the senator announced on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday.

Paul told host Sean Hannity that Obama’s executive orders are a breach of constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

“Our founding fathers were very concerned about us having separation of powers,” Paul said. “They didn’t want to let the president become a king…In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation.”

“There are several of the executive orders that appear as if he is writing new law. That cannot happen…The court struck Clinton down for trying this.”

Paul also said it concerning that Obama seems to be developing some sort of a “king complex.”

Talking Points Memo has reviewed a one-page summary of Paul’s proposed legislation, titled “Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act.” TPM has more:

“We only have descriptions of the executive actions, yet many could be construed to describe an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment,” reads the one-page summary of the Paul plan shared with TPM by his staff.

Paul’s bill will set out to nullify Obama’s executive actions, deny any federal funding for their implementation, and allow members of Congress and state officials to challenge the actions in court.

To read the one-page summary of the proposed bill, click here.

Paul conceded that Democrats in the Senate, who hold the majority, would likely not back his proposal.

“This idea of checks and balances and separation of powers should be a fundamental one,” he said. “I’m afraid that there isn’t much support on the Democratic side, but we’ll see.”

(H/T: Huffington Post)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (244)

booger71
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:13am
I applaud him for what he is trying to do and his stance on separation of powers, but these powers will never be truly separate until the 17th Amendment is repealed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:33am
  if we cant get the 10th amendment to be enforced, there is little chance we can get the 17th repealed
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:59am
  17th amendment will never be repealed. Senators know most of them would immediately be replaced if it were so, you’ll never get them to vote away their own power.
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:08am
  Now if only Rand could nullify his son’s drunken assault charges.
- IndyGuy
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:58am
  Hey Vanna…Please tell us you don’t have kids…
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:03am
  “Frey’s position is premised on an extremist version of positivism: that humans have no rights other than the rights which governments grant them via international human rights treaties or other positive enactments.”
  
  Who is Ms Barbra Frey, a Clinton appointee to the UN commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights commission wants strict gun control as a human right. They have to go against Natural Law.
  
  http://davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf
  
  Please read it ties in the progressives moves through the UN treaty on small arms to get rid of our guns. It also offers some counter arguments.
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:21am
  http://davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf
  
  Please read he shows where the Founding Fathers tied into the writings of Natural Law to justify the resistance to a tyrant government.
  
  “The right to collective self-defense against tyranny (a criminal government) is an application of the individual right of self-defense against a lone criminal: “when the people are reduced to the last extremity, there is no difference between tyranny and robbery. The one gives no more right than the other, and we may lawfully oppose force to violence.”Thus, people have a right “to rise in arms” against “extreme abuse of sovereignty,” such as tyranny.”
  
  Burlamaqui agreed with the Englishman Algernon Sidney that subjects are “not obliged to wait till the prince has entirely riveted their chains, and till he has put it out of their power to resist him.” Rather, they may initiate an armed revolt “when they find that all his [the prince’s] actions manifestly tend to oppress them, and that he is marching boldly on to the ruin of the state.
  
  I am finding it a good read to formulate arguments
  
  Report this comment
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:36am
  Oh and like its like it’s like HARRYAZZ NoREID WILL LET IT EVEN SEE THE LIGHT-O-DAY???
  
  Report this comment
- red_white_blue2
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:03pm
  I agree. We need to have a clear line in the sand, and stick by it.
  
  Report this comment
- smv803
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:32pm
  Sen. Paul, you have my support in 2016 and I urge my fellow Americans to do the same and break this cycle of corruption by the Democrats and Republican parties. It’s time We The Peopele show the clowns in our government who works for whom.
  
  Report this comment
- BIG_G
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:40pm
  New bill introduced by CT Democrat Rose Delauro, attempt to involve the IRS in gun confiscation
  
  http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/226/text
  
  Report this comment
- HellboundandDown
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:48pm
  oh, I hope Rand (do you like my ho..err…metrosexual hairdo) Paul runds in ’16….that’ll be as hilarious (if not more) than his pappy’s runs against the wall, I mean for the presidency. tee hee.
  
  Report this comment
- James
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:56pm
  Rand, Impeach him NOW! As the great Oakland Raider owner Al Davis would say “JUST DO IT BABY”
  
  Report this comment
- btcruser
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:13pm
  I prey he can get some traction on this.
  
  Report this comment
congresswatcher1
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:54pm
Okay I will say this one time and I will never repeat myself here again… So someone from the BLAZE BETTER BE LISTENING….. I suggest you look up the Dick Act of 1902. O bama and congress has no right to impose any gun control and let Rand Paul know to along with many other in congress that don’t know about it…. Look it up folks……… I don’t care who gets the credit….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SUNTZU
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:07am
  You got that right.
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:08am
  Very good we can open the debate with a check or check mate.
  
  Everyone please get very familiar with The Dick Act of 1902
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:21am
  I am now familiar, thanks.
  
  Maybe the Banksters won’t get our guns, but they will not give up.
  
  They can get us with a pandemic, biological chemicals or a false flag nuclear war.
  
  These are NOT your REPRESENTATIVES, and they could care less about you.
  
  The have an agenda and they are SO CLOSE….. Except for those damn Americans clinging to their guns !!!!!
  
  The ends justifies the means……
  
  Report this comment
- The-Real-Enrico
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:23am
  The Dick Act of 1902
  
  Everyone read up on this and suggest the information to the Blaze at the bottom right of of the site at the ” Have a tip?” section so the can publish this information and send it to your local representatives.
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:42am
  I checked and found that the Dick Act (1902) was amended in 1908. I could NOT find any information regarding the actual Act, including amended language. I read one post that asked how one Congress could be bound by an earlier Congress, and I have to agree, that Congress can (and perhaps has) change this bill. If anyone could provide additional information, it would be greatly appreciated.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:58am
  You may want to include this in your studies:
  http://www.americanclarion.com/16277/2013/01/14/gun-control-the-dick-act-of-1902-bills-of-attainder-ex-post-facto-laws/
  
  Report this comment
- elderbat
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:03am
  thank you so much. God Bless!
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:43am
  If I read it right, the Dick Act states that able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45, being part of the unorganized militia, has the right to carry or possess any gun they choose. So me being 52 or when someone turns 46 does that mean they lose their right to the 2nd amendment?
  
  Report this comment
- realindependent
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:08am
  I suggest you all read this.
  
  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
  
  All you founding fathers lovers, this is why there is a second amendment. Because the founding fathers didn’t want a standing army. So they wanted to call men up for protection of the country if needed. So they wanted them armed and ready for that possibility. Then they founded the National Guard that is controlled by the states, but can be taken over by the federal government if needed in a time of war or threat.
  
  No because of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
  
  And the gun lobby i put as part of this complex. You have people screaming about this. no one wants to take your rifle for hunting or your hand guns for protection. But the only reason you want an AR-15 is the same reason you have a tattoo or smoked cigarettes. You think it makes you look cool.
  
  Get over yourselves and just use as Glenn Beck always says “use common sense”
  
  Report this comment
- Lee_in_PA
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:40am
  http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642
  
  I looked it up, here it is.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:07am
  The 2nd Amendment puts no age limits around the militia, as that would silly. So, what happens if your young guys all get slaughtered, are the guys 46 and older expected to sit around drinking lemonade while their houses are burned and their children/grandchildren are killed?
  
  The beauty of the Founder’s plan is that they were extremely liberal with their “paint brush” (liberal in a good way).
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:21am
  Have a look at who the militia is…
  
  http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
  
  This is on the books, folks… not the blatherings of some uninformed blowhard.
  
  REALINDEPENDENT was correct about the intent of the 2nd amendment.The framers did not want a permanent standing army. Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution grants the authority to call forth the militia to repel insurrection and invasion, and so for us to be able to meet that call of duty, our right to keep and bear arms had to be protected. As an aside, and though we do not find the verbiage in the Constitution, but in the writings of many of the founders, we, the people needed a means to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. The access to weaponry has to be equal, to meet the intent of the amendment, so the Armed forces and federal officers should not have access to more powerful/capable weaponry than the citizens… a pea shooter is no defense against a Squad Assault Weapon.
  
  REALINDEPENDENT and I disagree on a few points: if the standing army had not been established and maintained, and we weren’t using it for precisely the purposes the founders feared, then I do not believe the MIC would be nearly as large or powerful. As the onus for defense would be on the citizenry, I think the gun business would be doing fine without the MIC.
  
  I don’t want a M-4 because it looks cool. I want it because it puts me on more equal footing with a government that may attack me.
  
  Report this comment
- jblaze
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:28am
  REALINDEPENDENT
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:08am
  I suggest you all read this.
  
  Your reasoning is skewed! The PEOPLE (all of them) have a right to bear arms for the expressed purpose of defeating a tyrannical turned government and to protect the homeland from invasion!
  Also your don’t know what an AR15 is and until you do stop making foolish statements. Do your homework and do not believe anything the lamestream media reports!
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:00am
  The formal name of the Dick Act is the Militia Act of 1908. It was amended in 1908. Try entering the Militia Act in Google. For some reason, I can’t link it to this page. Probably operator error.
  
  Report this comment
- grimmster
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:10am
  Ok,explain to me how the Dick act affects gun control or the second amendment? Im not real sure why you chose this or what you point is, care to explain.since the Dick act has nothing to do with gun possession,just how the govt.co opted states militias.
  
  Report this comment
- watashbuddyfriend
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:29am
  @congresswatcher1
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:54pm
  
  “Okay I will say this one time and I will never repeat myself here again… So someone from the BLAZE BETTER BE LISTENING….. I suggest you look up the Dick Act of 1902. O bama and congress has no right to impose any gun control and let Rand Paul know to along with many other in congress that don’t know about it…. Look it up folks……… I don’t care who gets the credit….”
  
  Thanks very much for pointing out about the Dick Act of 1902!
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:02am
  Obama “seems ” to have a king complex? “seems”? ackkkk!
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:43am
  Everyone is doing a great jobs with the information flow. Keep it up and frame the argument how our Founding Fathers wanted it framed.
  
  Know why they gave us the 2nd, not for hunting
  
  Why there is a distrust in the government, “We pass it before we read it” This has been going on longer than just this president.
  
  Acknowledge that even this miss trust is because of both sides of the isle (the Patriot Act, NDAA)
  
  Life is a basic human right therefore Self Defense is a basic Human Right. Self Defense a single thug, or a Tyrant government, like the ones we have helped in the Arab Spring.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
  
  http://davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf
  
  Self Defense proceeds from Natural Law, not positive law civil, or canon
  
  Report this comment
- MervNE
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:55am
  Before you all get too excited, according to my research, the Dick Act of 1902 has little or no bearing on what was actually passed…which was the Militia Act of 1903. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903,
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:08pm
  @Mervne
  
  Your research is appreciated, although you haven’t yet learned that WIKIPEDIA is the WORST
  reference for finding the truth.
  It Can be, and IS edited by people.
  The Global Elite have full time crews that only stay focused on WIKI, covering up any “Theories”
  that are in opposition to the Elite’s Plans.
  I KNOW FOR A FACT. WIKI is NOT CREDIBLE.
  They show an ABSOLUTE and ULTIMATE FACT (Chemtrails) to be something else (Contrails).
  They post a picture of 100% undeniable chemtrails, and label them and Condensation trails.
  THEY ARE LIARS !!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- dwf1
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:33pm
  Please read the 2nd Amendment carefully. It does not grant anyone a right to own a gun it expressly prohibits the federal government from making law to prevent you from owning a gun. Depending on your state constitution your state might be able to pass law to stop you from owning a gun. Back in the day when wearing a gun was fairly common some Sheriffs required a gun to be handed over to them. Once they left they got their gun back.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:34pm
  WHO DO YOU BELIEVE ?????
  
  1000′s of people claiming one thing for NO FINANCIAL GAIN….
  
  or
  
  1 PRIVATE Corporation (WIKIPEDIA) owned by the Global Elite AND EDITED by their ARMY of FULL-TIME DISINFO SHILLS ??????
  
  I will trust Thousands of People.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:43pm
  @REALINDEPENDENT
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:08am
  You have people screaming about this. no one wants to take your rifle for hunting or your hand guns for protection. But the only reason you want an AR-15 is the same reason you have a tattoo or smoked cigarettes. You think it makes you look cool.
  —————————————————————————
  Obviously getting your junior g-man badge out the cornflakes box did nothing for your IQ.
  Numerous PROG pigs have specifically cited gun confiscation as the goal — several in the
  past week including Cuomo, Bloomberg, Feinstein and others.
  
  Also, you dont have a F’ing clue why anyone here owns an AR nor is it any of your business.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:04pm
  WIKILIAR states:
  
  ” because contrails can only persist a short time) is entirely baseless.” [improper synthesis?]
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  Fact:
  
  For a contrail to remain Persistant, the atmospheric conditions MUST BE
  
  -40c coupled with a 60% relative humidity (see appleman’s chart)
  
  So all over America, The Air above us is -40c and 60% RH, ALL DAY LONG at elevations of 15,000 to 30,000 feet ?
  
  The “persistant contrails” that they show, linger ALL DAY and SPREAD OUT.
  
  Check the HAZE today. Look at those OFF-WHITE SKIES.
  
  REMEMBER our deep blue skies ????
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
  
  Report this comment
- flntlok1949
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:25pm
  Interesting! But that’s about as far as it will go if Congress chooses to ignore it! Unless we are willing to take up arms to force Congress to abide by the law it’s not likely this act will ever be acknowledged in the chambers of Congress! It would be nice to see it referenced in Paul’s bill, however! The Dem’s are going to stand in the way of everything we do to resurrect the America that was – the one we love! The sooner Conservatives see that the Dem’s are actual enemies – using words, legislation, and brainwashing as weapons – out to conquer our Nation and make it theirs, the sooner we do what is necessary to defend ourselves as required to remove the threat! Voting in ’14 and ’16 MAY get us back a bit of power but, it will NOT end the maneuvering by the Socialist Left to Conquer our Nation! And remember: The upcoming Generations of our Children have already been brainwashed!!!
  
  Report this comment
- oldchevyguy
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:28pm
  I did check it out.Good news finally.I guess that means Obama doesn’t know Dick.
  
  Report this comment
- Something is Wrong
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:38pm
  The Dick Act is the nickname for the National Guard Act of 1903 (several versions of this tried to get passed but never did until 1903). It is the bill that ended the militias and created the National Guard as we know it today. This was Teddy Roosevelt’s baby and the first thing he tried to get done as soon as he became President. His first versions of the bill all got shot down because they consolidated all military power into the President’s hands so by 1903 he had dumbed it down to a bill that simply made militias a more formal organization under the official title of “The National Guard”. It did end militias as they were known up until that time and change their structure but that was all it did. Later amendments consolidated the National Guard further and consolidated their leadership structure until an amendment was finally passed to make it so that the National Guard would have to obey the orders of the President and that he could call upon them at any time for any reason, thus making the President the Commander in Chief of ALL military force in the US, not just over the regular Army, as was originally written and intended. Because it “reorganized” militias, it effectively did away with them and made the formation of one illegal. It also opened the door to the argument that firearm ownership was no longer necessary and that firearms could be restricted and controlled. Roosevelt was a raging Progressive and this was his baby, the “Obamacare” of his day.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:01pm
  the Dick Act is nice and all…but someone already explained that…
  
  this addresses the “fear” of the Founders in creating a standing army… really..you sure on that one… because one of the first acts of the Continental Congress…before writing the Declaration and declaring war was to establish the Continental Army and Navy, 1775, with an active Continental Marine force. In 1798, under the Constitution, President John Adams created the US Navy and months later the US Marine Corps.
  Granted…not technically a standing “army” but they were an organized military which is what “standing army” pertained to during that time period. So all the Founders, even Jefferson and Washington, knew about and supported this, since President Jefferson didn’t rescind the order from President John Adams, whom he disagreed with on nearly everything.
  The Continental Army was never completely disbanded.
  Organized State militias were also never disbanded and even used by President George Washington to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
  The US Army today is said to be 237 years old, older than the nation itself, under the US Constitution.
  So while the Dick Act turned the militias into the National Guard, the power of the President to control them dates back to George himself, 218 years ago.
  
  Report this comment
- BIG_G
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:13pm
  Ooo mf’ng Rah CONGRESSWATCHER
  
  If only 10% of gun owners decide to say “Fk off!” it’s still an 8 million “implanted”, local, well-armed insurgency. All this inflated buying isn’t to earn the privilege to hand things over when the Muslim in Chief says to do so. I think that’s why he punted to the Congress on this mess.
  
  VANCE you are reaching dude!
  
  Report this comment
FaithfulFriend
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:54pm
There seems to be much wrong with the king’s decrees. Mainly it’s that we don’t do decrees from kings here.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FaithfulFriend
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:51pm
There seems to be much wrong with the king’s decrees, mainly that we don’t do decrees by kings here.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The-Real-Enrico
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:46pm
Seriously call and write your representatives and tell them to support Rand and his legislation.

Rand Paul 2016 and Andrew Napolato 2016! They both should run for President.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:41am
  my fear is that both will run and split the vote while someone like McCain/Romney wins again by getting all the unsplit moderate votes…..
  
  I would rather see napalitano run because he is not a politician and rand paul is young enough to wait. we also cannot afford to lose rand paul in the senate
  
  Report this comment
- Raging_Waters
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:41am
  @Soybomb
  
  You have no need to worry about a Republican winning the Presidency any longer thanks to that Consent Decree the RNC signed 31 years ago, which essentially gives Democrats free range to commit unchallenged voter fraud in districts deemed to have a “substantial” ethnic minority population.
  
  What you should worry about is a good candidate running as a Republican, because no matter how much support he/she has, the Democrats will be able to steal the election and the RNC won’t legally be able to do **** about it.
  
  Report this comment
- 3monkeysmomma
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:22pm
  Show of hands here please…..how many of you think Glenn Beck will throw Rand Paul under the bus in 2016?
  
  Report this comment
Zorch
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:41pm
Good for Rand Paul. He is doing what is correct and what will resonate with the next generation of voters, which according to “The 4th Turning” will be a factor in the upcoming elections. It isn’t enough to just oppose something, tell how it affects the Constitution and why the Constitution is necessary in order to keep dictators out of this Nation’s Republic.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- donkeykong
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:26am
  Zorch…..upcoming elections ??? You really think Hussain
  will even allow any more elections?? I don’t – I think SHTF
  long before we mark another 4 years of this. You can almost
  feel the clash coming. IF we happen to make it another 4, Rand
  Paul sounds as good as anyone right now….but he’ll probably
  be felled by some mysterious ‘accident’ by then. The Dems
  will stop at nothing to keep power..
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 5:50am
  uh – Donkey – Congressional elections happen in 2014 – what year is it now?
  
  Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:34pm
Bring it forward and keep it coming every time it is defeated by Reid and by Obama, understand that Reid will never allow this legislation to come to the front unless it becomes a massive political liability to the Democrats.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The-Real-Enrico
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:10am
  I agree. Keep on send them and make them deny it and have it on record. The house should be passing as much stuff limiting governmental powers as possible and let the dems reject it.
  
  Too bad the republicans do not care do not truly disagree with the dems and want to use King like powers when they get into power.
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:16am
  I suggest a boycott of the Super Bowl (you can see it as a rerun) would demonstrate how serious people take this issue.
  
  Picture the camera panning across an empty stadium, the democrats who have to Dear leaders heavy lifting would take notice
  
  Report this comment
- The-Real-Enrico
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:33am
  @DeOppressoLiber Not possible if the Falcons make it to the Superbowl buddy. And that is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve heard of.
  
  How does not showing up to a football show anyone anything let alone our stance on the separation of powers or 2nd amendment?
  
  Report this comment
michaelmoron
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:28pm
Obama is just a frontman.

The Invisible Government wants your guns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Wilson signs this bill, the INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”
– Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”
– Theodore Roosevelt

“The REAL TRUTH of the matter is that a FINANCIAL ELEMENT in the large centers has OWNED THE GOVERNMENT since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
– President F.D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Invisible Government is the
International Bankster Cartel. a.k.a. Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Global Elite, Secret Society, Military Industrial Complex, etc.

As long as Americans Cling to their Guns the Banksters can’t carry out their ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT (U.N.).

People focus their Anger at Obama while the Invisible Government ( the Banksters ) takes your guns.

PEOPLE WAKE UP, PLEASE !!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:36pm
  “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did NOT perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by INTERNATIONAL BANKERS and international industrialists acting together to ENSLAVE the WORLD (U.N.) for their own PLEASURE. Every effort has been made by the Fed (Reserve) to CONCEAL IT’S POWERS but the truth is — the FED HAS USURPED THE GOVERNMENT!”
  
  - Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of House Comm. on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931 – After a few unsuccessful attempts, Louis McFadden was eventually Poisoned to Death.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:51pm
  I learned how the Federal Reserved SEIZED AMERICA in 1933, from RAND PAUL’s UNCLE !!!!
  
  He talks about our labor being pledged, but he didn’t talk about the GOLD, PUBLIC LAND and GOVERNMENT BRANCHES and AGENCIES being pledged to the PRIVATE BANK, also.
  
  This was the Video that got me on the right track:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlCs7u1ihws
  
  .
  
  Report this comment
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:47am
  This is why his mug is on Mt.Rushmore…THE PROGS and FABIAN SOCIALLISTS BOUGHT-IT!!
  
  Report this comment
Junter
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:19pm
Way to go Rand Paul! The USA does not need a king/monarchy we need a democracy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:42pm
  please explain to me how the US resembles a monarchy in any way
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 5:53am
  so yo prefer mob rule to emperor rule? I think I ‘ll stick with the Constitutional Republic as originally designed
  
  Report this comment
rickdees
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:18pm
I like Rand Paul, don’t get me wrong, but it’s easy to introduce legislation you know WON’T pass. The House leadership needs to grow a pair and start Impeachment proceedings. Obama will not stop on his own.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Thatsitivehadenough
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:41pm
  At least it will be on the record and in the history books unchanged. I’m getting to like this guy.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:00am
  There are no grounds for impeachment
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:39am
  if it were so easy, how come he is the only one doing it? If it is so easy, how come Boehner wont be bringing it to a vote? Dont make excuses for these weak-kneed republicans.
  
  Anyone who brings bills like this to the light of day in congress is signing their own death warrant….Constitution style
  
  Report this comment
- ozchambers
  Posted on January 18, 2013 at 4:32pm
  I agree with soybomb. If it is so easy, then where are the others? He needs to keep making noise for liberty and continue to fight against encroaching tyranny, and we need to keep supporting him and help others realize that there is support. He is a good spokesman for freedom and unlike most Senators, actually has a pair. I would wholeheartedly back him if he chose to run for highest office in 2016. I am not seeing a more consistently Constitutional-minded representative in the whole of the Senate.
  
  Report this comment
Wannabee
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:13pm
In one impeachment case against a Senator it was determined that a Senator cannot be impeached. I cannot figure why? Perhaps because they are the jury in impeachment trials..

It would be great to impeach and remove Obama and Harry in the Senate. Then, even with a Biden takeover, we might start saving our Republic

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:42am
  WANNABEE, If the reason for Impeachment proceedings to be taken against the president also include reasons that the vice president can be held accountable both 0bama, and Biden can be impeached. The House brings the charges and once the vote is to impeach, the Senate takes the information and votes basically as a trial following the charges by the House. Should the vote to be to Impeach from Office, the results are immediate and there is no course for appeal. Furthermore, in the 1993 Nixon v. United States the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
  Should 0bama and Biden be held accountable for violating the Constitution they theoretically can be impeached one after the other immediately or possibly in the same proceeding. But, we know better considering that Harry Reid controls the Senate that is dominated by Democrats that this will never happen. But, 0bama’s legacy like Clinton’s will be forever stained with the asterisk of Impeached on their records.
  
  Report this comment
Wannabee
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:08pm
Obama bought himself an insurance policy against impeachment and nullifations of anything he does . That policy is called Biden. Who would want to see that clown Biden take over the office of president?

I for one would go for it. At least he has shown some propensity to respect the process of our government and is more capable than Obama of negotiating possible solutions without the stubbornness and egomania of Obama.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CatB
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:15pm
  I would take Biden over Obama .. a clown over a MARXIST any day .. . I don’t think Biden could get away with half the cr*p Obama does.
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:15pm
  Rand Paul for prez in 2016!!
  
  Time_to_start_the_Paul_campaign_in_2012
  
  Report this comment
- Marine 1
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:19pm
  Okay, Rand and a few others are going for impeachent. Where’s the rest of the folks ready to do battle in the House? Huh?
  
  C’mon folks, we sent you people back there to the District of Corruption to “support and defend” OUR Constitution so get to work. You all are back there to retain OUR rights and not take them away.
  
  It is way overdue that you all would start impeachment proceedings against Obummer. Throw Joe out while you all are at it.
  
  It’s good to see a few Sheriff’s standing up and telling goofball “NO” on the gun issue. We need every Sheriff in this country to do the same thing — tell Barry “NO!” and stand their ground.
  
  The King may need to be looking for a new residence soon. (One can hope, folks. One can hope.)
  
  Report this comment
- Mil Mom
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:30pm
  @Wannabee
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:08pm
  
  Obama bought himself an insurance policy against impeachment and nullifations of anything he does . That policy is called Biden. Who would want to see that clown Biden take over the office of president?
  
  I for one would go for it. At least he has shown some propensity to respect the process of our government and is more capable than Obama of negotiating possible solutions without the stubbornness and egomania of Obama
  ***
  With biden’s recent behaviors we probably would only have more open and obvious w h orgies, much like when the mentally challenged caesar took over rome. I doubt he knows how to play the fiddle so he’d probably be running around with his OH biker buddies while we were overthrown by b o’s brotherhood pals.
  
  Report this comment
- mercenary4freedom
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:19am
  obama respects nothing about our government. He is here to tear us down to third world status, rape & pilliage our Constitution and hand it all over to the UN.
  
  Report this comment
- TeslanEdison
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:59am
  Get a clue they are both Fabian socialists, America would be equally screwed by any joker in the current administration. If you impeach you would have to have an emergency election because the communist roots are so deep in the Administration.
  
  Report this comment
- TeslanEdison
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 4:26am
  Again, both being Fabian Socialists bent on communism in America impeachment would have to mean the entire administration and all parties responsible for constitutional abrogation. Next would be emergency election but only after voter ID had been passed, forcing the illegal election machine to verifiable methods of fraud. If Obama is impeached a congressional investigation needs to be launched into how such a Fabian Socialist was put into power and how our elections have been subverted by communists calling themselves, liberal or progressive. To that end traitors and conspiracy to defraud and election needs to lead to some executions to set an example of what happens when socialists mess with America and the American family. Read about the Mattachine Society, and you’ll see how deep this rabbit hole really goes.
  
  Report this comment
whatthecrazy
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:05pm
I like this man,a younger version of his father yet a bit more hip to the younger much needed voters.Btw if i had it to do over i would cast my vote for R.P but hindsight is 20\20.If there is a next time neither party will get my vote because both sides played us all while R.P was sticking to the facts of the Constitution.Is that not what we are all complaining about now?The Constitution being destroyied?My very bad.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- riseandshine
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:27pm
  Ron had a huge following of young people….Rand might seem a little boring to them…lol.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:43pm
  HIP? Rand paul has less street cred than joe leiberman
  
  Report this comment
- Timesupsoon
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:51pm
  His foreign policy is terrible but so is Obama’s. Romney was the best candidate and RP was second. Take the worst of both of them and you still have a better president than Obama
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:36am
  FYI – the young people already love ron paul. It was the older people and Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh people that hated him….But thats alright – i feel you
  
  Report this comment
- 3monkeysmomma
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:24pm
  I love Rand Paul…but I’m not sure “hip” is a word I’d use for him.
  
  Report this comment
CatB
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:05pm
God bless RAND PAUL … I have been waiting to hear what he had planned all day … GO GET EM RAND .. I support you 100% +

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- right field
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:55pm
  WE need attractive, intelligent, conservative candidates to declare against all the Dem senators that are up for re-election right now. We need to start the campaign(s) right now for all those Senate seats as well as the House where a conservative has a chance to win. Hit them over and over as “unfit for office” and point out every lie every day 24/7. The Senators who are up for re-election will be watching their backs and wondering if they will be defeated with every nut-job anti-Constitution vote they make. Start the campaign right now. Make the cowards defend their positions and start begging for money from their non-taxpaying constituents who are nothing but parasites.
  
  Report this comment
piper60
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:04pm
Good luck on that. With Senator reid protecting Obummer, Rand may find himself at a dead end on this.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
debrarae
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:02pm
Why does Rand Paul have to introduce ‘anything’? Doesn’t the congress have the power to over ride all of those executive orders? They did that before!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- right field
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:19pm
  Deb – The two chambers of Congress include BOTH the House and the Senate. It takes a majority vote from each to override the criminal acts of His Majesty the King – Barrack the Terrible. The party of common sense does not exist in either the House or the Senate. Both parties are full of self-serving elites who see the taxpayers as nothing more than their free lunch. King Barrack the Terrible and his Marxist, Big Government cronies are dismantling the Constitution because it exists to “limit their power” and these charlatans’ just want complete control of every aspect of our lives and now have a majority of useful idiots & the MSM who will give them what they want!
  
  Report this comment
- donkeykong
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:41am
  Deb,
  Appreciate your feelings but unfortunately our
  “elected leaders” have become nothing more
  than spineless, self-centered, “elected-for-life”
  people, caring only how and when they can use
  their offices to line their pockets, and to H$LL
  with “we the people”. To a person, they all
  ‘get along to go along’. Term limits, which will never
  pass, are the only answer. I say vote them ALL
  out, Dems, Reps – ALL OF THEM. Lets start anew.
  
  And how about this – after your rep is voted out or
  the term expires, state tax forms would include
  wording like “your rep just left office, do you think
  he/she deserves: A-80% severance, B-60% severance,
  etc., etc.”, ……this would provide a little incentive
  for those reps to actually represent their people,
  not snub their noses at us.
  
  Report this comment
techengineer11
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:58pm
Will be interesting to see what becomes of this legislation.. Let’s see if all of the so called Constitutional conservatives and perhaps a liberal or two will stand with Dr. Paul in protecting our Constitution.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CatB
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:07pm
  I am going to send an email to MY Senator right now … Marco Rubio (R-FL) and tell him to stand with RAND! It most likely won’t help but I will also send one to Bill Nelson (D-FL) just to tick him off! That covers my Senators .. .. now …..
  
  Someone in the House needs to start IMPEACHMENT.
  
  Report this comment
lawrench
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:58pm
AWESOME! Put the Democrats on record for upholding the Constitution of the United States of America. Show the world how they are not upholding their oath of office.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IndyGuy
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:56pm
Rand Paul 2016…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:59am
  Rand in 2016, and have him appoint Napolitano to SCOTUS.
  
  Report this comment
- riseandshine
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 3:56am
  Elections…we don’t have elections anymore. The next “election” will be a scam like the last one. The powers that be will get their guy in no matter what.
  
  Report this comment
AUsername
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:56pm
Rand Paul is patriot and the best person in power and only guy worth a vote for president who has the possibility of running. This guy continually fights for liberty when he can.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:43am
  rand paul is a paulbot. the republicans will play coy with him but they will do something nasty to him in the primary, just you watch
  
  Report this comment
- AUsername
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:16am
  than lets do nasty things to them and their candidate.
  
  Report this comment
spfoam1
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:55pm
It’s good to see that not everyone in Congress is going to kowtow to king Obama.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sooner12
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:54pm
Rand Paul for President in 2016

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
pohknee
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:54pm
I applaud Rand Paul for the proposed action but I think he is correct that the support by the democrats in the Senate would probably shoot it down. A better channel in my opinion is to pursure the fact that Odumbo is not eligible for office. A vetting that is long overdue. Removal from office with prosecution for forgery and other offenses is the best solution. That would put Joe Dumbo in office and he could probably be declared mentally ill with little or no effort.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:59am
  The fact that they have been able to hide his school records for so long shows that there are big powers behind this man. And, apparently, Deep Throats do not survive within the Far Left.
  
  Report this comment
gyro
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:53pm
The fight for the next election begins
kick ass Sen. Rand Paul
:)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
infidelsaplenty
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:51pm
Hey, good for him! ‘Bout time!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.