Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Business

‘It’s Really Not That Easy To Talk That Long’: Sen. Rand Paul’s First Interview Since Ending Nearly 13-Hr. Filibuster

Mar. 7, 2013 10:53am

Sen. Rand Paul in his first interview since his nearly 13 hour filibuster ended Thursday morning told radio host Glenn Beck that he will not vote for CIA nominee John Brennan unless the White House offers clarification on its secretive drone program.

“I won’t vote for him on any of the votes if I don’t get information from the White House saying they’re going to adhere to the Constitution,” he said.

He reiterated that he’s not against the Obama administration and he’s not against drones. Rather, he simply wants to know what authority the White House believes it has in using drones on U.S. citizens.

“I try to make it less about President Obama and [more about] what if someday we elect someone who would abuse this power,” he said, adding they are legitimate tools of war. “I want to kill terrorists … and I think if you’re in a battlefield fighting us, you don’t get due process.”

“I’m concerned about people who are sitting and eating in a diner and you might think they’re associated with terrorism because they sent an email to someone,” he said, “but that really needs to be adjudicated in the courts.”

He also noted that drone strikes may not be the most efficient way of fighting America’s enemies: “Would get more information from interrogating than killing someone.”

Beck and crew then directed Sen. Paul’s attention to those who’ve criticized his efforts, namely, a Wall Street Journal editorial that argues that the idea of the White House using drone strikes on U.S. citizens is “ridiculous.”

“I agree it’s a ridiculous idea,” the Kentucky senator responded, “but then why then won’t the president say, ‘I won’t do this’?”

“It’s been like pulling teeth to get him to say that he’ll support the Constitution,” he added, referring to John Brennan.

And although there has been some criticism of Sen. Paul, there has also been an outpouring of support from some very unlikely corners (i.e. Van Jones and Code Pink).

“We may not all be on all the same page on drone strikes here, there, hither and yon” but many support not using drones against “people not engaged in combat in America,” he said.

And, of course, he mentioned the physical endurance the filibuster required.

“I thought about you about four hours in,” he told Beck. “I thought, ‘Gosh, Glenn Beck can sit for four or five hours each day!’ But it’s really not that easy to talk that long.”

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image photo screen grab. This post has been updated. A lot.

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.

Comments (123)

1 2 3
  • ArmedAndReallyPissed
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:59am

    I’ve never seen or heard a Politician i trust or like but given the choice between Rand Paul and Communism, the choice is easy for me. To any of you bad mouthing Rand i say, What the “F” are YOU doing for AmeriKa ?

    Report this comment

    ArmedAndReallyPissed  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:58pm

      Hi CivilWarCometh,

      Check your e-mail for this account.

      Report this comment

      The-Monk  
    • gyro
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:21pm

      wow

      Report this comment

      gyro  
    • GoodStuff
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:43pm

      @Armed

      “To any of you bad mouthing Rand i say, What the “F” are YOU doing for AmeriKa ?”

      Was this written by a 12-year-old?

      Well as far as doing something for America, if I was a Senator, I sure as hell wouldn’t vote to confirm Kerry, Hagel and Lew, that’s a starter.

      Report this comment

      GoodStuff  
    • desertspeaks
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 3:47pm

      either mccain has Alzheimers or needs to be drug tested but something is definitely wrong with that man!!

      Report this comment

      desertspeaks  
    • RedHarley
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:27pm

      I am not a Facebook person, but I found the GOP Facebook page.
      You want to know what the REAL problem is ?
      Go to https://www.facebook.com/GOP

      Do a search for the word “Paul”.

      Zip, Zero, Zilch, Nada

      Let them know how you feel. Not one more dime.

      Report this comment

      RedHarley  
    • wordsofwisdom
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:51pm

      If a group of people decided to resist the coming take over will they be considered to be attacking the country?
      The show you just witnessed was just that a show to get your attention so they could get the new CIA Muslim convert through the Senet. The two RINO’s then come out of their meeting with Obama swinging for him not you! This whole thing was a setup that I assume most of you swallowed hook line & sinker! Really a sad state of affairs.
      Maybe this song can explain it to you better “What’s Wrong With This Song” http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_9134749
      We’re toast if you don’t wake up!

      Report this comment

      wordsofwisdom  
    • haplyss
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 9:10pm

      I have always believed in Rand Paul. But a few days ago I heard Rand Paul tell Glenn Beck on the radio that even though he disagrees in John Brennan, he’ll vote yes for him. I couldn’t believe my ears, and this left me really confused.

      Report this comment

      haplyss  
  • ambrosia
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:50am

    Oblameo’s gotta’ run it by his buds, “Jay-Z & Bey”
    before he gets back to Rand.

    This president is a DUD, a DOOFUS & a DANGER-
    his silence is deafening…
    which on the balance is a whole lot sweeter to the ear
    than his incessant, lying line of crapperoni.

    The oddly amusing, incredibly smart, sweet, patriotic kid from Kentucky
    kicks the Bully King’s azz !
    America is on their feet clapping !

    Report this comment

    ambrosia  
    • Mil Mom
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 10:43pm

      @soybomb315_II
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:58am

      mike lee and ted cruz are indistinguishable from rand paul…
      ***
      And wow, what a brick wall to keep them from destroying the Constitution. Right now it’s education, did you hear what they were telling the world, and reading the evidence aloud. The twitter feeds Cruz was reading were from all over the world!

      Report this comment

      Mil Mom  
    • rzraick
      Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:17am

      I like what you say. Not enough are clapping. But if by America, you mean those non zombies who still have a working brain, then you are correct.

      Report this comment

      rzraick  
  • hawkguy
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:47am

    Well I sit through another interview with Rand and it is going real good. But when it comes time to show the stones necessary a Commander in Chief needs to be decisive and lead. Rand drops the ball. What is worse. You can see what is going on with Glenn and the guys. Pat and Stu start rolling their eyes because like me they wonder if Rand really did the Filibuster as an Act of Valor, or was it a publicity stunt? At least Glenn called him on the rug for this indecision. But the plain fact is we are wasting too much time on a guy who wants to be a little bit pregnant when it comes to commitment to honor, and not enough on guys that exemplify it. Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz.

    Report this comment

    hawkguy  
    • ArmedAndReallyPissed
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:53am

      Rand Paul OR Communism…………..I’ll take Paul.

      Report this comment

      ArmedAndReallyPissed  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:58am

      mike lee and ted cruz are indistinguishable from rand paul….

      Report this comment

      soybomb315_II  
    • ArmedAndReallyPissed
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:27pm

      I’m so happy you can tell the difference. Goody for you.

      Report this comment

      ArmedAndReallyPissed  
    • ArmedAndReallyPissed
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:29pm

      My comment is directly concerning Rand Paul and Obozo, not anyone else. Got it ?

      Report this comment

      ArmedAndReallyPissed  
    • DLV
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:56pm

      Someone correct me if I’m wrong if the government were to use a drone strike on some suspected terrorist in a diner that would kill everyone inside right? I mean they drop missiles right so that would destroy the building as well as the target. Where am I off?

      Report this comment

      DLV  
    • dogday
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:32pm

      @DLV–you’re off in that the suspected terrorist sitting in a cafe is on American soil! The situation Paul wanted clarified is this: if there is a great deal of evidence that an American is conspiring to commit a terrorist act, can he be shot on American soil by a drone without due process? The answer finally came back today from Holder and the answer is NO. However, if the person was actively involved in an act of war–such as commandeering flight 93 to plow into Washington D.C., then, Paul agrees, it would be appropriate to shoot the plane down including the innocents on board to avoid a bigger catastrophe. An act of war is different than suspecting someone may be involved in conspiring against the United States. It took Paul almost 12 hours to get a straight answer from Holder, but he did it. Amen.

      Report this comment

      dogday  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:52pm

      UH, DUH. Every President has the right to have the people he chooses to be in his cabinet and unless we can prove that they are 1. Certifiably insane (I personally think they are nuts for being a liberal) 2. Proven Criminals 3. Proven Communists/Socialists/Marxist or Muslim Brotherhood thug

      RAND’S POINT is this: There is no way in hell we need to give that Dope in the WH the additional POWER to KILL AMERICANS in AMERICA without due course. R U KIDDING ME? IS there anyone on this board who thinks that ANY PRESIDENT should be given the right to name (without proof) names who then get killed….. how old are you??? 10???? Does the word DICTATOR, HITLER, STALIN mean anything to you? THE ANSWER IS NO. Period.
      RAND PAUL is a mighty AMERICAN, a PATRIOT, A Constitutional Supporter and I STAND WITH RAND. I don’t care if he votes for Mickey Mouse that Obama picks. I care that he saves his bullets
      for Important issues like Protecting our Constitution.

      SOME OF YOU DOPES are as bull-headed as the code pink/sob sister Liberals. Let him through and let the CIA take care of him. Brennan is a Muslim sympathizer/apologist but if not Brennan, it will be just another of Obama’s thugs. The point is – is to get OBAMA out, to use 2014 to get Patriots in. YOU DOPES want to fight every insult, every fight but you need to WIN the war.
      STOP with your ‘tests’. GO for CHARACTER !! PAUL/CRUZ/LEE/RUBIO
      ask McCain to retire.

      Report this comment

      PATTY HENRY  
    • AlbertMaslar
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:01pm

      Much ado about nothing. Rand Paul is nowhere near his father Ron Paul, but only a cheap knockoff who does all the bluster he can muster, along with requests for campaign contributions, but the net result is more of the same; RINO talk without the walk. Less talk and more action and stick-to-into-idness to conservative principles is the abused order of the day.

      Report this comment

      AlbertMaslar  
    • rzraick
      Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:39am

      Well Hawkguy, you live up to your screen name. But a gung ho be strong enough to kill indescriminately without considering the applicable law is too extreme. Rand Paul stated quite clearly that in a battlefield or war zone, the enemy should be killed without question or hesitation. Sounds good to me. So what exactly are you basing your comment on, I would like to know?

      Report this comment

      rzraick  
  • mapgirl10
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:45am

    It seems that questioning our elected officials is a problem for some people. This is what they are suppose to do in our defense. I am so proud of our Tea Party Elected Officials for standing up for us and their principles. My hat is off to Sen Rand Paul, Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Barrasso, Sen Mike Lee, Sen Pat Toomey, and other Senators that stood up for the Constitution, Bill of Rights and We the People.

    Report this comment

    mapgirl10  
  • jackact
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:45am

    “Not that easy to talk that long….”
    Not true.
    Just ask Chuck Shumer & Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
    :(

    Report this comment

    jackact  
  • TheseTruths
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:37am

    People are missing the point. It’s not about forcing O to change; it’s about calling national attention to what O is doing, to the threats to our freedom and constitutional way of life, and to the failure of 99.9% of those in Congress and the media to address O and his administration’s failures on issues of civil liberties (as well as his failures on so many other issues). It was a brilliant move by Paul that also revealed who stands for the rights of the people (true conservatives, including those labeled “Tea Party,” and a few on the Left) and who doesn’t (RINO Republicans and most of the Left). Paul has people talking about these issues. Maybe a few more people will wake up. We need a lot more of this kind of thing to break the stranglehold the Left has on the way info is presented to the public.

    Report this comment

    TheseTruths  
    • daisy1955
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:00pm

      Excellent post, TheseTruths! I’m pretty sure most of us here actually did get the point and you are correct, it was a brilliant move on Sen. Rands part. He exposed Obama and his cronies for what they are and it was a monumental SCORE for the good guys.

      I’m still giggling about it this morning…

      Report this comment

      daisy1955  
    • red_white_blue2
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:22pm

      I think if we had even two others do this in congress, and then took it on a tour and could get on just enough platforms media wise to present it further that a true rally would start.

      Report this comment

      red_white_blue2  
    • rzraick
      Posted on March 8, 2013 at 1:58am

      Correct. Some have criticized Rand Paul saying that he was not his father. I am still a Ron Paul supporter, but look at how he was treated by the Republicans in the last election. Rand may seem like a small chip off a larger block, but he is playing honest and smart. He accomplished his goal without being destroyed in the process. Let him fight each battle as well as this and see where it will lead. Not only did he stand up to the powers, but forced them to SAY that they support the Constitution. That is a big step forward and opens the awareness of many more Americans to understand the Issues.

      The next time the Tyrants step all over their sworn oathe, getting them to back down will be just a little easier. Awareness grows, and for once it is tyranny being chipped away, instead of Liberty. How could anyone think this was not a significant act and a move in the right direction?

      Report this comment

      rzraick  
  • soybomb315_II
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:37am

    It is very hard to talk for hours without 10 minute commercial breaks

    Report this comment

    soybomb315_II  
    • Smokey_Bojangles
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:28pm

      Next time he should get some Depends Undergarments. I was so disappointed to see that my crappy senator (Who was just YESTERDAY complaining about White House Tours being canceled and Obama’s $96,700 per year calligrapher) was attending a $1776 a plate dinner with Obama about Compromising the second amendment and on the budget(Raise Taxes.)
      If no libertarian runs against him, I WILL vote for the commiecrat. Just out of friggin’ spite.

      Report this comment

      Smokey_Bojangles  
  • napari
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:30am

    Watch what they do, not say!
    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=218442
    Were doomed. If you just do the math on this short presentation there is no other outcome possible.

    Report this comment

    napari  
  • KickinBack
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:26am

    Your silence screams volumes Obama. Still waiting for an answer.

    Report this comment

    KickinBack  
  • sinner-saint
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:21am

    If Obama says he’ll adhere to the Constitution then renigs, the he is certainly guilty of inserrection and starting a war with the U.S. People. The People then have a right to go after him as treasonous, murderous, traitor/tyrant/terrorist.

    Report this comment

    sinner-saint  
    • RabbiDRJerkins
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:34am

      Shalom,
      Mr. Obama has already done both. The first when he took his oath of office. The second on numerous occasions such as his executive order giving Interpol police authority in the US without their need to comply with our laws.

      Report this comment

      RabbiDRJerkins  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:55am

      yes but lets apply that standard to republicans as well

      Report this comment

      soybomb315_II  
  • woodyee
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:19am

    “Rather, he simply wants to know what authority the White House believes it has in using them against U.S. citizens.”

    Methinks the Congressman ought to read The Constitution, and consult someone ‘like’ Justice Scalia or another Constitutional conservative to render an opinion, rather than depend on the White House to tell him what their job is.

    It’s like saying – “YOU tell me what the rules are, and then I’ll vote.”

    Report this comment

    woodyee  
    • taxpro4u03
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:00pm

      Don’t have the text in front of me — but I recollect the NDAA passed virtually unanimously, and was signed into ‘law’ New Years Eve, 2011 – (as was the Patriot Act, and its renewal, both now apparently in perpetuity) contained some language specifying that Postal Zones in the U.S. and her territories and possessions are now construed to be part of the battlefield…. Link that with 12 USC 95(b) as amended (READ it if you’re not familiar with the term enemy, etc) Link this ALSO with the unrest in SYRIA (rattling sabers in N Korea and Iran) — whereby both Russia and China have stated that if the US pulls an Iraq, they’ll respond – Pearl Harbor notwithstanding, the last ‘foreign’ invasion on US soil was what, the War of 1812?? Link that also with Fast and Furious, Benghazi (hardware to Turkey then to Syria) – along with Kerry’s ‘gift’ the other day to Egypt — This isn’t about ‘democracy,’ its about the dollar (petrodollar) remaining the world’s reserve currency, me thinks — the ruse is ‘holy war…’ The USA was bankrupt in 1930…. Review the ‘new deal’ and the 4-term ‘savior’ FDR — OIL is the new ‘gold standard’ and has been since Nixon cut a deal with Saudi Arabia to ‘protect’ them… Wait — WHAT? Weren’t 19 ‘alleged hijackers…..’ oh — never mind….

      Report this comment

      taxpro4u03  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 12:00pm

      yes, that is why we need someone even more “extreme” than rand paul….Rand paul basically believes the president can use american assassination if the situation warrants it. I would rather have the Ron Paul position, which is no assassination at all

      Report this comment

      soybomb315_II  
  • justangry
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:18am

    Why does the NYT think DHS is militarizing so much if something isn’t wrong? Why does Janet need billions of rounds of hollow points and 2700 light armored tanks? For god sakes they’re sending what we used to call swat teams in to keep people from selling raw milk. Furthermore, WTF are they doing to get to the bottom of this? ….asking the administration? Screw the Bolsheviks at the times.

    Report this comment

    justangry  
    • Vilgax
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 2:29pm

      The operative word here is Bolsheviks. And yes, history will repeat itself…even if we do study the real history. People don’t change and old ideas recycle into new threats.

      Report this comment

      Vilgax  
    • peaceangel
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 8:32pm

      IT IS SAD TO SEE THAT ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON A SITE LIKE THIS HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT IS GOING ON IN DC.
      The Communist agenda is AGENDA 21 & was brought to AMERICA from the UN meeting in 1992 by BUSH SR. and made law by CLINTON by executive order the same year. The Communist agenda is BI-PARTISAN. THE NDAA ACT of 2011 has already overturned the CONSTITUTION and both parties were all in. In the NDAA act it clearly allows for AMERICAN citizens to be locked up without a phone call, a right to trial or an attorney. There are 400 seriously innocent ways the POTUS can determine you a “terrorist.” For growing anything to sell without using the poisonous GMO seeds and the videos are all over you tube showing lots of fruit and vege stands being raided by SWAT teams for non-compliance. There is an 85 year old man in jail in UTAH for collecting rainwater in a barrel for his wife’s ****. A man is in jail in Phoenix for having prayer meetings in his home and facing a $60,000 fine. ALL or WAR VETS are labeled as “terrorists” dating back to Nam and all are labeled as being “mentally unstable” and as “enemies of the state.”
      For at least 130 years the Bilderburg group and families have chosen our POTUS and we are NOT electing any of them and for those fools on here who think this is only a LIBERAL agenda they need to get off of this site and go to INFOWARS and the economic collapse blog and watch ALL the episodes of Conspiracy Theory now.
      WAKE-UP SHEEPLE—THE CONSTITUTION IS

      Report this comment

      peaceangel  
  • conservative karl
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:16am

    Aasy?

    Report this comment

    conservative karl  
  • napari
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:16am

    The POTUS has never uttered one word about NOT continuing with the fundamental transformation of the USA. Why would the POTUS stand with the constitution when the constitution stands in the way of his objectives?

    Report this comment

    napari  
  • raydav
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:14am

    Rand Paul said: “I won’t vote for him on any of the votes if I don’t get information from the White House saying they’re going to adhere to the Constitution.”

    What does Paul want, a “cross my heart and hope to die” type promise? Obama has condemned the Constitution and has had no qualms about ignoring it. He will promise anything to whatever audience he has at the moment.

    Sukarno of Indonesia was quoted as saying “truth is for children.” Another of Obama’s heroes?

    Report this comment

    raydav  
    • daisy1955
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:37am

      “He will promise anything to whatever audience he has at the moment.”

      Apparently, not this time. Barry Soetoro is such a narcissistic tyrant that he refused to do the one, simple thing that would have ended the filibuster. His overinflated pride wouldn’t allow him to say he would uphold the Constitution, because the man despises the Constitution and everything else we Americans stand for.

      Way to go, Senator Rand – you have my utmost respect for standing up to the dictator and showing us what a petty little man he is!

      Report this comment

      daisy1955  
  • Steelhead
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:09am

    in what respect Rand? or will it be some more hypothetical situations to ponder

    Report this comment

    Steelhead  
  • encinom
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:09am

    Holder’s letter siad they would. the problem is Sen. Paul’s tin foil hat is on too tight. The President didn’t say he would never nuke Dallas, should the President issue such a statement also?

    Report this comment

    encinom  
    • huey6367
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:21am

      What they are trying to find out is would the President authorize the use of force on American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment? Don’t split hairs be it a drone strike or nuclear bomb. It is as simple as that. But liberals are easily confused.

      Report this comment

      huey6367  
    • THX-1138
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:26am

      Knowing B. Hussein, yeah, he should…

      Report this comment

      THX-1138  
    • THX-1138
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:27am

      Obama’s delusions are a result of his drug use in college (see what I did there?)

      Report this comment

      THX-1138  
    • huey6367
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:27am

      @ steelhead

      Can’t win with logic so throw mud. How Alinsky of you.

      Report this comment

      huey6367  
    • barber2
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:45am

      STEEL: You are a typical Harry Reid ( ” I heard from a guy ” baloney smear from the Senate floor ) Alinsky- trained Lefty : all about smears and about character assassinations. Lowest form of political animal. Americans do not like bullies. You guys are so un-American you don ‘ t even know that !

      Report this comment

      barber2  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:53am

      Damn STEELY, by your assertion that would make 0bama one effed up dude!

      Report this comment

      RJJinGadsden  
  • funwithguitars
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:08am

    I stand with rand!!!

    Report this comment

    funwithguitars  
    • GoodStuff
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 1:44pm

      You stand with Hagel!!!! Congrats.

      Rand is a fraud.

      Report this comment

      GoodStuff  
    • ASonOfLiberty1776
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 4:36pm

      …..and more bullcrap from Foolstuff. Glad to clear up that he/she/it stands with Graham and McCain over real constitutionalists like Rand.
      Newsflash, Foolstuff: Holding out on guys like Hagel, Lew, and Kerry only means that
      1) They get passed through anyway, or
      2) Someone worse gets nominated in their stead. That’s it. THAT’S IT.
      First off, there was precious little actually wrong with Hagel (who gives a crap what he thinks about Israel? Seriously? He’s our SoD, not theirs), and the list of nominees would have gotten worse after Kerry and Lew. So take your brain f–ts somewhere else, mkay? Suggestion: Only criticize Rand if you actually have something to criticize him about…..

      Report this comment

      ASonOfLiberty1776  
  • gigalynx
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:07am

    Why bother even asking, the only law King Barry follows is Sharia…
    ” I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”
    Barack Hussien Obama – Audacity Of Hope

    Report this comment

    gigalynx  
  • ginger100
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:06am

    Hell no. I hope I get share a room with Rand Paul.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FfkZ1yri26s

    Report this comment

    ginger100  
  • RabbiDRJerkins
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:06am

    Shalom,
    The White House (and Senate, and Supreme Court, and House of Representatives…) does not adhere to the Constitution now, and has not for several generations.

    What makes Mr. Paul think that would change now?

    Report this comment

    RabbiDRJerkins  
  • ARIZONA VETERAN
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:05am

    DEAR LEADER at 1600 Pennsylvania ave, will be the one who decides who will be CIA director, NOT SOME OLD, OUTDATED CONSTITUTION voting requirement !!! //sarc

    Report this comment

    ARIZONA VETERAN  
    • barber2
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:41am

      ARIZ: Yes. He is big on ” changing America ,” and combine that with all of this ” Forward ” Leftist rhetoric which is borrowed from Lenin himself ! Bottom line : I do not trust a guy who thinks America needs to be changed and who borrows slogan from Lenin !

      Report this comment

      barber2  
  • dublinthewagons
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:04am

    What difference does promise make to Obama? He word evolves too much.
    When on the witness stand. What part of a perjurer do you belive.? NONE

    Report this comment

    dublinthewagons  
  • IndyGuy
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:03am

    “I won’t vote for him on any of the votes if I don’t get information from the White House saying they’re going to adhere to the Constitution,”

    Headline should read…”Rand Paul threatens to hold his breath”…

    Report this comment

    IndyGuy  
    • woodyee
      Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:15am

      You know, you might have something there. The treacherous John McPain has a penchant for wanting to ‘reach across the aisle’ even to our detriment; Rand Paul seems to have a penchant for wanting ‘information’ first, and whether forthcoming or not, then rendering a positive vote on trogs like Hagel.

      Report this comment

      woodyee  
  • geminicontender
    Posted on March 7, 2013 at 11:01am

    God Bless this man…..finally someone who can see the light…

    Report this comment

    geminicontender  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love