Rand Paul reverses position, supports drone killings of American citizens on American soil

Yeah, that is a hell of a title, isn’t it? But it’s apparently true. Rand Paul, fresh off standing ovations at CPAC where they were busting a gut with pride over his brave, brave anti-drone stance, has entirely reversed his position:

Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under “extraordinary circumstances.” The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to “use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat.”

Remember that? Conservatives do, they practically had the guy bronzed and mounted on top of the Capitol rotunda they were so proud of him. “Stand with Rand” signs and stickers were everywhere, during CPAC. Defending Americans from being targeted in the streets by Obama-ordered drones was his claim to conservative fame. He won the CPAC Straw Poll. He used it as a major fundraising point.

You know what’s coming next, right? Paul now says that his only issue with using drones to kill American citizens on American soil is whether there’s an “imminent threat.” And if there is, screw it, Paul does think we should be using drones to kill American citizens on American soil.

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $ 50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Holy moly. So it’s not okay for drones to be flying over your hot tub, but if someone just robbed a liquor store somewhere in America and made off with 50 whole dollars, screw it—blow the crap out of him with an unmanned drone.

That’s not even an “imminent threat” kind of case, mind you; if someone just left a liquor store, the “threat” is now over. And note that he just muses on seeing someone come out of a liquor store with “a weapon and $ 50,” which is a hell of a low threshold for launching an aerial assault over an American city. Maybe the guy was just standing his ground, right? Aren’t True Patriotssupposed to be toting guns everywhere they go? Didn’t we just have yet another effing filibuster about that?

So in the span of a little over a month, Rand Paul has gone from being so outraged over the mere possibility of using drones to kill American citizens on American soil that he’s willing to launch an old-school filibuster to a new position far more extreme than anyone else discussing the topic, an assertion that drones can be used to kill American citizens on American soil if you catch them in the act of a suspected crime. You just can’t use the drones to look for the crime, though. I don’t know what Constitution Rand Paul has been reading, but I’m fairly certain he’s been licking toads while reading it.

Of course, what this really means is that Rand Paul’s entire famous filibuster was, in the end, bullshit. It was a lie. He didn’t filibuster because he was outraged that the Obama administration might send unmanned drones to target and kill American citizens, he just outrightendorsed that practice. So why did he filibuster? As a mere political gimmick, a fundraising tool, a chance to bluster about “freedom” to the base on an issue that neither he nor that base really had shred one of concern about to begin with? How many in that base are now feeling suckered, right now, with their “Stand with Rand” stickers and their idol’s supposedly deep-held belief in not sending drones out to kill random Americans who a government agent has determined probably deserved it?

And now we have to ask the question—so, Rand Paul, now it’s your turn to explain to the American public. When should unmanned drones be used to kill American citizens on American soil? We be using that aerial firepower to respond to liquor store holdups, now? Not just terrorism, but any crime? No trials, no worries about collateral damage, just blast the guys?

That is a hell of a change in position, and a roundly terrifying one at that. What do you really believe, Rand Paul?

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

---

Contributed by Hunter of Daily Kos.

The Daily Sheeple

Rand Paul reverses position, supports drone killings of American citizens on American soil

Rand Paul reverses position, supports drone killings of American citizens on American soil

Yeah, that is a hell of a title, isn’t it? But it’s apparently true. Rand Paul, fresh off standing ovations at CPAC where they were busting a gut with pride over his brave, brave anti-drone stance, has entirely reversed his position:

Last month, Paul conducted a nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor after the Obama Administration said in a letter that it was theoretically possible for President Obama to authorize a lethal drone strike on an American citizen under “extraordinary circumstances.” The administration subsequently clarified that they did not believe the president had the authority to “use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat.”

Remember that? Conservatives do, they practically had the guy bronzed and mounted on top of the Capitol rotunda they were so proud of him. “Stand with Rand” signs and stickers were everywhere, during CPAC. Defending Americans from being targeted in the streets by Obama-ordered drones was his claim to conservative fame. He won the CPAC Straw Poll. He used it as a major fundraising point.

You know what’s coming next, right? Paul now says that his only issue with using drones to kill American citizens on American soil is whether there’s an “imminent threat.” And if there is, screw it, Paul does think we should be using drones to kill American citizens on American soil.

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $ 50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Holy moly. So it’s not okay for drones to be flying over your hot tub, but if someone just robbed a liquor store somewhere in America and made off with 50 whole dollars, screw it—blow the crap out of him with an unmanned drone.

That’s not even an “imminent threat” kind of case, mind you; if someone just left a liquor store, the “threat” is now over. And note that he just muses on seeing someone come out of a liquor store with “a weapon and $ 50,” which is a hell of a low threshold for launching an aerial assault over an American city. Maybe the guy was just standing his ground, right? Aren’t True Patriotssupposed to be toting guns everywhere they go? Didn’t we just have yet another effing filibuster about that?

So in the span of a little over a month, Rand Paul has gone from being so outraged over the mere possibility of using drones to kill American citizens on American soil that he’s willing to launch an old-school filibuster to a new position far more extreme than anyone else discussing the topic, an assertion that drones can be used to kill American citizens on American soil if you catch them in the act of a suspected crime. You just can’t use the drones to look for the crime, though. I don’t know what Constitution Rand Paul has been reading, but I’m fairly certain he’s been licking toads while reading it.

Of course, what this really means is that Rand Paul’s entire famous filibuster was, in the end, bullshit. It was a lie. He didn’t filibuster because he was outraged that the Obama administration might send unmanned drones to target and kill American citizens, he just outrightendorsed that practice. So why did he filibuster? As a mere political gimmick, a fundraising tool, a chance to bluster about “freedom” to the base on an issue that neither he nor that base really had shred one of concern about to begin with? How many in that base are now feeling suckered, right now, with their “Stand with Rand” stickers and their idol’s supposedly deep-held belief in not sending drones out to kill random Americans who a government agent has determined probably deserved it?

And now we have to ask the question—so, Rand Paul, now it’s your turn to explain to the American public. When should unmanned drones be used to kill American citizens on American soil? We be using that aerial firepower to respond to liquor store holdups, now? Not just terrorism, but any crime? No trials, no worries about collateral damage, just blast the guys?

That is a hell of a change in position, and a roundly terrifying one at that. What do you really believe, Rand Paul?

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

---

Contributed by Hunter of Daily Kos.

The Daily Sheeple

Rand Paul reverses position, supports drone killings of American citizens on American soil

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Ron Paul Ends Active Campaigning, Focuses on Delegate Strategy - RT News - 5/14/12

Tweet

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Tweet

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded. 

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR. 

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was. 

Politics | Mother Jones

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Tweet

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded. 

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR. 

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was. 

Politics | Mother Jones

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Tweet

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded. 

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR. 

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was. 

Politics | Mother Jones

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Tweet

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded. 

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR. 

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was. 

Politics | Mother Jones

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act

Tweet

Following an awkward, earnest speech to an audience at Howard University, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) insisted several times that he did not oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

“I’ve never been against the Civil Rights Act, ever,” Paul told a questioner, following what was the first speech by a Republican legislator at the historically black university in decades. “This was on tape,” the questioner responded. 

That’s true. It is on tape. Here it is:

In 2010, during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal flagged by ThinkProgress, Paul made it very clear that he opposed a key part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination on the basis of race in “places of public accommodation,” such as privately owned businesses that are open to the public. Here’s the transcript:

PAUL: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.

INTERVIEWER: But?

PAUL: You had to ask me the “but.” I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.

If federal civil rights laws only outlawed segregation in “anything that gets any public funding,” the state would still be called upon to enforce racism by enforcing the property rights of business owners who did not want to serve people on the basis of skin color (or religion, or national origin). Only by extending the ban on discrimination to all places of public accommodation, including privately owned businesses, could freedom against discrimination actually be upheld. Paul elaborated later in the interview when he said that he “became emotional” reading the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.

INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we’re here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I’m sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things. It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we’re civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don’t belong to those groups, or don’t associate with those people.

Paul expressed similar sentiments in interviews with MSNBC and NPR. 

So Paul made it quite clear in 2010 that he didn’t believe in federal law banning discrimination in privately owned businesses that are open to the public. At Howard, Paul seemed to be saying he never opposed the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, but he certainly opposed a key part of it that completely reshaped American society. Supporting the right of white business owners not to serve blacks may be the “hard part of freedom” for someone, but not for anyone who looks like Rand Paul.

Paul got a warm reception from the Howard audience for some of his positions on foreign policy and the war on drugs. But in what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was. 

Politics | Mother Jones

At Howard University, Rand Paul Falsely Claims He Never Opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Tweet

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Tweet

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Tweet

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

Tweet

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

Tweet

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

Tweet

Rand Paul: We Will Filibuster Any Gun Control Bills - Hannity 3/28/2013

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat

Tweet

TeaBagging: Marco Rubio Joins Rand Paul in Gun Legislation Filibuster Threat