March 7, 2013, - 5:08 pm

Rand Paul’s Phony Grandstanding Echoes HAMAS CAIR/Iran on Drones; Hands Off Nidal Malik Hasan, Jose Padilla & Adam Gadahn?

By Debbie Schlussel

This morning, open Jew-hater and agent of Iran and Hezbollah, Imam Hassan Qazwini–leader of the largest mosque in North America (bought and paid for by Iran)–criticized the Obama drone policy against American terrorists on the Detroit radio show of pan-Arabist, HAMAS CAIR-lover Frank Beckmann. That’s because he knows it will be used against the Adam Gadahn Al-Amrikis, Nidal Malik Hasans, John Walker Lindhs, Anwar Awlakis, and Jose Padilla a/k/a Abdullah Al-Muhajirs of this world. And Rand Paul–and now most of the gushing group unthinkers of the right–agree with this known agent of the government of Iran.

If You’re With Him on Drones, You’re With Them, Too . . .


Rand Paul & HAMAS CAIR


Imam Hassan Qazwini (right) Hangs w/ His Buddy Hezbollah Spiritual Leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (left)

If you whine that an America citizen shouldn’t be killed by a drone without a trial–as many of the so-called “conservatives” who are criticizing Obama over this–then I suppose you sided with the ACLU and the terrorists’ lawyers who said that Jose Padilla a/k/a Abdullah Al-Muhajir should not be held in Gitmo or tried in a military tribunal, merely because he was born here. So where were all these “conservatives” then? But they are all lockstep Paulistinians (and unwitting allies of Palestinians) now. And here’s an FYI: Rand Paul’s speeches on the floor of the Senate last night about drones against American citizens echo the op-eds by open Jew-hater, convicted criminal, and extremist HAMAS CAIR Michigan chief Delano Anthony Willis, Jr. a/k/a Dawud Walid.

I’ve always said that the members of the lumpenconservatariat are as plentiful, ignorant, gullible, and easily fooled as their left-wing counterparts. There are ObamaPhone users and Rand Paulbots. Same diff. And their non-stop gushing and beatification of Rand Paul for his filibuster over the Obama drone policy (which was NOT different than the Bush drone policy) is Exhibit A of that. No one has been more critical of the Obama administration than I have or the fact that it wants to take away civil liberties. But using drones against Islamic terrorists who happen to have been born in America is not a policy that anyone with any common sense and/or concern for national security should be droning on about.

It’s no coincidence that the “conservative” position against drone use against American terrorists is not just Rand Paul’s and Sean Hannity’s and Rush Limbaugh’s position. It’s HAMAS CAIR’s position and that of Iran. Imam Qazwini does Iran’s and Hezbollah’s bidding. And, now, so are Rand Paul and his legions of blind, idiotic gushing fans on the right. And like HAMAS CAIR and Qazwini they oppose drone strikes on U.S. citizens like Awlaki abroad, as they were all over the airwaves two weeks ago on that (with Vannity proudly proclaiming, “I’m with the ACLU on this!”).

Rand Paul is a phony and a grandstander who fantasizes that he’ll be President (something that will, thankfully, never happen to America). He achieved nothing with his filibuster, other than to provide aid and comfort to the ACLU and Islamic terrorists who take advantage of birthright citizenship to try to kill us. In the end, John Brennan was confirmed as CIA Director despite the Paulistinian all-nighter filibuster. And don’t forget that this phony, Rand Paul, also voted for Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense after a waste of time, phony “block” on his nomination, which achieved nothing because, as with this, Rand Paul wasn’t actually serious about stopping anything. His filibuster was as sincere and genuine as Hezbollah fan Jihad Darrell a/k/a Darrell Issa’s phony grandstanding on Fast and Furious which did what exactly?

While I do believe that Rand Paul is a like-father-like-son loon when it comes to having multiple orgasms over scorched earth libertarianism, what’s the excuse for the so-called conservatives who all embraced this crazy like a fox Senator from Kentucky? They’re simply partisans with zero principles.

If conservatives were so principled about American due process and a trial before execution by drones, where were they on a trial before a jury on American soil, when the Bush Administration was seeking a military tribunal on Gitmo for Padilla/Al-Muhajir who was trying to obtain a dirty bomb to murder countless Americans? And why were all these conservatives on the opposite side of the same issue when they were rightfully opposed to Obama shutting down Gitmo and trying hardened Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil in our federal courts? Was it really the distinction without a difference of where the Islamic terrorists were born that concerned conservatives, rather than that these are men bent on our mass destruction? If it was the former, then they should have shouted ad nauseam about the rights of the American Taliban Johnny Walker Lindh and the rights of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both of whom were executed by Obama drones without a trial by Obama. Perhaps we should have let the Awlakis live to breed and mentor more Undie-Bombers, Fort Hood Shooters, and 9/11 hijackers (Awlaki helped the 9/11 guys).

And what about Nidal Malik Hasan? He’s a U.S. citizen. If a drone could have wasted him before he killed 13 Americans, would Rand Paul oppose it? Yup. Would conservatives be gushing over him then? Well, many of them have been rightfully screaming and shouting about the rights afforded to this terrorists scumbag and the fact that he’s yet to be tried. They’re simply hypocrites and frauds to side with this libertarian madman and HAMAS CAIR and Imam Qazwini on this absurdity.

Remember, if you support Rand Paul and oppose the Obama administration on drones, then you also oppose the Bush administration policy, which was exactly the same.

So, where were you during the multiple years of Bush policy on Americans at Gitmo without a trial and Bush use of drones?

Suddenly the shrill, phony partisan whines are crickets chirping.


This isn’t about Constitutional rights. It’s about blind partisanship and American suicide.

Decide which side you are on: the side of Rand Paul, HAMAS CAIR, Iran, and Islamic terrorists bent on destroying us . . . or America’s side.

You can’t be both.


If your position is that drones can be used to kill Americans who are not Islamic terrorists but conservatives, then why didn’t you have that same argument against the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and so on. Everything that can be used against Islamic terrorists can essentially be used against you and me if they don’t like our political views. So where were you when Bush used wiretaps without notice or FISA approval, SWIFT bank account data, drones, and so on? If you’re against Obama on drones on civil liberties grounds, you had to be against the stuff Bush did for eight years to (barely) fight Islamic terrorism.

Tags: , , , , ,

108 Responses

Viva Mel Gibson

Kevin moore on March 9, 2013 at 11:38 pm

No one wins when you allow baphomet to lead

Kevin moore on March 9, 2013 at 11:45 pm

I’m curious as to when the Declaration of War was signed? I wonder how many people need to be killed before there is a Declaration of War?

Until about an hour ago I believed that drones inside America was a mistake. Debbie convinced me otherwise because nobody can vote to approve Hagel and Kerry and be on the right side.

But I still want to see that Declaration of War. If we are not officially at War, what is going on?

And one other little nit that I have with almost every single post that has been posted in response to this stuff. The USA Signed a treaty which describes the weapons we are allowed to use in any “Declared” War. I think it was something called “The Geneva Conventions.” How do drones in an undeclared war fit into that?

We seem to be pretending we are at War so we can use drones instead of something else. Why not use lasers from aircraft flying overhead to blind the bad guys. If we are going to pretend drones are in The Geneva Conventions, why not lasers? Why not use one of those propane bombs? Those are really impressive.

Are there rules in these pretend wars, or are we limited to .223 and .308 NATO ammunition? What does a NATO Drone look like? Is it blue with white stripes?

dave on March 9, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    It’s pretty clear. Using a weapon to kill anyone in an Undeclared War is Murder. Murder is a High Crime and Misdemeanor. Everyone involved should be impeached OR a War should be declared.

    These Twits must not be allowed to take both sides.

    I believe that the Democrats are intentionally following the path that if they never declare a Budget then nothing can be cut and they cannot be criticized. I believe that they are doing the exact same thing with this War. They cannot and will not define who they are killing and thus they can’t be accused of making a mistake.

    If we are at war with Islam, then to fight in Iraq and not in Egypt/Iran/Syria is a mistake. If we are at War with a particular Political group in the midEast, then lets define that group and deal with it and stop this villain of the day stuff.

    dave on March 10, 2013 at 12:16 am

Skunky and skzion,

Unfortunately, I read his whole crappy comment. And I can say that neither one of you missed a thing.

JeffE on March 10, 2013 at 3:32 am

    For those who aren’t sure what comment that I was referring to, it is the one by Kevin moore on March 9, 2013 at 1:24 pm (Click on “Older Comments”)

    JeffE on March 10, 2013 at 3:35 am

    Jeff, thanks for taking one for the team.

    skzion on March 10, 2013 at 3:50 am

It’s not a side issue that attorney General Eric H. Holder won’t give an opinion as to whether it’s constitutional to kill and individual on US soil arbitrarily with an armed drone if that individual does not pose an imminent threat.

You can read his official sidestep here…

If you read it you’ll notice that apart from giving us a history lesson, talking about policy and reminding us that it may be constitutional to drone zap somebody who does pose an imminent threat , we get nothing here… nada..
Apparently he would advise the president. Well thanks for the news flash.

Later… Holder goes further…. in my opinion in the same sideways direction.

“Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.


Eric H. Holder, Jr.”

As Paul said,
“For 13 hours yesterday we asked him that question and so there is a result and a victory under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing.”

Well I’m not even satisfied with that because Holder’s statement again only deals with Presidential authority not constitutionality.

To Holder there may very well even be no difference, and that’s why politics aside this not a trivial issue.
If it was Holder would never have given Paul the opportunity.

Frankz on March 10, 2013 at 7:02 pm

You’re only going to suffer more blowback if you continue to act like cowboys…

Sophie Ire on March 11, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    Thank you, Sophie, for the exercise in cowardice.

    skzion on March 11, 2013 at 11:11 pm

      Not cowardice, sir. My country has been intervened by yours, people don’t forget that so easily. I like US Americans in general, but sometimes you make it really hard 🙂

      Sophie Ire on March 12, 2013 at 6:44 pm

        And which country is yours, mam?

        I too disagree with the direction of US foreign policy and military positioning. I am awfully tired of our vast military expenditures to protect countries that should be protecting themselves.

        I think that we should be much more cowboyish. If we are being threatened, we should destroy the country and not worry about its ratty people. This goes triple for Muslim countries and N. Korea.

        It is an error to think that the use of force is expensive. Rather, nation building is expensive.

        So, Sophie, how much money does the US spend protecting YOUR country to earn such gratitude from you?

        skzion on March 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm

          From what I know, the US defense budget is equivalent to the next 12 countries combined. I don’t think they dedicate any of that to protect my country in particular (we’re no longer important enough to be on anyone’s radar), but I do think that money would be better spent in its own people, rather than making the military industrial complex richer and richer and bombing civilians abroad.

          And you do bomb innocent people, not only terrorists, and it’s not even an insignificant number, the deaths of those innocent people will come back to haunt you one day, trust me.

          I’m Nicaraguan, and before you make any assumptions, I’m not in favor of Daniel Ortega. I think he’s a disgusting human being who has hurt my country in many ways, but when the US gave the Contras money and training to ‘help’, they ended up raping and killing thousands of Nicaraguans in the most horrible ways.

          Troops trained and funded by your government used cruelty and violence against civilians as a strategy to win the war.

          We never bombed your country, we just refused to be treated like its backyard. Your country on the other hand has been helping to destabilize and pauperize our nation for more than 100 years.

          Sophie Ire on March 13, 2013 at 1:04 am

          “I’m Nicaraguan, and before you make any assumptions, I’m not in favor of Daniel Ortega. I think he’s a disgusting human being who has hurt my country in many ways, but when the US gave the Contras money and training to ‘help’, they ended up raping and killing thousands of Nicaraguans in the most horrible ways.”

          I’ve been to Nicaragua. Lovely place with mainly decent people, fun colonial towns, beaches, islands, volcanoes.

          To the point, though: you’re an ingrate. Your stupid countrymen vote back Ortega, whom you vigorously oppose. But it was ONLY with US aid that he was ever removed. But rather than thank the US, you whine that the Contras weren’t perfect angels. WELL, how about complaining about your stupid countrymen who made an Ortega power grab possible in the first place, and have now, unbelievably, returned him to power?

          If the US did nothing, you would look at the first Ortega regime as a golden age, because the system you would have now would be far, far worse.

          Oh, and you might possibly, I dunno, object more to the USSR that started the mess that enveloped your country.

          I guess THAT would happen just after pigs fly.

          skzion on March 13, 2013 at 6:46 pm

You just don’t get it, do you?
Do I agree with Ortega being in power now? No. Do I think we have better options? No. Do I think people should keep voting for him? No.

I think we should come up with a decent option for Nicaraguan people, so far that hasn’t happened and it’s a real shame.

But you know what? That’s OUR mistake to make. I have disagreed with most of the presidents your country has elected over time, do I try to train troops in your country to destabilize your government? No.

Sovereignty means nothing to some of you. Including the USSR, who used us as a pawn in their war against the US. But they didn’t start the conflict, Somoza was subservient to the US government, and as soon as he was removed from power (and he needed to be removed from power), the US made us their enemy.

The Contras weren’t perfect angels is the understatement of the year. Tell that to the women whose breasts they cut off after they had raped them, or the men they emasculated, or to the kids who had their hands cut off. Do you really want me to be thakful for that? Would you be if it had happened to your family?

Sophie Ire on March 13, 2013 at 10:05 pm

    Sophie, it’s you who don’t get it. You’ve just said that Ortega is your best option?? Are you listening to yourself?

    The reason the US got involved in Nicaragua was because some of YOUR people were undermining US security by facilitating the imperialism of the Soviet Union in our neck of the woods. The only reason the US supported Samosa was because he opposed the Soviets. It’s an imperfect world.

    Well, if Nicaragua uses its sovereignty (how can a country be sovereign if it’s a Soviet puppet?) as a tool of the Soviets, that does become our business. It’s war, Sophie, and Nicaragua was waging it against the US.

    The Contras were pussycats compared to the Sandinistas. Furthermore, nothing compares to communist brutality. Exhibits A and B, Mao and Stalin.

    The issue with communists has always been that they DON’T care about nation state sovereignty. The US does. But sovereign states can wage war, and when THAT happens, war it will be. War it was, with the Contras as our instrumentality.

    The reason the US doesn’t step in now to Nicaragua is that the Soviet Union is no more. Isn’t that obvious?

    Isn’t it also obvious that without the Contras, Nicaragua would be a murderous cesspool by now, like Cuba?

    Enough, Sophie. While I would wish a democratic republic for you, I’m not going to defend warfare against your leaders unless there is a direct American interest being at stake. There isn’t, now.

    What you have failed to appreciate is that the US really did help Nicaragua become a decently run country. True, the main motivation was to weaken the Soviet Union. But the average Nicaraguan benefitted. Again, look at Cuba as an example of what would have happened absent American involvement.

    You know, when I travel abroad, I sometimes meet people who grump about the US. I’ve taken to asking them if they would prefer China. OH NO! they respond. Big powers are always around. Some of them are a whole lot more benign than others. It’s prudent to side with the more benign ones. Me, I’d side with a power that is not threatened by democratic republics.

    And alas, Sophie, you WILL sometimes have to take sides.

    PS, Nicaraguan coffee in the US doesn’t compare to the real thing. I’m sipping pricey Nicaraguan coffee now, and I could do better nearly any place in your country.

    skzion on March 14, 2013 at 8:51 am

      I lived in Nicaragua for 22 years. And I have never been the kind of person who blindly follows anybody, especially politicians. If I say that the other options for Nicaragua in terms of presidential candidates are just as bad as Ortega, is because they are.

      In the last two elections alone he ran against a lawyer and previous president who went to jail on charges of corruption and embezzlement, and before that, a banker who stole millions of dollars from the people’s money and in the process bankrupted around 4 banks. We are surrounded by inept, corrupt and criminal politicians. Ortega is no exception, but he’s just as bad as the rest.

      Your government supported (with both the Somozas and the Contras), a group of people that systematically used violence as a tactic to instill terror in the population. That’s also known as terrorism, and isn’t that what your government stands against?

      The US didn’t even bother to declare war, that’s why you lost the case in the International court.

      And I would say that it was quite the opposite, the US actions in my country served the only purpose to destabilize the government and protect American Corporate interest (like the fruit companies, which also poisoned hundreds of my countrymen). And the Sandinista government, while being far from perfect did more for the average citizen (who was unemployed, and illiterate before).

      I refuse to take sides in this imperfect world, when both sides have zero respect for human dignity, because it compromises who I am and what I stand for. I may not have a very popular position, people do love to root for their teams, but it’s way more popular now than it decades ago.

      And my original point stands, when you actively terrorize civilians who have done nothing wrong, they will never forget it, nor should they.

      Sophie Ire on March 15, 2013 at 1:46 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field