Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email


8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day


Powered by Squarespace


Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos




Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"

Get Our Videos By Email


Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
« Bankrupting America: History Of The U.S. Debt Ceiling | Main | SURVEY: 50% Oppose Larry Summers As Fed Chairman »


'Having a king is why we fought the American Revolution.'

January 14, 2013.  Rand Paul on Obama's gun control Executive Order.

"I'm against having a king.  I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress -- that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch.  I've been opposed to executive orders, even with Republican presidents. But one that wants to infringe on the Second Amendment, we will fight tooth and nail.  And I promise you, there'll be no rock left unturned as far as trying to stop him from usurping the Constitution, running roughshod over Congress.  And you will see one heck of a debate if he decides to try to do this."


Must read op-ed from the WSJ yesterday:

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: A Gun Ban That Misfired - "What I saw as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., makes me wary of strict firearms laws"


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (25)

why is there a ireasli flag there ????????????
Jan 17, 2013 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterjohn
Rand is bought and paid for by the Israelis.. He's not fooling anyone with his bullshit speeches.
He needs to take his ass back to Israel where he belongs,, F*cking TRAITOR !!
Jan 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin K
To paraphrase FDR. Nothing in politics is done by accident.
Jan 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterSKINFLINT
"And you will see one heck of a debate if he decides to try to do this!" Well hell,that`l make the man shit himself.
Jan 17, 2013 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam R.
why is there a israeli flag there ?


My guess is that it's part of the CBN studios - Christian Broadcast Network - Pat Robertson is a strong supporter of Israel.
Jan 17, 2013 at 4:56 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Rand is bought and paid for by the Israelis.. He's not fooling anyone with his bullshit speeches.


Actually he has the opposite reputation - of being anti-Israel - and it's one of the reasons he just took a trip there.


"Part of the reason I am here is to show that I am not anti-Israel," Paul told evangelical leaders who accompanied him on the trip. "There is this perception out there that because I'm in favor of cutting foreign aid I am not a friend to Israel…But there is more than one way to be a friend to Israel."
Jan 17, 2013 at 4:58 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Why is there an Israeli flag? I did not realize that Israel pays his salary.
You cannot serve two masters...I have ZERO allegiance to Israel and neither should he. WTF! And he is purported to be running for president in 2016. Not with that flag would I vote for him...
Jan 17, 2013 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMia

As I explained already in a comment above, the flag is either in the CBN studios or somewhere in the Senate where the interview was conducted. In reality, Rand Paul is probably the least pro-Israel person in the entire Senate.
Jan 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Mia, Talk is cheap it's the actions that speak volumes. He's just Smoke and Mirrors..says one thing and means the other...Just going to Israel shows what he is all about:

You don't go to a Porn Shop to prove your against Porn.

You don't eat a Big Mac to prove you don't like McDonalds
Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin K
Mia must be the Israeli shill assigned to "The DailyBail' today
Jan 17, 2013 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin K
Just going to Israel shows what he is all about...


Kevin. Rand Paul wants to be President. It is impossible to be President of the US without showing some common courtesy to Israel. He went there to appease his critics. As I said, you would be hard pressed to find anyone else in the Senate who is as negative about Israel as Rand Paul. You're criticizing him, yet he's your best hope for reducing Israel's role in America. Seems somewhat strange to me.
Jan 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
the isreali flag is there to wipe up any bullshit spills. you know like a giant piece of toilet paper
Jan 17, 2013 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered Commenterstealth
Jan 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterjayk
Damn DB. You punched a hornets nest.
Jan 17, 2013 at 8:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSKINFLINT
The Israeli flag is there because he was visiting Israel. While there he gave speeches about cutting their foreign aide. He's doing what you do if you want to seriously run for president while staying on topic and on principle.
Jan 17, 2013 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterdissidentX
The reporter said the interview was from the Israeli Bureau.

Rand Paul is not pro jewish so calm down your jew er y!

Having said that, I did like what he said. We do not need a King!
Jan 18, 2013 at 8:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBackgammon
Since DB punched the nest,I going to knock it to the ground.

No American Christian in any way can back any Non-Christian Jew (Israel). They do not believe that Jesus is the Lord & Savior. All Jews that don't accept Jesus as their Savior , ARE GOING TO HELL! Don't argue with me Christians. Argue with your God.
Jan 18, 2013 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterTR
How will this fight end?


* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) criticized New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) over his recent comments about the National Rifle Association and his pressure on Congress to fund Hurricane Sandy relief efforts. “I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all sixty billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum,’ I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary,” Paul told conservative radio show host Laura Ingraham. Both Paul and Christie are viewed as potential 2016 presidential candidates.
Jan 19, 2013 at 11:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterTR
Word to the wise: elections matter, and your party LOST. The people have spoken -- the vast majority fully support increased federal gun regulations and restrictions.

Once again, not only are Rand and his fellow tea party knuckleheads unabashedly ignorant about U.S. History, they are determined to follow the path of their fellow conservatives and end up on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.
Jan 20, 2013 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterlabman57
Here you go labman. The vote difference is about 5 mill. Hardly a landslide and hardly some sort of mandate. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results Also you may want to watch this. Just to keep in the back of your mind http://usawatchdog.com/guns-protect-honest-people-catherine-austin-fitts/
Jan 20, 2013 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterSKINFLINT
In a Democracy, landslides & mandates aren't needed:Majority wins/ Minority loses.

"guns-protect-honest- people-catherine-austin-fitts"
You go Girl!

Jan 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterTR
TR.My point is that it doesn't matter who won. We all lose. The policies that are put forward by both parties are meant to send our country into the shitter. Secondly though I don't own guns that does not mean that I should put forward the notion that I shoudn't tell my neighber, a former Marine that he should not own guns. I live in a rural county where hunting is a large part of these peoples lives. I'm not going to tell them that they should not be able to do so. Ms. Fitts was an insider who lays out in lucid detail the demise of our country. You should be concerned that the rule of law has been destroyed and our constitution shredded by those who would otherwise seek your freedoms and destruction.
Jan 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSKINFLINT
"In a Democracy, landslides & mandates aren't needed:Majority wins/ Minority loses."

Good thing America was designed to be a Republic, it is ashame so many want to subvert us to a "Democracy" which in the end is nothing more than mob rule...

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
Jan 21, 2013 at 1:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Barack Obama -- our imperial emperor in chief

By Cal Thomas


The president dissembled, talking again (he repeated this at least three times by my count) about how Congress had authorized all the spending and how we must now “pay our bills.” But as Garrett noted, the president had a different view of the debt ceiling when he was an Illinois senator and voted against raising it. In 2006, he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” Except when he’s the leader, then it’s someone else’s failure.
Feb 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDailyBail

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.