Secret U.S. ‘Kill List’ Somehow Not In Rand Paul’s Paranoid Spam Forwards

Needz moar gunz 'n Jesus.Like everyone else in the nation, we have grown used to the stream of wingnut “gubmint gon’ steal ur gunz” Second Amendment action-alert emails always emanating en masse from the AOL accounts of America’s loony cousins and neighbors, OR, apparently now, from a U.S. Senator! Mother Jones spotted pantsless prick Rand Paul sticking his name on one of these ALL CAPS WITH UNDERLINES spam forwards warning everyone that the United Nations space ninjas are fixin’ to steal their guns, which is of course is totally false panic for several zillion reasons. But the best reason we have read just today is because the U.S. government is not so much interested in stealing guns as it is in forming secret, oversight-free panels to type up “kill lists” for American citizens they do not like.  

So let’s do a little compare and contrast. Here is some of the fake freak-out from Rand Paul’s spam:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

Ha ha, that’s a cute fictional bedtime story, but it is not nearly as terrifying as this one, from a Reuters report detailing the secret death-panel-kill-list the National Security Council is compiling in its free time:

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Now, see, THAT is a terrifying story that wingnuts/everyone/humans should worry about. [Mother Jones/Reuters]

What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.


    1. Terry

      The nuns had to upgrade after finally realizing that whacking the back of hands with rulers wasn't getting them anywhere.

    2. nanooknw

      Oh, Michelle Bachmann! I thought what would the first lady be doing in …
      Oh, never mind. I need my first cup of caffeine.

  1. GunToting[Redacted]

    So, the "UN’s" "Small Arms" ""Treaty"" is in fact a """massive"""", """""GLOBAL""""" """gun control scheme."""""""""""

    Got it. Thanks!

    1. V572-½‡‡‡‡‡

      So, the "UN’s" "Small Arms" ""Treaty"" is in fact a """massive"""", """""GLOBAL""""" """gun control scheme."""""""""""

      Needed moar "emphasis."

        1. V572-½‡‡‡‡‡

          If our Wonkette weren't such an HTML ghetto, that text'd be flashing and changing sizes and colors.

          Long ago you could put pictures in the comments….those were the days!

          1. PalinzADummy

            I haven't been keeping track, but it seems most commenting systems don't allow more than very rudimentary HTML, and I think only Disqus allows inline graphics and videos.

          2. Lascauxcaveman

            Oh, man, you should have been there in the glory days of Serolf Divad posting up a half dozen hilarious p-shops everyday. (A link to a funny blingee just isn't quite the same.)

          3. James Michael Curley

            I totally missed the posting of the photo from whomever which caused the Overlords to change the system.

  2. GOPCrusher

    If I remember correctly, this meme first started circulating in the 90's with the Clinton Administration negotiating with the U.N. on a Small Arms Treaty.

  3. Pragmatist2

    I say we counterfeit a US Government Certified Hit List and put Ron Paul's name on it! And here's the real fun, we send it to the CIA and we don't tell them it's fake!!!! Of course, no one would notice he was dead because his Satanic spawn is still in Congress.

  4. Indiepalin

    First they came for the stills, but I didn't speak up because I didn't have one. Then they came for the meth labs but I didn't speak up. Finally, they came for the Ass Burgers and there was no one left to speak up except for Cartman.

  5. CapnFatback

    Rand Paul and his ilk would be better concerned should the U.N. ratify a "Small Dicks Treaty."

    1. NewtsUndies

      Hey! We members of MEMBER (Moderately Endowed Men Behaving Extremely Robustly) don't take kindly to your insinuation that we more modestly penised men are somehow more likely to be morally reprehensible. To arms, sir. I shall give you a trouncing.

  6. Callyson

    This would not be the first time the Kentucky tea partier has fallen for a fringe conspiracy theory. While campaigning for his father's presidential campaign in 2008, he told an audience in Montana that the federal government was considering plans to build a "NAFTA superhighway" connecting the United States, Mexico, and Canada, and paving the way for a North American Union.
    So Billo was right, and the reconquista is on…

  7. Callyson

    Also, I don't know what Rand Paul is so worried about. He can always hollow out Kortney's cucumber and hide his gun there.

    1. Ohforcripessake

      Dammit! I wanted to make a Kortney comment but you beat me to it! Guess I'll have to watch her "shocking" video instead. Hope she's wearing the same outfit!1!

    2. Barrelhse

      I want to take Kortney down to the Farmer's Market and see how long it takes to get arrested, and for which act.

    1. powersuit

      You got the wrong people. In a panic, the Rand Paul types put on their Hilbilly Militia uniforms, grab all their guns, ammo boxes, and pickup trucks, and set up "check points" on county highways, where they spend the day drinking shit beer and passing conspiracy theories about Sharia law in the next county over.

  8. bumfug

    Don't worry, the panel that decides which Americans to kill consults lawyers first, so nothing could possibly go wrong.

  9. iburl

    How about focusing on actual problems? Like the president actually assassinating U.S. Citizens with no trial? Oh yeah, cuz he was a "terrist" and they deserve whut they all git.

    1. PalinzADummy

      U.S. citizens who declare war on the government, take up arms against it, or otherwise join with its enemies are guilty of treason. Orders were issued to take al-Awlaki alive or dead. It's not easy to take hostiles alive and unharmed in such situations. No court, in the US or anywhere else, would attempt to argue with the Executive, whose duties include "keeping USAmerica safe."

      1. iburl

        Nobody is "Guilty" of treason or anything else without a trial. Or would you prefer to leave that decision up to president Bachmann? How many politicians have accused Obama and other liberals of "treason"? A thousand?

        "It's not easy to take hostiles alive and unharmed in such situations."

        I agree, it's not easy to take people alive and unharmed in the situation where you are blowing them up with hellfire missile drone strikes and killing all of the people traveling with them as well.

        Eternal war against thoughtcrime!

        1. flamingpdog

          From Wikipedia:

          "Section 3 [of the US Constitution] also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason … In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example)."

          Barry, the Constitutional lawyer, knows this. Like the Reuters article said, there was some "protection" of the President going on in the decision-making process. Now we see (again) why the O'Bomber administration hasn't gone after the war criminals in the previous administration.

        2. PalinzADummy

          There's the legal aspect of these issues, and the moral aspect. Regarding the legal aspect, you really don't have a leg to stand on, as you would realize if you spent a little time researching the issue. Courts have ALWAYS been reluctant to intrude upon the Executive Branch when it comes to decisions of this nature.

          The moral issue is altogether different, and I am not comfortable with the moral aspect of this. But you do yourself no favours by your argument. It is not at all clear that persons who are accused of treason are entitled to judicial finding of their guilt unless they give themselves up to have such guilt adjudicated.

      2. zhubajie

        A. didn't declare war or take up arms, he gave frothing sermons, like hundreds of other preachers, at home and around the world. A. the Super-Terrorist was completely a creation of US media.

        1. Lionel[redacted]Esq

          He did more than give frothy sermons. Otherwise we could take out Pat Robertson. I just don't see why people get their knickers in a bunch over this. If you have some proof that al-Awlaki was in fact helping underfeed children, and this was all just propaganda so the US could kill him so that Obama would look good, fine, show it to me. But from all I have seen and read, he was engaged with enemy forces and made himself a target.

          Again, if you don't want to be a target, don't leave the country, and don't join forces with an enemy of the United States that is actively trying to kill American Citizens. How hard is that to do?

        2. PalinzADummy

          We're not going to agree on this issue, my friend. Therefore, it's best to draw the lines now and politely agree to disagree. It is not clear to me that al-Awlaki's acts were no more harmful than, say, Fred Phelps' acts. I cannot second-guess those who have access to the information, since I do not. I'm not sure just how much was the creation of US media, but I don't see any other non-US media sources reporting that al-Awlaki was a harmless individual wrongly accused. If anything, several prominent Muslims have pronounced the Islamic world well-shed of him. I'm open to any new information you might have, however, so please, post any links. Thanks.

      3. Terry

        I heard Salman Rushdie talk through this on Bill Mahr over the weekend. I hadn't thought of it that way. Did al-Awlaki pick up arms, or just rant and rave on the internet? Recruiting people who pick up arms or carry guns counts as carrying them yourself.

        Ranting and raving is unfortunate. Picking up a weapon, or actively facilitating the picking up of weapons is a whole 'nother issue. The problem is, however, that we don't really know for sure which one it is. Do we have faith in the secret committee? Just typing that skeeves me out.

        1. PalinzADummy

          According to our dearly beloved government skeezeballs,he had moved from propaganda to operational activity — planning, scheduling, actually *doing* stuff. Of course, the question then becomes, "Do we believe this bunch of lying shitballs we call our government?"

          Given how routinely and often they have lied to us, we'd be insane and stupid to believe them without question. However, there's plenty of journalists in other countries who actually function as journalists are supposed to, and so far, no one's defending al-Awlaki. It's early days, yet, and it takes time to uncover solid evidence of governmental wrongdoing, so I don't know what to do or think, except to feel paranoiacally mistrustful of the "authorities" while waiting for the truth to be uncovered.

          The problem with being a rational human being who uses facts to decide rather than sentiment is that facts need to be analyzed, sifted, processed. My natural inclination is to scream "They're lying to us AGAIN!" But I've lived long enough to realize that nothing is so clear, so black-and-white as we would all like. So, we wait for the facts to come out. And yeah, secret committees skeeve us all out, I reckon, as they should.

    2. Lionel[redacted]Esq

      A person, whether or not an American Citizen, who places himself in a combat zone on the side of the enemy combatants is open to attack. There is nothing in the Constitution, Geneva Convention, or any other law I know that requires any protections. Now, if Mr. al-Awlaki had stayed in the US, that would require a different analysis.

      And how "secret" is the kill or capture list, since Mr. al-Awlaki father challenged it in court, and the federal court threw out the challenge.

      1. Lionel[redacted]Esq

        Mr. al-Awlaki fled and took up arms against his country. If he had surrendered, he would be entitled to his full rights. If he had denounced his citizenship, he would at least be entitled to his rights under the Geneva Convention. But it does not violate the Constitution, International or US law to target someone that has taken up arms against you.

        If you want to get upset, get upset over torture, the waste of money, or the number of civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or wherever (note, these are way down under Obama and his decision to use targeted drone attacks). There is plenty to be upset about (and Obama has had his share of mistakes, but overall, he is getting us out of these stupid wars, while also getting rid of those who most want to kill us), but this is hardly one of them.

      2. zhubajie

        There is no combat zone and "enemy combatant" is a bull-shit category invented by the Busheviks.

        The idea that it's OK to kill Americans (or anyone) just because they live in another country is beyond bizarre.

        1. WhatTheHeck

          Islamist militants have declared war on the U.S., determined to kill U.S. citizens wherever they may be found, thus creating “combat zones” wherever U.S. citizens are, geographically.

          1. iburl

            Before Bush that would have sounded quite ridiculous. Now I think you might work for the Obama administration.

        2. Lionel[redacted]Esq

          There are problems with the US not having the balls to declare war, and I am not using "enemy combatant" in the Bush sense, which was an attempt to get around the Geneva Convention. I think all of Al Qaeda is subject to the Geneva Convention. But to say they are not at war with us, and are not subject to attack? What is the rationale there? American Citizenship doesn't make a difference in these situations (If he had been Yemeni, in the same circumstance, he would be subject to attack). Plus, as I've said before, if he didn't renounce his citizenship, I have no respect of him anyway.

          The US has done plenty wrong over the last 10 years. This is not one of those things.

        3. PalinzADummy

          See, when you discuss the *legal* issues involved — such as the definition of a "combat zone," or the status of those therein — then it doesn't matter whether you think this is right or wrong. These terms have precise (insofar as that's possible) *legal* meanings. They are terms of the art. Their meaning is clearly explained. Any American citizen who takes up arms against the US or declares that they side with any group that has as its avowed goal the destruction of the US commits a treasonous act thereby, as defined in the Constitution.

          If you want to give these terms different meanings, or use different terms altogether, you're welcome to do so. But the definition of treason is contained in the Constitution, and the laws that spell out the elements of this crime and the punishments therefore may be found in Title 18 of the USC.

          1. PalinzADummy

            The executive order specifying the taking of the accused is, presumably, where that "stuff" appears. It would be a poor law that attempted to dictate how those who are presumed to have committed a crime are to be taken.

          2. ShaveTheWhales

            It's probably obvious that I'm not a lawyer, and I'll stipulate right now that the the executive action taken on Al-A was "legal". Using the same reasoning, of course, it's likely the case that most of the domestic actions of, say, Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban (when in power), or, hell, Hitler, were "legal" because their governments enacted "laws" that empowered them to behave in the ways they did.

            Please note: I am not comparing President Obama to Hitler. What I'm trying to do is point out that "legal" is not always identical to "just", or "embodying what we think of as key values of our civilization". I've always assumed that the Constitutional language about "due process" was motivated by the memory of prior failures of due process (aka "executive action") in the nations of Europe. I've always felt that the guarantee of due process is among the absolutely critical points that justifies somewhat the belief that the American system of government is exceptional in a good way.

            But, you know, I'm fairly old, so I've seen plenty of examples where the guarantee didn't hold up (e.g., it's still pretty sketchy for pretty nearly all minorities). So one more violation doesn't actually disturb my numbness that much. Also, too, the guy very well may have been a bad guy with bad intentions. Although now we'll never know for sure, also. Too.

            It is certainly possible to argue that the modern world is just so fucking replete with terrorists that certain restrictions must be (temporarily) placed on various civil rights in order to provide more security / prevent the imminent destruction of the US. In fact, the argument has been made, and has prevailed, at several times through history, most recently since September 2001. What makes the current period unusual, of course, is that we are not actually at war with anybody, so the non-war has no prospect of coming to a natural end; therefore, our "temporary" changes may well last indefinitely. And this may just be the future.

            Excuse my wordiness. Let me sum up.

            I don't assert that the Administration's actions in this matter are formally illegal. While I personally feel that they violate Constitutional intent, I am aware that various SCOTUS decisions overrule my opinion. What I do assert is that the policy of blowing up suspected enemy individuals based on secret evidence is a bad idea for the future of US society. It was a bad idea when Reagan did it, it was a bad idea when Bush did it, and it's a bad idea for Obama to do it, even if he is much more efficient at it.

            Oh, and dropping a Predator on somebody could only be considered a method of "taking a suspect" by a lawyer, amirite?


          3. PalinzADummy

            There, you see, if you'd read my previous comments, we're in agreement. The argument that al-Awlaki was *entitled* to a judicial determination of his intent is not a sound one. However, the *moral* issue is what is important here, and there I am in agreement with you. Legally, there is certainly room for argument, but not, I posit, a strong case. I haven't heard any legal scholar of note argue that the US government was not entitled to take al-Awlaki out.

            The moral ramifications bother me, because they're far more tenuous. Do governments have an intrinsic right to kill citizens who rebel against them? Most of us would say "Absolutely not." Do governments have a duty to protect their citizens against danger, real or perceived? There the line becomes a little blurrier. I don't have the answers, any more than you do. But we're on the same side, and as people of goodwill, it better serves us to discuss the issues than to riposte and parry for points, yes?

          4. PalinzADummy

            Another thing: you can certainly argue that Hitler's or Hussain's acts were "legal" within the legal framework of their countries, but they were still in violation of various international laws. However, I have never heard anyone make a sound argument that governments have no right to kill their citizens if and when their citizens take up arms against them and espouse their violent overthrow. I'm afraid the law is not the place to look for justice. Justice is a MORAL imperative, not necessarily a legal one.

      3. iburl

        How convient then that under Bush/Obama the entire planet is a "combat zone".

        Last thing I'm gonna say: Without laws that hold every citizen accountable in the same way, we will never have peace and justice.

        <snark on>

        1. Beanball

          Well, aren't you all just too precious, arguing that sending drone missiles into a foreign country isn't a violation of the UN charter, just for starters, not to mention an outrage against the ages-old law of nations which makes armed aggression an illegal – not to mention an uncivilized and barbarous act.

          What fucking war? What traitorous acts? these extreme sanctions by executive fiat are all illegal as hell and you damn well know it.

          You wanna- be legal eagle idiots people need to have your heads examined.
          In the meantime, you make me sick and mad as hell. Fuck you.

          1. PalinzADummy

            Please provide evidence that they are illegal.

            If you're going to make an argument, make a decent one. If you just want to rant, that's fine. Don't make a half-arsed argument without any knowledge of what you're talking about and expect everyone to go all woogy on you because your Heart is Noble and your Will is Pure. Nobody gives a fuck about that stuff in the real world.

          2. PalinzADummy

            It would appear that you lack not just comprehension, but the willingness to comprehend. I can assure you that I have indeed heard of due process. However, it would appear that you do not understand that a term cannot be used out of context. Due process is afforded to those already in the custody of those powers that afford such process. You would do well to read the works of some of our better known Constitutional scholars before raising this line of argument.

          3. Beanball

            Your responses in defending unconstitutional actions are fascinating. One gets such a wholesale return of illegality out of a trifling investment of innuendo.

          4. PalinzADummy

            I've been far more patient than normal so far, simply because you're a fellow-Wonketteer. However, if you're just here to splooge all over people verbally, you're going to have to find yourself another fuck-buddy. I'm busy. Now fuck off.

    3. V572-½‡‡‡‡‡

      If you could kill him with a drone you could bring him to trial, just like bin Laden. It wouldn't be as easy or as fast, but it might convince the rest of the world we still believe in the rule of law. Nobody ever said justice is easy or convenient.

      1. PalinzADummy

        Considering the way we have routinely murdered civilians and innocents in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Korea, Vietnam, and numerous other nations, do you honestly believe that ANY country anywhere in the world believes that the US believes in the rule of law? The tiger cages of Poulo Condore might have sprung from the minds of our Vietnamese "little brown brothers," but we were the ones who winked and connived at their usage.

        No government in the world will condemn the actions of the US, not on a legal basis, because ALL governments are designed to be self-perpetuating. The things that are routinely done in our name would sicken all Americans, if they bothered to find out.

  10. chascates

    HA! HA! The United States is under no obligation to follow any UN treaty or any other, including those it itself made (ask the First Americans) but a secret cabal filling out a hit list is truly frightening! How many members are graduates of Liberty or Bob Jones University? How many are related to the Cheney family? And do they meet in a secret underground fortress whilst wearing Super Character spandex outfits?

    1. HarryButtle

      "Ima let you finish, but first…" KA-BOOM!

      Signed his own death warrant when he stepped on Taylor Swift's toes. Such a heinous act of terrorism…

  11. ifthethunderdontgetya

    The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

    Tommy could tell us, but then he'd have to have us killed.

  12. Steverino247

    There are some things which Rand Paul is simply not meant to know.

    Like the difference between shit and Shinola, for example.

  13. Beowoof

    Oh shit, this stuff just stirs up douche bag tea baggers like my ex-brother in law. That nit wit is building a rapture shelter in his basement and I am positive he will have a periscope to look for the black helicopters. Thankfully, the only contact I have with him is when my daughters have an event where family has to show up.

      1. Beowoof

        I have wondered the same thing and just don't get it. He used a normal partying engineer, but somewhere along the line he forgot that he got his education at a taxpayer funded college and turned into a real teabagger, gun toting prick.

      1. PalinzADummy

        I have this horrible vision of him bobbing gently against the ceiling repeatedly — thunk, thunk, thunk — as he tries to get out to join the rapturing masses — thunk, thunk, thunk …

  14. PalinzADummy

    See, the problem is that USAmerica is much more into wigging out about totally fake bullshit, like Alien Agonizing Rectal Probes (AARP), and the like.

    Real kill lists? Pfft, DWTS is on, CYA l8r.

      1. PalinzADummy

        VN? Yes. I'm about to read a book or two about it.

        Hmm … no wonder my stomach's been bothering me.

  15. mavenmaven

    Cuz why shouldn't Al-Qaeda or the Russian mafia be protected by Second Amendment rights as we "export democracy"? If only everyone on this planet were armed, there would be peace in the world, don't you understand, liberal pinkos?

  16. V572-½‡‡‡‡‡

    The black helicopters are overhead right now, full of jack-booted thugs from Bureau of Fun Stuff*! Help! Help! It's Ruby Ridge all over again plus Waco!
    *alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives

  17. CapnFatback

    American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

    That's nothing. You should see who's on those government officials' Kill-Fuck-Marry lists.

  18. JackObin

    Freud said a gun is an extension of your dick. With that in mind, this nation has a plethora of premature ejaculators.

  19. Bonzos_Bed_Time

    Looks like mother superior did in fact get her gun. Although it may or may not be warm.

  20. SayItWithWookies

    Sure, kill lists of American citizens are Constitutional. It's in the secret part of the Constitution — all you need is a clearance. Oh, you don't have a clearance? Well trust us, it's in there.

    1. V572-½‡‡‡‡‡

      "Unitary executive" enthusiast John Yoo approves of your comment, and is also putting you on the list for mentioning this.

      Of course he can still do that. And of course he knows your "name."

    2. Lionel[redacted]Esq

      Next to the part about Dick Cheney being the Fourth Branch?

      But I will reiterate: If you go out and join forces with a group in a foreign country set out to kill Americans, there is nothing in the law or Constitution that prevents the US from targeting you.

      So just don't engage in open rebellion against your country from a foreign country, and you will be just fine.

  21. Radiodead

    Dear Endangered Constituents,
    As we all know, the Obama Administration is eroding our 2nd Amendment rights, i.e. our precious heritage to own, display and discharge firearms, at a historical pace. As a Self-Certified Board Opthalmologist Medical Doctor, I have teamed up with Eddie the Eagle, the proud safety instructor mascot of the National Rifle Association, to bring you this important safety tip: Whenever you are shooting your weapons or protecting your home and hearth from dark, dimly lit intruders. ALWAYS WEAR EYE PROTECTION.
    Thank you,
    Senator from Kentucky (R) Rand Paul, MD, SCBO

    This message brought to you by the NRA and the Association of American Firearm Manufacturers

  22. coolhandnuke

    Senator Paul is blind to the truth that the only products keeping America afloat are cartoonish porn, violent video games and awesome weaponry. Oh yeah, and pot.
    Without these necessities, Kentucky's GDP would be $11.25.

    1. Rotundo_

      Anwar was a very bad boy last year, he gets a lump of coal, ah, fuck it, send in a drone and blow his sorry little ass to kingdome come! I get so tired of these nasty little fuckers… Now let's see here, Ralphie was good, maybe a Red Ryder range model air rifle for him eh? Nah, he'll shoot his eye out… Uh let's see, Flick, hmmm….

  23. anteater

    Just a question for y'all; Did Ron and Momma Paul name Rand after Ayn Rand?
    Cause that's fucked up.
    Moon Unit was taken I guess.

    1. Rotundo_

      A boy called Ayn probably wouldn't have flown too well in Tejas. Galt would have worked as well. Selfish prick would have been better.

  24. SaintRond

    Nice work, if you can get it. Pay's decent, nice benefits, and it's really, really fun.

    What would you rather be doing?

  25. glamourdammerung

    I can see why Rand and the teabaggers are paranoid about the government killing terrorists.

  26. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    But, wait:

    Wayne LaPierre told us that Obama was doing nothing about confiscating guns until his second term to keep us asleep…, and then, bam, all our guns will be gone.

    But according to Wayne, Hillary is actively negotiating away our guns to the UN.

    Hillary!!!! Once again she is undermining Obama! And his plan was working!

    1. DahBoner


      He should know better!

      That Vitamin D from the sun thing is one big, giant Gum'mint conspiracy…

  27. schvitzatura

    The conspiracy really is:

    Why are Nagant M1895 Revolvers so cheap and available but the ammo for them is so damned expensive?


  28. BlueStateLibel

    Here's a way to reduce the deficit. Every week the government holds a lottery. You pay $10 to play; you win, you get to put anyone you want* on the weekly kill list.
    *Lots of fine print about certain important people being exempted, etc.

  29. zhubajie

    Corrected: "American militants like ex-spouses, noisy neighbors, annoying relatives, political bloggers and anyone Joe Blow doesn't like or is paid to get rid of, are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials."

    Coming soon: death warrents for sale to the connected.

    1. Negropolis

      I can see how a bitter expat like yourself who hates America would be a little worried about this. I understand; I really do.

  30. WhatTheHeck

    Hmmm. Nuns with guns. Just think of all the guns you could hide from the U.N. soldiers under those habits.

  31. Pithaughn

    Is'nt the plot of Syriana a lot like the tale of said terrist getting blowed up in Yemen? Also. Is there any difference between Pannetta and Cheney?

    1. littlebigdaddy

      Panetta is a good ingredient for pizza, while I don't think Cheney is good for anything other than genocide.

  32. x111e7thst

    I'll bet Rand has more guns than he needs (but not as many guns as he wants).
    If I am ever in his neck of the woods I will stop by his place, whip out my UN ID and confiscate the hell out of those bad boys just because I can.

  33. extreme_left

    wow America is fucked.

    Annoyingly papa paul seems to be the only poli that seems to give a shit about the new propensity for death squads.

      1. extreme_left

        As long as each FDC manager is trained at 'Brown's U. of Emergency stuff' and well versed in how to get to places reasonably quick, well in a couple of weeks anyway and helps people to the best of somebody who watched all episodes of 'Baywatch' idea of what should be done, as long as it doesn't interfer with weekends and important meetings, that sounds sweet.

  34. AJWjr.

    ZOMG, I just got an all caps email from a "friend" that says it's all Soros' fault! He's buying up all the USAmerican gun and ammo manufacturers so he can shut them down! BUY NOW!!1!!

  35. DahBoner

    "The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy"

    Speaking of fuzzy logic, have you ever noticed that there's always someone, at the end of every single construction zone in America protesting?

    Yeah, they always have a sign, in all caps that says:


  36. datateday

    I would have thought that the new, occupation-loving Wonkette would just love a national citizen death list? C'mon Wonkette, what's up with you now?

  37. zappadoo76

    Global gun control and government hit lists are a one-two punch. If the commUNists take away our guns, we will be defenseless when the death squads come for us. All we will be able to do is to come to the door in our underwear and beg them to please not kill the children.

  38. fitley

    Jeez you wouldn't think that an OBG (Original Bircher Gangster) like Ron and his self proclaimed Optometrist muppet son would be able to inspire so many retards. Somebody must have passed them Corky's fan club mailing list.

    1. glamourdammerung

      Close. Papa Doc Paul is a long time associate of Willis Carto, the guy that basically started the Holocaust Denial industry here.

  39. fitley

    First it was the mustard on the hamburger. Then bowing to foreign digni-terrorists. Then the secret re-education camps for our toddlers. Next thing you know the President will stop wearing a flag pin. "Whattt?" Stop the madness.

  40. DahBoner

    No one ever suspects the Spanish Inquisition.

    That's why they always have the element of surprise….

  41. dduke45

    Hey, I'm a Lifetime Member of the NRA, and I can tell you we've been using this outrage/fear meme for years to shake down the rubes for money. Rubes just like me.
    Oh shit….

  42. johnnyzhivago

    I hear Obama is making up a list of homes still using incandescent bulbs and targeting them with Predator drones. Whole families will be wiped out – without a trial – just for exercising their constitutional right to light bulb freedom of choice.

    Don't expect to be spared with an excuse like "we switched everything over – we just forgot about that light in the attic". Sorry Mr and Mrs America – off to the death camps.

    And guess what – our troops in Afghanastan are handing out confiscated light bulbs to foreigners as we speak.

    Wake up America!

  43. ttommyunger

    Did not have to read this. Simple rule: anything after "Rand Paul" is totally nucking futs. WIN!

  44. nanooknw

    Rand Paul is the Kentucky's gift to Merica. The little slim ball has five more years
    to collect a salary and all the goodies of being a US senator.
    Kentucky elected the equivalent of a pet rock for it's senator.

  45. zhubajie

    Actually, the best way for some country to make trouble for the US would be to flood the black market with cheap full-auto Kalashnikovs and ammo and plastique and detonators.

  46. BerkeleyBear

    You mean like the Czechs used to (back when they were Commie bastards) and the Pakis and Chinese do today (at least at the RPG and up level of arms)?

Comments are closed.