Senator Rand Paul reportedly received a self-described short answer to his question of the United States Attorney General regarding whether or not ANY President could order a drone attack on a U.S. citizen within the geographic confines of the U.S.
The short answer – NO.
Of course, if there is to be a long legal interpretation of this response it remains to be seen. After all, it might depend on what the meaning of IS NO is. 
And, our esteemed A.G. obviously arrived at the top law enforcement post by understanding the law and keeping to the straight and narrow. (sarcasm font)
The Daily Caller recounts that as a student at Columbia, Eric Holder took part in “a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters,” which Holder and his fellow radicals demanded be redesignated the “Malcolm X Lounge.” Columbia, consistent with its usual practices at the time, went along with the radicals’ demands.
The Black Student Organization’s web site said that “in 1970, a group of armed black students [the SAAS] seized the abandoned ROTC office.” The “armed” part might have been wishful thinking, but Holder’s radicalism is not in doubt. On another occasion, he participated in the occupation of a dean’s office.
In March 1970 the SAAS released a statement supporting twenty-one Black Panthers charged with plotting to blow up department stores, railroad tracks, a police station and the New York Botanical Gardens.
And then there’s the pardoning of the two Weathermen terrorists.
And Fast and Furious leading to a Citation for Contempt of Congress…and ignoring New Black Panther voter intimidation.
His racism (anti-White bias).
His supporters state he’s only been ‘leveling the playing field’ for his race; the same argument The President uses. So all this is okay, right?
Answer me this: How does a man get to the level of chief law enforcement officer of the United States after hanging with unrepentant radicals and domestic terrorists in his college years? How is such a person vetted?
Some would suggest these questions also apply to his boss. I’m told that’s nothing more than guilt by association, though.
h/t Powerline, Fire Andrea Mitchell site
I knew SHAFT was real….
Posted by Matt | March 8, 2013, 8:40 amShut your mouth!
Posted by guffaw1952 | March 8, 2013, 8:53 amI’m talkin bout SHAFT…
Who is the man
Who would sacrifice his fellow man ?
SHAFT!
Right on…
Posted by Matt | March 8, 2013, 10:32 amHe’s a complicated man, but no one understands him but his woman…
Socialist Shaft!
Posted by guffaw1952 | March 8, 2013, 7:39 pmIt is actually irrelevant whether or not it’s constitutional or legal. This administration is lawless – that Holder says it’s unconstitutional does not mean he wouldn’t order it done and then make excuses. See Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples from previous lawless administrations.
Posted by ProudHillbilly | March 8, 2013, 9:55 amSad, but true.
Posted by guffaw1952 | March 8, 2013, 7:37 pm+1 to PH. This administration seems to be made up largely of ’60s radicals … or their children. And isn’t it interesting that those who LOUDLY decried the government’s abuse of power in the ’60s are those who now think it’s perfectly okay – as long as they are the ones doing it.
Posted by Rev. Paul | March 8, 2013, 10:11 amas long as they are the ones doing it.
Ding Ding Ding!!
Winnah winnah chicken dinnah!
The history of the Dolts in Charge (when you can find it) is mind boggling.
Posted by KM | March 8, 2013, 11:54 amWow, that picture brings back memories. I had sideburns like that when I was a senior in H/S.
Holder is a criminal and Obama with his “executive privilege” is giving aid and comfort. Isn’t that a impeachable offense?
Posted by robertsgunshop | March 8, 2013, 2:33 pmLike THAT’LL happen…
Posted by guffaw1952 | March 8, 2013, 5:01 pmHe was ‘vetted’ just like BO was… (Never)…
Posted by Old NFO | March 8, 2013, 6:36 pmYep
Posted by guffaw1952 | March 8, 2013, 7:40 pm