To who? The pimp!

Lets keep dangerous ideas out of the public forum.

How´s that working?

John, you are an idiot. And if you think we still live in a free country, you must be a lot younger than your picture seems to indicate you are. Only someone much younger than I or Paul would think that this country is still free and our foreign policy is working just fine.

If John Podhoretz thinks our foreign policy is working so well, let him go to the Middle East and fight. I´m tired of Americans being cannon fodder for I don´t even know what anymore.

Oh, yes, running with "dangerous ideas." Almost as dangerous as running with scissors.

Dangerous to whom, presstitute?

I´ve read some interesting articles from John Podhoretz, this is not one of them.

We have been perpetually pursuing "war" in my lifetime and I am a WWII babyboomer. Rand Paul is correct about this.

"To listen to Paul, you’d think America was already a police state"

Odds are, you cannot make it through the day without committing a federal crime (3000 offenses and counting). Especially if you are foolish enough to own your own business.

Isn´t that kinda police statish, or maybe it´s just a federal prosecutor state.

The dangerous ideas are being implemented every day by this administration and the rino republicans through their acceptance of them. Stand up like Rand Paul, Rubio and Cruz. Most folks in Washington of whatever political stripe are out of touch with reality - wait til the financial collapse and their surprise. Won´t surprise most of us in the real world.

If Podhoretz wanted to make a case against Rand´s foreign policy, he should have done so. And he probably could have!

Instead, he whines about the success of the filibuster.

This is a very poorly crafted article.

Poor Podhoretz, gone round the bend.

Saddle up and ride into the sunset John. And take Kristol with you.

And oh yes, John McCain would make a great addition to your travelling party.

The elitist rinos in the press sure didn´t like the boat rocking that Rand Paul pulled off did they? We sure could use a lot more of that kind of behaviour in the future leading up to the 2014 election. My only concern is that his crazy loon father will be so envious of his son, that he will submarine him somehow. Rand Paul pulled off more in 13 hours than his father ever did in his whole career.

In regards to all the squishy spineless Republicans, as Flo used to say on that old TV show, ´Kiss My Grits´!

...In point of fact, Awlaki’s membership in an enemy organization as an unconventional soldier stripped him of any and all due-process rights as it did, say, confederate soldiers fighting against the union in the Civil War....

Wow...even the most fanatical Unionists didn´t take that position.

Well, yes, Mr. Podhoretz is right that America is not "already a police state." But that is not the point, is it? I put to him this question:

With a president who flagrantly flaunts his contempt for the constitution, from phony "recess" appointments, to executive-imposed amnesty for children of illegal aliens by refusing to enforce the law, to an attorney general who finds it impossible to aswer "no" to a question which has absolutely no room for equivocation as to the unconstitutionality of the action which is the subject of the question, to a threat to furlough 80,000 border agents and essentially throw open and leave undefended our southern border unless he gets a tax increase, what trajectory do you think we are on, exactly, if not one that leads to an out-of-control executive (otherwise known as a dictator)? And from that, is it not preferable for a Rand Paul to stand and call attention to that trajectory for all to see, rather than to wake up one morning to the realization that we had already reached the end of the line?

We may quibble about the finer points of Rand´s foreign policy ideas, but his eyesight appears to be 20/20 and what he sees happening can no longer be dismissed and ignored.

His ideas are dangerous like those who wrote the Constitution.

To Hades with the media. To Hades with the Marxists who run Washington, DC.

Obama´s views are dangerous. Podhoretz must be miserable.

Well ,lets see....city cops ,county cops, state cops,FBI,ATF,DEA,Homeland Security,IRS,Dept of Agriculture,Customs,State Bureaus of Investigation,Capitol Police,Border Patrol,Federal Marshals,EPA..all with badges and guns and lets not forget the Interior Dept protecting the wildlife from wacko civilians. Police state?...the whole damn country is full of Dirty Harry whannabes.

My ideas about using our military have begun to evolve. It is apparent to me now that the US will never again "win" a war because politicians always interfere, and Generals always think of politics before country too. I hate to think of all the men and women that died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 12 yrs., and to know that soon we will be out of both, and things will be exactly as they were before. Maybe Rand Paul isn´t as dangerous as the alternative.

What is dangerous John Pedhoretz is when the president´s attorney general can´t give a straight answer if it is ok to kill American citizens on a whim.

FTA: His indictment was radical, sweeping, total, unconditional — and wildly overdrawn.

Demanding to know if the President believes he has the power to arbitrarily execute US citizens in America is radical?

The commenter who said it is a poorly crafted article is correct.

Having delved into Papa Paul´s long career and positions, I am hesitant to let concurrence with a couple of Sonny Paul´s positions be seen as supporting many of his libertarian policies.

In particular, while the case can be made for withdrawing from the role of "world´s policeman", ignoring the dangers and long history of evil filling a political vacuum either reflects ignorance or naivete.

The comments regarding the lack of danger in expressing ideas are the best and capture what many conservatives appreciated about Rand´s stand. Quit coddling the wannabe dictator.

Bingo, #18!

The author is part of the old guard media; comfortable with the old paradigm. That ship sailed awhile back. Rand Paul´s filibuster was just the torpedo that woke him up--and poor John is fighting to go back to sleep as hard as he can. Wakee, wakee.

Meanwhile, Nidal Hassan sits comfortably, pampered, coddled and afforded all the rights and protections of a Citizen. And he was purportedly an admirer/disciple (of sorts) of Alawki.

Anyone who does not have a healthy level of distrust for authorities who have massive amounts of power, the means of extreme violence, is not very wise, or knowledgeable of history.

I watched with rapt attention, as the saying goes, for more than 8 hours, with breaks only to feed the dog and take her out. Senator Paul and the numerous other Senators, including Democrat Ron Wyden, were very clear about the scope and purpose of the filibuster.

Sen. Paul again and again drew the distinction between drone attacks on the battlefield and American citizens, on American soil, deserving Due Process and all Constitutional protections.

I´m planning to re-watch it on cspan.org (video library). Maybe i´ll find those "dangerous ideas" this time... /s

Liberals view the Constitution as implicitly expansive and having nearly limitless situational flexibility. Leaving the Bill of Rights aside, Conservatives, including those of the Libertarian bent, view the Constitution as did the framers--a charter conferring limited, enumerated powers upon the national government, while reserving all unspecified residual power to the states. This is the doctrine of federalism.

In the area of foreign policy, particularly war-making, Libertarians represent the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party in the mold of Robert Taft. Their aversion to the "foreign entanglements" against which Washington warned strike most of their contemporary conservative brethren as dangerously naive in a world of capable and determined predators. Their view, nonetheless, is fully sustainable by constitutional logic, and defers to the explicit war powers of Congress as never having been intended to reside co-equally within the Executive Branch. Rand, therefore, pleads a principled and conservative case that should be respected by other conservatives, even as they argue strenuously against it for pragmatic, if not entirely constitutional, reasons.

Again, I admire Paul´s stance on this particular issue, which was, originally, about the domestic drone issue, but I still contend, we should not be enamored with him. Remember, he voted for Chuck Hagel as Def Sec. Only one of four Republicans to do so.