Home >> Politics >> One Man With Courage Makes a Majority

One Man With Courage Makes a Majority

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “One Man With Courage Makes a Majority”.

READ:  Californians YES elections have consequences!

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About Richard Larsen

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.


  1. Richard, although I agree with your assessment, I admit that the Jefferson quote or “Mr Simith” were noteworthy, the outstanding strong word is “ONE”. Throughout you illustrated how ONE man can make a difference. Even if ONE man is Holder or Sulaima Abu Ghaith….both negative, yet, each ONE is capable of provoking a reaction…ONE man, Rand Paul, while his motives may be questioned, had the courage to stand before ouor Nation, striped of armor & knowing the quiver of his opponents were full & bows were drawn. He (ONE man) ‘held off’ the confirmation long enough for others to extract the guarntee for ‘we the people’ with reference to the drones….I was, again, reminded of the little Dutch boy that stuck his finger in the hole, slowing the flow until the villagers could repair the dike & save the town….If a town can be saved, do motives really matter? If the number of ONES doesn’t grow, there may not even be a 2016 election..This should serve as proof positive ONE person can make a difference & everyONE of us should double check to make sure we, also are included in our own communities. Thanks Richard…

  2. Paul asked whether “the President has the power to use lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

    Holder responded first that the U.S. has not conducted drone strikes in the U.S. and has no intention of doing so and, further, the President rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities in the country provide the best means of incapacitating a terrorist threat. He next noted that Paul’s question thus is “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur” and responded: “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the [U.S] for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the [U.S.]”

    Duh! The Civil War is a case in point.

    Yet Paul grandstands, during which he concedes Holder’s point and suggests that is not the question he had in mind: “Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled.”

    Holder then responded: “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.”

    Again, duh! And, so it seems, Paul and Holder agree–on both his general and specific questions.

    Yet Paul grandstands some more–to what end, other than grandstanding for his own political sake, is not clear. In that, given the tenor of some comments, he appears to have been quite successful. Bully show!