- Due Diligence
- Love Bus Liberty Tour
- Vaccine Education Summit
- Bitcoin Summit
- Ernie's Favorites
- THE R3VOLUTION CONTINUES
- "It's Not My Debt"
- Fascist Nation's Favorites
- Surviving the Greatest Depression
- The Only Solution - Direct Action Revolution
- Western Libertarian
- S.A.F.E. - Second Amendment is For Everyone
- Freedom Summit
- Declare Your Independence
- FreedomsPhoenix Speakers Bureau
- Wallet Voting
- Harhea Phoenix
- Black Market Friday
Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's question about whether the federal government can legally use a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil if the person is "not engaged in combat":
Current News | Contents By Subject
Additional Related items you might find interesting:Related items:
Inspector general: Biden concealing deals he made with Taliban
Biden is Toast: The Lies of Obama-Biden
Presidents Bush and Obama Mistakenly Think We Need Their Warnings About Disinformation
News Link • Lawsuits
Judicial Watch Sues Obama Library for Obama White House Records...
News Link • Russia
Snowden Didn't Flee to Russia: Obama Trapped Him There
Roger Stone Reviews New Documentary – Michelle Obama 2024:
News Link • Government Debt & Financing
What happened the last time Biden had billions to blow on the green agenda?
Obama Scolds His Former Doctor For Questioning Biden's Cognitive Ability
News Link • Censorship
Tulsi Gabbard suggests Obama behind 'Ministry of Truth,' says Biden just 'front man'
News Link • Vaccines and Vaccinations
Obama admits COVID jab has been 'clinically tested on billions' while chastising...
News Link • Corruption
2 Comments in Response to Holder: No drone strikes on American citizens ‘not engaged in combat’
Whose definition of "combat"?
Check out Will Grigg's post on Lew Rockwell's weblog to sort through the artful parsing.