Actually, Holder and the White House both said "no", but not in the way you think. The White House responded to Paul's filibuster by issuing a two-sentence response:Rand Paul is empty headed. Atty General Holder...TOLD HIM HELL NO!!!!
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, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote.
(He could never quite form the word and say it out loud before.)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read the letter during his daily press briefing.
...Of course, the wording issued by the WH - "engaged in combat" on American soil - doesn't specifically indicate "terrorists" engaged in combat. Leaves a gap for interpretation if people should protest against this government but pose no threat to the country.
It's just that a lot of us don't trust this president any further than we can throw him. He clearly doesn't like any opposition.
Officials in high places surrounding this president have threatened to silence a few in their own party for simply criticizing his policies.
If you remember, this president publicly tried to silence Fox News and went so far as to censor Fox journalists from attending press conferences early in his administration until, of all people, the liberal media stood up and chastised him and said, "No, you can't do that!"
You see, we're not in Kansas anymore. Anything can happen in the Land of Oz or, as Rand Paul put it, down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland.
Good morning, Selecia.