I have been working all day and haven’t seen any of it, but it appears to have gotten quite a bit of attention. Consider this your open thread while I search for good links about it. Hopefully I can find some clips.

UPDATE: Fox News has a live feed here. Let me look for one that can be embedded. Someone else is speaking right now.

UPDATE x2: Here is an embed from Raw Story. It is an autostart, so I am tucking it beneath the fold.

UPDATE x3: I am adding more video to the post, so I am tucking the autostart embed of the filibuster to this page.

UPDATE x4: Courtesy of DRJ, here is a “question” from Ted Cruz — really a joining of the filibuster to give Rand Paul a break.

Part 2:

UPDATE x5: Here is Marco Rubio joining in:

DRJ also notes that, while these Senators are filibustering, other Senators are dining out with Obama.

We are seeing the difference between Tea Party Senators and other Senators, right here.

UPDATE x6: Here is Democrat Senator Ron Wyden joining in.

Harry Reid was not so amused, and tried to stop it.

Weasel.

I want more video of Paul talking about what he reads on the Internet and such. I heard a lot about that.

UPDATE x7: I think there is a chance that this may be a bigger moment than we realize.

This may be an epochal moment when people finally feel as though Republicans — well, some of them, anyway — are actually standing up for what they believe in.

UPDATE 9:42 p.m.: “I yield the floor.” It’s over.

It seems to me that Cruz is hitting on the key distinction that separates acceptable lethal force on American soil from nonacceptable lethal force: is there an imminent threat?

What is eye-opening about this exchange is that Eric Holder seems to think the words “appropriate” and “constitutional” have the same meaning. It is a common failing of leftists, to be sure, but I expect more from the head of the Department of Justice:

As I noted this morning, Dick Cheney gave the direct order (which he says ultimately came from the President) to shoot down Flight 93 if necessary. That’s an imminent threat. It isn’t necesary to imagine a situation where something like that would be necessary. We’ve already experienced it.

That said, in a world where LAPD officers think they need to shoot at what turns out to be a delivery truck; in a world where criminals “SWAT” people they don’t like; in a world where “intelligence” is often imperfect . . . you had better be damned sure you’re right in such a circumstance.

The President already has authority to launch nuclear warheads. Like it or not (and with this guy, I don’t), we already entrust the holder of that office with a tremendous amount of responsibility and authority.

All that said, in a situation where there is no such imminent danger, the Constitution — not just prudence — prevents such unilateral action. It is troubling that, even when the distinction is carefully explained to him more than once, Eric Holder doesn’t seem to understand the difference.

While I share concerns about Obama’s assertions of executive power, let’s remember that a Vice President once gave an order to kill dozens of completely innocent Americans on American soil, and we all supported him. On 9/11, Dick Cheney gave an order to shoot down Flight 93. It was clear that everyone on the plane was likely going to die anyway, and take out perhaps thousands more innocent Americans along with them.

Perhaps this is what Eric Holder has in mind when he talks about drone strikes on American soil?

Uncommon common sense in this “State of Voter Fraud” address. Amusing and compelling.

A leaked email has the budget office telling an administrator to manage his budget in such a way that it does not contradict official claims about the impact of sequestration:

A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

And since we said the impact would be bad, you need to manage the budget to make sure the impact is bad.

Even if you have to lie. Which, they are lying. How are they lying? Here are a couple of examples:

Lie No. 1: Janitors got a pay cut. First, remember when Obama claimed janitors were getting a pay cut? There are new lies on that front. Glenn Kessler starts out by reminding us:

At a news conference last Friday, President Obama claimed that, “starting tomorrow,” the “folks cleaning the floors at the Capitol” had “just got a pay cut” because of the automatic federal spending cuts known as the sequester.

That story got four Pinocchios. But that was just the beginning. It was reported that janitors were having overtime cut, and the White House clung to that thin reed. Jay Carney said: “On the issue of the janitors, if you work for an hourly wage and you earn overtime, and you depend on that overtime to make ends meet, it is simply a fact that a reduction in overtime is a reduction in your pay.”

The thin reed just broke. Kessler reports today that janitors get almost overtime: “[O]vertime amounts to only [a] pittance of the overall pay — about $6.50 a week on top of wages of $1,000 a week. That’s much different from Carney’s claim of having to ‘depend on that overtime to make ends meet.’” Four more Pinocchios for that one.

Lie No. 2: We Must Cut White House Tours. This one starts to fall apart upon examination. It turns out the White House Visitors’ Office employs a staff of seven. And tours are self-guided. Meanwhile, the federal government is still hiring. And the White House pays a calligrapher — a calligrapher! — $96,725 a year. The Weekly Standard says: “In all, the White House appears to employ 3 calligraphers for a yearly total of $277,050.”

Clearly, the idea that tours need to be cut is a bunch of horse droppings. I like Louie Gohmert’s idea: until the tours resume, no money to take the President to or from a golf course. Ha.

Let’s do some Army of Davids stuff. What examples can you find of the White House lying about the sequester?