What did Rand Paul's Filibuster Mean? [How Obama got spanked and killer drones]

AMERICAN THINKER ^ | March 13, 2013 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

When U.S. Senators are called "Whacko-birds" by Senator John McCain, you really want to know what is going on. What was this big Rand Paul/Ted Cruz filibuster all about last Wednesday?

First, no, it was not about drones -- not primarily. It was about the Obama administration arrogantly refusing to give a straight answer to questions from the U.S. Congress. In the "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi scandals, Eric Holder and Barack Obama got away with murder. But this time, when challenged, Obama backed down.

For a month and a half, the Obama Administration chose to give Rand Paul or Ted Cruz evasive answers. That conspicuous disrespect has been typical from Obama's team. That's what the fight was really about. Sometimes people use proxy issues to fight about a deeper principle.

Some ask "What did the filibuster really accomplish?" This: You will answer questions from Congress, Mr. President. Rand Paul clipped some of Obama's peacock wings. At least for one moment, Obama was forced to treat Congress as equal. Obama has been like the business executive who cuts down the chair legs so you feel shorter sitting across from his desk. A group of Senators refused to be played.

Second, why are guided-missile drones controversial? Proponents of missile drones argue that they are nothing new. The U.S. military and the CIA are doing the same thing they have always done, just with a different weapon. Those engaged in combat against our country have made themselves legitimate targets and forfeited any legal protection.

In World War II, U.S. military leaders launched "Operation Vengeance" to shoot down Japanese Admiral Yamamoto. He was flying near the Solomon Islands far away from any battle. Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. The mission was as much about revenge as any immediate impact on battle.

[Moseley]

To read the full article on AMERICAN THINKER (which doesn't allow posting the full article), click on: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/what_did_rand_pauls_filibuster_mean.html

[humblegunner]

Guess you should have posted it here first then.

[yldstrk]

I thought the whole thing was about right to life and that Rand Paul was correct and that the Obama White House wanted the power to kill whomsoever they should choose even if it was an American citizen on American soil who has a right to due process. I believe most observers thought the same.

[xkaydet65]

The problem with Paul’s filibuster, or rather with its interpretation by others, is that it focused on drones. Paul should have been clear. If an American suspected of ties to terrorists, say one who raises funds or provides intel, were to be sitting in a Starbucks and a Navy SEAL were to target and kill him with a Barret .50 cal, that would be equally egregious as using a drone. It’s about the act of killing an American citizen not actively taking up arms or being an immediate threat without due process.

[Lil Flower]

Bttt

[wayoverontheright]

I’m not sure what it’s all about, but I know what it should be about.

It seems to me that an enemy combatant who happens to be within our borders should be captured, not droned. The issue here is which will save the most lives. Intelligence can be gathered one way, but not the other.

By vilifying the waterboarding process, this administration has seemingly given up on capturing live jihadis, who would have far more value alive than dead. If we can drone them we can capture them, and at least have a chance to do more damage to our enemy’s network.

I think this whole conversation shouldn’t be about can we or can’t we, it should be about should we.

[Flintlock]

Please, please , PUHLEEEZZZZE can we just get away from this “American Citizen” BS??

Pretty please with sugar on top????

Section 5 of the US code says that iffen a citizen takes up arms for a foreign force fighting our country—citizenship is forfit.
It means—THEY AIN’T CITIZENS NO MORE!!

Mamma’s VJ may have been located in the U, S, of A when he/she/it popped-—but thassit (and irrelevant, to boot!)

[SaraJohnson]

Section 5 of the US code says that iffen a citizen takes up arms for a foreign force fighting our country—citizenship is forfit.
It means—THEY AIN’T CITIZENS NO MORE!!

---

That is all fine and dandy until DHS and DOD began classifying American vets, people who advocate for the constituton/rule of law, second amendment advocates, pro-lifers, conservative Christians, etc. as “domestic terrorists.”

Also, all those Americans getting sexually molested by pervert Federal agents at the airports have absolutely nothing to do with foreign Islamic terror. If the US government is conducting war against foreign enemies, why is DHS buying and that ammo and drones - building a domestic army to occupy our land and why is DOD running civil war games against the Tea Party?

You should take in the whole picture of what our government has become as the global elitists have unleashed themselves from the constitution and loyality to the American Nation and people.

[mosaicwolf]

"Section 5 of the US code says that iffen a citizen takes up arms for a foreign force fighting our country—citizenship is forfit. It means—THEY AIN’T CITIZENS NO MORE!!"

How about Major Hassan? Is he no longer a citizen?

[Moseley]

I agree. I don’t think the issue has anything to do with being a citizen.

The issue is CHOOSING to engage in violent warfare against the USA. The analysis doesn’t change based on whether someone is a citizen or not.

On the other hand, even non-citizens cannot be killed if they can be arrested. Regardless of whether someone is a citizen or not, if the military or the police can safely arrest them, they cannot kill them. When the person is engaged in violence or resisting arrest, it is their CHOICE to engage in violence that gest them killed... not whether they are a citizen or not.

I am not sure I would go as far as saying that someone automatically loses their citizenship without a hearing. But I agree that this entire discussion should have nothing to do with being a citizen or not.

[Louis Foxwell]

The ISSUE is a president who is out of control. Paul labeled him a wannabe tyrant and got away with it. Obama is dropping in the polls because the blinders are coming off. It was a first step but a mighty one.

[geologist]

...”First, no, it was not about drones — not primarily. It was about the Obama administration arrogantly refusing to give a straight answer to questions from the U.S. Congress. In the “Fast and Furious” and Benghazi scandals, Eric Holder and Barack Obama got away with murder. But this time, when challenged, Obama backed down.

For a month and a half, the Obama Administration chose to give Rand Paul or Ted Cruz evasive answers. That conspicuous disrespect has been typical from Obama’s team. That's what the fight was really about. Sometimes people use proxy issues to fight about a deeper principle.” ...
____________________________________________________________

Currently Obama has a record of outrageous actions, and edicts/executive orders and the American populous has sat and watched. No outrage over anything.

Fully half of America supports this man and does not know or pay attention to his daily activities or have an interest in how the ramifications will effect America and our way of life. He ignores the Constitution of the United States that is the foundation for the success of our great nation along with the honest hard work of the people, and our Christian values.

America has supported the producing or produced the enviable highest living standards in the world for many years. We are in HUGE danger of losing it ... eminently ... eminently.

God help America, in Jesus name amen.