RINOs Look to Dilute Second Amendment


1st-american-rev-gun-rights

John R. Houk

© March 29, 2013

 

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute)

 

I received an email from Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) notifying their readers that Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell are formulating a Gun Control Lite Bill as a compromise to offer to the Gun Control maniacs of the Obama Administration and the Leftist Dems in the Senate that wish to unconstitutionally nullify Second Amendment.

 

The point of the email is to stir activism for 2nd Amendment Gun Rights by flooding Grassley and McConnell with pro-Gun Rights messages with the hope of changing their mind on any 2nd Amendment-limiting legislation.

 

THE POINT I believe you should begin to perceive though is that RINOs call the shots in the GOP. AND that RINOs lean to Center-Left on issues that Conservatives find abhorrent. RINOs are willing to give up tooooo much in compromises in order pass some Republican-friendly legislation that is compliant to some constituent budget issue but ignores the larger picture of what keeps America good. Thus Leftist ideology creeps more and more into American culture making America more and more ceasing to be good.

 

To keep America good my fellow Conservatives – fiscally and socially – it is time to depart from the Republican and form a political party that does not pander Center-Left weaknesses that continually dilutes the nature of what America is.

 

In the mean time check out Dudley Brown’s email exposing the nefarious compromise being cooked up by Senator Chuck Grassley and garnering the support of Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

 

JRH 3/29/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Republican Senators Plotting with Obama?

 

By Dudley Brown

Sent: 3/29/13 1:15

Sent from NAGR

 

Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has a “gun control lite” bill he’s selling to weak-kneed Senators on Capitol Hill . . .

. . . and what’s even worse, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, “it might be something I can support.”

You would think ALL Republicans are lining up behind Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to support the filibuster of Harry Reid’s gun control bill — S. 649.

But that’s just not happening.

And it appears Grassley and McConnell’s “gun control lite” bill could destroy all efforts to stop Obama’s war on your gun rights when the Senate returns to Washington on April 8.

It’s unclear exactly what Grassley’s gun control bill contains, but it’s clear he’s more than willing to cut a “deal,” especially after he was the lone Republican vote with the gun-grabbers in a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

That’s exactly how we’re going to get gun control — weak-kneed Republicans buckling.

That’s why it’s vital you take action AT ONCE.

Call the offices of both Senators — Grassley and McConnell — RIGHT NOW!

INSIST Grassley and McConnell OPPOSE the motion to proceed on S. 649, SUPPORT the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster, and, drop their plans for a “gun control lite” bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley: 202-224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541

If you have trouble getting through on those phone lines, please click on the links below to send an email to both Grassley and McConnell.

Click here to email Senator Chuck Grassley

Click here to email Senator Mitch McConnell

Obama’s gun control point man in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, is on the look-out for just this type of weak-kneed behavior from as many Republicans as he can find.

Grassley and McConnell are two of his top targets.

If Reid manages to pick up the support of enough Senate Republicans, Obama will get what he wants — fictitious “gun trafficking” legislation, so-called “mental health screenings” and “expanded background checks.”

Possibly even more gun control like Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons ban” and a federal magazine ban will also be on the table.

That’s why Senator Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell’s history of “deal-cutting” should be so worrisome to gun owners.

In 2009, instead of whipping Republicans to oppose Obamacare at every opportunity, Grassley worked to a cut a “deal” with anti-freedom forces hell-bent on taking over the American health care system.

I don’t have to go back far to remind you that Mitch McConnell has a history of caving in to the demands of Obama and Harry Reid.

In January, NAGR members fought tooth-and-nail INSISTING Mitch McConnell not cave to Harry Reid’s demands to gut the Senate filibuster.

In the end, McConnell forfeited several of the procedural motions used with great effect by Senator Rand Paul and others to delay legislation that the Majority Leader is trying to jam through, allowing bad legislation to pass more quickly.

And how could we forget McConnell cutting a “deal” with Obama and Reid on the so-called “fiscal cliff” earlier this year?

McConnell’s “deal” gave Obama and Reid $41 in tax increases in exchange for $1 in spending cuts. Yes, you read that right.

So if Senator Chuck Grassley’s “gun control lite” bill looks anything similar to the “deals” he and McConnell have cut in recent years, your gun rights will be on the chopping block in just a matter of days.

The only force standing in the way of Reid’s gun control dreams is the vow of a filibuster by Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz.

By filibustering — opposing the motion to proceed on S. 649 –- Paul, Cruz and Lee can hold the line against gun control for the moment.

And if they hold the filibuster and prevent Reid from getting the 60 votes he needs to break it, gun owners win the first battle in the Obama administration’s war on gun owners.

That’s why it’s vital you call the offices of both Senators — Grassley and McConnell — RIGHT NOW!

INSIST Grassley and McConnell OPPOSE the motion to proceed on S. 649, SUPPORT the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster, and, drop their plans for a “gun control lite” bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley: 202-224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541

If you have trouble getting through on those phone lines, please click on the links below to send an email to both Grassley and McConnell.

Click here to email Senator Chuck Grassley

Click here to email Senator Mitch McConnell

Thanks — in advance — for taking action.

For Freedom,

 

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is working on a “gun control lite” bill that could give Obama much of the gun control he wants. What’s worse, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said it “might be something I can support.”

Call Senators Grassley and McConnell RIGHT NOW! INSIST they support the Paul, Cruz and Lee filibuster and drop any plans they may have for a “gun control lite” bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley: 202-224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell: 202-224-2541

P.P.S. NAGR has just launched a massive, nationwide grassroots effort designed to mobilize gun owners against gun control. If you can, please consider chipping in $10 or $20 to support NAGR’s efforts.

 

+++++++

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

 

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

____________________

RINOs Look to Dilute Second Amendment

John R. Houk

© March 29, 2013

____________________

Republican Senators Plotting with Obama?

 

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O. Box 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

Rally Around the Sarah Palins of America


Scottie Nell Hughes 2

Scottie Hughes

John R. Houk

© March 27, 2013

 

A few days ago Tea Party journalist Scottie Hughes was critical of Sarah Palin after her CPAC speech as being a rousing speaker but lacking in Conservative work to get the ball moving on a Conservative agenda to offset America’s Leftists.

 

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

 

You are beginning to worry me. I am afraid you are losing touch with the people of whom your fame is based. I, after all, was one of your biggest supporters once. I am thrilled that you get invitations to go to NBA games, that you display your Chick-fil-A shirt, and that you go and support your daughter and her celebrity friends on Dancing with the Stars.

 

But at CPAC last week you made a rush for the exits. After you gave an inspiring speech where you said to a thrilled audience, “At a time when our country is desperate for leadership, we get instead a permanent campaign”. Instead of coming out and shaking the hands of those who you inspire, you quickly left the building without even a second glance.

 

You called out the liberal media as being unashamed, so at least you took notice of them. Not so for those of us on the right who had hoped that the woman from Wasilla, Alaska might understand our plight and give us a chance to engage one of the top names in the movement.

 

We were, to put it bluntly, disappointed. And while I wish this was a solo occurrence, unfortunately this seems to be your pattern.

 

I know we in the Tea Party movement don’t throw the best parties or live the most glamorous lives, but we are the ones who faithfully donated to the McCain campaign once you joined the ticket. We are the ones who defended you publicly when the liberal media made fun of you and when your own campaign advisors turned on you. We are the ones who add you and your family to our prayers every night at bedtime.

 

Yet it seems those in Hollywood who have made their money making you the butt of their jokes get more of your attention than the movement you helped inspire.

 

As a working mother in political journalism, I always looked to your journey as a source of inspiration. It was a testament to the fact that a woman can use her professional talents and not let her family suffer. The other side wants to make female conservatives feel like we are put in binders and READ THE REST

 

Has Hughes been looking at the same Sarah Palin I have been look at? Palin has gone to Tea Party rallies and campaign stumped for Conservative pro-Tea Party plenty! My only disappoint with Sarah Palin was her decision to not run for the Office of President. I have no doubt that decision was based on the negative attacks by Establishment Republicans. The most notable of those Establishment Republicans was (and is) Karl Rove.

 

Let’s face it. Although the electorate power base of the Republican Party are Conservatives and of those on the Right it is the grassroots oriented Tea Partiers. BUT those who pull the finance strings in the Republican Party is the GOP’s version of Pharisees that favor a more Liberal Social Conservatism and leans toward Crony Capitalism rather than little guy entrepreneurship.

 

Sarah Palin was run out of the Governorship of Alaska because State Dems and Crony Capitalist Republicans constantly were inventing ethics violations to the absurd to prevent Palin from performing her Executive duties as Governor. I believe it is a good guess that she saw the Alaskan subservience to Establishment Republicans would be amplified against on a national basis with the Leftist Palin-hating Mainstream Media propagandizing against her message by obfuscating the honor of her personal life.

 

Instead of a fractured Tea Party splitting the Tea Party with hurt feelings for not getting the personal attention a prominent Tea Partier feels she deserves, it is no reason to make unsubstantiated complaints as if it was Left Wing propaganda.

 

RATHER prominent Tea Party leadership needs to unite and find a candidate like Sarah Palin that has a national message of American Exceptionalism, Constitutional Patriotism and Judeo-Christian Morality and stand up against Dems and Establishment Republicans as well as against the activism of the MSM Left.

 

So what if such a stand is not politically correct! In today’s world who defines political correctness? It is Leftists and RINOs. It is time to change the definers of political correctness.

 

Today it is politically incorrect to think outside of the Two-Party to replace one of the two prominent political parties. As the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1850s to eventually elect Abraham Lincoln in 1860, it is time for the Tea Party Movement to coalesce and find a political name representative of Conservative Tea Partiers.

 

In the 1850s the Abolitionist Movement was considered a fringe grassroots movement. The Dems, MSM and Establishment Republicans consider the Tea Party to be a fringe grassroots movement that will play itself out. Establishment Republicans envision the Conservative Tea Party base will catapult the GOP back into driver’s seat of both Houses in Congress. In that envisionment Establishment Republicans intend to minimize Tea Party to stop the Leftist fringe of the Dems and bring a middle road political agenda that benefits the Center-Left socially and the Crony Capitalist corporate big business elites on the Center-Right. 

 

Just because Center-Left and Center-Right sounds like a moderate path it does not mean a beneficent path for American culture.

 

The Leftist end of the scale is godless in values and humanistic in a moral foundation for the rule of law. The far Right end of the scale exploits religion for personal ideological gain and is oppressive to be beneficent to the corporate elite; i.e. Crony Capitalism on the backs of citizens squashing the entrepreneurial spirit of the average American to carve out a self-sustaining niche in life.

 

The only path that will to make America good is the godly path in which a moral foundation is the platform for the rule of law in which the little guy gets a few shake in the midst of Crony Capitalist elites concerned with the profit margin for the Board of Directors or for the Shareholders.

 

Government by and for the people is not a top to bottom manifesto for yeomen Americans rather the people represent the rule of law that protects the rights of the unentitled (and I am not talking about government entitled but rather the wealthy entitled as the opposite of the unentitled).

 

Real justice for all is godly morality not some Leftist ideological definition of justice that robs the yeoman American of the entrepreneurial opportunity to self-sustaining wealth via hard work and good decision making. Leftist justice will keep yeoman Americans enslaved to a life leashed to whatever government agenda is defined as good for Americans even if it robs of Liberty, a godly life and the pursuit of happiness. I call the Leftist ‘good’ evil.

 

The few Sarah Palins left in America need to be rallied around and not used in political divisiveness.

 

Check out the rebuttal of Scottie Hughes’ open letter to Sarah Palin written by Tony Lee.

 

JRH 3/27/13

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Tea Party News Network Director Falsely Smears Palin

 

By Tony Lee

25 Mar 2013

Breitbart Big Government

 

In a bizarre rant–or “open letter”–at Townhall, Scottie Hughes, the news director for the Tea Party News Network, falsely accuses former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin of rushing out of this year’s CPAC and having a pattern of ignoring grassroots conservatives.

Palin Iowa

 

While Hughes’s motivation for writing such a column may only be known to her, her accusations are demonstrably false.

 

Doug McMarlin, who has been with Palin since 2008 and was with her at this year’s CPAC, was also perplexed by Hughes’s characterization of the event. Palin met with volunteers, supporters and CPAC leadership at this year’s event. Palin keynoted last year’s CPAC and was the conference’s last speaker, which allowed for her to mix with the audience following her speech.

 

This year, her slot fell on a Saturday afternoon, which meant there were scheduled speakers immediately after her remarks. It would not have been logistically possible for Palin to even greet the crowd or do talk radio hits from CPAC without causing a huge disturbance due to the crowds that would have swarmed her and disrupted the conference.

 

“Never underestimate the level the uninformed with a keyboard will go to make a point based on a lack of information,” McMarlin told Breitbart News. “Lamestream, mainstream, and no stream media, it’s unfortunate when those who lack facts lash out without regard. Governor Palin, as always, was with volunteers, supporters and fellow conservatives throughout her days at CPAC.”

 

Hughes also implied that Palin only speaks to the grassroots through the teleprompter, but this accusation again does not even pass the smell test.

 

Jason Recher, a Palin staffer who has been with Palin at nearly every event since 2008, told Breitbart News Palin never asks for a teleprompter. In fact, reporters have often said Palin improvises during her speeches, which forces reporters to pay attention to every word in order to quote her accurately.

 

“I’ve been at almost every speech she’s given since ’08 and can’t think of a time where she ever asked to use a Teleprompter,” Recher told Breitbart News. The teleprompters at CPAC were part of the stage set up used for all the speakers; it was not something Palin personally requested.

 

Hughes, with no evidence whatsoever, alleges Palin made a “rush to the exits” at this year’s CPAC, implying Palin did not have time for the grassroots.

 

Again, not true.

 

As the photos below indicate, Palin spent time after the speech meeting with volunteers.

 

In addition, Rebecca Mansour, a Palin staffer, told Breitbart News that Palin had to catch a flight immediately after her speech. “She is a very busy working mom with many family and work obligations, including raising a son with Down syndrome who has scheduled therapies,” Mansour said.

 

Finally, in what may be her most misguided and out-of-touch statement that reveals her ignorance, Hughes refers to Palin’s “pattern of this behavior.”

 

What “pattern” is Hughes referencing?

 

The hours that Palin spent with nearly everyone who wanted to speak to her after she keynoted CPAC in 2012, as can be seen in C-SPAN’s coverage of the event?

 

The hours Palin spent in the lobby at CPAC in 2012 talking to bloggers and attendees, including Townhall’s own Katie Pavlich? Hughes penned her column at Townhall, so it is worth noting that Palin spoke to that outlet at CPAC in 2012.

 

Is Hughes referencing the time Palin spent with those who came to Iowa–in inclement weather–to listen to Palin denounce crony capitalism and the permanent political class in 2011? At the end of C-SPAN’s coverage of the event, it is clear Palin is energized by grassroots conservatives, and they love her because she genuinely is one of them.

 

Was Hughes referring to Palin visiting grassroots Tea Partiers at the Machine Shed restaurant in Iowa in 2011, comfortably mingling with nearly everyone in attendance?

 

Was she referencing Palin’s appearance at the Iowa State Fair in 2011, where she talked to nearly every Iowan who approached her for nearly six hours? Where she won the respect of liberals and even mainstream media reporters who did not think highly of her for genuinely liking “common” people most politicians do not feel comfortable around?

 

If Hughes is really a part of the grassroots and not a part of an astroturf movement, she could have gone to any of these events–like thousands of grassroots Tea Partiers–and spoken to Palin. Instead, she sounds like mainstream media members who lash out at Palin solely because Palin does not speak to them whenever they wish.

 

At these events, mainstream media reporters and liberals who did not even like Palin conceded how gracious and how accessible she is and how she thrives around the normal people Hughes purportedly claims to represent. Having written about Palin for nearly four years and having spoken to people who have been at nearly every event Palin has attended during this period, I have consistently heard people comment about how accessible–and down to earth–Palin is after all of her speeches and events, which is especially noteworthy given Palin’s white-hot star power.

 

It is unclear if Hughes wants Palin to spend time with her or her organization, but grassroots Tea Partiers who truly care more about fighting for the country instead of using the Tea Party to advance whatever agenda suits their interests never ask Palin for anything except to hold politicians and the permanent political class on the left and right to account, which Palin has relentlessly done.

 

And while Hughes implies Palin does not pay attention to new media, it is worth noting that after Palin turned down Fox News’ offer to renew her contract earlier this year, the first interview Palin gave was to Breitbart News–a new media outlet.

 

While Hughes, to date, has not seemed like someone who would proverbially come to Washington claiming to change it and instead see the D.C. cesspool as a jacuzzi, her column reads like it was written by someone desperate to become a part of the permanent political class. Her comments are cribbed from remarks the elite Washington, D.C. Republicans and liberals she purportedly is against so often make to denigrate Palin because they, in their minds, think Palin somehow spurned them. They criticize Palin to get pageviews and ratings and to make a name for themselves so they can try to get 1/1000 of her star power and influence.

 

They desperately crave to get 1/1000 of the bookings Palin most often has to turn down on a daily basis.

 

They wish their children could have the opportunities to influence pop culture–and would take that chance and go toward the glistening Hollywood spotlight faster than a moth to a flame–all the while acting as if they despise the Hollywood elite while secretly craving their affirmation and wanting all of the glitz and glamour associated with them.

 

They want to use the Tea Party movement to become stars or cash out instead of fighting to elect candidates like Ted Cruz to the Senate. At CPAC, Cruz said he would not be in the Senate without Palin. Nobody mentioned Hughes, and she most likely will not have politicians knocking on her door to ask for her endorsement.

 

Hughes needs to be careful, for more columns like this will make people think Hughes may be projecting or falsely seeing in Palin what she may see in herself. Columns that smear a politician like Palin who has held both parties to account in the true spirit of the Tea Party movement will begin to “worry” conservatives and Tea Partiers. They may begin to wonder what Hughes’s intentions are for being in the Tea Party movement and whether Scottie Hughes puts herself before her country and the principles for which she purportedly fights. 

 

All photos below, from CPAC 2013, courtesy of Shealah Craighead/SarahPAC

Gov. Palin with CPAC attendees and volunteers:

Palin with CPAC attendees and volunteers

 

Gov. Palin with college Republicans:

 After delivering remarks Former Alaska Governor Sarah poses for a photo during the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., on Saturday, March 16, 2013.  Photo by Shealah Craighead/SarahPAC

 

Gov. Palin greeting CPAC attendees and volunteers:

Palin greeting CPAC 2013 attendees and volunteers

 

Gov. Palin with Whitney Pitcher, Illinois Organize4Palin Coordinator, and Stacy Drake, editor-in-chief of Conservatives4Palin:

Palin-Whitney Pitcher-Stacy Drake CPAC 2013

 

Todd and Gov. Palin with Michelle McCormick, a volunteer and coordinator with Organize4Palin:

 Todd and Sarah Palin - Michelle McCormick CPAC 2013

 

_________________________

Rally Around the Sarah Palins of America

John R. Houk

© March 27, 2013

_________________________

Tea Party News Network Director Falsely Smears Palin

 

Copyright © 2013 Breitbart

Stand For Liberty


Rand Paul filibuster

Justin Smith utilizes Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster as the foundational starting point to write about the Obama Administration’s – with Attorney General Eric Holder as a reference – abuse of the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/15/13

Please Support NCCR    

************************************

Stand For Liberty

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/14/2013 3:23 PM

 

In a fascinating and charismatic stand for Our U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Liberty for all Americans, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) demanded on March 6, 2013 that Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder specifically give clarification regarding the Obama administration’s policy on using unmanned armed aircraft (drones) overseas and on American soil. When Holder gave several ambiguous statements and circled any honest answer pertaining to provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Executive Order on 12-31-12, allowing the president to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely and to kill Americans who are deemed terrorists or “enemy combatants,” Senator Paul vowed to block the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA until he received some satisfactory answers (Presidents have long used the word “privelege” in Article I Sec 9 as a tool to ignore habeas corpus). And thus ensued an amazing lesson in government and the U.S. Constitution, as Senator Paul delivered a thirteen hour filibuster!

Twelve other Republicans and one Democrat, Ron Wyden (Oregon) supported Paul during his 13 hour soliloquy, but the bulk of the Republican Party was notably and unfortunately missing in action during this intense, momentous and historic moment, which prompted Senator Paul’s observation, “If there were an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by other senators… saying they will not tolerate this.” So, in stark contrast Senator Rand Paul struck a blow for all Americans and Liberty, as Republican-in-name-only Senator Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) office would not divulge his whereabouts during the filibuster; and, RHINO Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who had dinner with Obama and eleven others during the filibuster, gushed like a teenage girl over the attention they received, as they were groomed to once more betray their constituency and the American people regarding upcoming financial matters.

Senators Graham (R-SC) and McCain (R-AZ) suggested that Senator Paul was doing “a disservice to Americans by making them think that somehow they’re in danger from their government.” As McCain added, “They’re not. But we are in danger from a dedicated longstanding, easily replaceable-leadership enemy that is hell bent on our destruction,” I thought that statement was fairly applicable to Obama and the Progressive Democrats as much as it was to Al Qaeda.

Remember that Holder has been undermining the U.S. legal system for a long time. The Holder Justice Department has prosecuted U.S. agents unfairly due to previously approved methods of interrogating terrorists, who have no standing under the U.S. Constitution (parallels “piracy”) or the Geneva Convention. Holder himself has represented Al Qaeda terrorists pro bono during his time with the law firm of Covington and Burling. He has unconstitutionally overseen the military trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Mohammed; now, he once again has conferred Constitutional rights on a terrorist/enemy combatant where none should exist and, in fact, do not exist in the case of Sulaiman Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and chief propagandist for Al Qaeda. And this is the man we are supposed to trust when he states that “no intention” exists to use drone strikes in America… the very same Eric Holder who ignored due process in the international child custody case of Elian Gonzalez.

Due process of the law has been integral to the American way since George Mason and others penned the Bill of Rights, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointedly stated, “The question of whether the United States government can kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil when that individual does not pose an imminent threat or grievous bodily harm is a fundamental issue of Liberty. It is an issue of enforcing the explicit language of Our Constitution.” It is within this context that all Americans must take pause and object to Holder’s reluctance and hesitancy to offer an unequivocal and certain, “No…the president does not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat,” as he eventually did on March 7, after a month and a half of pressure from Congress!

This controversy largely arose over the Obama refusal to allow Congress to see the legal opinions that authorize drone strikes, although regular reports have been made to the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Forces Committees. The critical question centers on Congressional oversight of a covert war against suspected terrorists, as Obama has grabbed too much power and violated the U.S. Constitution in his so-called “efforts to keep the nation safe.”

Virginia E. Sloan, the president of the Constitution Project (civil liberties group/DC), stated in February, “We have this drone war, and the American public has no idea what the rules are, and Congress doesn’t know much more… speeches are absolutely no substitute for the actual memos in hand.”

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said: “What Rand Paul had to say about drones absolutely fired up conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right.” Setting aside conspiracies, a known fact represents reality; and, America’s reality is an Obama administration and Homeland Security who warned of the ranks of potential terrorists being filled by “right wing extremists” and “Christian conservatives.”

Attorney General Holder has not told us the criteria used to mark a person as an enemy combatant. He also did not back off his contention that the president has the authority to pursue military action inside the U.S. in extraordinary circumstances, which is currently and technically correct; however, this also requires numerous signatures from the other branches of government, and it still gives the impression of flying in the face of Posse Comitatus [NCCR Editor: Read HERE, HERE and HERE]. And it was this assertion that sparked Senator Paul’s filibuster, as he declared, “I have allowed the president to pick his appointees… But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”

One should also note that the U.S. has developed miniature drone listening devices that go unnoticed as they hover over areas, like something out of Bradbury’s ‘Fahrenheit 451’ or Orwell’s ‘1984’. That’s well and good if they’re hovering over a terrorist camp, but do we really want to use this in America? … Embrace Big Brother… And even if we do, shouldn’t we still demand the application of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments?

Over the course of the filibuster several senators, such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, attempted to lessen the strain of the effort on Senator Paul by asking questions and speaking themselves. Cruz read passages from ‘Henry V’ and lines from the movie ‘Patton’. At one point, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), who struggles with a cane due to a stroke, delivered hot tea and an apple to Paul’s desk, but a doorkeeper removed them; not to be outdone, House Republican Louie Gohmert from Texas stood off to the side of the Senate floor in a show of support.

One person can make a difference when they stand up for a righteous cause, and no one should take any U.S. President’s word, especially this one’s, that his administration’s policy in any area remains consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, regardless of claims of “transparency”. By offering his resolution stating that the use of unmanned, armed aircraft on U.S. soil against American citizens violates the Constitution and delivering 13 hours of explanation and education, Senator Paul opened the eyes of many Americans, who want a better balance between protecting our security and protecting our Liberty; even CodePink called and thanked him “for standing up against abuses of power.” So, the next time you hear Senator Rand Paul, or anyone, ask “are you so afraid that you are willing to trade your freedom for security,” reply “No!”…and stand up for Liberty!

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith