Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Filibusters the Senate.
On March 6, 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), conducted an impressive filibuster to protest and/or delay the appointment of John Brennan as director of the CIA. Since Brennan has made public statements that appear to be supportive of islamic terrorism, and he has made statements that appear to be anti-Israel, should have been enough to spur a legitimate investigation into his viability as the director of the CIA. The accusation that he is a muslim convert and that he has colluded with members of the Saudi government and also with individuals with known terrorist ties should have demanded such an investigation. Apparently they did not.
The premise of Paul’s 13-hour filibuster speech involved the possibility of the president ordering the use of weaponized drones against American citizens on American soil. Sen. Paul asked for assurance from the Obama administration that this possibility could not happen. IN response, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul which stated: “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.” The filibuster ended, and today the senate voted to approve Brennan’s appointment.
One would think that this is all there is to this story, but alas, there is more to it, much more, and the implications are mind staggering.
To begin with, although Eric Holder did state that the President does not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on American soil, a close look at Holder’s letter reveals that Holder introduced some qualifiers to his statement. The President is not authorized to order such an attack upon Americans “not engaged in combat on American soil.” So, the question is, how does Obama and his administration define “combat.”
This is a legitimate question, especially in light of Holder’s later statement in which he said (regarding weaponized drone attacks against Americans on American soil), “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” In other words, the answer to Sen. Paul’s question is actually, yes, the President could conceivably order such an attack in an extraordinary circumstance. Not a very comfortable thought is it? So does the Obama administration define “combat”? According to a news article reported on Breitbart.com, virtually anyone who disagrees with the Obama administration could be considered an enemy of the state. This includes those who sympathize or agree with the Tea Party movement, or those who support the Second Amendment. (Read the Breitbart report here) Clearly, according to Holder’s own words, the concerns expressed by Sen. Paul are legitimate concerns, and should be shared by each and every American regardless of political persuasion.
What should also be of concern is the reaction of certain politicians to Sen. Paul’s speech. Not surprisingly, Sen. Paul was completely disrespected and dismissed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who told the senate that their work was done and that they should simply go home. What was a little surprising, however, was the response from the so-called conservative leadership who also dismissed Sen. Paul’s concerns, and went out of their way to publically lambast him. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on the record saying that the idea that the President would use a drone to attack an American in America was “ridiculous.” Personally, I think that in light of Eric Holder’s statement that the President could authorize such an attack, that Graham’s statement is ridiculous.
Even more surprising was the reaction of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who said in response to Sen. Paul’s speech, “I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded. I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. It is simply false.” [Note: During his speech, Sen. Paul made reference to Jane Fonda and the possibility of the government using a drone to kill her during the Vietnam War- TP]
I must say, McCain’s words hit me like high fly ball into center field, or left field as the case may actually turn out to be. Not only should he (and Graham) be supporting a senator from their own party, but they are supposed to be senior members of that party. They are supposed to be conservatives, or at least they lay claim to that label.
McCain’s statement that Jane Fonda was simply exercising her constitutional rights when she visited North Vietnam in 1972 (while America was at war with that country), posed on a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft battery (the same weapon used to attack Americans), and made propaganda radio broadcasts from North Vietnam. It was during those broadcasts (she made ten in all – broadcast to American servicemen and women) that she told our soldiers and sailors that they were “war criminals.” She called the President of the United States a “War Criminal” and a “True Killer,” accusing him of attacking North Vietnam in an attempt to colonize the country. Fonda went on to talk to Americans through her North Vietnamese propaganda broadcasts that she had witnessed the “systematic destruction of civilian targets” such as “schools … hospitals … [and] homes,” and she lavishing unceasing praise on the North Vietnamese trained female militia who became “such good fighters,” and NVA guerrillas who infiltrated into South Vietnam and killed Americans. Fonda said of them, “They did their job well.”
Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-Aircraft gun in 1972.
If “Hanoi Jane” Fonda had limited her anti-war rhetoric to stateside activities, then she would have been exercising her constitutional rights. However, since she engaged in them in an enemy country, while that country is at war with America, then she was committing seditious and treasonous acts.
Sedition is the act of stirring up rebellion against the government in power. Since Fonda was encouraging the soldiers and sailors toward whom her propaganda broadcasts to aimed, to rebel against the orders of their President and Commander-in-Chief, she was clearly being seditious. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one’s country by aiding and abetting that country’s enemies during a time of war.
Just as “Axis Sally” (Mildred Gillars) had done during World War Two, when she aided and abetted Nazi Germany by making propaganda radio broadcasts during which she called American soldiers and sailors war criminals, and launched verbal attacks at the President, so did “Hanoi Jane” when aided and abetted communist North Vietnam during a time of war. Mildred Gillars was tried and convicted of treason against the United States (serving federal prison time for her crimes against America). Jane Fonda, however, had the benefit of both money and political connections which were used to ensure that she not be punished for her acts of sedition and treason.
That John McCain, a former prisoner-of-war in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” would defend such a person as Jane Fonda by saying she was only exercising her constitutional rights is a slap in the face to all veterans, especially Vietnam Veterans, and even more so those who suffered as POW’s in Vietnam. That John McCain and Lindsey Graham would condemn Rand Paul for taking a stand in support of all Americans, in defense of all Americans, in order to ensure the safety of all Americans (especially in light of Holder’s statement), tells me that McCain and Graham at least tentatively support the use of weaponized drones against Americans on American soil; and that is, to me, a treasonous stand against all Americans.
Simply put, Rand Paul was right, and McCain and Graham were wrong. At the very least they should be made to resign from the Republican party. If they want to join the democrat party (which would seem to be the logical choice given their stand) then so be it. If they want to continue as independents, then so be it. They are, however, an anathema and a pariah to me.
[As a side note (and I have said this before), the question of weaponized drone attacks against American citizens, seems to find its birth in the killing U.S. born al qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. I would point out, however, that at the time of his death, al-Awlaki was a citizen of Yemen, and not an American citizen. He had renounced his U.S. citizenship (which is required to become a citizen of Yemen), and he was a ranking member of al qaeda. His death was fully justified as an enemy combatant.]
CNN's Piers Morgan
As I sit down to begin this post, it is 9:53pm on Christmas night, December 25, 2012.
Ever since Piers Morgan of CNN opened his mouth and proved to America that it is not necessary to have an IQ over 10 to be a television celebrity, thousands of Americans have rushed to the White House website to electronically sign a petition to have Morgan deported back to Great Britain. In fact, as of this moment 68,474 people have signed that petition.
Personally I think it is great that Americans are taking a stand in defense of our country. Why should we allow a foreign national to go on American television and trash our Constitutional rights? The petition states that Morgan is using his position as a television celebrity to undermine the U.S. Constitution and stage attacks against the rights of Americans. Very commendable. Pointless, but commendable. I say that because I really don’t think this petition will amount to anything. Having the required 25,000 signatures only means the White House has to respond to the petition. I expect their response will sound something like this: “Thank you for your support … blah, blah, blah … we will look into it … blah, blah, blah, there’s nothing we can do.” And the reality is, even if they could do something, do you really think a liberal administration is going to sanction one of their main cheerleaders? Nope. Not in our lifetime.
I also happen to think that this White House petition website is really nothing more than a gimmick designed to dupe the people of this country into believing they really do have a say in how our country is run, and how the federal government runs it. Get a grip on reality folks, the federal government – especially the liberal side of it – doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about what we the people think. Their attitude is one of “shut up, give us money, don’t complain, know your place.”
That all being said, however, I did find some interesting things about the “petition the government” website. Aside from laughing at some of the more ridiculous petitions (such as the let’s build a Gen1 USS Enterprise Interplanetary Spaceship petition), I noticed several petitions that are actually very good causes, which if the number of signatures is any indication, don’t seem to have much interest. What I found interesting about this is that they all seem to me to be vastly more important and more feasible that getting Piers Morgan deported. But no one is signing them. Apparently, all of the conservatives who have signed the Morgan deportation petition think that issue is more important. What follows is a list of those issues that apparently rank lower in conservative minds (among those who signed the Morgan petition) than getting a talking head deported:
1. Supporting and endorsing the National Rifle Association’s “National School Shield” program. This program would place an armed law enforcement officer in every school to protect the children from wackadoodles with guns. Thus far this petition has 15,800 signatures. It needs 9,200 more by January 21, 2013. Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-and-fully-endorse-national-rifle-associations-national-school-shield-program/zDkJjQ12
2. Have one uniformed armed police officer or active duty military at EVERY public school during school hours. Similar to #1 above, this petition only has 6,853 signatures, and still needs 18,147 more signatures by January 16, 2013 in order to force the White House to respond to it. Click the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/have-one-uniformed-armed-police-officer-or-active-duty-military-every-public-school-during-school/DD7bBYwL
3. Ban protests for any cause within three hundred feet of any funeral service, both during and two hours before and after. Clearly a response to the despicable antics of the Westboro Baptist Church (which is obviously not an actual Christian organization). If the White House granted this petition, think of how many heroic veterans who have lost their lives in defense of this country, would not have their memorial services desecrated by the actions of groups and individuals such as Westboro. This petition, however, only has 8,555 signatures and still needs 16,445 more by January 19, 2013 in order to for it to even be considered by the Obama Administration. Click the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-protests-any-cause-within-three-hundred-feet-any-funeral-service-both-during-and-two-hours-and/byxbF4Vq
4. Immediately Abolish the Legalized Murder of Pre-born Children. Wow! Straight and to the point, and an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of conservatives everywhere in America. Well, maybe not. It only has 5,409 signatures and still needs 19,591 more by January 16, 2013 (that’s only two and a half weeks!) to be heard by the White House. I have to admit that this one really surprised me. Is it really more important to get Piers Morgan deported than to save the lives of unborn children? Priorities people! Priorities! Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-abolish-legalized-murder-pre-born-children/JRJRZ092
5. Toddler TORTURED and MURDERED sentence 10 years! Time Served "77 Days for Neglect. Federal offense? Obviously emotions played a large part in the writing of this petition. Coming out of what is clearly a miscarriage of justice wherein a 16-month old toddler was the victim of horrendous abuse which finally resulted in her death. I think the petition should have read something like: “Honor Alissa Shaffer with ‘Alissa’s Law,’ and make any case of child abuse resulting in death a federal offense with a minimum mandatory sentence of life without parole upon conviction.” Maybe this is why this petition only has 5,528 signatures and still needs 19,472 more by January 14, 2013. Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/toddler-tortured-and-murdered-sentence-10-years-time-served-77-days-neglect-federal-offense/rjGKM6BY
6. Cease All Funding and Support for Al-Qaeda Terrorists and Extremist Rebels in Syria. Like that will ever happen with Obama knowingly supporting Al Qaeda in Syria just as he supports them in Yemen, Libya, and the MB in Egypt. He is obviously a terrorist sympathizer. That being said, however, I would have thought there would have been more than the 3,929 signatures this petition currently has. It needs 21,071 more by January 6, 2013. Let’s see, stop funding terrorists versus deporting Piers Morgan. Do we really need to stop and think about this? Apparently, since almost 70,000 have signed get rid of the monkey petition, but less than 4,000 want to stop funding terrorists. Sheesh! Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/cease-all-funding-and-support-al-qaeda-terrorists-and-extremist-rebels-syria/R951Mygt
7. Stand up for the rights of endangered Christian minorities around the world this Christmas season. With the intense amount of anti-Christian bigotry in the world, including in America (at least we haven’t started killing our Christians – yet), I guess I can see why this petition only has 3,945 signatures. Not too many people really care. Maybe the Muslim Brotherhood is right, and Christianity will soon become extinct. This petition still needs 21,055 more signatures by January 6, 2013 if it is to be heard by the White House. Click on the link to sign this petition, at least if you happen to think America should stand up for the rights of endangered Christian minorities. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stand-rights-endangered-christian-minorities-around-world-christmas-season/g1Dg26RG
8. Save Egypt from dictatorship and extremism being forced upon her people by President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, this isn’t likely to happen since Obama supported Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood (all while they were calling for the destruction of Israel and America). Still and the same, I guess it doesn’t hurt to try. Or maybe it does since only 3,477 people have signed this petition, and it still needs 21,523 more signatures by January 4, 2013. Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/save-egypt-dictatorship-and-extremism-being-forced-upon-her-people-president-morsi-and-muslim/KQ3XJ98j
9. Chiari Malformation and Related Disorders: Spread Education, Research and Awareness. What the heck is Chiari Malformation and Related Disorders? Well, if this petition gets heard by the White House, maybe they will help educate us about it. According to the national Institute of Health, “Chiari malformations (CMs) are structural defects in the cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls balance. Individuals with CM may complain of neck pain, balance problems, muscle weakness, numbness or other abnormal feelings in the arms or legs, dizziness, vision problems, difficulty swallowing, ringing or buzzing in the ears, hearing loss, vomiting, insomnia, depression, or headache made worse by coughing or straining. Hand coordination and fine motor skills may be affected. Individuals who have a CM often have these related conditions: hydrocephalus, spina bifida, syringomyelia or hydromyelia, and other serious diseases. It was once thought that chiari malformations occurred in 1 out of every 1,000 births, however, with advanced testing and diagnosis it has been found to be much more common.” I have to say that I have never even heard of this disorder. If we had more awareness, maybe I and many other would be more aware of serious medical conditions such as Chiari Malformations. Unfortunately, this petition which was written in the hope that the White House would help spread education, research and awareness only has 1,434 signatures and still needs another 23,566 more signatures by January 1, 2013. But hey by gosh we may not be able to rid of Chiari Malformations, but by golly we’ll get rid of Piers Morgan! Right. Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/chiari-malformation-and-related-disorders-spread-education-research-and-awareness/PdWkjVcl
10. Compromise with Congress to create a BIPARTISAN solution to the Fiscal Cliff so young Americans can have bright futures. This is one of most common sense petitions on the petition website, because it really lets the White House know what we the people want! We want them to stop piddling around and solve this problem. Stop the party politics, stop the grandstanding, get your prideful head out of plentiful posterior and solve this problem that all of you up there on the hill have created! Well, at least some of want that. In fact only 1,196 seem to want this bad enough to actually petition the White House about it. This petition still needs 23, 804 more signatures by tomorrow (December 27, 2012) to get the White House to even look at it. Click on the link to sign this petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/compromise-congress-create-bipartisan-solution-fiscal-cliff-so-young-americans-can-have-bright/1PHhRgCk
Rather pitiful if you ask me. But hey, even if we do nothing to stop the country from barreling headfirst off the fiscal cliff, we can stand tall with our heads held high with the knowledge that we helped try and get Piers Morgan deported. Heck of a legacy wouldn’t you say? Maybe it’s because of little things like this that Piers Morgan is laughing about the petition to get him deported.
As Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Recently I came across a post on Facebook regarding the upcoming election. The post read, in part, “A write in vote for [Ron Paul] this November is a message to the government of what we expect of it. A lot of write in votes for him is a strong message to the government. The bigger the write in total, the stronger the message. The creation of a strong message is NOT a waste of votes. GO RON. Restore America.” Responses to the post were all supportive of the Ron Paul write in idea. One commenter wrote, “I cannot in good conscience vote for either of the ‘major party’ candidates, but I will write in Ron Paul, because that would truly be my first choice. I don’t expect him to win, but maybe the message would be significant. I’m so tired of voting for a candidate only because I want the other one even less. I’d rather make the statement, even if almost no one ‘hears’ it.” Another wrote, “I’m writing in Ron Paul. It’s the right thing to do. I’m trusting in God to get me through whatever happens after this election.” And a third encouraged everyone to forward the post to everyone and share it via email, twitter, Facebook, etc.
Now I have to admit, I really do not like Mitt Romney, and I do not believe that he will be good for America. In fact, I have been known to refer to Romney as “Obama 2.0”, “Obama Lite”, and “Robamney.” After considering his position on the important points of this election, I concluded that he really isn’t who I would want for president. (click here to read an earlier article regarding my research into Mitt Romney) And I have to also say that I really do not like the idea that the RNC decided that Romney would be the Republican candidate long before a single primary vote had taken place, in effect telling the American people that they really did not care who the people wanted to run against Obama, it was the RNC’s decision, and not the voters. (The RNC pulled that stunt back in October 2011, almost 5 full months before the first Republican primary in February 2012. SOURCE) A little arrogant of the RNC wouldn’t you say? I also have to say that I am not a big fan of Ron Paul either, and not only do I not want him as my president, I think he would end up being detrimental to America. Paul supports embryonic stem cell research (contrary to his pro-life stance); he believes that 9/11 occurred only because America had (has) a presence in the Middle East (a typical liberal meme which is contrary to Osama bin Laden’s statement that his attack on America was based solely on the teachings of the koran), and Paul has stated that he would not have authorized the killing of bin Laden, but would have asked Pakistan for their permission to arrest him instead (like Pakistan would have granted permission for that! They were harboring bin Laden!).
Paul has also gone on record as being pro-same-sex marriage, and has stated that he does not believe there should be any laws prohibiting cocaine, heroin, meth and other illegal drugs, and he believes prostitution should be legalized (simply because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit these things).
Ron Paul has also gone on record as stating that the federal government does not have the authority to enact or enforce hate speech laws, obscenity laws, or banning the implementation of Islamic Sharia law in the United States (beliefs that could pave the way for rampant anti-Christian bias, anti-Semetism, pedophilia, and Sharia law throughout various individual states).
All in all, it is clear to me that a Ron Paul presidency would sound the death knell for America. You can read more about my research into Ron Paul’s stand on all of these issues by clicking here, and here. So once again, we have a presidential election situation where we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and as a result, some folks have decided that now is the time to exercise a “vote-my conscience” decision.
It has been said that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. And this year’s presidential election, with its “choose the lesser of two evils” aspect, reminds me of the presidential election of 1992 between George Bush 1st and Bill Clinton. Back then, 20 years ago, when people were faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils, then, as now, many decided to “vote their conscience” rather that what was obviously right for America. And back then, as now, we had another “RP” choice. Back then it was Ross Perot rather than Ron Paul, but the effect was the same. Back then a lot of people decided to vote their conscience and they voted for Ross Perot rather than Bush or Clinton. The result was that many votes that probably would have gone to Bush if Perot had not run, went to Perot instead, and obviously neither Bush nor Perot had enough votes to defeat Clinton, and you all know the end result. Eight years of Slick Willy Clinton and his evil sidekick Hillary. Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, multiple suspicious deaths, impeachment proceedings and more. All because people decided to “vote their conscience” rather than what was better (I won’t say best) for America. And we’re about to go through the same thing again.
If Ron Paul supporters “vote their conscience” and choose a write in vote for Paul, then those votes are not just votes that could likely propel Romney into the White House, but they are votes that will help ensure another four years of the Obama Regime. Something that would clearly cause harm, possibly irreparable harm to America. But at least the Paul supporters would have clear consciences. But will they really?
Yes, it’s true that they can hold their collective heads up and proudly say they took a stand and did not cave into the RNC’s intimidation tactics by refusing to vote for Romney. But knowing that by doing so they actually helped Obama win another four years of trillions of dollars of new debt, rampant unemployment, the death of countless small businesses, billions of dollars in new taxes (Obamacare), possible attacks on America and/or Americans by wacked out Islamic Jihadists, and more possible attacks on Israel, not to mention the further spread of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda (the folks Obama supported in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and now Syria). Can Ron Paul supporters accept responsibility for all that? I hope so, because that is exactly what they will be supporting by not voting for Romney.
Now is the time to focus on ending Obama’s destructive regime, not sending a message by “voting our conscience.” A message that will have little effect, if any, on the government. However, I am sure that Barack Obama would love nothing more than Paul supporters “voting their conscience.”
To read more, visit: http://independentrealist.blogspot.com/2011/10/decision-has-been-made-romney-vs-obama.html
"Thanks to Republicans beginning to appreciate the heritage of our Grand Old Party, it has become better known that Republicans in Congress supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Indeed, the legislator most responsible for breaking the Democrat filibuster was a Republican senator, Everett Dirksen.
And now, the question that should be before us: How did that landmark legislation come to be? The answer to that is a source of pride for all Republicans today.
The origin of the 1964 Civil Rights Act can be traced back to the Reconstruction era. That was when the Republican Party enacted the first civil rights act ever, the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Never heard of it? Democrat history professors would rather you didn't. With that law, Republicans took a big step toward making Abraham Lincoln's vision for “a new birth of freedom” a reality.
Ominously, the assassination of the Great Emancipator had left the presidency to his Democrat vice president, Andrew Johnson. Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL), co-author of the 13th Amendment banning slavery, also wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Republican support was nearly unanimous, while Democrats were unanimously opposed. This would be the first time Congress overrode a presidential veto of a significant bill.
The law conferred U.S. citizenship on all African-Americans, according them “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Despite Democrat objections, Republicans made sure African-Americans had the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.
Andrew Johnson refused to enforce this law in the southern states, so it had little effect there. However, many racially discriminatory laws in the North were repealed or struck down as a result.
Sixty-four of eighty Democrats in the House of Representatives had voted against the 13th Amendment. And so, Republicans feared that once the southern states were back in the Union, a Democrat majority along with a racist Democrat in the White House might undo all they had accomplished for African-Americans. What if they repealed the new Civil Rights Act?
To keep that law safe from a future Democrat Congress, Republicans enshrined its precepts in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Another point of pride for the GOP is that Republicans voted unanimously for the 14th Amendment, while Democrats voted unanimously against it.
Republicans followed this success with several more civil rights acts during the Ulysses Grant administration, including one that effectively outlawed the Ku Klux Klan. The next step was the brainchild of one of our party’s greatest heroes, Senator Charles Sumner. He wrote the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which anticipated the 1964 Civil Rights Act with its ban on racial discrimination in public accommodations. He had been pushing for the bill for years. On his deathbed, he told a former Attorney General: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill – don’t let it fail.” "Read more at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50904