Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Real Wisdom In Rand Paul’s Filibuster Freestyling

March 11, 2013 by  

Real Wisdom In Rand Paul’s Filibuster Freestyling

Since coming into use in the mid-1800s, Senate filibusters can, and have, been filled with crazy ephemera to draw out their length. Huey Long read Cajun recipies; Al D’Amato sang and read the phone book; Strom Thurmond read other States’ election laws.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said a lot of things Wednesday when he took the Senate floor to get his drone question answered. Over the course of 13 hours, he had to repeat himself a lot, and he filled plenty of time by tediously expounding on his vision of the importance of civil liberties in the United States.

But he didn’t read from the phone book, and he didn’t offer 100 ways to make gumbo. In fact, the more he delved into the “whys” and “hows” of his argument — one that sought a guarantee from the Administration of President Barack Obama that Americans would never, without due process, become drone targets at home — the more opportunities he gave himself to offer true, definitive articles of faith for a Libertarian reading of the U.S. Constitution.

Like these:

An Individual Has The Right…

This is not something that is good for the country. And by relinquishing the power of Congress, we relinquish something very fundamental to our republic, which is the checks and balances that we should have; checks and balances to help and try to prevent one body – or one part of the three parts of government – from obtaining too much power…the bipartisanship that we have now, which many in the media fail to understand, they see us not getting along on taxes and on spending, but they fail to understand that on something very important – on whether or not an individual has a right to a trial by jury, whether an individual has the right to not be detained indefinitely, that there is quite a bit of bipartisanship.

Alarm Bells Should Go Off…

Alarm bells should go off when people tell you that the battlefield’s in America. Why? Because when the battlefield’s in America, we don’t have due process. What they’re talking about is they want the laws of war. They call it the laws of war. Another way to put it is to call it martial law. That’s what they want in the United States when they say the battlefield is here… When people tell you that America is a battlefield, when they tell you that the battlefield is here, realize what they are telling you. They are telling you your Bill of Rights don’t apply…

We Shouldn’t Give Up [on due process] easily…

Certain things rise above partisanship. And I think your right to be secure in your person, the right to be secure in your liberty, the right to be tried by a jury of your peers — these are things that are so important and rise to such a level that we shouldn’t give up on them easily.

We Can’t Have War That Has No Temporal Limits…

War is war. War is hell. But we can’t have perpetual war. We can’t have war that has no temporal limits, and we can’t then have war that is a part of our daily life in our country, that we’re going to say from now on in our country you really don’t have the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Power Itself Is Intoxicating…

They [new Presidents] see the power that the presidency has. It’s enormous. They see themselves as good people, and they say I can’t give up any power because I’m going to do good with that power. The problem they don’t see is that the power itself is intoxicating, and the power someday may be in the hands of someone else who is less inclined to use it in a good way. I think that’s why the power grows, and grows, and grows: because everybody believes themselves to be doing the right thing.

Has The Presidency So Transformed Him That He Has Forgotten What He Stood For?

I’m a Republican. I didn’t vote or support the President either time, but I admired him, particularly in 2007 when he ran. I admired his ability to stand up and say we won’t torture people – that’s not what America does. How does the President’s mind work, though? The President that seemed so honorable; seemed so concerned with our rights; seemed so concerned with the right not to have your phone be tapped, now says he’s not concerned with whether you can be killed without a trial. The leap of logic is so fantastic as to boggle the mind. Where is the Barack Obama of 2007? Has the Presidency so transformed him that he has forgotten his moorings, forgotten what he stood for? Civil libertarians once expected more from the president.

Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone strike program if he were in the Senate. It amazes and disappoints me how much he has actually changed from what he once stood for.

Due Process – It’s Not Always Easy To Sort Out The Details Of Who Is A Threat…

The Fifth Amendment protects you – it protects from you a king placing you in the tower, but it also should protect from you a President that might kill you with a drone. We were granted due process – it’s not always easy to sort out the details of who is a threat.

The Majority Doesn’t Get To Decide Whom We Execute…

He [the President] was elected by a majority, but the majority doesn’t get to decide whom we execute.

Our Rights Are Gradually…Slipping Away…

Our rights are gradually eroding. I think they are gradually slipping away from us. I think the understanding of the Constitution as a document that restrains your government, that restrains the size and scope of your government has been lost on a lot of people, and I think it’s something we shouldn’t give up on …

…When we’re talking about changing the way that we adjudicate guilt, changing the way we decide someone’s life or death, it’s too important just to say, “Oh, Mr. President, go ahead and do it and as long as you tell me you have no intent of breaking the law or no intent of killing Americans…”

It just simply isn’t enough.

The Bill Of Rights…I think We Give Up Too Easily…

Can you imagine with all the checks and balances of our court system, which I think is the best in the entire world…sometimes you can still get it wrong. If we can get it wrong in the best system in the world, do you think one politician might get it wrong? But you will a never know, because nobody is told who is going to be killed. It is a secret list.

So how do you protest? How do you say, “I’m innocent?” How do you say, “Yes, I email with my cousin who lives in the Middle East, and I didn’t know he was involved in that?” Do you not get a chance to explain yourself in a court of law before you get a hellfire missile dropped on your head? So I think that really, it just amazes me that people are so willing and eager to throw out the Bill of Rights and just say, “Oh, that’s fine. You know, terrorists are a big threat to us. And, you know, I am so fearful that they will attack me that I’m willing to give up my rights; I’m willing to give up on the Bill Of Rights? I think we give up too easily.

You’re Not Allowed To Smoke…

If we believe [President Obama] to be a good man who would never kill noncombatants in a cafe in Houston, sitting out in a sidewalk cafe, smoking — oh, that’s right; you’re not allowed to smoke cigarettes anymore.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Real Wisdom In Rand Paul’s Filibuster Freestyling”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Vicki

    “He [the President] was elected by a majority, but the majority doesn’t get to decide whom we execute.”

    This is rather an important point in the difference between a democracy and what we had. A Republic. This video (~10 min long) explains well the differences.

    If you don’t think you have time to watch the whole thing you can go to 6:00 to get a description of how democracy is different. It directly relates to the execution example in the above statement.

    • tony newbill

      You will have to close the http to get the links to work I had to post it this way to get it out of moderation ,

      I bet this is the Blue print , Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent , , for which the Private For Profit Prison system Lobbies Congress for More enforcement of Federal and State criminal codes to create more criminals . here is so much threat here to civil liberties and cronyism its pathetic ,

      Heres the links that prove this ,

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      And these for profit prisons need higher crime to make a bigger profit so that is the catalysis for Cronyism that can lead to usurpation of civil rights ,
      ht tp:// , its just the wrong way for a economic free market system to growth capital wealth and prosperity !!!!

    • tony newbill

      You will have to close the http to get the links to work I had to post it this way to get it out of moderation ,

      I bet this is the Blue print , Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent ,
      ht tp:// , for which the Private For Profit Prison system Lobbies Congress for More enforcement of Federal and State criminal codes to create more criminals . here is so much threat here to civil liberties and cronyism its pathetic ,

      Heres the links that prove this ,

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      ht tp://

      And these for profit prisons need higher crime to make a bigger profit so that is the catalysis for Cronyism that can lead to usurpation of civil rights ,
      ht tp:// , its just the wrong way for a economic free market system to growth capital wealth and prosperity !!!!

  • GALT

    The Bill of Rights do NOT apply… have benefits, privileges and immunities.

    You can NOT exercise your right to sue in “common law”, because there
    are no common law courts in which one can bring suit.

    Another Paul in government who took an oath to a “constitution”, he doesn’t

    Article VII

    “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

    • Butch

      GALT, please change yr name because you are as fascist as they come, something Galt was AGAINST. YOU intentionally misunderstand the Constitution. NO, the president has no power to murder American citizens, on American soil WITHOUT a trial. America has no war on our land, not overtly yet. That’s no excuse to be stupid about the Constitution. YES, we have the right to sue for loss of freedom without DUE PROCESS. We have our Constitutional, unalienable and common law rights and we should NEVER relinquish them, EVER. Theres a reason why people sue under Totle 42 or Title 18.

      • tony newbill

        Butch did you know that this Common Law provision is how Obama is testing the Natural Born provision to be qualified for the Presidency ??? , This will open the door for a supreme court ruling that will acknowledge the Common law Ruling as superseding the natural born rule I bet if this ever gets challenged , so far the Court has refused to hear anything regarding this but I think this is why the Claim that Obama is not qualified to be president is because of this claim ,

      • tony newbill

        And if this is true then this makes the republican party a Fraudulent Operation because this Knowledge was known in 2000 and then they promoted this guy again in 2008 and one can say it was on purpose or if this was not realized at the time then they covered it up during the 2008 general election because it would have been a disaster to have it come out ,

      • GALT

        Butch……Do you know what:

        What common law and equity IS; Its origins and history?

        Do you know what civil law is: its origin and history?

        Do you know what napoleanic law is; its origin and history?

        “The Master said….If names are not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language is not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success……..Therefor a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words, there may be nothing incorrect.”

        “The Master said,…..Without knowing the force of words, it is impossible to know men.”

        Confucious 551 -479 B.C.

        Thank you for taking the time to respond, but in the future, you would be better
        served if you spent the time educating yourself regarding the subject matter
        under discussion, rather than offering an opinion about that which you clearly
        have no knowledge or understanding.

        “You have met the ENEMY, and THEY…… YOU!!!!!!”

      • GALT

        Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:

        common law

        At the common law – a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.

        In equity – otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract and damages.

        Maritime – or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military organizations.

        Admiralty – is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)

        All birth certificates, licenses, registrations, insurances, bank accounts, permits, titles, deeds, etc. are commercial contracts created under the UCC – (Uniform Commercial Code) and this is where the confusion begins. Most people do not know that commercial law cannot regulate private dealings between civilians much less where to draw the line.

        Where does one draw the line?
        The Uniform Commercial Code

        The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by all states in 1964 making it the supreme law of the land. Take a look in the first part of every Federal and State code books and you will the find the Uniform Commercial Code consistent throughout.

        UCC 1-103.6 defines how contract law must be in compliance with the rules of the common law providing there is made a knowing reservation of common law rights.

        “The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.” (UCC 1-103.6)

        What’s the remedy?

        “The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7)
        It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. “I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!”, the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say “I demand my Constitutional Rights?” No. The proper answer is: “THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN.” You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.

        UCC 1-207 goes on to say…

        “When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” (UCC 1-207.9)

        You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
        “The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice”. (UCC 1-207.4)

        Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: “Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4).” This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.

        It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone… The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
        Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
        When you use “without prejudice UCC 1-207″ in connection with your signature, you are saying, “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”
        UCC 1-207. Performance or acceptance under Reservation of Rights.
        A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “WITHOUT PREJUDICE”,” UNDER PROTEST” or the like are sufficient.

        Like this:
        “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” UCC 1-207”

        Your autograph is among your most valuable assets. It is not a good idea to autograph a contract without reserving your rights. If you must carry a driver’s license you should get a new one with a reservation of rights above your autograph on the license itself. As a matter of fact it is wisest to reserve your rights in any agreement, just in case there is some small print that suggests waiver of your God given freedom.

        NOTE: UCC 1-207 is now 1-308

        UCC 1-308 now replaces UCC 1-207

    • Deerinwater

      Galt, ~ be careful with the weapons you give these people ~ I’d prefer them to stay no smarter them they are.

      • GALT

        I don’t think you have anything to worry about……..although organized
        ignorance stirred to ACTION is potentially more dangerous.

        The knowledge offered must be “individually” applied. You can’t hide in a group,
        and you can’t be represented ( effectively ) by an attorney.

        So there is little danger that any will pay attention……the fact that they have to
        DO SOMETHING, which poses risk…..makes denial far more likely and continued
        ignorance to be preferred.

        BTW your post to me in Root’s offering last week “got disappeared”…..but they left
        my reply to you…….this place is getting really weird.

      • tony newbill

        Deer Its comments like that that are the reason for Division in this Great land of Liberty .
        Yes you are Free To make a comment like that but it does not help !!!!!
        The idea that we help each other to self educate Must be lost in the translation of what Liberty means for a free society , and this is why we are fast becoming a statist country ,
        Thanks and have a great day .

      • tony newbill

        Galt what you describe in your comment is Liberty in Decline … is that the way you see it ???

      • GALT

        You will need to be more specific…..tony, as I do not understand your reference.

        I speak of things as they are. Nebulous concepts using ill defined words, based
        on historical fiction, hubris and imagination, hold no value to me.

  • Uknowho

    What Rand Paul did was a proper use of the filibuster unlike 90% of what the GOP have been doing since 2010 with the record filibusters.

    Paul got the answer of NO that he was looking for from the Administration as for using drones on American soil. I don’t believe that was ever going to be an issue. But I do have a question.

    Where were these brave GOPers when the Patriot Act was passed, or when the Bush Administration engaged in actual warrrantless wiretaps, or engaged in torture?

    Of thats right, they fell right in line behind Bush Inc.

    More political games while people suffer the lingering effects of Reaganomics and Clintonomics.

    • Vicki

      “Where were these brave GOPers when the Patriot Act was passed, or when the Bush Administration engaged in actual warrrantless wiretaps, or engaged in torture?

      Of thats right, they fell right in line behind Bush Inc.”

      Actually they had not been elected yet.

    • AZ-Ike

      I’d like to know how Rand Paul accepts a ‘no’ answer from (Obama) / Holder when both lie constantly and consistently. Why would anyone believe anything they say. We already know Obama doesn’t respect or follow the Consitution. What makes anyone think he will not use drones against Americans on American soil–in the likely near future when he decides it is necessary.

  • ibcamn

    He did what was needed,he brought attention to the subject!the media kinda glossed over it and didn’t want to talk about it,at all!now their saying something!more people heard about it and raised questions,and are talking about it!and Paul got an answer!surprise!

  • By George

    The Awful Truth
    “Calm down, Senator, the U.S. government cannot randomly target U.S. citizens”, warned Senator John McCain to Senator Rand Paul. Senator McCain has already forgotten Waco, where the Federal government used a tank, and Ruby Ridge, where a sniper used a high power scoped rifle to shoot an innocent woman holding her baby inside her own home, or a Dept. of Education SWAT team that rouse the wrong woman in the night time, and the nimrods of the TSA conducting proctology exams of uncooperative passengers. No, the government won’t use drones against Americans, only against terrorists. Have you not read who Janet Napolitano describes as terrorists? Her definition certainly doesn’t include follower’s of Islam, by order of the President, of course, and that’s the awful truth.

    What is really happening here is a massive rush by the Democrat Party to completely reduce America to a socialist state before the rest of America catch’s on. It is creating a total collapse in trust of government. The really poor are afraid they will lose their food stamps. The retiree’s and soon to be retiree’s are afraid the government will snatch their 401(k) retirements, while the Affordable Care Act will reduce them to penury and what’s left will be snatched by the IRS for non payment of their “fair share” of taxes, and that’s the awful truth.

    Maybe conservatives should encourage that loss of trust in “Big Government”, the quicker to get the people of all social status to realize what they are losing. McCain and Lindsay have done their very best to foster it as has our own Senators who, don’t forget, voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, an instrument that gives the President authority to imprison American’s (aka: terrorists) in FEMA Gulag’s until the duration, and that’s the awful truth.

    The new standard bearer’s of the Republican Party have revealed themselves. They are the brave young Senators, put in office by their own state TEA Party’s, who grasped the reins of authority from the decrepit old fossils of the Republican elites, through their action. Their thirteen hour assault on evil electrified the country and gave us all renewed hope as we have watched hopelessly while our country slides into the abyss of economic chaos and social disaster.

    Obama has indeed proven that freedom is not free, that each succeeding generation must be educated into the American principles and taught not be afraid of defending it. The weirdo’s are now in charge. Somehow they were let out or escaped from of the asylum. They must be put back.

  • tncdel

    My one major beef with Rand Paul is how he recently flip-flopped on amnesty. Anyone with an IQ above that of a turnip should be able to realize that amnesty would only serve to attract millions more job-stealing illegals here.

    The ONLY way to stop the illegal alien invasion: MAKE THINGS AS TOUGH AS POSSIBLE on the illegals, so they will self-deport back to Mexico, etc. at their own expense because they get to hate it here so much. We certainly can’t afford to deport over 20 million illegals. Plus most would only come right back if we tried.

    Ted Cruz, who played the anchorman role during the 13 hour filibuster, unlike Paul, is opposed to amnesty, even though he is a Hispanic, because he puts America’s best interests ahead of the best interests of foreign nationals here illegally. I hope Ted Cruz gets the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

    • GALT

      Never fear, Rand Paul, supports YOUR RIGHT TO WORK FOR LESS, also.

      • Vicki

        How about our right to make our own decisions on how much we are willing to work for?

      • GALT

        How about it?

  • Andrew







    And peddling the very same narrative couched in code?

    If you haven’t yet understood why things are the way they are, why America’s Foreign Policy makes no sense, that is because it is run by the unfortunate mix of ideology and a heavy dose of FEAR. However, Rand’s ideology is the same as Obama’s ideology. Rand’s solutions are the same as Barack’s – and the drones and the narcissist’s speech are merely a diversion.

    It is so because the senate was directly informed BEFORE Rand’s filibuster that the president does not have authority to kill Americans on American soil without due process. Rand’s act changed nothing except for one:

    Rand’s filibuster had one purpose and one purpose only – to get himself on the map.

    Rand Paul’s message is to trade in the fear peddled by Barack Obama for the FEAR peddled by Rand’s dad Ron who is still pulling the strings.




    Rand Paul’s agenda is NOT the Tea Party’s or Republican Party’s agenda









    Here’s an easy way to tell when your position isn’t a conservative one. When you’re standing with Van Jones, your position isn’t a conservative one.

    Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster against John Brennan’s appointment to the CIA has gained national applause, and criticism, but one person who is standing with the senator on the president’s drone program is a very unlikely ally — Van Jones.

    The former Obama White House official posted a series of tweets and appeared on CNN Thursday, applauding the senator for standing up for civil liberties

    When you’re standing with Code Pink, then your position is not a conservative one.

    No amount of noise or chest-beating is going to change that.

    The Republican Party has taken a severe beating in the last year. With so many hopes down the drain, some will take a victory where they can find it, even if it’s a younger version of Ron Paul.

    There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink’s endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

    Are we really getting worked up about getting a pat on the head from the left?
    Are we all Paultards now or are we all RINOs now?

    Or is finding someone to the left of Obama to side with… supposed to be a victory for conservative principles?

    “Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?” Breitbart’s site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

    The left “gets” the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

    That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

    Even saner heads are calling Rand Paul’s filibuster a political victory. The only place that it’s a victory is in the echo chambers of a victory-starved party. And to Code Pink and Van Jones who are happy to see the Republican Party adopting their views.


    The “brilliant victory” was that some Republicans tried to go further on the left than Obama on National Defense. Maybe next they can try to go further left than him on Immigration, Gay Marriage and Abortion.

    And if that doesn’t work, Rand Paul and Jon Huntsman can get together on ending the War on Drugs.

    Most Americans support using drones to kill Al Qaeda terrorists.
    Most Americans don’t know about the filibuster or care.
    Most Americans want political and economic reforms, not conspiracy theories.

    The Paul filibuster was about drone strikes on American soil, the way that Obama ‘only’ wants to ban assault rifles.

    This isn’t about using drones to kill Americans on American soil. That’s a fake claim being used by Rand Paul as a wedge issue to dismantle the War on Terror. Now that he manipulated conservative support for that, he can begin moving forward with his real agenda.

    Rand Paul is on record as opposing Guantanamo Bay and supports releasing the terrorists. He’s on record opposing drone strikes against Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, saying, “A perpetual drone war in Pakistan makes those people more angry and not less angry.”

    This position is no different than that of his father.

    The only difference is that Rand Paul is better at sticking statements like these into the middle of some conservative rhetoric.

    It’s the same trick that Barack Obama pulls every time he gives a speech.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two “think the whole world is a battlefield.”

    Like Ron Paul, Rand shifts the blame to America. It’s not Senator McCain who thinks the whole world is a battlefield. It’s Al Qaeda.

    Here, in the middle of Rand Paul’s drone rant is what he really stands for and against.,0,3632134,full.story

    It’s one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America.

    The people fighting that “civil war” are tied in with Al Qaeda, including the Al-Awlaki clan, whose scion, Anwar Al-Awlaki helped organize terrorist attacks against America and was linked to 9/11.

    Friedersdorf (Andrew Sullivan’s underblogger) goes on to say we do know the U.S. drones are targeting people who have never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States, so we’re talking about noncombatants who have never pledged to carry out attacks are being attacked overseas.

    Think about it, if that’s going to be the standard at home, people who have never really truly been involved with combat against us. Take Pakistan where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. This is more from Friedersdorf.

    Think about it. If it were your family member and they have been killed and they were innocent or you believe them to be innocent, it’s going to – is it going to make you more or less likely to become involved with attacking the United States?

    This isn’t about stopping Obama from killing Americans. This is straight-line anti-war garbage.



    • Anna Mineer Hennessey

      The danger is REAL for. We are NOT willing to give up our God-given and Constitutional rights because a damn politician living like a king on our money while we cut back says it’s for our “safety.” Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. You can be a sheep for Obama if you like, but I NEVER will and I will work for and vote for those who are interested in life, liberty and limited government!


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.