Thursday, March 7, 2013

Rand Paul's Filibuster

This post by Ryan McMaken conveys my view on this subject better than anything I can write.  So I won’t write, and instead thank Mr. McMaken for this.

Update:  The filibuster ended based on the following assurance from Attorney General Eric Holder:

Mr. Holder made his point in a letter to Mr. Paul, in which he wrote: "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no."

Of course, it is a statement that a president can drive a truck through.  But it doesn’t change my earlier view, as so well expressed in the post by Mr. McMaken.


  1. "The answer is no" should read as follows:

    "The answer is, anyway".

    1. I suspect the definition of "combat" will be rather broad.

    2. it will be made so broad that anything can, and ultimately will, get one 'droned' if our masters are in a particularly foul mood on that particular day.

      i cannot understand the people of this nation any longer for what is allowed and tolerated. i feel as if i am in a nation foreign to that in which i was born. i understand change takes place and is ongoing as time passes. but this?

    3. "i feel as if i am in a nation foreign to that in which i was born."

      I hear (or read) this sentiment often.

      There are too many examples in US history that suggest that the nation Americans believe they were born in was not, in fact, the nation they believe they were born in.

      JFK happened - either as the official commission said it did, or via other means.

      Truman dropped two bombs on innocent civilians in a country whose leaders were ready to surrender. Even after this (and after the surrender), a 1,000 plane raid bombed Tokyo:

      Go back further – what of FDR’s deceit to get the nation into the war, and his constant efforts to antagonize first Germany, and then Japan?

      What of America’s imperialism, which pre-dates the Spanish American wars?

      I will respectfully suggest that the country never was the country you thought you were born in, unless you were born sometime before 1787.

    4. I should have added, the most egregious: what of Lincoln's war, the one to stop many Americans from acting on the notion that was basic to principles that Americans thought were basic to the country they thought they were born in?

      "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

    5. "...nation foreign to that in which i was born..."

      should have been more expansive. in the circle of people in which i grew up, we understood we were all responsible for our actions and knew that, in the end, we were dependent on ourselves to 'make it', or not. we also knew that no matter the actual event, an accused person was due a fair trial by their peers. it is the change in this mindset among many in my circle today to which i was referring in my original note.

      on the other hand, i have known for a very long time, being 66 years of age, that this nation never was, is not and never will be the ideal that is presented. numerous egregious acts have been undertaken, or sponsored, by this nation, in our name, without asking us.

      i know and understand the difference between what is projected and what is.

    6. "it is the change in this mindset..."

      thank you for the clarification - yes, this makes perfect sense.

  2. Brainwashed and distracted, they are.