Nothing feels better than to have arrogant, self-centered, tyrannical characters like Obama and Holder smacked down like little sissies. There really isn’t anything butch about these two twinks. But, did they really cave, or did they outsmart the opposition again, or is there something more sinister at play here?
- – -
Paul Scores Filibuster Win, Gets Holder Response on Domestic Drone Use
The White House issued a two-sentence response on Thursday to a 13-hour filibuster led by Sen. Rand Paul over whether the president is authorized to use a weaponized drone to kill U.S. citizens not engaged in combat on American soil.
“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,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote.
The part that worries me here is Holder’s answer about Obama’s power to use Drones. He said, “…engaged in combat on American soil…“
What if we are exercising our constitutional right under the second amendment to take up arms against a tyrannical government? Would this not be “engaged in combat on American soil”, therefore legal for him to use Drones against us?
You see, Holder’s statement is vague at best. You can best your a$$ these tyrants (Obama and Holder) would sick Drones on anyone exercising this right. So nothing has really been gained by the opposition. In fact, minimally one could argue that Obama has made yet another successful move on his chessboard of tyranny, but this issue is likely even more sinister.
Let’s look a bit closer. This concept has not escaped the supposed opposition. They don’t want us to have the power to overthrow a tyrannical government any more than Obama and his fellow gang-bangers do. In the end, politicians are really only out for themselves and fellow politicians. Only when the entire government body is threatened — lawfully or otherwise — do we see any bipartisanship in Washington. Nobody has caved to anyone here. This entire issue has been nothing more than more smoke being blown up our sixes by our “friends” in government.
Nothing has changed except the ambiguous wording the president will use to justify his slaughter of lawful, patriotic Americans on their own soil. If you think this is an outlandish notion, check out Obama’s heartless Drone use thus far: OBAMA HAS MURDERED MORE CHILDREN THAN ALL MASS SHOOTERS COMBINED (using Drone attacks).
Were these children “engaged in combat”?
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read the letter during his daily press briefing.
Paul said in an interview on CNN on Thursday that Holder’s response was satisfactory and that he would allow a vote on the nomination of John Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. The vote is scheduled to begin shortly after 3 p.m. on Thursday.
Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Paul introduce a bill today that would prohibit the killing of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not present an imminent threat.
Imminent threat to whom? And did the children killed by Obama pose an “imminent threat”?
“Our Constitution restrains government power,” said Cruz, a Texas Republican. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The commander in chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”
See what I mean? And not a word has been mentioned about the collateral damage caused by Drone use. They just aren’t as surgical as the government lets on. They may kill forty innocent Americans just to get one guilty one.
Earlier story: (more…)
Read Full Post »