USDA instructs teens on how to use a Microwave...

Your tax dollars at work... meanwhile we've cut Veterans benefits and closed the White House to the People.

I STAND WITH RAND

Honestly, not the most creative title for a post... but catchy, no? I'm sure some of you have heard what is happening on the floor of the Senate right now. Senator Rand Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan to the CIA, delaying the final confirmation vote for nearly 13 hours. In fact, this ranks as the 9th longest filibuster EVER.

You have to love Rand Pal on a certain level. He's the kind of politician that really brings people in to the conversation, people who may have otherwise just changed the channel. If you didn't watch or hear any of his filibuster, I suggest you grab a transcript and dive in. You will probably learn something. And frankly, the issue he has chosen is a rather important one. If you haven't been paying attention, here's the long and short of it:

Sen. Paul wants clarification from the Obama Administration on whether or not the Domestic Use of remotely piloted drones against a U.S. Citizen on American soil (outside of a combat scenario) would be, under any circumstance, Constitutional. We aren't talking about using Drones at home during Wartime. We've heard all sorts of feedback from Eric Holder on whether it would be 'appropriate', that it's a 'policy matter', and that there is 'no intention' to do so, but ladies and gentleman, that is not that question he was asked. Should it be allowed at all?

In my opinion, and in the opinions of many other Patriots, the answer is No. To allow this would be an attack on our rights to be Free Americans.When it comes to debate on these kinds of fundamental American ideas, I like to have a look back at what some of our Founders say. My favorite quote on this matter comes from Thomas Jefferson: "He who trades Liberty for Security, deserves neither, and will lose both..."

The slippery answers delivered on the matter by the Obama Administration sound warning bells to everyone paying attention. It's rather obvious they don't want to answer this Drone question definitively because they do, in fact, want the right to use these tools against regular Americans. To highlight this dodgy response on a very serious fundamental Constitutional question (especially considering the scope of this unending global war on 'terror') Sen. Paul took a stand yesterday, exercising his right to speak at length on the floor of the Senate, drawing attention to this issue. He fell only 11 hours short of the Filibuster record, set by Sen. Strom Thrumand who protested the Civil Rights act for 24 hours, 18 minutes, in 1957. 

I want you to understand what we are talking about. Suppose you and your friends decide you don't like some of the policies in place in the U.S. You organize and meet at various places in order to discuss your ideas, and how you would seek change. SOMEONE decides the change you seek is not acceptable or appropriate to the 'National Security' of the 'Homeland' (seriously, doesn't the 'homeland' label bother anyone but me?) and all the sudden, you are the subject of a Hellfire Drone strike. THAT is what is at stake here. THAT is what Sen. Paul is asking to have definitive clarification on, and THAT is what this Administration has categorically refused to clarify to the American people.

It is the Senate's job to restrain the power of the Executive Branch, and this is very simple. It's a question of choice. Do you want to live in a Country where the President can use remotely piloted Drones against American's outside of combat, or not? Yes or no? Based on the title of this post, I think you know where I fall on the matter: I stand with Rand.