Rand Paul, Drones in the U.S., a Filibuster, Speaking the Truth, the Constitution, and the Pro-Life Movement

I posted a questionnaire I sent to the two mayoral candidates for the Village of Morton and the answers given by one of the candidates—Stephen Newhouse. The questions and answers are posted at:


http://christiangunslinger7.blogspot.com.

If the other candidate responses I will also post his answers. At the present, he has not.

—

Tea Partiers are terrorists—petition says no!

http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/9179/tell-congress-investigate-defund-west-points-center-combating-ter/?src=032412-wm

—

Petition against drone use in the U.S. and more

http://www.chooseliberty.org/welcome_drones.aspx?roi=echo3-14757732350-11676829-ef0cdd2a6ec3920d49ec33d7f81964c3&pid=ws4

—

Support right of conscience:

https://secure3.convio.net/aulact/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=665&JServSessionIdr004=k4fy21pr52.app341b

—

Petition to cut off funds to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt!

http://aclj.org/radical-islam/sequester-muslim-brotherhood

—

A new segment: The fraud of the day. President Obama claims that the federal government can’t afford to cut any spending even though we are borrowing 40% of every dollar spent. And even though fraud is RAMPANT throughout the federal government! When the government is spending trillions of dollars the opportunity for fraud is everywhere! Therefore:

Fraud of the day website: www.fraudoftheday.com

The fraud article of the day:

http://www.fraudoftheday.com/2013/03/07/blind-fraud-game/

—

From: http://liveactionnews.org/what-rand-paul-drone-strikes-and-unborn-children-have-in-common/

“What Rand Paul, drone strikes, and unborn children have in common

By Kristi Burton Brown
March 7, 2013

Public support

http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama-caved-drones-rand-paul-144106722--politics.html

for Rand Paul yesterday and last night was overwhelming enough to garner a response from the Obama administration today. If you haven’t heard, Senator Rand Paul started a filibuster in the Senate—that kept going for over 13 hours—to object to the use of drone strikes on U.S. citizens within the U.S.

Senator Paul had requested information from the Obama administration three times. He had repeatedly asked

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/02/21/rand-paul-plans-filibuster-of-john-brennan-over-drone-program-n1517580

whether the president believes he has the power to authorize the killing of a U.S. citizen by a drone—with no trial, no jury, and no due process:

‘The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.’

After receiving unclear and less than satisfactory answers, Senator Paul chose to filibuster to bring public attention to a possible violation of Americans’ civil rights. And while he was forced to end his filibuster not long after midnight, Senator Paul achieved his stated goal: President Obama (or rather, his attorney general) has assured Americans that he does not have the power to unilaterally execute an American citizen on American soil who is not ‘engaged in combat.’

So-called drone warfare is controversial in and of itself. In ‘Robot warriors: Lethal machines coming of age,’ the BBC takes an instructive look at the two different sides. Some believe that drone warfare saves the lives of solders; others believe that it will take too many innocent lives. While this is a debate worth having, Senator Paul was drawing attention to something else entirely: can the president of the United States order the killing of a citizen on American soil without due process?

This issue is something that Americans on both sides of the political aisle care about. Last night, the filibuster became bipartisan when Democrat Senator Ron Wyden joined with Rand Paul. As a National Journal writer put it:

‘… Sen. Rand Paul’s nearly 13-hour old-school filibuster on drone warfare exposed this jarring irony: A constitutional scholar (Questionable!—my addition) who rode his antiwar views to the White House (Not why he won the election!—my addition) stands defiantly to the right of the GOP—and probably on the wrong side of history.

What’s up with President Obama?’

What’s abundantly clear is that Americans don’t like the idea of one person—president or not—being permitted to kill another American without any exercise of the targeted person’s rights. Such a policy is unjust, Americans seem to agree. As one of the many #standwithrand tweets explained, ‘[h]e was elected by a majority, but the majority doesn’t get to decide who[m] we execute.’

Indeed. There’s just something unjust about a person losing his rights simply because one person or the majority says so.

And the only reason millions of unborn children have been executed in the U.S., right here on American soil, is because the majority on the Supreme Court said so. Because the majority of American citizens say so by their failure to act on behalf of the unborn. Because the majority of voters in many states say so when they vote for pro-choice politicians. Because the majority of legislators say so when they reject pro-life laws (Absolutely correct! I wrote a blog on this several years ago comparing the act of abortion [MURDER of the unborn] with the unborn having absolutely NO rights and that of an individual who is accused of and being tried for murder and facing the possibility of a death sentence. The baby has NO rights! The State bends over backwards to assure that the accused rights are protected and then some!—my addition).

But just because the majority says so doesn’t make it just. Just because one person—a mother—says that her innocent child can be targeted and killed doesn’t make it constitutional. True, an unborn child isn’t a citizen (They are if the mother is a citizen!—my addition). Yet if you’re familiar with the Constitution, you’ll realize that the right to life was recognized not only for American citizens, but for persons; for human beings; for each individual within our borders.

And that’s where Rand Paul, drone strikes, and unborn children come together. No human being on American soil ought to ever be targeted for death—by the decision of one person or by the decision of the majority—without a full exercise of the targeted person’s rights. It’s unjust and un-American. And like Senator Paul, we ought to stand up on this issue and ‘speak until we can no longer speak (TRUE!!! WE MUST! CHRISTIANS MUST!—my addition).’

Kristi Burton Brown is a pro-life activist in her home state of Colorado, a pro-bono attorney for Life Legal Defense Fund, an allied attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, and a stay-at-home mom. …”

Any time someone wants to argue with me about abortion, I stop them with this one statement: “No one has the right to MURDER another person. No one.” I’ve never had one person say that any one does have the right to do so! We should be talking about abortion for what it is! MURDER!!! People may disagree that it is murder but they will not argue that a person has the right to murder another person. At least, they haven’t to me!