How Have We Reached A Point Where Defense of American Citizens Is Considered Wrong?

Rand Paul FilibusterOn March 6, 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), conducted an impressive filibuster to protest and/or delay the appointment of John Brennan as director of the CIA. Since Brennan has made public statements that appear to be supportive of islamic terrorism, and he has made statements that appear to be anti-Israel, should have been enough to spur a legitimate investigation into his viability as the director of the CIA. The accusation that he is a muslim convert and that he has colluded with members of the Saudi government and also with individuals with known terrorist ties should have demanded such an investigation. Apparently they did not.

The premise of Paul’s 13-hour filibuster speech involved the possibility of the president ordering the use of weaponized drones against American citizens on American soil. Sen. Paul asked for assurance from the Obama administration that this possibility could not happen. IN response, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul which stated: “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.” The filibuster ended, and today the senate voted to approve Brennan’s appointment.

One would think that this is all there is to this story, but alas, there is more to it, much more, and the implications are mind staggering.

To begin with, although Eric Holder did state that the President does not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on American soil, a close look at Holder’s letter reveals that Holder introduced some qualifiers to his statement. The President is not authorized to order such an attack upon Americans “not engaged in combat on American soil.” So, the question is, how does Obama and his administration define “combat.”

This is a legitimate question, especially in light of Holder’s later statement in which he said (regarding weaponized drone attacks against Americans on American soil), “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” In other words, the answer to Sen. Paul’s question is actually, yes, the President could conceivably order such an attack in an extraordinary circumstance. Not a very comfortable thought is it? So does the Obama administration define “combat”? According to a news article reported on, virtually anyone who disagrees with the Obama administration could be considered an enemy of the state. This includes those who sympathize or agree with the Tea Party movement, or those who support the Second Amendment. (Read the Breitbart report here) Clearly, according to Holder’s own words, the concerns expressed by Sen. Paul are legitimate concerns, and should be shared by each and every American regardless of political persuasion.

What should also be of concern is the reaction of certain politicians to Sen. Paul’s speech. Not surprisingly, Sen. Paul was completely disrespected and dismissed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who told the senate that their work was done and that they should simply go home. What was a little surprising, however, was the response from the so-called conservative leadership who also dismissed Sen. Paul’s concerns, and went out of their way to publically lambast him. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on the record saying that the idea that the President would use a drone to attack an American in America was “ridiculous.” Personally, I think that in light of Eric Holder’s statement that the President could authorize such an attack, that Graham’s statement is ridiculous.

Even more surprising was the reaction of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who said in response to Sen. Paul’s speech, “I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded. I must say that the use of Jane Fonda’s name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy — and even may demonstrate against it — is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false. It is simply false.” [Note: During his speech, Sen. Paul made reference to Jane Fonda and the possibility of the government using a drone to kill her during the Vietnam War- TP]

I must say, McCain’s words hit me like high fly ball into center field, or left field as the case may actually turn out to be. Not only should he (and Graham) be supporting a senator from their own party, but they are supposed to be senior members of that party. They are supposed to be conservatives, or at least they lay claim to that label.

McCain’s statement that Jane Fonda was simply exercising her constitutional rights when she visited North Vietnam in 1972 (while America was at war with that country), posed on a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft battery (the same weapon used to attack Americans), and made propaganda radio broadcasts from North Vietnam. It was during those broadcasts (she made ten in all – broadcast to American servicemen and women) that she told our soldiers and sailors that they were “war criminals.” She called the President of the United States a “War Criminal” and a “True Killer,” accusing him of attacking North Vietnam in an attempt to colonize the country. Fonda went on to talk to Americans through her North Vietnamese propaganda broadcasts that she had witnessed the “systematic destruction of civilian targets” such as “schools … hospitals … [and] homes,” and she lavishing unceasing praise on the North Vietnamese trained female militia who became “such good fighters,” and NVA guerrillas who infiltrated into South Vietnam and killed Americans. Fonda said of them, “They did their job well.”

Jane Fonda sitting on an NVA anti-aircraft gun in 1972.

Jane Fonda sitting on an NVA anti-aircraft gun in 1972.

If “Hanoi Jane” Fonda had limited her anti-war rhetoric to stateside activities, then she would have been exercising her constitutional rights. However, since she engaged in them in an enemy country, while that country is at war with America, then she was committing seditious and treasonous acts.

Sedition is the act of stirring up rebellion against the government in power. Since Fonda was encouraging the soldiers and sailors toward whom her propaganda broadcasts to aimed, to rebel against the orders of their President and Commander-in-Chief, she was clearly being seditious. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one’s country by aiding and abetting that country’s enemies during a time of war.

Just as “Axis Sally” (Mildred Gillars) had done during World War Two, when she aided and abetted Nazi Germany by making propaganda radio broadcasts during which she called American soldiers and sailors war criminals, and launched verbal attacks at the President, so did “Hanoi Jane” when aided and abetted communist North Vietnam during a time of war. Mildred Gillars was tried and convicted of treason against the United States (serving federal prison time for her crimes against America). Jane Fonda, however, had the benefit of both money and political connections which were used to ensure that she not be punished for her acts of sedition and treason.

That John McCain, a former prisoner-of-war in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” would defend such a person as Jane Fonda by saying she was only exercising her constitutional rights is a slap in the face to all veterans, especially Vietnam Veterans, and even more so those who suffered as POW’s in Vietnam. That John McCain and Lindsey Graham would condemn Rand Paul for taking a stand in support of all Americans, in defense of all Americans, in order to ensure the safety of all Americans (especially in light of Holder’s statement), tells me that McCain and Graham at least tentatively support the use of weaponized drones against Americans on American soil; and that is, to me, a treasonous stand against all Americans.

Simply put, Rand Paul was right, and McCain and Graham were wrong. At the very least they should be made to resign from the Republican party. If they want to join the democrat party (which would seem to be the logical choice given their stand) then so be it. If they want to continue as independents, then so be it. They are, however, an anathema and a pariah to me.

[As a side note (and I have said this before), the question of weaponized drone attacks against American citizens, seems to find its birth in the killing U.S. born al qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. I would point out, however, that at the time of his death, al-Awlaki was a citizen of Yemen, and not an American citizen. He had renounced his U.S. citizenship (which is required to become a citizen of Yemen), and he was a ranking member of al qaeda. His death was fully justified as an enemy combatant.]

About these ads

Categories: Conservatives, Constitution, Decline of America, Democratic Party, Domestic Policy, Obama, Outrage, Politics, The Obama Regime, Truth vs. Lies, U.S. Constitution

13 replies

  1. Seems to me, Senator Paul speaks for the Teafolk roots of the GOP while McCaine and Graham speak for the post-Constitutional current leadership that is taking the party left after the Democrats.

    We are going to have to find out what a Republican is…

  2. I fear that Conservative Republicans may be a thing of the past. The RNC certainly has no idea what a Republican is supposed to be!

    • When the people who bankroll the winners come to realize that the traditional minded people are who’s going to win is when there will be more visible conservatives in the party. Remember, Goldwater and Reagan had their own financing.

  3. But you imply that Rand Paul is the “trophy king” we should hold up as the new ringing of the bell for a Conservative Republican? I THINK NOT. As impressed as I was with Rand and his band of supporters with this historical filibuster Rand is no more to be trusted than the whole lot of them. He voted for Hagel, he voted for the TRAITOR KERRY, and he has moved in lock step with Mitch mcConnell many times. he insists that we need more immigrants, aka ILLEGALS, and supports the “whacky eight” and their AMNESTY debacle, yet here we are again with mr. Curtis claiming he is the end all, and you Mr. thomaspaine claiming the demise of Conservative Republicans. Well this Conservative republican has a brain, and knows when to send the red flag up on a candidate, but still has the brain to know when to get out and vote and vote for the only vialbe candidate there is. i think this talk will do more damage than good and if I had to vote for someone the likes of Rand Paul I would even though it would go against my very core of being a Conservative Republican. And why? Because I have a brain and know the alternative, and leftie/liberal/demonut certainly would NOT be the better option. Wake up 2014 is just around the corner and if we lose the house, there won’t be anymore talk of can we survive four more years, you can just hang the hat out to dry because the country will be a goner. And oh by the way while the “show” was going on in the Senate with the filibuster, the house in all it’s slithering glory passed a 900+Billion Dollar Spending bill.

    • Dear Miss McDermott,
      I am afraid that you have drawn the wrong conclusions from my article, as I did not imply that Rand Paul is the “Trophy King we should hold up as the new ringing of the bell for a Conservative Republican.” The point I was trying to make (and I thought I did a fairly decent job of doing so) was that Rand Paul took a stand in defense of all Americans and he was chastised and mocked by two senior senators from his own party, both of whom are allegedly “Conservative Republicans.” I then gave examples to support my premise. Also, Mr. Curtis neither said nor implied that Sen. Paul was the “end all.” He simply stated that to him it seemed that Paul was speaking for the roots of the Tea Party Republicans while McCain and Graham were firmly on the side of the Democrats, and I have to agree with him that Rand Paul’s speech seemed to be speaking the voice of Conservatism and that McCain and Graham were clearly speaking against it. I do understand that you see it differently, however, and so I would ask if you support McCain and Graham in their condemnation of Paul, and thereby support the use of weaponized drones against Americans on American soil? Since you did not address this issue (which was clearly one of the main points of my article), I am left to wonder if this is the case.

      As to my comment regarding the demise of Conservative Republicans, I still stand by it. I would ask you if you truly believe that we may lose the House in 2014? Are you sure we even have the House at this time? I would say that Conservatives do not “hold” anything on Capital Hill. With the pervasiveness of socialist liberalism running rampant throughout our political landscape, even so-called Conservatives are currently left of center on more issues than not. Kerry and Hagel’s, and Brennan’s appointments (as well as the illegal alien amnesty issue, and the 900+ Billion dollar spending bill – both of which you mention) are ample proof of that. And although I do understand the need for bipartisanship on The Hill, I feel that Conservatives are giving more away than they are getting, simply because Democrats are more anti-bipartisanship than Republicans are.

      You may very well be a Conservative Republican “with a brain” (as you say), but surely you understand these points that I have made in both my article and my comments, and if you had read my article and looked at the facts presented, rather than searching for implied opinions that are not there, we would likely not be having this current conversation.

      Thank you for your comments.

  4. I do not think that either Sentator Graham or Senator McCain would be described by most people as “conservative” Republicans. On the other hand I do not think either of them would support drone strikes in the United States either.

    As for Jane Fonda – yes she gave “aid and comfort to the enemy” (blatently so), but she is also a Hollywood airhead who is not worth prosecuting.

    John Kerry is a another matter – he wore American military uniform when lying about American servicemen in sworn testimony to Congress. He also went to conferences organised by the enemy (for example one in Paris) and gave them all the military information he could.

    All this does deserve prosecution – even after 40 years.

    • I agree Paul Marks. Kerry is a traitor, nothing more nothing less, and did NOT deserve the vote of one single Senator, and that includes Rand Pauls vote.

    • While most people likely would not consider either McCain or Graham to be conservative Republicans, they do consider themselves as such, and more importantly so does the RNC. This was evidenced by the RNC’s decision to run McCain against Obama in ’08. The Republican party has shifted to the left of center and they are continuing to move in that direction (Boehner’s capitulations to Obama, the appointments of Brennan, Hagel and Kerry, etc). So whether or not we the people think of them as conservative Republicans or not is not relevant to the RNC. As to whether or not they would support drone strikes in the United States I point to the following facts: 1) Attorney General Eric Holder stated that President Obama has the authority to order weaponized drone strikes against Americans in the United States under certain circumstances which are to be determined by the President. 2) Rand Paul spoke out against the use of weaponized drones against Americans in the United States. and 3) McCain and Graham chastised Paul for speaking out against this, and McCain stated that such attacks could not happen, and that Paul’s assertions that they could were unfounded (in spite of Holder stating that they could be ordered). My question would be why would McCain and Graham dismiss Paul’s assertions as unfounded, when Holder’s statements prove they were grounded in fact?

      John Kerry did lie to Congress, he did act in a treasonous manner during the Vietnam War, and in my opinion he was and is a traitor to his country. He shold have been prosecuted 40 years ago, he should be in prison now. Jane Fonda committed treasonous acts as well. As you point out she gave aid and comfort to the enemy. She did this during a time of war. She did this by willfully broadcasting enemy produced propaganda from North Vietnam – not once, not twice, but almost a dozen different times. She willfully made herself available to the enemy to be used in enemy produced propaganda photos. That she is a “Hollywood airhead” does not excuse her behavior nor does it lessen the severity of what she did. Axis Sally was a nobody, Jihad Jane was a nobody, and yet they were both tried and convicted for their treasonous acts. I, for one, cannot not excuse Fonda’s treasonous acts simply because she is a “Hollywood airhead.”

      And, Miss McDermott, you are absolutely right when you say that John Kerry did NOT deserve the vote of one single Senator, including the votes of Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, or the other 37 Republican Senators who voted to confirm John Kerry as SoS, some of them praising him openly in the process. The fact that only three Republican Senators voted against John Kerry (those being Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Jim Inhofe), while the remaining 42 Republicans could not wait to get Kerry confirmed contributes to my earlier comment that conservative Republicans are on the decline.

      • The idea of running McCain in 2008 (and Romney in 2012) was to run a moderate (not a conservative) against Obama.

        This idea has now failed – twice.

        Bold primary colors are needed – not “pale pastels”.

  5. McCain and Graham have turned into pseudo-conservative loose cannons. From McCain’s support of pointless nation-building in the Middle East to both Graham and McCain’s support of an immigration reform bill that includes legalization, both have made noises that makes one wonder if McCain thinks at all and whether both would be happier joining the GOP opposition. One thing about Democrats, we might not like what they do but they know how to stick together, something Republicans still haven’t managed to figure out.

    • I think it is obvious that McCain and Graham (and others) have completely lost touch with conservatism. They are more Democrat than Republican. And I think the same can be said of the RNC. After the RNC made the decision to put Romney on the 2012 ballot almost five full months before the first Republican primary had even been held, indicated to me that the RNC had turned its back on the American people, on the Republican and Conservative voters in this country. The primaries were a sham and it was pointless to even have them. And if the GOP is not going to listen to its voter base, and if they are not going to at least band together to support conservative ideals, then the party is lost. It is gone. It is defunct.

      • I would agree. With countless opportunities to attack the incumbent the party turned on itself during the primaries. A shameful time for conservatives. Today’s news of the GOP’s plans to reinvent itself does not hold out much hope that the party’s future will be any brighter next time around. Does the GOP seriously believe that by paying lip service to immigration reform they will steal votes from the Democratic Party’s base? All they will do is further alienate conservatives.

      • Agreed with your lip service comment Civil, and unless the republican party is to become the “new party of FREE STUFF” then any hope of getting votes from the Hispanic/Latino crowd is fruitless. And will only destroy those votes from the conservative Latino/Hispanics that we get for being the dreadful CAVERS, that we are becoming. We don’t need a new “amnesty” bill, we need only to enforce the Immigration bill we have now. Oh, well pie in the sky dreaming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: