Rand Paul vs. Obama. Who`s Winning The War?

I`ve been watching Rand Paul`s anti-Obama campaign for a while now. Although, maybe “anti-Obama” isn`t the best choice of words. I think “anti-anti-democratic” would be more appropriate, even though it sounds a bit bizarre.
But that`s what Sen. Paul has been doing: lashing out at every anti-democratic decision taken either by Obama`s fellows, or by his Republican colleagues. And although I don`t agree with everything he`s done so far, I do appreciate his way of telling it like it is.

For example, he was among the first to inform Americans they`ve been surveilled.

source: rt.com

He also tried to reduce TSA`s power and prevent the shameless groping and violation of people`s privacy going on in nearly every airport in the U.S.

And he was the ONLY one to stand against Senate`s “preemptive war” resolution for Iran, arguing that the bill was a de-facto declaration of war.

What I appreciate most is that, unlike most politicians, he`s very specific in his actions. He fights against a certain bill, not against a certain political party or because he dislikes a certain politician. He brings arguments and he stands his ground, even if his own colleagues disagree with his decisions.

However, his battle against Obama`s anti-democratic decisions is getting more and more personal. First, he took on drone surveillance. According to RTAmerica, “the senator says that he isn’t adamantly opposed to drones themselves, but instead is concerned over how the government may use the unmanned vehicles to conduct clandestine surveillance of law-abiding citizens.”  In other words: “Obama might be using drones to serve his own interests and I want to make sure that`s not going to happen”.

Then, he went on protecting people`s right to bear arms, declaring “war” on Obama`s actions.

But the more “vocal” Paul got, the more Obama ignored him. So the senator started to challenge the president to a dialogue, asking him direct questions and demanding an answer. And when I say “demanding”, I mean it.

“Kentucky Junior Sen. Rand Paul and a group of fellow Republicans held a nearly 13-hour filibuster on March 6 on the Senate floor, thereby delaying the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director. It was refreshing to see a senator literally stand up for the affirmation of Constitutional rights.

Paul’s real issue was not Brennan, but was with the possible use of unmanned combat air vehicle — drone — strikes by the federal government on its citizens. It’s a possibility that drones could be used in U.S. territory, said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in response to Paul’s question on domestic drone strikes.” (thedailycougar.com)

The White House couldn`t ignore him anymore. The official answer came shortly after the filibuster, stating that the president does not in fact have the authority to execute US citizens without guaranteeing them due process (like it`s happened numerous times so far).

But, as we all know, that doesn`t mean Obama won`t keep drone-killing U.S. citizens without a trial. It only means he admits to it being illegal. And Sen. Paul is perfectly aware of this. He may have won this little battle against Obama… but it`s a long way to winning the war, which is why he`s getting more aggressive than ever:

On March 14, at the annual CPAC conference near Washington, DC, Sen. Paul shifted focus from Obama`s decisions to Obama himself. My guess is he got tired of hearing superficial answers to his legitimate questions… and I also think he`s seen enough violations of the Constitution and human rights to last him a lifetime… So, here`s how his speech went:

“No one person gets to decide the law, (…) no one person gets to decide your guilt or innocence. My question to the president was about more than just killing Americans on American soil. My question was about whether presidential power has limits.”

Now I wonder if Obama will ever answer this question. My guess is that, without a 72-hour hunger-strike/filibuster, he won`t say a word about it.

President Obama, who seemed once upon a time to respect civil liberties, has become the president who signed a law allowing for the indefinite detention of American citizens. Indeed, a law that allows an American citizen to be sent to Guantanamo Bay without a trial. Now Pres. Obama defends his signing of this bill by saying he has no intention of detaining an American citizen without a trial. Likewise, he defended possible drone strikes on Americans by indicating that he had no intention of doing so.

My 13 hour filibuster was a message to the president that good intentions are not enough. The filibuster was about drones, but also about much more. Do we have a Bill of Rights? Do we have a Constitution? And will we defend it?”  (rt.com)

When I read this, I couldn`t stop nodding in agreement. That`s exactly what it`s all about. President Obama has the impression that he`s got absolute power upon the entire U.S.A. “He`s got no intention of doing anything wrong”… but if he did, he could. He has the power to do anything he pleases. He just won`t use it (yet).

So the only difference between – let`s say – Stalin and Obama is “intentions”. Now, I don`t know if you feel the same way, but I feel like we`re walking on very thin ice here. Soon, he`ll run out of countries to declare war to, so I say we start praying that he doesn`t start the day in a bad mood… You may never know what a lousy cup of coffee can do to a man`s intentions…

By Alec Deacon