The "Acceptable" Lines Have Been Drawn In the Drone Debate. When is Murder MURDER?Submitted by vinceableworld on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 02:26
I am supporting a great organization that is helping us get the message out loud and clear... you can't have our guns! (Who says we got some?)
It's quite frankly shocking to go back over the last 20 years of this country's history. For those who seem to have forgotten... or it's just "escaped their minds," the Declaration of Independence does not say "All Americans Are Created Equal."
The Constitution goes on to say persons, people and [C]citizens not "Americans" when it lays out the explicit rights which the founders felt were most important to enumerate. Then of course we have the 9th and 10th articles of the Bill of Rights to seal up any loose ends in case power hungry wanna-be dictators decide, "Well, the Constitution doesn't address this... I guess we can have this power too."
For those who think that, PLEASE review, MOST IMPORTANTLY the 9th (which does not include the word STATE) and the 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights.
Where in the Constitution does it say foreigners do not have rights? Where do politicians...
and now many of you(I stand corrected)... get the idea that Americans in some way shape or form are "more equal" than people in other countries? If you think that... how can you be legitimately pro-life if you think some lives are more valuable than others?
Another thing that really kinda freaks me out about this whole drone debate is that it is "obviously not okay to kill an American on American soil without due process."
QUESTION: WHY IS "on American soil" in that sentence?
I have many questions... perhaps a lot more than can be answered in a 13 hour filibuster... and likely would not EVER be answered - of course.
So by phrasing the debate around the words "on American soil" now, by default, condones the killing of Americans NOT ON FOREIGN SOIL... does it not? Or as Fishy pointed out FOREIGNERS on American soil - AND potentially any American Citizens guilty of standing around that "suspected terrorist that was an imminent threat."
Edit Pardon me... but if I'm standing near a terrorist... I will take my chances with being well armed vs being bombed by a hellfire missile - sacrificing my life in order to get one terrorist (and the lives of perhaps a dozen others). I appreciate being reminded by Rand that these are "Hell Fire" missiles that the DBA govCorp is mulling over dropping on us!
I keep waiting for RoboCop to show up at my door to confiscate my guns (just in case I might have any anyway).
So now obviously this puts Rand in a tough position... because in order to get Obama to admit he can't do something HE'S ALREADY DONE on FOREIGN SOIL or to FOREIGNERS he could have filibustered for the entire 2013 cycle and he would never have gotten an answer. Obama/Holder would need to be taking the 5th.
EVEN THE ANSWER was cryptic.
Maybe this is also a fear tactic to prevent Americans from taking their capitol and fleeing this country before it goes full blown dictatorship?
"Oh, I don't wanna go overseas - I might be killed by a drone!"
Basically what we're saying to Obama is: "Okay we know you already killed Americans on foreign soil without due process (who I'm BETTING were not "terrorists" anyway - hence we will never know because there was NO TRIAL) but we're just going to let that slide.
Aren't we?(Okay maybe we're not?)
Have we not already surrendered a TON of ground? How many times do we step back and draw another line? I think the grassroots really needs to take what Rand did to the next level. We can't just hang on his words - we MUST PUSH THROUGH them to the real issue which is... if someone... ANYONE is not engaged in combat... and you KILL them... that is MURDER!
No ifs, ands, or buts... thoughts?