I watched with fascination and admiration not only at Senator Rand Paul’s message but his stamina! I used to do some public speaking and once in a while I was allowed to say what I came to say without a time limitation. Those were rare occurrences indeed, and I usually ended when I ran out of something say, usually after an hour or so.

But eight hours? My stars!

The best part was that he had a lot to say. I’m hopeful some people and that some of what he had to say stuck. The message was clear: the Obama administration is perfidious and deliberately opaque when it comes to following any limitations embedded in our national document. I thought his reading of the response from Holder was especially revealing: we’re going to do what we want to do, thanks for asking.

It took five paragraphs into the article from the AP before the real topic of the filibuster was revealed. By then most readers have moved on. Here it is:

Paul, a favorite and a Republican critic of President Barack Obama’s unmanned drone policy, started just before noon Wednesday by demanding the president or Attorney General Eric Holder issue a statement assuring that the aircraft would not be used in the United States to kill suspects who are U.S. citizens.

And why is that important? Did the writer go into the background of said policy and compare and contrast that with the language of the 4th Amendment? Was the 4th Amendment even mentioned in the article? No. Instead the AP chose to belittle the efforts of Paul and his conservative allies by quoting such unworthies as Senator Lindsey Graham, who said, according to the AP, that “the prospect of drones being used to kill people in the United States was ‘ridiculous’ and said that the debate is ‘paranoia between libertarians [on the right] and the hard left [and] is unjustified.'” That tells us all we need to know about Graham, who sports a dismal 73 on the Freedom Index on voting with the Constitution.

And not being able to find another Senator with similar views apparently, the AP choose to quote someone from the House who wasn’t even in attendance at the filibuster, House member Mike Rogers from Michigan. His Freedom Index rating, for an alleged conservative, was even worse: 63 out of 100. Rogers said that since it is already illegal under the Constitution to conduct such strikes against innocent Americans, what’s all the fuss about? From the article,

Suggesting that they might, Rogers said, “provokes needless fear and detracts attention from the real threats facing the country.”

Talk about deliberate of the conversation! What’s more real than a government with drones unlimited by the constraints of the Constitution, Mr. Rogers? But you get the point.

Kudos to Paul and his friends. May their numbers and influence increase greatly.

Opt In Image
Soak Up More Light from the Right
with a free copy of Bob's most popular eBook!

Sign up to to receive Bob's explosive articles in your inbox every week, and as a thank you we'll send a copy of his most popular eBook - completely free of charge!

How can you help stop the 's latest gun grab? How is the Federal Reserve deceiving America today? What is the latest Obama administration coverup? Sign up for the Light from the Right email newsletter and help stop the progressives' takeover of America!