J. D. Heyes
Natural News 
March 7, 2013
American patriots have a bright new star in Congress these days, and his name is Rand Paul.
The junior U.S. senator from Kentucky calls himself a Republican, but he could just as easily label himself a constitutionalist, because he – like his long-serving U.S. representative father before him, the now-retired Ron Paul – won’t settle for anything less than the rule of law. What’s more, his no-compromise stance is not only empowering to his constituents, but it is inspiring tens of millions of Americans from all over the country who have grown more than just a little weary of business as usual in the nation’s capital.
The two most current crusades that Paul has embarked on involve the Obama administration’s potential use of armed drones against American citizens on American soil, and the White House’s nomination of John O. Brennan to head up the Central Intelligence Agency.
Saying no to would-be tyrants
First the drone issue. The day before the Senate Intelligence Committee voted March 6 to confirm Brennan’s nomination, Paul told Fox News he had received two letters from Holder regarding the constitutionality of drone strikes on U.S. soil against American citizens that he said did not directly address the issue of whether such strikes could be carried out within the parameters of the nation’s founding document.
Per Fox News:
In the letter, Holder says the U.S. has never carried out a drone strike against one of its citizens on American soil, and calls a situation where such a strike may occur “entirely hypothetical” and “unlikely to occur.” However, Holder does not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicates that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution. “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,” Holder said.
However, Holder does not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicates that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution.
“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,” Holder said.
Holder just won’t say no
In a follow-up response, Paul laid bare the administration’s “frightening” claim that the president somehow believes he has authority to order such strikes against American citizens who may be associated with terrorist or other groups bent on attacking the country, but who do not pose an imminent threat to do so (that’s why the founders included due process in the Constitution).
“The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes  on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening, it is an affront on the constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said.
Even the CIA nominee approves…of Holder’s point of view
During questioning by the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan would not specifically and adamantly disavow the use of armed drones in American skies targeting American citizens who are not, at the time of targeting, engaged in terrorist acts. For that, Paul vowed to filibuster Brennan’s nomination for as long as he physically can (remember, many of the armed drones being used overseas to target actual terrorist enemies are CIA-owned and operated).
“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA,” Paul said as he began his filibuster around noon on March 6. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
Paul has said the authority the president and Holder are claiming means the government could literally send a drone-fired missile into a cafe where a suspect was having coffee, if they thought such an attack was warranted.
And Holder, Paul says, would not specifically disavow that tactic.
Tons of Americans lining up to support  Paul
For these stances, Paul is receiving widespread support and acclaim from tons of American citizens fed up with Obama and his thuggish governance. According to an aggregation of Tweets posted by the site Twitchy, here are just a few examples of what Paul’s legions of supporters are saying about his constitutional stand:
— Rand Paul  may be opposed to drone strikes but he is lobbing numerous truth bombs in his filibuster.
— Rock On! RT ?@jeremyscahill On Senate floor, Sen Rand Paul discusses Abdulrahman Awlaki, 16 yr old US citizen killed in drone strike
— Music to my ears from Rand Paul. “We’re not a democracy and we were never intended to be a democracy.” Damn straight.
— Rand Paul quoting Hayek on the Senate floor. I love this man.
— C-Span 2, America . For America. Rand Paul exposing sitting president who opposed waterboarding for what he really is…
— Pretty much everyone could benefit from @SenRandPaul’s filibuster. It’s so Constitutiony.
Read more tweets of support here .