Rand Paul’s Phony Grandstanding Echoes HAMAS CAIR/Iran on Drones; Hands Off Nidal Malik Hasan, Jose Padilla & Adam Gadahn?By Debbie Schlussel
This morning, open Jew-hater and agent of Iran and Hezbollah, Imam Hassan Qazwini–leader of the largest mosque in North America (bought and paid for by Iran)–criticized the Obama drone policy against American terrorists on the Detroit radio show of pan-Arabist, HAMAS CAIR-lover Frank Beckmann. That’s because he knows it will be used against the Adam Gadahn Al-Amrikis, Nidal Malik Hasans, John Walker Lindhs, Anwar Awlakis, and Jose Padilla a/k/a Abdullah Al-Muhajirs of this world. And Rand Paul–and now most of the gushing group unthinkers of the right–agree with this known agent of the government of Iran.
If You’re With Him on Drones, You’re With Them, Too . . .
I’ve always said that the members of the lumpenconservatariat are as plentiful, ignorant, gullible, and easily fooled as their left-wing counterparts. There are ObamaPhone users and Rand Paulbots. Same diff. And their non-stop gushing and beatification of Rand Paul for his filibuster over the Obama drone policy (which was NOT different than the Bush drone policy) is Exhibit A of that. No one has been more critical of the Obama administration than I have or the fact that it wants to take away civil liberties. But using drones against Islamic terrorists who happen to have been born in America is not a policy that anyone with any common sense and/or concern for national security should be droning on about.
It’s no coincidence that the “conservative” position against drone use against American terrorists is not just Rand Paul’s and Sean Hannity’s and Rush Limbaugh’s position. It’s HAMAS CAIR’s position and that of Iran. Imam Qazwini does Iran’s and Hezbollah’s bidding. And, now, so are Rand Paul and his legions of blind, idiotic gushing fans on the right. And like HAMAS CAIR and Qazwini they oppose drone strikes on U.S. citizens like Awlaki abroad, as they were all over the airwaves two weeks ago on that (with Vannity proudly proclaiming, “I’m with the ACLU on this!”).
Rand Paul is a phony and a grandstander who fantasizes that he’ll be President (something that will, thankfully, never happen to America). He achieved nothing with his filibuster, other than to provide aid and comfort to the ACLU and Islamic terrorists who take advantage of birthright citizenship to try to kill us. In the end, John Brennan was confirmed as CIA Director despite the Paulistinian all-nighter filibuster. And don’t forget that this phony, Rand Paul, also voted for Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense after a waste of time, phony “block” on his nomination, which achieved nothing because, as with this, Rand Paul wasn’t actually serious about stopping anything. His filibuster was as sincere and genuine as Hezbollah fan Jihad Darrell a/k/a Darrell Issa’s phony grandstanding on Fast and Furious which did what exactly?
While I do believe that Rand Paul is a like-father-like-son loon when it comes to having multiple orgasms over scorched earth libertarianism, what’s the excuse for the so-called conservatives who all embraced this crazy like a fox Senator from Kentucky? They’re simply partisans with zero principles.
If conservatives were so principled about American due process and a trial before execution by drones, where were they on a trial before a jury on American soil, when the Bush Administration was seeking a military tribunal on Gitmo for Padilla/Al-Muhajir who was trying to obtain a dirty bomb to murder countless Americans? And why were all these conservatives on the opposite side of the same issue when they were rightfully opposed to Obama shutting down Gitmo and trying hardened Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil in our federal courts? Was it really the distinction without a difference of where the Islamic terrorists were born that concerned conservatives, rather than that these are men bent on our mass destruction? If it was the former, then they should have shouted ad nauseam about the rights of the American Taliban Johnny Walker Lindh and the rights of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son, both of whom were executed by Obama drones without a trial by Obama. Perhaps we should have let the Awlakis live to breed and mentor more Undie-Bombers, Fort Hood Shooters, and 9/11 hijackers (Awlaki helped the 9/11 guys).
And what about Nidal Malik Hasan? He’s a U.S. citizen. If a drone could have wasted him before he killed 13 Americans, would Rand Paul oppose it? Yup. Would conservatives be gushing over him then? Well, many of them have been rightfully screaming and shouting about the rights afforded to this terrorists scumbag and the fact that he’s yet to be tried. They’re simply hypocrites and frauds to side with this libertarian madman and HAMAS CAIR and Imam Qazwini on this absurdity.
Remember, if you support Rand Paul and oppose the Obama administration on drones, then you also oppose the Bush administration policy, which was exactly the same.
So, where were you during the multiple years of Bush policy on Americans at Gitmo without a trial and Bush use of drones?
Suddenly the shrill, phony partisan whines are crickets chirping.
This isn’t about Constitutional rights. It’s about blind partisanship and American suicide.
Decide which side you are on: the side of Rand Paul, HAMAS CAIR, Iran, and Islamic terrorists bent on destroying us . . . or America’s side.
You can’t be both.
If your position is that drones can be used to kill Americans who are not Islamic terrorists but conservatives, then why didn’t you have that same argument against the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and so on. Everything that can be used against Islamic terrorists can essentially be used against you and me if they don’t like our political views. So where were you when Bush used wiretaps without notice or FISA approval, SWIFT bank account data, drones, and so on? If you’re against Obama on drones on civil liberties grounds, you had to be against the stuff Bush did for eight years to (barely) fight Islamic terrorism.