Reigning Champion of the Filibuster, Rand Paul, took the stage again today to oppose the nomination of David Barron to the U.S. Court of Appeals by President Obama. Barron is one of Obama's favorite stooges, having written internal memos justifying the assassination of American citizens without trial via drone strike.Rand's opening statement:

I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat. I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.

While the actual filibuster won't have much effect due to rule changes in the Senate, Rand's stance will hopefully draw further attention to the direly important issue of secret courts and secret rulings that permit the murder of American citizens by the State.Rand hits on the main points during his speech:

• That despite repeated requests from the House and Senate, the Obama administration will not share secret documents that "justify" the use of drones to assassinate Americans without trial.
• That there is no legal precedent, nor has there ever been a legal precedent for the murder of Americans without trial
• That the judgements made on these decisions take place in a secret court that is prohibited to lawmakers and the public
• That one branch of government is the sole decision maker on these matters of life and death that defy the constitution and basic rights of Americans
• That Obama, since taking office, has completely reversed his position on the detention of Americans without trail. Obama previously touted this issue during previous elections and during his first election rejected the Bush administration's claim to have the authority to detain citizens without trail that were enemy combatants. Obama's position now, advocating murder without trial is far, far worse.

View video of Paul's opposition to Barron below.http://youtu.be/QNWvm-d2glwAs usual, I found something questionable within Rand's statements - mainly his referring to the Iraq war that followed 9/11 as "a war that was fought to tell other countries that we wouldn't allow this to happen again." We all know that Iraq had virtually nothing to do with 9/11 - almost all of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. And Rand Paul himself has stated in the past that he believed that the war had less to do with the September attack than it did with Bush and Cheney using it as an excuse for a war they already wanted.All-in-all it's been a good day for Rand in the land of liberty. He addressed an important issue, and one that he hasn't backed down on. While I'm not crazy about his changing viewpoint on the Iraq war, this is a positive step forward. We need to see more of this from him...more and more often.ADDENDUM: As a commenter pointed out below, Rand may be referring to only the Afghan military operation when he refers to the "war," though he doesn't specify that during his speech. As I make mention of in my response, I view the Afghan war (which was undeclared as a war by Congress) as a precursor to the war in Iraq and as a cog in the broader "War on Terror." Without 9/11 and without the military actions in Afghanistan, it is doubtful the war in Iraq would have been undertaken. Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!