Sifting through the Hype surrounding Rand Paul's Filibuster

Allow me to open this post with a brilliant article from the WSJ:

Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing. As a snow storm descended on Washington, the Kentucky Republican's old-fashioned filibuster Wednesday filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship.

Shortly before noon, Senator Paul began a talking filibuster against John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA. The tactic is rarely used in the Senate and was last seen in 2010. But Senator Paul said an "alarm" had to be sounded about the threat to Americans from their own government. He promised to speak "until the President says, no, he will not kill you at a café." He meant by a military drone. He's apparently serious, though his argument isn't.

Senator Paul had written the White House to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied that the U.S. hasn't and "has no intention" to bomb any specific territory. Drones are limited to the remotest areas of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen. But as a hypothetical Constitutional matter, Mr. Holder acknowledged the President can authorize the use of lethal military force within U.S. territory.

This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared.

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed.

The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that

Honoring The Dream

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

My Top 5 Posts of 2012

I thought I'd take a look back at this year and the posts which were most popular...

5. Tuesdays with Lewis: Social Mores

This was the first post I wrote this fall so it probably attracted more attention. I know it generated discussion from my friends.

Unique Page Views: 111

4. 5 Reasons why Barack Obama will be our president till 2016

Back in January, I debated whether I should put my predictions on record. Now, I'm happy I did. This post got decent views back then, but people revisited it after the election, boosting the total count.

Unique Page Views: 119

3. Did Miracles End with the Apostles?

I offered a Charismatic perspective that was bound to get some thoughtful reactions - I enjoyed the comments and conversations it started...

Unique Page Views: 155

2. Thoughts from the Shower: Compassion and Political Philosophy

I laid out my personal political philosophy in the form of a play. It wasn't any masterpiece, but I think people did enjoy it.

Unique Page Views: 155

1. 10 Problems with the Avengers

I got a ton of hits thanks to Google - a lot of people searching "avengers problems" got my blog.

Unique Page Views: 402

Movie Review: The Hobbit: Unexpected Journey

I've always been a huge LOTR fan. I love the characterizations, the plot intricacy, the attention to detail. I also loved the movies by Peter Jackson. Sure, they had "Hollywood" elements in them, but for the most part they were exceptional. When I heard the Hobbit was coming out, I had mixed feelings. Each LOTR book is quadruple the size of the Hobbit. Yet the Hobbit is as long as the entire trilogy? The Hobbit was a children's bedtime story. Jackson turned the Hobbit into a long epic?

My doubts increased as the reviews started to pour in. People dissed the directing pace and the higher frame rate. LOTR fans disliked how the movie deviated from the text and added extraneous information. I went to see the Hobbit fully prepared that it may not measure up to the excellent first trilogy.

I was very surprised...

...It was MUCH better than most people are giving it credit for. I'll share some of my thoughts under a few general points:

Movie Review: Lincoln

So for Thanksgiving, I went and saw the movie "Lincoln". It is absolutely brilliant. I'm speechless.

Tuesdays with Lewis: Atheism and Evil

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

Some of C.S. Lewis’s most profound observations appear as he dissects atheism. Lewis systematically dismantles all the popular arguments, including the classic “why is there evil?” one. Personally, I have sometimes struggled to answer friends who have challenged me with this argument. In Mere Christianity, Lewis offers an elegant answer that strikes at the premise behind the question. We cannot argue against God’s existence by citing the injustice inherent in the universe.

Search the internet for arguments in support of God’s existence and we will invariably find a common response: “But if God existed, why is there so much evil?” This question seems to have influenced hundreds of people to reject Christianity and theism. People look around and see death, destruction, and pain everywhere. How could God allow such a cruel existence? Thus, atheists believe in a random and non-spiritual universe devoid of meaning or overarching purpose. If the world governs itself by self-interest, survival instincts, and probabilities, atheists can accept both the beauty and evil of the world together.

Yet Lewis cuts to the heart of the argument by questioning the terms people use. After all, we cannot label something as evil without also identifying good. Even those opposed to Christianity would agree with the above statement. However, when we extend the same label to the universe, we arrive at a contradiction in the atheistic worldview. If we condemn the universe as unjust and cruel, we compare it with some “ideal” or “good” universe. Since no man living has witnessed such a universe, we must conclude that this standard is a universal ideal hidden in our nature.

If we truly consist of just molecules, we would not possess ideals. Man’s highest ideals should consist of their instincts: wealth, power, and pleasure. I do not deny that many men do indeed pursue their survival instincts. However, all men speak of their emptiness and yearning for a greater purpose than selfish desires. Even atheists desire to engage in philanthropy, altruism, and legacy-building. This desire to find meaning cannot stem from a purely natural universe.

Ultimately, only God can reveal their emptiness to someone who does not believe. Even so, their plaintive cry against injustice may serve to unearth their longing for justice and higher standards. As Lewis says, atheism disproves itself.

Tuesdays with Lewis

“One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons--marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Some of C.S. Lewis’s most profound observations appear as he dissects morality. Lewis deals with the touchy subject of social mores. Many Christians have bitter disagreements about alcohol, movies, and other such topics. Christians who hold strict positions accuse their freer brethren of indulgence and sin. Those who hold different views accuse their opponents of legalism and pharisaical behavior. Personally, I have sometimes struggled to find the fine line between these camps. In Mere Christianity, Lewis slices to the heart of the dispute, arguing that while we can make a decision to abstain, we must not look down on others who do not.

First, Lewis declares the Bible asks for temperance instead of absolute abstinence (78). Paul wrote, “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful” (1 Cor. 10:23). When it comes to “gray areas” such as entertainment, alcohol, or modesty, Paul asks us to judge not by law but by the Spirit. If all things are indeed lawful, the Bible must call for wisdom in judgment and moderation in participation. For various reasons, Christians have come to different conclusions on such topics, ranging from complete freedom to complete abstinence.

Lewis now brings down the hammer: Christians who judge others for their stance commit sin themselves. As the Bible says, “Judge not lest ye also be judged” (Mt. 7:1). As Lewis points out, all of us find ourselves blind to sin in our lives. While the Bible calls us to hold our brethren accountable, others may draw different conclusions in the same area. Although Lewis charges us to avoid causing others to stumble, he asks us to also avoid condemning others for their prayerful decision on the matter.

Personally, Lewis’s charge to “believe the good of others . . .and make others as comfortable as you can” has helped me immensely (95). For instance, I believe in a stricter form of courtship, while my friends engage in dating in high school. Rather than condemning them, I probed deeply into their position, asking them to defend their view from a Biblical perspective. After many friendly yet intense discussions, I still don’t agree with them, but I respect their decisions as their personal convictions based on their spiritual journey. When meeting other students who identify as homosexual, I treat them with courtesy and respect, without offering condemnation and without hiding my own conviction. After all, they do not have the same standard as I do. Rather, I have tried to share the love of God with them. Instead of condemning them under a standard they do not recognize, I try to bring them under my standard first, before challenging them directly.

Although I know many Christians who would disapprove of my actions, I believe they represent what Christ would want me to do. Lewis offers practical advice about morality – advice that if followed, could change the way Christians interact with the world. Many people reject Christ because they see condemnation instead of love, legalism instead of grace, and hypocrisy instead of honesty. Christ has called the Church to love without compromise, grace without excess, and transparency without indulgence. Following the middle path between these two extremes is hard, but it bears much fruit in the end.

Update on the Blog

Right now, I know I haven't finished up the Israel trip recap. I'll try to get that done soon.
But in reality, the real reason the blog has been inactive is a combination of factors. I've been super busy with schoolwork. I've been narrowing down my college choices and working on my Common Application in my free time. Recently, I've been very busy with college essays and a very intensive 1-semester C.S. Lewis writing course that has me writing four essays per week. I'll try to post when I can but no promises from here on out. :D

Grading Obama's Foreign Policy

I'm a co-writer for an excellent election blog being written by Meghan O'Neil, Jon Hixson, and myself. Today, I published the first in a series of posts. You can read it here:

Part 3: The Galilee

Our breakfast was very...unique. There was a peas/carrots quiche, four types of fresh yogurt, curds, honey, rye bread, a salad bar, and three types of semi-raw fish. With the skin still on it. They had a poached-eggs consistency. I did try it but its not something I'd eat again. :) I wish I had pictures, but I didn't manage to snap one at the hotel. After breakfast, we took the bus from Nazareth to the beautiful resort town of Tiberias. Tiberias, named for the Roman emperor Tiberius, was the ancient capital of the king Herod Antipas, who ruled over the Galilee. Now in peak season, this resort would be bustling with people, but we had arrived in the offseason, early in the morning. This was part of the view we got as we walked down to the seaside...

The boat we traveled on was supposedly a replica of an ancient Galilean fishing boat.