admin
Senator Rand Paul has stepped into the growing controversy over the administration’s strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug vessels, and good patriots should applaud him for asking the hard questions others in Washington won’t. Paul has rightly pushed back against knee-jerk militarism, insisting that before we celebrate explosions at sea we should see the evidence and protect the constitutional limits on executive power.
The row intensified after Vice President JD Vance hailed the attack as “the highest and best use of our military,” even doubling down with vulgar indifference to critics, a posture that should alarm every conservative who believes in the rule of law. Rand Paul has not minced words — calling Vance’s tone “despicable” and warning that glorifying executions without trial undermines the very liberties patriots fight to defend.
There’s a sober, practical point behind Paul’s moral outrage: routine Coast Guard statistics show a nontrivial share of interdictions turn up no contraband, and fact-checkers found his related claim mostly accurate, meaning a reckless shoot-first policy risks killing innocents. The administration has so far offered limited public proof tying these specific boats to fentanyl shipments destined for the United States, and that vacuum of evidence deserves Congressional oversight before we normalize extrajudicial slayings at sea.
Patriots want our borders secure and our people safe from the poison of fentanyl, but conservatives also understand that means preserving the constitutional checks that distinguish America from lawless regimes. Lawmakers on both sides have expressed alarm about the legal basis and lack of transparent briefings, and it’s not hyperbole to demand Congress be part of any sustained kinetic campaign rather than watching from the sidelines.
If the administration truly believes these strikes save American lives, then produce the proof, present the legal rationale, and ask Congress for the authorities this serious use of force requires. Rand Paul’s stand is a reminder that conservatism is not blind worship of power; it is a conviction that strength must be wielded with restraint, evidence, and accountability — otherwise we lose both our security and our soul.
