Is anyone surprised that the Senate couldn't get any straight answers from Holder on the possibility of drone strikes on Americans within the U.S.? And why hasn't the outcry over this been louder, with the exception of the fine efforts of Sen. Paul and his handful of allies, in light of this administrations deliberately hazy definition of a drone strike's justification. And yet Holder couldn't decide if he believed the President had the right to order such a strike on U.S. soil? Now this morning something strange happened to Eric Holder. Something that no one has ever seen before. He woke up with a desire to do his job. By now I'm sure that you've heard about his letter to Sen. Paul, about 24 hours too late. "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" "The answer to that question is no." Holder finally admitted.

     The President does not have that authority. But then, he didn't have the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance either. He didn't have the authority to order military strikes against Lybia a few years ago. Although he had the obligation to do so last September 11th, but chose to do nothing. He didn't have the authority to appoint three recess nominations when the Senate wasn't in recess. And the list goes on and on. But now we're expected to believe that no such drone strikes will be ordered on American soil just because the President doesn't have the authority to order them?

     And this administration has done nothing but muddy the definition of terrorist. A few months ago Joe Biden likened conservatives to terrorists. Is that going to be the standard? A person's political or social belief? Or some other form of affiliation? Recently Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, has sent a letter to the Justice Department marking members of Patriot groups as "non-Islamic domestic terrorists". In spite of the fact that there has been no acts of terrorism linked to members of any such group.

     Gone are the good old days when we were just labeled as "racist" for demanding fiscal sanity, a smaller federal government, and adherence to the constitution.  Now the new label is to be "terrorist". And this label might be followed with another nasty little surprise. Authority or no authority.

     So what is considered a terrorist under this administration, and how is that definition likely to be expanded in the near future? If you're opposed to gay marriage, are you a terrorist? If you want a balanced budget, are you a terrorist? If you don't drive a hybrid, are you a terrorist? If you forget to floss, are you a terrorist? Or is that label handed down on the whim of our "glorious and all knowing" dictator, Comrade Obama?

     If you remember to look up at the sky while you're going about your day give a nice wave to the drones up there. After all, they're still just the "friendly" unweaponized surveillance variety. For now. And God bless America. We're going to need all the help we can get.