Did a Tea Party Senator from Kentucky named “Randal” defeat Nobel Peace Prize-winning, former Harvard constitutional law professor President Obama on civil liberties on the night of March 6?

Yes, to say the least.

On face value, it appeared Rand Paul staged his staggering 13-hour filibuster on the senate floor in protest of the Obama administrations appointing of John Brennan as head of the CIA. Brennan is largely considered a controversial nominee, since he is the chief architect of the Unmanned Ariel Vehicle aka “Drones” programs, which until recently were kept top secret.

There is much more to this story.

Paul really commenced the filibuster in defiance to a vague premise offered by Eric Holder of the Justice department regarding the usage of drones against Americans citizens.

“It is possible, I supposed, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder wrote.

Upon reading this, Paul’s head nearly exploded.

Paul was looking for a one-worded “No” to the legality of the military drone usage within U.S. territory, and off to the senate floor he went. For 13 hours Rand Paul stood on the senate floor filibustering the Obama administration’s “imperial presidency” and its lack of regard to the due process laws of the Constitution.

Normally, under these circumstances, as during the Bush administration, it is customary for so called “progressives” and liberals to stand their ground on principals and join such an event.  For this instance there was one such man.

Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon who openly held serious concerns regarding the usage of drones anywhere, let alone America, came to the aid of Paul’s liberty focused rant.

Here liberals had their chance to stand on principal over things they consistently did when Bush was president but have failed to do under guise of its expansion under Obama. When it’s their man in the office apparently abuses on civil liberties are tolerable.

“Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?” asked Rand at one point in a well-fitted but frighteningly clear pitch.”Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone-strike program.”

But Barack Obama of 2013 was busy having dinner with republican senators, no seriously!

Both the environmentalist-type liberals and the warmongering Republicans suddenly found themselves on the same side attacking Rand Paul’s stand against abuse of power.

Paul was even labeled a “wacko bird” by none other than John McCain, former 2008 republican candidate who lost to–yup–Obama.

Holder wrote a two-sentence response to Paul following the filibuster.

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’” Holder wrote. “The answer to that question is no.”

Paul appeared on Fox News on March 7, and said this response was enough for him to drop his disagreement with John Brennan’s nomination.

Although Paul is basking in the political spotlight following his filibuster I believe he was looking for that “no” to his question from the beginning.

It’s not everyday in politics that the son of Ron Paul and fellow “Tea Partier” Rand Paul earns loath from the Republican Party yet is praised by far leftist group Code Pink.

If you need more proof that American politics had a blue moon, that Republicans are in metamorphosis and that Libertarians are having their moment then you might have to wait.

If more proof is necessary that Obama’s progressive shell is as hollow as his 2008 promise of “change,” then don’t be surprised.

Commitment to the Bush Administration-type agenda is alive and well under Obama, unfortunately partisan politics have blinded both parties for seeing things as they should be.

This column was written by a Channels contributor and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Channels staff.