Sunday, June 9, 2013

Senator Rand Paul Front and Center In the Effort to Protect Our Privacy and Civil Liberties...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Lib
erty -vs- Tyranny


Big Brother Is Watching You by Petr Kratochvil


Senator Rand Paul leading in the effort to protect the civil rights and the privacy of all American's. Like his father before him he is focused on the Constitutional limitations of the Federal Government and limiting its ability to snoop into our private affairs. There is no doubt but what the Classical Liberal thinkers and Founders of our nation are in agreement with the Senator.

THE HILL - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday said he would examine ways to block the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs before the Supreme Court.

“I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level,” vowed Paul on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I’m going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: Ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don’t want our phone records looked at then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington,” he said.

A report in the Guardian last week revealed that the NSA had sought information on phone numbers, and the location and duration of calls to help identify potential terror threats. A separate program, PRISM, sought information on foreign Internet users from American tech companies.

The disclosures unleashed a firestorm of criticism at the Obama administration’s record on civil liberties, coming weeks after news that the Justice Department had seized reporter records in leak investigations and after the Internal Revenue Service admitted targeting Tea Party groups.

The administration has defended the programs, with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Saturday saying that Internet companies only provided user data to the National Security Agency after an order from the secret FISA court, and only for information requests tied to a “foreign intelligence purpose.”


Administration officials said Saturday that Congress had been briefed 13 times on efforts to obtain electronic data for national security, as the White House sought to push back against claims from many lawmakers that they were not properly briefed on the measures.

Paul said he was concerned with the scope of the NSA’s surveillance.

“They are looking at a billion phone calls a day, is what I read in the press and that doesn’t sound to me like a modest invasion of privacy, it sounds like an extraordinary invasion of privacy,” said Paul.

Paul said such snooping was “partly what our founding fathers fought the revolution over.”

Asked about reports that the programs had helped thwart a terror attack in New York, Paul said he did not oppose surveillance targeted at a particular individual suspected of wrongdoing.

“I have no problem if you have probable cause and you target people who are terrorists and you go after them and the people they are communicating with…... Read More

Indeed. I'm sure all Americans are okay with targeting terrorists when there is probable cause or significant and justified suspicion of possible terrorist activity. But mining millions or billions of phone records? Obama and his administration are proving it (they) is (are) just as intrusive and statist minded as GWB and his administration were.

American that truly value freedom and civil liberties need to speak up, no, SHOUT OUT writing blogs, letters to the editors, communicate by phone as well as through letters to their congress critters and senators voicing outrage over these invasive and unconstitutional actions by our federal (feral) government.

That's my position. What is yours?

Via: Memeorandum

26 comments:

  1. Rand can be as litigious as he likes, but PRISM and Boundless Informant and such are products of FISA, a LAW Rand can try to change if he chooses. Otherwise, this is just another pissy dog and pony show.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. dmarks, lots of liberals drink beer and drive pick-up trucks, and lot's of conservatives watch PBS and sip lattes. What's your point? Just because someone on the Left does something Right, that does not make the Left Right. Get it? Or too heavy for you?

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. "Not sure what your point is, but it is invalid." :I

      "...can we have more intelligent conversation please?" :I

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Check the post that went up at 7:34 PM today. Or thereabouts .

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It appears that dmarks has a burning need to turn any discussion of any problem into a "Blame the Democrats" conversation, which is, IMO, childish and petty. Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle have worked diligently to allow the government to invade our privacy. Example:

    "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006

    On March 16, 2006, Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455), under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight.

    Also on March 16, 2006, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 2453), which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs".

    On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S. 3001) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.


    On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006 the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate."

    What started out as an act to enhance the security of the USA by intercepting terrorists' plans has grown and become more invasive, and these additional powers have been approved by BOTH parties, but as the above illustrates, the Republicans have been as eager and willing partners in this business as have the Democrats and are the party that gave FISA even more powers.

    We can always count on dmarks to want to place the greatest part of the blame on the liberals. I'd suggest we discuss how citizens can put the brakes on an overreaching government instead of trying to make cheap political points.

    Even Libertarians are conflicted on this issue, as you can see by reading Silverfiddle's post on it over at Western Hero.

    And so am I. How do we keep the country safe from another catastrophic attack by jihadists while at the same time, preserving our Constitutional rights.

    Does anyone have an answer to that??? Can you try to discuss this, dmarks, without casting aspersions at individuals? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is NOT, IMNHO a left or right issue. It is about govetnment overreach, growing statism and a continuing loss of civil liberties.

      Both political organizations are responsible and frankly I could not possibly care less who now acts on behalf of liberty and the American people. I'm fine with republicans or democrats who now act accordingly.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whether you like him or not, I think that it's fair to say that Senator Paul possesses gravitas at least on the issue of civil liberties. I say this in that the fellow has been remarkably consistent when it comes to liberty and he does not in any way resemble the erstwhile defenders of Bush and Johnny Come Latelies such as Sean Hannity, etc..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trying to have a reasonable discussion, without pointing fingers seems to be an elusive pursuit at best.

      I guess it is because so many have so much invested in the falsehoods they have heretfore accepted as truth it renders it impossible to back away from them now.

      Speaking truth to power is an activity that always has a price attached. But really, it likely doesn't matter much. One gets the feeling that in the end power will win over truth.

      And so it goes.

      Delete
  6. FYI, the horrible terrible socialist Bernie Sanders (who Dennis refers to as the "Independant from Pyongyang") is opposed to the "wholesale data mining by the NSA and FBI" and has introduced legislation to put a stop to it. So he's another who is fighting to protect the civil rights and the privacy of all Americans. There is no doubt that the Founders of our nation are in agreement with Senator Sanders. I stand with Senator Sanders on this, so I guess we're all in agreement that What the NSA is doing is unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Senator Sanders wants to curtail the "rights" of the plutocrats to buy our elections and install politicians who will do their bidding. This is extremely harmful to democracy, which is why Sanders opposes bad SCOTUS decisions like Citizens United. He is firmly and consistently on the side of the people... the majority of us, not just those in the 1 percent. Dennis is consistent in his siding with the wealthy elites, which is why he rejects socialism.

    Dennis gives examples of tyrannical dictators who promised socialism (and may have delivered it in some small amount) but mostly just lied and abused their positions. They are/were fake Socialists. Sanders supports Democratic Socialism, which would not hand power over to one person or a small group who could then abuse their power.

    Sanders supports government run with meeting the needs of the people as it's primary objective, which is why I am proud to support him. Dennis hates him and "completely rejects socialism" because he stands against the people. In every case Dennis favors screwing them over to enrich the plutocrats.

    Also, Hitler was someone who ruled from the Right. Look him up in any history book, and the fact that Hilter ruled from the Right will be noted in it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget envy. From which it all started.

      Delete
  10. I am repulsed by Dennis' slander of working people (some slaving away at multiple jobs) as slothful and greedy. It is the Plutocrats who are greedy. They steal from workers by underpaying them. That Dennis says their pay is fair because the workers and management met and negotiated is utter baloney. The negotiation did not take place between equals. The ones with the money have the power, especially when unemployment is high. Desperate people will work for low wages. That does NOT make those wages fair -- just the opposite.

    Workers only want a fair share of the profit they worked to create. They don't want to "steal" a damn thing, that is the plutocrats Dennis is thinking of. They are the ones who steal the labor of the workers by taking more than their fair share.

    And Plutocrats exist. They contribute to politicians campaigns (directly and indirectly) and expect favors in return. That Dennis flat out denies their existence is proof positive of who he sides with. He sides with the plutocrats and against workers. Also, it isn't "envy" when someone steals from you and you object. That's ridiculous.

    The totalitarian rulers Dennis cites were/are FAKE socialists. They did not/do not rule "from the Left". They said they would/are, but they lied/are liars.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dervish Sanders eaguals Whirling Dervish. eaquals the 21st centuries. REINCARNATION of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels combined.

    Welcome. to the 21st century Mr. Dervish, your slavish devotion to the doctrine (spectre) of communism is no doubt admired by the ghosts of the aforementioned.

    AND, as communism failed miserably in the prior era so shall it fail again whenever and wherever it might be tried again.

    Of course DS (aka WD) and those who preach class warfare will never understand WHY their ideological hero's political and economic beliefs will never succeed for any substantiall measurable time period.


    See ya DS (WD)... or the living ghost of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought you were an atheist, and therefore did not believe in things like reincarnation. I guess you do though, and quite strongly (given your capping of the word). But even though your feeling that reincarnation exists is quite strong, you obviously don't understand how it works. Two souls aren't combined into one and then reincarnated. In any case, nobody was discussing communism, so it is a complete mystery why you've decided to bring it up.

    Not only did I not mention communism in this discussion, I have never said a single word that could be interpreted as me having a "slavish devotion" to it. Actually, the statement is 100 percent false. I have zero devotion to communism.

    You are correct that I was "w-dervish" but changed my ID to "Dervish Sanders". This happened when I upgraded to Google+, and was not done to deceive anyone as you suggest. Anyway, communism failed because it was tried. No government has ever tried Objectivism, as rational people (actual rational people, not those who SAY they're rational but are actually far from it) reject Objectivism and it's goal of redefining greed as a virtue instead of a sin. Objectivism "eaguals" Fascism "eaguals" sociopathy in my book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) - I an an atheist.
      2) - It is not my proplem you take everthing literally when it is obviously meant figuratively
      3) - You WD were in fact drawing off Marxism (ie: communism) and it is quite clear IMNHO.
      4) -I doubt you know anything factual about Objectivism or rational self intetest. Have you actually read anything? Never mind I really not concerned with you or your misrepresentations.
      5) - Communism failed because it was tried. Actually the totalitarian communism of the 20th century is not Marxism. So.. Your point is? Never mind, doesn't concern me.
      6) - Objectivism eaquals a way to live ones life objectively and I'm ones self interest. It does not mean selfish and it is opposed to Facism, Socialism, Communism and advocates for a free market and capitalism. Hint this means it is opposed to crony capitalism, corporatism. or any other variant of pure capitalism.
      7) - That concludes my lesson DS.

      Have gun chasing the unicorns and butterflies in your head.

      Delete
    2. Fun, not gun, which for you to be clear DS was a typo.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.