Sunday, May 31, 2015

Rand Paul is Right, Stop the American Police State...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth



Jeb Bush speaking for the neocons and MIC establishment (as well as the RINOS of the GOP) has criticized Rand Paul for is stand on the illegal data mining of United State citizen's telephone records. Jeb Bush wrong and Rand Paul is absolutely RIGHT. Unfortunately it may well be possible the majority of Americans might very well be bamboozled by the rhetoric of the fear mongers and advocates for the MIC. As unlikely as it may be we here at Rational Nation USA are fervently hoping Rand Paul's reason an logic prevails over that of the neocons and MIC war advocates who care NOTHING about civil liberties and the law abiding and truly patriotic individual.

AP - Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is "wrong" on his efforts to end post-Sept. 11 surveillance laws used against suspected spies and terrorists.

Bush, a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016, called for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act enacted under the presidency of his brother George W. Bush.

"What I admire most about my brother was he kept us safe," Jeb Bush said at a Tennessee Republican Party fundraiser. "And I believe people will respect him for a long time because of that."

Without action by midnight Sunday, a number of tools that permit law enforcement to pursue and investigate suspected terrorists will expire. Paul, a senator from Kentucky, has said he will use his right to delay a final vote and let the powers lapse once midnight arrives.

"We do not need to give up who we are to defeat" terrorists, Paul said. "There has to be another way," he said Saturday in a statement and on Twitter, pledging to force the expiration of an "illegal spy program."

May we remind all of this:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Think about it! Find full story BELOW THE FOLD.

Via: Memeorandum

46 comments:

  1. I saw Santorum in an interview today... he said he was unaware of any abuse of the Patriot Act... that statement alone should disqualify him from any primary debates, the primaries and the presidency.

    None. Not. One.

    The larger question for me, as a lib, is why is Rand leading this charge? Why no Dems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron Wyden is the Dem on the point.

      This is the problem with politicizing national security and playing on Americans fears - it becomes very hard to stand up against it.

      JMJ

      Delete
  2. Does this count, Dave?

    http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's a very good question Dave. My initial thought is... money. The MIC has long tentacles.

    Then I thought Rand is showing ttrue integrity and is at his best on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dervish, this post is on a specific position Rand Paul has taken the lead on. It is not about any other issue. It is about the Patriot Act and the NSA.

    With that in mind should you wish to reword your two submitted posts on this artcle addressing just the subject of this post it will be published.

    And yes, Kudos to Bernie Sanders for his position on this as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Randal is a national treasure! He is absolutely the best of all the Congresspersons who are nuts, and likely the best we can hope for from the voters of Kentucky. All liberty lovers should thank Ayn Rand (as opposed to thanking God) that nepotism allowed him the name recognition to get into the Senate. I know I appreciate him standing up for our Constitutional rights.

      Delete
    2. Your trite, immature, sarcasm has been noted.

      Delete
    3. Concerning this statement: "All liberty lovers should thank Ayn Rand (as opposed to thanking God) that nepotism allowed him the name recognition to get into the Senate"

      The definition of nepotism is "the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs."

      Unless someone is going to make the case that the majority of Kentucky voters... those who have put Rand Paul into the Senate twice, are all of "power and influence" and/or personal friends, or relatives of Rand Paul, they should probably withdraw this statement.
      ---

      I would hope that we would stick to relevant matters concerning politicians, instead of assertions that Rand Paul's powerful friends/relatives appointed him to his Senate seat.

      Delete
    4. Correction: Rand Paul was elected once, of course, to the Senate. Not twice.

      Delete
    5. dmarks is right... Randal doesn't have a father that occupied a seat in the House for many years, and Randal probably wasn't able to raise money for his campaign through his daddy's connections and due to name recognition. And, of course nobody was influenced to vote Libertarian in the primary because they recognized his last name. Not in the general either. He got his seat entirely on his own. My mistake.

      Delete
    6. Please take your goddamn smart ass remarks to another blog Dervish. I HIGHLY suggest Who's Your Daddy.

      If you have nothing constructive to say keep the BS to yourself.

      Delete
    7. A Republican could find a cure for AIDS and take in every stray puppy from the Panama Canal to the Bay of Fundy and wd would still find fault with the person. Dude is hot-wired.......And what about Ms. Hillary? She didn't get to her position out of name recognition?

      Delete
    8. I did not say anything about Hillary Clinton, but yes, name recognition did help her win her senate seat. Although she had other accomplishments (as first lady) to stand on before going to the Senate, unlike Randal.

      Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments Speak for Themselves.

      Delete
    9. Exactly, Les. It's clear to see the standard: if someone succeeds that you like, or is "on your side", they have only gotten far by their hard work and sterling character. In contrast, if you disagree with someone's policies, this means that any of that someone's success is due to corruption, nepotism, or something else morally wrong.

      Delete
  5. For a while it looked as if the Senator was calibrating his views to make them more Republican friendly. Thankfully, that seems to have stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DMarks... Officially, Sanders is an independent running in the DEM primaries... I'm still looking...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you will find what you look for with Warren and Hillary, Dave. Like most of the Republicans running, they are acting like politicians. And that is not a good thing.

      Delete
  7. Dmarks... I don't think I'll find what I'm looking for from any politician. For a guy like me, essentially a hybrid of sorts, I'm always looking at the least bad among my options.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ole "lesser of two evils". I think a lot of people find themselves ultimately doing the same Dave. I've come to the conclusion only true dyed in the wool partitions don't, they vote strict party line regardless.

      Delete
    2. To put it bluntly, I think anyone who votes "straight ticket" has checked their brain at the door of the polling place, if not long before.

      Thankfully, this open appears to be gone in almost all states.

      Delete
    3. Well, there are two kinds of partisan voting - those who simply identify with one party or the other for whatever reason, and those who are concerned with the balance of power, like me. As long as the GOP has it's unrepresentative majority, and my local politics are dominated by the GOP, I will continue to vote straight Dem local on up.

      JMJ

      Delete
  8. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rand is no Libertarian savior but any stretch, but he's the front runner in regards to upholding some of the ideals of liberty. I applaud Wyden stance on this specific issue [I'm a born and bred Oregonian]. I'm not a 'lesser of two evils voter'......but some liberty is preferable to no liberty. That said, I'm still probably voting Libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless the GOP or Democratic party produces a candidate that stands for liberty, is fiscally conservative, is socially liberal and tolerant, is NOT a neo con, and properly understands the seperation of Church and State I too will vote Libertarian.

      Delete
    2. I'd wager that the LP will have your vote then.

      Delete
  10. This is very commendable. Rand Paul is standing up for Americans of every stripe who care about our freedom and liberty. As this unfolds it keeps getting better. I couldn't believe he accused republican warhawks of indiscriminately distributing arms and munitions which have been "snapped up," by ISIS. Heady stuff.

    It is extremely painful to watch Obama stand with Böhner and McConnnell. The republican establishment is ready to call the dog catcher to rein in Paul. Too bad that this is a decided minority in the party.

    Yet I remain ambivalent. I still think that Snowden was a traitor and that he damaged our security and intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good points. Flying Jr. I can't bring myself to trust Snowden when he chooses to ally himself with Russia's aggressive and authoritarian strongman Putin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not aware of that happening. It's my understanding that Snowden had plans to go elsewhere but was trapped in Russia when the US revoked his passport. I don't think he ever "allied" himself with Putin. I was not sure what to think about Snowden at first either, due to some condemnation of him coming from the Left. Although I always did see him as a whistleblower. Now I also see him as a hero for what he did.

      As for Randal, while it appears as though he has flipflopped on drones killing people on American soil, he seems solid on this issue. And he is also correct about ISIS. Better him in Congress than a Republican or ConservaDem, I guess. I can dislike him while appreciating his stand on this (and a few other) issues without too much cognitive dissonance. Although that obviously angers RN.

      Delete
    2. Another unfounded BS statement with respect to angering me. Either stay with subject issue or cease to be posted. It really is as straight forward as that Dervish.

      Delete
  12. Unfortunately in a matter of days the Freedom (yeah right) something or the other will replace the now expired PA clauses. They will be marginally less intrusive.

    As for Rand, he likely tanked whatever small chance he had running to secure the GOP nomination. His neo con opponents are going to savage him. He's dead in the GOP methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Replies
    1. Yeah, that's a given I suppose. State security and state secrets trump individual privacy and liberty every time with the real statists. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Lenin's Russians, MAO's China, and the list goes on are tyrannical socialist statist governments that proved this Jersey. America, in the spirit of patriotism and nationalism, combined with fear and obsessiion with national security is marching down that statist highway with Obama and the neo cons in the lead.

      BTW, any idea what happened to the transparency promised American people by President Obama?

      Delete
    2. Regardless of "necons" or "Obama" the real problem lies with a congress who use fear to get elected and to pump the MIC in their districts with taxpayer money. As long as we keep idolizing the military and police, and irrationally freaking out at our own shadows, this slide to fascism will continue.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. It all comes back to who pays for the elections. Congress is simply serving their masters. If you want Congress to serve the public, the public has to finance the elections. It is simple.

      Delete
    4. Jerry is right on the money, literally and figuratively. You wrote about this recently, Les, in the context of Citizens United. But even that was just a worsening of an already really bad problem, right? We need a constitutional convention to fix this problem, and the system just isn't rigged to allow it. It would take a mass movement of erstwhile apathetic little individuals.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Jerry: I've long opposed government funding of elections, because the government chooses who to fund, and it means that money forcibly sto... er... taken from me ends up funding the campaigns of the likes of Pat Buchanan.

      But, given the arguments here by you and others, I am willing to consider accepting this price and trying something new here.

      Delete
    6. Uh, I think they lay out some requirements and whoever meets them qualifies for funding. I don't know how that is "choosing". As for taking money from you by force... Has dmarks refused to pay his taxes and thus forced the government to force him to pay?

      Delete
    7. Mr. Sanders said:

      "As for taking money from you by force... Has dmarks refused to pay his taxes and thus forced the government to force him to pay?"

      That's a ridiculous question. Like asking someone "how can you be sure arson is illegal. Have you ever burned down a house and been arrested for it?" Perhaps it is indeed an attempt to divert attention from the fact that taxed money is forcibly taken from its owners. I don't think this attempt worked very well.

      Delete
    8. Excellent response dmarks. Truthful beyond question.

      The question then is should citizens expect to pay for services they expect of government?

      Delete
    9. I believe so, Les. But, due to the nature of taxation (which escapes the definition of "theft" narrowly on a technicality), it must be done to a level of what is only necessary to fund important government functions, and not levied in a fashion to attempt to influence the taxation victim's behavior, nor to enforce morality.

      The last thing we need is an elite class which relies on tax funds for a lavish lifestyle, alongside tax "victims" singled out for excessive taxation because these individuals, without any regard to due process, offend the sensibilities of those in power.

      Because of the nature of taxation, the money MUST be spent wisely.

      Make sense now, Les?

      Delete
    10. Ah, but with that we face another question. In a democratic republic such as ours the duly elected representatives of the people are charged with establishing tax rates correct? Citizens United aside (it should be overturned) citizens by electing representatives place their trust in the collective wisdom of those they elect. So when the majority passes tax legislation we are then subject to the will of the majority and
      required to pay accordingly.

      Remove CU, eliminate lobbyists and muzzle special interest minorities with big bucks and maybe we might figure it out.

      Delete
  14. Paul had to get some recognition and headlines and his stance on NSA has given him what he wanted. Does anyone believe the federalists are not deep in their lives and that restricting NSA does little to protect your privacy.
    If the NSA could show they have used the information to stop any attacks it might be OK but they can't show where spying on American citizens has provided any information. They need to take the billions spent and waste it on some other non-productive government program.

    Transparency went the way of honesty, anti lobbying and uniting the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right skudrunner. With republicans at the head of the line leading the government away from honesty and uniting the nation. They have led the way to increased lobbying and Citizens United has been one of their crowning achievements.

      Delete

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.