Rand paul slams establishment republicans, declares victory over nsa

Rand Paul Slams Establishment Republicans, Declares Victory Over NSA

Late Sunday the National Security Agency (NSA) shut down its bulk data collection program as the PATRIOT Act expired thanks to Paul’s efforts. He tells Breitbart News exclusively that “we’re excited by the fact that the battle has been won.”

“The president has been told in no uncertain terms—and by the end of the week this will be in writing—that he can no longer illegally collect all of Americans’ phone records and keep them in Utah,” Paul said.

--- Read More ----

This is something even your Liberals should be getting behind! The Establishment Republicans got their asses handed to them by Dr. Rand Paul. I will say so did the establishment Democrats, but they are not who is in power in the U.S. Senate.

It is rare when we have a politician actually look out for the best interests of "We the People" instead of the interests of the Powers That Be!

We can still keep our people safe using the 4th Amendment as written. We don't need to sacrifice our liberties and privacy.


THANK YOU DR. PAUL!!!!

 

It's good to see that particular piece of crap die.

Sadly they're already trying to pass another piece of crap to replace it and allow for the mass seizure of phone records.

 

Yes, the establishment Republicans took a licking, but so did national security. Dr Paul doesn't even understand what he's doing, only that it looks cool to college freshmen.

 

Rand Man!

[video=youtube;Q7qy-4CBBZo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7qy-4CBBZo[/video]

 

if they would just put a clause in it that it could ONLY be used for terroristic crimes

if used for anything else the courts woudl need to treat it like a warrentless search, all data and any fruit derived from it thrown out of court

that is the ONLY way to prevent abuse

you will not see that clause added though as the real use of this data is not to prevent terrorism

.

 

I would have to agree with you 100%. I still am weary to give them the power as these establishment (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s take the whole mile nearly every time.

 

Rather cryptic. IMO, what Paul is doing is showing that some few legislators in this country will actually do what their constituencies sent them to Washington to do. In this case, that's stand up against Federal Executive power grab, even if only the most egregious cases of it like the Patriot Act.

 

Well it would be nice if some legislators actually did that. However the phone metadata program was legal and constitutional. That we can get rid of, however the President has decided to rule by decree. He's basically rewritten immigration law to his liking, and "some legislators" decided to fund that. In effect, legitimizing his real, unconstitutional power grab. Maybe you don't understand what an executive power grab is if you think it's a law passed by Congress and renewed multiple times, but not a President acting as if he's ruling from the Iron Throne.

 

You have no idea what the NSA is doing and they only tell you what they want you to know (which you cannot possibly confirm or dispute anyway). Why Rand Paul is being vilified for trying to gain some measure of civil liberties sanity
I really can't say.
The NSA certainly didn't save anyone from the Tsarnaev brothers.

 

Americans keep on doing the same ole tired crap every 4 years and kneeling to their masters and faithfully choosing one of the candidates chosen for them by one of the two mainstream parties.

The losers line is always the same...."so and so doesn't have a chance so I'll go with the lesser of two evils". What a pathetic sorry existence to not have the fortitude to take a stand and do the right thing and instead take whatever crumb you're tossed.
You're not taking the lesser of two evils, you're playing into their game of status quo.

Americans talk talk talk and whine, but the ONE thing they could do to show their discontent with the two mainstream parties they repeat ad nauseum.

Grow a pair and think for yourself. If what you've been doing hasn't worked, try something DIFFERENT for once.

Unless things change significantly, Rand has my vote and that of anyone I can reason with.
And if that puts another democrat in the White House, then Americans deserve it.

 

Based on how Paul has described it, I think I have a better idea of what the NSA was doing than he does. Of course, he's not the only ignorant one. I've been face palming ever since Snowden at some of the incredibly stupid remarks our politicians have made. There are only a few House and Senate members who've had access to what the NSA was really doing, and the vast majority of them have been supportive. This is about Paul trying to get the college freshman vote. Not about the 4th amendment.

Although I was a supporter of Rand Paul when he first got into the Senate, over time he's shown himself to be a kooky conspiracy nut who should be kept as far away from the White House as possible.

 

Agree with me about what exactly?

Looking for plausible deniability k

 

God bless ya'
on just about every issue but this one. We disagree once more.

Btw...I look at who is opposing and slandering Rand Paul (Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, etc.) and I think who could ask for a better group of back stabbing enemies?
They are straight from a Dick Tracy comic strip and if you can judge a man by his enemies then I think Rand Paul would make a very fine president indeed.

If it helps give some perspective no one ever authorized the NSA to collect and store metadata according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. http://www.wired.com/2015/05/breaking-news-federal-court-rules-nsa-bulk-data-collection-illegal/

If Paul is "kooky" for calling to an end to an unauthorized illegal program run by a secretive government
agency that doesn't have to tell you a damned thing then I'd say we definitely need more kooks in the senate.
I'm not really sure why Paul earns your enmity.

 

I see a huge problem with leaving that definition floating precisely because of how the Obama Administration and its DOJ has conducted themselves.

These are people who undeniably support actual terrorism which they subsequently label as anything but.

I don't want them or any successors of their kind being to unilaterally decide when such power is applicable.

 

Doubtful. The Fed Government has failed to show the correlation between NATL. Security and these programs(they don't even want to discuss the correlation). If the Government wants these powers, they must prove their necessity. But even then:

"Those who value security over freedom shall neither be free nor secure."-Ben Franklin. If the war on terror is a war on ideas, I will never give up on the idea of America. No matter how 'safe' it makes us. The "Patriot Act" is the most unpatriotic, and oppressive legislation ever written in US history.

 

I would say this, and I agree with most of what you say. The Patriot Act as written is not nearly as bad as it is being enforced. But, I am against both forms.

 

Not true, liberty is not meant to be the most effective method of policing: that's not its purpose. Liberty is justified in spite of the sacrifices that must be made to security.

Give me liberty or give me death. If we sacrifice liberty for security there's nothing worth protecting.

 

I disagree. Warrantless taps are not needed, which they do with the Patriot Act. We can still include judges, which was my point in regards to the 4th Amendment.

 

My problem is whenever I hear the name Rand Paul it makes me think of Ru Paul.

Not joking.

 

You can more effectively target the guilty by also targeting innocents who are "more likely" to be guilty. Sure, you violate the rights of a lot of innocents in that process, but who cares? You've saved lives, etc. That's all the mandate some people need.

Gun control and drug prohibition are ideal examples of this sort of policing. Nobody thinks that having a gun or shooting H are in themselves coercive, they think that if you own a gun or shoot heroin you're more likely to be a steal/kill/etc. It's all the same (*)(*)(*)(*): targeting at-risk innocents to spread a wider net for the guilty.

 

Rand Paul poses a great dilemma for me. I am with you on this....I think he is a patriot of the highest order. However.....his 18th century "isolationist" bent prevents me from considering voting for him...if he were to win the nomination.

 

That is what i find most appealing about paul Lol

 

ok, then say it can only be used in court cases involving mass murder or terrorism, I am saying lets restrict it by saying any other information collected CAN NOT be used on court or it is treated like a warrentless search

 

You have some kind of penchant for interfering in foreign countries?

 

I don't like rule by order either. I include quasi-legislative powers ceded to the Executive by Congress within the definition of "executive power grab" and mere passage by Congress does -not- imply Constitutional results, but I think you know this. It doesn't matter whether the legislative power originates in statute, order or wherever, if it's vested in the Executive, we are illegitimate, and have been so for nearly a century now in the name of expediency and progressivism.

I disagree that the phone metadata program was "legal and constitutional." Immigration law is off-topic.