Quantcast

Rand Paul pleads for conservatives to oppose the PATRIOT Act

By Sahil Kapur
Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:02 EDT
google plus icon
randafp
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

WASHINGTON – Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wrote to colleagues Tuesday voicing objections to the PATRIOT Act as it heads to the Senate for reauthorization, warning that it could turn America into a “police state.”

Paul, a tea party favorite who was first elected last November, expressed opposition to warrantless searches and surveillance, questioning their constitutionality and their necessity to protect the United States from terrorist acts.

“I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens,” he wrote. “I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant. I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.”

“It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of ‘security,’” Paul added.

The House on Monday approved an extension of three key provisions in the PATRIOT Act by a margin of 275 to 144, after an attempt to fast-track the bill failed to win a two-thirds majority last week. The provisions will expire at the end of February if the Senate does not also extend them.

Paul said that in passing the PATRIOT Act after the attacks of September 11, 2001, “Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.”

The Kentucky Republican’s letter reflects that he is positioning himself as a civil liberties champion, a rare breed in Congress and especially so in the Senate, making his voice more significant. The PATRIOT Act has largely been supported by the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as a majority of Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

“As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?” Paul wrote.

In his letter, Paul even quoted ousted Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (WI), a civil liberties stalwart and the only Senate vote against the PATRIOT Act in the weeks after 9/11.

His full letter is below the fold.

####

Dear Colleague:

James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.

He condemned these general warrants as “the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book.”  Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.”  The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges—not soldiers or policemen—would issue warrants.  Otis’ battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).

I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens.  I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.

I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.

As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question:  Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?

The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned.  However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps.  The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.

It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of “security.”

For example, one of the three provisions set to expire on February 28th—the “library provision,” section 215 of the PATRIOT Act—allows the government to obtain records from a person or entity by making only the minimal showing of “relevance” to an international terrorism or espionage investigation.  This provision also imposes a year-long nondisclosure, or “gag” order. “Relevance” is a far cry from the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause.  Likewise, the “roving wiretap” provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which is also scheduled to expire on the 28th, does not comply with the Fourth Amendment.  This provision makes possible “John Doe roving wiretaps,” which do not require the government to name the target of the wiretap, nor to identify the specific place or facility to be monitored.  This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Writs of Assistance fought against by Otis and the American colonists.

Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act previously made permanent and not scheduled to expire present even greater concerns.  These include the use and abuse by the FBI of so-called National Security Letters.  These secret demand letters, which allow the government to obtain financial records and other sensitive information held by Internet Service Providers, banks, credit companies, and telephone carriers—all without appropriate judicial oversight—also impose a gag order on recipients.

NSL abuse has been and likely continues to be rampant.  The widely-circulated 2007 report issued by the Inspector General from the Department of Justice documents “widespread and serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities.  In many instances, the FBI’s misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI’s own internal policies.”  Another audit released in 2008 revealed similar abuses, including the fact that the FBI had issued inappropriate “blanket NSLs” that did not comply with FBI policy, and which allowed the FBI to obtain data on 3,860 telephone numbers by issuing only eleven “blanket NSLs.” The 2008 audit also confirmed that the FBI increasingly used NSLs to seek information on U.S. citizens.  From 2003 to 2006, almost 200,000 NSL requests were issued.  In 2006 alone, almost 60% of the 49,425 requests were issued specifically for investigations of U.S. citizens or legal aliens.

In addition, First Amendment advocates should be concerned about an especially troubling aspect of the 2008 audit, which documented a situation in which the FBI applied to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain a section 215 order.  The Court denied the order on First Amendment grounds.  Not to be deterred, the FBI simply used an NSL to obtain the same information.

A recent report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) entitled, “Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008,” documents further NSL abuse.  EFF estimates that, based on the proportion of violations reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board and the FBI’s own statements regarding NSL violations, the actual number of violations that may have occurred since 2001 could approach 40,000 violations of law, Executive Order, and other regulations.

Yet another troublesome (and now permanent) provision of the PATRIOT Act is the expansion of Suspicious Activity Reports.  Sections 356 and 359 expanded the types of financial institutions required to file reports under the Bank Secrecy Act.  The personal and account information required by the reports is turned over to the Treasury Department and the FBI.  In 2000, there were only 163,184 reports filed.  By 2007, this had increased to 1,250,439.  Again, as with NSLs, there is a complete lack of judicial oversight for SARs.

Finally, I wish to remind my colleagues that one of the many ironies of the rush to advance the PATRIOT Act following 9/11 is the well-documented fact that FBI incompetence caused the failure to search the computer of the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui.  As FBI agent Coleen Rowley stated, “the FBI headquarters supervisory special agent handling the Moussaoui case ‘seemed to have been consistently almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts” to meet the FISA standard for a search warrant, and therefore no request was ever made for a warrant.  Why, then, was the FBI rewarded with such expansive new powers in the aftermath of this institutional failure?

In the words of former Senator Russ Feingold, the only “no” vote against the original version of the PATRIOT Act,

“[T]here is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.”

I call upon each of my Senate colleagues to seriously consider whether the time has come to re-evaluate many—if not all—provisions of the PATRIOT Act.  Our oath to uphold the Constitution demands it.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • Guest

    The GOP should oppose the Patriot act, but it’s their baby in the first place. So what are the chances of that happening? Take a guess. Anyway, I would still never vote for Rand Paul…

  • Anonymous

    No, not “could”. “Has”.

  • Anonymous

    The ability to publicly speak our mind and go about our lives without constantly being secretly molested by the government are the most fundamental, most basic, conditions necessary for freedom and liberty. Anyone who supports any law that compromises those conditions should never have the support of any American citizen no matter his or her political persuasion.

    I am as radical and liberal as they come, but Rand Paul at least meets the most basic condition necessary for my support. Obama doesn’t.

  • Anonymous

    Libertarians are neo-confederates. Look it up (not on wikicrap).

  • Anonymous

    Yes and you will still get what you are getting.

  • Anonymous

    Go Rand, too bad people are going to listen to MSM and MSM-like Sorros web spin about Paul, oh well stupid gets what stupid deserves I suppose but unfortunately stupid take many with him or her.

  • NeoNative

    Libertarians are the most socially tolerant party. The least racist people on the planet are Libertarians. If you don’t like Libertarians, you better find a different label. That one does not stick.

  • Anonymous

    Just because Rand Paul is right on this doesn’t make him a good person to vote for. He is a racist pig who is against the civil rights act and would most likely be against any kind of equal pay act for women also.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DZZ3NWOCSYG7HONVPUPEJFAPZI DJ

    If it wasn’t for Rand Paul, it would have passed unanimously and everybody would be bitching about it passing. Now, literally thanks to and ONLY to RAND PAUL is it going through some type of legislative examination… and people still want to call him crazy? Hah! Talk about calling the kettle black! But Rand Paul’s not that crazy.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M3IIDSP4OE42BFMXLKZOADJXQQ David

    Before he was elected, I was worried that he might not be as strong and faithful as his father. He did say he admired Sarah Palin, after all.

    Boy was I wrong!

    He has impressed me so far.

  • Anonymous

    Yea you just hide your racism behind your crypto-fascist philosophy.

    No tolerance for abortion

    Lots of tolerance for meth addicted drug fiends.

  • parrots_abound

    Except that Rand needs to get over his Israel friendly Bible influenced coziness with Israel and his admiration of certain Tea Party Neocons…then maybe I’ll see him in the same light as his father.

    But he still has some good stuff to say and has learned from his Father on big issues.

  • parrots_abound

    Troll is obvious yet again.

  • Balthazars Rebellion

    Some of these anti-Pual trolls are spamming the same thing post after post. This was common on social news sites during the 2008 campaign. They would outright lie and slander without shame over and over. For some reason,on Digg at least, it was the Jewish posters who were the most vicious and tenacious about it. I’m really not sure why that is. I’m not lying and I am not an anti-Semite. It was just an observation that was acknowledged by quite a few other people as well. I just want to know why that was and if it will be evident again in 2012.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think it’s fair to throw everyone in the same basket. I’m a Liberal, and I am so far, very impressed with some of the things Ron and Rand Paul present.
    Now, are there any Dems with the courage and backbone to stand beside them on this issue?

  • Jaimie11

    That is not true. Libertarians are for personal freedom and responsibility, not government telling us what to think, say, and do. If you know a professed libertarian who would force you, what ever gender you are, to NOT have an abortion if you want or need one, that person is not libertarian.

    I’m sorry you are so prejudiced that you are willing to believe and spread lies about people you do not understand. Prejudice is ugly, no matter who is doing it and why.

    Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action. Now compare this with classic liberalism – a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

    Please read this book. Spreading prejudicial misinformation is not something a liberal and honest person does.

    http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=81

  • Anonymous

    yes, it does.

  • parrots_abound

    It will be the same way again. When Ron Paul gets near any campaign for the White House or any hint of it, they bombard all the top news sites.

    You have Neocons, Socialists, Communists, Democrat and Republican Loyalists, and all kinds of slimy Statists that PANIC at the thought that people actually listen to him and his populist views are agreed to by many young and old.

    Some of them are indeed payed, some are just angry individuals who hate him and troll.

    They’ll make up anything they can and provide no evidence to 90% of the stuff they post. And the other ‘factual’ stuff they’ll say is half truth and half spin.

    It will ramp up and if he announces a 2012 run, they are going to go completely ballistic.

    I’d say just get used to it.

  • theoldhippy

    Just because you disagree with a person’s labeling themselves as “libertarian” should not cause you to turn down the only member of Congress who is trying to reclaim the Constitutional Rights the citizens of the US are entitled to. His broader policies aside, he is working to RETURN liberties instead of working to STRIP us of our freedom.

    Back in the early ’70s, the few progressives here in Dallas found more common ground with the George Wallace supporters than we had with National Democratic Party. We didn’t think the same, but by allowing the Wallace delegates to get their say, we were allowed to get in our two cents worth.

    The Republicans have successfully managed to keep the poor blacks and the poor white hating each other. If the poor joined together in the “Poor” Party, no Dem or Republican would win.

  • Jaimie11

    I was really upset that he professed admiration for Sarah Palin – I mean isn’t she a warmonger, among other distasteful things?

    But I think he may admire some things about her and rebuke others. What those things are I’d like to know.

    Anyway, good for him, standing against the Patriot Act! He and Feingold have something to talk about.

  • Anonymous

    The only answer I can honestly think of: (this is coming from a life-long Democrat, mind you) is that there is no longer any significant difference between the two very corrupt parties. It’s time for some REAL CHANGE. Not the pablum Obama has offered.

  • Anonymous

    and you don’t hide your racism at all, as you pay american taxes to murder the f*ck out of brown muslim looking people

  • Anonymous

    Spot on!

  • NeoNative

    As for hidden fascist agendas: Libertarians do not advocate initiating violence, are for individual liberty and are against government AND/OR corporate abuses. Your other two points focus on what are very emotional issues for any political party but I am confused. You seem to be for abortion and against meth addicts. Please tell me what political party believes abortion is good and rehabilitating meth addicts is bad? The Libertarian party certainly does not.

  • Anonymous

    Hasn’t the Randier Paul heard: the Republicans don’t give a shit about the constitution, never did; they have always been anti-MIranda right law and order first fascists. After his father’s dismal failure to sway any of the so-called constitutionalist experts in the House, even after the dog and pony show reading of the document and a special session on the constitution by none other than the head “originalist” on the Supreme Court, Anthony Scalia, the Republicans there were unmoved and voted in large numbers in a secret vote in the middle of the night to strip American citizens of even more of their rights under the 3 new provisions of the Patriot Act.

  • parrots_abound

    “She” doesn’t get that a true Libertarian can’t expect people to pay for things they are consciously, religiously, or morally opposed to (such as Abortion).

    She doesn’t even understand that some of us Libertarians are Pro Choice, yet we can’t expect our neighbors to assist others in their choice to have an abortion by FORCING them to take financial part in it by proxy.

    She’s not interested in reading because her posts are just smears and “she’s” here to troll.

    Nothing you say would ever help or change “her” mind.

  • Anonymous

    He is not racist what so ever, too much Huffington/Sorros media, he is not against the civil rights act as a whole, he just believes in private property rights, you better get your head out of MSM’s ass before you have no country left.

  • parrots_abound

    Ron Paul was the first “Republican” I voted for too. It kind of stung doing it, but he was the only man in good conscience I could vote for.

    Especially after previously voting for the failure Kerry and seeing Bush reign for another 4, and no challenge to votes as he and Edwards PROMISED.

  • Anonymous

    Libertarians only get it half way correct.
    Individual liberties: check
    Ending American adventurism: check
    Unregulated capitalism:. no way!
    Dismantling the social safety net: not happening

  • Anonymous

    um, did you listen to what he said? Your right he is for private property rights so that people can discriminate as much as they want to. He wants businesses to be able to discriminate as much as they want, how is that not racist? Oh and he did say he had a problem with the civil rights act and then backed off that when people got on his case, another reason not to vote for him…. he is gutless. Either you believe something and stick to your beliefs or you believe something and let people jump all over you and then go crying to mommy about how they are being mean.

  • Anonymous

    double post

  • Jaimie11

    I hope that’s not the case parrot. Fran has capacity to reason and be honest. Encouragement might help her more than criticism. I’m willing to give that a try.

    But I know a lot of self-professed liberals who cannot fathom that their rights do not supersede the rights of others. I think it is big blind spot due to their accepting that government is the only way to effect change and solve problems. It’s a dream they appear to want to cling to – don’t know why. I think part of the “government can” people have been subtly filled with the notion that human beings are bad and will not behave nicely when left to their own consciences and devices. That is true of many people, and not true more often of most others.

  • parrots_abound

    Now you have to provide evidence that we:

    1) Want total unregulated Capitalism in the first place.

    2) That the system you’re witnessing is even “Capitalism” to begin with.

    3) Want to take anyone’s Social Security money.

    If you can’t prove it, then you’re A) Lying B) Misinformed and spreading a falsehood with nothing but opinion.

  • Anonymous

    Rand Paul is like the Rand McNally of Senators…

  • Anonymous

    I’m not sure if I’m the same Page much with Rand, but I’m glad he is making this effort. Most of the Rest of them even realize it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KLF5SUA5RDYXG54WWF5SHMVRAI X

    Our President is being upstaged by lunatics.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2XVRZJ5LUVQDLUUAXAZ4QDSUWY Andy

    Today in Kentucky, a broken clock told the time correctly for a minute.

  • parrots_abound

    You’re an aware and awake person.

    I would hate to see you giving her any efforts or time toward ‘conversion’, as your energy could be spent speaking to “Progressives” that actually have an open mind and see that they/we share many of the same wants and needs and that their Government truly opposes us all thriving.

    Throwing Pearls before Swine….comes to mind.

  • parrots_abound

    And in Washington, our President Obama is asking for MORE of an extension on the Patriot Act than previous Republicans.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/09/obama-seeks-longer-patriot-act-extension-republicans/

    I’m citing Rawstory as witness….

  • Anonymous

    My thinking is that the libertarian ideology says that tolerance should not be LEGISLATED.
    The civil rights laws do just that.

    If we were truly tolerant and good people WE WOULDN’T NEED LAWS TELLING US to hire people of color, or women, or disabled.

    That said, we aren’t good and tolerant, and do need the laws. Which may be why Rand backed down.

  • Balthazars Rebellion

    You are either knowingly lying like a sack of shit or you are a 10 on the 1-10 scale of ingnorance. 10 being “most” ignorant.

  • Anonymous

    So you say.
    Maybe your brand of libertarianism wants to reign in the oligarchs and raise enough in taxes to keep essential social services funded. But, if you think the Pauls are going to lead you to the promised land, you are delusional. Wacky weed and aqua buddha will do that to you.

  • Guest

    Way to go Rand. You make sure your voting record reflects your words and I will support you.

  • Guest

    Are you being discriminated against cause you are a woman.. poor girl. If ONLY congress would enact a law to give you some of my money – things would be equal. For your information, the amendments made to the civil rights act discriminate against a great many people – including me.

  • Guest

    The civil rights act (especially it’s many amendments) are racist and discriminatory. It’s not only a property rights issue. It’s strange that women have such an enhanced sense of entitlement.

  • http://twitter.com/Howieisright Howieisright
  • Guest

    There you go again… Looks like Fran needs money to pay for another abortion. Wish I didn’t have to chip in.

  • http://twitter.com/Howieisright Howieisright

    That time has gone and pasted Jaimie although I like your tolerance. I sense something in this topic personally effected her and is now in a blind rage.

  • http://twitter.com/Howieisright Howieisright

    Israeli media and AIPAC went into a frenzy after Rand Paul talked about cutting all the foreign aid. I am sure that some of that aid went to pay for trolls to slander Rand.

  • http://twitter.com/Howieisright Howieisright

    We do not have a choice when we keep on the current path these Neocons and neolibrals are taking us there will be no social services anyway. The people wanted a change and Obama failed at that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • Anonymous

    LOL…the GOPers must be confused as shit right about now….

  • Anonymous

    if ALL OF US ARE NOT BEHIND RAND IN THIS CASE ……….THEN THOSE WHO ARE NOT SHOULD RE-NAME THIS THE “NON-PATRIOT-TRAITORS OF AMERICA ACT”

  • Guest

    FUCK YOU FRANCIS.

  • Guest

    Hmm, your post seems a little more compassionate towards Randal. I guess his fight for your rights as a citizen of this country has softened your bias against him. And the phrase you use “dismal failure”. It wouldn’t matter whether they saved this country from a police state or not you still wouldn’t care for either of them.

  • Anonymous

    Really ?? Those White sheets his band performed in was …..?

  • iRead

    Good for Rand Paul!

    I like this.

    It sure would be nice if more congress-critters had the stones to stand up and speak the painfully obvious about this abortion of law.

  • Anonymous

    Michelle Bachman ??

  • Anonymous

    Michelle Bachman ?

  • Guest

    And for that one minute you were liberated.

  • Anonymous

    Karl Rove thanks you.

  • iRead

    Next thing ya know, wimmins’ll wanna drive horseless carriages!

    The destruction of all reason is upon us! Run, tell the king!

  • Guest

    Won’t need any taxes when we stop paying interest on our money.

  • Guest

    Speak it!

  • Guest

    And that new film Iranium. Though, a lot of those people in the middle east are woefully brainwashed.

  • Guest

    How ’bout ’08 when Google had him at the top of all the polls and then the MSM got in on it and made everyone fall back to sleep.

  • Guest

    Oh yes you are an anti-Semite. Don’t you know… any time you say anything against Israel, you are an anti-Semite. Now what was I saying about Mexico and their inability to curb their drug cartels… oops, see now I’m anti-Latino… at least I can admit it.

  • Guest

    This is the Truth for me too.

  • Guest

    Was it after her Bawbawa Walters interview?

  • Guest

    LOL!

  • Guest

    Private property rights does not encourage racism you stupid fuck. Racists are racist… period.

  • Guest

    Yeah, privacy and individual rights just leaves such a bad taste in your submissive mouth.

  • Jaimie11

    No idea Boneman, no TV, no Bawbawa Walters. Sorry I have no sense of time regarding famous people and their TV interviews, and who did what as a result.

  • Jaimie11

    They’ll lose their side income? Income one hundredfold larger than their salaries.

  • Jaimie11

    Michelle Bachman is a Tea Party neocon with libertarian make up. She supports the Patriot Act. War too I think. Do you know?

  • Jaimie11

    Michelle Bachman is a Tea Party neocon with libertarian make up. She supports the Patriot Act. War too I think. Do you know?

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul cast 2 votes on Feb 14, first one “for”, second one “against”.

    Now, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but doesn’t that cast some doubt on what you can expect from Ron Paul?

    Maybe one of you “Ron Paul is the savior” supporters can explain that one in layman’s terms. Then, let’s see how Rand Paul votes for the Senate bill before it expires on Feb. 28… Not too far away.

    Seems suspicious to me, but I will yield to a logical, intelligent and factual explanation.

    Below is the record, please explain away, if you so desire…

    February 14, 2011

    H.R.514: To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.

    Roll call number 35 in the House
    Question On Motion to Recommit with Instructions: H R 514 To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011

    Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Aye

    Required percentage of ‘Aye’ votes: 1/2 (50%)
    Percentage of ‘aye’ votes: 42%
    Result: Failed

    February 14, 2011

    H.R.514: To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.
    Roll call number 36 in the House

    Question On Passage: H R 514 To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011

    Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Nay

    Required percentage of ‘Aye’ votes: 1/2 (50%)
    Percentage of ‘aye’ votes: 63%
    Result: Passed

    Source: http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_Ronald_Paul

  • Guest

    HA HA. Heard about it on my 13 inch sony.

  • Jaimie11

    I think the Jewish Democrats are very Israel friendly in the main. But they are slowly learning the dirty truth about the mad right wing settlers.

  • Anonymous

    Question: If you are “against” something then why vote “for” it at all?

  • Jaimie11

    Agreed, all the oligarchs artillery will be aimed at him.

  • Jaimie11

    Like Maddow.

  • Jaimie11

    Yes Pag is a mad as hell at the world two legged troglodyte.

  • Jaimie11

    What you have now is unregulated theft and greed – the only resemblance it bears to ethical free market capitalism is that the criminals call what they do free market capitalism.

  • Jaimie11

    When your tax rate is 65% and your dollar is worth 0.001¢ and China has come to remove you from your house and you need section 8 housing, do you believe there will be any social services remaining or money to fund them?

  • Jaimie11

    When we stop paying interest on the money the Fed creates out of thin air when it lends it to us.

  • Jaimie11

    He’s a psychopath – they’re mean while lunatics are much more fun and kinder too.

  • Jaimie11

    You ignore the Clinton’s contribution and all who submitted their ideas to the writing of the FISA Act and its
    updates over the decades. Please – your view is limited by your sitting on one side of the seesaw. Get off it, or better yet, fly above it and get a look at what is really going on, how the left and right play off each other to advance the interests of the oligarchs’ War Party.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FONW6K3ZWV4BU4ZTCDCSZHHH6E Mick Jagger

    I don’t care if this guy is a republican or tea party member. H is a hero for this stand he is taking. The Dems who support this are as treasonous as any rethuglican ever was.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FONW6K3ZWV4BU4ZTCDCSZHHH6E Mick Jagger

    This is about RAND Paul, not RON Paul.

  • Jaimie11

    Ooh, racism. That’s always a good code word for the good your masters want you to think is bad. Just blinds you completely. And you get to be such a good and right person when the other guy is a filthy racist. It’s a feel good thing for you. A boost for your self-esteem.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FONW6K3ZWV4BU4ZTCDCSZHHH6E Mick Jagger

    Obama is a traitor like Bush and Clinton.

  • Anonymous

    HERE HERE Jcounter

  • Anonymous

    The question is also, Do you think Rand could do the same? Like father, like son, no?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FONW6K3ZWV4BU4ZTCDCSZHHH6E Mick Jagger

    PUT A SECRET HOLD ON TH RENEWAL. ANY SENATOR CAN DO IT!

  • Anonymous

    Same peeps here that were tootin’ the horn for Ron Paul earlier. $een one Paul, you’ve $een ‘em all?

  • Jaimie11

    Not so butt. It is that when you suppress something you don’t like, it will go underground and fester. What he is saying is if you want to be done with racism, let it expose itself and we the people will deal with it by not taking our business and our companionship to where racism is practiced.

    Make laws against it and you insure its growth. That is what the entire racism business is based on.

  • Jaimie11

    The civil rights laws make illegal what was already illegal. But the federal government, charged with protecting the rights of citizens was asleep on the job. Now why did the federal government need a new law to enforce the old law? What really was passed with the civil rights legislation?

    Just asking what the deeper implications might be, in the light of the fact that murder, rape, and mayhem, preventing people from voting, was already illegal.

  • Jaimie11

    links please, Mr._com.

  • Anonymous

    Obviously you have both reading and comprehension problems.

  • Guest

    Not thin air… our Signature.

  • Guest

    You expose your self Pagasae. You care just as much about our right to privacy as any one else. Read your post with eyes other than Pag’s.

  • Jaimie11

    He might have a point iRead. When my son was in elementary school in the 70′s there was definitely a discrimination at work against boys. It was okay for instance for girls to make fun of boys, make derogatory remarks, but if the boys answered back in kind they were punished for being sexist.

  • Anonymous

    I gotta tell ya I’m getting a little jealous of some of the others here. You really haven’t demonstrated any passion or creativity in your name-calling with me.

    Robert Burned was “an insolent and arrogant ignoramus” and a “contemptuous self-serving sniping psychopath” while Raymond Strand was a “stuck up little frat turd.”

    And all I have garnered so far is “horribly brainwashed and narrow minded” and a “jaded, hater of virtue.”

    And now this a “mad as hell…two legged troglodyte”—I wonder—what gives you the sense that I have two legs?

    But I gotta admit though, I’m still a little curious about that “young vibrant [male] college student.”

  • Anonymous

    Libertarians are neo-confederates. Look it up (not on wikicraps).

  • parrots_abound

    Now you’re bringing in a strawman of ” leading us to the promised land”. Why don’t you prove your former assertions and stop with the spin?

    Prove 1, 2, and 3 in my post or shut your mouth.

  • Anonymous

    Anyone who cared one iota about their personal privacy or was worried that it was being invaded by the government wouldn’t be posting on open forums on the internet 7 days a week.

  • Jaimie11

    Believe me, I do think of you at times as a four legged burrowing scavenger of the reptilian sort.

    Oh poor Pag, you’re jealous. I’m sorry, I can do nothing for you. I am happily otherwise occupied.

  • Jaimie11

    So, what politicians would you put up there for rescinding the Patriot Act and getting us off the debt based money system?

    Or maybe you are considering we make a revolution as Egypt just made. I’ll go for that. But the reality is, how many millions in the streets will it take? And when the agent provocateurs start the violence how many people will be injured and killed before the revolutionaries are defeated?

    Other than these options what do you propose, sun? A serious question, no sarcasm intended.

  • Balthazars Rebellion

    People are going to label themselves to what ever it is they can find that “most” fits their beliefs. That’s fine. But when people dismiss integrity, “true” American ideals and the fundamental infrastructure of American government as crazy simply because there is an R after Ron’s name then that’s where ignorance takes over. People who know Ron Paul know that the R means nothing and that this is about an extraordinary individual and has nothing to do with party.

  • Guest

    True, but I would prefer they did it like they did in the past… discreetly and without my knowledge. The same way they tortured the enemy or the sorry sons of bitches who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; without my knowledge.

    And, don’t change the subject!

    You appreciate someone… ANY FUCKING ONE standing up for your Constitutional rights as you have already revealed in your previous post.

  • Anonymous

    There is no possible justification for the above voting record – as far as I’m concerned.

    I declare – Case Closed.

    Detailed post under “Congressman Ron Paul slams Obama: ‘He’s a warmonger’”

  • Anonymous

    I spent a year in Vietnam, I haven’t lost one damn right since 1969 when I returned. I found out when I got back and started protesting the wars that I didn’t have any damn rights. So I learned to live with it. Now I’m, too damn old to give a shit. Patriot Act or no Patriot Act you haven’t lost a goddamn thing, you only think you have, and that was because someone told you you had something to lose in the first place.

    Guess what: whoever told you all that crap lied to you. And I feel sorry for your pitiful little butt if you’re waiting or thinking for a minute that some lying racist with an R beside his name is going to save you or that one stupid speech written by someone in the Republican Party and read by some Republican tool on the Senate floor constitutes “standing up” for you or your so-called Constitutional rights, whatever delusion you are suffering from tells you such things exist or what they might be!

    When you get grabbed by a couple of undercover cops, dragged into an alley, get the shit kicked out of you, and then get thrown in a squad car where you are bashed around some more and driven to an underground garage where you are marched through a phalanx of about 30 or 40 more undercover cops who kick you, punch you, spit on you, pull your hair and slap you around, and then get thrown in an interrogation room where the original cops come in throw down a baggie of some kind of white powder that you have never seen before and tell you that they can charge you with possession of the drugs in the baggie and that there are “19 police officers” who will testify against you in court and ask you “who you think the jury is going to believe, a long haired faggot like you” or “19 police officers,” and tell you that if they ever see you in another demonstration in their city they might not even bother with the court they might just “knock you in the fuckin’ head and throw you in the neatest large body of water to drown,” and nobody will ever be the wiser, and then take you back out to the street and let you go without charging you with anything; and the next day you go to the ACLU and they smile and look at your beat-in face and say they hear similar stories after every antiwar demonstration, and ask you if you went to the emergency room after you were released from police custody and you say no because you didn’t have medical insurance and a doctor wouldn’t have seen you anyway/ And they say that’s too bad because without a doctor’s report they can’t do anything for you and even with a doctor’s report it’s your word against the cops. After you go through an incident similar to that one, you call me and we’ll go have tea and talk about your so-called constitutional rights! But until then get out of my face!

    I don’t suffer from your idiotic delusions because the FBI has had a file on me since about 1970. In fact I still have some pictures somewhere of FBI agents taking pictures of me. That’s my reality. The main reason I’m not incarcerated today on some trumped up bullshit charge is because somewhere along the line someone realized it was less costly to let me feed myself. And that kind of matrix has nothing whatever to do with rights. And the same mathematical consideration goes for you and the rest of you libertarian crackpots! And as soon as you become more of a problem than the cost of your incarceration; make no mistake, you will be incarcerated. And no speech by Ron Paul or his ignorant son, Rand, is going to change that dynamic for you or anyone else.

    You and the rest of your ignorant libertarian cohorts are nothing but dupes of the Koch brothers and their Cato propaganda machine. You have no sense of reality, death, destruction or the lies that you have been fed by plutocrat ass-kissers like the Pauls. If I thought for a minute that one grand-standing speech constituted sticking up for my rights or mattered I’d get medical or mental help for hallucinations and delusions. You seem to revel in such ignorance.

    Please don’t embarrass yourself by thinking that I give a damn about such high sounding ideals as liberty or freedom or rights. I saw close up what believing in that bullshit gets you. I made more money as a box boy in a local supermarket working part time after school in 1963, than I earned all last year. Rights don’t mean shit to me–I’m unemployed and have been for over a year. Currently I am being denied the right to work. And that is the only damn right that matters to me. And if I gave a damn about these other stupid abstract “rights” I wouldn’t be sitting on my ass in front of a computer whiling away my hours waiting for some stupid whiny, lying, racist, Republican like Rand Paul to give a damn speech so I could pretend he did something for me.

    In fact, I probably spent more time on this post than he did on that whole damn speech.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

    Copy and Paste again…how boring. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Anonymous

    The civil rights laws made it possible for the federal government to enforce the enforcement of state laws. Under the laws before civil rights legislation the federal government could not intervene in the enforcement of a particular crime unless it was deemed a federal crime.

    Unfortunately, not every murder is a federal crime, not every robbery is a federal crime, not every disappearance is a federal crime. There are pretty strict guidelines covering what is and isn’t a federal crime. For instance shooting a federal judge is a federal crime and that is one reason why Jared Lee Loughner is being charged in federal court as well as the state court. But if he had just shot any 6 random people on the street he may not have committed a federal crime.

    So as long as there was no federal law against lynching (and there wasn’t for nearly a 100 years) for instance, the federal government could not get involved in lynching, that was the purview of the states, that states rights stuff that you think is so great, prevented the federal government from getting involved. So over 6,000 people were lynched and no one was ever convicted of a single murder in any of those lynchings in any state court. And it wasn’t because the federal government didn’t enforce the law, there was no law and representatives of the Southern states worked damn hard to ensure that there wasn’t such a law.

    An even when the FBI and other government agencies started to enforce these laws, the local law enforcement officials did everything in their power to obstruct justice and prevent local juries, who were reticent to convict local racists for murdering black people for many years, from even bringing such cases to trial. That is why we are still seeing today the attempts by more progressive DAs in the South to pursue these old cases from the 60s.

    Of course, all those people killed in the heyday of lynching from 1890 until about 1930 never received any justice whatsoever. It was the state’s right to let the perpetrator’s go free!

    But you know all this, you’re just being disingenuous and pretending that you never learned any history!

  • Anonymous

    So why didn’t Rand Paul being such a champion of individual rights and the hero of the libertarian set do that instead of making another meaningless speech? If he really wanted to block the legislation instead of pretend that he wanted to block the legislation with a meaningless vote against it, it seems to me he would have taken the action that would have blocked instead of whining about it and then punting.

    When the Republicans wanted to block unemployment benefits for those who were running out of money for food and other necessities, they didn’t make a speech and then vote against it, they prevented the bill from coming to the floor at all. Why didn’t Rand Paul so that?

  • Anonymous

    My original response to this ignorance was moderated and disappeared into the internet ether. So I’ll give you the short version, my experience is that in this country you only have rights as long as you don’t try to exercise them, if you ever try to exercise them you will quickly find out what I mean. I do not suffer from the same delusions that you do.

    And I don’t believe in the rhetoric of freedom, liberty, or any of the rest of it because it has nothing to do with reality and because I have been a victim of extreme police brutality. And I have acquaintances who have suffered such abuse. And no damn speech by some whiny Republican whose thugs kicked a woman’s head against a curb is going to give me the illusion that he cares one way or the other about my so-called rights.

    You want to believe in these fantasies go ahead, but don’t embarrass yourself by thinking that I share in your delusion. If I thought for a minute that Rand Paul was “standing up for my Constitutional rights” or even thought that I had any, I would seek medical or mental help to try to determine the source of my hallucinations.

  • Guest

    Wow, so you don’t even know his stance on anything! Your flying on pure emotion, and that’s a dangerous and stupid way to be. Why not just go read about him and THEN make up your mind. Or are you just gonna keep on cracking toupee jokes?

  • Anonymous

    Another tautological thinker. I think you should change your name to Bonehead. Yes “[r]acists are racists” and Rand Paul by most accounts is a racist! And as such any speech he makes about protecting anyone’s rights is just plain bullshit!!

  • Guest

    Hey, we gotta start somewhere. I know that either of the Pauls are just politicians and, as such, understand they are, by default, mostly full of shit. But I understand that once you wake a certain amount of the populace up to transgressions and frauds there is no going back. If these (whoever) guys stand up and say what they say and it leads towards the light of understanding then I am all for it.

    Also, when I saw that big stupid fuck stomp on that woman’s head I was outraged,and further outraged because the people in the immediate area did nothing for her and nothing against that redneck hillbilly who did it. If I was there and I may have been if I lived in the area because I like some of what Rand says, I would have jumped that redneck mother fucker like a hyena and beat the living shit out of him for doing such a thing to a woman or anyone who would not be able to defend against such a person.

    And, with all due respect, you DO have Constitutional rights. All because someone violates them does not mean they don’t exist. And I will fight and die for those rights. The problem a lot of people have is they are wanting to fight and die against each other when, after all, we all want the same things. It’s the media noise and political rhetoric that separates and divides us.

    If we can just cut through all that and stand up for the world we want. People power is the strongest and consciousness is at the wheel. Now all we have to do is evolve and catch up to consciousness.

  • Guest

    You mean like most of what obama said during his campaign trail Paggy.

    I like what the darling Jaimie 11 said which is exactly how Rand was speaking to that other media blowhard maddow, “What he is saying is if you want to be done with racism, let it expose itself and we the people will deal with it by not taking our business and our companionship to where racism is practiced.” Simple. But instead we have many abused, downtrodden people who see no other way to deal with something other than through fear and want someone else like the government to outline what we can and cannot do.

    It appears the difference between you and me paggy is I believe in people power and you don’t. If Rand or Ron or even that sleazy fuck boehner can rally the people than they’ll get my vote. If they prove to be a God damned liar like obama has been then they will not get my vote next time

  • Guest

    Your response to butt is the perfect example of reticence. Butt did not take the time to fully understand what Rand was saying to the bait and switch media blowhard maddow.

  • Anonymous

    I have copy and pasted only 1 or 2 times max on Raw… Intelligent debate is dead (so it seems). Not one loudmouth stood up to address my argument. The other day they were buzzing around like flies. Man… Throw in some hard core logic and they all run and hide under a rock.

    Raw is promoting the Pauls by posting these non-articles, or should I say – infomercials. Raw’s hidden agenda is leaning right, they put up all these left leaning articles and then… Slick right-wing infomercial.

    Therefore, I declare that Raw has a hidden agenda. In this case: First, 2 articles about the great Ron Paul, and then, a slick Rand Paul promotion piece – all positive and one sided.

    Not balanced reporting – more like cheerleading, go, go, go… They can spin a story or an event in any direction they choose, sometimes the facts that they leave out of a story reveal their ideology more than the sensational headlines they tout – and the sheeple will swallow just about any crap you can throw their way these days.

    Which way are we going Raw? Which way USA? The dumbing down route, or the let’s be real route?

    And so the song goes: Tin soldiers and Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Clinton and Obamas are coming, we’re finally on our own… Where do we go from here?

    To be fair to Raw… With all due respect, I also appreciate most of Raw’s stories and Raw is probably one of the best news sources out there, hope Raw does not take my criticism here in the wrong way, it is only meant as constructive criticism.

    Please continue your great reporting Raw.

  • Jaimie11

    “Anyone who cared one iota about their personal privacy or was worried that it was being invaded by the government wouldn’t be posting on open forums on the internet 7 days a week.”

    Wrong! Only a grumpy vindictive grudge holder would say such a thing. You retain your rights by exercising them to keep them active and healthy while under assault. Get up and fight back Pag. Stop blaming others for the problems you permit to dominate your thoughts and impair your actions.

    Mr. Pretend At Genius, heal yourself and start imitating Einstein instead of wielding his image as a weapon. He was not a coward or a shrunken-hearted talking head. This is perfect for you from the man himself – “Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    2 Republicans, 9 Democrats and 1 Independent (Democratic Socialist) voted against it. But keep playing the lie that only Rand and/or Libertarians are against it…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “So, what politicians would you put up there for rescinding the Patriot Act and getting us off the debt based money system?”

    Kucinich, Sanders, 9 Senators that voted against playing games with the Patriot Act (though, I’m not sure of their stance on the Fed.. for those 9). Feingold was against the Patriot Act before he got replaced with a Teabagger that voted for it.

    Oh, and in the House, it was mostly Dems that voted against extending it, most of the Republicans voted for it (including most of the newly minted teabaggers).

    For someone that likes to decry the two party lie an awful lot, you sure ignore what’s right in front of your face (that the right-wing, including copious percentages of the teabaggers, are against your liberties).

  • Jaimie11

    You sure do assume a lot. I am not as stupid as you like to think I am. And when you can address me with some intention to appeal to my intelligence and not just throw smoke bombs, I’ll respond in kind.

    Geez, ask questions and get this bs. Who gives a shit about dems and repubs – there are no perfect candidates but unless you want to give up doing anything at all or you are ready to go to the square, you have to try to move forward, make inroads. Joe, when you are ready to go down to the square alone, let me know. But you’d better respect my intelligence or I’ll let you go down there alone, all alone and I’ll leave you to your fate there.

  • theoldhippy

    My comment was meant to cause people of different stripes to pull together to fight for common goals. Your comment is meant to drive the wedge further between people who really do have a common enemy, those rich bastards who run the Democratic and Republican Parties. I myself could never be a Libertarian because I am not selfish enough.

  • Anonymous

    Not a racist nor is he anything you said. Stop listening to maddow, huffington post and all the other garbage from MSM.

  • Anonymous

    Private property rights are freedom, if you discriminate these days people will not shop there..can you imagine trying to open a whites only restaurant these days? Really?

    Give me a break, You people will continue to go down the hole the more you support your sellout MSM owned corporate politicians and it will all be your fault and nobody else s. .

  • Anonymous

    WTF?

    Pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    Paul’s a Stooge. Just like Dada

Google+