Rand Paul: ‘Disingenuous’ Obama Can Stop NSA Spying Any Time He Wants

“Why doesn’t he stop it? What’s he waiting for?”

Guest Post by Steve Watson

Fresh from his marathon filibuster of the proposed extension to the government snooping enabling section of the Patriot Act, Senator Rand Paul slammed the President this morning, accusing Obama of being deceitful over the issue.

Appearing on CBS, Paul noted “Here’s the thing about the president: He’s disingenuous about this,” the Kentucky Republican said on ‘This Morning.’ “The president started this program through executive order — he could end it anytime.”

The Senator also noted that the NSA bulk collection was recently ruled illegal by a federal appellate panel.

“Why doesn’t he stop it? What’s he waiting for?” Mr. Paul said. “He [says], ‘Oh, Congress can stop it.’ He started it on his own. He should stop it, and I’ve asked the president repeatedly, ‘Stop the program.’ “

Paul also refused to be drawn into an argument with anchor Charlie Rose who accused him of using the NSA issue to “sell books”.

Instead Paul stuck to the point, noting that he is not being unreasonable, “I’m just asking for two amendments and a simple majority vote” Paul stated.

“I think sometimes my party gets all caught up in the Second Amendment, which is fine, but we don’t protect the Fourth Amendment enough,” he added.” But actually I think neither party ends up protecting the Fourth Amendment enough, which is the right to privacy.”

No agreement was reached during Senate hearings this past weekend on extending expiring portions of the Patriot Act. Paul spoke for some 10 hours in an effort to block a compromise bill, called the USA Freedom Act, in addition to several proposed short-term extensions of the program.

“I’m right in line with what the founders would have fought for and I am proud of the fight,” Paul added.

“The Constitution is inconvenient, but the thing is, we obey the Constitution because it protects the rights of all individuals.” The Senator urged.

It was also recently revealed in a Justice Department Inspector General report found that “the bulk collection of data hasn’t cracked one case.”

In other words, no terrorist plots have been foiled by the government spying on Americans.

In a further interview on Fox News, Paul noted that giving government too much authority always ends in abuse of power and “systemic bias”.

“We did it to the Japanese Americans in World War II. We did it to civil rights protesters during the ’60s and to Vietnam War protesters. We just started grabbing them up and started looking at behavior we didn’t like. So the right to dissent in a free country is very important and some would say this has a chilling effect on a right to dissent,” Paul said.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
wip
wip

Vote for those who put the constitution and the Bill of rights first.

flash
flash

RES!

Hey, Conservatives

Although there are some serious issues that we libertarians have with conservatives, I want to focus on just one—and it is a big one. One of the major problems with conservatives is that they don’t follow the Constitution they claim to admire, revere, and hold sacred.

So why don’t conservatives follow their own Constitution? It doesn’t seem like a difficult thing to do. Consider the following twenty things:

Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t via unemployment benefits? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a Social Security program so that the young can have their wealth transferred to the aged? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to take money from Americans and use it to provide disaster relief in foreign countries? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a Medicaid program so that some Americans can pay for the health care of other Americans? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have socialized medicine for the aged if it is called Medicare? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to take money from Americans and use it to provide foreign aid to other countries? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to ban organ sales? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to subsidize agriculture? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to build military bases overseas? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to outlaw most forms of gambling? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a Head Start program? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to provide the poor with food stamps? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to transfer money from some Americans to other Americans if it is called SSI? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to pay for the breakfast, lunch, and snacks of children in school? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to undertake, or pay for the private sector to undertake, space travel and exploration? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to make any federal gun control laws? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to subsidize any American’s housing? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to take cash from some Americans and give it to other Americans if it is called TANF? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a Department of Homeland Security when it already has a Department of Defense? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set a minimum wage? Of course it doesn’t.

Conservative support for the federal government doing these twenty things shows that they don’t follow their own Constitution. Oh, some of them may complain about the amount of money the federal government spends on these things, how inefficient some program is, how some particular program is operated, or how much waste and fraud is in some program. But they have no philosophical objection to the federal government doing any of these things even though they are not authorized by the Constitution. Not convinced yet? Here are twenty more:

Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set CAFE standards? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to fight poverty? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to make child labor laws? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to help women, infants, and children if it is called WIC? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a State Children’s Health Insurance Program even if Republicans created it? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to issue nutrition guidelines? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to prevent private employers from hiring “illegals”? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to fund scientific research? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to issue clean water standards? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to fund medical research? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to fund HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives in Africa? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to provide home heating assistance? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have federal job training programs? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to outlaw discrimination based on anything? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to give VA loans to veterans? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to issue student grants and loans? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to provide aid to state education programs? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to classify all drugs on a schedule? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to declare that certain drugs are illegal? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to declare that any substance is illegal?

So why do conservatives support these things? And why do conservatives in Congress vote for these things? Why don’t conservatives follow their own Constitution? How hard can it be? The federal government is either authorized to do these things or it isn’t.

It’s time to answer the question: Why don’t conservatives follow their own Constitution? The simple and terrible truth is that most conservatives never met a federal program they didn’t like as long as it furthered their conservative agenda. Their idea of a limited government is a government limited to one controlled by conservatives.

Constitution, smonstitution.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

We need to repeal all the laws on the books and start over with stringent limits based on the Constitution.

flash
flash

Westcoaster….wrong.We need to repeal the Constitution , and adopt some form of decentralized government buitl upon the framework of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution never protected anything other than the power of government to grow beyond citizen reproach , just as the anti-Federalists warned.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading