On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “New Day,” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) credited Capitol Police officers on the scene for preventing the shooting at a Congressional baseball practice from turning into a “massacre.” Rand said, “I can tell you, that I think with absolute certainty, nobody would have survived without the Capitol Hill Police. They saved everybody’s life. Incredibly brave and deserve everyone’s praise, because, with this guy, who knows what his — how heavily armed he was, but nobody else had a weapon. So, he was just killing everyone — he would have. … They deserve our gratitude for saving — it would have been a massacre without them.”
On Thursday’s broadcast of “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, “I think that Congress, and the people who appropriate the money, we should think about whether or not we should be sending money to universities that only have one set of speech.” When asked if he thought the “federal government, Donald Trump” could “impound” funds that would go a place like UC-Berkeley, Rand answered, “I think if it were a liberal president, and they were shutting down speech, they could probably do it. I don’t think that — I don’t think impounding funds is probably going to pass muster, but I think that Congress, and the people who appropriate the money, we should think about whether or not we should be sending money to universities that only have one set of speech.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is right to raise the question. And, we oftentimes agree with the libertarian Republican Senator.. But, he’s such a wuss! When challenged, as he was here by Laura, he backs off and starts to do the Texas two-step. But, then again that’s one of the downsides to libertarian-ism.. They really don’t stand for anything or have any real core beliefs. They just hate government. Well, we can appreciate that…and agree that government is WAY out of control and bloated. BUT.. That in and of itself isn’t a belief system or a solution. It’s just two-dimensional, knee-jerk reaction to three and four dimensional problems. I’m sure Sen. Paul (who IS an MD) is a heck of a doctor. But, he’s not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, and doesn’t have much backbone. Of COURSE we should be denying federal funding to colleges and universities who refuse to enforce the first amendment rights of ALL students and allow for free speech of ALL varieties…including those of conservatives. That’s a no-brainer. The fact that a legislator (and ostensibly a Republican one at that!) is dancing around that kind of common sense is offensive.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called for an end of “sanctuary city” policies after a Mexican illegal immigrant, shielded by city authorities from deportation, allegedly shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on Pier 14 in San Francisco. As CNN notes, there is no strict legal definition of a “sanctuary city,” a term that advocates for mass immigration dislike for its revealing nature. The movement began thanks to American churches in the 1980s who welcomed illegal aliens from Central America purportedly fleeing violence from the Third World, much as they do today. Now, more than 200 state and local jurisdictions defy federal immigration law by refusing to detain illegal aliens who are usually caught in the commission of another crime for deportation. “Conservatives say we believe in the rule of law, and the beginning of the rule of law is enforcing the law. Since 1986, there was a promise we would enforce the law on border security. We’ve done squat. We’ve done nothing… Eleven million people have crossed over illegally,” Paul said on the Laura Ingraham show on Tuesday. “So, the first thing we have to do is enforce the law.” He added: But we have not had a president, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to enforce immigration law. Now we have whole cities and states who stand up and say, ‘We just don’t care. We want these people here at all costs, and we’re not going to do anything about it.’ And I think the time’s come for that to end. But it’s not going to end until you have an executive in the White House who says, ‘I will enforce immigration laws.’ Ingraham noted that Americans are not safe from criminal aliens anywhere in the country, thanks to the sheer number who are here illegally. Paul agreed, calling for a grassroots uprising against President Obama and his administration’s dismantling of immigration law: Well, it goes to the heart of the matter, because like I say, we’ve been promised this over and over again, and no one’s enforcing the laws. The laws on the books say we should have a secure border, and we don’t. Now, could we update the security? Yes. But even the existing laws need to be enforced, and they’re not being enforced. And they’re being flouted and basically laughed at by cities like San Francisco… They’re ought to be a revolution of folks saying, ‘We want you to obey the law,’ and making sure the president hears them loud and clear. Paul now joins candidates Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in calling for strict border controls to protect Americans from convicted felons such as Francisco Sanchez, who was deported five times yet sought out San Francisco deliberately because he knew he would not be deported from there — no matter what previous offenses he had committed on U.S. soil. His stance also puts him significantly at odds with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Rubio played a pivotal role in pushing the Gang of Eight bill in 2013. An amended version of Rubio’s bill would have made it impossible to punish sanctuary cities that harbor dangerous illegal aliens like Sanchez by stripping federal funds from them. Had Gang of Eight become law, San Francisco would continue to receive blood money in the form of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) payments, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have struggled to even detain criminals like Sanchez.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is wrong a LOT of issues, including his pathological (and breathtakingly wrong) fixation with the NSA. But, he is exactly right on this issue about the need to secure our southern border once and for all. So, here at The Daily Buzz we give credit where credit is due and appreciate Sen. Paul stepping up on this issue. As many of you know, we’ve been calling on our federally elected officials in D.C. to BUILD THE WALL NOW!!!…and put U.S. Army National Guard troops physically ON the border with Mexico where they should remain until that wall/fence is finally built above and below ground (to prevent tunneling)….however long that takes. At the same time, ICE and other federal law enforcement (LE) agencies should work with state and local LE to apprehend and deport those illegal aliens already here in our country illegally by the hundreds of thousands (yes, by the hundreds of thousands!)…paying particular attention to known gang members and already convicted “criminal aliens.” And, before they are deported, ICE and the Border Patrol need to secure biometric data (i.e. finger prints, retinal scans, etc.) from these illegals to track those who would try to return after being deported.
Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer blasted GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul on Friday over recent comments he made regarding the Islamic State. “Sometimes Ron Paul’s ignorance really astonishes me,” Mr. Krauthammer told radio host Hugh Hewitt, before joking that he made a Freudian slip. Mr. Paul came under fire from other conservatives this week after he said that “hawks” in the Republican party had been responsible for the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. The Kentucky senator claimed that by toppling dictators like Bashar al Assad in Syria, Republicans facilitated the rise of the militant group. “Is he aware of the fact that until this week, or actually it was last week, when ISIS took over Palmyra, ISIS had not once taken a city or a town from the Assad government?” Mr. Krauthammer said, Mediaite reported Friday. “He doesn’t even understand that ISIS and the Assad government — until last week when ISIS grew so strong that it could be bold and invade essentially Assad territory — Assad and ISIS has had this cozy, tacit, non-aggression agreement where they essentially split the country in two and Assad relied on ISIS to swallow up all of the anti-Assad opposition,” Mr. Krauthammer added. Mr. Paul has also accused the U.S. of arming militants “indiscriminately” as they continue to seize weapons and supplies from Iraqi forces. But Mr. Krauthammer argued that while arming Iraqi forces is a “misguided” American policy, the solution is not to cease sending all arms. “I think our policy is misguided to arm the Iraqi security forces, which are unreliable. As our own Secretary of Defense has said, they don’t have the will to fight,” Mr. Krauthammer said, Mediaite reported. “But that’s not our mistake, the big mistake is not that we should be refraining from sending weapons, we should be sending them to the right people, to the Kurds who want to fight and who are pro-American and to the Sunni Anbar tribes — the few remaining right now because it’s so late in the game — who are pro-American and desperate for weaponry to fight off ISIS.”
As we said the other day, there are many areas with which we agree with the junior Senator from Kentucky. But, the way he has been targeting the Patriot Act as a whole, and the NSA, is grossly misguided and dangerous.
The Senate, which will never be known for an overly demanding work schedule, returns from its week-long recess a whole day early to deal with the mess being made of one of our most important anti-terrorist intelligence programs. That program, now encompassed by Section 215 of the unfortunately named Patriot Act, has its roots in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA. As its name implies, FISA was intended to enable U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept communications between foreign spies in the United States and their bosses overseas. Section 215 has been the foundation upon which the National Security Agency’s metadata-gathering program was built. The current mess is in two parts: First, the House-passed USA Freedom Act, which takes apart the NSA’s metadata-gathering program; and the second, Sen. Rand Paul’s demand that the program be ended entirely. The House’s bill shifts the burden of collecting and preserving the metadata (which consists only of the phone numbers involved and the length of the call, not the content of the conversation) to private telecom firms. The House approach is entirely wrong, because it may prevent our intelligence agencies from getting the data they need (or at least make the process take much longer, thereby devaluing the intelligence), and it will impose what may be huge costs on the companies required to keep the data. Mr. Paul bases his opposition to Section 215 on a constitutional calumny. He wrongly interprets the Fourth Amendment — which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures — as prohibiting the gathering of metadata. During his nearly 11-hour miniature filibuster against a Senate bill that would have renewed Section 215 unchanged, Mr. Paul said that the government shouldn’t be able to get information until they have probable cause that someone has committed a crime. He’s obstreperously opposed to the NSA metadata program and Section 215 based on his limited knowledge of the Constitution. First, government gathering of telephone metadata without a search warrant is entirely constitutional as the courts have repeatedly ruled. The Fourth Amendment’s protection of our “persons, houses, papers and effects” doesn’t come into play because the metadata aren’t ours. The telephone companies own the metadata of our telephone accounts, both ground lines and cellphones. You have the right to privacy in your phone conversations but not in the service records. The metadata program enables the NSA to spot suspicious actions by picking up on calls made between people here and possible terrorist connections abroad. Its actions in doing so are supervised by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which meets and issues its rulings in secret. It’s only after NSA spots a suspicious activity that it can go back to the FISA court and get a specific search warrant to further investigate by actually recording conversations and reading Internet traffic. Let’s make this very clear: the NSA metadata program violates no one’s constitutional rights. Just as importantly, though I can’t cite specific cases in which it has led to the interdiction of terrorist attacks in this country (because the information is classified) intelligence community sources have repeatedly told me that it has done so and is an effective and valuable intelligence tool. But there are problems with the Patriot Act, and a newly released report by the FBI’s inspector general shows why. One part of the Patriot Act creates the FBI’s authority to serve secret “national security letters” on businesses or private persons to obtain their paper records in pursuit of a lead on a terrorist investigation. The FBI, which reportedly has issued more than 300,000 such letters during the past 10 years — does this on its own, and no judge is needed to authorize issuing the letters. The letters are clearly violative of the Fourth Amendment because they destroy our security in our “persons, houses, papers and effects.” Businesses and individuals who receive such letters cannot legally disclose the fact to anyone they’ve been served such a letter. Challenging those letters is very difficult and costly to do. The FBI national security letters are not only a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, they’re also not worth much to the FBI. The FBI inspector general’s report says that Section 215’s “business records” authority has been used, but “the agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that developed from the use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders .” The report says it was valuable in developing other case leads and evidence. Because the part of the Patriot Act authorizing the FBI’s “national security letters” apparently doesn’t work, it should be repealed or at least restricted to conform with the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for search warrants and court supervision. Mr. Paul’s libertarian objections to the metadata program should be disregarded because of the constitutional ignorance on which they are based. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ order of May 7 held that the NSA’s metadata program went beyond what Congress had authorized. That may be so, but the court didn’t rule that the program was unconstitutional because it patently isn’t. Congress should carefully consider a long-term reauthorization of Section 215 that would resolve the court’s concerns and amend it to ensure the metadata program can proceed and continue to gather intelligence necessary to keep this nation safe. Letting that authority expire would be irresponsible, as would Congress’ failure to deal with the court’s concerns. Section 215 is too important for lawmakers to just let it fade away. They should mend it, not end it.
The author of this piece, Jed Babbin, has an actual law degree. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), with whom we passionately disagree on the whole NSA issue, has a medical degree. He’s an eye-doctor turned U.S. Senator, and has shown himself lately to be in need of an American civics lesson or two. And while we appreciate his libertarian tendancies, and agree with him on many issues… He is WAY off here, and his efforts to castrate the NSA is both misguided and very dangerous. The NSA performs a VERY important function that protects all of us, and they have thwarted MANY attacks here on U.S. soil since 9/11 because of the Patriot Act. Instead of beating them up, we should be thanking them! That said, Jed is exactly right in what he says needs to be done to modify the Patriot Act so that the FBI isn’t able to abuse it to violate our 4th Amendment rights….which Sen. Paul should focus his efforts on. It’s federal domestic law enforcement (in this case, the FBI) that needs to comply with, and be sensitive toward, our constitutional rights. And, before Sen. Paul does any more damage to our national security, someone needs to school him on the Constitution.
By introducing a bill this week to halt all United States foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky was hardly blazing into new political territory. This is the libertarian senator who, in 2011, proposed ending all foreign aid to all countries, after all.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is exactly right to want to stop ALL foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, which is supported by Hamas and other Islamic terrorists. Sending them money is shooting ourselves in the foot. So, Sen. Paul is exactly right to want to introduce such a bill. Hopefully it’ll get some support, and get passed. Sending our hard-earned tax dollars to a Islamic terrorist organization is not only stupid, its contrary to our national security interests.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is spot on here. And, true.. he IS contemplating a presidential run. So, there IS that context to keep in mind. That said.. Tuesday’s midterm elections were a breathtaking repudiation of Obama and his policies, and his failure as a leader. At the same time, wherever Hillary went to “help” certain Dems, they all lost! Udall in Colorado, Hagan in North Carolina, Wendy Davis in Texas, Grimes in Kentucky, Braley in Iowa, Nunn in Georgia, and the worst…Pryor in her own home state of Arkansas…ALL LOSERS!