Posted on June 12, 2011 by libertyForAll
Utah Rep. Carl Wimmer is set to introduce a bill (sometime next year?) that would restrict TSA agents to Constitutional searches only at airport checkpoints.
Utah lawmaker seeks to limit TSA pat-downs , KSL.com, May 27th, 2011
…Wimmer told KSL News it is the role of the state Legislature to protect Utah residents from illegal searches and seizures, and he said the TSA is violating people’s rights every day in the airports.
Wimmer also said people all over the country should be outraged that the federal government threatened Texas after a bill there to regulate the TSA pat downs started moving through their house of representatives.
A somewhat misleading headline but an informative article:
Wimmer wants to stop TSA searches , Daily Herald, May 27th 2011
…”The absolute overbearing audacity of the federal government in threatening Texas while Texas is trying to protect their citizens should really offend any red-blooded American,” he said.
TSA telling children “pat-down is a game” sends a wrong message
Filed under: constitution, denied rights | Tagged: groping, tsa, unconstitutional, utah bill | 1 Comment »
Posted on May 26, 2011 by libertyForAll
We’re being told that there’s not time for debate, no time for dissent, no time for freedom. Is this the America you want for you and your kids? Is there anyone in the Senate besides Rand Paul that hasn’t sold us out?
Breakdown of House Roll Call Vote to Concur to Extend Patriot Act, May 26, 2001.
Several of Paul’s Amendments appear to have failed, with 2 still up for vote. Details at Opencongress.org: Paul gets two amendment votes, but the PATRIOT Act spy powers will remain largely unaffected
More details on Rand Paul’s website and at Daily Paul: SENATE FLOOR: Paul Amendments Tabled.
Essentially it appears that Harry Reid’s fearmongering and anti 4th Amendment rhetoric has all but won over Congress. See video of Rand Paul’s response to Reid’s childish remarks below:
Senator Rand Paul on Patriot Act Amendments
In related news, Alex Jones calls for Protest at Texas Capitol over TSA bill:
Filed under: constitution, denied rights, police state, Rand Paul | Leave a comment »
Posted on November 9, 2010 by libertyForAll
Posted on June 19, 2010 by libertyForAll
Joe Leiberman’s bill, S.3480 the ‘Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010’, would give the president power to shut down the internet. Not a new idea but as always, they shuffle the bills around, changing name and bide their time in order to push them through. It’s all under the guise of security
From antiwar.com, Senate Bill Would Give Obama Internet ‘Kill Switch’:
But easily the most controversial aspect of the nearly 200 page bill is what is being called a “kill switch,” granting the president the power to shut down the entire Internet across the planet for national security reasons. Sen. Collins (R – ME), a supporter of the bill, claimed it was necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11.”
The bill amounts to a remarkable claim of presidential power, claiming a large portion of the global economy as a specific asset of the United States and further claiming the right to nationalize or destroy it in whole or part on a whim. The news may be disquieting enough for Americans faced with this sort of power grab from their own government, but for foreigners the idea that another nation can commandeer the Internet, cut them off from it, or render it unusable is totally shocking, and not surprisingly, a source of no small consternation.
More details here:
New Bill Would Create Office of Cyber Policy in White House to Protect Nation from Cyber Terrorism, Before Its News.com
Read the bill here:
Text of S.3480 – Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010.
Filed under: constitution, denied rights, liberties | Tagged: cyber security, internet, internet kill-switch, joe lieberman, power to shut down internet, presidential power-grab, Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, s.3480 | 1 Comment »
Posted on May 20, 2010 by libertyForAll
After the Rand Paul Rachel Maddow interview and the media assault that followed against Rand Paul, Paul absolutely deserved a chance to clarify his position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which the media repeatedly misrepresented. It should be noted that Rand never said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act had he been a Senator at the time, nor did he say anything to indicate that he favored segregation, whether it be in public or private sector, as the media claimed and ran with. In fact he said the opposite. Also, Paul isn’t off base to question how and what the government should be able to dictate with regard to a private entity’s property rights and 1st Amendment rights. These are all important civil rights questions that relate to all aspects of our society, for example with socialized healthcare— Do people have a right to someone else’s service or labor? Do people have a right to someone’s business? Or in general, do people or businesses have a right to speak or write racist, offensive, or unpopular things?
As Rand said, calling him “racist” for his position on property rights is dishonest, he was clear in his position of being firmly against racial discrimination. This interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN gave Rand a chance to clarify how he might have voted on the Civil Rights Act, had he been a Senator in 1964:
Also worth a listen is the Rand Interview on the Laura Ingraham Show from 5/20/2010:
It’s all part of a regular exercise that the MSM undergoes with popular non-establishment political candidates— seeking to twist their words and demonize them, most often using the “racist” label as their tool. It seems that if they can even suggest the idea that the candidate might maybe, possibly have said or suggested something close to being racist then maybe some non-informed voters will be afraid of him and never investigate or find the truth. The truth being that Rand Paul will likely be much more of a protector of the rights of individuals’ from all races than probably 99.9% of all other senatorial candidates or sitting Senators. It’s an effective distraction as the country faces a massive currency and economic crisis, and as they work on passing the “finance reform” bill.
Filed under: constitution, liberties, Rand Paul | Tagged: Civil Liberties, civil rights, civil Rights act of 1964, property rights, Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul | 1 Comment »
Posted on May 2, 2010 by peacefrog
An important reminder, keep in mind that the author is referring to a man, as in an individual or family man:
“…the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all.”
Filed under: constitution, denied rights | 1 Comment »