I was once told by someone involved in a federal investigation not to let any identified federal law enforcement officer into your house without: a) a warrant and b) your lawyer present. At the time, this notion seemed a bit less than cooperative. Shouldn’t law-abiding citizens be able to live their lives free from the fear that our own government would underhandedly manipulate our rights in their pursuit of an investigation? After all, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution enumerates a limitation on the federal government, one that prevents “unreasonable search and seizure.” Today, this enumerated protection is being ignored by – of all institutions – the U.S. Justice Department, under the darkened shadow of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A recent column by The Atlantic’s Emily Berman, a Furman Fellow and Brennan Center Fellow at NYU School of Law, informs the citizenry:

It just got easier for the federal government to collect information about innocent Americans — and those Americans have had surprisingly little say in the matter.

On October 15, the FBI reportedly implemented new rules that relax restrictions on, and oversight of, the FBI’s intelligence collection activities. Although they are not available to the public, reports indicate the changes permit FBI agents to search an individual’s trash with the goal of finding material that might pressure him into becoming a government informant, grant agents the authority to search commercial or law enforcement databases without first opening an investigation, and reduce the type of investigations subjected to heightened oversight because of their relationship to protected First Amendment expression, association, or religious practice.

This is the third modification of the FBI’s intelligence collection authorities since September 11, 2001. First in 2002, again in 2008, and finally, just last week, amendments were adopted with scant public attention and with minimal — if any — congressional involvement. Groups and communities concerned about the new rules’ impact on civil liberties, particularly the risk of religious or ethnic profiling, also had no constructive input.

(more…)

Looking back over the last 10 years and thinking about where many of us were and how we felt when the towers fell is surreal. These are sad thoughts. But what I find even more saddening is the fact that we have allowed our country to become more and more of a police state over the last 10 years. And apparently, the end is not in site…and will likely only become worse.

When the Department of Homeland Security was launched after 9/11 and the Patriot Act was launched as a bill that would last only 4 years, many freedom loving Americans squabbled. Most turned to those rebels and told them to “shut up,” that it was necessary to protect America. Then we allowed the TSA to militarize our airports and treat us like cattle. Then came the unsecured and blatant violation of personal privacy when travelers data was being collected. And of course the full body pat downs of children and colonoscopies full-body scans.

Oh, but a little before the whole body scan debacle was of course the hush-hush hiring of Ex-Stasi Spy Markus Wolf by the DHS. Who better to know how to teach the government how to spy on its own citizens and invoke citizen to citizen tattle telling than an ex-East German communist?

Is it any surprise that in the years following Wolf’s tenure as a consultant to DHS prior to his death we have now seen programs develop out of DHS that include the government asking its citizens to report on their neighbors, and the institution of a secret police force called “Viper Team”. It’s rumored they great each other with a hearty, “Shield and sword!”

Don’t forget the vans with X-ray patrolling our streets as well…

(more…)

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has filed a simple amendment to the Patriot Act protecting the rights of Americans to lawfully carry a firearm.  His Amendment would stop federal agencies from collecting gun records under the Patriot Act.  The amendment preserves two provisions of current law that protects gun owner privacy from a Patriot Act exemption.

The Paul Amendment (SA 328) states in part “no provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize access to firearms records in the possession of licensed under Chapter 44 of title 18 of the US Code.”  The purpose of the Amendment is to “clarify that the authority to obtain information under the US PATRIOT Act does not include the authority to obtain certain firearms records.”  Seems like a non-controversial clarification of the powers of the federal government with regard to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Leadership in both parties disagree and have been doing everything to block consideration of the Paul Amendment. Neil McCabe at Guns and Patriots reported yesterday on Facebook that “finessing arcane procedural tactics, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked the amendment by withdrawing his own bill for Patriot Act extension for consideration and then attached it to an unrelated bill.”  McCabe further reported that Reid was overheard on the Senate floor expressing an interest in avoiding this vote.  That was yesterday, now Republicans in the Senate Leadership are actively opposing the Paul Amendment to the Patriot Act.

In an Email obtained by Big Government from a Senate Republican Leadership staffer for Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to Republican staff below titled “OPPOSE the Paul Firearm Amendment” argues for Republicans to block the Paul 2nd Amendment protection legislation:

(more…)

Last year I voted to extend the PATRIOT Act for one year. I regret that vote and was glad to have been able to correct it, although I am pained that the House voted otherwise yesterday.

During this past year, I have become convinced that the provisions of the so-called PATRIOT Act are an affront to the Bill of Rights and a serious threat to our fundamental liberty as Americans.

The Fourth Amendment arises from abuses of the British Crown that allowed roving searches by revenue agents under the guise of what were called “writs of assistance” or “general warrants.” Instead of following specific allegations against specific individuals, the Crown’s revenue agents were given free rein to search indiscriminately.

In 1761, the famous colonial leader, James Otis, challenged these writs, arguing that “A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.” Two hundred and fifty years later, the PATRIOT Act restores these roving searches.

In the audience that day in 1761 was a 25-year-old lawyer named John Adams. He would later recall, “Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child, ‘Independence’ was born.”

The American Founders responded with the Fourth Amendment. It provides that before the government can invade a person’s privacy, the executive branch must present sworn testimony to an independent judiciary that a crime has occurred, that there is reason to believe that an individual should be searched for evidence of the crime and specify the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The John Doe roving wiretaps provided under the bill are a clear breach of this crystal clear provision.

The entire point of having an open and independent judiciary is so that abuses of power can be quickly identified by the public and corrected. The very structure of this law prevents that from occurring.

(more…)

The House failed to pass an extension of provisions of the Patriot Act this week.  House leaders put the bill on the House Suspension Calendar which requires a 2/3rds vote to pass and forecloses the opportunity for amendments to the bill.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has pledged to slow down the legislation in the Senate.

Senator Paul feels so strongly about this issue, he has put out a YouTube video describing in great detail why he opposes the continuation of this Act.

This fight is going to play out over the next two weeks in the House and Senate.  Conservatives should not rubber stamp this Bush era power in the name of anti-terrorism, because the complex provisions of the Patriot Act deserve a full and fair national debate.  The federal government already has extra-ordinary powers to monitor behavior without the Patriot Act, Americans need to give expressed consent to any further authorization of these powers to comply with the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. (more…)

From The Economist blog ‘Democracy in America’:

Still, freakish death is profoundly unnerving and facing its immunity to reason tends to aggravate rather than soothe our cellular fear of disorder and death. Far from leading us to resignation, the inscrutability of a sui generis disaster sets our minds in mad motion. We desperately and pathetically grope for some blameworthy failure of foresight, some forward-looking lesson, some food for prudence. It doesn’t matter if there are none to be found. We’ll make it all up if we have to.

Not every general feature of Saturday’s shootings in Tucson has been seized upon. No one is proposing new rules for supermarkets, young white guys, or sun-baked locales. The things we already fear and already desire more thoroughly to control are most vividly salient to us. We seize on those: guns, crazy people. Did Jared Lee Loughner shoot government officials with a gun? Ban guns within 1,000 feet of government officials! Was Jared Lee Loughner detectably crazy? Make involuntary commitment easier! Did Jared Lee Loughner buy a gun while detectably crazy? Tighten background-screening requirements! Did Jared Lee Loughner’s gun sport an extended magazine? Ban extended magazines!

Some of these proposals may have merit, but no more now than on Friday.

(more…)

A few months back, I reported that President Obama reauthorized the Patriot Act–you know, the one signed by Bush that enraged the left and right and the one Obama wanted to change:

Apparently without Bush, the Patriot Act is no longer Orwellian as Michael Moore would have it and the ACLU is now quietly voicing its differences. Even Obama criticized the Act’s compromise in 2006, but had no issue, as President, signing the identical Act he wanted reforms on.  In 2006, Obama stated on the Senate floor:

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

But those improvements were never made and the NYT reports that the US Obama administration now supports Internet tapping:

Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.  The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

Where is the public outcry?  The silence of the left is deafening.  Interestingly, we are not the only ones who noticed the silence, the NYT did as well:

(more…)

President Obama signed the renewal of the Patriot Act in the quiet of a slow-news Saturday–the Act was set to expire Sunday, February 28–as reported by The Hill.

Photo Credit: AP Photo

The reauthorization did NOT include any reforms to the current Patriot Act–an odd display of agreement and submission to Bush-era policy–even though the Democrats had the numbers to reform the Act. The continuance of the current Patriot Act signals that Democrats are fearful of further controversary in light of American’s distrust and poor approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress. From the Hill:

The House approved the bill 315-97 on Thursday, a day after the extension passed the Senate.

The provisions, including roving wiretaps, records access and tracking terror suspects not affiliated with any group, were set to expire on Sunday. Democrats opposing the extension were unable to add desired civil-liberties protections.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

(more…)

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued an Executive Order which gave permission to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to operate within the boundaries of the United States.  Reagan’s EO put INTERPOL under the same basic guidelines as the CIA, FBI, ATF and other Federal law enforcement agencies.

Two weeks ago, without any announcement, debate, discussion or inquiry from journalists charged with “speaking truth to power” President Obama issued an amendment to this EO.  The amendment removed part of Reagan’s order that kept INTERPOL from having full diplomatic immunity while operating within the United States.  In other words:  Under Reagan and right up until two weeks ago, INTERPOL was authorized to operate within the USA but they did not have full diplomatic immunity and had to adhere to certain laws set forth for investigative agencies.  Laws that prohibit authorities from violating our constitutionally protected rights.

(more…)

Something curious happened during the summer of 2008. Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
shut down the House and C-SPAN cameras with a resolution that passed by just one vote, smack in the middle of an energy crisis. Afterwards, Madame Speaker jetted off on a week-long book tour while gas prices soared.

The Republicans stood in the dark and refused to leave. A few officials, including John Culberson, took out their phones and began Twittering the action to America, this spawning the #dontgo movement. It was the first nudge to the hibernating conservative constituency who were excited about having something over which to be excited in their party. Netroots activists seethed at the realization that Democrats left America in limbo rather than vote against reducing energy costs and drilling stateside –  though the majority of the population approved of such. They rallied around the legislators that had the brass to stay and urged them to “Don’t go!”

Democrats shut down Republicans a second time promptly after the election by moving to bar them from amending legislation in the House.

Taxpayer fury over these offenses grew to a shriek in February when Rick Santelli delivered his famous diatribe on the floor of the Chicago exchange. The feelings of angry disenfranchisement felt by so many conservatives coalesced following Santelli’s speech. The first wave of tea parties came from this, the first national effort occurring on February 27th, 2008. I was at St. Louis’s very first tea party and stood across the mighty Mississippi on the Arch steps with a bunch of wide-eyed, virgin protesters who were just as shocked as I was to see the amount of people who had assembled.

(more…)