Disappointed in Rubio

by: the Common Constitutionalist

A few days ago Erick Erickson at RedState wrote of the great immigration debate, particularly the involvement of Senator Marco Rubio.

Senator Rubio, for good or ill, is the talk of the political town, as it were. He has become the face of this battle.

Erickson said that Marco Rubio is either being played for a fool or we are being played by Rubio.

I’m sorry Erick. You are either soft peddling what you know to be true, or stupid. and we know you’re not stupid.

Let’s just say it. A liar is a liar, regardless of party affiliation and Rubio is a bold face liar. What…need proof? Here ya go.

During a recent interview with Latino broadcaster Univision, Rubio said, in spanish: ” Let’s be clear. Nobody is talking about  preventing legalizations. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residency.”

Now I don’t hablo espanol, but I think I can translate. Millions upon millions of illegals will be immediately legalized. Then there will be plan for border security, but no border security. There will be no fence, or wall erected. They may hire more border agents but  the “no-touchy the illegals” policy will remain so it won’t matter.

It’s painfully obvious that the vast majority of politicians in Washington are not interested in border security. Just look at the failed yet quite reasonable amendment put forth by Senator Chuck Grassley. He wanted legalization to only happen after certifying that the border had been secure for a 6 month period. Only 6 months! It received virtually no support and was tabled by “Dirty” Harry Reid.  So you tell me anyone wants to seal the border.

Glenn Beck made a great point about Rubio. As usual, Glenn is dead-on right.

Beck said that he likened Rubio’s “spanish language” interview to the tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah. Their leaders give incendiary speeches to their followers in arabic. They then give a whitewashed speech in english to the rest of the world claiming it was the same speech, but we misunderstood due to the poor translation.

Beck continued by saying that Rubio: “Is not on your side.” He was also disgusted with Rand Paul and Jeff Flake.

Like Beck, Levin and Limbaugh, I too have had enough of these faux-conservatives we all counted on to take the fight to Washington. At this point I wonder if these republicans were ever constitutional conservatives as some of them claimed.

After the last election, I stated unequivocally that under NO circumstances will I ever support any politician who supports amnesty! And don’t fool yourself. That’s what this is.

So, you may say; this is one issue. You can’t expect to agree with politicians all the time, right? Wrongo! Not this time.

The immigration issue is the most important issue of our lifetime. More important than the debt ceiling, the sequester, the deficit, the IRS scandal, Benghazigate, the PRISM program…anything; even Obamacare.

We will not and cannot survive the onslaught of 10, 20, 30 million instant citizens. And this will be a perpetual amnesty program. It will not end. Don’t believe the lies to the contrary.

I hate to be such a downer but we better wake up and fast. Call, write, talk to your friends. Whatever, but this must be stopped. If it is allowed to take hold, we are done.

 

Barack Obama’s “Social Innovation” Slush Fund

We all know now what the vengeful Obama IRS has been doing to conservative nonprofits the past four years: strangling them in the crib. But do you know how much pampering and largesse far-left welfare-state charities have received while limited-government groups suffered? You don’t know the half of it.

Before President Obama took office, I warned that Democrats planned to steer untold amounts of taxpayer dollars to his shady community-organizing pals. The Dems’ 2008 party platform proposed the creation of a “Social Investment Fund Network” to subsidize “social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations (that) are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health care gaps and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities.”

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s pioneering work helped bring down the fraudsters of ACORN. But a thousand other ACORN-style knockoffs have metastasized in the shadows. Not long after Obama took office, big-government Democrats and Republicans handed him the $6 billion mandatory “volunteerism” package known as the “SERVE America Act.” The boondoggle fueled legions of new government “volunteers,” including a Clean Energy Corps, an Education Corps, a Healthy Futures Corps, a Veterans Service Corps and an expanded National Civilian Community Corps for disaster relief and energy conservation.

Continue Reading

More Arguments Against Datamining

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I recently heard an argument presented by a pro-surveillance advocate.

I’m paraphrasing: The metadata being compiled is no more dangerous or intrusive than the Post Office scanning every single envelope they handle, which they do. How is collecting phone numbers or e-mail addresses any more intrusive than that?

I can think of three things right off the top of my head. First: The intrusiveness is immaterial. Unless I’m mistaken, the fourth amendment of the Constitution does not have a clause indicating that search and seizure is okay depending on the severity of the intrusion.

Second: there is an “intention” that the Postal Service will scan and read the envelope that you send. Otherwise, how would it get to its intended destination? The same cannot be said of the electronic data the government is collecting. There is no “intention” of me allowing the government to see this data without first clearing the fourth amendment hurdles.

Third: the Postal Service is a government/public agency. Yes, it’s supposed to support itself, so one might call it quasi-governmental, but it ain’t private.

The companies being mined for data are all private. They are not public entities so they should be afforded the same benefit of the fourth amendment as you and I.

This massive data collection is supposed to be for our own safety and security. That is the way it is being portrayed to the low information citizen, and frankly to all of us, is it not?

Well, anyone who has ever been a cop, or a spy, or done any investigatory work knows that mining for gazillions of bits of information is not the way to catch anyone. Human intelligence, feet on the street and interrogations. These are the things that lead to real actionable intelligence. Electronic data collection is also quite useful when limited and focused properly.

That focus is how we found bin Laden and how we could have found the Tsarnaev brothers ahead of time.

What about the FISA court? Doesn’t it is still have to sign off on this surveillance?

To tell the truth, I’m not 100% sure about that, nor do I think this administration gives a flying crap about getting permission to do anything. But if they did happen to seek permission to hack, eavesdrop or collect everyone’s firstborn, chances are pretty good that FISA would rule in the affirmative. It has been a virtual rubberstamp for the feds.

FISA was developed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Without knowing anything about it, I would automatically reject just on that basis.

In its 34-year history, from 1978 through 2012, the FISA court has rejected a grand total of 11 government applications, while approving more than 20,000. That’s pretty good odds.

When running for president, candidate Obama pretended to have serious concerns about the law, then voted for it. He then vowed to rein in its excesses. But last year he demanded the renewal of the law with no reforms and Congress as they tend to do, complied.

Gee, what a shocker. Obama, or any other politician for that matter, said something and then did the exact opposite.

In 2011 there were 1676 applications presented to the FISA court and not one was denied. Let me repeat, not one.

In 2012, the Obamites ramped up the applications to 1789. Again, not one was denied. Give me those odds in Vegas baby!

There is no reasonable or justifiable reason for this data collection of American citizens and there appears to be absolutely no oversight. This is the stuff of paranoid dictators and Kings, not of a constitutional republic.

Surveillance Priorties

by: the Common Constitutionalist

According to an ever-increasing array of sources, we are all under surveillance. Every electronic source of communication is being monitored, catalogued and stored in Utah to be accessed by the authorities at any time in the future.

Our phone calls, e-mails, texts, everything. And with the ever-growing number of security cameras lining our streets, our every movement can be monitored outdoors.

Once inside they have the capability of watching us through our web cams and interactive TVs. With the introduction of common core in our schools it does seem like the government at least has the makings of building a “Minority Report” type profile on each and every American. Well, not quite.

There is the odd dichotomy of the Muslim community. It seems our same ultra intrusive government doesn’t feel the need to monitor them as they do us.

Even when moderate Muslims claim to have seen materials calling for jihad against the United States in the Cambridge mosque attended by the Tsarnaev brothers.

But I’m sure our government sees the Cambridge mosque as a holy place that should not be monitored even though the founder of the Islamic Society of Boston mosque was none other than Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is currently serving two years in prison for funding Al Qaeda. Yes, only two years.

One of the mosques former trustees and a “spiritual leader” of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been banned from even entering the U.S. due to his terror ties. Other notable mosque attendees include a member of Al Qaeda. Yet the mosque is still fully operational and growing every year.

And evidently the jihadist materials recently found in the mosque are nothing new. One Muslim attendee told CBN news that 10 years ago he found in the mosques upstairs library, many flyers and newsletters, written in Arabic calling for jihad against America, Jews and Christians.

Note our all-seeing governmental eye did not discover these publications, but they are watching you.

Four years ago the Muslim American Society built a new mosque in Roxbury, a Boston neighborhood.

By the way, the Muslim American Society is, as are most of these “societies”,  a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The mosque cost a whopping $15.5 million and most of the money came from our buddies, Saudi Arabia. You know, our friends, the wahhabists. Naturally, the liberal Massachusetts political class all endorsed these mosques.

Now we all know, if this were a Synagogue or Christian church, breeding and promoting radicalism, the doors would’ve already been padlocked.

Yet radicals can be bred in these mosques and no one is allowed to say anything for fear of being branded a racist or Islamophobe.

So us law-abiding patriotic citizens live our lives been catalogued and profiled with every keystroke being monitored. All the while, radical Islamists are holed up in their “religious sanctuaries” all across the country churning out jihadist literature and killers.

At least our government has their priorities straight.

Hacking Hacking Everywhere

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Recently Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel spoke at an international security conference in Singapore. During his speech he said: “The United States has expressed our concerns about the growing threat of cyber intrusions.”

He was speaking of the cyber attacks on our military by the Chinese government. For quite some time China has been hacking U.S. computer networks, stealing data, both government and corporate.

Hagel continued: “The key is for the differences to be addressed on the basis of a continuous and respectful dialogue. The two nations must build trust in order to avoid military miscalculations.”

Well isn’t this the Wok calling the kettle black or vice versa. Or maybe it’s some sort of sick poetic justice.

Why, whatever do you mean, you might say?

Is this not virtually the same thing our government is doing to us, particularly to those on the right?

Yet while China says almost nothing about their hacking and data mining, our president mockingly states in a speech about a month ago that the right wing fear mongers (my words, not his) will constantly “warn that tyranny is right around the corner”.

Well, I’m here to say he’s wrong. It’s not right around the corner; it’s all up in our grill (a little street lingo).

Hagel pledged that: “The U.S. is determined to work closely with China and other nations to establish appropriate standards for behavior in cyberspace.”

How sweet that we want to make nice and work with the Chinese while our own anti-constitutional government collects so much data on us it would make Orwell blush.

Data on potentially everyone in the country via the NSA’s “PRISM” program, all housed in a massive new 1 million square-foot storage facility in Utah.

What China is doing is abhorrent, but is it really that much different than what the Obama team is perpetrating on us?

The NSA has direct access to the servers of nine major Internet companies. They can now track every e-mail, photograph, every video as well as all other forms of electronic communication.

It’s funny (not ha ha) that our “leaders” are all about the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the globe. They pontificate against totalitarian regimes in foreign lands, yet call us alarmists when we see the same things happening here.

Obama stated that you can’t have 100% freedom and 100% security. I agree, but I wasn’t aware freedom is a zero-sum game.