The Statist GOP vs. Rand Paul

It seems like there is a concerted effort to attack Rand Paul these days for his views on the Fourth Amendment and how the Federal Government is violating it for the sake of security.  People like Andrew McCarthy, Paul Mirengoff and Jen Rubin have all come out with anti-Rand Paul pieces in the last couple of days.  Andrew McCarthy and Paul Mirengoff (who quotes McCarthy) were particularly stinging (partly because I have stopped caring what Jen Rubin things, while I am a fan of McCarthy and Mirengoff) with McCarthy saying Rand Paul wants to promote crime and Mirengoff saying that Rand Paul is ignorant and embarrasses himself.

What did Rand Paul do that was so bad?  So ignorant?  So embarrassing?  He introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 which says very simply:

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States Government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause. 

Oh the horror.  How embarrassing, how ignorant!  This will open the floodgates to crime!  Really?  Is it so hard just to get a friggin warrant if you have probable cause?  I really don't see what the big deal about that is.  What McCarthy (who is a former federal prosecutor so he probably naturally isn't so keen on the rights of the accused anyway) is upset about is that Rand Paul considers this to be a fourth amendment issue at all.  He writes:

Paul is referring to the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. The senator apparently did not read the Fourth Amendment before cutting and pasting it into his bill. It requires (in relevant part) that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated."

Perhaps Senator Paul will edify us on how it is "clear" that a phone record, owned and possessed by a telephone service provider (not the customer), qualifies as the person, house, paper, or effect of the customer, such that the government's acquisition of it violates the Fourth Amendment. The federal courts have consistently, emphatically rejected this implausible suggestion, holding that government's collection of phone records does not even implicate the Fourth Amendment, much less violate it.

It's amazing how McCarthy can be so obtuse.  I think any reasonable person does consider their bank and phone records to be their business and nobody else's except for the bank or phone company who will be using your data to bill you.  And if it "belongs" to the bank or phone company, why isn't the bank or phone company issued a warrant?  How can we have property expropriated by the government without anyone being issued a warrant?  Because it's "third party property"?  But its not really a third party if one of the parties actually does own the data as McCarthy suggests.  And on the federal court decisions, I'm really not impressed by that.  The federal courts repeatedly ruled that Japanese internment was constitutional as was segregation and most recently, Obamacare.  The courts have really not been a dependable defender of the constitution, repeatedly deferring to executive and legislative power.

The big government wing of the Republican Party needs to wake up.  Defending intrusive government policies that have been endorsed by both W and Obama are not a winning formula.  Neither is attacking the best hope for the GOP.

Rand Paul Still Leading in New Hampshire

According to a Free Beacon poll:

Four hundred New Hampshire registered voters were surveyed June 2 to June 3 in a poll conducted by the Polling Company, Inc. on behalf of the Free Beacon. It used the same methodology as Democratic-leaning pollster Public Policy Polling.

Drawing support from 22 percent of respondents, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) is the favored 2016 Republican presidential candidate among GOP primary voters in New Hampshire.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) is close behind Paul at 18 percent, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) both draw 17 percent. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker trails with 2 percent, and 24 percent remain undecided.

Rand Paul Op-Ed in PolicyMic

Rand Paul is speaking directly to the Millennials:

Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Meanwhile, our president claims that we cannot have 100% security and 100% privacy and that as a society we have to make some choices. To that I say, no Mr. President, we don't.

Let's look, for example, at the recent attacks in Boston. Our government was violating our rights, trolling through millions of phone records, sifting through mountains of data and yet still didn't notice, or didn't notice enough, that one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was traveling to Chechnya. Perhaps instead of treating every American as a potential terror suspect, the government should concentrate on more targeted analysis and an analysis that doesn't violate the Bill of Rights.

This assault on personal privacy affects the Facebook generation more than anyone else. Your generation is completely digitized and uploaded. Everything you do is traceable via phone, email and bank records. And it is you, more than anyone, who should be outraged by this astounding assault on your constitutional right to personal privacy.

I hear people say, "Well if you aren't doing anything wrong, then the government will leave you alone." But over the last month and a half, this administration has proved that they will target anyone. Under this administration, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has targeted political dissidents, the Department of Justice has seized reporters' phone records, and now we've learned the NSA seized an unlimited amount of Verizon's client data. So, do you really expect us to trust a government that admittedly targets innocent citizens without probable cause? These overreaching acts are unacceptable under any president, whether Democrat or Republican.

Some Headway for Rand Paul in California

Grace Wyler from Vice spent some time with Rand Paul on his trip to California and has some good things to report:

By most measures, the trip has been a big success for Paul. The Kentucky Republican was well-received by tech executives—Mark Zuckerberg even flew back early from his trip to Europe to attend their meeting—and Paul has made the kind of valuable relationships he needs if he ever decides to run for president, which, at this point, seems like the plan.

...

On Paul's first night out in California, I ran into Miles, a guy I knew in college, at a fundraiser for the Senator hosted by the Frederick Douglass Foundation, described on its website as the "largest Christ-centered, multiethnic, and Republican ministry in America."

Miles is a 24-year-old from San Francisco, and grew up with what he describes as a "liberal background." He spent the summer after his freshman year interning in then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office in Washington. But somewhere between his Capitol Hill internship and graduation, Miles had a political awakening.

"I didn't know what the word liberty meant—I just thought it meant generic freedom," Miles told me. "At the time, I was making phone calls for Obama, and after he won and I saw the continuation of many Bush policies, I realized that the person at the top can change, but that they're just going to keep signing the same bills."

Miles believes that the system is broken. He opposes what he sees as an excess of government spending, thinks the US should stop getting involved in foreign conflicts—"neocons are among the worst things to ever happen to this country"—and is particularly concerned with the Obama administration's infringement on civil liberties.

"This type of stuff is what gets under my skin," he said. "I wish more people would wake up to the fact that it is both parties carrying out authoritarian action like this."

Miles said that while he doesn't agree with Paul on everything, the Kentucky Senator "has done a good job of addressing the issues that I care about." Libertarianism, he added, "is really the only position you can take without tacitly endorsing the system."

As Paul's fundraiser was winding down, I met another potential Paul convert, Frank, a teacher from Oakland, California. Frank told me that he used to teach at Oakland's Fremont High School, but left after 12 years when one of his students was shot and killed and the funeral service was subsequently shot up by gang members.

"That was really just the last straw," said Frank, who now teaches at a private high school in Hayward, a tony Oakland suburb.

"The difference between the education that kids are getting at Fremont and kids are getting at this private school, it's just hurtful," he said. "The government is just pouring money into fixing these schools, but it's not working."

Frank, who described himself as a liberal, said that he was curious to meet Paul, and ended up getting into an extended conversation with the senator and his wife, Kelley Paul, about education policy.

"He's not like a normal politician," Frank said. "He was genuinely interested in what I had to say. And it sounds like he actually wants to do something to fix education."

It's not surprising that voters like Frank and Miles would be attracted to Paul. Their experience with politics and government has been fucked up. That's a common trend among young voters in particular—their political awareness began with the Supreme Court's Gore vs. Bush debacle, and since then they've experienced 9/11, two bloody wars (one of which was based on a lie), the meltdown of the financial system and subsequent bank bailout, ballooning student loan debt and home foreclosures, and the steady expansion of the national security state.

Amid this mess, Paul has emerged as a rare politician who is ideologically consistent, and who is at least trying to come up with solutions.
...

The fine line that Paul has to walk on social issues was clearly drawn when we arrived in California, where the Kentucky Senator and his family were greeted by a pit crew of social conservatives, including David Lane, the evangelical mastermind behind Rick Perry's "Response" prayer rally, and Rex Ellsass, an Ohio-based GOP operative who has made his reputation—and fortune—representing socially conservative politicians, including Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin of "legitimate rape" fame.
But Paul's message on social issues was remarkably consistent throughout his trip to California.

"I think on the cultural issues, I'm for agreeing to disagree," Paul told me in an interview. "I think some parts of the country are going to be more conservative than others, and I think we can accept that by bringing a federalist type of approach to these issues.

"There will be some states that will be more liberal and some states that will be more conservative, but what will unite most of us in the Republican Party will be that we want smaller government, less debt, more freedom to pursue the activities you want to pursue to succeed in life."

Surprisingly, social conservatives who encountered Paul seemed OK with that position.

"I don't feel like I am being suckered," said Rob McCoy, the pastor of Godspeak Calvary Chapel, where Paul spoke. "We disagree in some areas, but I can honestly say that he seeks to understand me—not necessarily to agree with me, but to understand me.

"I don't want a guy who is going to play to our camp—we've had that," McCoy added. "But I've seen him speak to a lot of groups, and he's always honest in his approach."

Rand Paul vs. the CBS: This Morning Hosts

Rand Paul was on the CBS:  This Morning Show today and got into a bit of a heated discussion on the NSA spying issue.  It's so clear they are tools of this administration as they try to deflect criticism of the White House on this issue by putting the focus on Snowden and his actions and then also saying effectively "three branches of government approved this, how can it be wrong?"  Senator Paul does a good job of making the point that what the government is doing is more important than what Snowden did and that with a 10% approval rating, clearly the Congress approving something doesn't make it a good thing.

 

Rand Paul Op-Ed in the WSJ

The esteemed Senator from Kentucky is certainly seizing the moment and demonstrating the distinction between him and the big government establishment.  Here is a key section of his Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal:

No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this.

What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation. Americans should trust the National Security Agency as much as they do the IRS and Justice Department.

Monitoring the records of as many as a billion phone calls, as some news reports have suggested, is no modest invasion of privacy. It is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked. Our lives are now so digitized that the government going from computer to computer or phone to phone is the modern equivalent of the same type of tyranny that our Founders rebelled against.

PPP: Rand Paul Leading in Michigan!

Rand Paul seems to be leading in Iowa, New Hampshire and now Michigan as well.  In the latest Public Policy Polling (PPP) results from the Peninsula State or whatever Michigan is supposed to be called, Rand Paul leads with 18% with Jeb Bush at 16%, Chris Christie and 15% and Rubio at a paltry 11%.  Some things that I think following this poll are:

- We need to hope that both Jeb Bush and Chris Christie stay in the race to duke it out amongst themselves.  My guess is that if Jeb Bush doesn't run that a substantial portion of his voters would go to Christie and very few would go in Rand Paul's direction.  That is not to say that all of them will go to Christie, the NJ Governor is ahead amongs Moderates while Jeb Bush leads amongst those claiming they are "somewhat conservative" so some might go to the Rubio's and Ryan's if they run.  But needless to say, the more candidates like Bush and Christie running is good news for those of use who want a conservative as the GOP standard-bearer.  That is in fact how Reagan was able to win the nomination in 1980.  He was effectively the lone conservative battling a bunch of RINO's like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John Connally, John Anderson and Howard Baker.

- Rubio may have done serious damage to his brand with his comprehensive immigration reform plan.  NEVER under any circumstances pal around with Chuck Schumer and ally with him against conservatives.  If immigration reform fails and Rubio gets his act together between now and 2015, he has a chance.  Most people will forgive and forget.  If it passes and its a disaster though, he is finished.

- As I wrote previously, Rand Paul needs to do serious outreach to the elderly somehow.  Rand Paul has a 13 point lead among those 18-45, but is in a disastrous 5th place among those >65.  This won't be easy given his plan to reform both Medicare and Social Security but he needs to find a way to have a chance.  It's the elderly that turn out to vote after all.