Bill introduced to Extend Fourth Amendment (would protect Bitcoin)

NOTE: It will also be interesting to see if this
legislation raises any debate about Bitcoin.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has introduced legislation that seeks to extend Fourth Amendment protection to electronic communications, which if successful would be a major move to protect online privacy.

This comes after it was revealed that both the IRS and the FBI claimed they did not need a warrant to spy on the electronic communications of Americans.

However, some might be skeptical given Paul’s much-criticized apparent flip-flop on the drone issue.


Nonetheless, Paul has made some much needed statements about the lack of protection given to the private electronic communications of the American people.

“In today’s high-tech world, we must ensure that all forms of communication are protected,” Paul said in a press release. “Yet government has eroded protecting the Fourth Amendment over the past few decades, especially when applied to electronic communications and third party providers.”

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect the American people from unreasonable search and seizure, though that has been undermined quite a bit.

The Fourth Amendment usually requires warrants to be issued based on probable cause, but that too has been increasingly eroded under the guise of fighting terrorism.

“Congress has passed a variety of laws that decimate our Fourth Amendment protections,” Paul said. “In effect, it means that Americans can only count on Fourth Amendment protections if they don’t use email, cellphones, the Internet, credit cards, libraries, banks or other forms of modern finance and communications.”

Paul’s legislation, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, or S. 1037, would require law enforcement to obtain warrants when seeking access to personal data online including emails, chat logs, online banking records and more.

image39“Basic constitutional rights should not be invalidated by carrying out basic, day-to-day functions in a technologically advanced world, and this bill will provide much needed clarity and reassert Fourth Amendment protections for records held by third parties,” he said.

As WebProNews points out, Paul’s legislation was introduced only a month after the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013, introduced Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Unlike Leahy’s bill, however, Paul’s bill would ensure all online data held by third parties is protected by the Fourth Amendment,” according to Zach Walton of WebProNews.

This type of reform seems to be gaining steam, with Attorney General Eric Holder even supporting an update of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Paul also introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2013, a bill that aims to “protect an individual’s right to privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.”

Such legislation seems to be increasingly palatable in Washington, at least to a degree, and has gained traction in state legislatures around the nation.

It will be interesting to see how these bills fare in a climate that remains hostile to limiting government power.

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at


This article first appeared at End the Lie.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCYTV Monday nights 7 PM – 9 PM PT/10 PM – 12 AM ET. Show page link here: http://UCY.TV/EndtheLie. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at

Ten years ago, on Oct. 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act. Congress overwhelmingly passed the law only weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks since it was designed to give the FBI more power to collect information in cases that involve national securityBut in the decade since then, civil liberties groups have raised concerns about whether the Patriot Act goes too far by scooping up too much data and violating people’s rights to privacy. The Patriot Act made it easier for authorities to demand records from Internet service providers and even more recently without the subject in question even being investigated on charges of terrorism!

  • Many argue that they are good citizens, with nothing to hide…SLAP! This isn’t about someone reading about how you chugged down half a pizza on the weekend, or how you chatted a girl into going out with you. Some people WORK on the internet, they bank online, bet on the stock market, share highly classified business files and even organize REVOLUTIONS! 
  • George Orwell warned of such a state in 1949 with the release of his book “1984”.In the dystopian and satirical novel society is tyrannized and dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes. The tyranny is headed by Big Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. Big Brother and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good or in our terms “national security”.

Does the Constitution Apply to U.S. Citizen ONLY on US Soil?

Constitution of the United StatesCharles Krauthammer’s Washington Post column, which calls on Congress to enact new legislation authorizing and regulating Obama’s drone attacks, is actually worth reading says Glenn Greenwald.

>>, Friday 15 March 2013

Krauthammer’s real purpose with this column is to mock and excoriate Rand Paul’s anti-drone filibuster. As the New York Times describes today, there is an increasingly acrimonious split in the GOP about the policies of militarism and civil liberties enacted in the 9/11 era, and neocons like Krauthammer are petrified that the (relative) anti-war and pro-due-process stances articulated by Paul will gain traction. Krauthammer notes that, contrary to the claims of many progressives, Paul’s opposition was not merely to killing Americans on US soil, but was broader: it was about assassinating citizens without due process anywhere they may be found. Referencing a Washington Post Op-Ed in which Paul declared that “no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime,” Krauthammer writes: “note the absence of the restrictive clause: ‘on American soil'”. Here’s how Krauthammer describes Paul’s real purpose in launching the filibuster:

“Paul’s unease applies to non-American drone targets as well. His quarrel is with the very notion of the war on terror, though he is normally too smart to say that openly and unequivocally. Unlike his father, who implied that 9/11 was payback for our sins, Paul the Younger more gingerly expresses general skepticism about not just the efficacy but the legality of the entire war.”

That Paul became the first US Senator on the Senate floor to utter the name “Abdulrahaman Awlaki” – the 16-year-old US-born citizen killed by a US drone in Yemen – bolsters Krauthammer’s claim that the Paul filibuster was about more than just the use of force on US soil, but rather posed a challenge to the War on Terror premises generally. That is precisely why Krauthammer – along with all other neocons and, notably, many Democratic Party Obama-supporters – are desperate to discredit the Paul filibuster and the sentiments it stoked: regardless of Paul’s motives, the filibuster called into question both the wisdom and legality of the entire Endless War approach to Terrorism.

But to discredit this, Krauthammer makes a claim about the US Constitution that is so patently false as to be retraction-worthy. He writes (emphasis added):

“Now we’re talking about a larger, more controversial issue: the killing-by-drone in Yemen of al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki. Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much Paul would like it to.”

That italicizied claim from Krauthammer – that “outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule” – is a very common assertion and thus widely believed. But it is factually false. And there can be no reasonable dispute about this.

To begin with, think about what it would mean if Krauthammer’s claim were true: does anyone think it would be constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment for the US government to wait until an American critic of the Pentagon travels on vacation to London and then kill him, or to bomb a bureau of the New York Times located in Paris in retaliation for a news article it disliked, or to indefinitely detain with no trial an American who travels to Beijing or Lima or Oslo and who is suspected of committing a crime? Anyone who believes what Charles Krauthammer said this morning – “Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule” – would have to take the patently ludicrous position that such acts would be perfectly constitutional.

But to see how false is Krauthammer’s claim, it’s unnecessary to engage in that kind of reasoning. The law is crystal clear on this matter. In 1957, the US Supreme Court decided the case of Reid v. Covert in which this exact question was conclusively decided: does the Bill of Rights restrict what the US Government does to US citizens on foreign soil? The Court answered the question as decisively and unambiguously as the English language permits (emphasis added):

“At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land.”

How can any Washington Post editor read what the Supreme Court said and not compel a retraction of Krauthammer’s claim?

The Court then cited both the biblical Paul’s right to demand as a Roman citizen that his foreign trial be conducted in accordance with Roman law, as well the observations of an English historian that British subjects of the Crown who went to live in settled colonies “take with them all the rights and liberties of British Subjects; all the rights and liberties as against the Prerogative of the Crown, which they would enjoy in this country”. About the fact that the US Constitution restricts what the US government can do to citizens on foreign soil, the Court thus explained: “This is not a novel concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government.”

Notably, while noting that this principle applies equally to all Constitutional guarantees when the US government acts against a citizen on foreign soil, the Court made clear that of all the rights, the guarantee of a fair trial before the state can punish or kill a citizen is the most central (emphasis added):

“This Court and other federal courts have held or asserted that various constitutional limitations apply to the Government when it acts outside the continental United States. While it has been suggested that only those constitutional rights which are ‘fundamental’ protect Americans abroad, we can find no warrant, in logic or otherwise, for picking and choosing among the remarkable collection of ‘Thou shalt nots’ which were explicitly fastened on all departments and agencies of the Federal Government by the Constitution and its Amendments. Moreover, in view of our heritage and the history of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it seems peculiarly anomalous to say that trial before a civilian judge and by an independent jury picked from the common citizenry is not a fundamental right. . . . Trial by jury in a court of law and in accordance with traditional modes of procedure after an indictment by grand jury has served and remains one of our most vital barriers to governmental arbitrariness. These elemental procedural safeguards were embedded in our Constitution to secure their inviolateness and sanctity against the passing demands of expediency or convenience.”

One can debate if one is inclined whether this applies to specific cases such as Awlaki. But Krauthammer’s general claim about the law – that “outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule” – is grounded in total ignorance. Writing in 2007 in the Los Angeles Times about Reid v. Covert and the War on Terror specifically, UCLA law professor Kal Raustiala explained: “The shield of the Constitution, the justices stated in reversing a centuries-old legacy, cannot be ignored by the executive branch simply because the accused happens to be abroad.”

Aside from the fact that the Washington Post should not be publishing clear factual falsehoods about the state of the law, the reason this matters so much is that distorting the Constitution is the key tactic for inducing public acquiescence to its violations. As I’ve documented before, many of the War on Terror abuses have been justified with the equally false claim that the US Constitution applies only to US citizens and not to foreign nationals on US soil and US-controlled territory (such as at Guantanamo).

The War on Terror has been and continues to be, above all, a war on the most basic liberties and political safeguards that we’re all taught are what distinguishes the US and keeps it free. One major reason that has happened is because patently false claims about those rights have been systematically propagated. Having the Washington Post publish Krauthammer’s false claim that “outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule” is a particularly egregious example of that behavior.

Erasing the Jose Padilla case from history

Like so many people who defend Obama’s War on Terror policies and mock Paul’s filibuster, Krauthammer suggests that the very idea that the US government could treat a US citizen on US soil as an enemy combatant and thus punish them without due process is so absurd as to be paranoid to even raise the question. Does anyone remember the Jose Padilla case: in which the Bush administration, in 2002, detained this US citizen, on US soil; declared him to be an “enemy combatant”; and then proceeded to imprison him for the next 3 1/2 years without charges or trial – all with little public resistance and, ultimately,endorsement from a right-wing court? Was Charles Krauthammer objecting to any of that? Were all of the people now claiming that it’s paranoia to think that the US government would use war power theories against a US citizen on US soil marching in the streets in protest over this? The answer is: no.

The US government has already asserted the very theory that many now mock Paul for asking about, and did so with very little resistance, including from the courts. It’s true that they did not kill Padilla, but the theory used to imprison him for years without charges – the president is empowered to declare anyone he wants to be an “enemy combatant” without charges and trial and then punish him as such: including US citizens found on US soil – is precisely the theory that would justify targeting US citizens on US soil for an Awlaki-type strike. Indeed, that is the theory invoked to justify the killing of Awlaki, and there is no cogent way to exclude US soil: since the entire globe is a battlefield, the president has the unilateral power to detain or kill anyone he wants, including citizens, without charges. To pretend that this is so beyond the pale of what US political culture would tolerate is to exhibit serious naïveté and/or ignorance of recent history.



The True Meaning Behind Holder’s Response to Rand Paul

Paul Joseph Watson
March 8, 2013

Although it was heralded as a clear signal that the Obama administration has been forced to acknowledge that it cannot drone strike Americans on U.S. soil, Eric Holder’s response to Rand Paul only serves to re-affirm the government’s existing position.

Responding to the Kentucky Senator’s near 13 hour filibuster, Attorney General Holder sent a letter to Paul’s office which stated, “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: `Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

The key to this is the phrase “engaged in combat.” What does the administration consider to represent an act of “combat.”

In the case of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a targeted drone strike in 2011, being “engaged in combat” amounted to little more than creating propaganda videos in support of terrorists. Awlaki never committed an act of violent terrorism, he was merely accused of communicating with terrorists and giving lectures in support of Al-Qaeda. Awlaki’s guilt was never proven in court because he was never afforded a trial.

Given that the Department of Defense now considers the act of protest to be a form of “low-level terrorism,” how far removed is criticizing U.S. foreign policy and hegemonic domination from the views which Awlaki was summarily executed for advocating?

The federal government has defined a laundry list of banal behaviors and political activities as potential terrorism, from paying for a cup of coffee with cash to buying storable food in bulk. The definition of a potential terrorist – and remember the government only has to accuse someone of being a terrorist as a pre-cursor to killing them with a drone strike – has been watered down to such an extent that the Department of Homeland Security now considers Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as potential terrorists.

Awlaki’s son, 16-year-old Abdel al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was killed by a drone strike a few weeks after his father’s death as he traveled to a family barbeque in Yemen. Abdel’s act of “combat” against the United States amounted to little more than sharing the surname of his father. The U.S. government later erroneously claimed that Abdel’ was a “military-age male” in his 20′s in an attempt to justify his execution.


“What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad,” writes William Grigg.

“Combat” can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact. This is a murderous application of the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” and it will be used when — not if — Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.”

Furthermore, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, the Obama administration is now preparing to extend the legal basis for its drone strikes to target people who have no direct connection to actual terrorists.

“Officials said legal advisers at the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are now weighing whether the law can be stretched to cover what one former official called “associates of associates,” reports the Post.

This could mean that Americans who unknowingly communicate with somebody who communicates with somebody else the government accuses of being a terrorist could become a target for a drone strike.

The report quotes a “person who participated in the administration’s deliberations on the issue,” who warns that expanding the definition would be “a major interpretive leap” that could eliminate the need for a link between the targeted organization and core al-Qaeda.”

“You can’t end the war if you keep adding people to the enemy who are not actually part of the original enemy,” the individual added.

This again underscores how the term “engaged in combat,” used by Holder in his response to Rand Paul, has been broadened to such a degree that it could feasibly apply to huge numbers of Americans who have absolutely no connection to terrorism whatsoever.


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for and Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Sen. Rand Paul’s Filibuster of John Brennan

Eric Holder, in a letter to Rand Paul, states that our President (whom ever it may be) has the Constitutional authority to drone bomb (kill) American citizens on U.S. soil, and without due process. This prompted Paul’s dramatic filibuster yesterday. It may not have stopped John Brennan from becoming CIA Director, but many are calling it a ‘Stroke of Political of  Genius‘ for various reasons.

What Does the Highest Law in the Land Say?

Can a sitting U.S. President assassinate American citizens? In answer I would direct the Attorney General’s attention to Article Three of the United States Constitution, and in particular section three which states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

480552_571357792888792_1552859412_nThe Treason Clause is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government and clearly the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, which rules out both drone strikes on American citizens as well as rules out a trial by military commission. As Madison noted, the Treason Clause was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “giving them aid and comfort to her enemies.” Such a crime may warrant death, but only after the accused has had their day in court and faced Two Witnesses to the alleged crime and been found guilty by a jury. What is it you fail to understand about his Mr Holder? Please explain this to our dear Nobel Peace Prizing-wining President, he may be a Constitution lawyer but he seems to have forgotten the Treason Clause.

Okay, so the Constitution is clear, the government can’t just kill it’s own people. This lead us to the next question: How does team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-Year-Old American? Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president’s campaign suggests the boy should have “had a more responsible father.” That’s it? That all they can say about it? Shame on the national media for not make this more of an issue until now. It has taken a filibuster by Rand Paul to bring this issue to light for many people.

Filibuster called ‘Stroke of Political Genius’

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with help from other junior senators, the filibuster stretched more than 11 hours and was aimed at drawing attention to deep concern on both sides of the aisle about the administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones in its fight against terrorists and whether the government would ever use them in the United States.

From Yahoo news – Filibustering like a boss

The filibuster is working for Paul for a number of reasons. First, there’s the novelty and drama of pulling a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style feat — and, from all reports, doing it quite coherently. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got some similarly glowing press for his eight-and-a-half hour Senate talkathon in 2010. Paul one-upped him, though. Through some combination of design, stamina, and serendipity, Paul has become the toast of Twitter and the big story in Washington.

The issues of when to use remote-control warfare, what boundaries we should have for fighting terrorism and domestic surveillance, when the government can use lethal force against American citizens, and what constitutes due process are complicated and filled with ample grey areas. But Paul can look like at least a minor hero to so many people because of the one big idea uniting the motley #StandWithRand crew: We should really be having this conversation in the U.S., now, publicly, before (probably non-lethal) drones above our heads become just another part of this American life.

As I read the comments at Yahoo News I was surprised they were mostly positive… before I got my hopes up that Americans were starting to wake up, I skipped over to the Huffington Post and read the comments there. That quickly brought me back to reality. Those who called themselves “liberal” just don’t get it…..and I thought being liberal means you care about civil liberties, what ever happened to those liberal ideals about liberty? Here is one liberal who does get it:

Of course, if a Republican was still President, Obama would be on the senate floor supporting Rand Paul on this issue. This is why I am done with the fake left. Had enough of that ignorant and unfounded self-righteousness. Are the Republican any better? No, not from my perspective. However, we may be seeing a “rebRANDing” taking place as is being pointed out over at

Paul’s performance signaled a groundshift in the power base of the Republican Party. While establishment figures like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) weredining with President Obama, Paul was drawing the nation’s attention from the floor of the Senate with his invocation of the most basic of all Senate rights: the right to be heard, in the fashion of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. And because Paul picked an issue of transparency – and an issue on which both left and right generally agree that lines must be drawn – he had few detractors, even though Democrats stonewalled his proposed resolutions attempting to draw lines regarding drone strikes.

Paul’s dramatic action today may not have stopped John Brennan from becoming CIA Director. But that was not the point. He proved that conservatism in America is not merely alive, but that it has the potential for post-partisanship. He proved that conservatives can still seize the narrative, and fight back against an authoritarian-minded, non-transparent administration. And he proved that a new generation of conservatives is about to take the field for Republicans. Over the next 24 hours, look for the Democrat-Media Complex to strike back against Paul. They know the battle is on.

Finally, it appears that Republicans do too.

Tea Party minded folks from all parties still need a new party. This is not a reflection on republican party – so it would not be helpful to get excited for GOP. This is really just a Rand Paul thing (with help from Cruz, Lee, and Rubio) and he is just riding the coattails of his father. Rand is more libertarian conservative – and the GOP will never support him until he swings more in the NEO-CON direction (that’s how the Hegelian Dialectic works). Don’t fool yourself, Rand is not his father. What I see is just another opportunist, but at least this one is getting the rhetoric on-point. Whatever his motives maybe, he has now become the leading voice for liberty and a return to Constitutional government.  Meanwhile, the anti-Rand Pauls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, took to the Senate floor this morning to defend killing American citizens at presidential discretion. The Republican Party is at war, folks, and let’s hope Rand Paul and his troops win for the sake of individual liberty.

Is There A Hidden Agenda or Conspiracy In the Works?

What is the real agenda behind this policy of drones over America?

World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being reelected, saying that he believed Obama would “kill journalists” if he won a second term.  Today Mike Adams of Natural News and gone even farther and has stated in no uncertain terms that “the stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people.” Here is what Mike says, and following his logic is quit easy to do:


So now it all becomes clear:

1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American citizens if they were classified as “terrorists.”

2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simply claimingthey might be associated with “terrorists.”

3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn’t an absolutely Big Government boot-licker and Obama worshipper IS A TERRORIST.

And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs you up.

I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder of American citizens without trial is labeling them “terrorists” even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require no evidence. They only require the signature of one man.

Does that seem alarmist? Maybe it is…. but then again, maybe the conspiracy minded people like Mike Adams and Alex Jones have been right all along when they say “people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he can fool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popular resistance.” How else can you explain why Obama has brought so many of the old Bush crones into his administration? It is become increasing hard to deny we are seeing a continuity of agenda (under both Republican and Democrat leadership) as we march toward a police state.

Who is John Brennan? 

Short answer: Obama’s choice to lead the spy agency, who has overseen the drone program. During the Bush administration, Brennan supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Program, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Brennan changed that stance, saying repeatedly that the Obama administration would not condone torture.

  • Took a job as an intelligence director at the CIA in 1980
  • Led counter-terrorism efforts for a variety of CIA programs in the 1990s
  • Became CIA director George Tenet’s chief of staff in 1999
  • Served as CIA deputy executive director, 2001-2003
  • Took a job at the National Counter-Terrorism Center, 2004-2005


No politically appointed official in U.S. history has played such a prominent role in killing so many people outside of a war zone as John Brennan. The predominant counterterrorism tool under Obama has been targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, and Brennan reportedly oversees and manages the 100-person inter-agency process that nominates and vets suspected militants and terrorists for the United States’ various kill lists — implemented by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command. Obama’s has been a “lethal presidency,” and  Brennan is the Lethal Bureaucrat. Despite his close relationship to Obama and preeminent duty in coordinating the kill lists, he has flown largely under the mainstream media’s radar save for a few article at That is, until this politically self-serving stunt by Rand Paul.

Okay, so I’m not a big fan of Rand, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT RAND (or Obama).

It is about liberty and tyranny.

It is about our Constitution and our Republic.