United Liberty

Law enforcement agencies want to require cellular providers under the force of Federal law to keep a record of all text messages in case they ever need them:

AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and other wireless providers would be required to capture and store Americans’ confidential text messages, according to a proposal that will be presented to a congressional panel today. The law enforcement proposal would require wireless providers torecord and storecustomers’ SMS messages — a controversial idea akin to requiring them to surreptitiously record audio of their customers’ phone calls — in case police decide to obtain them at some point in the future.

So the cops want a record of every single text message sent. What ever happened to privacy and being secure in our communications? How can people communicate if they know that a permanent record of the communication is being kept by a third party? This is an attack on the right to privacy:

“Billions of texts are sent every day, and some surely contain key evidence about criminal activity,”Richard Littlehale from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation will tell Congress, according to a copy (PDF) of his prepared remarks. “In some cases, this means that critical evidence is lost. Text messaging often plays a big role in investigations related to domestic violence, stalking, menacing, drug trafficking, and weapons trafficking.”

Yes, but most Americans are not criminals. There is no compelling need for the state to require a permanent record of all text messages sent.

The Obama regime is drawing up final plans to create a massive database and give access to it to government agencies. What will be in this new database?:

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates by bringing together financial databanks, criminal records and military intelligence. The plan, which legal experts say is permissible under U.S. law, is nonetheless likely to trigger intense criticism from privacy advocates.

I guess due process and asking a judge for a warrant to get this information is apparently a thing of the past in this new “changed” America. With the continuing reckless disregard of the Constitution and traditional American liberties by the Obama regime, at this point the University of Chicago should offer full refunds to anyone who ever took a Constitutional law class taught by Barack Obama. But I digress.

The database is compiled by banks and other financial institutions who report “suspicious financial activity” to the Treasury Department:

Financial institutions that operate in the United States are required by law to file reports of “suspicious customer activity,” such as large money transfers or unusually structured bank accounts, to Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).The Federal Bureau of Investigation already has full access to the database.

On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul gave his long awaited foreign policy speech at the Heritage Foundation. In it, he tried to outline a foreign policy vision that is a departure from the foreign policy that has been offered for more than a decade by the GOP. Also in the speech, he tried to distance himself from his father, Ron Paul’s, more radical non-interventionist views. Predictably, both neoconservatives and libertarian non-interventionists were not pleased with the speech. However, Senator Paul’s speech may open up a path for Republicans and conservatives to regain lost credibility on foreign policy and national security issues and tie it into the larger issues of debt and spending.

Senator Paul began the speech with this.

I see the world as it is.   I am a realist, not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.

That sentence largely defines what Paul’s policy is. Traditional conservative realism as oppose to the alternatives of neoconservative hyper-interventionism and quasi-isolationist noninterventionism. A third way that is skeptical of intervention while at the same time engaged and active in the world.

Senator Paul also did something very few American politicians have done since 9/11, have a frank discussion with the American people about radical Islam.

The West is in for a long, irregular confrontation not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical Islam.

It’s that time of year when I take a stab at guessing what will happen in the new year. Just like always, I will take a stab at national politics, international politics, the economy, and sports.

Here’s how I did last year.

National

*There will be a debt ceiling fight. America’s credit worthiness will be downgraded. Ultimately, the debt ceiling will be raised with no real spending cuts or entitlement reforms.

*No gun control legislation will pass this year on the Federal level. However, the left will embark on a cultural campaign against gun ownership in general.

*Minor filibuster reform will be enacted in the Senate and will be largely limited to Presidential appointments and budgetary issues.

*Chris Cristie is reelected governor of New Jersey and Terry McCauliffe is elected governor of Virginia.

*There will be a significant terrorist attack on US soil.

*Gay marriage becomes legal in Illinois.

*Proposition 8 in California is struck down by the Supreme Court on very narrow grounds that would apply on to that particular case.

*At least one state abolishes the death penalty.

*John Kerry will be confirmed as Secretary of State, but Chuck Hagel will be denied Secretary of Defense.

International

*Japan begins to rearm and becomes more aggressive with China.

*North Korea will create an incident with South Korea that will raise tensions but will ultimately die back down after a month or two.

*NATO forces strike Syria and force Bashir Assad from power.

*Hugo Chavez finally dies and makes his voyage to Hell.

*The European Union continues on the path towards centralizing into a superstate, while anti-EU parties do well in various national elections.

*Netanyahu reelected as Israeli Prime Minister

Since the defeat of the Republican Party last month in the elections by our glorious Dear Ruler Barack Obama, many questions are being asked about the Republican Party and by extension the conservative movement. One of the first questions that comes up is how the Republican Party and maybe conservatism itself has to change in order to be competitive in future elections. The future of conservatism is to return to the first principles of limited government, Federalism, and individual liberty. The key to that is by embracing constitutional conservatism.

Constitutional conservatism is what exactly what it says, governing according to the Constitution. Constitutional conservatives like myself believe that the powers of the Federal government are limited, especially by Article 1, Section 8. There is no Constitutional justification for things like the Department of Education, food stamps, Obamaphones, nutrition guidelines and the vast majority of the other things the Federal government does. The Federal government exceeding its Constitutional limits is why we run annual deficits of over $1 trillion and have a national debt of around $16 trillion. The most logical way to bring down the deficit or better yet eliminate it without resorting to job killing tax increases is to eliminate all unconstitutional spending.

Our rulers in Washington DC are fighting over the so-called “fiscal cliff” which means that at the end of the year a bunch of “spending cuts” and tax increases will take effect causing all sorts of calamities. Our wonderful representatives in Congress and our brilliant President/Messiah, Barack Obama are trying to work out a “balanced” deal to make everything alright. The “balanced” deal appears to be we raise taxes today, especially on the evil “rich”, and that we cut spending in a few years (ie. never). No one on Capitol Hill dares to suggest that instead of asking American taxpayers to pay more taxes that we actually, you know cut spending. The fiscal cliff debate is actually America’s time for choosing of whether or not we will be a country that values freedom and liberty or we will be a country subservient to the state.

Both parties proposals’ are generally the same. Higher taxes, no real spending cuts, and no real entitlement reform. The only differences are the numbers and who benefits and who loses. There is no real choice for those of us who believe in liberty and freedom. The Republican Party, which is supposed to be the party of limited government, is now actively purging fiscal conservatives from important committee positions. What are those of us who believe in liberty supposed to do?