Ron Paul would never have put forth such legislation that so very explicitly violates the liberties of Americans.

 

SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov wrote:

> Dear Mr. Kowis:
> 
> Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Intelligence
> Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). I appreciate having the benefit of your
> comments on this important national security matter.
> 
> Gathering communications intelligence is one of America’s front lines of
> defense in the War on Terror. As you may know, Congress passed the
> Protect America Act (P.L. 110–55) in August 2007, modernizing FISA to
> give intelligence professionals the tools they urgently need to gather
> information, while still protecting the civil liberties of Americans.
> Senator John Rockefeller introduced the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.
> 2248) on October 26, 2007, in an effort to continue this vital work. S.
> 2248 would expand the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
> Court, empowering the Court to have more scrutiny over surveillance
> procedures and acquisitions. This legislation also increases
> congressional oversight of surveillance matters by increasing reporting
> requirements and requiring audits by the Inspector General.
> 
> Changes to FISA included in S. 2248 would further provide civil immunity
> for communications carriers that assisted the government with
> surveillance in the past, as well as create civil immunity for future
> assistance. Communications carriers are currently facing billions of
> dollars in lawsuits for their role in assisting the National Security
> Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, instituted after the September
> 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Terrorist Surveillance Program worked
> to thwart terrorist attacks by intercepting communications between
> suspected terrorists overseas and potential operatives within the United
> States. Though acting without a court warrant, the program was conducted
> under the President's broad authority to protect and defend the nation.
> Communications carriers provided invaluable assistance, relying on
> official assurances of legality. While the process of litigation is
> integral to our system of laws, I believe it is unfair to punish the
> communications companies for patriotic compliance with the federal
> government’s War on Terror.

It's unfair to punish the communications companies for willfully
breaking the law? The position of the President is not above the
Constitution. If I recall correctly, the job of the President, that he
swore to do upon entering office, is to "uphold and defend the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Such legislation
shouldn't have been passed in any form or fashion.  The Constitution
specifically prohibits search without a warrant in the fourth amendment
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

A true patriot would realize this and protect the highest form of law in
our land, not subvert it.

Civil immunity for future "assistance" is one of the worst ideas I've
ever heard of. This is akin to telling someone they have no consequences
for their actions, effectively putting that person above the law. The
communications corporations that I rely on to conduct business, and
personal communication, must be held accountable for their actions. I
would expect the same for myself, and anyone else. Responsibility is a
trait this country, in general, is losing.

> 
> Providing civil immunity for communications carriers that assist
> government surveillance in the future is important to ensuring the
> effective collection of intelligence. Communications technology has
> become increasingly complex, requiring the voluntary cooperation of
> carriers to effectively gather information. Without this cooperation,
> the intelligence efforts of the United States will be severely
> debilitated. Providing immunity allows communications carriers to rely
> on official assurances of necessity and legality and guarantees their
> much needed cooperation. It is important to note that the bill does not
> grant immunity to government officials. Additionally, I was pleased that
> S. 2248 was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Intelligence
> Committee, by a bipartisan vote of 13–2. On February 12, 2008, the
> Senate approved S. 2248 by a vote of by 68-29, proving that members can
> work together in a bipartisan manner to improve our national security.

The intelligence gathering of the United States will not be hampered.
Spying on citizens without a warrant will be hampered. Intelligence
gathering on people in foreign nations is perfectly acceptable, and
should happen. However, spying on people within the United States is
unconstitutional and goes against everything this country was founded
on. Unfortunately, it will be very difficult to identify government
officials that have worked with communications companies. Especially if
the companies are offered immunity. They can destroy records of any
contact and can deny anything.

> 
> As a member of both the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees,
> I am committed to ensuring that we appropriately balance our national
> security needs and the protection of our civil liberties. I believe that
> the amended FISA bill, including the immunity provision for
> communications carriers, strikes this much needed balance. I appreciate
> the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United
> States Senate, and am thankful for your comments as the Senate considers
> this important legislation.

I do not believe that giving up liberties to garner a very small amount
of security is worth anything at all. This "balance" you believe you've
struck is ruining the United States of America. You're stealing
liberties that make this country great. No company, person, or
organization should be above the law. I do not feel that you accurately
represent the interests of Texans in the US Senate, especially not me.
--
David Kowis
==================================================================
|       www.ronpaul2008.com      |    www.sourcemage.org         |
|      Ron Paul for President!   |   SourceMage GNU/Linux        |
==================================================================

Not good enough. Send it back and demand a balanced budget. If Bush were my financial officer, and I was on the board of directors (or whatever it is that leads and directs a corporation), I’d fire him.

“We won’t actually be making any money until 4 years from now, by which time I’ll be retired and this won’t be my problem anymore!”

Also, this isn’t a real plan. According to the article, the budget “assumes multi-year cuts in domestic discretionary programs, without detailing where these cuts are to occur beyond the first year.” That’s like saying, “We’ll save lots of money by reducing spending on various programs and things.” Well, where exactly is that going to come from? How much do the individual programs need to be reduced? Unacceptable. This is piss poor management of the money I’ve been forced to give to the government.

 Worst. Budget. Ever.

Unlike our current President, Ron Paul has a tangible plan. I like how specific House Resolutions are cited in the plan. This man is actually doing something to help provide a better economy. He’s not doing it through increased regulations; trying to force people to do things. He’s opening up the market instead. Making it easier to do things, removing the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that is required to do things.

Quite simply, Ron Paul as president is what this country needs. After that, we need a congress that supports his ideas.

I’d say it’s going well. The article discusses things like how various candidates get a head of steam in one or two of the primaries, but tend to peter out in other states. Ron paul “lingers like a cold.” I suppose consistency is better than surges of greatness.

I’ve personally never followed politics, so I don’t know how things will go. I don’t know what effect getting a constant 6-10% of the votes will mean. I hope that it means that Ron Paul will win the presidency. I hope it means that he’ll be able to take this country in a different direction than we’ve been going. I hope it means that we’ll have greater personal freedoms. I hope it means that the Federal Government will be smaller and have less of a grip on my personal life.

 I hope all those things happen. I have no way of predicting if they will. I can only do things to try to help make sure it happens. There are things you can do too. If you’re in favor of a smaller government, if you don’t think that the government owns your money, if you favor a government that follows the laws it sets….

Support the Ron Paul Campaign.

While donating is good, it’s not the only thing necessary. Lots of people see Ron Paul as a nutjob. The sound-bites of things he says are often put in a negative spin by the media to promote the candidate of their choice. (I don’t think one of them has chosen to support Ron Paul. Probably due to the fact that he wants to remove the government’s ability to influence the markets. Big corporations can buy off senators and congressman to help influence the market in their directon. Removing that ability weakens the corporation. Let’s face it, the “unbiased” “fair” media are corporations. They’re in it to make money. So if they report favorably on someone that isn’t going to help them make money…. I’m sure you’ve figured it out by now. Now what was I originally ranting about?) It takes a bit of thought to understand what Dr. Paul is trying to say; not a great deal, not a Ph. D. Just a bit more than an 30 second sound-bite, smashed in between a political pundit offering up loaded questions. Take some time and read the issues he’s presented. Watch the videos on YouTube. It might just open your eyes a bit.

But also, get up and do something. Even if it’s a small thing as putting a sign in your yard, a bumpersticker on your car, or a sign in your window. Let the common people know that you believe in Ron Paul and the message of small government.

 It starts. By 2011, we’ll all have to have a Federally issued Identification Card. If you haven’t figured it out. This is really, really bad. The majority of the yahoo’s that visit cnn.com think its a good idea! How on earth can you think that having the government track you is a good idea? Hasn’t the mistakes with the VA personal data taught you anything? The government doesn’t need to know everything. The governments job is to protect our rights. Not add additional restrictions.

By 2017 everyone in the US will be required to have a REAL ID issued to them. It’s not going to prevent any attacks. The only way it might stop immigration: People will quit wanting to be here, because they don’t want the government watching everything they do. Orwell’s 1984 was only 33 years too soon.

Ron Paul’s ideals need to live on. Even if he doesn’t make the presidency, the revolution he started must survive. Small government is the way of the republic. Need I remind you that the president’s job is to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This REAL ID system is a domestic enemy of the constitution. It takes away rights of the individual. In the pledge of allegiance you pledge to “the republic for which it stands.” A republic empowers and protects the individual. Democracys empower and protect the group, sacrificing the individual. We need to stay a republic. We need to stay free. We don’t need a national ID system. It won’t do anything except oppress the most free country in the world, possibly turning us into the least free.

 Also, it’s kinda our constitutional right. We can’t allow a global government to overrule the soverign rights of our country!

So it’s only a matter of time. Ron Paul will win this election. He has to. The futures of our children ride upon it.

If you’re registered to vote (and if you’re not, get it done!) and you don’t know who to vote for. Consider Ron Paul. It doesn’t get much better than him. If you envision a government that isn’t above the constitution or the law, vote for Ron Paul.

A few excerpts:

The Law and Education

You say: “There are persons who lack education,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

The Law and Charity

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

Yep. The US dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar. We seriously need to wake up as a country. Our economy blows!

Pulling out of our extranational conflicts may allow “the terrorists” to “win,” but they’re already winning. Our country is the economically weakest it’s been in a long time. Perhaps ever. The US dollar, once the strongest monetary unit in the world, is now worth it’s weight in gold. Which doesn’t say much, considering it’s PAPER.

Soon, that’s all it’ll be worth. Just a sheet of paper. IIRC, the confederate states of america, a long, long time ago, had the same problem. Their ‘dollar’ wasn’t worth anything. It wasn’t gold or silver backed.  Our money needs something behind it to give it weight.

The only politician  that I’ve seen that seems to get this is Dr. Ron Paul. He’s the only one that notices that our country is spiraling downward. The Gov’t is in such great debt that it should be bankrupt. Something needs to be done. There is only one hope for America.