consultants are sandburs

Sunday, January 05, 2014

A clear act of hyprocrisy. Posing as if favoring liberty, while the most basic unit of governance beyond the individual, the family, has to fight tooth and nail for reproductive LIBERTY. These are people posing, not true advocates of the most basic of individual or family rights.

Talk about picking low hanging fruit, while in the process accepting the Mark of The Beast. Forehead and hand.

The Beast being the lawyer in the scenario.

This link: http://www.randpac.com/

If you block javascript in your Browser for security purposes, you miss the popup, so here's the popup via a screen capture, in case:

He admits, Larry Klayman has already marked the corners of the territory.


(Reportdly the guy named after Ayn Rand also trumpets his thing on Facebook, but since I refuse to use it except in very rare instances, readers who care can pursue that allegation on their own.)

The Beast being the lawyer in the scenario. Strib reports on this Grandstanding with The Beast:

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Rand Paul says he is filing suit against the Obama administration over the data-collection policies of the National Security Agency. [...]

Paul says that people who want to join the suit are telling the government that it can't have access to emails and phone records without permission or without a specific warrant.

Paul says the lead lawyer in the suit is Virginia's former attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli.

There you have it: A closing single sentence naming of names that exposes the hoax. So far the discernible LIBERTY Rand Paul likes is little beyond license to the 1% to remain in their plucking stations (with most) and their shearing domains (with a few that are needed beyond feeding and discarding, termed by those in the 1%, "the middle class").

In case the name "Ken Cuccinelli" fails to ring a bell, a simple Google may help.

Opportunism's handmaiden, this Cuccinelli is, while the ACLU is pursuing a trustworthy suit against NSA spying which is getting, for reasons I can only guess at, less press than Larry Klayman's Flying Circus.



This embrace of Cuccinelli in a flying circus type stunt is a step worthy of publicity-hound Michele Bachmann. That phony. That venal. That disingenuous. It is being as Larry Klaymanesque as Larry Klayman. If you are an idiot, Stand with Rand. The guy is hitching his wagon to a star on the wane. (At least we who think can strongly hope so.)

Enough? In closing, reflect back to that link in the screen capture caption; here. This Constitutional scholar, Rand Paul, touts that he introduced a bill "the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act which, if enacted, would have restored our Constitutional rights and declared that the Fourth Amendment 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."

Up until deciding there was a making-hay opportunity in being ally to Cuccinelli (and Cuccinelli's credibilty), all we saw was, paraphrased, "The court order Larry Klayman attained is nice, and I put a three-page bill in the hopper." A bill that amateurishly reads more like a press release than a serious legislative proposal, the only thing in it beyond recital language being something that mish-moshes separation of legislative and judicial powers while ignoring the internet traffic of citizens:

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 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.

Please, somebody, tell this Senator that construing the Constitution has since the time of John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison rested with the judiciary. It is not proper under precedent for the Legislature to tell the judiciary how to do its job. There are nuances, but basically, high school civics classes teach as much.

Sooooo -- Big-time effort, Rand. You want a gold star for it? For wanting a little class action traction?

Well - Woo, woo. I am impressed.

Now, how about an honest bit of detail on precisely how you picked Cuccinelli, (or vice versa), and why? And some detail on your view of how men might be judged by the company they keep?

Two final closing links - then a google, here and here. Make it a link trifecta, via this item. Cuccinelli is a loose cannon, and binding oneself to a loose cannon may prove unwise, so be alert and quick afoot, if you do decide to Stand with Rand.

The google? Here. It includes a link to that uber-liberal news outlet, Wall Street Journal, here.

UPDATE: In a what's-it-all-about mode of presentation, this nymag.com item speculates:


It's a brazen move by Paul, a likely 2016 presidential contender who delights in antagonizing national security hawks in the Chris Christie wing of the GOP. Although Senate rules prohibit Paul from using his title in the suit, the Kentucky Republican will act as the lead plaintiff in the case against the spy agency, representing between 250,000 and 300,000 people who voluntarily signed on to the class-action suit via his Paul's RANDPAC website.

Paul will also be getting an assist from Ken Cuccinelli, the failed 2013 Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate who will be out of his job as state attorney general next week. Sources say that Cuccinelli plans to join Paul's team as a legal advisor for the NSA suit, reprising his role as the Tea Party's most litigious firebrand.

So far though, the details of Paul's lawsuit are murky. A legal counsel for Paul told Daily Intelligencer Friday that he expects the case will be similar to another NSA suit filed by birther provocateur Larry Klayman. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon agreed with Klayman's arguments last month, ruling that the NSA's metadata collection violates the Fourth Amendment. The Paul advisor said that lawyers are now studying Leon's ruling to formulate arguments for their class-action case.

Of course, other federal courts have found the NSA's surveillance programs to be within bounds of the Constitution. And Paul's lawyers will also need to prove that their suit has standing as a class-action case — a tall order given the conflicting legal precedents on domestic drone surveillance.

In the end, the lawsuit is simply foreplay, both for the Supreme Court and for Paul's anticipated 2016 White House run. And regardless of the legal outcome, compiling a list of 300,000 devoted civil libertarians isn't a bad way to kick off a campaign.

[links in original] I may be mistaken, but it seems Ron Paul picks his friends carefully, and if so, then in that sense the apple fell far from the tree. So, is it all about Chris Christie's base and a counter-base, and contributor list dynamics? Men and women of conscience may wonder.

No comments: