Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio: Surveillance State is Here to Stay, OK?


Helping limn the growing divide between more traditional conservatives and the nascent "liberty movement" in the GOP is this comment from likely presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida--especially when contrasted with other likely presidential contender Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. 

Marco Rubio Nsa

From Huffington Post over the weekend:

Amid news that the National Security Agency has secretly been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) suggested surveillance programs aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

"The threat that we face -- largely radical, political Islamists -- is probably a threat that is going to exist for the rest of our lifetimes. It's just the reality. We have to deal with it," Rubio told reporters Thursday, according to the Tampa Bay Times. "The world changed after 9/11, and it changed after Boston. It's just a struggle to try to balance our deeply held convictions of privacy and freedoms and liberties with our need to provide for national security."

Rubio -- a member of the Intelligence Committee -- said the programs are "part of intense congressional oversight" and something Congress "members are aware of."

"They get to review from time to time and see how it's being applied," Rubio said.

Well, that's certainly a relief, that the defenders of our Constitution who just think this is the way things are now get to sort of hear how things are.

Rand Paul has had a different attitude. And I hope that matters in 2016.

NEXT: Justice Department Hasn't Challenged Any Agency's FOIA Exemptions Since 2009

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey Marco Rubio: chinga tu madre pinche penedejo.

    1. *kicks Rubio down the stairs*

      ?qu? pas?, Marco?

    2. Let me introduce you to my little friend?

    3. Este tipo es peor que un pendejo: es un desgraciado y un cabron.

  2. It won't matter. Just take a look at the polling on this issue. Not enough people give a shit to make a difference.

    Is it too early to drink?

    1. is it too late to start drinking?

      1. It was always too late.

    2. GOP members seem stongly opposed to it. At least now.

      So it might matter in the primary.

    3. But teenage girls can get an abortion from a vending machine, so all is well in the nation, right?

      1. Dead babies woulda voted Team Red, so yeah

      2. I know its a joke but Plan B isn't an abortifacient.

        1. Plan B needs better branding.

        2. It is if you're a wacko fundie.

        3. abortifacient

          Great extreme metal band name.

    4. I've been drinking for hours.

    5. Rand Paul Marco Rubio

      1. What, no greater than sign? The squirrels eat those too?

  3. OK? Uh... gonna go with no.

    Maybe I should I have went with No, bite my ass.

  4. This equating of the Boston bombings to 9/11 in terms of magnitude is risible. They're only doing it because it's the latest thing they can grasp for to justify the surveillance state. I imagine people like Rubio would love another 9/11 just for the fear it would cause and the exponential increase in government power it would allow. He's probably disappointed Boston's was as small as it was.

    1. It's also incredibly mendacious in the case of the Boston Bombing.

      "We need this massive security state, so that we can go on failing to protect America from terrorist attacks that a spastic gibbon could have seen coming. Anyone saying otherwise hates mom, apple pie, and the Constitution."

      1. "If we didn't have a massive security state, how could you expect us to stop 9/11 and Boston?"

        It really is doublethink.

        1. If they prevent an attack then they're doing good and should get more funding.

          If they miss an attack then it's because they don't have enough funding.

          Heads they win, tails we lose.

          1. It kind of reminds me of the weeping moms who talk about how we need the War on Drugs because their snowflakes OD'd on drugs which were already illegal.


              1. It saved your mom. And look how that worked out for all of us.

                1. It was the amount of drugs that crossed the placenta that accounts for who Epi is today.

                  1. Hey, don't discount the inbreeding!

                    1. Sorry, I meant one of the important factors.

            2. Yeah, it's worth the crime and the corruption if it keeps kids off drugs. Except it doesn't.

          2. Non-falsifiability is their bailiwick.

            1. PROVE it.

              Oh, SNAP!

    2. Look man, setting off a pressure cooker bomb on the street that killed 3 people is exactly the same thing as flying a fully loaded 737 into a building, causing it to collapse. It's the exact same thing!

      It's not his fault you're too stupid to see that.

      1. And the fact that the Ruskis warned us about the Boston bombers and we were too busy reading people's email to bother paying attention to the warning... what about that Senator?

        1. *calls in drone strike on crashland*

        2. It means of course that we must monitor US citizens more thoroughly. If it does not work, try more of the same. If it still does not work, double down again. Do not think, thinking is treason.

          1. You mean double up again, not down. You get to double down only once, but somehow a blackjack metaphor has inappropriately displaced the more apt phrase.

        3. Actually, it turns out the Ruskis and the Saudis. As I said at the time, I really wouldn't have been too surprised if they were named "Most Likely to Blow Up the Boston Marathon" in their respective high school classes.

      2. This.

    3. Is anyone out there even arguing that what they are doing violates the 4A? How can they even make the claim that they have such authority?

      No, fuck you, obey the Constitution.

      1. Because metadata is not considered personal or private.

        1. It belongs to the service provider. If the service provider CHOOSES to not give it to the government they can tell the government to fuck off and die in a fire, right up to the point that the government gets a warrant.

          And then, I'm fairly certain to get that warrant they need probable cause and to specifically state where and what information is to be seized.

          If you are datamining, how can you claim probable cause?

          1. No, because you "shared" this data with a third party its no longer private. Since its no longer private the government can demand it.

            Its like banking data - you have to give the bank a lot of extraneous information because the government requires you to do so and once you've done so that info is no longer private and so the government can demand it without a warrant.

            1. Has nothing to do with privacy. It's about the 4th Amendment.

              Say I'm the service provider. I own that information. It is part of my "effects". I choose who I share it with. I sign a contract with my customer that I own the data but will not give it to the government without proper legal proceedings. Those proper proceedings must comply with 4A.

              It doesn't matter that the info exists elsewhere. All that matters is that it's mine and I don't want to give it to the government.

              1. (more)

                Are you claiming that the government gets to choose which of your "effects" fall under 4A?

                1. Pretty much - not just which of your effects, but the time and place where they may have lessoned protections.

                  For example

                  Searches of phones, computers, data storage devices at the border (this exemption applies up to 100 miles from the actual border)

                  Blood samples taken at the site of a DUI stop

                  Several government agencies have already claimed the "right" to wiretap and/or copy/seize records without a warrant (the IRS for example).

                  I'm not saying that I agree with the policy, just that the courts have ruled (wrongly in my opinion) that most of your "rights" aren't really guaranteed due process if someone from the government says that its really important.

                  1. Perhaps if people said, "No, fuck you, obey the Constitution" when they claimed some of the other powers you mention, we wouldn't be here today.

                    It's too bad they waited so long to give a shit, but perhaps this will throw some sand on the slippery slope.

                    Not holding my breath.

              2. Google what happened to the former CEO of Qwest Communications when he refused to hand over customer data to the NSA.

                They have ways of making you talk.

          2. "If the service provider CHOOSES to not give it to the government they can tell the government to fuck off and die in a fire, right up to the point that the government gets a warrant."

            Well, no, as we established yesterday, it's more like right up to the point that the government tells them "Nice spectrum license you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it."

        2. I disagree. And frankly, the SC's opinion on what I consider private is worth fuckall to me.

    4. Or using the bombings as justification for a program that provided not even the slightest defense against that bombing.

      Telling me that I need to give up some liberty for a little security might work - if I was actually getting some fucking security.

  5. What a piece of shit. Dammit, I had a lot of hope for Rubio after he campaigned on entitlement reform in Florida of all places.

    1. Dude was Speaker of the House here. He's an insider, not an outsider.

      1. How we gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent?

        1. It's OK - we have an Inside Man helping us with that...

        2. I'll reform you, you soft-headed SOB.

    2. On the bright side, Ted Cruz said this:

      We have discovered over the past few months an ongoing pattern of wanton disregard not only for Americans' privacy, but for the truth ? DOJ's refusal to be forthcoming about drone policy, IRS's targeting groups for their political beliefs and then misleading the American people about it, DOJ's targeting of journalists for doing their jobs, and now what seems an unprecedented intrusion into Americans' personal phone records and potentially into their broader online activities.

      And Rand Paul has made his opposition to this clear. Amash and Massie are certainly opposed to it as well.

      Udall and Wyden also both came out against this, so there are Democrats who are holding to their principles as well. Personally, I'm just happy that there are so many people in the House and Senate who are so vocally opposed to this sort of thing. 10 years ago it was basically only Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.

      1. It seems to me that whatever the intentions of the Tea Party at the outset, it has had the benefit of restoring the civil libertarian aspects of conservatism that existed pre-9/11, at least in part.

        1. In large part, yes. My impression is that the Tea Parties started out interested primarily in free enterprise issues. Then the Republican establishment & socons tacked themselves on to pick up votes. A sizeable portion has followed the logic of the Tea Parties' premises to the libertarian conclusion.

      2. Really, Wyden/Udall and Paul/Cruz/Amash/Massie need to make a bigger show of standing together on this. Boobus Americanus might not care much about government watching him bang his girlfriend on his couch through his Kinect, but he sure likes that there bipartisanship, because it means he doesn't have to think about things.

      3. So here's a thought that surely will not sit well with anyone here:

        Why not form a temporary political party, call it 'Restore America' or some bullshit. The platform is keep the same economic policy we have now and roll back the security state. We've got enough folks to make it happen if we stop fighting over economic theory. In a few years, we disband the party and go back to hating each other again.

        1. I have no problem with doing nothing but rolling back the security state. I'd argue that the security state and the hyper-active police have a dampening effect on the economy as well, since sending people to prison for things that shouldn't even be crimes costs the tax payer a ton of money and also removes people who could otherwise be productive.

          Fixing the police state could kill two birds with one stone.

      4. I don't know. It's a nice trend, but 525-10 loses just as badly as 533-2.

    3. I could have told you that Rubio was completely in the pocket of the establishment. How this guy claims any connection to the 'Tea Party' is beyond me.

      1. How this guy claims any connection to the 'Tea Party' is beyond me.

        Opportunistically, is how. He does claim connection when it serves him, and denies connection when it does not.

        Shortly after winning as the tea party candidate he started distancing and claiming he himself wasn't tea party.

        Dude is and always was a typical Republican. He was in that senate race before Crist. Crist was stepping on his dick and cutting in line. If Crist had ran first, Rubio would never have ran.

        1. Thanks for reminding me I can't hate him too much, because he put the kybosh on Charlie's political ambitions.

          1. No, the Tea Party put the kibosh on Charlie's political ambitions.

            Rubio was just the tool they used. Unfortunately, they seem to have fallen in love with the guy over it.

            Even back then I remember being perplexed by the hardcore Rubio-love before he had done anything, and then again after he started fucking up at least half the time. I don't know what it is, but at the time I was tempted to think it was affirmative action love, because he was Hispanic and young and they so desperately want more minority conservatives.

            He's better than Crist, but that doesn't make him any good. Low bar man.

          2. Like I said: Rubio was no insurgent hero out to unseat Crist. He was not. He was in that senate race FIRST.

            Crist came along and tried to walk over him to the nomination. And he was speaker of the FL House, so he probably didn't like getting treated like a nobody.

            Had Charlie Crist started running for that Senate seat before Rubio had, instead of trying to cut in front of him, Rubio probably would have been a good boy and endorsed Crist and stayed out.

            1. Depends. The feeling at the time was that everyone knew that the guy who was appointed by Crist chose not to run because he was Crist's placeholder.

      2. Same way Rick Santorum could claim to be the Tea Party candidate when he trashed them when they were happening.

      3. Most of the Tea Party is in the pocket of the establishment. It's really just a cats paw so the usual suspects can pretend they sprang into existence on January 20, 2009 and thus avoid taking responsibility for anything they did prior to that point.

    4. I know. He could have gotten a ride back to Cuba with his family if he likes the totalitarian state so damn much.

    5. I smelled a cunt the first time I heard him give a speech.

      1. There's my problem. I don't listen to politicians speak anymore; my wife got tired of me throwing bricks at the television set and I got tired of having a vein protruding from my neck at all times.

    6. What a piece of shit. Dammit, I had a lot of hope for Rubio after he campaigned on entitlement reform in Florida of all places.

      That will be quite you know to whom you are referring....that's Marco Rubio: BOY PRESIDENT!

      A little respect.

    7. I had upgraded him to "neutral" after he helped out with the drone fillibuster. I'm moving him back to "douchy scumbag".

      1. He 'helped out' by joining in the publicity after it started trending on Twitter man.

        1. He did it early enough (compared to all the other doofuses that showed up in the last hour), so that I couldn't tell if he actually had some civil liberties kung fu. Now it's pretty obvious he was just riding the bandwagon. Just like the whole tea party thing.

        2. Hey, at least his political weathervane is working. If liberty gets popular, he'll be on our side.

          McCain will always be a statist.

    8. He's a neocon. I expected this form him. I hope it stains him in the eyes of more people now.

  6. "our deeply held convictions of privacy and freedoms and liberties"

    He does a good job of concealing it, if he's part of the "our."

  7. "The world changed after 9/11."

    No, it didn't. We had a large, intrusive surveillance state being built before then. The FISA court's been around since 1978. All that electronic surveillance did fuck-all to prevent the 9/11 attacks, just as it did fuck-all to prevent the Boston bombing.

    1. That line of thinking is incredibly narcissistic. The Berlin Wall coming down changed everything. Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed everything. 9/11 changed almost nothing -- it was tragic, but was neither the largest nor most unique terrorist attack in modern times. Only a cloistered and ignorant mind would describe it as changing "everything", though certainly the poisonous viewpoints which it encouraged changed much both in this country and abroad, mostly for ill.

      1. It changed everything in that it actually affected real Americans here at home rather than just dark-skinned savages in far off lands where they don't even have the decency to speak English. "Everything" doesn't include anything outside of America.

      2. It changed everything insofar as it weakened America's will enough to let the state do what it had always wanted to do.

    2. Exactly. 911 and Boston just provided the govt cover to ratchet up the police state, and The People? by and large fell for it.

      Way to be pussies, America! Sept, 2001 marks the time I started chaning from a NeoCon to...not that, and started to truly understand and cherish individual liberty. Scale falling from the eyes and all that.

      Fuck you, Rubio, you statist fuck. I'm guessing it's too late for you, since you're already part of the problem.

  8. "The threat that we face -- largely radical, political Islamists -- is probably a threat that is going to exist for the rest of our lifetimes. It's just the reality. We have to deal with it,"

    Since the terrorists keep winning, can't we just forfeit the rest of the season and get back to our normal lives?

    1. The only people they seem to ever catch are those they teach to make bombs in the first place.

      When the only thing your national security apparatus actually seems able to do is spy on Americans and entrap people, you might want to rethink a few things.

      1. When the only thing your national security apparatus actually seems able to do is spy on Americans and entrap people, you might want to rethink a few things.

        Now, now; it's also made a few contractors stinking rich.

        It's amazing and horrific. I've said for awhile that the 4th Amendment will only last until the next mass casualty event, but I didn't think it'd be dismantled before that.

        What the fuck is wrong with people? We weren't this bed-shittingly afraid when the Soviets were pointing 10,000 nukes at us. Unlike the Israelis, we aren't having to deal with a bunch of weddings and shopping malls getting blown up by losers with explosives. So why is there this great call to have Uncle Sam all up in everyone's business? Why has thinking for yourself, and insisting on one's autonomy and liberty, suddenly become a sin?

        I'm not normally one to play this card, but attitudes like the ones Rubio and Brooks from the NYT are spouting, are downright un-American. They are glaringly wrong in light of our history, our Constitution, and our way of life. And they seem to be shared by a majority of people these days. Or am I wrong?

        1. They are shared by a majority of the political and media classes, and since those are the people you hear from the most, it seems overwhelming. And remember, the biggest pants-shitters in the public are also going to be the ones submitting to this the most eagerly and obviously, so that will be mostly what you see as well.

  9. Hey Rube shitting all over our values means there ain't nuthing left to protect.

  10. "The threat that we face -- largely radical, political Islamists -- is probably a threat that is going to exist for the rest of our lifetimes. It's just the reality. We have to deal with it," Rubio told reporters Thursday, according to the Tampa Bay Times. "The world changed after 9/11, and it changed after Boston. It's just a struggle to try to balance our deeply held convictions of privacy and freedoms and liberties with our need to provide for national security."

    Seriously? The world changed after Boston? Really? A couple of mal-adapted youths killed a few people with pressure cooker bombs and "OMFG!!!! THE WORLD CHANGED!!!!"

    Get a grip, Rubio.
    Bin Laden is dead.
    Al Qaeda hasn't launched a major attack in years.

    And yet, we're supposed to believe that the threat is just as imminent as ever. As if it wasn't there in the 1990s or in the 1980s, or in the 1970s, which we somehow managed to live through without the NSA surveillance.

    1. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

      1. "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air ? that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."

      2. Mencken was a pimp.

    2. A fringe benefit of the Cold War was that it gave Americans a sense of perspective vis a vis terrorism. If the Lebanon bombing happened today, pols like Rubio would be on the tube caterwauling about how the attack "changed everything" and throwing darts at a map of the Middle East to figure out where to put boots on the ground.

      1. I'll take "The Entire Middle East" for 100,000, Alex

  11. Look, the victims of the Boston bombing have my sympathy, but it's just NOT THAT MANY DEAD PEOPLE.

    I have no problem saying that the dead children of Newtown are no reason to do away with the 2nd Amendment. This is because I already knew that occasionally criminals shoot people, so the Newtown incident added no new information. I wasn't willing to do away with the 2nd Amendment to end crime before, and I'm not willing to do so now.

    So I also have no problem saying that the dead spectators at the Boston Marathon are no reason to get rid of the 4th Amendment. Criminals occasionally kill people. We knew that before. Criminals have been killing people for a very long time. The men who wrote the 4th Amendment knew that criminals kill people. The Boston bombing added no new information.

    9/11 involved orders of magnitude more dead, but it still boils down to "criminals kill people". There were thousands of other homicide victims during FY 2001. There are thousands more every year, and there were thousands every year before that. If the Bill of Rights is rendered a bad idea by the death of innocents, it was always a bad idea and should never have been written.

    1. Like.

    2. Piling on the above, are these people completely ignorant of history? Have they even heard of the Anarchist movement of the late 19th century, you know, the one that was killing the actual leaders of Europe and the U.S? If it wasn't necessary to bring about the Stasi then, why the hell is it now?

      And it doesn't even fucking work! Not that it would be any more right if it did, but at least utilitarians might then have a point. But this shit doesn't work. The Brothers were given to us on a silver platter. The underwear bomber was ratted out by his own dad. And yet these guys still were able to attempt their crimes. Where are all of the plots that have been stopped, if it's so necessary for the Feds to read all of our mail?

    3. Yup. More people died on the highways of Boston in April than at the marathon. If this is the best they can do, some piss ant bombing every few years, then we are in pretty good shape. This is what success looks like.

      Beyond that, we had this program and it didn't prevent Boston from happening. So it doesn't seem to make us any safer.

      1. From what I understand the collecting of the data requires no warrant, but the analysis does. So they can't just go trolling through, they have to get a warrant to look for something specific. Basically that means that the data can be used only after an attack to find contacts and accomplices. Maybe another attack will be stopped that way, but that's about it. The solution of course is to give them the power to use the data to fish for terrorists and criminals, without the trouble of a warrant.

        1. Yeah because fishing through trillions of terabytes of data is just such an efficient way to do this.

          1. Who said anything about being efficient?

            Seriously though, it wouldn't be ridiculously difficult to find criminals with that data. All you need is one confirmed lawbreaker. That's not hard. Then you fan out a couple degrees of separation. Like the DEA does when they use a small time marijuana dealer to find someone who sells cocaine.

    4. I wasn't willing to do away with the 2nd Amendment to end crime before, and I'm not willing to do so now.

      So, if I understand your twisted logic, if a family of 6 is killed in a fiery crash because of a drunk driver, you're not willing to entertain the idea of banning cars.

      What kind of monster are you?

      1. The proper action in that case would be to ban alcohol. Imagine how much safer the holidays would be, especially Valentine's day.

      2. The same kind that nixed the Clintons' version of the Patriot Act after the Oklahoma City bombings as government overreach.

    5. I wish there was a "like" button for this post. The only thing I'll add is that as a wartime enemy, terrorists are pretty damn ineffective. 400,000 Americans died in WWII, 58,000 died in Vietnam, and 9,600 died in 9/11 + Iraq + Afghanistan (and that has been spread over 12 years). Every death is a loss, every death is tragic, every death should be mourned and respected, but the magnitude of our loss has been pretty small by historical standards. I fail to see how that "changes everything". What's changed is how we've reacted, and that is completely within our control.

    6. There were way more people killed & injured that week in the explosion in West, Texas, and it did a lot more property damage too.

  12. "Marco Rubio: Surveillance State is Here to Stay, OK?"

    No, it isn't OK.

    1. Liberty is bad, mmkay.

  13. Patrick Henry must be spinning away in his grave. We've gone from "Give me liberty or give me death" to

    "Take my liberty, protect me from death."

  14. Shorter Rubio: We keep fucking up and letting people kill you, give us more power.

  15. Yeah, the world did change. It changed from a world where the Land of the Free went from giving lip service to liberty, to being outright hostile to the concept. Humanity is returning to its default state: slavery. And there is no escape.

  16. Well the GOP should accept gay marriage and Hispanic Immigration so why not the surveillance state?

  17. "Rubio -- a member of the Intelligence Committee -- said the programs are "part of intense congressional oversight" and something Congress "members are aware of."

    "They get to review from time to time and see how it's being applied," Rubio said."

    I think Rubio needs to be made aware that WE DON'T FUCKING TRUST CONGRESS EITHER! Not even Rand Paul, not a single fucking one of them. Those mendacious fucks have shown time and again that (even taking as a given that the power-hungry fuckers won't want to use the programs for their own advancement - which I don't) they will fail to uphold their responsibilities and duties if there's the tiniest bit of personal advantage.

    1. So Rubio knew about this and didn't have the balls to stand upon principle and tell us about it... Fuck him and the rest of the intel committee.

    2. Exactly. Even the people who are friendly towards liberty should be watched as closely as the ones that are hostile. No one who wields power should be given a free pass on anything. Skepticism is healthy.

    3. Rubio is really bad at saying things the right way. I'd be amazed he got as far as he has except it's Florida so, you know, perpetual heatstroke (despite the ubiquitous air conditioning...I guess).

      1. I thought he was pretty clear - we should be ok with this because congress knows about it and is exerting oversight.

        the problem with that is, who actually trusts congress to actually do the oversight job properly? There are only a tiny handful of cases where congress has (at least temporarily) stopped executive overreach. RealID was stopped (so far) and TIA was stopped and then appeared under e new name (PRISM) and now they're fine with it.

        What's weird is that these idiots should be among the ones *most* concerned about massive intel gathering on Americans. 'm pissed about it in principle, but in reality I know that there's nothing about my life that would make a government agent do anything except die of boredom.

        Congressmen should be afraid of the power the executive will have once he knows all the little (and not so little) peccadillos that these guys get up to. When the calls to mistresses, leaks to the press, bribes, and back-room dealings are known to the executive he'll use that power to compel obedience. He won't be able to help himself.

        1. Could that be why they're all saying it's OK? He did it already and now has all this dirt on them? That's why people should trust Rand Paul more on this than Rubio. If he had something to hide he isn't letting it get in the way of his principles or he probably really has nothing to hide. What's Rubio's excuse? I agree, he should recognize the People don't trust Congress in general. Maybe he just thinks he's special.

      2. It was a scrappy success story. Son of immigrants from communist hell hole makes good, buys into freedom. He got lost somewhere along the way.

    4. Well, I do have to disagree with the "Not even Rand Paul" part. I would trust him. For the sole reason that he's made clear that he wouldn't trust himself.

  18. Between this and his horrible immigration bill, I guess Rubio has decided that whole rising star thing is just not for him. He would rather be an establishment hack and compete with John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the title of the Senate's worst Republican.

    1. Entering, working and asserting basic civil liberties should be as easy as arriving on a plane. Citizenship should be very difficult to achieve. If you want to be a citizen it means you want to be part of the political process; it means you want to vote. Voting is up there with murder and extortion in the list of terrible things you can do to other human beings. To come here to be a part of this country, work, build a prosperous legacy for generations to come that is all very noble be it what humble roll you intend to play.

      If your intention is to cast a vote, however, go somewhere else, like Venezuela, maybe. It is bad enough that natives get to vote. I hate doing it myself, and only do so in an attempt to constrain the power of others to take away liberties, productive wealth and destroy the social fabric of our nation, all very real outcomes of the electoral process, by supporting candidates who are to a degree less inclined or seem less ambitious to do so than their rivals.

      I realize it makes me a terrible, hypocritical even, human being to even engage in the process, and I have often gotten it wrong (George W. in 2000) so on the basis of fallibility I should stop. If I can get it wrong, and do so often, then what chance does someone who is fresh off the boat have to get it right? Boss Tweed is staring down from the steps of Tammany Hall rubbing his palms together just thinking of how he is going to use your sucker ass.

      1. More or less, this^.


        Universal franchise works at cross purposes with an informed electorate. The population of the US eligible to vote at the Founding was ~10%. It is worth noting that upon expansion of the franchise, the first thing the US did in the context of Presidential elections was to vote a murdering, genocidal bastard into office to steal the land of the Civilized Tribes.

  19. Just so I'm clear, he's saying we need the surveillance state because he's afraid of what would happen if it weren't here?

    So, he admitted the terrorists won.

    Nice job Rube.

  20. Can we make 9/11 a Godwin Corollary if it's not already?

    1. I like it.

    2. You know who else wanted to make linkages betwen historic events for their own purposes...

      1. Stephen Ambrose?

  21. "The threat that we face -- French and Indian aggression -- is probably a threat that is going to exist for the rest of our lifetimes. It's just the reality. We have to deal with it. The world changed after the French & Indian War. It's just a struggle to try to balance the colonists' deeply held convictions about their rights as Englshmen with our need to secure the revenues to support their defense."
    George III

    1. Of course the colonists had their own solution to that, wipe out the Indians. And for the record, George wanted to protect the Indians. The colonists wanted to move west Indians be damned.

    2. Good things the Indians survived, or we might not be able to staff 7-11s.

  22. Rubio's a big fat nothing. He'll also be our next VP.

  23. We only face a threat because we are on their soil. Fix the latter to address the former. This is just Mil-Ind complex rent seeking.

  24. everyone are intered in jerseys can feel free to to us or go to our shop to know about jerseys details.
    1,nfl nike jerseys 1=22$,5=21$
    2,nhl jerseys 1=33.79$,5=32.9$
    3,mlb jerseys 1=17.3$/pcs,5=16.5$
    4,nba jerseys 1=19$,5=18.5$
    5,ncaa jerseys 1=17.3$,5=16.5$
    6,soccer jerseys 21$/pcs
    and other items price here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.