Ted Cruz

After Supporting Surveillance Reforms Snowden Helped Bring About, Ted Cruz Calls Him a Traitor

The USA Freedom Act wouldn't have happened without the leaks.

|

Bring on some more Joe McCarthy comparisons, I guess.
Credit: Scott Olson/Getty

At the last Republican debate, we saw a scrap between senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul over surveillance reforms and limits. Rubio has been consistently in the "collect everything" camp, willing to sacrifice citizen privacy for nebulous security. Paul has been on the other side, demanding an end to unwarranted mass domestic surveillance and smarter focus. Cruz was somewhat in the middle. He is opposed to mass domestic surveillance but accepted the compromise legislation of the USA Freedom Act, which added some barriers to keep the National Security Agency (NSA) from simply collecting all Americans' phone records.

The USA Freedom Act clearly, obviously came about as a result of the public outrage from the revelations leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Of that there can be very little dispute. Cruz seemed to understand the value of what Snowden provided, even though he was hesitant to embrace Snowden's methods. At an event hosted by The Blaze he said, "If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light." But he also said if Snowden broke the law, then the laws need to be enforced. In short, he had a similarly nuanced position as Sen. Paul, who has made similar statements.

The New York Times has dug up those old Cruz comments because Rubio is on the attack, using Cruz's slightly favorable comments toward Snowden as an indictment of Cruz's judgment. The Times went back to Cruz's campaign to see how he feels now about the whistleblower. Prepare to be disappointed:

In a statement, Mr. Cruz took a very different tone, saying?,? "?It is now clear that Snowden is a traitor, and he should be tried for treason."

He pointed to his remark in 2013 that Mr. Snowden should be prosecuted if he broke any laws. "Today, we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia," he said. "Under the Constitution, giving aid to our enemies is treason."

With Paul out of the debate tonight, Cruz was the next best hope for holding the line for a defense against unwarranted domestic surveillance against the likes of Rubio and Chris Christie. But it's disconcerting to see him cast aside the very person responsible for providing impetus for the only restraints on domestic surveillance, as modest as they are.

(Hat tip: Michael Warren at The Weekly Standard)

NEXT: LA Rams Should Pay Back Public Funds to Missouri, Sen. McCaskill Says

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How did Snowden materially aid terrorists?

    1. Questioning that is materially aiding terrorists, citizen.

    2. How did Snowden materially aid terrorists?

      …was never and will not ever be asked at any GOP debate.

    3. By releasing documents proving our government was committing criminal acts he was bolstering terrorist agent’s propaganda that we were committing criminal acts.

  2. “Today, we know that Snowden violated federal law, that his actions materially aided terrorists and enemies of the United States, and that he subsequently fled to China and Russia,” he said. “Under the Constitution, giving aid to our enemies is treason.”

    Fuck off, asshat.

    1. Giving aid to enemies is treason. Snowden’s revelations aided American citizens by telling them what skulduggery their government, allegedly in existence by and for them, was up to with their personal information. Therefore, any politician who calls Snowden a traitor is ipso facto admitting that the government and the citizenry are enemies.

      It’s refreshing, in a way.

  3. Cruz is right on both counts.

    Snowden “helped” bring about reforms to domestic surveillance, but he’s still a traitor.

    And I use “helped” in quotation marks because he didn’t actually offer any constructive plans to reform anything, that was what politicians like Cruz did.

    1. Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Insightful!

        1. It’s what your comment deserved.

    2. Lay off the chemicals, Jeff.

      1. well I’m personally rather fond of dihydrogen monoxide

        1. You should definitely quit cold turkey.

        2. Do you know what fish do in that stuff?

    3. but he’s still a traitor

      To whom?

      1. He betrayed the Top. Men. (and, transitively, their sycophants) to the people they purport to rule, the bastard.

      2. A traitor to those who so painstakingly worked to dismantle the NSA whistleblowing protocols. They worked hard at that. And on your dime.

    4. I see, so Snowden was supposed to do the Congress Crittters’ job for them?

      And no, he is not a traitor. The NSA employees who tow the line are the traitors to their country. The government officials that shit on the 4th amendment and their bosses that encourage them are the traitors.

      The people that would have arrested or disappeared Snowden had he gone through so-called proper channels are the traitors.

  4. HAHA, SNOWDEN GOT AWAY. NEENER NEENER NEENER!

  5. Gosh, if I were a Cruz supporter, I’d sure be feeling stupid right now.

    1. Now?

      1. Well before too. 🙂

    2. It’s going to be hard justify him being “least worst” after this.

      1. Ha. Give it a few more minutes.

        1. Or maybe only one minute…

      2. Yeah, I’ve had him on my “meh, probably the best contender with a shot” list. This won’t knock him off, but it sure doesn’t help.

      3. Not really. He’s still the best after Rand.

        1. That was my position. But now he’s got the stench of slaver that I can’t shake off. I could look past Rand’s pandering. But this shit makes me cringe.

          1. Get over it. Seriously, take a few breathes and think calmly about it. I don’t like it any more than you do believe me, but we can’t afford what you’re doing. The stakes are too high.

            1. You realize that you live in Canada, not the United States, right?

              1. Yes. So?

                1. So, what the fuck do you mean “we?”

                  1. I mean ‘us’, pro-liberty folk. Don’t be obtuse or provincial.

            2. Also the stakes are not high. There are no stakes in this election. It doesn’t matter who the president is.

              1. You’re being obtuse and/or provincial, Hugh. This, like all elections, is the most important election ever!!!1!!!

            3. My voting order was Rand,LP candidate, Cruz.

              Which mean he was never getting my vote anyway, but now my 3 deep list is 2 deep.

              1. Mine is something like 1. myself, 2. None of The Above, 3. [insert name of LP candidate here], and 4. Vermin Supreme, with 3 and 4 being interchangeable depending on how much i’ve had to drink and whether or not Morgan Freeman is involved. Fortunately, Cruz turning out to be just an asshat won’t affect my decision at all come November.

          2. I don’t see much difference between Cruz’s pandering to the stupid and Rand’s. Except Cruz is better at it.

  6. As for as the Conservatives, Established Republicans, and the stooges that support the Carnival Barker and this rather unreasonable Cuban, it doesn’t matter that Snowden exposed a criminal practice being committed by the Government.

    Why Shit, I thought these stooges hated the government.

    But these stooges blindly follow their leaders. A bunch of leaders that had a lot to lose by Snowden exposing what the Government and their partners are doing.

  7. It is now clear that Ted Cruz is a traitor to whatever amount of libertarianism he ever claimed to embrace. Pandering to evangelicals, neocons, and other war hawks whose cowardice in the face of foreign terrorism has made them contemptuous of basic Constitutional rights and civil liberties.

  8. How is it not treason to run around China and Russia with stolen classified intelligence, and to give such classified intelligence to journalists and heaven knows whom else?

    Do the ends justify the means?

    If I steal bread from a baker and give the bread to starving orphans, I am still guilty of theft, am I not? Even if I have good motives? What is the difference here?

    1. Assuming everything you said there is true, how is doing any of that giving material support to our enemies?

    2. A government spying on its own citizens in contradiction of its own laws (let alone foundational principles) is pretty goddamn different from a guy making a living by baking bread, homes.

      1. That is a difference only in degree, not in principle.

        In principle, both are guilty of a crime, no?

        1. Baking bread is a crime now?

        2. I suppose stealing proof of illegal activity from criminals is technically theft.

        3. A car and a hot dog are different only in degree, not in principle.

          In principle, they’re both objects you can purchase, no?

          1. The principles of property rights extend both to cars and to hot dogs, no?

            1. That’s not the point. The point is that, no, what Snowden did is NOT in principle the same as stealing bread from a baker.

              1. I mean, it’s kind of the same as stealing bread from a baker if the baker stole all the ingredients from you first, and then took some cash out of your pocket to pay for his labor too.

              2. Yeah it is, in a sense. He broke the law (stealing classified intel/stealing bread) in order to serve a higher purpose (revealing immoral behavior/feeding starving children). Even if you think he was justified in what he did, he is still guilty of criminal behavior, no? I mean, I don’t know how you can square any sort of belief in the rule of law while simultaneously also believing that Snowden should be allowed to get away scot-free for his crimes.

                1. Oh jeez! It’s fucking Tulpa!

                  1. Fuck, you’re right. I don’t know how I didn’t notice it this time.

                  2. I have no idea who Tulpa is. If you check my profile, I have only recently registered here. I consider myself halfish-libertarian and halfish-conservative. I don’t support Trump at all and quite frankly am thinking about voting for the Libertarian Party candidate if Trump is the Republican nominee. But you all are doing a good job of dissuading me of that notion right now.

                    1. God, Tulpa!

                      Can we just end the charade where you first deny being who you are, claim you only recently started reading Reason, then bitch about people in a way that reveals that you have some deep historical experience here, before bitching that we are afraid of your intellect?

                      It’s fucking pathetic, and fools literally no one!

                    2. I seriously have no idea who Tulpa is.

                    3. So what you perceive as the wrong opinions about Snowden from commenters on this blog could cause you to switch your preferred candidate for President?

                      Are you that highly suggestible?

                    4. IF WE DON’T START BEING NICE TO TULPA, HE’LL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE US FEEL SORRY!!!!!

                2. the problem with your analogy is that the bread was the property of a private individual while the information that was stolen was that of the American public and was given to that same public. Since the government is made up of the people, giving them their own intelligence so they know what is being done to them by their unwillingness to challenge their elected government is very different from taking the private property of another.

        4. Am I guilty of murder if I kill an assassin while he is performing his job?

          Leave, Tulpa.

          1. “Am I guilty of murder if I kill an assassin while he is performing his job?”

            You are guilty of killing someone, which may or may not rise to the level of murder.

    3. By “stolen classified intelligence”, you mean evidence that the NSA was committing a crime?

      The only people harmed by the revelations were the enemies of the American people: the guys spying on them and who were perjuring themselves when questioned about it under oath.

      So, chemjeff, why did you become an America hater? Was it because you hated us for our freedoms? Or do you hope that by helping undermine our republic you can curry favor with the top men? Or is if for money?

      1. He stole much more than that. He stole truckloads of intelligence and decided to reveal only some of it. Who knows what happened to the rest of it?

        For instance:

        “US spies are hacking into Chinese mobile phone companies to steal text messages and attacking the servers at Tsinghua University, Edward Snowden has told the Sunday Morning Post.

        The latest explosive revelations about US National Security Agency cybersnooping in Hong Kong and on the mainland are based on further scrutiny and clarification of information Snowden provided on June 12.

        The former technician for the US Central Intelligence Agency and contractor for the National Security Agency provided documents revealing attacks on computers over a four-year period.

        The documents listed operational details of specific attacks on computers, including internet protocol (IP) addresses, dates of attacks and whether a computer was still being monitored remotely.”

        http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-…..s-revealed

        This revelation has nothing to do with domestic spying. Why did he reveal it?

        And even if you agree that what Snowden did was virtuous, it was still illegal. Just like in my example – stealing bread to give to starving orphans is a crime, even if you are virtuous in doing so. Shouldn’t he be punished for his crimes?

        1. He stole that as leverage over the USG. Tough shit for them.

        2. This revelation has nothing to do with domestic spying. Why did he reveal it?

          And whom, specifically, did the revelation harm? Jeff?

          1. It harmed the government’s ability to spy on China.

            Is your argument is that the government shouldn’t be spying on ANYONE?

            1. No, my argument is that it
              a) it only harmed a criminal organization, the NSA
              b) it butressed the other evidence he was providing of criminal activity by the NSA by providing evidence that could be independently verified.

              The primary, if not only. people harmed by Snowden’s revelations were enemies of the American people and in the case of uniformed officers of the U.S. military such as General Clapper, traitors who violated their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

              1. The NSA is not a criminal organization. I don’t like much of what they do either, but they aren’t the Mafia.

                I get it that you don’t think the NSA should exist at all. The legal way to try to abolish the NSA is via elections and passing laws. The illegal way to try to abolish the NSA is to pull the type of stunts that Snowden did. *It’s still illegal!*

                Once again your argument basically boils down to “the ends justify the means”. That is not a very principled argument and I would expect better from a libertarian-focused forum.

                1. Spying on Americans without a warrant is a crime. Revealing that crime is not.

                  1. “Spying on Americans without a warrant is a crime. Revealing that crime is not.”

                    They can BOTH be crimes. What is so hard to understand about that?

                2. Tulpa, when the NSA lied to the Congress it betrayed the American people – because they can’t provide oversight or agree to that which they don’t know exists.

                  When Congress kept what they knew of the NSA’s crime, the congressmens also betrayed the American People, because people who don’t consent to the criminal behavior of the NSA were deprived of the knowledge they needed to hold their representatives accountable for allowing the crime to occur.

                  Naturally, you would ally with them. Lickspittles like you are incapable of anything else.

                3. Tulpa, when the NSA lied to the Congress it betrayed the American people – because they can’t provide oversight or agree to that which they don’t know exists.

                  When Congress kept what they knew of the NSA’s crime, the congressmens also betrayed the American People, because people who don’t consent to the criminal behavior of the NSA were deprived of the knowledge they needed to hold their representatives accountable for allowing the crime to occur.

                  Naturally, you would ally with them. Lickspittles like you are incapable of anything else.

                  1. I am not Tulpa, but my position is:

                    If anyone is guilty of a crime, that person should be held accountable for that crime, regardless of that person’s allegiance to higher principles.

                    If individuals at the NSA are guilty of a crime, they should be held accountable.

                    If members of Congress are guilty of a crime, they should be held accountable.

                    If Edward Snowden is guilty of a crime, he should be held accountable.

                    If NSA committed criminal activities, and Snowden also committed criminal activities exposing NSA’s crimes, that doesn’t let Snowden off the hook.

                    1. I am not Tulpa

                      Well, even if that’s true, you’ve been mistaken for him. That speaks volumes.

                      If anyone is guilty of a crime, that person should be held accountable for that crime

                      Exposing criminals cannot be a crime.

                    2. “Exposing criminals cannot be a crime.”

                      Sure it can, depending on the means used to expose the criminals.

            2. Harming the government’s ability to spy on China does not cause any harm to any Americans.

              1. It does, however, hurt Tulpa’s feelings and outrage his need for rules everyone else must follow!

                1. It’s just so awful when libertarians don’t care about rules!

                  1. It’s not really about the rules, per se. It’s about principles.

                    1. The principle is liberty.

                    2. It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

                      That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

                      If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass ? a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience ? by experience.

                    3. It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

                      That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

                      If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass ? a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience ? by experience.

    4. run around China and Russia with stolen classified intelligence

      And . . . what harm resulted? How were our “enemies” (which, BTW, does not include China or Russia) aided?

      Maybe that’s the place to start: who are our enemies? Once you know that, you can move on to whether and how they were aided.

    5. He is a patriot for exposing criminal activity being perpetrated by the federal government. He did what he did with the information because he tried to do it the “right” way, but found it to be ineffective. Which only hammers home how corrupt and criminal the federal government is.

      1. Even if you believe that he is a patriot, he is still guilty of crimes. Do the ends justify the means now?

        1. Even if you believe that he is a patriot, he is still guilty of crimes. Do the ends justify the means now?

          That precise sentence could have been said about George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and about a hundred other founders. It’s pure “teamism”.

          There are no “crimes” except aggression. He didn’t aggress, ergo he didn’t commit a crime.

          (Any other “crime” is made up by control-freaks to increase their power and should be ignored as such.)

        2. Exposing criminal activity is not a crime.

          1. His theft of the intel is the crime.

            Do you believe it is “criminal activity” for the US government to spy on *Chinese* citizens? If not, then how is revealing such behavior, as documented above, justified?

            1. Wow Tulpa!

              It took one thread for you to out yourself! However, you got people to debate you for ten whole minutes! I don’t know whether to congratulate you on an unusual degree of cleverness or mock you for being such a pathetic little lick-spittle!

              I think I’ll go with the latter: losers like you don’t deserve to be treated like winners at anything.

              1. Oh my god, and i enabled his hijacking of the thread. I feel so… dirty. I feel used, like a teenage runaway in Warty’s basement.

                1. Hush, hush. It’s okay. We’re here for you.

                  1. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE OK THIS TIME, NIKKI

            2. I smell a Tulpa.

    6. If helping Russia and China were a necessary price of revealing what the USG was doing, then so be it.

    7. So what you’re saying is, he should have gone through channels. You know who else when through channels, and you know what happened to them?

      1. I am not saying what he should or shouldn’t have done.

        Sometimes virtuous people, such as my example of the person stealing bread to give to starving orphans, have to break the law in order to do what they view is right. But they should still have to account for their illegal behavior, no?

        1. You say he committed crimes and are clearly not a fan of his actions. You are saying he should have kept his mouth shut, quit his job if he didn’t like it, and not report the crime.

          1. “You are saying he should have kept his mouth shut, quit his job if he didn’t like it, and not report the crime.”

            No, I am saying that by choosing to break the law in the service of a higher purpose, he should still be held accountable for the laws that he broke.

            1. In other words, “Legality is more important than morality. Hey, my pants are all sticky again. Where’d mommy go?”

              1. No, actually, morality is more important. But heeding one’s moral conscience does not come without a price.

                I am glad that Snowden exposed the NSA’s domestic spying. But that doesn’t mean that the laws shouldn’t apply to him.

                1. So…

                  Franklin
                  Jefferson
                  Madison
                  Adams
                  Hamilton…

                  All should have been hung? (Well, maybe Hamilton)

                  Not traitor, Tulpa. Hero…patriot, maybe, not traitor.

                  Illegal laws are not binding.

                  1. “Illegal laws are not binding.”

                    ^This.

                    Apropos of the upcoming holiday:

                    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – MLK Jr.

        2. I’m not sure what he did was illegal. He exposed illegal activities of the federal government. He was exposing a crime. I’m not sure why you’re narrowly focusing on the fact that he took the documentation of that crime as a crime itself.

          1. Because that’s what Tulpa does.

            1. Who the heck is Tulpa?

        3. Javert was completely right in hounding Jean Valejan for all that time.

          1. The operators of the Underground Railroad should have ceased their criminal behavior and just complied with the Fugitive Slave Act.

            1. The operators of the Underground Railroad KNEW they were committing illegal behavior and were prepared to suffer the consequences of such illegal behavior, even as they served a higher purpose.

              1. And if they escaped to Canada, they should have been brought back to the US to be punished, right?

                1. Who are “they”? Operators of the Underground Railroad? Or fugitive slaves?

                  1. Either. Both.

                    If I wasn’t sure you were Tulpa before, I am now.

                    1. Who the heck is Tulpa?? I honestly have no idea. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

                      My consistent position is: if you break the law you should be held accountable for breaking the law, even if your motivation for breaking the law is to serve a higher purpose.

        4. I am not saying what he should or shouldn’t have done.

          So, you’re saying he’s a traitor, but in a totally non-judgmental way?

        5. I would say that Snowden didn’t steal anything, as from what I can tell, he merely copied information, which isn’t stealing.

          As for your bread thief example, the person who owned the bread was not in any way obligated to give it to orphans. The government, however, is obligated to respect the constitution, and The People have a right to know when the government they are forced to pay for is violating the highest law of the land and/or is acting unethically. The only reason the government can do anything at all is because The People allow it to exist, so Snowden did nothing wrong by reporting the government’s evil activities to them.

          By saying that we should punish whistleblowers, you are saying that the government should be unaccountable, and therefore are in opposition to the idea of a limited government that is accountable to The People. Without the ability to know when the government is doing something wrong, it cannot be hold accountable. Whistleblowers exist for that purpose: To inform citizens of the government’s wrongdoing. Without them, we are doomed.

          Snowden did absolutely nothing wrong, except maybe that he tried to go through the ‘proper channels’ before going to The People. Any laws he may have violated are laws that simply should not exist and are likely unconstitutional anyway.

    8. There are crimes short of treason related to mishandling classified information (see also: Hillary Clinton).

      Treason is a willful act of betrayal, and while Snowden may have betrayed his (rogue) sovereign, he did so out of loyalty to the American people (much like the Founders). Every person in government who signed off on or stayed silent about or otherwise enabled massive, egregious violations of the constitutional rights of the people is a traitor, much more so than Snowden. Apparently that includes Cruz now.

      From a practical perspective, if your idea for how things should properly work leads to government becoming tyrannical with complete impunity, then you fucked up in your calculations somewhere, because the answer is wrong.

    9. Exposing illegal behavior by the government cannot be treason, regardless of what the law says.

    10. You know who else committed treason?

      1. Somebody who wasn’t named Lysander Spooner?

    11. Just out of curiosity, when exactly did the United States government officially and formally declare China and Russia as enemies of the US? Because we’re not at war with either of them, so any material aid that you have yet to prove that Snowden provided should be irrelevant, no?

    12. Just out of curiosity, when exactly did the United States government officially and formally declare China and Russia as enemies of the US? Because we’re not at war with either of them, so any material aid that you have yet to prove that Snowden provided should be irrelevant, no?

  9. I don’t really know any real red-state types– there are few to none in my neck of the woods. What’s the word on Team Red Street? Is the Republican base really upset about Snowden? Is he universally considered a traitor because he exposed America to the Muslim Menace?

    I ask this because I presume Ted Cruz is trying to appeal to a constituency.

    1. I’ve heard members of my dad’s family refer to Snowden as a spy and a traitor. Wait, though, they’re all hardcore Democrats. Never mind.

        1. They’re dinosaur-style Roosevelt Democrats, for the most part. My dad’s in a funk because he hates Hillary and is leary of the Bern, but going Republican, third party, or simply abstaining are completely outside the realm of possibility.

          1. Roosevelt Democrat… and he’s leery of Bern?

            1. Jew!!!!!

          2. So he’s Ready for Hillary. I’d get him a bunch of bumper stickers and a biography and rub his nose in it – but then again I don’t have to eat Thanksgiving Dinner with him.

            1. I like my dad, and i think i’ll just try not to mention politics around him for the next year or so.

    2. Wasn’t there some kind of split in the Red? Most knee-jerk yelled “traitor” when he ended up in Russia – some were grateful he exposed spying on us – in part because they could wave that in Teh Lightworker’s face….

      1. Pretty much.

      2. There was – until they figured out they might be in the White House in 2017.

    3. Pollster: As a resident of Team Red Street, do you think Snowden is a traitor?

      Teahadist: Who?

    4. My republican facebook friends hate him with a passion. Bascially they are all to a man supporters of the national security state. They basically are refighting the civil war the Vietnam War triggered in the U.S. To them revealing the criminal actions being taken by the U.S. government is tantamount to manning an AAA battery in Hanoi.

      1. U.S. government is tantamount to manning an AAA battery in Hanoi.

        You know who else… never mind.

        1. chemjeff?

    5. Not that I’ve noticed. Most of the anger is reserved for the administration

    6. I live in Ohio and the general reaction from my buds at the gun range to Snowden was “Traitor! He harmed the US interest and put our troops in danger!”

      When I asked, “how, exactly”, their responses became vague.

      It saddens me immensely to see Cruz react this way. I’ve got nowhere to turn now.

      /sends Rand another utterly wasted donation/

  10. It’s funny how Ted Cruz says he supports liberty, yet calls someone who decided to put their life at risk and defend liberty, a traitor.

    1. It’s not funny. Ted Cruz is a politician. All politicians with very, very few exceptions, if any at all, are lying scumbags who would improve society by killing themselves, especially if they threw themselves into furnaces powering electrical generators.

      1. Cruz isn’t the hero we deserve, but the panderer we need. We’ll shit on him because he deserves it, but we still need him. He’s a dark horse.

        1. Stop it with the “we” nonsense. You can comment on this as your opinion is still valid, but you are not a part of “we”.

          (And this is coming from an An-Cap!)

      2. +more R. Budd Dwyers

      3. Of course they are lying scumbags. If they were hell bent on protecting liberty, they wouldn’t be forcing themselves upon individuals through violence.

  11. Shitty, but Cruz is still easily the second best after Rand and probably our best hope at this point (‘best hope’ incorporating both political leanings AND likelihood of winning).

  12. Some day there will be a 20 meter tall statue of Edward Snowden where NSA headquarters used to be.

    1. Built with immigrant labor? Asking for a friend.

    2. And i’ll go to see it in my flying unicorn-drawn carriage.

    3. I want radical life extension just to live to see it.

    4. But then the Chinese central government will make the peasants in Virginia blow it up because it wasn’t approved.

  13. On topic: Canadian Judge rules cellphone ‘tower dumps’ violate charter right to privacy

    Ontario Superior Court justice says search warrants breached rights of Rogers and Telus customers

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…..-1.3403550

    1. Unfortunately, the response from law enforcement will be to not get warrants in the future.

  14. Didn’t Rand say he would put Snowden and and Clapper in the same jail cell?

  15. Didn’t Rand say he would put Snowden and and Clapper in the same jail cell?

    1. He said it as a joke. I believe he also made a joke about throwing Snowden in prison for a day so that the punishment can be proportionate to the “crime”. Or something like that. I don’t think Rand actually has a problem with Snowden.

    2. In fact he said it twice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.