San Diego Congressional Delegation Votes To Expand Government, Restrict Privacy

In a remarkable display of bi-partisanship, House members Darrell Issa (R-Vista), Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine), Scott Peters (D-La Jolla), Juan Vargas (D-Chula Vista) and Susan Davis (D-San Diego) voted with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and against the Amash Amendment yesterday.

If you value the right “to be left alone,” this isn’t the bi-partisanship you desired. 

The Amash Amendment was designed to defund NSA surveillance which operated outside of the scope of Section 215 of the USA-PATRIOT Act.  While the Fourth Amendment demands that a warrant, from an independent judge, be presented for probable cause, Section 215 set up a “National Security Tribunal” to create a list of persons of interest.  Civil libertarians decry Section 215 as a circumvention of the Fourth Amendment but the Amash Amendment simply directed the NSA to follow Section 215 when it gathers data about private communications between citizens.  The Amash Amendment was so well-defined that it attracted the support of USA-PATRIOT Act architect James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

The Amash Amendment  says that if a citizen isn’t on the person of interest list, the NSA can’t aggregate data about his Facebook posts, telephone communications, emails, tweets, etc, etc.  Opponents of the Amash Amendment, who advocate for  the unlimited and unsupervised data aggregation program (PRISM), argue that the data sit “in a locked box” and that box is only opened after a person is added to a person of interest list under Section 215.  Stated differently, a case is built, to indict every single citizen of a crime, BEFORE probable cause is determined (but we are assured that it won’t be used against them unless probable cause IS determined.)

Let’s assume you are pulled over for a speeding ticket.  California law enforcement officers now have the right to snatch your cell phone if it’s in plain view.  Let’s further assume that you texted your wife “I could kill that d***ed  (insert politician’s name)” after your wife texted you that (insert politician’s name) raised taxes.  That California LEO can report you to the NSA which, under Section 215, can exercise broad powers to make you a person of interest.    The NSA then “opens” that little black box on you and discovers that years ago, you were critical of (insert another politician’s name) on Facebook. It further discovers that you did a little bit of research about flouridation of water, chemtrails, the sovereign citizen movement, and pro-life causes and arrests you for “intent to incite a rebellion.”  When you consider how political crime and justice has become, don’t think it couldn’t happen to you, regardless of your political stripe.

Does that sound crazy?  Consider this then—whodathunk the federal government, with the Supreme Court’s blessing, could force you to buy an insurance product?

The right to be left alone is a natural one.  PRISM pits a political class against the citizenry by affording them the broad powers to make record of every single electronic communication you have with every single person.  It grants them absolute the absolute power to track your daily moves, a power which would stun the likes of J. Edgar Hoover.  Like Hoover did, any political opponent could use the data against you, now or in the future.

Does the IRS agent down the street covet your wife?  Don’t be surprised if she discovers that you sent a flirty text to a co-worker two years ago.

Don’t be surprised if your wife has been sharing your marital bed with him, against her will and in fear that he might ask his EPA friends to monitor your business emails to subcontractors.  Don’t be surprised when that agent asks your son’s teacher turns you into the CPS (because he posted a picture on Instagram, of a bruise he procured, playing catch with you last weekend).

I know.  I know.  This is all crazy talk because people in power would NEVER abuse it, especially when it came to romantic pursuits.

Our Congressional Representatives in San Diego, Democrats and Republicans alike, sold out a fundamental human right for power yesterday.  Each and every one of them is deserving of your scorn.

PS—  While Peters made it quite clear that he sided with tyranny yesterday, challenger Carl DeMaio signified that he stood with Justin Amash on his Facebook page yesterday.  His campaign staff is invited to respond how he would have voted, on this page.  Challenger Kirk Jorgensen is invited to explain how he would have voted on the Amash Amendment here as well.

The aftermath:

Carl DeMaio makes it quite clear that he would have supported the Amash Amendment
Cenk Ungyar from The Young Turks praises Amash and criticizes Obama
It may be about the Booz, Allen (candidate Kirk Jorgensen’s employer) campaign cash for Pelosi and Issa
Michele Bachmann explains her vote to Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck‘s reaction to Bachmann’s explanation
Former stafffer for the House Intelligence Committee Diane Roark, refutes Bachmann’s argument to support.
Chris Christie calls Rand Paul and the ‘libertarians” dangerous
Rand Paul hammers back at Chris Christie
Ted Cruz sides with Rand Paul in the debate
Justin Raimondo (former Republican challenger to Nancy Pelosi) explains why this close vote might be positive
Dana Rohrabacher explains why he supported Amash Amendment
Former Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul said the Amash Amendment was akin to tilting at windmills
Some in Senate think its chamber can address the problem
Talk show host Mark Levin smacks Chris Christie down for demagoguing the NSA issue