Is the NSA Wasting Time with Mass Surveillance, Foolishly Ignoring Actual Terrorist Threats?


Senator Rand Paul was on Fox News Tuesday night to discuss the terrorist attack in Texas and the fact that the NSA mass surveillance program seemed to have proven a failure. Instead of continuing to accumulate huge swaths of data from innocent Americans, Senator Paul believes that the NSA should be focusing on actual terrorist threats in our nation.

I think we are never fully protected, and we need to take steps to protect ourselves… This is one of the things that gets confused on my position. I don’t want the bulk collection of data I don’t want the government looking at everything, but I’m more than willing to have the government selectively look at the data, using the Constitution. With probable cause.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Trump Approval Rating Soars Past Obama’s Dampening on Democrat ‘Blue Wave’

The one gentleman that has already been implicated in this, same as the Tsarnaev boy, the Boston bombing suspect, I think we had enough to ask a judge for permission to look at records both in this case and in the Boston bombing case. I don’t think we are using the constitutional tools that we have in an appropriate fashion.



A few days ago Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed and said something very similar to Rand Paul. On Fox Business, libertarian Fox pundit Judge Andrew Napolitano also called the Muslim terrorist attack in Garland, Texas a failure of the illegal surveillance state.

NSAThe Supreme Court has ruled unambiguously that deliberate provocation is protected speech, it is the duty of the government to be aware of the deliberate provocation, the likely danger, and to protect the speaker… 

The First Amendment anticipates some violence. That is why we have a government. To protect us from the violence that would try and silence us…

The police are allowed to look at anything that is in the public domain. But if you are talking about the police capturing his speech at the time he uttered it — Guess what: The NSA already does that. It obviously didn’t work in this case… I say that the 4th Amendment says — remember that thing the Constitution? — the Brits don’t have one.

The 4th Amendment says the police should not be doing it. It is not I, it is the framers who ordained this.


Previous Texas Bill to Form Interstate Compact to Enforce Federal Immigration Laws Passes Senate
Next Pandora’s Reparations Box Has Been Opened 


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.