Liberals Should Proudly Cheer on Rand Paul

7/28/2019 Liberals Should Proudly Cheer on Rand Paul

1/74

KC & Associates Investigations Research Associates

Quinault Valley Guns & Blades / Urban Escape & Evasion Course

International Relations * Military * Terrorism * Business * Security

www.kcandassociates.org [email protected] Louise dePass Press Agent/Publicist .360.288.2652

Triste cosa es no tener amigos, pero ms triste ha de ser no tener enemigos porque quin no

tenga enemigos seal es de que no tiene talento que haga sombra, ni carcter que impresione, ni

valor temido, ni honra de la que se murmure, ni bienes que se le codicien, ni cosa alguna que se

le envidie. A sad thing it is to not have friends, but even sadder must it be not having any

enemies; that a man should have no enemies is a sign that he has no talent to outshine others,

nor character that inspires, nor valor that is feared, nor honor to be rumored, nor goods to be

coveted, nor anything to be envied. -J ose Marti

From the desk of Craig B Hulet?
http://www.kcandassociates.org/http://www.kcandassociates.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.kcandassociates.org/


2/74

Liberals should proudly cheer on Rand Paul

If he's right on principle, progressives should back him up -- even if he's wrong on everything

else. Here's whyBY DAVID SIROTA THURSDAY, MAR 7, 2013

(Credit: Jeff Malet, maletphoto.com)

Addie Stanslatest pieceat Alternet is a must-read summary of one of the most insidious trends

in American progressive politics: the trend toward seeing anything and everything as a purely

partisan endeavor, regardless of possible outcomes.

Reporting on Rand Pauls heroic filibuster against President Obamas drone war, Stan makes the

case that progressives shouldnt support such a filibuster because Paul is a Big Bad Republican.

She says it is horrifying to see principled progressives cheer on Pauls attempt to force the

Obama administration to answer basic questions about civil libertieshorrifying not because

Paul is wrong on that issue, but because hes wrong on other, totally unrelated issues and

represents an evil paranoid base that dares to fear a government that might soon be launching

drones against them.
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/http://www.salon.com/writer/david_sirota/http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=offhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=offhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=offhttp://media.salon.com/2013/03/rand_paul2.jpghttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=offhttp://www.salon.com/writer/david_sirota/http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/


3/74

Setting aside the snide disregard (paranoid) for those who dont like the idea of a violent police

state, Stans larger argument is a guilt-by-association non sequiturbut it is a powerful and

pervasive one. As Stan says, the idea is that to stand with Rand means to lend support to

everything he supports in totality. As any quickperusalof Twitteryesterday showed, this kind of

thinking is ubiquitous among Democratic Party operatives and activists who never want to think

of themselves as anything but 100 percent pure haters of every single thing a Big BadRepublican stands for.

There are two pernicious problems with this kind of psychology.

First and foremost, it is embarrassingly hypocritical. Many of the same Democratic partisans

have argued (or at least remained silent in the face of such arguments) that President Obama has

an obligation to try to work with Big Bad Republicans on ending the sequester and enacting

Simpson-Bowles-style cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Somehow for Democratic partisans,

this is perfectly acceptableeven laudable!for a sitting Democratic president to wine and

dine these Big Bad Republicans as hes putting forward a budget proposal thattilts hard to the

right. And when that happens, nobody in their right mind insists that Obama working with those

like John Boehner or Mitch McConnell means (he is) lend(ing) support to their entire agenda.

Yet, when liberals support or propose to work constructively with Big Bad Republicans on actual

liberal priorities that challenge a Democratic presidentlike, say, ending the drone war and

protecting civil libertiesthat is somehow portrayed as unacceptable or horrifying. Worse, it

is portrayed as endorsing the entire agenda of the Big Bad Republicans whom liberals find a

momentary point of common ground with.

The double standard is appallingand inane. By its twisted logic, liberal Sen. Paul Wellstone

was lend(ing) support to the overall awful record of Sen. Pete Domenici when he worked withthe New Mexico Republican to passmental health parity legislation. By this same logic,

progressive champion Sen. Bernie Sanders was lend(ing) support to the entire awful record of

Sen. Tom Coburn when they worked together as House members on drug reimportation

legislation. And by the same logic, liberal civil libertarians are lend(ing) support to the entire

awful record of Sen. Rand Paul. Such criticism might be valid, of course, if these liberals were

fully endorsing every aspect of their Republican colleagues record, but thats not what was

happening, which makes the logic utterly absurd.

Yet, as absurd as it is, why do so many Democratic partisans nonetheless instinctively embrace

it? That gets to the second problem that pervades so much of the left: prioritizing partisanship

over everything else.

In a political system that depicts every issue in red-versus-blue terms, much of the left has come

to accept and internalize those terms as the only ones that are valid. Thus, Obama working with

the GOP to pass a conservative budget proposal is seen by many in the Democrat-worshiping

left-of-center coalition as a good thing irrespective of its real-world policy ramifications. Why?

Because it promises to the Democratic Partys president apartisan politicalvictory over the Big
https://twitter.com/kasinca/status/309698275697623042https://twitter.com/kasinca/status/309698275697623042https://twitter.com/TheFreshBrew/status/309704879868370945https://twitter.com/TheFreshBrew/status/309704879868370945https://twitter.com/TheFreshBrew/status/309704879868370945http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130303http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130303http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130303http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130303http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/25/1091521/paul-wellstones-legacy-mental-health-parity/?mobile=nchttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/25/1091521/paul-wellstones-legacy-mental-health-parity/?mobile=nchttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/25/1091521/paul-wellstones-legacy-mental-health-parity/?mobile=nchttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/25/1091521/paul-wellstones-legacy-mental-health-parity/?mobile=nchttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130303http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE91P0W220130303https://twitter.com/TheFreshBrew/status/309704879868370945https://twitter.com/kasinca/status/309698275697623042


4/74

Bad Republicans. By contrast, liberals working with the GOP to stop a war is seen as a bad thing

irrespective of its real-world impact. Thats because it might embarrass the Democratic Partys

president and deliver him a partisan political defeat.

This is the difference between partisan hackery and movement activism. The former is all about

defending a party, regardless of what that party happens to be doing, and attacking that partysopponents even if they happen to be doing something good. In that psychology, principles are

viewed as situational, and they are secondary to partisan political goals. By contrast, movement

activism (or, really, just honest citizenship) is about defending a set of principles, regardless of

how doing so may inconvenience either party. In that case, party politics are situationaland

secondary to principles and legislative outcomes.

The crisis for progressives, then, is that the psychology of partisan hackery too often wins the

day on the left. Whether activists or lawmakers, the principled liberals who try to fight the good

fight on everything from war to healthcare to bank bailouts are pressured by the left to subvert

their principles in the name of a Democratic Party victory, regardless of whether that victory

tramples progressive priorities. Similarly, as in the case of Paul, progressives looking to form

transpartisan left-right coalitions on liberal causes like protecting civil liberties or drug policy

reform are lambasted as traitors when such coalitions dare to go up against a Democratic Partys

president.

Ultimately, the whole dynamic too often ends up delivering just what youd expect. You get

Democrats getting a political win by passing a healthcare bill that the party itselfacknowledges

is a concoction of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. You get Rand Pauls filibuster

thwarted and a Democratic White House triumph, while the drone war expands. In short, you get

an oxymoron: Democratic Party wins that are actually conservative policy victories.

David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mailhim at [email protected], follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website

Bro-gressive Values Revealed: Attacking the Messenger By Any Means Necessary

Finding himself duped by Rand Pauls publicity stunt, Salon's David Sirota misrepresents the

work of an AlterNet writer

March 10, 2013 AlterNet /ByAdele M. Stan

Theres a certain breed of progressive dude who, when told that the object of his latest man-

crush is, say, a bit racist (or misogynist, or is stoking the fears of right-wing preppers), gets really

mad. Unable to refute the fact of his worship of the racist, misogynist, prepper-stoker, he resorts

to falsifying the intention of the person who pointed out the inconvenient facts. In a column

published on Salon on March 7, David Sirota proves himself to be just such a dude.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/24/pelosi-heritage-foundation/http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/24/pelosi-heritage-foundation/http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/24/pelosi-heritage-foundation/mailto:[email protected]://www.alternet.org/http://www.alternet.org/authors/adele-m-stanhttp://www.alternet.org/authors/adele-m-stanhttp://www.alternet.org/authors/adele-m-stanhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/nyregion/the-doomsday-preppers-of-new-york.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/nyregion/the-doomsday-preppers-of-new-york.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.alternet.org/authors/adele-m-stanhttp://www.alternet.org/mailto:[email protected]://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/24/pelosi-heritage-foundation/


5/74

At issue was my AlterNet blog post, published earlier the same day, in which I stated how

horrifying it was to see progressives lauding as courageous and heroicSen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,

as he took to the Senate floor in a 13-hour talking filibuster designed to win him a media tour

oftop right-wing talk shows as he signaled his intention to run for the presidency in 2016, an

intention he confirmed to Politico just hours after leaving the Senate floor.

Heroism, by its definition, implies the taking of a risk. But Paul had almost nothing to lose and

much to gain from his filibuster, which was born less of passion than careful calculation,

according to a National Journal account. As political publicity stunts go, it was an act of genius.

Because part of what Paul had to say about the Obama administrations policy on drones and the

presidents dreadful nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA comports with progressive

opposition to those things, a small but vocal cadre of progressives were slobbering over C-SPAN, tweeting the hashtag, #StandWithRand.

Never mind that to stand with Rand is to stand for a man who sponsoredfetal personhood

amendment that would end abortion on demand once and for all, in Pauls words, even for rape

victims. Try not to notice that to stand with Rand is to exalt a guy who opposes the section of the

1964 Civil Rights Act that desegregated restaurants, lunch counters and housing. Hes also

opposed to the Americans With Disabilities Act, preferring the specter of people in wheelchairs

barred from full participation in public life to an inconvenient demand on proprietors of

establishments otherwise open to the public.

To Sirota, these are issues unrelated to the administrations drone policy, which is after all,

about the civil liberties of all American citizens, especially white survivalist guys (but apparently

not so much, in Rand Paul's reading, those of non-citizens). The civil rights of women, black

people and the disabled? Well, by Sirotas lights, theyre totally unrelated to civil liberties

overall. After all, no skin off his back should those rights go away.

Its a telling flaw in Sirotas logic. But the even greater flaw is in the moral character of a writer

who all but lies in order to paint another as saying something she did not, and being something

she is not.

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=offhttp://www.alternet.org/story/146915/tea_party%27s_rand_paul_squashes_gop_candidate_in_ky_primaryhttp://www.alternet.org/story/146915/tea_party%27s_rand_paul_squashes_gop_candidate_in_ky_primaryhttp://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-heaps-praise-on-rand-paul-in-interview-you-are-a-hero-to-a-lot-of-people-today/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbb8Mc5OAkhttp://www.mediaite.com/tv/mediaite-insiders-story-how-cnns-dana-bash-landed-first-post-filibuster-interview-with-rand-paul/http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/286955-paul-joins-2016-white-house-conversation-with-talking-filibusterhttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-seriously-weighing-2016-bid-88611.htmlhttp://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/inside-the-rand-paul-filibuster-20130307http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.htmlhttp://www.dailypaul.com/264416/rand-paul-new-personhood-law-will-end-abortion-once-and-for-allhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.htmlhttp://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rand-pauls-wrong-drones-just-everything-elsehttp://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rand-pauls-wrong-drones-just-everything-elsehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.htmlhttp://www.dailypaul.com/264416/rand-paul-new-personhood-law-will-end-abortion-once-and-for-allhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.htmlhttp://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/inside-the-rand-paul-filibuster-20130307http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-seriously-weighing-2016-bid-88611.htmlhttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/286955-paul-joins-2016-white-house-conversation-with-talking-filibusterhttp://www.mediaite.com/tv/mediaite-insiders-story-how-cnns-dana-bash-landed-first-post-filibuster-interview-with-rand-paul/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbb8Mc5OAkhttp://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-heaps-praise-on-rand-paul-in-interview-you-are-a-hero-to-a-lot-of-people-today/http://www.alternet.org/story/146915/tea_party%27s_rand_paul_squashes_gop_candidate_in_ky_primaryhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=off


6/74

Apparently in need of a straw-woman to knock down, Sirota draws out of context a few words

from my blog post to convince his posse of fan-boys that I was painting them as paranoids for

their support of the junior senator from Kentucky.

From Sirotas Salon piece:

[Stan] says it is horrifying to see principled progressives cheer on Pauls attempt to force the

Obama administration to answer basic questions about civil libertieshorrifying not because

Paul is wrong on that issue, but because hes wrong on other, totally unrelated issues and

represents an evil paranoid base that dares to fear a government that might soon be

launching drones against them. (emphasis added)

Heres how my sentence, from which those phrases are drawn, actuallyreads:

In his anti-drone filibuster, which admittedly offered C-SPAN viewers an often-enlighteningeducation on the Obama administrations flouting of the U.S. Constitution in its pursuit of al

Qaeda and the Taliban, Paul also played to his paranoid base, suggesting that the U.S.

Government was targeting survivalist right-wingers as potential terrorists and might soon be

launching drones against them.

And nowhere in my post do I suggest that anyone is evil.

Quashing any doubt that his misrepresentation was unintentional, Sirota follows that up with

this:

Setting aside the snide disregard (paranoid) for those who dont like the idea of a violent police

state...

Thats Sirota cherry-picking a single adjective from my piece and applying it to a much larger

group of people (to which I belong) than those to whom I applied it -- specifically, Rand Pauls

survivalist-minded base. If it is unfair to describe doomsday-preppers as paranoid, I apologize

for any hurt feelings.

And it didnt help that in what Salon editors describe as sequence of errors, the original version

of Sirotas screed appeared to misquote me entirely.

Lying By Omission
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=offhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibusterhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibusterhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibusterhttp://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?paging=off


7/74

But the more insidious lie is the way in which Sirota, throughout his piece, asserts that any

progressive who dares to part company with him in his laughable extolling of Rand Paul as an

honorable gent is a hypocritical partisan hack[ ], and/or Democratic Party operative[ ].

Youd never know from reading Sirotas attack on me that in the very first paragraph of my post,

I say that Brennan, the CIA nominee, "should be ditched."

Or that I wrote this in the same post:

Instead of lauding the anti-woman, anti-civil rights neo-libertarian senator, progressives would

do better to ask: Why have nearly all the Senate Democrats signed onto the Brennan nomination?

Or that I applauded Pauls highlighting the stellar journalism of two writers who askhard

questions about the Obama administrationsclaim that it has the right to assassinate U.S. citizens

-- even on U.S. soil -- in particular circumstances.

Big, Bad Bro-gressives

Having no principled defense of his embrace of Rand Paul, Sirota resorts to a false equivalency,

a tactic that is typical of his attacks on other progressives. Its all part of the bro-gressive* culture

exemplified by a small group ofbig-mouthed guys who describe themselves as progressives, but

seek to advance their careers through the taunting strategies they learned on the grade-school

playground. (So much easier than organizing!)

In an unwitting act of self-parody, Sirota asserts that in not signing on, as he did, to the opening

act of Rand Pauls presidential bid, I commit the equivalent of opposing the kind of deal-making

done by Democrats with Republicans in order to pass legislation. I have never opposed

compromises between the parties that result in decent legislation.

So where, exactly, is the deal with Democrats that Rand Paul sought to forge in his filibuster?

Oh, right -- none was ever intended. So what, then, were Sirota and the bros cheering when they

threw in behind Rand Paul?

Sirota contends that people who oppose progressive fawning over the woman-hating Paul never

want to think of themselves as anything but 100 percent pure haters of every single thing a Big

Bad Republican stands for -- as if Rand Paul were typical of the average Republican, and my
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rand-paul-calls-for-personhood-law-to-end-abortion-once-and-for-all/politics/2012/11/26/54644http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/holder-targeted-killing/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/holder-targeted-killing/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/holder-targeted-killing/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/killing-americans-on-us-soil-eric-holders-evasive-manipulative-letter/273749/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/killing-americans-on-us-soil-eric-holders-evasive-manipulative-letter/273749/http://www.davidsirota.com/https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/309782926701256705http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressiveshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressiveshttps://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/309782926701256705http://www.davidsirota.com/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/killing-americans-on-us-soil-eric-holders-evasive-manipulative-letter/273749/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/holder-targeted-killing/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/holder-targeted-killing/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-tells-maddow-th_n_582872.htmlhttp://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rand-paul-calls-for-personhood-law-to-end-abortion-once-and-for-all/politics/2012/11/26/54644


8/74

opposition to his support of Pauls publicity stunt stems merely from the fact of Pauls

membership in Grand Old Party.

Far more troubling to me than Rand Pauls place in the GOP is his friendship with the

Constitution Party -- the right-wing, political arm of the Christian Reconstructionist movement,

whose ultimate aim is to replace the law of the land with the law of the Hebrew Bible (you know,

the stoning of adulterers, the execution of gay men, the death sentence for insubordinate

children).

In 2009, Rand Paul delivered an address to the Minnesota Constitution Party (as Bruce Wilson

first reported here). The following year, Rand suggested to the Christian Broadcasting Networks

David Brody that, if only everyone were as Christian as he, the nationwouldnt need secular

laws, as statement that echoes, as notedby Sarah Posner of Religion Dispatches, the ChristianReconstructionist philosophy.

By Sirotas lights, this is not anything I should be worrying mypretty little head about, even if a

progressive love-fest for Paul advances the Kentuckians political fortunes. (After all, Paul once

proved his ecumenism during a college prank, when he kidnapped a woman, tied her up and

demanded that she worship an idol he called Aqua Buddha. But I digress.)

Frolicking in the Waters

In Sirotas reading of events, unless you #StandWithRand, youre for the administrations drone

policy and against the very notion of a filibuster. Thats not very imaginative for a fellow who,

when relaying the quotes of others, is capable of being rather inventive.

What if, instead of #StandingWithRand, progressives were tweeting: Hey, Elizabeth Warren,

whats your drone policy? or Yo, Bernie Sanders, if you oppose Brennan, why arent you on

the Senate floor? or Tammy Baldwin, vote no on Brennan!?

Granted, not as cool as a rhyming hashtag and everything. And there is surely less fun in pushing

senators to accountability than in the hero-worship of a guy who once kidnapped a woman as a

prank, a doctor who would rather see a woman dead of a botched abortion than one discarded

fetus, a white man who thinks private propertytrumps equal access to public accommodations for

people of all races.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rand-paul-keynoted-2009-r_b_584273.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rand-paul-keynoted-2009-r_b_584273.htmlhttp://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.salon.com/2010/10/18/rand_paul_debate_aqua_buddha/http://www.salon.com/2010/08/09/rand_paul_kidnapping_bong_false_idol/http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3http://www.thenation.com/blog/rand-paul-principled-libertarian-not-0http://www.thenation.com/blog/rand-paul-principled-libertarian-not-0http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3http://www.salon.com/2010/08/09/rand_paul_kidnapping_bong_false_idol/http://www.salon.com/2010/10/18/rand_paul_debate_aqua_buddha/http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/2654/rand_paul:_we_wouldn't_need_laws_if_everyone_were_christian/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/rand-paul-keynoted-2009-r_b_584273.html


9/74

When it comes to Rand Paul, the bro-gressives will brook no obstacle to their frolic in the waters

of the Aqua Buddha. But the veneration of Rand Paul reveals the values of those who so adore

him.

----------

*h/t Megan Carpentier

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington correspondent. She co-edited, with Don Hazen, the

AlterNet book, Dangerous Brew: Exposing the Tea Party's Agenda to Take Over America.

Follow her on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan . Send tips to: [email protected]

Rand Paul's Wrong on Drones -- Just Like Everything Else

Paul's critique comes straight from the fetid fever swamps of the conspiratorial right.

March 8, 2013 AlterNet /ByJoshua Holland

Rand Paul's dramatic, 13-hour drone strike of a filibuster on the floor of the United States Senate

certainly stirred up the "Obama Wars" among progressives. The conventional take is that Paul

was right on this one issue -- the proverbial "stopped clock" -- and those who refused to "stand

with Paul" were unwilling to concede that he was right, due to their allegiance to the president.

But Paul couldn't be more wrong about drones, and largely lost in the discussion is the fact that

his position is identical to that of the White House.

In a letterto Paul, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that the United States government has no

legal authority to use armed drones in domestic situations, but conceded that he could imagine a

possible scenario in which it would be lawful to avert a truly imminent and "catastrophic" threat.

During his filibuster, Paul said: "Nobody questions, if planes are flying towards the Twin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left#comment-14017789http://www.twitter.com/addiestanmailto:[email protected]://www.alternet.org/http://www.alternet.org/authors/joshua-hollandhttp://www.alternet.org/authors/joshua-hollandhttp://www.alternet.org/authors/joshua-hollandhttp://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdfhttp://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/republican-senator-filibusters-obamas-cia-nominee-over-droneshttp://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/republican-senator-filibusters-obamas-cia-nominee-over-droneshttp://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdfhttp://www.alternet.org/authors/joshua-hollandhttp://www.alternet.org/mailto:[email protected]://www.twitter.com/addiestanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left#comment-14017789


10/74

Towers, whether they can be repulsed by the military; nobody questions whether, [if] a terrorist

with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled."

And, like the White House, Paul supports the use of(presumably unarmed) drones to patrol the

border.

More importantly, Rand Paul has no objection to our actual drone policy. In his follow-up letter

to Holder, Paul made no mention whatsoever of the administration's dramatic expansion in the

use of drone strikes against non-Americans overseas. His singular focus was on the entirely

implausible idea that the military might take out dissident voices in the United States with drone

strikes; he even offered up a fantasy of Jane Fonda being blown up while sitting in a cafe.

(Seriously, if the government were to assassinate U.S. citizens for their political views, don't you

think they might choose a somewhat quiter method?)

A recent reportby legal scholars at New York University and Stanford University found that our

drone program in Pakistan is "damaging and counterproductive." The authors noted that "while

civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the U.S. government, there is significant evidence

that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians." (Anotherstudy, by the New America

Foundation, estimated that only 2 percent of those killed in American drone attacks fit the

definition of "senior-level targets.")

A majority of Americans are OKwith the use of drones to kill "suspected terrorists" overseas

(making Paul's grandstanding something less than "brave"), but when the prospect of collateral

damage is raised, only 27 percent continue to support the program, with 43 percent opposed. If

Rand Paul has similar problems with blowing up innocent brown people abroad, he certainly

didn't emphasize it during his filibuster.

Paul is wrong because, rather than take issue with Obama's actual drone program, his criticism is

animated by the paranoid delusions of the far right -- the same apocalyptic visions that animate

gun-hoarding survivalists and the militia movement. As Charles Johnson noted, "Sen. Paul is a

frequent guest on the conspiracy-peddlingAlex Jones Show, where he co-signs every deranged

fantasy."

David Frum also observed that Paul "emerges from a milieu in which far-fetched scenarios don't

seem far-fetched at all."
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1685411/what-rand-paul-really-thinks-about-drones/http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdfhttp://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdfhttp://livingunderdrones.org/http://newamerica.net/node/70970http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/two-new-polls-obscure-american-views-obamas-drone-programhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/drones-opinion_n_2689813.htmlhttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41709_The_New_Hero_of_the_Right-_Rand_Paulhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/07/why-you-shouldn-t-standwithrand.htmlhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/07/why-you-shouldn-t-standwithrand.htmlhttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41709_The_New_Hero_of_the_Right-_Rand_Paulhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/drones-opinion_n_2689813.htmlhttp://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/two-new-polls-obscure-american-views-obamas-drone-programhttp://newamerica.net/node/70970http://livingunderdrones.org/http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdfhttp://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdfhttp://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1685411/what-rand-paul-really-thinks-about-drones/


11/74

Paul specifically mentioned the possibility of a democratically elected Adolph Hitler-like figure

coming to power in the United States. Looming federal tyranny -- against which the only

protection is an armed citizenry -- is a staple item in the Rand Paul inventory of urgent concerns.

Paul does deserve credit for illustrating the value of a "talking filibuster" in a dramatic way. But

he doesn't deserve any praise from progressives for attacking a straw-drone from the far reaches

of the right. And it's a shame that the discourse has been ceded to him, because we should be

having a rigorous debate about Obama's drone program -- about its legality, morality and

whether it's creating more terrorists than it kills.

It's not the technology itself -- people have been killing people remotely using unmanned aerial

vehicles since the Nazis started shooting rockets at London during World War II -- but the

policy. There is virtually no transparency or accountability attached to the secretive program.Congress has been pushing for more oversight, to no avail. And even defenders of these strikes,

like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., nonetheless believe the drone program should be taken out of

the CIA and put into the Department of Defense, which is subject to greater congressional

oversight, according to the Wall Street Journal($$).

So you can stand with Paul, but doing so is never going to lead to the national discussion we

should be having about the widespread use of these flying killer robots.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He's the author ofThe 15 Biggest Lies

About the Economy. Drop him an emailor follow him on Twitter.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/04/this-isnt-the-memo-youre-looking-for/http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/02/10/lawmakers-push-for-drone-oversight/http://www.powells.com/partner/32513/biblio/9780470643921http://www.powells.com/partner/32513/biblio/9780470643921mailto:%[email protected]://twitter.com/JoshuaHolhttp://twitter.com/JoshuaHolmailto:%[email protected]://www.powells.com/partner/32513/biblio/9780470643921http://www.powells.com/partner/32513/biblio/9780470643921http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/02/10/lawmakers-push-for-drone-oversight/http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/04/this-isnt-the-memo-youre-looking-for/


12/74

America is shamed that only Rand Paul is talking about drone executions

Where are the civil libertarians in the president's party that we must rely on a Tea PartyRepublican to champion this issue?

Amy Goodman guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 March 2013

Senator Rand Paul during his 13-hour talking filibuster insisting that Obama administration provide

stronger assurances that US citizens will never be killed by drone attack on US soil. Photograph: AP

You could say that a filibuster occurs when a senatordrones on and on. The problem with the USSenate was that there were too few senators speaking about drones this week.

President Barack Obama's controversial nomination ofJohn Brennan as director of the CentralIntelligence Agency was held up Wednesday afternoon by a Senate filibuster. The reason:Brennan's role in targeted killings by drones, and President Obama's presumed authority to killUS citizens, without any due process, if they pose an "imminent threat". The effort was led byTea Party Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined by several of his Republican colleagues.Among the Democrats, at the time of this writing, only Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon hadjoined in the genuine, old-fashioned "talking filibuster", wherein the activities of the Senate floorare held up by a senator's speech.

Members of Congress, tasked with oversight of intelligence and military matters, have repeatedlydemanded the memoranda from the White House detailing the legal basis for the drone program,only to be repeatedly denied. The nomination of Brennan has opened up the debate, forcing theObama administration to make nominal gestures of compliance. The answers so far have notsatisfied Senator Paul. Nearing hour six of his filibuster, Senator Paul admitted:

"I can't ultimately stop the nomination, but what I can do is try to draw attention to this and try toget an answer that would be something if we could get an answer from the president if he
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/amy-goodmanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/droneshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-senatehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-senatehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/john-brennanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/rand-paul-filibuster-drones-brennanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rand-paulhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/white-house-senate-memo-drone-brennanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/white-house-senate-memo-drone-brennanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rand-paulhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/rand-paul-filibuster-drones-brennanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/john-brennanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-senatehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-senatehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/droneshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/amy-goodman


13/74

would say explicitly that noncombatants in America won't be killed by drones. The reason it hasto be answered is because our foreign drone strike program does kill noncombatants. They mayargue that they are conspiring or they may someday be combatants, but if that is the samestandard that we are going to use in the United States, it is a far different country than I knowabout."

The issue of extrajudicial execution of US citizens, whether on US soil or elsewhere, is clearlyvital. But also important is the US government's now-seemingly routine killing of civiliansaround the world, whether by drone strikes, night raids conducted by special operations forces orother lethal means.

Rand Paul's filibuster followed a curious route, including references to Lewis Carroll's Alice inWonderland, and quotes from noted progressive, constitutional attorney and Guardian columnistGlenn Greenwald and bloggerKevin Gosztala of Firedoglake.

US Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Senator Paul, 4 March, writing:

"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would benecessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for thepresident to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."

Holder noted that Paul's question was "entirely hypothetical". So, on the Senate floor, Paulbrought up the case of two actual US citizens killed by drone strikes, Anwar al-Awlaki and hisson, Abdulrahman. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen on 30 September2011. Two weeks later, also in Yemen, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, a Denver native, wasalso killed by a drone strike. Paul asked during his filibuster:

"If you happen to be the son of a bad person, is that enough to kill you?"

As Senator Paul filibustered, Will Fitzgibbon wrote from the Bureau of Investigative Journalismin London:

"Last month, we launched a new drones project: Naming the Dead. The aim of this project is toidentify as many of the more than 2,500 victims of US drone strikes in Pakistan as possible.Given we currently do not know the identities of 80% of those killed, we believe this is a crucialand missing step to having a more transparent drones debate

"With all the attention being recently paid to American citizens killed by drones and with the

drone debate growing, we thought it would be a good time to remind ourselves of the individualhuman stories of drone victims. Those we know about and those we don't."

Barack Obama and John Brennan direct the drone strikes that are killing thousands of civilians. Itdoesn't make us safer. It makes whole populations, from Yemen to Pakistan, hate us. SenatorPaul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. Thatthere is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful and dangerous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-libertyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-libertyhttp://my.firedoglake.com/members/kgosztola/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/anwar-al-awlakihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/anwar-al-awlakihttps://twitter.com/WillFitzgibbonhttps://twitter.com/WillFitzgibbonhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/anwar-al-awlakihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/anwar-al-awlakihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/anwar-al-awlakihttp://my.firedoglake.com/members/kgosztola/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-libertyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/glenn-greenwald-security-libertyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa


14/74

Seattle police plan to deploy spy drones

Published time: October 26, 2012 19:17

The rainy skies of Seattle are likely to soon be a whole lot drearier. The FAA has approved thelocal police department to start using surveillance drones for law enforcement, but protesters aremaking it clear that they're willing to put up a fight.

The Seattle Police Department displayed a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on Thursdaythat they intend on using soon to monitor criminal activity across the city, but opponents ofdrone use came out in droves to protest the proposed plans.

The SPD is one of only law enforcement agencies given the go-ahead by the FederalAdministration Agency to show officers the ins-and-outs of UAVs, and the department hopesthat soon they will be able to save lives and make the city more secure by actually deploying

drones across town.

So far the department has already outlined an operations manual that they hope theyll have a

chance to adhere to soon, describing in detail how they hope to install an unmanned aerialsystem across the city to help photograph crime scenes, conduct search and rescue missions,monitor traffic accidents and even aid with natural disaster responses. Putting an extra set ofpolice eyesremote-controlled ones, at thathas put a fair share of Seattle residents ill atease, though.

"We are not going to tolerate this in our city. This is unacceptable,"anti-drone advocate EmmaKaplan told Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh at Thursdays unveiling.

The Seattle Times says another protester in attendance, identified as General Malaise, said, "Wedon't trust you with the weapons you do have, let alone new ones that are still being developed.

According to the paper, Thursdays community meeting held to identify the public opinion of theprogram was taken over by protesters, leaving McDonagh with only a small chunk of time totalk about his plans.


15/74

The city says they have no intent on using UAVs for any unlawful surveillance purposes, but thebad wrap drones have received as of latemade only worse with military versions of thedrones overseas executing as many as hundreds of civilians in recent yearshas left Seattleresidents saying they have good reason to oppose domestic use.

Even if unarmed, drones are a cause of big concern for some. The Seattle Police Department saysthey have every intent to make reasonable effort to not invade a persons reasonableexpectation of privacy, and that never will any police drones supersede the issuance of awarrant when needed.

UAS operators and observers will ensure and will be held accountable for ensuring that

operations of the UAS intrude to a minimal extent upon the citizens of Seattle, the draftedoperations manual reads.

As the technology is still being tested, though, opponents say its not clear what the departmentcould be able to get away with.

"The ways that they say they can use the drones is too broad,"ACLU of Washington DeputyDirector Jennifer Shaw tells the Seattle Times. "They have a list of different emergencies andthen a catchall phrase saying the drones can also be used in other situations if they get

permission."

Even what isnt outline, she says, could eventually be added.

"So long as it is a policy, it can be changed. An ordinance cannot be changed at will and is the

only way we can be sure there is meaningful input,"she said.

Earlier this month, the Sherriff of Alameda County, California asked the US Department ofHomeland Security for as much as $100,000 in funding so he could add a drone to his owndepartments arsenal. Sherriff Greg Ahern told NBC News that UAVs are Very valuable to anytactical officer, because they could aid in identifying everything from how a suspect is dressedto what avenues of escape are possible.


16/74

Domestic drone justice: US court green-lights police UAV use

Published time: August 03, 2012

Law,Planes,Police,USA

A North Dakota court has approved the use of drones to help arrest citizens on US soil. UAVshave primarily been used to conduct strikes against purported militants in countries like Pakistan,but their use at home has been on the rise as of late.

District Judge Joel Medd denied a request to dismiss charges against Rodney Brossart,who wasarrested after law enforcement resorted to using a Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to inspecthis property, according to court documents obtained by US News.

Judge Medd wrote that there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle and that theUAV appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested.

Last June, Brossart was arrested after a long standoff with police, prompted by his refusal toreturn a herd of cows that had meandered onto his farm in the town of Lakota. During thestandoff, Brossart was tased by police after allegedly threatening to kill an officer entering hisproperty. At one point, the Department of Homeland Security offered the local SWAT team oneof its Predator drones.
http://rt.com/tags/law/http://rt.com/tags/law/http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/news/predator-drone-us-arrest-583/http://rt.com/news/predator-drone-us-arrest-583/http://rt.com/news/predator-drone-us-arrest-583/http://rt.com/news/predator-drone-us-arrest-583/http://rt.com/news/predator-drone-us-arrest-583/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/law/


17/74

Court documents show that the drone was used for surveillance while local SWAT team chief

Bill Macki said the UAV inspected Brossarts property to make sure that neither he, nor hisfamily members, were armed or left the farm during the arrest.

Brossart was eventually arrested and charged with terrorizing and stealing property, as well as

criminal mischief. His family members were also charged.

Bruce Quick, Brossarts lawyer, said guerilla-like police tactics were used against his client.

He stressed that authorities had no legal right to use the drone to help capture Brossart, as theplane had been dispatched without judicial approval or a warrant. But he also noted that the

entire case reeked of constitutional violations.

The whole thing is full of constitutional violations, Quick told US News. The drone use is a

secondary concern.

He also said the use of a taser against his client was torturous and likened it to water-

boarding.

The prosecution, however, argued that the drone was used only after arrest warrants had beenissued, and that they were not used to gather evidence, but only to ensure the safety of the SWATteam that was about to raid the farm.

Unmanned surveillance aircraft were not in use prior to or at the time Rodney Brossart isalleged to have committed the crimes with which he is charged, State prosecutor Douglas

Manbeck wrote.

Congress mulls legislation for a droned-up 'brave new world'

In the meantime, the domestic use of drones has been subject to discussion on Capitol Hill. OnWednesday, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced a draft bill seeking to tightenthe regulations on drone use for both the government and private companies. The proposedDrone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2012 requires that police obtain warrants to usedrones for certain types of surveillance.

When it comes to privacy protections for the American people, drones are flying blind, Markeystated, as quoted by the Huffington Post. Drones are already flying in US airspacewith

thousands more to comebut with no privacy protections or transparency measures in place.

The Congressman said America was entering a brave new world and stressed that a companyshould not be allowed to make a profit out of selling consumer information obtained throughdrone surveillance.

Currently, there are no privacy protections or guidelines and no way for the public to know

who is flying drones, where, and why, Markey added. The time to implement privacyprotections is now.


18/74

Other lawmakers have already voiced concerns on the domestic use of drones. In June, SenatorRand Paul (R-KY)introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwanted Surveillance Act,which also requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant prior to the deployment of drones forsurveillance purposes.

Congress has asked the Federal Aviation Authority to draw up rules to integrate drone use intothe domestic airspace by 2015. The agency is set to start issuing licenses for police andemergency services drones this month. Ithas already authorizedthe use of pilotless Predatordrones in the airspace above nearly 10,000 acres in North Dakota.

The US Army is alsohoping to station drones on military bases throughout the nation afterobtaining certification from the FAA.

Police throughout the country have other potential applications for drones, in addition tosurveillance. In Texas, the Montgomery County Sheriffs Office obtained a pilotlessShadowhawk helicopter in hopes of eventually equipping it with weapons such as flares, smoke

grenades, tasers and rubber bullets that could be used to subdue a crowd. However, that UAVcrashed into a SWAT van during a photo op, raising the important issue of safety in a crowdedurban environment.

Spy drone could have almost brought down a plane in Colorado

Published time: May 17, 2012

Photo from www.valeriideas.com
http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-surveillance-law-733/http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-surveillance-law-733/http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-surveillance-law-733/http://rt.com/usa/news/predator-north-dakota-ground-243/http://rt.com/usa/news/predator-north-dakota-ground-243/http://rt.com/usa/news/predator-north-dakota-ground-243/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-army-domestic-drones-619/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-army-domestic-drones-619/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-army-domestic-drones-619/http://rt.com/usa/news/predator-north-dakota-ground-243/http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-surveillance-law-733/


19/74

Planes,Security,USA

An airline pilot came close to crashing his plane near Denver, Colorado this week afterencountering a mysterious object in the sky thought to be an unmanned drone aircraft.

A tape recording made available this week confirms that the pilot of a Cessna Citation 525 CJ1radioed air traffic controllers outside of Denver on Monday after nearly colliding with anunidentified flying object. Several factors have suggested that the aircraft was most likely arobotic drone aircraft.

According to the record, the pilot came close to hitting what he described as a large remote-controlled aircraft.

The Cessnas pilot says that the craft was encountered at around 8,000 feet above sea level, or

2,800 feet above the ground in near the highly elevated city of Denver.

Speaking to reporters at 9News, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration confirmedthat the agency is attempting to make sense of the unusual encounter.

The threat is there from a collision standpoint. We'll do as much as we can here to try to trackback what time it was,the FAAs Mike Fergus says of the groups investigation.

Greg Feith, a former investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board, adds to 9Newsthat, whatever the pilot encountered, is a threat no matter how you look at it.

"That's an issue because now we have something in controlled airspace that poses a danger,"says Feith.

Was this an unmanned vehicle that was part of some sort of law enforcement operation? Wasthis somebody that had flown a large model aircraft inadvertently into the airspace? Or was it

just [a bird that] caught the pilot's eye so he believed it was an aircraft but could have been a

very large wing span bird, he adds.

The FAAs Fergus voiced a theory that it the craft in question may had just been a small, civilianremote-controlled plane, but the president of a local model airplane club says that members ofthe Denver RC Eagles are not permitted to go more than 5,700 feet above sea level, leaving awindow of more than 2,000 feet between where those crafts can soar and where the pilot spottedthe object.

The FAA is currently in the midst of drafting guidelines to permit surveillance drones similar towhat the pilot described for law enforcement use across the country. The federal governmentcurrently has a fleet of crafts use to see from the sky, and several smaller agencies haveconfirmed that they have purchased drones as well. Once they have rules established, the FAAexpects that as many as 30,000 drones will be in American airspace in the coming years.
http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/planes/


20/74

Cop cars to be replaced with drones by 2025

Published time: November 23, 2012 19:34

Planes,Police,Security,USA

Law enforcement agencies across the US are lining up to be among the first to use drones toserve and protect, but unmanned vehicles are likely to replace the traditional cop cruiser in just afew short years.

In places likeCalifornia,Texas andWashington State, police officers in recent weeks haveintensified their demands for surveillance drones, a necessary addition they say to their arsenal oftools to help thwart crime. The Federal Aviation Administration has yet to finalize plans to putdrones in US airspace, but by the end of the decade as many as 30,000 UAVs are expected to besoaring through the sky.

By 2025, those drones are predicted to take the place of the police patrol car as unmannedvehicles operated by cops are being considered a likely inclusion on our roads of tomorrow.

Leading up to this years Los Angeles Auto Show, carmakers were asked to put togetherprototypes showing what they envision highway patrol vehicles to look like in the year 2025.The entries, from big manufacturers like BWM and Honda, are largely based on the stillprimitive drone technology that is used in military and surveillance missions overseas.
http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/planes/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/usa/news/san-diego-department-drone-107/http://rt.com/usa/news/san-diego-department-drone-107/http://rt.com/usa/news/san-diego-department-drone-107/http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-surveillance-montgomery-weapon-507/http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-surveillance-montgomery-weapon-507/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-surveillance-montgomery-weapon-507/http://rt.com/usa/news/san-diego-department-drone-107/http://rt.com/tags/usa/http://rt.com/tags/security/http://rt.com/tags/police/http://rt.com/tags/planes/


21/74

The car shows organizers asked designers to develop a vehicle thatshould empower highway

patrol officers to meet new demands and effectively both protect and serve the public while

considering not just enforcement needs but emission concerns, population growth and

transportation infrastructure.

According to the New York Times, drone devices are far and away the popular choice.

By coincidence or destiny, designers at several companies came up with concepts for robotic,

autonomously driven vehicles on ground, water and air. These future police cruisersusuallypresented as story boards rather than actual vehiclesrecall todays Predator and Global

Hawk drones, stars of the anti-insurgency efforts. They may give new meaning to those signs that

read Speed limit enforced by aircraft,writes the Times Phil Patton.

In the prototype unveiled by BMW, a larger ePatrol vehicle is equipped with up to threeindividual drones that can be deployed to follow suspected criminals in high-speed chases acrossbusy highways. Once one of the smaller can catch up with a targeted car, those individual drones

would then be able to send an impulse to startle the driver. One of those smaller drones would beable to fly on its own, and the other two unmanned vehicles could roll on two wheels throughbusy roads.

At Honda, designers there envision a similar concept: a large all-electric patrol car that coulddispatch at the drop of a hat unmanned motorcycles to catch up with criminals and maintaincoverage at high speeds for long distances.

In addition to the BMW E-Patrol (Human-Drone Pursuit Vehicle) and Hondas CHP DroneSquad, Subaru also sent into the car show designs for the SHARC, or Subaru HighwayAutomated Response Concept. PSFK online describes it as an autonomous, zero-emission

patrol vehicle meant to augment reduced highway patrol budgets by providing remote 3Dvideo to officers who can control the vehicle via goggles and voice command.

The winner of this years design challenge will be announced November 29 in Los Angeles.

California gets face scanners to spy on everyone at once

Published time: November 19, 2012 03:44

In a single second, law enforcement agents can match a suspect against millions upon millions of

profiles in vast detailed databases stored on the cloud. Its all done using facial recognition, and

in Southern California its already occurring.

Imagine the police taking a picture: any picture of a person, anywhere, and matching it on thespot in less than a second to a personalized profile, scanning millions upon millions of entriesfrom within vast, intricate databases stored on the cloud.

Its done with state of the art facial recognition technology, and in Southern California its

already happening.


22/74

At least one law enforcement agency in San Diego is currently using software developed byFaceFirst, a division of nearby Camarillo, Californias Airborne Biometrics Group. It canpositively identify anyone, as long as physical data about a persons facial features is storedsomewhere the police can access. Though that pool of potential matches could include millions,the company says that by using thebest available facial recognition algorithms they can scour

that data set in a fraction of a second in order to send authorities all known intelligence aboutanyone who enters a cameras field of vision.

Live high definition video enables FaceFirst to track and isolate the face of every person on

every camera simultaneously, the company claims on their website.

Up to 4 million comparisons per second, per clustered serverthats how many matches asingle computer wired to the FaceFirst system can consider in a single breath as images capturedby cameras, cell phones and surveillance devices from as far as 100 feet away are fed intoalgorithms designed to pick out terrorists and persons of interest. In a single setting, an unlimitedamount of cameras can record the movements of a crowd at 30-frames-per-second, pick out eachand every face and then feed it into an equation that, ideally, finds the bad guys.

"I realized that with the right technology, we could have saved lives, Joseph Rosenkrantz,president and CEO of FaceFirst, tells the Los Angeles Times. He says he dreamed up the projectafter the attacks of September 11, 2001 and has since invested years into perfecting it. Not yetmastered, however, is how to make sure innocent bystanders and anyone who wishes to stayanonymous is left alone as he expands an Orwellian infrastructure that allows anyone with theright credentials to comb through a crowd and learn facts and figures of any individual within thescope of a surveillance cam.


23/74

Speaking to reporters with Find Biometrics in August, Rosenkrantz said that the system isalready in place in Panama, where computers there process nearly 20 million comparisons persecond using a FaceFirst matching cluster with a large number of live surveillance cameras on

a scale beyond any other system ever implemented.

Within just a couple of seconds whoever needs to know receives an email containing all theevidence and stats about the person identified along with the video clip of them passing the

camera so they may be approached then and there, he says.

Earlier this year, RT broke the story ofTrapWire, a surveillance system marketed by globalintelligence firm Stratfor to law enforcement agencies across the world. Through investigation ofTrapWire and its parent companies, it became apparent that surveillance devices linked to thesystem could be monitored from remote fusion centers with access to an endless array ofcameras and databases. According to FaceFirsts developers, their technology doesnt need a

second person to scour video feeds to find suspected terrorists. Complex algorithms instead makefinding a match the job of a computer and positive IDs can be returned in under a second.

"It doesn't do me any good if I'm able to look at a face with a camera and five minutes later,

there's a match,"says Paul Benne, a security consultant who tells the Los Angeles Times that herecommended his clients use FaceFirst in high-security areas. "By then, the person's gone."

Rosenkrantz admits in his interview to the use of the technology at Panamas Tocumen airport,as well as other border crossings along the perimeter of the country. The deployment of FaceFirstin the United States still begs questions concerning the relationship between security andprivacy, though, and is likely to remain an issue of contention until agencies in San Diego andelsewhere explain what exactly theyre up to.

According to a report in Southern Californias News 10 published this week, an unnamed lawenforcement agency in San Diego County has been testing a handheld version of FacecFirst forabout five months now. On the record, though, no agency in the US has been forthcoming withwhy its using those specific facial scanners or even confirming its in their arsenal of everexpanding surveillance tools.

"If they spot someone who doesn't have identification, they can take their picture with theirphone and immediately get a result,"Joseph Saad, business development director for FaceFirst,tells News 10.

Saad says his company predicts that "facial recognition will be in every day society soon,perhaps before many Americans want to admit. According to filings available online, AirborneBiometrics was already cleared by the Government Services Administration (GSA) last year tohave FaceFirst sold to any federal agency in the country.

The ability to apply our technology for the advancement of our country has always been mynumber onegoal, Rosenkrantz said in April 2011 when Airborne was awarded an IT 70Schedule contract for FaceFirst by the GSA. Because that contact has since been signed withUncle Sam, Rosenfratz and company can see that goal through, at least until its up for renewal in
http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/


24/74

2017, through a deal that lets them sell FaceFirst to all federal agencies and other specifiedactivities and agencies.

In a demonstration video on the FaceFirst website, the company touts their product as being agreat addition to any acquisition device, specifically suggesting that clients consider integrating

the software with tactical robots, mobile phones and surveillance drones. Coincidently, just lastmonth the sheriff of Alameda County, California asked the US Homeland Security departmentfor as much as $100,000 in order to have an unmanned aerial vehiclesa dronein hisagencys arsenal for the sake of protecting the security of his citizens.

Weeks earlier, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told congressional lawmakers thatsheendorsesthe idea of sending drones to California to aid with law enforcement efforts. Pleadslike the one out of Alameda have been occurringacrossthe country in a rate consideredalarming by privacy advocates, but rarely has that opposition brought into the spotlight the scarysurveillance capabilities that any police agency may soon have in their hands. While the issues ofFourth Amendment erosions and privacy violations have indeed emerged, the actual abilities of

surveillance devicessnagging faces from large crowds in milliseconds and sending info to theauthoritieshave not.

Facial characteristics become biometric templates compared against multiple watch lists

created from customer photos or massive criminal databases, the promo explains. Those listscan be custom created by law enforcement agencies to track a most-wanted roster of suspectedcriminals but can pull from databases where any biometric information is already available orcan be inputted on the fly.

Discovery of San Diegos use of FaceFirst comes just two months after the FBIannouncedithad already rolled out a program to upgrade its current Integrated Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (IAFIS) that keeps track of citizens with criminal records across thecountry with one that relies on face recognition. The FBI expects the Next GenerationIdentification (NGI) program will include as many as 14 million photographs by the time theproject is in full swing in just two years, relying on digital images already stored on federaldatabases, such as the ones managed by state motor vehicle departments. In the state of NewJersey, the DMV has recentlytolddrivers that they are not allowed to smile for drivers licensephotos because it could cause complications in terms of logging biometric data in their ownfacial recognition system.

The FBI said that, by rolling out NGI, they will be able to provide services to enhanceinteroperability between stakeholders at all levels of government, including local, state, federal

and international partners. The unnamed San Diego law enforcement agency already with theability to match millions of faces in a single moment may be relying right now on thatconnectedness to keep track of anyone they wish.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times last week, 70 percent of biometrics spendingcomes from law enforcement, the military and the government. The private sector is scooping upthat scanning power too, though, with FaceFirst having already cut deals with Samsung toprovide them with technology for use in closed-circuit surveillance cameras marketed to
http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-drone-surveillance-napolitano-156/http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-drone-surveillance-napolitano-156/http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-drone-surveillance-napolitano-156/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-jersey-recognition-face-956/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-jersey-recognition-face-956/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-jersey-recognition-face-956/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-jersey-recognition-face-956/http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/http://rt.com/usa/news/seattle-police-drone-surveillance-341/http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-drone-surveillance-napolitano-156/


25/74

businesses. But while the Federal Trade Commission has informed companies and corporationsthat they need to be more transparent about how personally identifiable information is stored ontheir servers, the Times notes that no guidelines like that exist for law enforcement agencies,who may very well sit on mounds of intelligence without good reason.

"You don't need a warrant to use this technology on someone,"Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota)said last year during a congressional hearing about the use of expanding surveillance technology."You might not even need to have a reasonable suspicion that they're involved in a crime."

Aside from FaceFirst, law enforcement is using that excuse to pull data on personsof interestand otherwiseeven when their faces are protected. As RT reported recently, an ever-growingnumber of police departments are investing in license platescannersthat let officers identify asmany as 10,000 vehicles and their registered owners in a single shift. Much like how FaceFirstcan pick out dozens of suspects from a single photograph and send data to custom servers, thoselicense plate readers can pick up the precise location of persons never suspected of a crime,making rampant invasion of privacy just collateral damage as the surveillance monster state

grows larger

The cameras will catch things you didnt see, cars you wouldnt have run, and the beauty of itis that it runs everything, Lieutenant Christopher Morgon of the Long Beach, California PoliceDepartment says in promotional material for an automated license plate recognition devicemanufactured by PIPS Technology.

The Federal Trade Commission has offered the security industry best practice suggestions abouthow long to hold onto data picked up by surveillance cameras, but safeguards for lawenforcement agencies are largely absent. In the case of the scanners used to find license plates onthe streets of Southern California, Jon Campbell of LA Weekly writes, The location and photo

information is uploaded to a central database, then retained for yearsin case it's needed for asubsequent investigation.

Rosenkrantz says FaceFirst is experiencing triple digit growth in 2012 and expects sustainableexpansion to continue throughout the next five years. By 2020, the Federal AviationAdministration expects that as many as 30,000 drones will be operating in US airspace.
http://rt.com/usa/news/license-plate-police-department-520/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-plate-police-department-520/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-plate-police-department-520/http://rt.com/usa/news/license-plate-police-department-520/


26/74

1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation

Armored Personnel Carriers in Baghdad. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

TheDenver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitledHomeland Securityaims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department ofHomeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. Asreported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden byinternational law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Alsoreported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 millionrounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+years. In America.

Add to this perplexing outr purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition ofheavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters ofoperation. As observedby paramilblogger Ken Jorgustin last September:
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-roundshttp://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-roundshttp://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-roundshttp://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-roundshttps://marketplace.fedbid.com/fbweb/fbobuyDetails.do?token===wBKxmaVGYR9Kcq5Ajq%2BRH6QAAAAAHeAAgAgTFCGg/FzzqQbJAAyVXBA0Orhttp://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.htmlhttp://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/latest-homeland-security-vehicle-street-sweeper/http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M113_Iraq_1st_Armored_Division.jpghttp://modernsurvivalblog.com/government-gone-wild/latest-homeland-security-vehicle-street-sweeper/http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-28580666.htmlhttps://marketplace.fedbid.com/fbweb/fbobuyDetails.do?token===wBKxmaVGYR9Kcq5Ajq%2BRH6QAAAAAHeAAgAgTFCGg/FzzqQbJAAyVXBA0Orhttp://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-roundshttp://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-rounds


27/74

NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control Forbes Staff

[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparentlythrough the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturerNavistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717Mine Resistant Protected MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of theUnited States.

These MRAPs ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verifiedobservers with photos, videos, and descriptions.

Regardless of the exact number of MRAPs being delivered to DHS (and evidently some

to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top

vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proofglass? In a war zone yes, definitely. Lets protect our men and women. On the streetsof America ?

They allhave gun ports Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets ofAmerica?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/http://www.forbes.com/places/united-states/http://www.forbes.com/places/united-states/http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/http://www.forbes.com/places/united-states/http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/


28/74

Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary JanetNapolitano is planning a coup detatagainst President Obama, and the Congress, to installherself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs thatthe Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, fortwo years, in the U.S. Department of Energys general counsels office in its procurement and

finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to why would DHS need such avehicle? almost certainly is this: its a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys arebeing recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So why not?

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers andstockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because its wrong in everyway. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping thefederal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of hisProgressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal governmentcan (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.

Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelersby squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed)DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend$50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHSspokesperson justifies this acquisition to help the government get a low price for a big

purchase. Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center: Thetraining center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) thats a stockpile that wouldlast DHS over a century. To claim that its to get a low price for a ridiculously wastefulamount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.

Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban100 capacity magazine clips. Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billionrounds is 16 million times more objectionable.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, inDebacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at theUniversity of Chicago LawSchool, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, Oh, youre thegun guy.

I responded: Yes, I guess so.

I dont believe that people should own guns, Obama replied.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/janet-napolitano/http://www.forbes.com/profile/janet-napolitano/http://www.forbes.com/companies/noble/?lc=int_mb_1001http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tsa-sealed-50-million-sequester-eve-deal-buy-new-uniformshttp://www.forbes.com/law/http://www.forbes.com/law/http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weaponshttp://www.amazon.com/Debacle-Obamas-Growth-Regain-Future/dp/1118186176http://www.amazon.com/Debacle-Obamas-Growth-Regain-Future/dp/1118186176http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-chicago/http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-chicago/http://www.forbes.com/law/http://www.forbes.com/law/http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-chicago/http://www.amazon.com/Debacle-Obamas-Growth-Regain-Future/dp/1118186176http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weaponshttp://www.forbes.com/law/http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tsa-sealed-50-million-sequester-eve-deal-buy-new-uniformshttp://www.forbes.com/companies/noble/?lc=int_mb_1001http://www.forbes.com/profile/janet-napolitano/http://www.forbes.com/profile/janet-napolitano/


29/74

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

He simply grimaced and turned away.

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed

disdain.

Mr. Obama? Wheres the disdain now? Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling backby 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armoredpersonnel carriers, would be a fourfer.

The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry. It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services. It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly

depolarizing America. It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the

anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of thefederales.

If Obama doesnt show any leadership on this matter its an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa,

chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. MichaelMcCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon SecretaryNapolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary? Buying 1.6 billion roundsof ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to whathomeland security really means. Discuss.

Sheriff Maketa: Democrats use gun control to threaten sheriffs' pay

Big questions remain about where allegations came from

Lindsay Watts, Target 13 Reporter,[email protected]

Mar 10, 2013

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa dropped a bombshell over the weekend claiming ColoradoSenate Democrats are threatening sheriffs' salaries because sheriffs oppose gun controllegislation. But big questions remain about who the threats came from.

Maketa made the allegations Saturday morning on the Jeff Crank Radio Show on KVOR. Hesaid he got an email from a member of the County Sheriffs of Colorado describing a verbalconversation that person had with someone connected to Senate democrats.

"Basically in that email, it said the Senate majority leadership, the Dems, are very upset withyour opposition and testimony on the gun bills and they are stating we should reconsider ourpositions to gain a more favorable light for salary support from the Dems," Maketa said.
http://www.krdo.com/Target-13-Reporter/-/417342/481028/-/vs86tsz/-/index.htmlhttp://www.krdo.com/Target-13-Reporter/-/417342/481028/-/vs86tsz/-/index.htmlmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.krdo.com/Target-13-Reporter/-/417342/481028/-/vs86tsz/-/index.html


30/74

In a nutshell: that Senate democrats are delaying a measure to raise sheriffs' salaries becausesheriffs are speaking out against gun control.

"I made it clear that I felt it was almost bordering extortion," Maketa said. "Attempted influenceof a public official."

Maketa never names the person who sent him the email or the person or legislator whoconnected sheriffs' pay with gun control legislation.

Maketa has refused all media interviews, and a sheriff's office spokesperson told TARGET 13that Maketa planned to write a letter to a local newspaper to be published Tuesday and would notcomment before then.

In his KVOR interview Maketa goes on to say, "I think that's the type of antics that we're seeingout of the leadership up there and it starts right at the top with the president of the Senate."

Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, said he's furious with Maketa's allegations,calling them hearsay.

"The allegations are completely, totally, utterly false and fabricated," Morse said. "And for oneof the top law enforcement officials in our community to make such baseless allegations disturbsme deeply."

Morse said he has contacted other top leaders in the Senate about the allegations.

"(Maketa) knows there's no factual basis to it because he hasn't checked the facts himself,"Morse said. "He's in law enforcement so he knows, you always check first and then make yourallegations. This is just so out of character."

Morse went on to point out that no senator, Democrat or Republican, has introduced a bill thatwould raise the pay of county officials.

"I'm not in favor of that bill, but I'm happy to help (Republicans) get it introduced and see if theycan get it accomplished," Morse said. "I think with everything families are suffering right now,

people like Sheriff Maketa making $111,000 are doing just fine."

Maketa pointed out on his Facebook page that a salary bill would not impact him personallybecause he is term limited. He also wrote: "I want to make something very clear; I have not beendirectly threatened or coerced in any way nor would I tolerate any threat."


31/74

TARGET 13 contacted the head of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, Chris Olson. He said theemail Maketa referenced did not come from him and that he had no knowledge of the allegationsMaketa had made.

"Nothing came through our organization," Olson said. "It must be Sheriff Maketa on his own."

Teller County Sheriff Mike Ensminger said he had

Documents

Liberals Should Proudly Cheer on Rand Paul