57 votes

Amash Argues with AIPAC Stooge

Although broadcast on 7/31/13.. this was not previously posted.
It shows the Feinsteinish ARROGANCE on Capitol hill smugly defending tyranny. We are in a VICIOUS fight... Jane Harmon can barely contain it.
►Thanks to AnCap for this link: AND SEE (BELOW) April 21, 2009 Video
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_controversy


http://youtu.be/1ztuV71N0TI

►Check out the 2009 'indignation' when Harmon (herself) was wiretapped during a Bush/NSA 'investigation' :) especially @ 5:00 mark

http://youtu.be/m_CUvZcv-Sw

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

3rd Party DoctrineJustificationArguments forDragnet-Misleading

The 3rd Party Doctrine is being used as justification for what many call an unlawful “Dragnet” of Gov’t Surveillance of the American People. The 3rd Party Doctrine’s argument "rests on the need to maintain the technological neutrality of 4th Amendment protections... It offers a way to maintain the balance of police power... It ensures that the same basic level of constitutional protection applies regardless of technology." http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_data_question...
A comparison to a world without 3rd parties is often used for examples in the arguments. For instance, in the case of phone records Metadata, the comparison is used whereas in a world without 3rd parties, a person would need to physically go to another person’s house, for example, in order to carry out a conversation. If that person however was a suspect, the police or gov’t agency carrying out an investigation would only be able to follow the suspect to wherever they go and then see them disappear in a building, for example. However, in a world using 3rd parties the person can simply just make a phone call. So the 3rd Party Doctrine says that the police or investigative agency should have access to the same type of information they would otherwise be able to get in a world without 3rd parties such as knowing who the suspect called and the duration of the call.
So, many of us understand the idea of the gov’t having access to this Metadata information without a warrant. But also we can similarly apply the principal of the doctrine such that in a world without 3rd parties, the police or gov’t agency would only be able to know future calls, when, and duration AFTER the person becomes a suspect, NOT PRIOR, since for the world without 3rd parties environment, it is most likely only possible to follow someone AFTER they become a person of interest.
However, the gov't, is trying to convince everyone that it is ok and consistent with the 3rd Party Doctrine and 4th Amendment for them to gather and store this Metadata for what we are told can be up to 5years in the past. And then when someone somehow becomes suspect at some point in the future for something, all of their past, present, and future Metadata can be viewed. This is the very concern that Edward Snowden made in his disclosures.
The concern is that this type of surveillance and storage is NOT consistent with the same 3rd Party Doctrine principal of technological neutrality and therefore is considered by many, who are familiar with the 3rd Party Doctrine, to be in violation of the 4th Amendment. Just because technology enables the gov't to look into past Metadata, doesn’t mean they should or that it’s legal when they try to hide behind the 3rd Party Doctrine. This interpretation by the gov’t serves to instead be technologically unbalanced as it favors the police state to have more of an advantage over the individual with the technology versus without.
To be consistent with the 3rd Party Doctrine, many believe that collection of current Metadata should only be allowed on a very short term basis, and retained on Americans for a very short time period, say no more than 1 month for example, for those who aren't under some type of "suspicion".
There are other issues that I can mention for which it appears the gov’t is trying to use the 3rd Party Doctrine for justification of its surveillance efforts, but one of the most compelling is the consideration of the ubiquitous advantage that the gov’t now has due to the technology for which would otherwise be impossible without 3rd parties. All of this legal jibber jabber trying to get us to buy into the idea that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in these matters of massive Metadata is absurd in my opinion. The ability for the gov’t to record everything, everywhere, all the time in a world without 3rd parties as a comparison would have been impossible. So how do the gov’t agencies come to the conclusion that they can use the 3rd Party Doctrine for legal justification to do these sorts of things now, recently revealed during the course of congressional activity?
I wonder if lawmakers even considered these types of applications of the 3rd Party Doctrine when those decided to vote No on the Amash amendment which would have defunded the NSA for what many here consider unconstitutional and unlawful acts of surveillance being carried out at this very moment.

-LibertyG ... 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 "To some we are a scent of death leading to death, but to others, a scent of life leading to life. And who is competent for this? For we are not like the many who make a trade(for profit) but as those with sincerity...

I like how Amash owned her at

I like how Amash owned her at the end and she suddenly started backpedaling.

"Well, uh, yeah, uh, I agree that's a change should be made, and uh, I think that Senator Feinstein, uh, recommended that to be changed... uh..."

I wonder how big that briefcase full of money she got was?

The government wants to

The government wants to collect all our communication data just in case there's something in there they can use against us to prosecute us with in the future.

Give me more - Amash is tenacious

Intelligent, informed, articulate, tenacious. We need many more like him. He just gets better and better. He is getting a lot of exposure with the establishment hope that he will stumble, crash and burn. The exact opposite is happening... he keeps rising !

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

great job by Justin

Jane Harmon was so condescending, shaking her head the whole time he spoke. What a bitch. Seriously.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Amash is the REAL THING.

Rand Who?, sadly I must say, is Brand X, a cheap imitation, a wolf-in-sheep's clothing, a Trojan horse.

Rand has a deep authoritarian/quasi-fascist vein of ambition underpinning his actions.

I bet you'll find Amash endorsing Rand Paul...

Will that make Amash a wolf? But we can all agree that Rep. Amash is fantastic and so is Thomas Massie.

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

:-)

And we mustn't forget Mike Lee :-)

We need all the Liberty that we can muster, in all positions, local, state, and above :-)

I still have a man-thing for Justin though lol but they ALL compliment each other :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

she is the head of the Woodrow Wilson center?

that alone is funny all by itself!

lol, silly me, until now I actually thought your headline said

"StoogeS" in the plural, and not in the singular!

yup, should be stoogeS, seeing as how Blitzer was literally the AIPAC's mouthpiece:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=finkelstein+vs+b...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Great soundbite @ 3:28

Jane Harman: "Jane Harman is connected to some foreign terrorist activity," apparently domestic as well. ;)

ALL ROADS LEAD TO ZIONISM

she is a zionist and a liar

we need more people like AMASH in our service and less snakes like harman.

FLIP-FLOPPING WHORE.

nuff said

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

HYPOCRITE RAT!

That's what she is.

And a traitor at that, as is anyone who supports AIPAC.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Wow! Feinstein is a good ventiloquist.

That woman is a puppet.

Amash has a great ability on

Amash has a great ability on making his arguments. He absolutely nailed it.

I've also noticed Amash has been the go-to, Representative for news organizations lately. I love it!

Before today, I've never heard of

Jane Harman.

Just another paid shill to keep the sheep confused.

And I'm just going to avoid speaking about AIPAC. *spit*

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

The craziest thing is that she accuses Amash of fear mongering

Amash is warning us of a violation of our rights that actually affect every person in the country TODAY. On the other hand, she is trying to keep everyone afraid of terrorist boogeymen who may attack someone sometime in the future.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Excellent point.

I hope Amash is taking points on how to effectively debate. Turn an attack back on somebody, keep the offensive with these demons.

Indeed she and the federal government constantly use fear to persuade people to depend on them for safety and protection, which of course they never can or want to deliver.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Rep. Jane Whoreman the

Rep. Jane Whoreman the duplicitous ...

OMG! How she b-i-t-c-h-e-d when she was the target but now it's all good for others.

SteveMT's picture

Amash mashes.

She is another hypo as in hypocrite.

Does she work for Chertoff Group

Does she work for Chertoff Group now too that she is out of office?

sneaky

subliminal zio-producer cuts to a split screen every time Harmon starts shaking her head.

Oh boy, I bet nobody fell for that!

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Check out the indignation...

When Harmon HERSELF got wiretapped by the Bush/NSA in April 2009

http://youtu.be/m_CUvZcv-Sw

Warrantless wiretapping Controversy

Harman defended the Bush administration's use of international (cross-border) warrantless wiretapping through the National Security Agency, saying: "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities".[22] Harman suggested that both the original "despicable"[23] whistleblowers and the New York Times, which broke the story, should be investigated, and in the case of The Times, "limits on press immunity" should be looked into.[24]

Harman repeatedly pressured the Times not to publish the warrantless wiretap story. In late 2004, Harman called Phillip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief of the Times, to discourage him from running the story.

In December 2005, Harman was among a group of lawmakers who visited Taubman in an attempt to convince him not to run the story.[25]

BUT...

Following reports in April 2009 of her conversations being recorded without her knowledge, she appeared to take a different stance regarding wholly domestic wiretaps. In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC:

That's what I've asked Attorney General Holder to do—to release any tapes, I don't know whether they were legally made or not, of my conservations about this matter... and to hope that he will investigate whether other members of Congress or other innocent Americans might have been subject to this same kind of treatment. I call it an abuse of power in the letter I wrote him this morning...I'm just very disappointed that my country—I'm an American citizen just like you are—could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I'm one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, but I have a bully pulpit and I can fight back. I'm thinking about others who have no bully pulpit, and may not be aware, as I was not, that right now, somewhere, someone is listening in on their conversations, and they're innocent Americans.
—Jane Harman, [26]

►Ain't she a PEACH??????????????????????????

yup:

http://www.dailypaul.com/295920#comment-3169430

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_controversy

In April 2009, CQ Politics, also quoting anonymous sources, said Harman had been captured on a National Security Agency wiretap prior to the 2006 elections, telling an "Israeli agent" that she would "waddle into" lobbying the Department of Justice on the AIPAC case. Harman ended the phone call, according to CQ, by saying, "This conversation doesn’t exist".[17][18] Harman denied the allegations, saying: "These claims are an outrageous and recycled canard, and have no basis in fact. I never engaged in any such activity. Those who are peddling these false accusations should be ashamed of themselves".[16]

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

This is from, 31 July 2013

Anyone read Feinstein's WP commentary? http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=4...

What is a shame, is now that Amash's Bill is toast, he is being PAWNED by MSM and the Democrats, becasue he thinks MSM is OPPORTINUTY for him, but in this case it is not.

While many here HATE AMERICA, for those who do not HATE America, Amash is NOT doing himself any favors.

Harmon alerted people to Feinstein's recommendations, adn THIS IS HOW THEY WORK together.. while NO ONE stood for Amash but those who don't even belong to the GOP, have NO power, just a famn club that HATE's America.

Amash better wise up.. he needs to build aliences in the GOP.. or get out and represent the LOSERS, like Gary Johnson did.

Uh, Granger...

You know I support Israeli sovereignty. But...

This is about the destruction of the constitution, and in particular, the 4th amendment. The GOP means nothing if it cannot &/or will not uphold the constitution.

I voted for Gary Johnson. Romney's policies were nearly identical to Obama's. I don't think I should have to explain that to you.
I am still registered republican, and have no plans on changing that. I will be active in SC to get Lindsey Graham replaced by a constitutional conservative here, this & next year.

But putting party ahead of the constitution and individual liberty is exactly why the country is in this mess.

I support Israel, but AIPAC is not trustworthy. They are an elitist PAC that supports the globalist elite in America and Israel. It is all about keeping ties between elitists here, and elitists there. They wouldn't even let Ron Paul speak at their little republican debate last year, even though Jews like myself who support Israel felt Dr. Paul's policies would be best for both countries. Especially when the alternative was Obama or Obama-white.

We absolutely cannot have people with loyalties to another country before the USA, in our government.

We have globalist elites from multiple nations & organizations trying to run our government (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, Britain, Switzerland, U.N., CFR, Bilderberg, etc., etc.). That is not ok, even if you side with one particular nation in it's own conflicts.

This lady is the ultimate hypocrite. She is crying about being spied on by one administration, then supports the next administration spying on everyone else. Also, she (allegedly) did elitist AIPAC's dirty work and committed espionage against our country. What a p.o.s.

If you think people like Feinstein and her minions are good for Israel, the USA, or anyone, you need re-think your position.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

It's ok by me if we do not agree

The GOP means quite a bit of destruction if allowed to remain as they are. So why do you not get in and do something about it? That's what Ron Paul asked. Why did you rebuke Ron Paul for a Republican Spoiler?

My Romney vote had nothing to do with Romney.. it had everythong to do with remaining in the GOP for Rand. I'm not in a liberty committee.. what are you doing? I'm re-writing By_laws to adhear to the Constitution. What are you doing?

Party is how you restpore the constitution and has been since 1790.

AIPAC does not support Israel. AIPAC supports the MIC in Israel's name.

Since Americans like you refuse to get in, there is no legal recourse to stop a duel citizen willing to do what you will not.. or for them to team up against you, since you refuse to get in and get to work. It's LEGAL because you are not inthere working to change it.

I think Feinstein is QUEEN of CA because the GOP has no one to replace her.. too many people don't want to get "dirty", and so those in the GOP, warts and all, the the only thing providing the opportunity to Restore the Republic.. but since we have so many like you, who expect someone like me to do all the dirty work... You earned the government you have. Not me.

C'mon...

You supported Romney to support Rand?
That makes no sense. Ron was still running even after Rand endorsed Romney. I was in Tampa so stop pretending you are the only one working within the party. I am the grass-roots.
I have told you I will be working here in SC to support my GOP challenger to Lindsey Graham. You may as well support GOP Lindsey Graham, if you supported Romney.

As I said above, the GOP means nothing if it does not support the right policies, i.e.- upholding the constitution!!! Which it, as a whole party, has not!

Once again, Romney's policies were the same as Obama's, on all the critical issues. How does that help liberty? It doesn't.

Voting Garry Johnson wasn't my first choice. Ron Paul was. He didn't run in the general. But IDEALS, and POLICIES are what matter, not PARTY. If PARTY was all that mattered, then Lindsey Graham, John McCain, & Boehner would be on our side? LOL, Granger, you whack-a-doo!

You and I agree on AIPAC. Why don't you work with your people in the GOP establishment to convince them that AIPAC is not good for our country, nor Israel?

Your major malfunction is that you put Party first, Principles second. That is how they have infiltrated our party. We need to be far less compromising of our ideals and the constitution, not more compromising.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

What?

I did not support Romney. I did not join the GOP because Romney asked me to. I joined the GOP because Ron asked me to. I did not petition, qualify and win my committee seat because Romney asked me to. I petitioned, qualified and won my committee seat because Ron Paul asked me to. I was not The Ron Paul campaign NW CA team leader for Romney. I did not place third in highest turn out for Ron Paul voters out of 53 counties for Romney in CA. I am not listed on the CA SOS web page as a Ron Paul national delegate to support Romney. I did not place one Romney sign. I placed banners, yard signs in four counties for Ron Paul. My letters that were published in my local paper were not supporting Romney, they supported Ron Paul. My thank you letters are from Ron Paul, not Romney.

It wasn't about Romney.

Ron Paul made it very clear.. the GOP is takable and we need to take the GOP and make it ours. I'm not alone. I was. When I started in the GOP I was the only Ron Paul supporter and they made it very difficult for me. So what I voted Romney? My oath gave me no choice, and it was better to be an oath keeper than a quitter.

That's my principles and it has paid off.

No one can take away what I did for Ron Paul. You, and other liberty movementers, may try by shoving my Romney vote at me, but to me, I know what I did. And I know what you didn't do. I know what I am doing.. and it's not easy.. it's a lot of work. It would be easier if there were more who understood what Ron Paul was saying.. but they don't.

You want me to do all the hard work for you, and while I do it, you insult and berate me.. so it's a good thing I'm doing this for myself. I want LIBERTY, and I'm working, not waiting, WORKING to acheive that. Working to materialze Ron Paul's message, and Rand is doing a fine job.

You do what you want. Crying about the loss of rights makes your day.. continue to cry. Berating my efforts makes you feel that you're productive. have at it.. I'll be sure to think of you at my meeting, as I pass out my work, for a debate, and vote.. and I will win, and wonder.. what did you do?

I put my self interests first. Party is a tool. You want to cry about the tool.. have at it. Like Ron and Rand, I'm going to use the same tool they did. Think you're better than us? You're not.

(((Granger)))

I want to tell you again how much I appreciate all your hard work for Liberty in California!

What I understand Lawmanjed to say is that he is working within the GOP in South Carolina; I certainly hope that he is successful in defeating Lindsey Graham in the upcoming Primary (and I intend to contribute financially to a challenger once I see how the field is shaking out). In my position as a Republican Precinct Committeeman here in Florida, I am, for my part, seeking to move my county GOP toward Liberty.

Those of us who are part of the GOP machinery in our various states did not all take the same loyalty oath. If, in your case, you took an oath to support and vote for all GOP nominees, then, in my opinion, you acted correctly to keep your word. My loyalty oath is different, in that I cannot publicly support someone other than the Party nominee, but I can vote as I see fit (and I can choose to refrain from supporting anyone at all in a particular race, if I want to).

My loyalty oath did not require me to vote for Gov. Romney, so I didn't; your oath was different, and it compelled you to act accordingly. I think that we should all realize that we can (and should) make different tactical choices while we all seek to advance the cause of Liberty.

Concerning Congressman Amash, I think that he is very much "working within the GOP." He is now a second-term Republican Congressman who has always worked very hard to keep his constituents -- and all others who care to follow his Facebook page -- informed on how he votes, and why. (In the course of doing that, he provides, in my opinion, a valuable window into the day-to-day happenings on the House floor.) I don't see it as "Rand Paul vs. Justin Amash"; rather, Paul is (as yet unofficially) running for President, while Amash is battling for Liberty in the House. We need good people in both places (and in the Senate as well -- Mike Lee for Majority Leader in 2016!). Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee are a team -- just like Granger, Lawmanjed, and I are a team, a team scattered across the country, fighting for Liberty.

God bless, dear sister. Please keep up the great work in California. I will keep you in my prayers.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand