TIME magazine proclaims "Rand Paul Kills Patriot Act, Boosts Presidential Campaign -- For the Moment."
For the moment?
A sycophantic press is a bitter press when things don't go their betters way.
The bitches at Reuters -- Patricia Zengerle and Warren Strobel -- filed a report accusing Rand Paul of, among other things, standing against the PATRIOT Act in order to fund raise for his presidential campaign.
Yet no where in their 'report' did Bitch Zengerle or Bitch Strobel ever note that Barack ran for the presidency himself on a campaign opposing the PATRIOT Act.
It's interesting the way the bitches played it -- at every outlet -- pretending that Rand Paul was being strange or difficult.
In 2013, Caroline Houck (Politfact) could note:
"I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient," Obama said in 2007, adding that "the FISA court works."
Again critiquing "the Bush administration's initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens," Obama promised to "update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law."
He also vowed to "revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like national security letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."
Yet in covering the Senate show down, press bitches acted as though they'd been put in a muzzle. Certainly, they couldn't have forgotten.
After all, Paul raised the issue in his May 31st remarks:
James Otis fought a famous case in the 1760's and he found against the British soldiers writing their own warrants. The interesting thing is part of the PATRIOT Act allows our police to write their own warrants. We have something called national security letters. These have been done by the hundreds of thousands.
Interestingly, when the president was in the senate, he was opposed to national security letters and said that they should have judicial warrants. Now it's kind of interesting that in this bill that will pass - it's supported by the president, supported by the Director of National Intelligence and now supported in a wide bipartisan fashion.
It concerns me that the president that supports the bulk data collection and has been performing it illegally for six years now supports this bill the devil's in the details and the question is, will the new bill still allow bulk collection by the phone companies? Will they be able to put into the search engine not an individual for whom we have suspicion but an entire corporation? This is what was revealed when we saw the warrant that was revealed that had Verizon's name on it.
For almost two weeks now, Rand Paul has been calling the shots forcing the White House to play defense just to hold their own.
Can Rand Paul govern if elected president?
He's already demonstrated he can as a US senator.
And that's the story the press bitches have avoided as they've rushed to prop up faded flower Barack Obama.
