Coakley Reaffirms Support For Patriot Act Spying
posted 1st December 2009 in Democrats, Legislation, Liberty by jclifford
This morning, I wrote of Martha Coakley’s alleged support for the Patriot Act. Well, that support is no longer alleged. Tonight, during a debate between the candidates for the open U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts, Coakley openly embraced the Patriot Act.
Coakley claimed that “The Patriot Act is about keeping people safe without violating civil rights,” in spite of all the evidence given during October’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing showing that the Patriot Act is neither about keeping people safe, nor refraining from violating civil rights.
Coakley’s newest support for the Patriot Act came on the same day as revelations that the federal government has demanded personal GPS data 8 million times over the last year, from just one wireless company. That immense violation of Americans’ constitutional rights likely took place under provisions of the Patriot Act.
The moderator of the debate asked all the candidates if they would vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Everyone but Coakley said they would vote against reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Coakley refused to commit to voting against reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Instead, she said that she would seek “the proper balance” between security and Americans’ constitutional rights.
That “proper balance” has increasingly tilted the USA down a slippery slope toward tyranny.
Tags: gps, martha coakley, massachusetts, patriot act, senate, spying
 |  |  |
Yes, “our” lawmakers are lining up behind unconstitutional acts like this in the interest of a phony “homeland security” concept which makes us all criminals in waiting. Just step out of line, write something controversial on a blog somewhere, or say some “key” word over your cell phone and some spy camera, NSA data collection site or listening center will catch you and the brownshirts will come and wisk you off to jail since THEY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AT ALL TIMES.
And i thought the old Soviet Union was repressive and that the Chinese have a harsh government.
It turns out that ours is no better.