This is why we have the Bill of Rights-we are slowly losing these rights.

Directive 10-289 is coming unless we stop this erosion of our Constitution.

"entitlement" is going to destroy this country. Unfortunately for the black people, our government has coddled them into feeling they are 'entitled". Its a shame because now its very hard to look at a black person and not have an immediate feeling they will use their entitled philosophy to do bad things to me.

Christie could easily get a job on Real Husbands of New Jersey. He would fit right in with the gross, low class people they had on the Real Housewives of New Jersey.

You hit it right on the head. Once our information is out there, we lose control over how its used, and the government really doesnt have OUR interests at heart. I got a similar letter, but I have to admit I didnt connect the dots to see where this could go.

My reply was to your comment: "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights imposes restrictions on the government not on individual citizens."
Your example is not "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights". You also ignore the topic of this discussion, which is the 4th amendment, not the 1st or the 10th.
You are going to ignore the text of the rest of the bill of rights ? Sorry, not rational or convincing. If you want to say SOME of the bill of rights specifically restrict government, while others are broader and protect rights against all, then I would agree. ;^)

I recently visited the Jefferson museum in VA, and came away from that visit with the idea that the beginnings of the USA were not rooted in philosophy so much as a desire of the founders to rid themselves of the evils of the British rule. So they met and compromised on what to put into the documents. It was based not on freedom per se, but freedom from England. Religious freedom was touted in the documents, BUT when it came to polygamy with the Mormons, that was not to be tolerated. Economic freedom was OK, but not for the american indians. When it came to the civil war, what business was it really if the south wanted OUT? The north simply decided they wanted the riches of the south for themselves and waged war. Our history isnt even closely restrained by the words of the constitution- and especially now.

I'll never forget how my stomach turned when I saw Christie hug the grinning dictator on the tube.
He is another "lesser of two evils" primary election candidate I would refuse to vote for as well as Sir Jeb of the Royal House of Bush.

To drive people to open rebellion requires a number of offenses, each building supporters all along the way. Adams said that it was Otis' argument regarding writs of assistance in 1761 that started things for him. By 1775, the British went beyond writs of assistance to rummaging through colonials' homes, which is the next illogical step for a tyrannical government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's pretty clear that the first amendment is intended to restrict congress (the federal government). Private army issues are a civil matter with potential criminal implications. These are left to the state. Consider the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I think that's pretty clear.

Certainly I agree with regard to all you said about the "Boston massacre" and John Adams' defense of the lieutenant. As for the African Americans vs. cops situation, you are, of course, right as well. Happy Ferguson Anniversary.

My reading is that the Bill of Rights guarantees those rights and prevents both government and private parties from infringing on those rights without consent. For example, you can't house your private army on my property without my consent. (I may not understand your point ;^)

I agree quartering was important, but please remember what drove the colonists to open rebellion in April 1775 at Concord. It was British soldiers rummaging through the houses and property of colonists in Concord in search of weapons.

Bear and mind, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights imposes restrictions on the government not on individual citizens.

Meta data =/= statistics. Meta data is like the "From" and "To" lines of your e-mail messages. It is personal information, and enough can be learnt that way that it needs to be protected as fully as message bodies.

The "Boston massacre" was staged by a group of provocateurs who threw bricks at armed men while hiding in a crowd during a holiday parade. John Adams was right when he got the troops' lieutenant acquitted for shooting back. The troops didn't come there intending to fight anybody.

At least some of today's controversial police actions are much more wrong on the part of the police. But we must resist the black people's narratives that say (1) all or most abuses by police are aimed only at them, and (2) justified killings such as those of Martin and Brown should be lumped in with the unjustified killings.

If lower-class black people get to "own" this movement of resistance, their eventual revolution, if successful, will make things a lot worse, not better.

I think Christie went after Paul, because he was so red faced over the Obama hug, about which he should have been questioned about HAMP. and Obama. Was that hug, relief or out of fear of more to come?
In any case, we have not only to be cautious about the government checking our information without warrants, but Win. 10, if users do NOT go in and turn off all the default settings which allow sharing of a lot of information. People are making it easy for information to be taken from them.

Despite Governor Christie's passionate defense of the right of government to collect private data, I will simply present one bit of personal experience to show how invasive the data gathering has become: I recently received a letter from the Medicare office, noting their distress that I had not taken advantage of their many preventive medical offerings, listing each of several dozen items like diabetic consultation, e.g., with the exact dates I could have asked for such tests, examinations, and treatments. I am over 70, and uncommonly healthy, with family medical history of long, healthy lives (many over 90, with no recorded instances of cancer or heart disease), so I simply didn't need these services. I have a checkup every six months, which I pass with flying colors.

My point, however, is that I was promised that my health records were not to be examined by anyone but the physicians that provided treatment to me, so where did this letter come from? I know my doctor didn't take the time to report on my non-compliance with unnecessary tests, procedures, and counseling, so I can only conclude that a non-physician produced the letter, with the help of a computer program that scanned my medical records looking for compliance.

Truth is the rarest element to be found in government, and the larger the government becomes, and the more power it is granted, the rarer that scare element becomes. The biggest abusers of government power are the unelected mandarins within the agencies, ruling their fiefdoms with total disregard for those affected by their decisions. I see the election of any head of state who is ready to destroy those fiefdoms by wholesale mass reduction of personnel as the only hope of preventing the total loss of our dignity and privacy.

WRT "If they were only collecting statistics on trends no one would care and the government wouldn't want it." True but the raw data contains much more detailed information about individual users. It is these data that are used to create statistics on trends. For example, lets assume that I make frequent lengthy calls to a colleague in another state. That activity makes identifiable demands on every element in that communications path. If the quality of that communications channel is compromised I will seek an alternative. The phone company does not want that to happen. They don't care what I talk about but they do care about how long I talk, what are the end points of the connection and if there are any problems with the quality of the process. The phone company has a legitimate need for this information but the government does not.

Paul was right, Christie was wrong. No doubt. However, Christy's forceful voice overwhelmed the content of his rant. Paul was rational and on the money, but was blotted out by Christy's delivery.

I've never objected to quartering troops, as long as I'm allowed to draw them first. (I am not an artist).

"Meta data" is a kind of data, not something else. In particular, the kind of personal data they are collecting and turning over to the government and others, including who you are communicating with when, how, how long and more is personal, not statistics. If they were only collecting statistics on trends no one would care and the government wouldn't want it.

In order to better appreciate the nature of this argument it is essential to understand what "Meta data" is, who collects it and why. Virtually all companies that serve the public collect data on the performance of their service. The primary reason for doing this is to remain competitive. Phone companies track call statistics in order to identify weakness and strengths in their system. The post office and commercial delivery companies like UPS and FEDEX track activity as part of their efforts to maintain service quality and to respond to changes in demographics and group behavior. This is meta data and it reveals much about the properties of the theater of operations of the customer base. These data contain both wide statistical information and also about the activities of individual users of the system. Curtailing this data gathering activity would negatively impact the ability of the providers to consistently deliver the services for which they are paid. Unfortunately, this information can also be used to intrude on the privacy of the users of the system and that is where government access becomes a problem. It is important to understand that these data are collected for legitimate reasons and form an essential tool for service providers. But like any tool it can be misused.

The quartering of troops certainly was quite important, and it convinced many to join Samuel Adams' rebellion. It took many injustices before the Revolution started, just like it will take before the next one.

Hmmm, the fourth amendment only protects statists like Hillary and minions.

More facts would bring a broader perspective. If you read the Declaration, no mention appears about being secure in their homes and papers. However, much of it echoes the Bill of Rights of 1689. -- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_centu....

Poltifact may be right - "mostly true" - but quoting John Adams alone does not express the entire range of ideas and sentiments among the founders. As in another discussion here about "Libraries of the Founders" John Dickinson refused to sign the Declaration, though he did later serve in three capacities as a soldier in the Revolution. So, it is important not to over-generalize from a single instance. That said, I believe that if any one complaint enunciated the essence of the revolt, it was the quartering of troops in private homes, a direct violation of the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Moreover, those men, and John Adams among the leaders, wrote thousands of words - in some cases a million - over decades of their lives. Like Rand Paul in an televised debate, what was a passing observation or suggested opinion and what was the deepest faith depends on the breadth and depth of context across and along the lifetime of the author.