Rep. Steve King discusses the future of The Patriot Act

June 02, 2015

Writer

Rep. Steve King joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss The Patriot Act, it’s future, and current amendments trying to be pushed through Congress.

Watch a highlight below and scroll down for a rough transcript:

GLENN: We have Steve King on. And I know he's proud to be following this conversation, about how Mariah Carey looks like me in a dress. Steve, how are you?

STEVE: Well, I'm doing fine, Glenn, and thank you for having me on. I'm just having trouble imagining you in a dress.

GLENN: Yes. Well, thank you very much. You never know. We now have Bruce Jenner in a dress on the cover of Vanity Fair. So why doesn't everybody get into a dress?

STEVE: I'll have some answers for that, but maybe I should reserve that. Bruce Jenner -- Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa is where he had his athletic career.

GLENN: Yeah. I would leave it at that here, Steve.

STEVE: Thanks for the good counsel.

GLENN: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, Congressman, we want to talk to you because I think we disagree on something. And you're one of the really good guys in Congress. You're a guy I really trust. I think you've been there for a long time and you haven't folded and become a dirtbag. And I respect your point of view. But you're for the USA Freedom Act, except you're actually for it being a little stronger and giving the government even more control. And you're going to have to convince me of this because I despise the Patriot Act. I want them to have a warrant if they have a problem with somebody. And not a general warrant of, everybody who has eyes and a nose and at least one ear.

STEVE: Well, Glenn, yeah, I think we would be on a different place on the Patriot Act. And I have -- I have sat in through a lot of classified briefings and go into the secure room and read what's in there. That gives me an exclusive piece of information that I can't talk with -- you know, that's different from yours or anybody else's. It's just that as I see this -- and I went back and reviewed a case, Smith v. Maryland, 1979, that said there's not an expectation of privacy when it comes to public domain and phone bills. And that's the foundation of this metadata collection. I'm at this place where I want to protect people's privacy. And I'm okay with ending the metadata protection. That's outside the bounds of what we thought and intended when this Patriot Act was passed. But I'm suggesting instead of us having no metadata access because we have a cyber war to fight against. There's no reason to suspend the Constitution. But we have a cyber war to fight against the rallied Islam. Islamic jihad. I offered an amendment that would allow our NSA to reach an agreement, to negotiate with telecommunication companies to hold the data for them so they actually do have access to it, rather than beings subject to whether those companies -- the private companies decide to keep it or not. And that way, the information will be within the hands of the private sector, which doesn't seem to give people a lot of heartburn. And yet, still, it would be accessible under a FISA warrant, which there are only some 20 people, 30 people that have access to that.

GLENN: So here's where I want to see if we can reach agreement here, Steve. I don't have a problem -- if companies collect my information, I expect that. And I don't like -- if I don't like it, I can go to another company. If a company chooses to do that -- there's two parts of this. I don't want our federal government collecting all this data. There's no good from them having access to every phone call and everything that you've ever done, even if they don't listen. Even if they don't read. At some point, when the average person, they now say, is committing three felonies unknown to them every single day, all it requires is somebody who has ill will for one group or another and they can prove you doing anything because they have all the data. What I really want is, A, the government not holding all this data themselves, and, B, an actual constitutional warrant.

If everybody is for -- if you have a bad guy, you know, if they would have gone with the Tsarnaev brothers, and the government would have come and said, hey, we need to get their phone records because, you know, they've been out of the country. They're going over to Chechnya and everything else. Everybody would have said, yeah, go ahead. That makes sense. But just to gather everybody's is wrong, and to have a blanket warrant is wrong

STEVE: Well, then -- a blanket warrant, I think that's -- I think that's a different kind of an issue than what we actually have here, as far as the blanket warrant is concerned. Unless you consider that the telephone metadata is actually being something that is being processed to try to identify what they're doing. I've suggested this that, if we're not -- either one of us are very concerned about the private sector companies, the telecommunications companies holding that data, they need it for billing. And if they didn't have the data, someone would sue them for billing them unjustly and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. So the data will be there for a period of time. I can ask the intelligence community how long they need to have access to that data, and they were talking in terms of five years, about three or four years ago. And that's what they'll say essentially under oath. But if you get it back to private, then maybe 18 months. And I look at this -- we chased Osama bin Laden around for nine and a half years before we finally got him. And he was still plotting attacks against the United States according to recent reports coming out of the data that they released from the compound. So I don't know how long we need access. I think the intelligence community has certainly a better measure than I do. If it's five years and not a year and a half, if we had a provision in the USA Freedom Act that ends all government metadata collection, I should say, but allows them to reach a contract with Verizon, for example. Verizon, will you hold that data for a longer period of time? We'll pay you to store it. And it's available under a constitutional warrant, under a foreign intelligence surveillance court, that should satisfy the constitutional concerns of people and their privacy concerns. Do you see a flaw in that approach?

GLENN: I honestly -- Congressman, I just don't trust -- you know, we were talking about it yesterday. And I asked, does anybody here believe that the United States government stopped this program yesterday? Nobody. Nobody believes that.

We talked to Rand Paul and he was explaining -- I think it was under executive order like 1332 or something. He said they've got another, through executive order, that you guys don't even know the full details on. That they're collecting this metadata under. The problem is, I don't think we're having honest conversations. Because I think -- I don't believe there's anybody in the United States that wants to have another terrorist attack, except for terrorists. There's -- everybody wants to do common sense things, but we want to do them right and do them constitutionally. But I don't think that we're having a real conversation on those things. You know, just this whole Freedom Act seems to be pushed through really rather secretively, it seems, by the Republicans. And I don't understand it. Why can't we have an adult conversation?

STEVE: Glenn, we should have an adult conversation. I think you put your finger on it. I reviewed today the op-ed that I wrote a year ago. I believe it's dated May 14th of 2014. Maybe May 20th. Somewhere close to there. In that op-ed, I wrote and complained that it was secretive, and it was hushed, and it was rushed through. Then it sat dormant for a year, and they bring it back and do essentially the same thing. So when I offer my amendment, which I think it should get -- and it got support from people like Louie Gohmert and others who are very concerned about privacy, but also concerned about national security. When I offered that amendment, it was no deal because we've already negotiated this. We've negotiated with the Democrats. And John Conyers and Jerry Nadler and others have cosponsored the legislation signed onto the bill. Therefore, we can't let it be changed by any amendment, no matter how good it is. That's also true on the Senate side, if you look at the cosponsors over there. You have people that are as disparate -- for example, Leahy and Mike Lee, whom I have great respect for. They came together on this conclusion on how to approach the metadata collection. Trust the telecoms to hold the data and then leave the question open as to -- well, essentially it's been addressed a little bit now -- but leave it open as to whether the government can negotiate for that data to be held longer or not. I think the case is closed on that because they voted my amendment down twice. So I don't think telecommunication companies will believe that Congress has somehow implied that they should be able to negotiate holding that data longer, if they voted my amendment down.

So that's where this is at. I want our nation to be safe. I want us to be constitutionally principled. I want to live with that. And yet, in today's world, we have a president who just is not bound by his own oath. And the Constitution no longer means in the eyes of the public what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. And that has been eroded dramatically over the last six years, and that is a big problem.

GLENN: Well, see, this is where -- I would like to have the conversation with you, is we said to -- to Rand Paul yesterday, it's not just this president. It's any president. No president should be able to have this kind of access to this kind of information. I don't want this in the hands of any government. So when you ask, you know, would you be comfortable with what you just proposed? If it really is -- and this is the key part -- if it really is private companies hold information and then if there is a suspect, you go and get a warrant for that specific information and the company gives you that information, if that's -- that's what we've always done. You know -- that's the way it's supposed to work. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't think that that's going to happen.

STEVE: Well, I'm listening here. And I'm thinking, Glenn. How would I think about this. This might be a good exercise for a lot of your listeners too. How would I think about this data if it were a gun that I was buying? Would I want the federal government to have a record of every gun, when the transaction was, so they knew where it was so they could go and find it? No, I don't want that. So I don't want -- neither do I want them to have it in their hands that data that would allow them to go in and do a complete examination of my activities. The same fashion I wouldn't want them to know if I had guns or where they would be for that matter. That does help I think clarify what we have here. Yet, I'm not worried that my gun dealer has those records in his hands. And I'm not worried if there's a crime if they come in and serve a warrant on my gun dealer and say, you can't buy a gun here. That's maybe the way to frame this so that people can understand it and so that we can come to a conclusion and an agreement.

GLENN: Do you believe the USA Freedom Act will do that?

STEVE: I think that it will do that because it ends government date collection. I think it leaves vulnerable because it doesn't have a provision that encourages the telecommunication companies to hold that data. So I think we're less safe. That's my bottom line. We're less safe, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. So let me ask you -- do you believe that the government will actually stop? I mean, how do you build a 2 billion-dollar data collection place just outside of Salt Lake City and then shut it down? Do you believe they'll actually shut those things down?

STEVE: I think he's more likely to shut down Gitmo than he is that date collection place outside of Salt Lake.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not going to happen.

STEVE: No. And we're a year and a half of this president -- and I think for any president, that's a legitimate and a valid comment and concern. This one though has done more damage to our understanding of constitutional principles than any president we've ever had. And I'm looking for a president that will restore the soul of America, and that means repair and refurbish the pillars of American exceptionalism. And our Founding Fathers expected that when our president gave his oath of office, that he would abide by it. And that's the big flaw we have going on right now too.

GLENN: Can you give me the names of three people that you think are running that you think could do it? Three or one?

STEVE: You know, it's a little bit early in my process to answer that since I am from Iowa, anything I say affects the race a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah, okay. I'll let you slide.

STEVE: Five or six or seven of them, I'd put their names in a hat, draw one out, and gleefully say Mr. President. Then I draw the Vice President. The rest could be in the cabinet, Glenn. There's some good people out there.

GLENN: Wow. Yeah, there are. There are. I think this is the best selection of people that we've ever had, at least in my lifetime, I think. We've had some good candidates before, but there's a lot of good candidates. Thank you very much, Congressman. I really appreciate it.

5 videos that reveal the WOKE GARBAGE being taught to our kids

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?