Posts Tagged ‘George W. Bush’

Waylon’s Revolution has been dormant for a while – since October of 2013, in fact.  I’ve taken a hiatus from politics and conspiracy theories, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t paid attention to the news.  If the news isn’t always depressing, it certainly makes for good entertainment.  Don’t get used to this, though.  I’m not sure when I’ll be back.  With that being said, I would like to give just a few of my opinions of recent events.  Note: Opinions are not always fact based.

Gov. Chris Christie
A lot of people like this guy, I don’t.  And not because he worked with President Obama after Super Storm Sandy to rebuild, but for a far more fundamental reason: he’s a belligerent blabbermouth.  Just take for example when he told a heckler to “sit down and shut up”.

Again, some people like this guy.  They look at his obstinacy and think that he would make a good president.  “He’ll get the job done!”  If the last six years have been a do-nothing Congress and White House, what makes anyone think that a president telling members of Congress to “sit down and shut up” will get anything done?

Hillary Clinton
The media is already a buzz over the possibility of another Bush-Clinton standoff in ’16 (which I’ll get to Jeb in a minute).  Not only do I abhor Hillary for her politics: same-sex marriage, abortion, etc., I just don’t like her as a person.  Have you ever had a jar of pennies and silver and they’re all shiny and clean, but you dig down and you find one that is corroded and nasty; a coin that not even a change cashing machine would take – that’s the Clintons.

How is it that in the last twenty-six years of this nation’s history, two families have been able to inhabit the White House?  My father lost his job at General Electric due to the NAFTA agreement.  So, one day, I decided to do some research.  And I found that not only did George Sr. support the bill – he tried to fast-track it, but sadly, ran out of time when the “American people spoke”.  Bill Clinton supported it, too.  In fact, while signing the bill on January 1, 1994, Clinton said,   “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”

People back then – like my father – would’ve believed that Clinton was meaning that the American people would be a glutton on jobs like Santa Claus on Christmas, but look at the aftermath; jobs were lost, families and livelihoods ruined.  It isn’t any wonder that a year before my father died, Congress sent him a letter stating that since he lost his job due to NAFTA, they were willing to send him back to school.  Bill Clinton, Hillary and the entire Clinton administration knew what that egregious bill would do, and it is my belief that is what Bill was referring to.

You may be wondering what NAFTA has to do with who runs for the Oval Office.  Well, like in the case of the 1992 election, where the top candidates shared the same view, where did the American people have a choice?  Likewise, if two prominent political families constantly run for office, where does that open the door to fresh candidates and new ideas?  In the final analysis of Hillary Clinton, she should ride off into the sunset.  Let the people have a new ray of hope.

Jeb Bush
 As I stated in the case of Hillary Clinton, the same can be said for Jeb.  But, hell, the American people have become so used to seeing the same thing over and over again, it’s like a bad movie; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Political Arena
I liken politics today to this: let’s say that a door-to-door salesman comes to your door and he is peddling a new shoe that has come out onto the market.  You listen to his pitch and decide to try it.  But once you get the shoe on, you find that the shoe doesn’t quite fit right, so you send him away.  A little while later, a new salesman comes to the door, peddling the same crappy shoe; but where the shoe lacks in quality, the salesman is an expert orator.  You buy the shoe, but after the peddler is gone, you regret spending your hard-earned money on a shoddy piece of work.

Only an astounding 36% of Americans went to the polls this year.  That is the lowest numbers since WWI or WWII?  And people look down on those who don’t vote ever, or wait for the Presidential election.  But where is their incentive to vote when someone has lasted in politics for decades and a new comer is shrouded in obscurity and a pall of inexperience looms over their heads like yesterday’s hangover?  (By the way, before you ask, I am a voter.)

Should Hillary not heed my advice, and decide to run, she will face a plethora of questions and scrutiny regarding prior knowledge of Benghazi.  Not that I don’t think that concerns should be probed, but where were the concerns of prior knowledge to 9/11?  Like the Warren Commission, the spurious and over lauded 9/11 Commission failed to delve deep into the Bush administration’s actions before and after the most tragic event in U.S. history since Pearl Harbor.  With a Bush insider at its helm in Philip Zelikow, the Commission’s investigation was skewed into waters that were more tolerable.

Does this mean that Clinton and President Obama should get off Scott free?  No.  But it’s a simple illustration of the circus that has become Washington D.C.

And, of course, I cannot leave you without an address from Ron Paul.

Madeline Albright had this to say about Iraq in regards to “sanctions” that were supposed to “punish the Hussein regime”.

Here is what former Congressman Ron Paul had to say about the impeachment process of Bill Clinton and the asinine bombings of Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

Notice how Ron Paul said that waging “unchecked war” like this invites attacks on the United States?  Here’s George W. Bush.

Bush, Jr. admits that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.

Iraqi testimony in Congress.

Iraq seems like a distant memory, doesn’t it?  The “Mission Complete” banner that hung above the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln as President Bush called an end to combat operations in Iraq sort of immortalized his presidency.  Then all hell broke loose.

But, then again, what was “Mission Complete”?  Saddam Hussein’s poorly assembled military barely put up a fight as U.S.-led forces marched their way to Baghdad.  It didn’t take long for the American people (or at least those who didn’t need neocons inside the Bush White House and Fox News to tell them what to think) to see that the Bush administration had thought as far as the invasion and nothing more.  No clear defined enemy.  No clear defined victory.  No objective.  Just “stay the course”.  Horrors stories from Abu Graib that smeared the name of the United States.

So what have we learned from our experiences in Iraq?  I like to think nothing.  The left’s attacks during the Bush administration’s handling of the war was all for posturing.  They have their own wars they’d like to fight.  You know those untold millions the Obama administration is giving to the rebels is Syria?  The U.S. taxpayer will be paying that back.  How does a rebel pay back money that they don’t have?

In 1997, a neoconservative think-tank was created – The Project for the New American Century.  Comprising of Bush insiders such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Dick Cheney – to make a long story short – the goal of PNAC was to lead the world militarily.  From the outset, Saddam Hussein’s regime seemed to be in the cross hairs of the PNAC members and attached conservatives.  (Please click the hyperlink to learn more.)

On September 20,2001, PNAC sent a letter to President Bush urging regime change in Iraq.

…even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.

What’s the meaning?  The United States was invading Iraq regardless.  A quote from PNAC’s manifesto that draws more questions than answers was this:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.

That “new Pearl Harbor” came on September 11, 2001.  And with it, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden, who seems until recently, was forgotten.

In serving their own interests, the neoconservatives have placed both the sanctity and security of the United States in jeopardy.  I hope we have learned our lesson.  But I doubt it.

‘Treason doth never prosper’, wrote an English poet.  What’s the reason?  If it prosper then none dare call it treason.
– Kevin Costner, JFK

Steve Watson

The Department of Homeland Security has issued yet another terror warning today, ordering security to be stepped up owing to a “credible and specific” intelligence report that al Qaeda is planning to blow up bridges or tunnels in New York on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The terror warning is just the latest in a series of advisories from Big Sis and the White House, all of which have been lacking in detail and described as “unconfirmed”.

Sky News reports that the latest warning comes from “a reliable source”, but remains “uncorroborated” because it has not been backed up by any other intelligence.

“There is specific, credible but unconfirmed threat information,” said Janice Fedarcyk, the assistant director in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) New York division.

Details are sketchy, however, with the only specifics linking the threat to Pakistan and to a car or truck bomb.

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered police to ramp up security at subways, with more random bag inspections, and to deploy radiation monitoring equipment.

The warning comes just days after a previous DHS advisory that al qaeda followers may attack the US with small aircraft on the anniversary of 9/11.

Again, the warning contained no specific information, but was aimed at airports, ordering heightened surveillance.

Another general warning was issued last week by the State Department.

The department said it had not identified any “specific threats” about possible attacks but that al Qaeda and its affiliates had “demonstrated the intent and capability to carry out attacks” against the U.S. and U.S. interests.

Establishment figurehead such as US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta have been out in force, hyping the possibility of another 9/11.

The numerous warnings have come along with a slew of reports from the government expressing fears that homegrown terrorists are growing in number inside the US and that the internet is radicalizing a new wave of jihadis. Again, specific details are lacking.

In addition, television networks have begun broadcasting an onslaught of 9/11 tenth anniversary specials as the establishment desperately tries to reinforce the myth that terrorists pose any more threat to Americans than intestinal illnesses or allergic reactions to peanuts.

As the major networks saturate our screens with documentary after documentary about how ‘the world changed on 9/11′, it’s important to point out that the only genuine change has been the growth of a gigantic and oppressive Homeland Security surveillance state that feeds on fear and ignorance of the facts.

We have previously documented how such terror alerts have been routinely hyped purely for political purposes.

Never forget that the media and the government have been totally discredited over and over again by their complicity in issuing phony terror alerts designed to manipulate elections and frighten the public into slavish acquiescence.

Just as former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge admitted that DHS would issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections in a bid to influence the outcome during the Bush era, the Obama administration is mimicking the same tactic.

Ridge said he “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.”

Fast forward seven years and you find exactly the same tactics being employed.

Warnings in October last year of a supposed al-Qaeda attack on targets in Europe were exaggerated by the Obama administration for political purposes, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials told the London Guardian.

No terror event occurred. “It was nothing specific, nothing very new,” said Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask after the official warning. “We agree that there is no indication of concrete targets, concrete dates and concrete terror groups,” added German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.

British intelligence officials admitted that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a significant terror plot was imminent, describing the suggestions as “irritating”.

The furor surrounding the non-existant terror plot generated headlines such as“Britain gripped by Al Qaeda terror plot fear” with graphics depicting possible targets and warnings that “a Mumbai-type plot would ‘outmatch’ the police and turn London into a war zone” with people being brutally “murdered one by one” – all based on nothing but media hype:

Earlier this year, when the freedom stripping PATRIOT ACT was up for renewal, DHS head Janet Napolitano officially notified a congressional panel that the US was facing the greatest possibility of a major terror attack since 9/11.

Big Sis noted that there was “an increased emphasis on recruiting Americans and Westerners to carry out small scale attacks.”

Three of the PATRIOT Act’s most draconian provisions were duly extended for  a further year by House Republicans.

Every other “terror plot” since 9/11 that has materialized into anything beyond a vague and non specific warning has been exposed as either artificially engineered or seized upon and used by the federal government, with the enthusiastic support of the corporate media, to provide justification for more funding, more power, and more authority to continue the “war on terror” and a gross clampdown on freedom.

Just a brief reprisal of such instances gives a telling insight.

On January 27, 2010, the Detroit News reported how the State Department refused to revoke Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa despite the fact that he was on a terror watch list and allowed him to board the plane, allegedly in order to avoid tipping off a wider investigation.

After weeks of stonewalling, authorities quietly reversed the official story behind the aborted attack and acknowledged that an accomplice was involved, despite weeks of denial and derision of eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of a sharp-dressed man who helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell maintained from the beginning that he saw a well-dressed Indian man aid the accused bomber to board the plane despite the fact that he had no passport and was on a terror watch list.

“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time,’” reported the Michigan Live news website.

FBI agents interviewed Haskell and he told them about the sharp-dressed man but officials refused to admit that a wider conspiracy was at hand, stoically maintaining the official story that Abdulmutallab had acted alone. Authorities claimed that videotapes did not show a second man accompanying Abdulmutallab and yet they refused to release any footage of the alleged bomber.

There seems little doubt that Abdulmutallab had at least one accomplice if not more. Authorities have remained silent on other eyewitness reports which described a man intently filming the alleged terrorist throughout the whole flight, a connection that strongly suggests the attempted bomber was involved in some kind of drill and that his strings were being pulled by people in more senior positions.

The Delta 253 incident was just one of the dozens of terror busts and stings since 9/11 to have been orchestrated by handlers aiding the accused terrorists at every turn. We have never come across a major case where the terrorists involved in a plot were not being prodded by the FBI and federal informants, or where clear prior knowledge and forewarning was not evident.

Take the case of Fort Hood shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who repeatedly communicated with alleged Al-Qaeda leaders for nearly a year before his rampage. The FBI knew Hasan was sending emails to terrorists, but they did nothing, allowed him to remain on a U.S. Army base, and even invited him to participate in Homeland Security exercises.

Hasan, “Sent 10 to 20 e-mails to several terror-related Islamic figures, including Anwar Aulaqi, a radical imam from Virginia who has been openly propagandizing for al Qaeda in Yemen and who had ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers,” reported the New York Post.

As Webster Tarpley reported, Aulaqi is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”

Tarpley points to Aulaqi’s role in the Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, terror plots, which were both contrived by the feds, as proof of Aulaqi’s usefulness to the authorities in radicalizing terrorist patsies.

Lawyers in a case relating to the much vaunted 2007 terror plot to attack Fort Dix and kill “as many soldiers as possible” concluded that FBI informants were the key figures behind the operation and that the accused, six foreign-born Muslims, were merely bungling patsies.

Similarly, the “Toronto” terrorists turned out to be “a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac”. The explosive fertilizer material the terrorist cell apparently planned to use was in fact purchased by an informant working for the RCMP who had radicalized the group.

Hasan’s direct relationship with FBI operative and ace patsy-minder Aulaqi provides strong evidence that the Fort Hood shooter was being watched very carefully long before he went on his tragic rampage.

Hundreds of terror suspects (read: patsies and mental deficients) have been convicted in civilian federal courts, including convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid who attended the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Finsbury imam at the time was Abu Hamza al-Masri who began working with British Security Services in 1997. A large number of the supposed terrorists convicted in American courts were entrapped by the FBI in classic COINTELPRO fashion and did not have links to the CIA-created al-Qaeda. The entrapped were often fuzzy on al-Qaeda or what it represents.

In the media-lauded Miami terror case in 2007, the supposed ringleader Narseal “Prince Marina” Batiste “had heard of Al-Qaeda, but wasn’t sure what it stood for. The FBI instigators made Batiste swear loyalty to al-Qaida; then had him call on his local buddies to form an ‘Islamic army’ in Miami. None had military training. Some could barely read. But Batiste assured the group in the midst of its collective marijuana buzz of greatness ahead,”wrote Saul Landau.

These were the men who comedian John Stewart referred to as “seven dipshits in a warehouse” after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had ludicrously told the press that the group of semi-retarded gang-bangers had planned to “wage a ground war against America”.

One of the more recent examples was the case of the so-called Muslim terrorists busted in New York, who supposedly wanted to blow up synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military airplanes flying out of the New York Air National Guard base. The men were provided with fake explosives and inactive missiles by an FBI informant, reported the Christian Science Monitor. Two of the ringleaders of the “deadly” plot which was endlessly hyped by the media turned out to be semi-retarded potheads, exactly as we had predicted would be the case due to the innumerable past cases with the exact same modus operandi.

The federal authorities seem none too concerned about stopping any real terrorists and are instead obsessed with manufacturing patsies, bankrolling, radicalizing and prodding rag-tag groups to attempt attacks so that the massive slush fund that is the “war on terror” can be prolonged, while the corporate media relishes each opportunity to politicize such events to demonize peaceful resistance to big government as “violent extremism”.

With this insidious partnership now colluding to produce a constant supply of Abdul Mutallabs on an almost monthly basis, we can expect to see many more domestic terror alerts and “attacks”, be they genuine, provocateured, or outright staged, and with each one the calls to crush free speech and censor the right to express dissent on the Internet will build to a crescendo, with little or no investigation on behalf of the mainstream media as to how such attacks came about in the first place, and who was really behind them.

These and countless other over hyped and completely manufactured threats have led directly to programs such as the “See Something, Say Something” campaign – a literal citizen spy operation overseen by the DHS, that is creating more paranoia and hysteria, if anything serving to make any real terror threat more likely to go undiscovered.

The endless terror alerts, whether real or phony, are now being issued via the mainstream media and beamed directly to mobile phones and home computers over social networking sites, and even via Emergency Alert broadcasts.

In addition to the invasion of traditional and new social media, The Federal Communications Commission announced recently that it has approved a presidential alert system.

Commissioners voted in February to require television and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers to participate in a test that would have them receive and transmit a live code that includes an alert message issued by the president. No date has been set for the test, according to the Washington Post, which described it as being like something out of Orwell’s1984.

Soon enough the creepy and invasive broadcasts that are already being played on giant telescreens in Walmarts across the nation may be playing in your front room.

The DHS is slowly creeping into the lives of every American to the point where it can no longer be sidestepped. Fattened federal agencies are using the over hyped threat of terrorism as an excuse to normalize the notion that the people are servants of the government, rather than the government acting as servant to the people.

The September 11 anniversary provides a unique opportunity for the establishment to reanimate their flagging war on terror with a new round of fear-mongering propaganda. The event will allow them to exploit decade old footage of the attacks in order to insist that there remains a threat large enough to require Gestapo goons at airports, a high-tech surveillance grid, and the point by point dismantlement of the Bill of Rights.

Politicians Political figures like Sarah Palin like to have a scripted dialogue with constituents.  Even worse, many of the questions don’t touch on issues that Americans should be concerned about.

For instance, while many Americans strive for work, keeping a roof over the heads of family members, food in their bellies, and we ourselves struggle with a budget; members of Congress are locked in a superfluous debate of raising the debt ceiling.

Granted, I believe that the United States has lived beyond its means for too many years, but politicians from both sides of the aisle are at fault, contrary to the House Speakers words of blaming President Obama.  During his speech to the nation, President Obama said that Ronald Reagan signed eighteen debt ceiling hikes and George W. Bush signed seven.  Where was the Republican or Tea Party opposition then?

The obvious fact is that we’ve kicked the tiger in ass and now we have to face his teeth.

Which brings me to this point: Since Americans are starving, looking for work, and living in “tent cities”, why are members of Congress so handsomely compensated for their services?  Seriously, it’s not like they’ve done a superb job.

Most members of Congress make $174,000.  Speaker of the House John Boehner makes $223,500.

So my question would be: Are you really worth that much?

Related reading: What Do We Pay Our Members of Congress?

For further reading, click here.

Establishment to insert George W. Bush 2.0 as spoiler for Ron Paul Revolution

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 20, 2011

Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012.

Bilderberg Approved Perry Set to Become Presidential Frontrunner RickPerry

“Perry has said he will announce his decision soon. One member of his campaign team said he was closer than ever to joining the race and he was testing the prospects in the early caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. If he does stand, Republicans at the New Orleans conference predicted he would become the frontrunner of a so-far uninspiring field,” reports the London Guardian.

Texas Governor Perry, a protégé of Karl Rove, is very good at acting like a down-home populist, but that’s all it is – an act. Perry is George W. Bush 2.0.

While spewing Tea Party-style rhetoric about secession, shooting coyotes and courting the favor of Christian evangelicals, behind closed doors Perry has been quietly selling out Texas to globalist interests, auctioning off highways to foreign companies to turn them into profit-driven toll roads.

“Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects,” wrote AFP’s Jim Tucker earlier this month. “These pave the way for the Bilderberg-supported North American Union (NAU) proposal that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico.”

Perry has also given enthusiastic support to former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s efforts to turn Texas into a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. He also aggressively promoted the Rockefeller Foundation-backed HPV vaccination campaign in Texas that has led to deaths worldwide. David Rockefeller is a prominent Bilderberger, attending each annual meeting without fail.

Perry attended the June 2007 Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey, and in doing so violated the Logan Act, a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

Look beyond the rhetoric and study what Perry has actually done in his role as Governor – he’s the ultimate globalist – his every action illustrates how he’s the diametric opposite to the image of the Tea Party populist that he attempts to portray. That’s why he’s the perfect pick for the globalists, someone who can suck in the trust of the American people only to stab them in the back upon becoming president, just as Obama did before him.

Bilderberg has proven its kingmaker role time and time again not just in US politics but worldwide. Bill Clinton was a little-known Governor of Arkansas before he attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1991 and went on to become President a year later. Similarly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair attended Bilderberg before his election in 1997. According to Euro Weekly News, Maria Dolores De Cospedal’s attendance at Bilderberg 2011 in St. Moritz Switzerland also “augurs a victory in Spain’s next general election” for her Partido Popular party.

Obama himself was reportedly vetted by Bilderberg when he infamously disappeared to a secret location with Hillary Clinton in June 2008 in Northern Virginia, at precisely the same time and location the Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly. Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson was also responsible for selecting Obama’s running mate Joe Biden, having also previously selected John Edwards as John Kerry’s right hand man in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.

In a comparatively weak GOP field, the establishment cannot take any chances in allowing Ron Paul to gain momentum as the only candidate who has a real chance of defeating Barack Obama.

As polls have shown, out of the Republican candidates, only Ron Paul has a realistic hope of success in a hypothetical run off against Obama – the other candidates are equally unpopular as the President.

Despite the fact that Mitt Romney has been anointed by the establishment as the Republican favorite, a May CNN poll found that he would lose by 11 points if he got the nomination and went head to head with Obama, whereas Paul only trails the President by 7 points.

Bilderberg’s continual influence in picking US presidents and potential vice-presidents again serves up a reminder that the real power structure steering the planet goes beyond teleprompter-reading puppet presidents and rests in the hands of multi-generational globalists, central banking moguls and the CEO’s of the world’s biggest corporations, all of whom routinely attend the Bilderberg Group confab every year.

Watch the clips below in which Rick Perry’s connection to the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union is documented, as well as Alex Jones’ protest of Perry’s globalist agenda.

In the wake of September 11, 2001 as millions of Americans eyes were glued to our television sets watching as President Bush gave his State of the Union address, we all trusted in a government that we thought was infallible.  Carted before the American people as a means to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and our liberties, Americans would soon learn that it did the exact opposite.  Members of Congress were not even able to read the full text before taking a vote.

Read the following two article and tell me what you think.

The Patriot Act Is at war with the Constitution

STATEMENT OF BRUCE FEINON BEHALF OF CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY

RE: THE USA PATRIOT ACT: DISPELLING THE MYTHS

BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

MAY 11, 2011


I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty about the USA Patriot Act. Provoked largely by the gruesome abominations of 9/11, the legislation was born of fear and uncertainty from abroad. Fear, however, is the fount of tyranny. James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned centuries ago in opposing the tyrannical Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.” At the constitutional convention of 1787, Madison similarly recognized the inclination of government to wave a banner of foreign danger to excuse the destaruction of domestic liberties: “The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

The 342-page USA Patriot Act passed without inquiry into whether arming the government with muscular investigatory tools justified the corresponding intrusions on the right to be left alone — the right most valued by civilized people. The Patriot Act was portrayed as a necessary defense against foreign agents and international terrorists. Citizen liberties were relegated to extras in a Cecil B. De Mille cinematic extravaganza

Despite the good intentions of its architects, the Patriot Act betrays bedrock constitutional principles. The individual is the center of the Constitution’s universe. Aggrandizing government is the center of the Patriot Act. The Constitution salutes freedom and citizen sovereignty over absolute safety and citizen vassalage. The Patriot Act turns that hierarchy on its head. Where experience and facts are inconclusive as regards the need for government authority, the Constitution’s default position is liberty. Under the Patriot Act, if a threat passes a microscopic threshold of danger, a Big Brother government is exalted, a descendant of the 1% doctrine. The authorization of “lone wolf”surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is exemplary. It has never been employed, yet it is defended as a cornerstone of the nation’s defense against a second edition of 9/11.

The Alien Act of 1798 was similar. It answered political or popular fears of French immigrants. The President was empowered to deport unilaterally any immigrant thought “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” During its two-year life, the President never once invoked the Act’s deportation authority. Congress sensibly declined to renew it.

The makers of the Constitution venerated man’s spiritual nature, his moods, and his intellect, to borrow from Justice Louis D. Brandeis. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their attitudes, their seclusions, and their challenges to conventional wisdom. They crowned citizens with the right to be left free from government encroachments, the hallmark of every civilized society. To protect that right, Justice Brandeis sermonized, “[E]very unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The Patriot Act, nevertheless, shrivels the right to be left alone from Government snooping and surveillance. It sneers at Benjamin Franklin’s admonition: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Patriot Act champions boast that only a handful of judicial rulings have cast a cloud over its provisions, for instance, gag orders on National Security Letter recipients. But even the U.S. Supreme Court stumbles. In Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Court held conversations were outside the ambit of the Fourth Amendment because its text protected only “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” In Katz v. United States (1967), thirty-nine years later, the Court overruled Olmstead and held the Amendment protected “reasonable expectations of privacy.” As Saint Paul preached, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3: 6. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of race-based concentration camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. Congress repudiated the Court’s odious decisions in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

No federal court voided the Sedition Act of 1798, despite its flagrant trespass on free speech. Over 150 years later in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court denounced the Act as unconstitutional. Many Patriot Act provisions hinge on the decision of the High Court in U.S. v. Miller (1976), that bank records or other information “voluntarily”shared with third parties are outside a suspect’s zone of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Miller precedent seems increasingly anachronistic in the Age of the Internet in which a virtual diary of individual activities is in the hands of third party Internet Service Providers.

Moreover, extra-constitutional reasons explain the dearth of court challenges. The lion’s share of information sought under the Patriot Act is aimed at third parties, not the target of surveillance or investigation. The former have little or no incentive to incur the legal costs and public opprobrium inherent in fighting the government. In addition, many recipients of Patriot Act demands, like telecommunications companies or banks, are motivated to cultivate government goodwill to preserve contracts or friendly regulatory relations. The government has also sought to stigmatize any opponent of the USA Patriot Act as semi-traitorous or un-American through its title or otherwise. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft decried its critics as “aiding and abetting terrorists.” But in the true Republic created by our Founding Fathers, the people censure the government; the government does not censure the people. Finally, the vast majority of victims of illegal or unconstitutional surveillance under FISA are never informed of the spying. They do not know the government has compiled a dossier against them.

In light of the hostility toward Patriot Act dissenters generated by the Government and general concealment of violations, the diminutive number of federal court cases is readily understandable. Why bring a lawsuit and risk losing your neighbor, your friends, your job, and your public standing? It might equally be said in defense of Jim Crow that “separate but equal”must have been benign because so few blacks initiated lawsuits seeking its reversal (at the risk of their homes, families, ostracisms, and lives).

At least one Member of Congress has insinuated that a constitutional violation is harmless as long as the Government conceals the violation from the victim, for example, an unconstitutionally seized and retained email or phone call. That assertion seems first cousin to the nonsense that government assassinations are innocuous if the victims are never acknowledged and their bodies are never found.

Every Founding Father — every Member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 — would have been appalled at the Patriot Act. They were electrified by patriot James Otis’ denunciation in 1761 of villainous Writs of Assistance — general search warrants which empowered petty officers to invade privacy and liberty on bare suspicion without oath. Otis elaborated: “It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law that ever was found in an English law book…Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, and murder any one within the realm.” Patriot John Adams was awed, and remarked, “[T]hen and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.”

Click here to read the full text.

Let the Patriot Act Expire

Congress will soon be considering renewal of major portions of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is generally promoted as the principal legislative tool being used to fight international terrorism, but it played no role whatsoever in the recent killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Act is, in reality, a devastating and poorly conceived bit of legislation originally approved just after 9/11. It will soon be up for an extension in the US Senate prior to the expiration of some key elements on May 27th. President Barack Obama, who criticized it while he was a candidate but apparently has had a change of heart since that time, favors its renewal and his Attorney General Eric Holder recently endorsed its renewal. Most members of Congress, few of whom have ever read the entire act, want it renewed. The mainstream media likes the Patriot Act, one suspects, because it is difficult to fault legislation that has “Patriot” as part of its name.

There is growing suspicion, even among congressmen, that the Patriot Act just might be too damaging to civil liberties at a time when the terrorism threat appears to be receding. Senator Rand Paul led the charge in the Senate back in February that resulted in a temporary 90 day continuation of the provisions of the act that will expire this month. The Act will again be up for Senatorial approval but, unfortunately, the planned one week long open debate in front of the full Senate and under the scrutiny of the media might well be canceled due to lack of interest by Republicans and Democrats alike. It would have been the first time that has happened since 2001, when the Act first became law.

Broadly speaking, the Patriot Act was designed to make it easier for law enforcement to investigate US citizens and permanent residents by easing legal restraints on records and activities that were hitherto considered private or required a judge’s order to access. The Act has enjoyed bipartisan support since 2001.

Title 2 of the Patriot Act, makes it possible to investigate any foreign suspect as part of a law enforcement effort to obtain foreign intelligence information even if there was no evidence that a crime had been committed. The difference is critical as the police previously had to have actual evidence of a crime while the new procedure permitted investigation of just about anyone who could plausibly be linked to a foreign suspect to obtain information, allowing law enforcement to conduct wide ranging fishing expeditions. The Act also lifted the old requirement that law enforcement demonstrate that the target of an approved investigation was a foreign national and a possible agent of a foreign government. Anyone linked to the inquiry, even a US citizen, could become a person of interest. This was referred to as a “lone wolf” provision and it is one of the areas of the Patriot Act that is up for renewal.

Title 2 also permitted any district court in the United States to issue surveillance orders and search warrants in connection with proposed terrorist investigations and the Act specifically included electronic communications and voicemail records as subject to the warrants. Using the warrants, the FBI is able to access from the internet service provider all records on a user, to include name, address, telephone billing records, session details, and payment information to include bank and credit card records. This feature of the Act is also up for renewal this month.

The third feature of the Act that is up for extension at the end of May is roving wiretaps, permitting law enforcement to obtain warrants that allow them to switch from one communications medium to another if they believe that the target is changing his method of communication to make monitoring him more difficult. This means that the FBI is empowered to tap multiple phones or computer lines simultaneously based on one blanket warrant. Previously law enforcement had to show cause for the tap and it was limited to the telephone or computer line specified in the request. Under Title 2 the FBI was also permitted to obtain whatever tangible public records are available to assist in an investigation. This was the so-called library clause, where library borrowing records could be accessed by the police.

Click here for full text.