So Sane That It Seems Insane

"The neo-cons who dominated the administration of George W. Bush seized the 9/11 terrorist attack as a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the world. In doing so, they have used fear, visions of mushroom clouds, and promises of protection and safety to convince the American people to give up their few remaining civil liberties. The Patriot Act was rammed down our throats in the months following 9/11. Anyone who would vote against such a bill was branded un-patriotic. It passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. It passed the House by 357 to 66. Only 3 Republicans voted against The Patriot Act. Three Republicans had the courage to stand up for the Constitution. Ron Paul, from Texas, was one of them. His belief cannot be any clearer: 'Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America.' The role of government is to protect American citizens’ privacy, not violate it. Since 9/11 all American citizens are considered suspect until proven otherwise by some bureaucratic thug in the Department of Homeland Security. The Eye (think Mordor) of the U.S. government is focused inwards towards its own citizens under the guise of protecting us from unknown bogeymen terrorists. We are no safer, with less freedom, and buried under more debt. Mr. Paul’s reasoning and adherence to the Constitution of the United States is so sane that it seems insane to the criminals running our asylum (aka government) today. We live in a bizzaro world where doing the opposite of what we should be doing is considered the right thing to do. Liberty is not some antiquated concept in the ether of history."
James Quinn

The Culture of Fear

I'm humorized by Team Red's new mantra relating to liberty, patriotism, and anti-government. There's so much "chest beating" going on these days regarding to our loss of liberty. What really confuses me is why Team Red didn't get upset when Bush & Company pushed the Patriot Act through without opposition. The reason? The sheeple were scared into a tight herd by the wolf (9/11 terrorism).

An interesting perspective on the Patriot Act is provided below. Why Team Red wasn't throwing tea parties and marches on Washington really confuses me.

"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- a.k.a. the USA PATRIOT Act -- is a huge program with a catchy little title that does more to increase the size of government than it does to fight terrorism. It was easy to pass -- everyone was emotional over the unfortunate September 11 terrorist attacks. It was developed behind closed doors between Congress and the Bush Administration, and there was initially no debate or amendments allowed. It just passed -- unfortunately, using terrorism as an excuse to attack our individuality and personal freedoms. It's anything but patriotic."

"But, why be so concerned with two-year old legislation or any additions to it in the first place? Well, for one we've had more time to think it through and see first hand how this legislation has impacted the "war against terrorism." Are U.S. citizens safer and more secure because of the PATRIOT Act? Or are we at greater risk for being falsely accused and imprisoned for "terrorist" activities? How does this kind of legislation contribute to a culture of fear? Is the PATRIOT Act an invasion of privacy or a necessary law enforcement tool? Who does this legislation really benefit?"

Source and entire article:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid14_gci914763,00.html

Kieth Richards & The DEA

Peter Schiff posted a very good commentary on Financial Sense Online:

"In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse. As was the case with the deeply flawed Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002, or the misguided provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001, such as the torturous anti-money laundering requirements, the move will further burden the financial services industry with unnecessary regulation that will drive up costs, lower quality, and shelter the biggest and least innovative companies. Ultimately, the structure will put the entire U.S. financial industry at a global competitive disadvantage."

"The underlying problem is that the excessive risk taking which brought about the crisis was not market-driven, but a direct consequence of government interference with risk-inhibiting market forces. Rather than learning from its mistakes and allowing market forces to once again control risks and efficiently allocate resources, the government is merely repeating its mistakes on a grander scale – thereby sowing the seeds for an even greater crisis in the future."

"As is typical of government attempts to control economic outcomes, Obama's plans focuses on the symptoms of the disease and not the cause. The American financial system imploded for two reasons: cheap money and moral hazard – both of which were supplied by the government. Under the proposed new regulatory structures, these toxic ingredients will be combined in ever-increasing quantities."

"Obama proposes to entrust the critical job of 'systemic risk regulator' to the Federal Reserve, the very organization that has proven most adept at creating systemic risk. This is like making Keith Richards the head of the DEA."

the entire article:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2009/0619.html