GW Bush, mass panic gave us Patriot Act, let's curtail it now

In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford. 

Sometimes, scary things happen in politics. Here's an example: far right web sites agree with the wildly leftist (and silly) MoveOn.org on something. They agree that we need to END THE PATRIOT ACT.

Thank goodness some polar political opposites can agree on something, huh? The left and right can't even manage to agree on which death-lusting terrorists are worth ridding off: The fringe left wants to provide jobs, food and education to some terrorists, while the fringe right believes everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But, we can agree that nosing in on Americans, not merely inconveniencing them at airports (TSA), but listening on without lawful purpose (Patriot Act, potentially), is bad.

Of course, I dislike the Patriot Act because there's clear principles being shoved out of the way, and they were given a clear voice in the U.S. Constitution. That matters. Some who I would generally disagree with on political matters seem concerned that black extremists (but they think of them as merely put-upon poor people), Occupy Wall Street dweebs, pederasts (simply gay people), or potheads (pot is no worse than alcohol, so it should be at every kitchen bench) might be among those snared by officials who are supposedly looking for terrorists. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the whole of the Bill of Rights, are just a convenient table to stand on while they're fighting the Progressive-Statist power-grab fight. (Yeah, I'm not a fan of Obama Democrats, if you didn't guess.)

I think it's simple: the USA Patriot Act needs to go. As least, it needs generous curtailing. Tell your US Representative and your US Senator, and tell anyone to do the same. Here's a link to save you some time in reaching your reps.

But don't bother with Senate boss Mitch McConnell (R - KY), who is all for it, it seems. Not much of a Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is proving to be in the era of Obama statism. He plays right along. (As does House Speaker John Boerner of Ohio.) Radio and nonfiction book great, Mark Levin, has bashed McConnell as never before, in recent weeks (one time and another; and then some).

If the Patriot Act is extended as it looks like it will be -- a mistake -- it's still going to require a vote another day. Make it stop. The Patriot Act is GW Bush's contribution, along with DHS, TSA, and a massive military debt, to the nanny state, to his legacy as BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICAN. He was not a complete modern American conservative, he was a religious and social conservative only. He isn't a bad man, but he was, fiscally, a very expensive president. He is not solely to blame, of course, but his presidency will keep that reputation into the future telling of it in history books, I believe. You cannot blame him alone, as plenty of citizens were all for the Patriot Act back in the day. They were afraid.

Frightened people are not good at making rational decision, or making up sensible rules. You've watched a horror movie or two, right? Scared people are bad at making decisions --- VERY BAD! The Patriot Act proves it, I think. In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford (I mean "afford" in every sense of the word that comes to mind). It's not a Prohibition Act for security, because that would look like a totalitarian police state; but perhaps it was as bipartisan and as reactionary as Prohibition.

We must fix the damage added in GW Bush's time along with Obama's. I am very comfortable pointing out that Obama has done nothing but add to the problem of a massive and ever-growing federal debt and bureaucracy. But I refuse to be partisan in my disgust with big government.

This comes with burdens that have been added for decades by an ever-growing federal government that has weakened the states, and the citizens, and hurt liberty for every person.

WAKE UP. Stop big government.


We went from the GREATEST generation during World War Two, to the MOST SELFISH GENERATION. Well, to be nice, let's call it the most distracted generation -- that of the 1950s-1980s. Now we're ringing in the STATIST GENERATION, as a result. 

It's not too late, but it's time to change tack. Because, as so many FINALLY recognized in the economic upset of 2007-2009, things have gotten out of hand. Either government stays in control, or we get some control of it.

WAKE UP. Obama and other far left so-called liberal Democrats (they're statists, not liberals, dammit) have taken a bad thing -- the Great Recession -- and extended it. It is high time to stop it.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Related articles

• Patriot Act may be here to stay, Washington source says
• 7 Dems Join Rand Paul's Patriot Act 'Filibuster'
• US Senate leader pushes to extend NSA phone dragnet
• House Passes NRA-Backed Legislation to Reign in Mass Surveillance
• Mitch McConnell: Nation is 'Better Off' with Patriot Act
• McConnell Delays Debate on Legislation, Tries to Save Complete Patriot Act
• US House votes to stop NSA's mass surveillance

'Taking care of (Obama's) business, every day...'

I get twisted up when I think that a professional candidate, a man who has run for three and held two offices in a period less than three presidential terms, may be president. It just has an air of deception to it -- not on Obama's part, while his being disingenuous certainly has a hand in it.

It is a shame that it comes down to him and a long-time leader and individual-thinker -- McCain (I can still hope for the maverick to be there, in his soul, can't I?), because Obama is no dummy and I have genuinely liked him, in hits and misses, during the campaigning. His smug language, and his smug grins, I can do without; his glib brushing off of credible criticisms, and refusal to take a stand on any number of things, I do not appreciate. He is no world-class leader, in short.

Obama has enjoyed the crudest of attacks on McCain, Palin, and even "Joe the Plumber" by surrogates who are falling all over themselves to be insulting and outrageous and insulting for him, so he need not say anything controversial. The media is doing it for him. By contrast, where's the attack machine that makes fun of Biden the flake, and Obama the indecisive and naive? Not on TV, folks. Not even on Fox News!

That Obama avoids anything controversial is nothing new. How he will avoid candid and awkward face time when the heat gets turned up if he becomes president, I cannot be sure. If he wins, perhaps he will redefine the job an elected honorable chairmanship: staff and surrogates would do all of the tricky work and make all the statements he thinks might dirty his reputation, or he would simply move to something less controversial (just like the old days in the state senate). Won't miss those great chats at the podium, though, with foreign leaders. Just what those will be about -- who knows! Redistribution of wealth? Eek!

It seems, based on what people who worked with him have said, that the party gave Obama lots of protection, going all the way back to his first state senate run. He didn't only cover himself with it, he didn't bat an eye to use that cover against anyone to get where he wanted to be. That's called blind ambition. Ambition is admirable to a point, but me-thinks Obama has taken it too far. Politicians who are given too much coverage to travel within without the friction usually given are not generous in their leadership, they are often autocratic. Hitler was given a role in government, and then some added power, then he took more. I am not trying to say he is in other ways similar to Hitler, such as ideologically or in mental stability, most people understand that Hitler came to power because they were trying to shut him up. Obama is not the same deal, but I lack another example of such a sheltered political rise, frankly. He takes a position, then changes it, and has not even got a voting record to fall back on. He is a perfect candidate in one sense: he has little shame and is not bothered by not having a long record of consistency or of voting, period.

Obama has been given a lot of latitude in his political career. He used it, calculatingly, and coolly, and he is handling this campaign with excellence. He has also been given some golden advantages. The economic crisis, while hardly the fault of the GOP, nor GW Bush, and certainly not McCain, is like the final gift for Obama in his campaign against GW Bush. Too bad McCain cannot also campaign against GW Bush, however inaccurate it is in any case.

Obama talks of how the election is about all of us, that it is not about him. Well, it seems to be about him an awful lot. He cannot even define the change he made the center of his campaign. Sadly, change from eight years of GW Bush is all a lot of people care about. But for what? Spreading the wealth? No thanks. I know how business works, and good businesses want to expand, not sit on their butts, so they will invest back into their business, which means more jobs. In his world, that investment would instead go to the government, in the form of taxes, for all but the smallest of small businesses. That's bad economics.

This campaign, such as it is with this giant financial "gift", is only the prologue, though. What about after the campaign? Where is the sign of the excellence while in office? He lacks a record of doing much other than campaigning and speaking and writing books about -- himself. But this campaign is not about him, it is about "us."

Barack Obama is going to make things change. Because change is always good. Just ask 1977-1980 what they thought of Jimmy Carter's work as president. That was quite a change. Twenty-one percent loan rates and Billy Carter. Change, change, and more change. And less change in your pockets.