The following is the text of letter to me from Congressman Pete Sessions Republican of Texas. His letter is a response to my telephone call to his office requesting that he not support renewal of the PATRIOT ACT.
PETE SESSIONS
32nd District, Texas
_____________
COMMITTEE ON RULES
_____________
COMMITTEE ON
FINANCIAL SERVICES
February 15, 2011
Dear Larry,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act, H.R. 514), also known as the Patriot Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this important homeland security issue.
The Patriot Act, enacted shortly after the attacks on 9/11, was intended to aid law enforcement personnel by facilitating information sharing and providing more extensive methods necessary to track terrorists at the earliest states of plot formation. The act enhances the ability of authorities to conduct surveillance on terrorists, with key provisions that account for modern technologies.
The original USA PATRIOT Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 337-79 on October 12, 2001. In 2005, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 by a vote of 257-171.
On January 26, 2011, Congressman James Sensebrenner (R-WI) introduced H.R. 514 in the House of Representatives to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2004 until February 8, 2011. On February 14, 2011, the House of Representatives passed the act by a vote of 275-144. I voted in support of the legislation because I believe the USA PATRIOT Act has bolstered the ability of national security agents to protect American citizens from attack.
In crafting of the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress provided for the delicate balance between the ability to investigate those who may be attempting terrorist activities and a citizen’s legitimate expectation of privacy. In the years since the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress has consistently been able to ensure the right of privacy for the ordinary citizen under the legislation.
Thankfully, the United States has managed to avert any major terrorist attack since 9/11, but the threat has not subsided. We must remain vigilant guardians of our homeland and reinforce our national security laws. The provisions of the proposed renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act supplement the ability of homeland security forces to protect our interests and our people.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and concerns. As always, if you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or my Legislative Correspondent, Katy Jane Jenevein, at 202.225.2231, or by email at KatyJane.Jenevein@mail.house.gov. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions
Member of Congress
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Dialogue with Congressman Regarding PATRIOT ACT(2)
Following is my response to the Congressman's letter to me:
My thanks to you, Congressman Sessions for your response to my query regarding your support of the Patriot Act which by now has passed the Senate.
I want to begin by saying that in a free society we accept the risks inherent in living in such a society.
It is not my intention to seem crass or disrespectful, but I need to point out that it seems you have not really examined the evidence submitted by the administration in its attempt to prove the need for continued unconstitutional surveillance of Americans. The provisions of this Act saddle us with unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law abiding Americans as several documented incidences of invasion of privacy of non-terrorists citizens have shown.
One particular provision of the Patriot Act allows for the issuance and use of national security letters (NSL’s). This provision is noted on the ACLU web site where writers are advocating significant reform of the Patriot Act:
In addition the “proofs” presented that these measures are protecting us are rather unsubstantiated and seem more “trumped up” than not. Anyone can say, “we are doing this for your protection.” But declaring it does not make it true. I have read some of the reports of plots thwarted supposedly because of the Patriot Act. I am not convinced that anything would have been different without the Patriot Act. Government so often resorts to the “magic anti-tiger rock” scenario of Lisa Simpson. When questioned as to the effectiveness of the “magic anti-tiger rock”, the response is “Well you don’t see any tigers do you?”
History has shown that once governments take on more power or take rights away, they are loath to relinquish the power or remove restrictions as typified by our present situation. The so called “climate of terror” for which this Act has been put in place to address has no end. By that I mean anything can be termed acts of terror or threats of terror and therefore become elements of this so called “climate of terror”. Consequently the suspension of our rights has no end.
Many of us out here are not pleased with this state of affairs. We do not feel that our representatives are acting in our best interest. What terrorists can cause us to have 9 to 10% unemployment? Only government acting on a perceived threat of terrorism can so restrict, and spend, and inflate the monetary supply until so many more of us are driven into poverty. Our government has overreacted to the terrorist threat and driven us deeper into poverty. How can that be considered a positive outcome?
As a nation we are hypocritical when we say we are in support of freedom but do not adhere to the structure of our own republic with its rule of law. Instead we fall prey to majority rule even when the majority is in violation of the rule of law. We have a law that prohibits government from conducting unlawful searches -- that is with out court order and probable cause. Yet we pass an act to do this anyway. Then we try to lecture other countries on freedom. How hypocritical is that?
As we recall, President FDR was denied many times the implementation of some of the main provisions of his New Deal by a Supreme Court which declared these elements unconstitutional. He proceeded to browbeat the Court, went to the people by way of “fireside chats” and announced that an out of touch Supreme Court was interpreting the Constitution in a very non progressive manner. He stated that this court was in fact standing in the way of the installation of measures that were needed to help Americans during this tragic time. FDR finally prevail. The result: we got the New Deal and unemployment proceeded to climb above 20% and stay there for some time. Can we say in the spirit of Lisa Simpson that the provisions of the New Deal saved us from 30% or even 40% unemployment? Again that seems to be the prevailing method the government uses to justify expansionism.
The framers of the Constitution knew the dangers of too much government and did not see such as a source of safety. They understood this from their experience and the record of history. Things have not changed that much in 350 years and human nature has not changed at all. We are not going to be safe or prosperous again until we return to Constitutionally restrained government. And the only way to do this is to vote “no” on laws presented that are not Constitutional regardless of any rationale presented to justify such laws.
You as my representative are not there to do your own will in favor of your best interest for reelection. You are there to protect my rights and the rights of your constituents as these rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Back in 2008 our government prepared to bail out major financial institutions that were in default. This bailout has topped 2 trillion dollars and is rising. Any pole taken at the onset of this bailout effort showed that over 90% of those poled believed that the government should not create more debt to bail out these institutions. We believed that it would have been better for the nation for these institutions to go bankrupt and their toxic assets be liquidated. In addition many of us saw no provisions in the Constitution for bailing out industries using deficit spending or any other spending. Instead of allowing the liquidation that the nation desired and the situation required, the government acted in favor of the financial institutions at the expense of the economy. It is this kind of governance that makes me not trust this government to act in my best interests or to restrain itself to Constitutional limits.
Are we to say that those Congressmen who voted against renewing the Patriot Act care less about our security than those who voted for renewal? I challenge you to show proof of your assertions that this Patriot Act is serving the interests of the American people. Just stating so is not good enough. Stating that terrible things would have happened to us were it not for the Patriot Act is also not good enough. Are we also to believe that had the Patriot Act been in effect prior to 9/11 there would have been no attack on the towers? It is my understanding that we had sufficient information regarding those responsible for the attack to prevent their activity but our agencies were inept in their ability to utilize and share the information.
There appears to be a blindness that pervades our Congress and Senate. A blindness that causes our representatives not to see the danger to our economy and way of life because of the existing size of our government and our continued direction in spending. No terrorist attack can cause a total breakdown of our economic system. Hyperinflation, however, can do that. It is government spending and monetary policy that cause inflation -- not terrorists. As I witness more people losing jobs and homes and being introduced to a new experience of poverty, I don’t see this as the result of terrorists. I see this as a result of government activity and monetary policy.
I understand that in view of your past record it is unlikely that you will change your position on the Patriot Act. It is also clear from the number of votes in favor of the act that the government has succeeded in convincing many that compromising our privacy and restricting our rights in the name of protecting us from terrorists is in our best interest. However, I am writing this letter to document that there are a number of us who do not agree with government functioning in this manner. And hopefully this number is growing.
I will be posting your letter and my response along with any subsequent responses from your office on my blog.
Thank you for your time.
Larry Enge
My thanks to you, Congressman Sessions for your response to my query regarding your support of the Patriot Act which by now has passed the Senate.
I want to begin by saying that in a free society we accept the risks inherent in living in such a society.
It is not my intention to seem crass or disrespectful, but I need to point out that it seems you have not really examined the evidence submitted by the administration in its attempt to prove the need for continued unconstitutional surveillance of Americans. The provisions of this Act saddle us with unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law abiding Americans as several documented incidences of invasion of privacy of non-terrorists citizens have shown.
One particular provision of the Patriot Act allows for the issuance and use of national security letters (NSL’s). This provision is noted on the ACLU web site where writers are advocating significant reform of the Patriot Act:
“NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. Numerous Department of Justice Inspector General reports have confirmed that tens of thousands of these letters are issued every year and they are used to collect information on people two and three times removed from a terrorism suspect. NSLs also come with a nondisclosure requirement that precludes a court from determining whether the gag is necessary to protect national security. The NSL provisions should be amended so that they collect information only on suspected terrorists and the gag should be modified to permit meaningful court review for those who wish to challenge nondisclosure orders.”
In addition the “proofs” presented that these measures are protecting us are rather unsubstantiated and seem more “trumped up” than not. Anyone can say, “we are doing this for your protection.” But declaring it does not make it true. I have read some of the reports of plots thwarted supposedly because of the Patriot Act. I am not convinced that anything would have been different without the Patriot Act. Government so often resorts to the “magic anti-tiger rock” scenario of Lisa Simpson. When questioned as to the effectiveness of the “magic anti-tiger rock”, the response is “Well you don’t see any tigers do you?”
History has shown that once governments take on more power or take rights away, they are loath to relinquish the power or remove restrictions as typified by our present situation. The so called “climate of terror” for which this Act has been put in place to address has no end. By that I mean anything can be termed acts of terror or threats of terror and therefore become elements of this so called “climate of terror”. Consequently the suspension of our rights has no end.
Many of us out here are not pleased with this state of affairs. We do not feel that our representatives are acting in our best interest. What terrorists can cause us to have 9 to 10% unemployment? Only government acting on a perceived threat of terrorism can so restrict, and spend, and inflate the monetary supply until so many more of us are driven into poverty. Our government has overreacted to the terrorist threat and driven us deeper into poverty. How can that be considered a positive outcome?
As a nation we are hypocritical when we say we are in support of freedom but do not adhere to the structure of our own republic with its rule of law. Instead we fall prey to majority rule even when the majority is in violation of the rule of law. We have a law that prohibits government from conducting unlawful searches -- that is with out court order and probable cause. Yet we pass an act to do this anyway. Then we try to lecture other countries on freedom. How hypocritical is that?
As we recall, President FDR was denied many times the implementation of some of the main provisions of his New Deal by a Supreme Court which declared these elements unconstitutional. He proceeded to browbeat the Court, went to the people by way of “fireside chats” and announced that an out of touch Supreme Court was interpreting the Constitution in a very non progressive manner. He stated that this court was in fact standing in the way of the installation of measures that were needed to help Americans during this tragic time. FDR finally prevail. The result: we got the New Deal and unemployment proceeded to climb above 20% and stay there for some time. Can we say in the spirit of Lisa Simpson that the provisions of the New Deal saved us from 30% or even 40% unemployment? Again that seems to be the prevailing method the government uses to justify expansionism.
The framers of the Constitution knew the dangers of too much government and did not see such as a source of safety. They understood this from their experience and the record of history. Things have not changed that much in 350 years and human nature has not changed at all. We are not going to be safe or prosperous again until we return to Constitutionally restrained government. And the only way to do this is to vote “no” on laws presented that are not Constitutional regardless of any rationale presented to justify such laws.
You as my representative are not there to do your own will in favor of your best interest for reelection. You are there to protect my rights and the rights of your constituents as these rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Back in 2008 our government prepared to bail out major financial institutions that were in default. This bailout has topped 2 trillion dollars and is rising. Any pole taken at the onset of this bailout effort showed that over 90% of those poled believed that the government should not create more debt to bail out these institutions. We believed that it would have been better for the nation for these institutions to go bankrupt and their toxic assets be liquidated. In addition many of us saw no provisions in the Constitution for bailing out industries using deficit spending or any other spending. Instead of allowing the liquidation that the nation desired and the situation required, the government acted in favor of the financial institutions at the expense of the economy. It is this kind of governance that makes me not trust this government to act in my best interests or to restrain itself to Constitutional limits.
Are we to say that those Congressmen who voted against renewing the Patriot Act care less about our security than those who voted for renewal? I challenge you to show proof of your assertions that this Patriot Act is serving the interests of the American people. Just stating so is not good enough. Stating that terrible things would have happened to us were it not for the Patriot Act is also not good enough. Are we also to believe that had the Patriot Act been in effect prior to 9/11 there would have been no attack on the towers? It is my understanding that we had sufficient information regarding those responsible for the attack to prevent their activity but our agencies were inept in their ability to utilize and share the information.
There appears to be a blindness that pervades our Congress and Senate. A blindness that causes our representatives not to see the danger to our economy and way of life because of the existing size of our government and our continued direction in spending. No terrorist attack can cause a total breakdown of our economic system. Hyperinflation, however, can do that. It is government spending and monetary policy that cause inflation -- not terrorists. As I witness more people losing jobs and homes and being introduced to a new experience of poverty, I don’t see this as the result of terrorists. I see this as a result of government activity and monetary policy.
I understand that in view of your past record it is unlikely that you will change your position on the Patriot Act. It is also clear from the number of votes in favor of the act that the government has succeeded in convincing many that compromising our privacy and restricting our rights in the name of protecting us from terrorists is in our best interest. However, I am writing this letter to document that there are a number of us who do not agree with government functioning in this manner. And hopefully this number is growing.
I will be posting your letter and my response along with any subsequent responses from your office on my blog.
Thank you for your time.
Larry Enge
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Planned Parenthood: A Mirror of the Times
There are important people in my life who utilize some of the services of Planned Parenthood. Having said that I would add that other government related services are also a part of the lives of people in my life. But what this demonstrates to me is the that our government (particularly on the federal level) has done an effective job in making itself and promoting itself as not only a vital source and the supplier of last resort but as a necessary regulator of life in general.
Facing the reality that banks would control the economy (a reality brought on by the chartering of the Federal Reserve System in 1913) government has increasingly seen its mission to be to placate the populace (whose wealth was to be slowly siphoned away) with government substitutes for prosperity. A necessary part of this transition was the reeducation of the American public to believe in the necessity of central government as source and ultimate control.
In any society markets are the wealth building engines. But markets have to function efficiently to generate and secure the wealth of a society. Efficiently functioning markets also distribute wealth fairly. Those who apply the effort receive the wealth. Cartels and monopolies are difficult if not impossible to establish within a free market.
Even so in a large and complex society, government is totally necessary. Properly functioning government can assist markets in what it does best. But what we have in the West is not government that assists markets but government that controls markets. It is the model of the entire western world. Is it working? According to Fed Chairman, Bernanke, yes. According to Bernanke inflation is low (2-3%). According to other sources, it is not working. Inflation is 5-8% and rising. In fact one of the sources (Marc Faber) says that Bernanke is flat out lying.
The significance of inflation is that it is the mechanism that most effectively transfers wealth from the productive part of the society to Wall Street. It does so stealthily but very effectively. So yes, I guess it is working. But for whom? As we all know, the uber wealthy are increasing their wealth exponentially. The rest of us are treading at best but many are slipping. This is an orchestrated transfer. This is not free market function. This is control market function.
Free market benefits ordinary folks the best. Free markets are responsive to the needs and wishes of the populace because it centers around the relationship between those who need and those who supply. Even now, a free market in health care would be providing good quality care at affordable, competitive costs. In a free market we would have full employment. On the other hand controlled markets respond to the controller which would be the government. Some may say this is good since government is “the people”. For sure government promotes itself as being of the people, by the people and for the people. But does this really characterize our present federal government? I have serious doubts. So much policy is decided by those who have not been elected by “the people”. Many of these policy makers are part of the revolving door between the President’s Cabinet (all recent Presidents), Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve. This revolving door is totally out of our control. As shown by the fact that any poll taken prior to the 2008-2009 bailouts revealed 90% or more of the people believed that AIG and others should not have been bailed out. However, at the nod of the Fed Head, they were bailed out and continue to be bailed out.
The bailout initiative has resulted in a monetary expansion of upwards of 3 trillion dollars and counting. Monetary expansion is a synonym for inflation. So when Bernanke says that inflation (the redistribution machine) is low, he can’t be telling the truth.
In government, ideology along with money rules. So the ideology that rules is the one that is voted in. In the free market place, ideology takes a secondary role and money is properly allocated. In a free market performance trumps ideology. Competition controls greed.
So the stage is set. They take the wealth and provide us with “services”. Services we could have provided for ourselves were we able to retain the wealth we as a society have generated. As a result we “need” Planned Parenthood. We “need” Social Security, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc. All of these “needs” are a necessary part of the relationship promoted by this progressive concept of government. In addition, the fact that a dollar in 2011 is worth only about 3¢ compared to the dollar in 1913 does not mean that we have simply lost that value (wealth). Rather it means that wealth has been transferred. Wall Street now has that wealth - as if by magic.
I would much rather be able to take care of my own needs and the needs of those I love than to have to apply for “assistance” for those needs. We have forgotten that in a society with as much potential as ours we should be able to take care of ourselves. But we cannot even build an effective savings account. Because of government monetary policy, money in a savings loses value. We should be able to buy food, secure housing, acquire and sustain employment, access medical care, retire without the aid and control of government. Unfortunately I think we don’t believe that anymore. They (the money masters) have accomplished their goal well. We are all now safely wards of the state. We have attained the Orwellian paradigm. They have usurped the wealth. The stock market was up again today. There are 46 million Americans on food stamps. But we have Planned Parenthood. Soon we will have full scaled Obamacare (if the Republicans don’t derail it). Welcome to the Great Society.
Facing the reality that banks would control the economy (a reality brought on by the chartering of the Federal Reserve System in 1913) government has increasingly seen its mission to be to placate the populace (whose wealth was to be slowly siphoned away) with government substitutes for prosperity. A necessary part of this transition was the reeducation of the American public to believe in the necessity of central government as source and ultimate control.
In any society markets are the wealth building engines. But markets have to function efficiently to generate and secure the wealth of a society. Efficiently functioning markets also distribute wealth fairly. Those who apply the effort receive the wealth. Cartels and monopolies are difficult if not impossible to establish within a free market.
Even so in a large and complex society, government is totally necessary. Properly functioning government can assist markets in what it does best. But what we have in the West is not government that assists markets but government that controls markets. It is the model of the entire western world. Is it working? According to Fed Chairman, Bernanke, yes. According to Bernanke inflation is low (2-3%). According to other sources, it is not working. Inflation is 5-8% and rising. In fact one of the sources (Marc Faber) says that Bernanke is flat out lying.
The significance of inflation is that it is the mechanism that most effectively transfers wealth from the productive part of the society to Wall Street. It does so stealthily but very effectively. So yes, I guess it is working. But for whom? As we all know, the uber wealthy are increasing their wealth exponentially. The rest of us are treading at best but many are slipping. This is an orchestrated transfer. This is not free market function. This is control market function.
Free market benefits ordinary folks the best. Free markets are responsive to the needs and wishes of the populace because it centers around the relationship between those who need and those who supply. Even now, a free market in health care would be providing good quality care at affordable, competitive costs. In a free market we would have full employment. On the other hand controlled markets respond to the controller which would be the government. Some may say this is good since government is “the people”. For sure government promotes itself as being of the people, by the people and for the people. But does this really characterize our present federal government? I have serious doubts. So much policy is decided by those who have not been elected by “the people”. Many of these policy makers are part of the revolving door between the President’s Cabinet (all recent Presidents), Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve. This revolving door is totally out of our control. As shown by the fact that any poll taken prior to the 2008-2009 bailouts revealed 90% or more of the people believed that AIG and others should not have been bailed out. However, at the nod of the Fed Head, they were bailed out and continue to be bailed out.
The bailout initiative has resulted in a monetary expansion of upwards of 3 trillion dollars and counting. Monetary expansion is a synonym for inflation. So when Bernanke says that inflation (the redistribution machine) is low, he can’t be telling the truth.
In government, ideology along with money rules. So the ideology that rules is the one that is voted in. In the free market place, ideology takes a secondary role and money is properly allocated. In a free market performance trumps ideology. Competition controls greed.
So the stage is set. They take the wealth and provide us with “services”. Services we could have provided for ourselves were we able to retain the wealth we as a society have generated. As a result we “need” Planned Parenthood. We “need” Social Security, food stamps, unemployment compensation, etc. All of these “needs” are a necessary part of the relationship promoted by this progressive concept of government. In addition, the fact that a dollar in 2011 is worth only about 3¢ compared to the dollar in 1913 does not mean that we have simply lost that value (wealth). Rather it means that wealth has been transferred. Wall Street now has that wealth - as if by magic.
I would much rather be able to take care of my own needs and the needs of those I love than to have to apply for “assistance” for those needs. We have forgotten that in a society with as much potential as ours we should be able to take care of ourselves. But we cannot even build an effective savings account. Because of government monetary policy, money in a savings loses value. We should be able to buy food, secure housing, acquire and sustain employment, access medical care, retire without the aid and control of government. Unfortunately I think we don’t believe that anymore. They (the money masters) have accomplished their goal well. We are all now safely wards of the state. We have attained the Orwellian paradigm. They have usurped the wealth. The stock market was up again today. There are 46 million Americans on food stamps. But we have Planned Parenthood. Soon we will have full scaled Obamacare (if the Republicans don’t derail it). Welcome to the Great Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)