The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Thursday, January 26, 2006

A watched America is not a free America



I stopped for gas on my way home last night, inserting my credit card into the reader at the gas pump at the Exxon station on North Main Street in Floyd, Virginia. It cost just under $40 to fill the 19-gallon gas tank on my Jeep Wrangler.

With the tank filled, I retrieved the receipt and climbed back into the Jeep but before I could start the engine a bank of high speed computers operated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) at 3801 Fairfax Drive in Arlington, Virginia, 300 miles away, already knew I had purchased 17.3 gallons of unleaded regular at $2.29.9 a gallon in a small community in the Blue Ridge Mountain.

The computer compared that purchase with my last gas purchase – 14.7 gallons at the Travel America Truckstop just outside Roanoke four days ago and added the information to the computerized profile it keeps on me and millions of other American citizens.

That same computer also knew that, before leaving my studio for the day, I purchased software from MacMall in Torrance, California. It registered the purchase within seconds after the bank authorized my purchase on my VISA card.

DARPA knows my electric bill increased 316 percent during the cold, icy weather of December, which prescription drugs my wife and I use and, in a linkup with the National Security Agency, who I talk to on my home, office and wireless phones and how long we talk to them. In many cases, they have recordings of the conversation.

Paranoid fantasy? I wish it were. Welcome to America 2006, a totalitarian police state far beyond anything George Orwell imagined in his book, 1984, which, not coincidently, is on the watch list for suspicious material if you happen to check it out of your public library. Most of this takes place under the so-called “Terrorist Information Awareness” program, a data mining operation Congress thought it had shut down but – as chronicled on this web site last year survived when the Bush administration moved it into the Pentagon’s “black bag” operations, a super-secret area where Congressional oversight is not allowed.

Most Americans are watched 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year – 366 in leap years. The federal government watches their actions, catalogs their movements, tracks their spending and travel and then uses the information to build profiles – profiles based on the belief that every American is a potential threat to the peace and security of the United States and cannot be trusted.

Those who support such actions say that if we have done nothing wrong we have nothing to fear from such surveillance. They’re lying. People whose only crime is speaking out against an oppressive government cannot board a commercial airline flight because the Transportation Security Agency put them on a “No-Fly” list that contains the names of 80,000 other Americans.

No one knows for sure how many innocent victims have been seized without warrants and held incommunicado without due process under the USA Patriot Act but most estimates run into the thousands.

"Most people just don't understand how pervasive [US] government surveillance is,” says U.S. military analyst John Pike. “Frankly, they can get what they want.”

Dan Smith, a military-affairs analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus, is also a retired US Army colonel, and a senior fellow on military affairs at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

“More than buildings were brought down that September 11,” Smith says. “Historical protections of speech, assembly, protest, and privacy enjoyed by U.S. citizens and legal residents (“U.S. persons”), also came under attack as a stampeded Congress, goaded by a panicked and paranoid administration, abdicated its constitutional role—rather, its constitutional duty—to prevent the undue concentration of power in the Chief Executive.”

Publicly, Smith says, the face of this expansion is the “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004” (PL 108-458). “Among other provisions, the law increases the number of individuals engaged in collecting and analyzing information—what is known as Human Intelligence or HUMINT. (One estimate is that 4,000 agents were added just to the military programs.),” he says.

But, as we now know, the government doesn’t need any stinking laws to put the screws to the freedoms that Americans used to enjoy.

“With barely a ripple of congressional ‘oversight,’ those newly empowered must have thought almost any practice would be permitted,” Smith says. “After all, the president and most other officials insisted that in the much-changed post-9/11 world the old rules and the old legal signposts were completely outdated and had to be rewritten. The problem? The White House and the Pentagon didn't want to wait for the rules to be changed. In fact, as chronicled by the New York Times (December 11), NBC Nightly News (December 13), and the Los Angeles Times, U.S. Army counter-intelligence agents undertook a nation-wide program to infiltrate organizations the military deemed potential “threats” to military personnel and bases.”

Not to mention the President of the United States ignoring the law and ordering the warrantless spying on Americans by the NSA, an action that attorney general Alberto Gonzales admits was taken because “we were advised that that [obtaining a legislated change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] would be difficult, if not impossible.”

Bush attempts to justify his illegal actions by constantly claiming he is a “wartime president” who uses powers granted to him as “commander in chief.”

But Peter Irons, in his book, War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution, notes that our Founding Fathers limited the "commander in chief’s" powers to “ordering troops to repel an invasion force.” The title, they felt, was more ceremonial than actual. Those same founding fathers would be shocked at the loss of freedoms in today’s America.

And it will only get worse. The Federal Highway Administration, through its Office of Transportation Studies, announced $11 million in grants in December for work on a nationwide monitoring system that would allow state and federal governments to track where Americans drive through Global Positioning Satellite monitors placed in cars.

The grants are based on pilot projects the feds have been running in Oregon and Washington State, supposedly to allow states to tax motorists on the miles they actually drive, and based on the results of the project, they hope to make it nationwide. The highway administration report also cites two Supreme Court decisions, U.S. v Knotts and U.S. v Karo that say Americans have no expectation of privacy when traveling on public roads.

Even more chilling is a survey hyped by the Department that says their studies shows “less than 7 percent of the respondents expressed concerns about recording their vehicle's movements.”

A tyrant's best ally has always been an apathetic populace. Citizens of Germany learned that awful truth in 1939.

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

Monday, January 23, 2006

Only Non-Whites Can Be Non-PC

I find it amazingly hilarious (in a sad way) how "politically correct" and "proper behavior" only applies to "accepted" improper behaviors... I mean, really, does the Freedom of Speech and Expression only apply to those who are part of an accepted "counter-culture?" Just because it's not "acceptably incorrect," doesn't mean it's not viable! All freedoms have a good and bad side: if you plan to have freedom, then you also have to be prepared to suffer the consequences (in the case of freedom of speech, that means you may sometimes get offended). That's just how freedom works. Sorry, freedom doesn't function with a "safety net."

Now high school reunions must be politically correct, too...
by April Gaede

Below you'll find the text of an email from the coordinators of my high
school class's 20th reunion and my reply. They basically warn me to stay
'PC' if I am to attend their little function. I thought that readers would
be entertained by my response. By the way, this gal is a high school teacher
now -- and misspelled the word "supremacist." She probably wonders why I
home school my children.

Hi April: I am attaching the flyer that we sent out. Don't worry about the
extra money, just send the $40 per person if you plan on attending. We will
need all money mailed to Lisa by September 24 because we need a final count
and payment to the caterer (since it's so late, if you are coming, please
call or email us so we can count you in). Also, if you could email me a
picture of your family and some information about you and your family, that
would be great and I'll include it on the CD about our class. April, I'm not
sure how to say this, so I am just going to say it. We would love for you to
come to the reunion, but are a little concerned that you might bring some of
your "white supremist (sp?)" agenda with you. If you remember, the majority
of our class is not white, and I have heard some concerns. People have read
newspaper articles and comments, etc. that you have written. Please don't
take offense at this, I just want this to be a nice, peaceful get-together
for all of our 1984 graduates - including you!!! Toni


You know, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that you and your Reedley
clique would have the nerve to basically deny my freedom of speech for the
right to attend your little event.

I am pretty sure that if I was a member of NAACP, MECHA, La Raza, or NAMBLA
you wouldn't have said a word. I bet that if I had shown up with a lesbian
lover you wouldn't have dared to mention that it offended anyone, though I
am pretty sure that it would have.

But since I am a White person who is concerned about the future of her race
you have slammed me with the label "White supremacist" which is something
that I have never claimed. I am a White nationalist, by the way. I am an
activist working toward the interests of those of European descent, just
like Jesse Jackson works for the Blacks and Chavez worked for the Mexicans.

Would you have asked a person who was a minister or rabbi to not mention
their religious "agenda"? I highly doubt it. As you know, when you have
strong beliefs you carry them with you and they are incorporated into
everything you do. Does that mean that you cannot function socially around
those that differ from you or who disagree with you? NO, and you should
realize that I function in a multiracial society every day, so why wouldn't
I be able to function at the reunion? I survived four years in a mostly
non-White high school ...remember?

I always thought that a high school reunion was a chance for people to get
together after many years, talk and mingle and basically see what everyone
was now doing and how their lives had turned out. I can imagine that if a
person became politically active they might be able to talk about their
activism or politics. Are you limiting the conversation to the weather and
sports? Have you informed anyone else as to what is "off limits" at your

I know that you were the one to have the nasty job to write to me Toni, and
I don't hold it against you personally. I face people like you every day who
don't realize that they are not only being a lemming and doing what they
have been told by the government and media, but are treating me and other
White nationalists with a racial double standard that denies our rights to
free speech. Instead of listening to the facts and the legitimate questions
that we pose, you immediately call us names.

Did you expect me to show up wearing a white sheet or an armband?? How much
do you really know about the organization that I represent? (See

The truth is that I would have come looking like any other middle-aged woman
who just had a baby, slightly chubby and very happy. And if anyone had asked
me about my activism I would have answered their questions to the best of my
ability. Would I have backed down from anyone who wanted to attack me for
what I do? Of course not.

Please make sure that you forward this to all the other members of your PC
reunion squad with the knowledge that I honestly do hope that you all have a
great time at the reunion. I know that you really didn't understand how
wrong you were to send me that email.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:

U.S. should blame itself for terrorism

I guess I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Of course, those whose minds need to be changed about this will just write it off as more "liberal media talk" or "America-hating." None of them seem to notice that this kind of talk was rampant during the Revolutionary War...

U.S. should blame itself for terrorism
• We are hated, feared by most of the world for what we have done
By Joseph M. Sherfey
Originally published:

Following the events of 9/11, it was frequently claimed that the Muslim terrorists involved hated Americans because of what we have and what we are.

Last year's July 4 editorial in The News-Press stated, "The liberties we have inherited must be defended from foreigners who hate what we have, as we were reminded so bitterly on Sept. 11, 2001."

It's time for Americans to face a very uncomfortable fact. We are hated and feared by most of the world, not because of our material possessions, the liberties we enjoy or what we stand for. We are hated and feared because of what we have done. Let's look at the record.

First let's cast a guilty eye on our propensity to prop up unpopular regimes to secure a favorable commercial position or to bolster our military or political dominance. In Central and South America this hoary practice is referred to as "Gunboat Diplomacy." Worldwide it creates or protects dictatorial governments that typically are antithetical to freedom, democracy and prosperity. Too often the consequences are frustration, unrest and a climate in which terrorism flourishes.


In 1953, the C.I.A. engineered a "revolution" in Iran which replaced a moderate constitutional government under president Mohammed Mossadegh with an autocratic and militaristic shah. An understandably furious group of "students" responded by invading our embassy and imprisoning its employees — an enormous embarrassment for our country. We are now faced with a hard-line Islamic regime, which very reasonably refers to Uncle Sam as "The Great Satan." It is supporting the insurgency in neighboring Iraq and it is ominously rattling a nuclear sword.

So much for our ability to control the internal affairs of sovereign nations and for our wisdom in trying to do so.

Undaunted by our experience in Iran, our sagacious president has embarked on another nation-molding fiasco in Iraq. Hopefully, he will replace a cruel secular dictator with reactionary Islamic Mullahs who, like their counterparts in Iran, would delight in seeing us dead. More ominous scenarios abound.

We are also supporting unpopular and authoritative governments in Egypt, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria. In all these countries is a lack of opportunity and open political expression that is causing widespread resentment and unrest, especially among the intelligentsia and the poor. Most are powder kegs.


An incident in the Balkans exemplifies a second reason for Muslim hatred; our callous disregard for Muslims' lives. In June of 1995, a United Nations "safe area" was turned over to the Serbs who promptly slaughtered 8,000 unarmed Muslim Bosnians. Many of the women were raped before being killed. There was no U.N. intervention.

When we joined the British in enforcing U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq, the consequences were even worse. We persisted, even though we knew it was causing widespread suffering. The U.N. estimated that about 500,000 Iraqi children died because of shortages in food and medicines. When asked about these deaths on national TV our U.N. ambassador, Madeleine Albright, didn't dispute the facts but stated that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." What was gained to warrant the deaths of a half-million children?

The Muslim death toll in the current Iraqi debacle is unknown. Guestimates range from 40,000 to 100,000. It's obviously not important enough to count. But let us ever remember 9/11; 3,000 Americans died.

At the time of the Marshall Plan, our country was rebuilding Europe and was admired and respected by the world. That country no longer exists. America is now an empire: militaristic, militant, arrogant and cruel. We have more than 700 military bases outside the United States. Our generals and admirals have more than 100 passenger jets — Lears, Gulfstreams, etc. — to get to the 234 military golf courses scattered around the world. One Gulfstream III costs $50 million and requires a crew of five.

In his book "The Sorrows of Empire," Chalmers Johnson states, "As militarism, the arrogance of power, and the euphemisms used to justify imperialism inevitably conflict with America's democratic structure of government and distort its culture and basic values, I fear that we will lose our country." I share that fear.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website: