A soldier's grieving mother and free speech.

Lottie Hermanson's son, Michael, was killed in Iraq. At his funeral the hateful fundamentalists from the Westboro Baptist Church showed up to taunt her and the rest of Michael's friends and family. As you no doubt know, the Supreme Court recently ruled such protests are legally protected by the First Amendment.

Lottie said: "Even though speech may be hurtful, wars mean things. If you're not free to speak your mind, your thoughts, then you're really not free. She endorsed a group called the Patriot Guard, which was formed to protect grieving families from the hateful "gospel" of the Jesus-mongers from Westboro. The head of that group, Tony Krogh, was also interviewed and said: "The decision was based on the fact that these soldiers have died protecting that freedom, the freedom of speech. ...[I]t is literally the reason these soldier give everything they have."

Now, I am sure these are fine people who are well intentioned, but they are wrong in a rather spectacular way. The proof is easy to understand. Imagine that when 9/11 took place that the US government responded, not by waging war on Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11, but with a world-wide hunt to capture the man who was responsible: bin Laden (No, I don't believe the 911 Truther bullshit and won't turn the comment section into a forum for that topic—so don't even try.)

Would freedom of speech be less secure had our government responded that way? No! Let us be clear, as far as I can tell, in at least the last 150 years, the American people never had their freedoms under threat by a foreign power that was actual able to deny them freedom. Not even the Soviets had the ability to strip Americans of freedom of speech. The only war of any significance that actually did end up protecting some rights, whether that was the purpose or not, was the Civil War. (No, I also don't buy the neo-confederate bullshit that comes out of some faux libertarian circles either and won't turn the comment section into a forum for that topic either.)

What has threatened American freedom has never been the enemies our government fought, often after creating them. What threatens American freedom is no on and nothing but the American government itself. They are the only entity able to smash constitutionally guaranteed rights in this country, and they are doing it with relish.

The war did not protect freedom. The war is the excuse by which government destroys freedom.

Remember the freedom guaranteed to be secure in your person and papers from warrantless searches. Gone. The government took it to fight terrorists. During World War I and II we had Americans incarcerated for opposing the war. The enemy didn't take away their freedom of speech, the government did. It wasn't Hitler who put American civilians in concentration camps—it was Roosevelt, the great saint of the American Left.

The Patriot Act, allegedly set up to defend freedom, has done more to destroy freedom than bin Laden could ever hope to do. It is not radical Islamists who strip Americans of their rights, it is the government that the American people put into power that does it.

The Soviet Union, at its height could not touch freedom in America. It couldn't put on show trials and force Americans to defend what they do or don't believe. That was Joseph McCarthy not Joseph Stalin. It was the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, and I would certainly say they were an "unAmerican" committee, that forced Americans to testify about their beliefs.

War is not a means of protecting rights, not in reality, but an engine for the subtle, sometimes blatant, destruction of rights. Each of the "great" wars in our history left the American people with fewer rights and freedoms than they had when they went into the war. There is little question that the people we went to war against were unpleasant individuals, but as unpleasant as they were, none of them were actually able to strip us of guaranteed freedoms.

They might have been able to inflict some limited harm on some Americans in some places. But they could never make all of us less free, not even most of us. Bin Laden plotted and succeeded in taking the lives of a few thousand Americans. But he couldn't touch the Bill of Rights, for that he needed accomplices in the United States government. Bin Laden understood the paranoid political center well. He was explicit in saying that his attack on the United States would have small impact in destroying the America he hated. But he also said that the response that the US government would put into place would do that work for him.

He realized that the only way he could destroy American freedom is to get the United States government to do that job for him. In that sense he was a lot smarter than the president he faced down. George Bush did bin Laden's bidding, albeit unwittingly. Bush wasn't alone. The United States Congress lined up to almost unanimously strip away freedoms, in the name of protecting freedom.

It is not the enemies we face who threaten our rights or our freedoms. While we have foreign enemies they can't harm the freedom of the American people. It is the domestic threat fostered by war that does that. War is the health of the state, and a healthy state is always a formidable threat to freedom.

I would also like to close with a brief discussion of the Supreme Court ruling on the Westboro case.

Chief Justice Roberts said that speech can "inflict great pain" but that under the First Amendment "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker" and thus we must protect "even hurtful speech." Roberts said that the Westboro morons at least highlight "the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involve the Catholic clergy," which are "matters of public import."

But, sexuality is also a matter of public import. It is also about morality. Yet, the Supreme Court would not afford sexual speech these same protections. Just as the First Amendment made no exceptions for hate speech or for offensive speech, neither did it make an exception for "obscene" speech.

If pain is not a sufficient reason for inhibiting speech then why is "disgust" a sufficient reason?

Roberts said that Westboro's actions are "certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible." Both are true. But erotica is similar in that it can certainly disgust some people and perhaps its contributions to discourse are negligible, but pornographers don't have the same rights at Westboro's nutters do. I can assure you that far more people would rather read a porn magazine than be subjected to Westboro hate.

Consider how the Supreme Court treats these two forms of speech so very differently. Under court rulings an erotic publican can be declared "obscene" with no objective definition, based on the undefined "community standards" of the location where it is possessed. A police thug in Florida can order a publication from California and then prosecute the California producer according the backwater values of the swamp people in his area of the country.

Westboro Baptist can violate community standards in every neighbor of every state with impunity, according to the Supreme Court. Speech that inflicts severe pain on people, says the Court, is absolutely protected but speech that gives a lot of people pleasure, may be banned and punished.

Yes, there can be some weird shit, and I mean that literally, in some forms of porn. But it isn't inflicted on unwilling participants the way Westboro does at funerals. Surely erotica ought to have the same protections that Westboro hate has. That it doesn't is itself enlightening. Apparently the Supreme Court is fine with inflicting pain but has problems with pleasure. And to me, that is very kinky indeed.

Flubbed terrorists known to government.

The Nigerian who tried to light explosive strapped to his leg was known to the U.S. government. Umar Abdulmutallab's name was added to a list of known or suspsected terrorists by the government a month ago. However, when the man's name was run through the database, before he could board his flight, it came up with a green light. There was no warning of any kind. There wasn't even a suggestion that he be put under additional scrutiny. Instead of focusing on people the government KNOWS to be risks the bureaucrats prefer to go after everyone.

There are new restrictions on hand luggage put into place—yet the explosives the man carried were strapped to his leg and never in hand luggage. There is the new regulation confining passengers to their seats yet the man was in his seat when he tried to light the explosive. Abdulmutallab would have been in compliance with all the new restrictions imposed by the government had they been put in place before he boarded the plane. In other words, NONE of the new regulations would have had any impact on the incident. These regulations do not prevent incidents such as the one that happened, that is clear. The incident is merely an excuse for the additional regulations not a justification.

Take the new rule on one piece of carry-on luggage only as an example. Abdulmutallab had only one piece of carry-on luggage. In fact, it was the only luggage he had. Apparently no one found a man flying thousands of miles, with just one piece of hand luggage unusual. His ticket showed him being on his trip for almost two weeks—yet he had no luggage and no one found that unusual. He was on a list of suspected terrorists which exists to allegedly warn airport security about yet the U.S. government gave the man the green light so security staff were not even warned to give the man a bit of additional scrutiny.

Instead of focusing on ways in which the existing failed the bureaucrats like Napolitano look for ways to complicate the lives of innocent people. One month ago our government listed Abdulmutallab as a potential terrorist and yet they approved him to fly without even a hint that he might be a problem. The failure was not the result of too little regulation, as Napolitano is always inclined to think, it was the failure of government. Having the travel gestapo spend more time hassling flyers is no help. All it does is tie up security staff with millions of innocent people.

Since the government knew that Abdulmutallab was a potential risk the most sensible thing to do was to ask security staff to check him out thoroughly. When the man checked-in, was on a list of potential terrorists AND had no checked luggage that should have sent alarm bells ringing. But no one, other than the bureaucrats, knew he was on the list. Security at the airport was never told.

Notice that the failure in security belongs heavily to the bureaucrats in Washington for failing to sound the alarm bell for extra scrutinty. It partially belongs to security staff for not wondering about the absence of luggage. Instead of addressing precisely where security failed, Napolitano pretends the problem was not enough state control and ups the level of regulations stripping Americans of freedom. This is why I don't think there is a war on terrorism, there is a war on freedom however. Everytime some would-be terrorists does something the U.S. government, instead of actually focusing on the individuals with a known tie to terrorism, clamp down on the traveling public.

Photo: Janet Napolitano illustrating how to slowly grab liberty by the throat.

The ugly, raw authoritarianism of Obama.

The raw authoritarian nature of Barack Obama and a stinging critique from a well-known Left-wing commentator, who should be applauded for what she has done.

I almost fainted when I heard Obama speak how he wants to be able to impose preventative detention and thinks that it is just fine to do provided it is not the decision of "just one man" but that the courts and Congress have a role in. Yet the Constitution no where gives any one man or group of men that power. It simply doesn't exist. This is a blatant, raw usurpation of totalitarian power by Obama.

A libertarian look at Harvey Milk.

Above is a 90-minute documentary The Times of Harvey Milk. Milk, though he was once a Goldwater supporter, came on to the American political scene as a candidate of the Left. So why would a libertarian admire and respect Milk?

There is a false assumption, a grossly false assumption, that libertarianism is some sort of Right-wing philosophy. I would assert most strongly, it is not. Properly understood libertarianism in its “classical liberal” incarnation was the original Left wing of politics. The Right wished to “conserve” the prevalent social order. Liberals did not. They wished to reform it in many different way including ending the feudal system, abolition of the church/state alliance and ending the government coddling of certain business interests through subsidies, monopolies and protectionism. There was very, very little which classical liberals though worthy of conserving. The advocates of conserving the social order were called conservatives and their method for doing so was the use of State force.

When the socialists arose they embraced many of the goals that true liberals were seeking. But these socialists thought it possible to achieve liberal ends through the use of State force, in other words while adopting liberal goals they clung to conservative means. As the socialist/communist movement evolved certain erroneous premises which they had embraced pushed many into a totalitarian camp. At that point these “Leftists” had ceased seeking even liberal ends and had become full-fledged conservatives preserving the political power structure through coercive means.

This created a crisis within the political Left. Many in the Left still passionately embraced the ends of the classical liberals. They opposed the totalitarianism of the conservative Left yet they were having problems giving up the idea that state power was the best method of achieving liberal goals. Most of modern Leftists, Harvey included, fall into this category. For the libertarian they are as confused as the modern conservative. Neither consistently advocates freedom yet neither consistently wants to undermine it. Whether their premises undermine such freedom is a different matter, but neither does so intentionally, with the exception of the more extreme elements.

Conservatives today want economic liberalism but shy away from social liberalism. Socialists and Progressives want social liberalism, and the results of economic liberalism but cling to State power. So, for the true libertarian, both the Left and the Right share similar flaws and have similar virtues. But many libertarians, who came from the Right, still cling to irrational hatred for the Left. This blinds them to the common ground that libertarians share with our friends on the Left.

A rational discussion of modern politics, from a libertarian perspective, requires us to understand, and appreciate, the common ground that we share with the Left as well. Yet this is inadequately done.

It is from this perspective that I wish to discuss the impact of Harvey Milk.

One thing that is clear from this documentary is that Harvey did passionately believe in trying to help those who were hurt, or oppressed, by the legal/political system of his day. He spoke of the needs of the various minorities to work together to defend their rights. This passion comes right out of the historical natural of classical liberalism. Unfortunately it is a passion that many libertarians have forgotten, to the detriment of libertarianism in general.

Classical liberalism originated, not as an economic philosophy, but as a philosophy that defended the rights of minorities. Freedom of religious dissent was a battle that the nascent liberals were fighting well before Adam Smith penned his Wealth of Nations (1776). Milton’s neo-liberal defense of free speech, Areopagitica, was published in 1643. John Locke’s essay, A Letter Concerning Toleration, was published in 1689. Both of these documents, while pushing boundaries for freedom, still made compromises to state control that modern libertarians (or many left-liberals) would no longer make. But certainly in their day they were radical calls for expanding individual freedom.

It should be remembered that these early liberals, arguing for expansion of freedom of thought, faced obstacles that later economic liberals did not face. While advocates of free trade were opposed by the landed interests and big business of the day, they did not face the Holy Inquisition, trials for heresy, mob violence, or execution. Of course, even today, modern libertarians find it easier to defend economic liberalism as “conservatives” will still do their level best to punish us for any forays into social liberalism—hence the reason so many “libertarian” think tanks and organizations don’t talk about the social aspects of freedom. But, for a libertarian to avoid social freedom, it is like a sprinter trying to run with just one leg. You can do it, but is it really worth the effort?

Classical liberals were in the forefront of the Abolitionist movement, a cause that was very unpopular when they started. But the evil of human slavery, defended by Scripture and conservative interests, was eventually abolished. After the successful campaigns regarding religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and the abolition of slavery, we see the first real move toward economic liberalism. Freedom of markets did not lead the liberal movement until the creation of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839—slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 but Vermont had banned it in 1777 and Massachusetts in 1783.

Even when Richard Cobden and John Bright, created the Anti-Corn Law League the emphasis of much of their work was on the dire effects that state protectionism had on the working classes and the poor. Much of the impetus for promoting economic freedom was that it was necessary if poverty and hunger were to be abolished. That passion, to see the most vulnerable in society, made better off was a primary motivation of our liberal forefathers. And even our promotion of economic freedom was intimately tied to this desire.

State power always has been, and always will be, the sanctuary of the rich and powerful. It protects them from the competitive nature of markets and from the wishes and will of the consumers and workers. This is why true liberals have opposed efforts by pseudo-liberals on the Left to expand state power. We believe that such power is inherently counter-productive and destructive to the well being of all of but a rich and powerful elite. Such power structures, however, are particularly destructive to the well being of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

True liberalism was aligned with European movements that sought to end the ghettoization of the Jews, something promoted by the Church and religious elements of society. Liberalism worked to extend the franchise and legal rights to women. It was closely involved with the movement to extend equal rights before the law to African-Americans as well. And, for all ages, classical liberalism was a major force in opposition to imperialism and war.

Classical liberalism has always been about the emancipation of all people and the legal equality of all people, in regime of freedom. Economic liberty is incredibly important, but not as an end in itself. Economic freedom is necessary to achieve the social goals of classical liberalism. Economic freedom means that the power elites can’t confiscate the wealth of the working classes. Economic freedom makes emancipation of the Jews, women, gays, and even “illegal” immigrants possible. Economic freedom is always a necessary component in the real liberal’s agenda: the full emancipation of the individual to live their life, as they wish, provided they respect the equal rights of others. Economic freedom is the means to the social goals of liberalism. Classical liberals would argue that economic freedom is the necessary means for achieving those goals.

When one studies the life of Harvey Milk one finds that the passions he shared were, for the most part, liberal passions—and I mean classical liberal passions. In his short political career he broke ground for the rights of gay and lesbian people and opposed the horrendous efforts of the bigots around the Briggs Initiative. It should also be noted that many libertarians were very active in the campaign against Briggs and that the libertarian-leaning Ronald Reagan even opposed the measure and wrote an editorial against it.

Previously I quoted Nathaniel Branden as saying:

I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country.

Never mind that the Leftists had their own motives for doing so and that those motives would not be the motives of Libertarians. The fact remains that we should have never have involved ourselves in Viet Nam, the draft is evil, and racism is contemptible. Libertarians—the true defenders of individual rights—should have been the first to speak up on these subjects, loudly and clearly and publicly.

I don’t mean that these are the only issues to which Libertarians should address themselves. Far from it. But it would have been immensely important had Libertarians been the first to speak up on these problems. I think it’s unfortunate that Libertarians so often leave the initiative to the Leftists. For example, it was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose our involvement in Viet Nam. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to oppose the draft. It was the Leftists who were the first—publicly and in a big way—to denounce racism in this country.

It is vital, if modern libertarianism or classical liberalism is to remain true to its roots, that we revive this passionate defense of those most under threat by the expansion of state power. We are the only consistent advocates of freedom for the oppressed and the powerless. And when we see others, even those who fail to understand the link between social and economic freedom, who are passionate about individual rights we ought to applaud them and encourage them. There were aspects to Harvey’s political program that real liberals could not support. But we can appreciate his passion for the oppressed and embrace that aspect of who he was. We can acknowledge the important role he played in helping further individual rights in modern America. We can do these things—and we should.

These are Perilous Times indeed.

It has been said that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. There is no doubt that this is true. And for libertarians, the study of history is a necessity. If you understand the past you can understand where present-day trends are leading. Perhaps one reason that history has been downplayed in the schools is the trends today are frightening.

Only by knowing the past can we know how much our nation has changed and how many liberties have been confiscated. So history provides us with a market to understand how much we have lost and as warning as to how much more we may lose as government power continues to expand unabated. For these reasons I’ve always had a passion for history.

And that is why I picked up Perilous Times, by Geoffrey Stone, and started reading. And what I read impressed me. Stone has written an important book on the fate of civil liberties when war passions are riding high. Randolph Bourne wrote that “war is the health of the state.” He wrote that war “sets in motion throughout society these irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.”

War has always been the enemy of freedom. Even in those cases where it has been necessary it has cannabalized liberty. And freedoms lost in the hysteria of war are never returned to the same state they were before the war. They are always weaker. The libertarian journalist, Felix Morley, wrote that “the strength by a victorious State through war is in large part taken not from the enemy but from its own people.”

But all this is theory. What Stone offers is the evidence to validate the theory. Throughout American history war has always lead to atrocities -- not on the battlefields alone -- but at home as well. It has slaughtered free speech, executed liberty, stolen private property and committed murder. Each war panic has lead to real assaults on real people. War abroad leads to murder at home more often than people realize. To dissent against the war and the expansion of state power turns the war party into zealots out to punish and inflict harm on the dissenters. And Stone chronicles the history of the great wars and how each war brought with it intolerance and crimes against freedom at home.

The story of Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio alone is worth the price of the book. Vallandigham was a fierce Jeffersonian advocate of small, constitution government and a critic of Lincoln’s war. The Republicans conspired to gerrymander him out of his seat. But Vallandigham was a popular speaker and when crowds came to hear him denounce Lincoln’s many violations of Constitutional freedom he was marked.

In the dead of night the U.S. military raided Vallandigham’s home and arrested him. He was put before a military tribunal and found guilty of treason. His popularity made it impossible to execute him so the military imprisoned him. Newspapers across the country spoke out in protest and one by one they too were raided and shut down. As the storm over this assault on free speech continued Lincoln justified the imprisonment. The Democrats in Ohio decided to run Vallandigham for Governor even though he was in prison.

Lincoln responded by saying he would pardon Vallandigham but deport him from the United States into the Confederacy, a place where the congressman was not particularly wanted either. So after an illegal arrest and imprisonment, the “Great Emancipator” then had a vocal opponent thrown out of his own country. Vallandigham eventually made his way to Canada and then back to the North but was under surveillance on a regular basis. His ability to campaign was destroyed and he never regained office.

We can fast forward to World War I and read about the thousands of people imprisoned for opposing the war and the thousands of immigrants who were deported for the same reason. We can read of the movie producer who was sentenced to 10 years in prison because his historically accurate film on the American Revolution portrayed the British in a bad light. Since the British were American allies at the time this was consider seditious, accurate or not.

Stone’s book covers the history of war and civil liberties from the early days of the Republic to through the Civil War, both world wars, the cold war era, Vietnam and into the latest assault on Constitutional liberty under the guise of the “war on terror”. Terror may be the enemy but liberty seems to be the target. Perilous Times is a must read for anyone committed to freedom during these dark days. Those who do not understand history are truly condemned to repeat it.

Hardback, 728 pages, list price $35.00. But Laissez Faire Books has the book for $18.95. Free with each order of Perilous Times there is a copy of “Foreign Policy and the American Mind” by Robert Nisbet. To order call 1-800-326-0996 or e-mail laissezfairebooks@gmail.com. You can also sign up for their free newsletter at their blog: laissezfairebooks.blogspot.com.

Bush policies sap billions from economy.

The Bush police state marches on imposing billions in additional costs on people. The New York Times today mentioned that US citizens are now waiting hours at border posts before they can return home. People are missing important appointments and businesses along the border are suffering.

Thousand and thousands of American live over the border but work in the United States. They are facing delays of two hours or more when they drive into the United States and this is while the border thugs are merely implementing new policies periodically. When they are fully in place the delays will be longer.

You may remember that the Homeland Security brownshirts pushed through new controls on Americans requiring everyone to have a passport to reenter the US even if they had only been in Toronto for s short visit. (In some places in the US crossing the border may mean visiting the neighbor across the street.)

In addition the border agents are now routinely using the photo ID that you must present to call in your name and have the government run checks on you before you are allowed to go home.

The New York Times reports that the new border polices are “discouraging visitors and shoppers and upsetting local business.”

The paper notes that 234 million crossings into the United States take place every year. Of course many U.S. citizens who live near the border make multiple entries so this is not 234 million visitors. If the wait time averages only one hour that is 234 million hours wasted. Even at minimum wage rates the cost in wait time alone is over a billion dollars at the Mexican border alone. And the government is spending another $3 billion to cause the screw ups.

Reichmarshal W. Ralph Basham, head of “Customs and Border Protection” dismisses the impositions on millions of people claiming, “A safer border is well worth the wait.” Of course he’s not the one waiting and neither is there one shred of evidence that all the controls and costs have increased security. Please remember that all the 9/11 terrorists were given permits to vist the U.S. and that none came in by land but by air. None were U.S. citizens, who are the actual targets of these new controls.

Reichmarshal Basham is not paying the cost for waiting. He’d get a wave through if he ever had to cross by land. And he is a net beneficiary. He is paid to impose controls on others. So not only is he not paying the costs he is profiting because of them.

One American citizen, Wilda Laboy has a job in Mexico, lives in the United States and is studying in the States. She says that she is now routinely late for classes because it can take up to three hours to get home. About $332 billion in trade takes place with Mexico and most of it is moved by truck. In El Paso 21,000 people per day walk across the border for shopping.

If Americans think they are having a hard time the United States travel Nazis are making impossible for tourists and others to visit the United States. Numerous surveys show that tourists, world-wide, say the United States travel thugs treat visitors worse than any other country. One result is that millions of people are avoiding the United States entirely costing billions more in lost income. And some airlines now avoid US airports for stop-overs because all passengers on board must be fingerprinted and pass through passport control, even if the flight is just refueling. Vancouver has attracted flights that used to fly through Los Angeles. I have no idea how much that is costing the economy.

And the Washington Post had a story yesterday about how the Bush control are harming arts and culture. One of the oldest symphony orchestras in England, celebrating their 150th anniversary, was invited to play at Lincoln Center. But to get their visas they were told that every single member of the orchestra was required to travel to London, from their home in Manchester, to be personally interviewed. They also had to fingerprinted like common criminals and have facial-recognition scans taken (it will be a matter of time before the government forces this on U.S. citizens but I predict it will happen.)

The orchestra started looking at the cost to get every member to London, they would have to be put in hotel and they had to pay for visas and interviews and hassles that the travel Nazis are imposing. The additional costs for these people were $80,000 and the orchestra decided that they didn’t want to come to America anymore. Just consider how much income was lost to the U.S. because of that.

It’s a large orchestra. Photos I saw seem to indicate close to 100 members. Cheap airfare would be around $550. Hotel costs would run at least $100 per night per person. Food costs, on a budget would $25 to $50 per person per day. Of course they’d buy other things as well. And an orchestra usually fly around the world for more than just one day. And there is the lost revenue to the Lincoln Center because of concerts where no tickets can be sold.

The Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage holds a major Folklife Festival every year with performers from around the world. To bring in performers from Bhutan they had to fly them India for interviews in order to obtain visas. Didier Le Besque, agent for Ballet Biarritz said that it cost $48,000 in costs just to get the ballet troupe to the U.S. Embassy in Paris for interviews.

The Post article mentioned that due to these restrictions one $250,000 tour by the Peking Opera of Jilin was cancelled due to the fact the U.S. wouldn’t give visas to the Opera members -- right, bin Laden has trained Operatic terrorists who hit a high note and blow up Washington. It can takes months for visa applications to be processed but wonderful bureaucrats offer an expedited service for visiting artists. And the extra cost is only $1,000 per person.

It can take so long to process the paperwork that a group of business that deal in the performing arts pushed for an allowance that the artist can file for a visa one full year in advance. The normal six month advance permit didn’t give them enough time to get approval and still book their tours. And each time a performing artist wishes to visit the U.S. he must travel to a U.S. embassy, get fingerprinted and have photos taken even if he has already been fingerprinted and interviewed several times. This requirement must be repeated every single time.

The paper says that the $1,000 expedition fee is basically mandatory or the U.S. embassy is unlikely to process the applications in time for performances. The band New Model Army has applied in the past and received their visas in plenty of time for three previous tours so they declined the offer of paying the extra $1,000 for each visa. This year their applications took months to process and when they queried about the delays they were told that it was not possible to trace the applications unless the $1,000 had been paid. The band missed their tour. Their visas were turned down on a technicality that could have been cleared up easily had they been told about it in time. But with the U.S. embassies take months and months to approve one visa application they didn’t find out in time. How many hundreds of thousands, or millions, was lost due to one tour being canceled?

The Post says that there are 7,000 individuals who do the bookings for performing artists. Before the Bush administration 5,250 of them worked with international artists. As the United States becomes more and more aggressive against visitors agents have stopped even trying to bring the performers in. Of those who previously brought in artist one in five have already stopped doing it.

China’s Golden Dragon Acrobats have been performing in the United State for thirty years. But their tour this year is now on hold since the U.S. is refusing to grant them visas even though there have no incidents with the performers in the past. Various music groups have cancelled performing in the United States as a result of these hassles.

I used to routinely purchase and export books from the United States to other countries. After Bush got his ideas to clamp down on freedom one supplier after another just stopped selling to anyone outside the United States. They said that the extra paperwork and regulations they had to go through just to mail one box of books was no longer worth it and the quiet selling to anyone outside the United States. I have no idea how many such distributors have decided to just close down sales to foreign countries as a result. But Bush doesn’t care -- he’s on a crusade against “evil doers” and “terrrists”

Here’s the sickening thing about all this. Bin Laden and the Taliban drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Their strategy was a simple one. They said that one attack in one area would force the Soviets to spend millions of dollars in response. The terrorists can’t defeat militarily and they know it. But for a relative few dollars they can impose millions of dollars in damage -- not direct but indirectly. Bin Laden openly said that any attack on the U.S., even if it had failed would push panic stricken politicians to impose billions and billions in costs on the economy.

Over time the economic damages of these measures add up. It is safe to say that the economic damage directly caused by 9/11 is now insignificant to the economic damage caused by Bush in his panicky response to a problem that he clearly doesn’t understand. His response has already lead to the deaths of more Americans than the attack did. And now he helping bin Laden reach his goal of inflicting massive harm on the American economy by a Stalinist-like crack down that continues to escalate with no regard for the liberties lost or the billions wasted. Bin Laden is clearly smarter than Bush, but then so my sock, and he knows that Bush is the one who can harm America. When the moron in the White House said that our enemies “never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we” it may have been the one truthful statement Bush has made in his entire eight years. If you are one of the Bushites who don’t think he said that play the video for yourself. The best you can say it that it’s a Freudian slip, the unintentional revelation of something that is true.

Democrats: what the hell is your party doing? Why are they letting Bush continue with his disasters? And if you guys are so against this war why is foreign policy neoconservative leading the Democratic pack of candidates?

Annoy the hell out of the travel Nazis.

As you know the travel Nazis from the ominous Department of Homeland Security are spying on everyone who is unfortunate enough to travel behind the Iron Curtain, i.e. in the United States. They collect data on you that they say is secret and which even you aren't allowed to know about. But they also collect data on you that is available to you for the asking. So ask already! Find out how much attention the thugs in Homeland Security have paying you and get some idea of the information that have collected while spying on you!

The mere fact that millions of peaceful, law-abiding Americans are being spied upon by this Orwellian agency is disgusting. You can file a couple of forms with the travel thugs -- they love forms. You fill out the forms and sign them and make copies for yourself. You then send them certified to the travel Nazis and they are supposed to respond within 10 day acknowledging receipt of your request and within 30 days they are supposed to provide you with the dossier they have compiled on you. You may find out more than you realized. And at the very least it helps keep the bastards busy. They can't charge you for the search but may charge you for photocopying expenses. To download the forms and get explicit instructions on how to check up on the people who are checking up on you go here.

Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties

This one hour lecture by author Jim Bovard can be watched at our sister site: TV Liberty. There are seven parts in total for about 60 minutes worth of material. All the parts can be found through this one link. Enjoy.