News Media ignoring important stories

By John Blythe

Originally Posted on Independent Word

John Blythe

I have to sincerely apologize to any readers for wasting time yesterday reporting on the now-disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner. From the looks of it, I doubt he’ll even survive this scandal, now that Radar Online has released the explicit tweets and X-Rated photographs of himself.

But this is exactly the problem in today’s society. We have a news media that is largely controlled by liberals and when it comes to one of their own being slaughtered, they will give as much attention as possible to the story. If anyone paid attention in the last week, a majority of the news media has been focusing its attention on the Weiner/freakshow scandal, instead of giving time to stories that should be shocking the living hell out of every single American.

Here is a short list of stories that have materialized in the last week, that should have been on the front cover of every single newspaper, but as usual, these stories have simply been ignored because the Weiner controversy generates ratings.

- China has been divesting its holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills and as of last Friday, had divested 97% of them. This means China, like other nations holding U.S. debt are realizing we can’t pay it back and our Federal Reserve holding artificial borrowing rates at an all time low of 1.5% is not sufficient enough for China to hold our bills in the short term. If the Federal Reserve raises rates, our economy tanks. Makes sense right, why would China want to hold our currency that is devalued.

- After the China story was released, stocks rebounded and now the Federal Reserve is going to attempt to devalue the dollar to enhance better trade. The issue here is that the Federal Reserve prints money, while our money looses unit value due to inflation.

- Another interesting story that came out earlier this week centered around U.S. home prices for 2011 are at an all time low since the Great Depression. How is Obama’s “new deal” plan working out for all of his voters that wanted to buy a home with a low interest mortgage?

- Here is another story involving money… while he was running the Federal Reserve Branch in New York back in 2008, the little weasel of a Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner gave out loans to his banking executive buddies, including Goldman Sacs, Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank for low interest at 0.01%. This is a man that should resign in disgrace.

- Our nation’s long term unemployment is worse than the Great Depression and the number of unemployed people in America is in reality much larger than 9%, because this is only the pertcentage of people actually receiving unemployment benefits.

- And my favorite story ignored by the mainstream news media this week: WikiLeaks verified that the creation of a North American Union betweeen the U.S., Canada and Mexico was true, and was not a conspiracy theory after all.

I think this is the reason why we have blogs and websites today thanks to the emergence of technology. Because the stories that need to be reported are picked up by normal every day people browsing the internet who actually want the public to become aware of what is going on in this world. Since the news media doesn’t want to do its job anymore when it comes to news reporting and journalism, I guess WE have to become the news reporters and journalists.

Personal Secession – The Way to Freedom

by Michael S. Rozeff

Certain people and groups in California want to ban male circumcision, and they are getting measures placed on local ballots for voting.

In Louisiana, there is some sort of law about the teaching of the creation of man in the public schools that has people who dislike that law all riled up and seeking repeal.

Women in Egypt are bitterly divided between those who favor sharia law for Egypt and those who favor secular law.

The State of Arizona has a law that legalizes medical marijuana. The Governor is suing the State of Arizona against this law because it conflicts with federal law.

President Bush "launched missiles and bombs at targets in Iraq" in March of 2003, an action of which 25 percent of Americans disapproved at the time. That figure rose to 53 percent within 8 months.

What do the above items have in common?

They all involve laws approved of by some and disapproved of by others. In all cases, there are winners and losers. The winners get their favorite laws passed. The losers have to obey.

In all cases, the losers have no choice.

We Are All Libertarians Now

by Susan Westfall

Originally posted on Lew Rockwell.com

Recently, I was asked to explain whether or not it was "a common libertarian belief that any government is bad." This sticking point was one that in the questioners' own words caused them to "lose interest," and despite being "in agreement with a lot of libertarian thinking...talking about deregulating everything," turned them off. I was asked this because of my support for and recent article about Ron Paul, who despite decades of serving as a Republican Congressman, is still consistently labeled as a libertarian in almost every media interview with him or discussion about him. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, implication by the media is that either the word libertarian in and of itself (or perhaps just the idea of being a libertarian) is somehow not quite right, maybe even unacceptable, and most certainly not electable.

At this point I would like to make it clear that the people posing their questions seemed genuinely concerned with simply understanding better the issue of greatly reducing the size of government and not with deriding libertarianism. In fact, they assured me that they "like a lot of libertarian principles," but deregulation and "pursuing an idealized notion of a free market," is not an answer they understand and this, I assume, could affect their vote in 2012. However, their wording of the overarching question first asked shows how successful the media campaign against libertarian ideals over the years has been. The application of the label "libertarian" to someone's political character these days insinuates that said person is not only promoting an absence of any government whatsoever, but is almost eagerly awaiting the advent of anarchy and its chaotic and bloody results. Somalia is often used to demonstrate how such kooky libertarian ideals will end.

Libertarians, as with any other group, have beliefs that are wide and varied. I won't pretend to know them all, or purport to having done a deep or intensive study of the matter. "Libertarian ideas are like stones dropping into a body of water, making waves in so many directions that no one is sure where they come from," says Lew Rockwell in The Case for Libertarian Hope. An exact list of what libertarians believe in, stand for, or wish to attain might theoretically be compiled, but in reality would not be applicable to all its advocates. That said, there are at least two basic concepts that appear to be foundational to libertarianism: individual liberty and doing no harm. Everything else, in my opinion, is just extrapolation and lends to a general confusion that inevitably dilutes their strength.

Individual liberty is based on two concepts: life and property. Your life and your property are yours, and yours alone. You are free to do with them what you will, as long as you don't harm another with your doings. We exercise the choices we make regarding life and property through an ideal held dear by ALL people, no matter the political or religious label attached to them: that of free will. We choose what to eat and drink, where to live and how, what to think and believe, who to befriend or not, whether to be honest or lie, if we will act morally or immorally...the list could fill tomes. All individuals, regardless of race or gender, are born with this gift by which, at the very least, they are able to think, rationalize, and create. It is an accepted fact that free will is dictated by no person other than the one exercising it. If people are religious, they exercise their free will to adhere to God's laws. However, I doubt any of them seriously believe that a bolt of lightening will shoot out of the Walmart ceiling tiles to strike them dead should they decide to shoplift. God does not compel mankind through force to follow His laws regarding morality, the treatment of fellow man, or any other of His dictates. God gifts mankind with individual liberty and extolls us to use it to exercise our free will, follow His guidance, and choose wisely in all things. If we choose unwisely, we and we alone will suffer the consequences – not our parents, not our neighbors, and not the rich people who have more than us. Does government then deem itself more powerful, more all-knowing than God? It must. Through legislation written by Congress the federal government: denies us the liberty to exercise our free will and dictates our choices for us; takes our wealth through taxation and redistributes it to others; and forces us to comply with its dictates through threats of imprisonment and/or fines. Pretty presumptuous, not to mention overbearing. As Ron Paul is fond of saying, "It makes no sense whatsoever." It makes even less sense to label people who believe in the right of individual liberty to exercise free will as kooks, anarchists, or extremists.

So since government is most assuredly not God, what is the role and purpose of government? Thankfully, we have a document that lays out just exactly those things. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates specifically the 21 duties the federal government is authorized to perform. Unfortunately, the legislative branch ignores it, the executive branch appends it, the judicial branch undermines it, the States are remiss in their duty to guard against all of the latter, and the people have forgotten that they ARE the government. So instead of a Constitutional Republic that would restrain bureaucracy, protect liberty, and enforce laws, we now have a 'democracy' that is so gargantuan in size that it is unsustainable. One grows dizzy trying to count the number of departments, programs, bureaus, divisions, sub-departments, and offices instituted to enact all the unconstitutional legislation written over the last one hundred years to regulate and restrain the people. But will Congress cut it back? Not unless the people insist, and too many still don't understand that most of what government does is not really beneficial, but in actuality detrimental to the peoples' well-being and in direct opposition to the general welfare of their Republic.

The mere mention of cutting government back to a Constitutional, and thus affordable size, gives rise to immediate cries of doom, gloom, and destruction. Without the benign munificence of whatever sacred department or program targeted for removal it is intimated that: old people will be dropping like flies in the streets; no one will have a home; all our children will starve; the country will be overcome with unbearable pollution; everyone will die from poisoned food and bad medicine; and so on till the cows come home. Used to fuel the peoples' fears and maintain the status-quo, reporters seldom question whether any of these programs or departments are efficient or even worthy of expending scarce tax dollars on. Take for example the Environmental Protection Agency. This hallowed body purports to protect us from polluting corporations through tough regulations without which, supposedly, America would be wallowing in untold amounts of toxic pollution and all life would perish. In reality, its very policies often encourage corporations to continue polluting. If it costs less to pay a fine for polluting than it does to make renovations needed to meet regulation standards, then corporations will pay the fines and continue polluting. The government collects the fine money, no reform occurs, and the pollution continues on for years. What marvelous protection! If the EPA really wanted to protect the environment by enforcing tough regulations, there would be no optional fine payments or the fines would exceed renovation costs. And why do we need an agency for this anyway? Constitutionally, that's what the court system is for...to protect property from pollution or any other damage and to fairly decide compensation and punishment. Strictly and properly enforced court decisions would soon force corporations to curtail bad habits they are now actually encouraged to continue, by the very same agency supposedly protecting us.

Another fine example of government proficiency is the Food and Drug Administration. It ensures that we have safe medicines and food. Right? Surely it's worth the expended dollars to keep us safe from death and injury. Economist Randall Holcombe begs to differ. "The policy experts who have evaluated the costs and benefits of drug regulation have almost uniformly concluded that the costs of the regulations are not worth their benefits," quotes Thomas Woods in his book Rollback. Shouldn't we at least listen to these experts on FDA policy? It's not like, as Mr. Woods says, "a free people would...stand around scratching their heads...[wondering] what to do about [food and] drug safety." He proposes, and rightly so, that private firms such as Underwriters Laboratories could easily take over the job of informing customers of safe products, and at no cost to the taxpayer. In addition, at recent hearings on the Hill arguments were heard regarding the FDA's over-regulation of medical devices and an approval process that stifles innovation. Once again we find government is not always efficient. Why expend tax dollars on something private companies and the market could probably do better?

Even if people don't always agree why, in light of the fact that there is simply no money to continue funding them, the need to cut many of these regulating bodies is fast becoming an accepted norm. However, since the answer to the question "But, but how would we protect everyone?" is often the free market, another hurdle is quickly rolled out by the media for people to stumble upon. Horrors! The free market is the harbinger of all disasters that have befallen us, both old and new. As such we certainly can't trust it to regulate anything. Hogwash! "The free market" hasnot been free since 1913, when the FED began centrally planning our economy and intervening in the market. Any intervention in the market disrupts the natural balance maintained by demand and production. The market, if left to operate free of restrictions, reflects real consumer demands for goods and services. This in turn is used to set the price of goods based on ease and speed of production. If we understand that economic value can only be placed on an object based on whether consumers need or want it enough to pay for it, and that needs and wants change arbitrarily with social circumstances and can't be predicted accurately, then the idea that any regulating body could possibly out-perform the natural balance the market achieves is ludicrous. As soon as any restrictions are placed on the market, either through legislative regulations or central planning controls, the balance shifts away from the consumer towards the producer. This imbalance quickly leads to big businesses and corporations rapidly beating a path to Congress to purchase special favors that will benefit them, but never their consumers. No wonder government jumped so quickly into the Keynesian fueled vehicle for intervention provided by his scientific rational for central economic planning. It placed them firmly in the driver's seat, big producers in the back seat paying the fare, and consumers in the trunk...if they were lucky. More often than not the consumers find themselves choking on dust at the road side. "The free market protects consumers and restrains government and big business," Ron Paul articulates when asked how free markets could protect us. Big government advocates were more than happy to throw off those restraints and invite their cronies along for the ride.

The federal government's role in the market is to ensure that trade in goods produced remains regular and unrestricted between whatever parties want to have commerce, and to enforce and uphold contracts between those parties. It is not to control through legislation what can be produced in the name of regulating commerce. Nor is it, or has it ever been, to legislate into being an entity to plan the economy for the general welfare of the people. Intervention in the free markets by government created bodies based on Keynes's theory for central planning is the actual harbinger, and true culprit, of all our present woes. This understanding is becoming clearer to people, and is evidenced by a growing resurgence of belief in the idea that more government seldom translates to better government. One need not believe in any particular political theory to find the idea of smaller government attractive. In fact conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists, independents, and tea party people, as well as many dreaded libertarians, easily find common ground inadvocating for smaller government. When asked about the size of government recently on the Diane Rehm show, Ron Paul commented, "[It should be] as small as possible." During that interview he further explained, "There is nothing wrong with describing conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained." Growing support at the polls for Dr. Paul demonstrates that people are not finding his defense of liberty and small government such unacceptable ideas, despite his being labeled a libertarian by the media. In fact, judging by how frequently we now hear similar platitudes pass the lips of many a politician who previously derided Ron Paul for his stance, I would say his ideas are very acceptable to a majority of people. So much so that it seems quite sensible to proclaim that, "If we believe in having the liberty to exercise our free will and if we believe in smaller government, then perhaps we are all libertarians now."

June 6, 2011

Susan Westfall [send her mail] is a mother, a libertarian, and an educator.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Down With the Dictator

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Originally posted on Lew Rockwell.com

Governments and their intellectual front men believe that nothing unites a population like a war. Actually, that’s not quite true. What happens is that during war, governments strike fear into their domestic opponents and silence them through intimidation. The appearance of unity is wholly illusory.
If you truly want to unite a population, here is a key: drive the dictator out of the country. The fleeing of a despot always leads to unparalleled and authentic celebration because the people perceive a new-found freedom. In the street celebrations, dancing, enthusiasm, and optimism, we gain a glimpse of what freedom is all about. It is about removing the boot from the neck.


This is precisely what we see in Yemen today, as President Ali Abdullah Saleh was escorted out of the country by henchmen hired by his protector state of Saudi Arabia. There he is undergoing medical treatment for wounds suffered in a successful hit on his presidential compound. There is no way that this guy can come back and rule his country again.
This deeply ignorant thug, who grabbed and held power in the same way they did in the old days of the Soviet thugocracy – murder, mayhem, slavish loyalty to powerful sponsors – has been a persistent violator of individual liberties since 1978. All these years he held power through sheer brutality and lies, though the people themselves never believed a word of it.

Why Libertarian? - Mark Grannis

LP Monday Message: Edwards, Weiner & Schwarzenegger

posted by Staff on Jun 06, 2011

June 6, 2011

Dear Friend of Liberty,

John Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, and he was a leading contender for the presidential nomination in 2008. We all now know he cheated on his wife and lied to America about it throughout much of that time. Now he's facing potential jail time if convicted of using campaign funds for a cover-up.

Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has put on quite a show lately.

The soap operas aren't confined to Democrats. Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently confessed to cheating for decades and had a child he hid from the public for years.

Not that long ago, Newt Gingrich was cheating on one of his ex-wives while haranguing Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky.

A few other names come to mind: Al Gore, Mark Foley, Jesse Jackson Sr., Jesse Jackson Jr., and Mark Sanford.

Some people argue that these people's private lives should not be of concern to the public.

A counter-argument is that people who lie about their private lives are also likely to lie about official business as well. Could they also lie about weapons of mass destruction, or global warming, or the necessity of a trillion-dollar bailout?

So what's my point? That Libertarians are more honest than Republicans and Democrats?

Actually, no. My point is, human beings are fallible, and many of us are dishonest and easily corrupted.

That's one of the reasons why government should have as little power as possible. When human beings have the power to control others' lives, our natural fallibility makes us very dangerous.

What's worse, power tends to corrupt us and make us even more dishonest, conniving, and cruel.

We Libertarians understand that humans are fundamentally imperfect, and we will always be imperfect.

Libertarians aren't simply looking for honest politicians. We are looking for politicians who understand this problem, and who will stand on principle to take power away from government, and return it to the individual.

Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Maryland is killing participatory democracy

As The Sun's recent editorial noted, the right to petition almost no longer exists in Maryland ("Technicalities kill another petition," May 23). The Frederick petition is only the latest in a very long line of petition drives that have failed to qualify for the ballot in recent years. 

And this problem affects small political parties as well as ballot questions — currently, all three of Maryland's small parties have lost their status as recognized political parties and are no longer able to nominate candidates for public office. In particular, the Green Party, which has been getting more and more votes in every Baltimore City election, will be unable to nominate candidates for this year's election unless its ballot access is restored by July 1. 

But fortunately, political parties are more permanent organizations than referendum and initiative groups, and we have decades of experience with ballot access law. So Maryland's Libertarian and Green Parties have joined together as co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit attempting to reestablish the fundamental right to petition that Maryland voters once enjoyed. The rule in Maryland has always been that whatever our policy differences, we're all in the same boat on ballot access. 

Each party submitted about 15,000 petition signatures to regain its political party status to the Maryland State Board of Elections, but election officials will not recertify either party — even though they admit that more than the required 10,000 registered voters have signed each of our petitions. We argue that they are seriously misinterpreting the case law and applying a signature verification standard that is much more strict than is legally justified. 

Do we really want only the Democratic and Republican parties to be able to run candidates for public office? No minor party or independent candidates, no initiatives or referenda — and no participatory democracy? We think not. 

Doug McNeil, Baltimore

Tim Willard, Gaithersburg 

The writers are the plaintiff's representatives for the Maryland Libertarian Party and Green Party, respectively.

TSA = PRIVATE PARTS MADE PUBLIC

by Jonathan Boda

Originally posted on IndependentWord.com.

On May 13^th, 2011 the Texas House of Representatives passed HB 1937 (an anti-groping bill) with a cold-cock punch and a united knockout that resonated throughout the Texas State House. It was a unanimous decision – 138-0. This would’ve become a huge step into the right, ethical direction, as well as another giant leap towards liberty and the right of privacy. Texas would’ve been the first state to hammer-down the TSA and put an end to a groping-game of foolish-gunk within this particular state.

Texas Representative David Simpson

According to a press release from the office of Texas Rep. David Simpson (the author ofHB 1937),

“HB 1937 would make it a criminal act for security personnel to touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place. This bill is not intended to contravene any federal statutes currently in place.”

The bill has since traveled to the Texas State Senate, but unfortunately a massive tyrannical wave of Federal corruption would immediately take place.

Is this groping nonsense a violation of the 4^th amendment?

Well, to put it to you this way, we’re being sexually harassed and molested at airports and public buildings across our entire nation. These are intrusive procedures, but the government describes these unlawful acts as a mandatory security process for “our own safety.” So, the government is telling us (the American people) that it’s for our own good and safety to experience a stranger’s hand being gently slipped into our pants, or panties? So a TSA agent is allowed, in public, to grope a 6-year-old girl and get away with it? Yessum, obviously it’s a violation of the 4^th!

On May 25^th, 2011 a dishonest act would sadly take-over the entire state Capitol of Texas. We’re talking MAJOR federal control (the elite within the collective elite). A federal letter signed by United States Attorney, John E. Murphy, was handed-out to high-ranking state officials right before the Texas Senate would’ve been given their only fair chance to vote against the high-profiled legislation.

What does this MURPHY LETTER mean?

Peril… It was meant to threaten our constitutional and civil liberties. Simply put, if the Texas State Senate voted against the HB 1937 bill then the Federal Government and the TSA would immediately shut down all airports throughout the entire state. This also meant that all inbound and outbound flights would be instantly cancelled. Terminated. Can you imagine the enormous impact of this disgusting ultimatum if it had been put into effect?

Tyrant Law?

Read it for yourself… We have the Murphy Letter right HERE.

Texas State Senator Dan Patrick

According to Senator Dan Patrick (the anti-groping bill’s sponsor) after the Murphy Letterwas released he would soon come to learn that he would not have enough support to pass the bill, and would eventually have to withdraw the bill from the floor. So he did.

Senator Patrick stated,

“I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for liberty in the state of Texas.”

Nevertheless, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy (Murphy Letter author) placed fear into the hearts of Americans as well as the entire Texas State Senate. A criminal act that’s been made public and will never be forgotten.

The story gets deeper…

Who else is there to possibly blame? He’s a man by the name of David Dewhurst, Lt. Governor of Texas and former CIA agent. That’s right, a former Intelligence agent clearly stating to have “some experience with terrorists as a CIA agent in South America in the early 1970s,” a quote (tip) Lt. Governor Dewhurst gave to the Houston Chronicle.

This is what Senator Patrick said right before he was forced, by a collusive cabal, to withdraw the HB 1937 bill, “There was a time in this state, there was a time in this history, where we stood up to the federal government and did not cower to rules and policies that invaded the privacy of Texans.”

Then…

Senator Patrick also stated, interestingly enough,

“This was a case of the federal government bullying Texas, and apparently they bullied the lieutenant governor.”

In a final statement by Rep. David Simpson, the author of HB 1937 said this,

“If we do not stand up for our citizens in the face of this deprivation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?

Liberty is the independent word!

 

Jonathan Boda

Jonathan Boda is a writer and researcher currently living in Los Angeles, CA. Since 2005 he’s been feverishly working as a crew member, creative consultant, and writer for many feature films and various television shows. Boda is a Co-Founder of  Independent Word, a political website aligned with news writers and contributors from various ideologies that share the common pursuit of truth and liberty in America.

www.independentword.com

The Patriot Act: When Truth Becomes Treason

by Susan Lindauer
Originally Posted on Dissident Voice.

Many Americans think they understand the dangers of the Patriot Act, which Congress has vowed to extend 4 more years in a vote later this week. Trust me when I say, Americans are not nearly frightened enough.

Ever wonder why the truth about 9/11 never got exposed? Why Americans don’t have a clue about leadership fraud surrounding the War on Terror? Why Americans don’t know if the 9/11 investigation was really successful? Why the Iraqi Peace Option draws a blank? Somebody has known the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden— or his grave—for the past 10 years. But nobody’s talking to the people.

In significant part, that’s because of the Patriot Act— a law that equates free speech with sedition. It’s got a big agenda, with 7,000 pages of Machiavellian code designed to interrupt individual questioning of government policy. In this brave new world, free speech under the Bill of Rights effectively has been declared a threat to government controls for maintaining stability. And the Patriot Act has become the premiere weapon to attack whistle blowers and dissidents who challenge the comfort of political leaders hiding inconvenient truths from the public. It’s all the rage on Capitol Hill, as leaders strive to score TV ratings, while their demagoguery as “outstanding leadership performance” on everything from national security to environmental policy.

Truth has Become Treason

But wait–Congress assures us the Patriot Act only targets foreigners, who come to our shores seeking to destroy our way of life through violent, criminal acts. Good, law abiding Americans have nothing to fear. The Patriot Act restricts its powers of “roving wiretaps” and warrantless searches to international communications among “bad guys.” Congress has sworn, with hand on heart, it’s only purpose is breaking down terrorist cells and hunting out “lone wolf” mad men.

That’s what they told you, right? And you believed them? You trust the government. Well, that was your first mistake. With regards to the Patriot Act, it’s a fatal one. Would the government lie to you? You betcha! And they have.

The Patriot Act reaches far beyond terrorism prevention. In my home state of Maryland, State Police invoked the Patriot Act to run surveillance on the Chesapeake Climate Action Network dedicated to wind power, recycling and protection of the Chesapeake Bay. They infiltrated the DC Anti War Network, suggesting the group might be a front for “white supremacists,” and Amnesty International, claiming to investigate “civil rights abuses.” Opponents of the death penalty also got targeted (in case they got violent).

Bottom line: truth tellers who give Americans too much insight on any number of issues are vulnerable to a vast arsenal of judicial weapons typically associated with China or Myanmar. In the Patriot Act, the government has created a powerful tool to hunt out free thinking on the left or right. It doesn’t discriminate. Anyone who opposes government policy is at risk

How do I know all this? Because I was the second non-Arab American ever indicted on the Patriot Act. My arrest defied all expectations about the law. I was no terrorist plotting to explode the Washington Monument. Quite the opposite, I had worked in anti-terrorism for almost a decade, covering Iraq and Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Malaysia at the United Nations. At the instruction of my CIA handler, I had delivered advance warnings about the 9/11 attack to the private staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Office of Counter-Terrorism in August, 2001. FBI wire taps prove that I carried details of a comprehensive peace framework with Iraq up and down the hallowed corridors of Capitol Hill for months before the invasion, arguing that War was totally unnecessary.

I delivered those papers to Democrats and Republicans alike; to my own second cousin, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; and to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who lived next door to my CIA handler. Gratis of the Patriot Act, we had the manila envelope and my hand written notes to Secretary Powell, dated a week before his infamous speech at the United Nations. My papers argued that no WMDs would be found inside Iraq, and that the peace framework could achieve all U.S. objectives without firing a shot.

In short, I was an Asset who loudly opposed War with Iraq, and made every effort to correct the mistakes in assumptions on Capitol Hill.

Then I did the unthinkable. I phoned the offices of Senator Trent Lott and Senator John McCain, requesting to testify before a brand new, blue ribbon Commission investigating Pre-War Intelligence. Proud and confident of my efforts, I had no idea Congress was planning to blame “bad intelligence” for the unpopular War.

Over night I became Public Enemy Number One on Capitol Hill.

Thirty days later I awoke to hear FBI agents pounding on my door. My nightmare on the Patriot Act lasted 5 years— Four years after my arrest, the Court granted me one morning of evidentiary testimony by two supremely credible witnesses. Parke Godfrey verified my 9/11 warnings under oath. Otherwise, I never got my day in Court.

The Patriot Act’s Arsenal to Stop Free Speech

If you care about America and the traditions of freedom, whether you’re progressive or conservative, you should be angry about this law.

First come the warrantless searches and FBI tracking surveillance. My work in anti-terrorism gave me no protection. I got my first warrantless search after meeting an undercover FBI agent to discuss my support for free elections in Iraq and my opposition to torture and sexual humiliation of Iraqi detainees. (Sorry guys, body wires don’t lie.)

If truth tellers don’t get the message to shut their mouths, the Justice Department ratchets up the pressure. Defendants face secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony. Throughout five years of indictment, my attorneys and I never got to read a single FBI interview or grand jury statement. Under the Patriot Act, the whistleblower/defendant has no right to know who has accused him or her of what criminal activities, or the dates of the alleged offenses, or what laws got broken.

Of course, I was able to piece together my activities. I knew that “sometime in October, 2001″ an Iraqi diplomat gave me the English translation of a book on depleted uranium, which showed how cancer rates and birth defects had spiked in Iraqi children.

And I was quite certain that on October 14, 1999, an Iraqi diplomat asked me how to channel major financial contributions to the Presidential Campaign of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The Justice Department got the date from me, since I reported my conversation immediately to my Defense Intelligence handler, Paul Hoven.

It’s unlikely the grand jury knew that, since the Justice Department has the prerogative to keep a grand jury in the dark. In this brave new world, a grand jury can be compelled to consider indictments carrying 10 years or more in prison, without the right to review evidence, or otherwise determine whether an individual’s actions rise to the level of criminal activity at all.

That’s just the beginning. Once Congress scores an indictment against a political opponent, the Justice Department can force Defense attorneys to undergo protracted security clearances, while the whistle blower cum defendant waits in prison–usually in solitary confinement or the SHU. After the security clearance, prosecutors have an ironclad right to bar attorneys from communicating communications from the prosecution to the defendant, on threat of disbarment, stiff fines or prison sentence.

Scared yet? Once you get to trial, the situation gets much worse. The Patriot Act declares that a prosecutor has no obligation to show evidence of criminal activity to a jury at all. And the Defense can be denied the right to argue a rebuttal to those secret charges, because it requires speculation that might mislead the jury—or might expose issues that the government considers, well, secret. After all that a Judge can instruct a jury that the prosecution regards the secret evidence as sufficient to merit conviction on the secret charges. The Jury can be barred from considering the lack of evidence in weighing whether to convict.

Think I’m exaggerating? You would be wrong. That’s what happened to me. All of it—with one major glitch. All of this presumes the whistle blower’s lucky enough to get a trial. I was denied mine, though I fought vigorously for my rights. Instead, citing the Patriot Act, I got thrown in prison on a Texas military base without so much as a hearing—and threatened with indefinite detention and forcible drugging, to boot.

Americans are not nearly afraid enough.

Neither is Congress. As of this week, members of Congress should be very afraid. Anyone who votes to extend the Patriot Act should expect to pack their bags in 2012. They will be targeted for defeat. Above all, the words “freedom” and “Constitution” will never appear in their campaigns without suffering extreme public scorn—never, ever again.

Susan Lindauer covered the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years before the invasion. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. Read other articles by Susan.