Graham Littlechild sadly passed away this year. He was a long standing member of the NLP until falling ill over the last few years. He was very active in leafleting until that time and stood in Council ward elections in London in 2010 and 2014. RIP

REGULAR READERS will know that Self-Determination is the raison d’être of National Liberalism.  As we noted towards the middle of last month (1) we ‘work towards creating a nation of sovereign citizens – and not a State full of servile subjects.’   

We feel that two key elements that’ll help create this ideal is ‘small’ government and the free flow of information.   

As National Liberals, we believe that ‘Small is Beautiful’.  We wish to devolve power down to the lowest possible common denominator.  The people should be close to their government, so everything (as far as possible) should be on a ‘human scale’.  Therefore, we’re opposed to ‘big’ government.  We are also highly suspicious of those politicians – particularly those who claim to be ‘liberal’ & ‘progressive’ – who seem to want to control every aspect of our lives.   

It goes without saying that, if people are to be close to their government, a free flow of information is absolutely essential.  And, as Caitlin Johnson (2) has noted, ‘Democracy of the vote without democracy of information is not democracy.  It doesn’t matter if people are able to vote as long as the media-owning class are able to manipulate how they vote.  “One person, one vote” is meaningless if influence and control of information is highly concentrated in an elite few.  And it is.’  

With all of the above in mind, we were delighted to come across the following article – which we reproduce below – written by Marc Joffe for the Cato Institute.  Marc Joffe is a federalism and state policy analyst at Cato Institute. His research focuses on government finance and state policy issues.  The Cato Institute itself is a Washington, DC libertarian think tank with a vison to ‘create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principals.’   

As usual, we have kept the original North American spelling.  You can read the original article in the link below (3).  Please note that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party, the Cato Institute, the Orange County Register & Marc Joffe.  

A Practical Case Against Censorship  

The skills needed to get elected and to rise through bureaucracies are not necessarily those possessed by the wisest and least self‐​interested decision makers.  

By Marc Joffe  

This article appeared in the Orange County Register (4) on August 1, 2023.  

The National Liberal Party has a long-term policy of reproducing, deconstructing & commenting on articles produced right across the political spectrum. Here we reproduce an article – relating the free thought & free speech – by Marc Joffe of the libertarian Washington, DC-based Cato Institute.

IN THE late twentieth century, debates over free speech were typically resolved by citing the First Amendment and observing that freedom of expression was a basic human right. But today, that line of argument is no longer sufficient. Those of us who favor free speech must prove to a skeptical audience that it is a right worth protecting. Since people of good faith now find arguments for censorship persuasive, these arguments should be met on their own terms.  

A common view both in California and nationally is that important matters can be resolved by duly elected officials and their appointed experts. The reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic provides an example. Many Californians agreed that the governor, state and county health officials, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should handle the pandemic response. Once a state or county health officer promulgated a policy it was the citizen’s responsibility to follow these pronouncements without objection.  

This approach makes sense on its face. Qualified experts chosen by our elected leaders should tell us how to deal with a public health emergency. Anyone using misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation to oppose official policies is merely sewing confusion and potentially reducing compliance, leading to unneeded death and suffering. From this perspective, the logical response is to shut down opposing voices since they are jeopardizing public safety.  

This vision of a wise expert class protecting the public from inappropriate information has deep roots in political thought going all the way back to Plato’s Republic. Although Plato’s ideal city did not hold elections, it was ruled by a highly educated and public‐​spirited elite empowered to control the flow of information.  

But while in ancient Greece, it may have been possible for a small group of experts to accumulate all or most of the relevant information needed to make policy, this is no longer feasible in a complex, modern society. By March 2020, COVID-19 was affecting numerous countries where policymakers were taking different approaches and doctors were trying different treatments. An ideal response would require analyzing all these responses and their results.  

This is beyond the capability of a small expert group but can be handled by pluralistic communities of journalists and academic researchers. Media, including scientific journals, can filter through myriad possible policies to help find those that are the best. Liberal intellectuals have made a similar critique of central economic planning: planners are simply unable (5) to accumulate and act upon sufficient knowledge to manage a whole economy. Only through the operations of the market can resources be allocated effectively.  

Theoretically, a clique of elite public policymakers could read enough articles and consult with enough outside experts to make a semi‐​optimal decision. But there’s a second problem. Advocates of top‐​down decision‐​making implicitly assume that the decision‐​makers are selflessly working on behalf of the community.  

But this assumption does not hold. The skills needed to get elected and to rise through bureaucracies are not necessarily those possessed by the wisest and least self‐​interested decision makers. There is no reason to believe that those most anxious to obtain and wield power will make the best decisions.  

Indeed, Nobel Laureate F. A. Hayek argued (6) that the worst people tend to get to the top of government power structures. Hayek’s analysis focused on totalitarian governments in the run up to World War II, but similar dynamics are at work in contemporary democracies.  

A retrospective look at the state and federal COVID-19 response reveals a pattern of suboptimal communications and decisions. These include an initial lockdown that excluded big box retailers and public transit, needless beach and park closures that limited opportunities for exercise and fresh air, extended reliance on remote schooling, despite its obvious flaws, and vaccine mandates for high school and college students known to be at minimal risk of severe COVID outcomes.  

Those of us who questioned these policies were often ridiculed but could not be completely silenced thanks to constitutional protections. Ultimately, public pressure forced the relaxation of lockdowns and the reopening of schools. Had policymakers been insulated from public debate, and, yes, even ridicule, these destructive policies could well have persisted.  

Elites are not capable of governing optimally even if they are motivated to do so. Open debate serves as an essential check on power that often leads to better decisions. So even for those who are not persuaded that free speech is a natural right, it’s worth defending as a tool for better governance.  

 (1) https://nationalliberal.org/who-we-are  

(2)  https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/real-democracy-means-democracy-of  

(3)  https://www.cato.org/commentary/practical-case-against-censorship  

(4)  https://www.ocregister.com  

(5)  https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/socialist-calculation-debate?__hstc=38939644.8adf223dd745e4cd49d904b747519bda.1691337138712.1691337138712.1691342894094.2&__hssc=38939644.1.1691342894094&__hsfp=2282758685  

(6)  https://fee.org/resources/the-road-to-serfdom-chapter-10-why-the-worst-get-on-top/

A map – from Transport for London (TfL) – showing the extent of London’s ULEZ zone. In three weeks, it’ll be extended to take in all of Outer London. Is it any wonder that many people believe that Ulez is simply cover for a war on drivers & another form of stealth tax?

LONDON’S HARD-PRESSED motorists hate Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emission Zone) scheme with a passion.  

Khan – who has been the Labour Mayor of London since 2016 – introduced ULEZ over four years ago on 8th April 2019.  Prior to that, he’d introduced an emissions surcharge, called the Toxicity Charge (sometimes known as the T-Charge) in 2017.  

Under both schemes, an emissions standard based charge has been levied on what are termed non-compliant vehicles.   

Initially the scheme covered inner London boroughs.  The ULEZ zone was later extended to cover the area within the North Circular and South Circular roads.  Now Khan wants to extend the scheme – to include outer London boroughs – towards the end of this month.  

It’s thought that car use is higher in outer London boroughs.  This is due to fewer public transport links.  Here ULEZ could become a cash cow for Khan when it’s introduced on 29th August.  However, many believe that it could really impact on both businesses & households who’re still struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.  

ULEZ operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  However, Khan can’t be accused of being the Grinch as vehicles are exempt on Christmas Day!  

Vehicles which do not meet emissions standards incur a daily charge of £12.50.  And the fine for failing to pay is £180.  

Those who scrap their cars in order to buy a ‘compliant’ vehicle can access up to £2,000 from a scrappage scheme.  Whilst this is welcome, these days it’ll hardly make much of a dent in the price of a brand-new car.  No wonder many people believe that ULEZ is simply cover for a war on drivers (and another form of stealth tax).   

Khan insists that the limitations on vehicle emissions reduces pollution.  However, we’ve never seen any statistics – relating to London’s pollution levels – on which the restrictions are based.  Neither have we seen statistics relating to pollution levels prior to & after the charges were introduced.  Indeed, how many Londoners have died solely from vehicle-related pollution?    

With the above in mind, we’d be interested to know who produced the statistics & if they were peer reviewed.  Additionally – and especially in the light of Covid – we’d be particularly interested to know if there’s the slightest whiff of a conflict of interests between the different parties involved.  

We mentioned earlier that many people believe that ULEZ is simply cover for a war on drivers (and a form of stealth tax).   

We have some sympathy with this point of view.  Many people simply have to have a car for family and/or work reasons.  Self-employed workers who need various tools to work are an obvious example.   

Individual drivers are not responsible for the fumes that their vehicles emit.  That’s down to the car manufacturers.  But Sadiq Khan is on the Blairite ‘social democratic’ wing of the Labour Party.  That means he’d never pick a fight with large transnational corporations like Ford, Nissan & Vauxhall.  Therefore, the driver – and not the manufacturer – has to pay!   

In addition, Blairites would never take on the Money Power in respect of taxation.  Therefore, drivers – and everyone else for that matter – have to pay.  

We feel that there’s also some merit in the argument that ULEZ is all about power & control.  Could they be one way of paving the ground for government sanctioned 15-minute cities?    

With all of the above in mind, it’s clear that action does need to be taken in London & our other cities.   

We wouldn’t be surprised to learn that overpopulation & the sheer size of our cities lead to alienation, pollution and many forms of ill health (and especially mental health problems).   

But what should be done?   

We hope to take a look at various radical solutions in the near future.  As National Liberals, our watchword is ‘Small is Beautiful’.  Therefore, our solutions would be centred around Distributism, the Social Credit ideas of C. H. Douglas, Co-operatives and other ‘human scale’ activities like Permaculture.   

In the meantime, we’d like to hear ideas from our readers on how they would tackle pollution in cities like London.  Simply let us know in the comments section when you see this article on the National Liberal Party’s Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty – or our National Liberals Facebook page –   https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313  

WE ARE National Liberals.  And as our name suggests, our ideology is a fusion of two equally historical & honourable political ideas – nationalism and liberalism.  

First of all, however, it’s important to note that our form of nationalism is completely different from those reactionary ‘nationalists’ who worship the State.  We’re not Statists – indeed, we’re very much opposed to ‘Big’ government.  We don’t believe it’s the job of government to micromanage people on a daily basis.  

We are progressive nationalists, and our loyalty is to the nation & its people, as opposed to the State.  Indeed, we regard the nation as a ‘family of families’.   

On saying that, we do feel that there are instances whereby government has to act to protect the nation & its people.  Thus, our form of nationalism isn’t aggressive, imperialist or jingoistic.  

We feel that government involvement is justified when it is in the national interest.  This would include the likes of borders, constitutional affairs, defence, energy, foreign policy, health, heavy industry, transport & so on.   

It’s also important to point out that our form of liberalism is completely different to those ‘liberals’ who’re only too willing to bend over backwards to accommodate everyone & everything.   

We are ‘muscular’ liberals – and not regressive liberals.  Again, we’ve no interest in running the lives of everyone around us.  

Our form of liberalism relates to the freedom of the individual (who, in turn, make up the family of families).  Therefore, we believe that there should be civil & religious liberties for all.  For example, free thought & free speech should be protected by law.  And the ‘Big Brother’ surveillance state should be opposed.  

Regular readers will be familiar with the NLP – Self-Determination For All logo that accompanies this brief article.  The three areas of Self-Determination we promote are national, economic & political.  

In short, National Liberals work towards creating a nation of sovereign citizens – and not a State full of servile subjects.  That is who we are.  

(Top) The picture of a Roman marketplace which appeared with the original article on the Gab website. (Bottom) Andrew Torba, CEO of Gab.com, Christian Nationalist & author of this article.
The National Liberal Party has a long-term policy of reproducing, deconstructing & commenting on – from a National Liberal point of view – articles produced right across the political spectrum. Mr. Torba’s article, which actually provides much food for thought, should be read in this context.

SINCE DAY ONE, the National Liberal Party has stated that it is a passionate supporter – and is committed to the ideal of – free thought & free speech.  To this end, we’ve produced many e-posters which invite answers to various questions.  They’re produced in an effort to encourage critical thinking and open debate.  Our intention is to create a safe space for politically incorrect non-conformists to talk about the issues of the day.  Those who enjoy mature, reasoned debate are always more than welcome to join us.  

In a further effort to promote free thought & debate we often post up articles by groups & individuals from across the political spectrum.  For instance, we’ve featured articles by independent Australian journalists Caitlin Johnstone & John Pilger.  It’s probably fair to say that both would be regarded as ‘leftists’.  We’re also aware of the US-based Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) and hope to reproduce an article from them in due course.  As far as we’re aware, however, this is the first we’ve published an article from Gab.com – which many would regard as ‘rightist’.  

On the wider subject of political positions, we really hate the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ as we feel that they’re pretty meaningless.  This is particularly so in Britain today where there’s really only a fag papers worth of difference between the (Blairite) ‘right wing’ of the Labour Party & the (so-called Tory Wet) ‘left wing’ of the Conservatives Party.  

We feel that the Establishment encourages the use of the terms ‘left’ & ‘right’.  It helps create division (& sometimes hatred) between those who should be uniting and fighting the Establishment.  Sadly, very few people can see beyond this strategy of divide & rule.  This, in turn, illustrates the absolute necessity of reproducing articles from as many political positions as possible (even positions that we totally disagree with) as we feel that there are large areas of common ground for political dissidents to unite around.  Those who don’t engage with others live in echo chambers – and echo chambers can be very dangerous.   

With all of the above in mind, our attention has been drawn to the following article which originally appeared on 26th June on Gab.com which describes itself as a ‘free speech technology company owned and operated by Christians.’  It was written by Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab.com who describes himself as a Christian Nationalist.  

As National Liberals we obviously have differences with Christian Nationalists.  Despite this, we found the article very interesting.  It provides food for thought and mirrors some of our own thinking – especially in respect of shopping locally, buying British & using cash.  

We’ve noticed many people moaning about the lack of apprenticeships & jobs, especially for youngsters.  People also complain that ‘nothing’s built in Britain anymore’.  Our solution is to stop moaning & take action.  Our positive ‘Buy British’ campaign encourages consumers – taking into account price and availability – to buy British.  In layman’s terms, it’s a policy of ‘putting your money where your mouth is’.  The same can also be said for our long-running campaign supporting local shops & self-employed workers.  

You can read the original article here:  https://news.gab.com/2023/06/culture-is-downstream-from-commerce-the-importance-of-conscious-consumerism/  

It should also be noted that whilst Gab.com is a Christian organisation & Andrew Torba is a Christian Nationalist, the NLP welcomes members & supporters from all religions and none.  Also, it goes without saying that there are no links between Gab.com, Andrew Torba & the National Liberal Party.  Please note that we’ve kept the original US spellings as they are. 

Culture is Downstream from Commerce: The Importance of Conscious Consumerism  

OUR PURCHASING decisions have massive implications beyond simply satisfying our immediate needs or desires.  When we buy a product or support a business we inadvertently contribute to the values and principles these businesses uphold.  This in turn influences the culture which then influences political action in our society.  

Recently we’ve seen tremendous success with boycotting woke corporations who shove degenerate propaganda in our faces.  A movement of conscious consumers who vote with their wallets is rising up and becoming the driving force behind the formation of a parallel economy and culture.  If you are serious about enacting tangible change and very real financial consequences to our enemies, you need to start thinking less about rigged political theatre and more about conscious commerce.  

Over the past decade a growing number of people have become increasingly aware of the impact their consumption habits have on society, culture, politics, and the upholding of their personal values.  This awakening has given rise to the concept of conscious consumerism, which involves making intentional purchasing choices based on ethical, social, religious, and cultural considerations.  

Advertising dollars, especially for large well-established brands, are less about selling products and services and more about selling ideas.  Bud Light doesn’t need to run ads. You know what Bud Light is.  Everyone knows what Bud Light is.  So what, if not Bud Light, are Bud Light ads actually selling?  If you are paying attention, you know the answer: transgenderism.  We see how our conscious consumer response to that sales pitched worked out for them.  

It’s important to remember that it is not enough to abstain from supporting woke corporations or organizations that undermine our values.  We must actively redirect our purchasing power towards those who champion our values.  By consciously supporting businesses and people who align with our principles we can send a powerful message that resonates far beyond our individual transactions.  Our collective actions can and will shape the culture and encourage a shift towards a more values-driven parallel economy.  

In other words: if politics is downstream from culture, culture is downstream from commerce.  This has always been the case.  

At the heart of Roman society lay a bustling and vibrant hub that played a pivotal role in shaping their culture and politics—the marketplace.  The Roman marketplace, or “forum,” was much more than a mere commercial space; it was the epicenter of public life, where ideas, trade, and power converged.  The forum was where commerce, culture, and politics intertwined.  As a bustling center of trade, it attracted people from all corners of the empire and fostered economic growth.  Beyond its commercial significance, the forum served as a social and intellectual hub, promoting dialogue and exchange of ideas.  It also held immense political power as the site of important administrative buildings and public addresses.  

Like the Roman forum, social media platforms bring together a diverse range of voices and perspectives.  People from different countries, cultures, and backgrounds converge on social media, sharing their thoughts, opinions, and experiences.  Just as the Roman forum provided a space for dialogue, discourse and commerce, social media facilitates conversations on a global scale, allowing individuals to engage in discussions, debates, and even virtual protests.  

Thanks to the internet it has become easier than ever to find businesses and entrepreneurs who share our values.  Platforms like Gab, which are dedicated to building a parallel economy, allow us to tap into a network of like-minded organizations and people who can recommend trustworthy and value-aligned businesses while boycotting those who oppose them.  

While large corporations often dominate the market it is essential not to overlook the importance of supporting small local businesses.  These businesses often have a closer connection to their communities and are more likely to share their customers’ values.  By choosing to buy from local artisans, independent stores, and community-based initiatives, we contribute to the resilience of our local economies while supporting people and causes we believe in.  

Unfortunately, in many areas the reverse is also true.  Many small businesses virtue signal with rainbow flags, black lives matter flags, and other regime-approved symbols.  This makes it easy for us to mark and avoid those local businesses and instead shift our commerce to the local business owners who share our values.  

Conscious consumerism in the parallel economy has the potential to create a ripple effect that extends beyond the realm of commerce.  By actively supporting businesses that align with our values we not only provide them with the resources to thrive but also inspire others to follow suit.  As more people redirect their purchasing power towards value-aligned businesses and causes, it encourages the growth and emergence of businesses that prioritize our values.  This is far more productive than wasting our time and energy following political sideshows.  

We need to recognize the power we hold as consumers and seize the opportunity to put our money where our values are.  By doing this we can shape a future where our purchasing decisions reflect our deepest convictions and support the causes that truly matter.  

The next time you reach for your wallet, remember that your choices have the potential to shape the world.  Choose wisely and let your purchasing power become a force for positive transformation and the growth of a parallel economy.

THIS ARTICLE was published a week ago on 8th June.  Written by James Bovard it was published by Counter Punch – a US daily news website ‘from an independent left-leaning perspective’ – we feel that it’ll be of great interest to advocates of free thought & free speech.  Hopefully, it’ll encourage positive debate.  

The article marks the 10th anniversary of Edward Snowden’s exposure of the ‘Big Brother’ tactics employed by the US establishment.  As he noted at the time “I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”  

Ironically, much of this increase in US ‘Big Brother’ activity took place when Barack Obama was president.  However, it seems that because he ticked a lot of Politically Correct boxes, a more than compliant MSM still won’t admit that Obama did anything wrong.   

Many PC cultists effectively regard Obama as America’s only living saint.  However, to us (at Free Speech: How Do We Protect It?) he reminds us that we shouldn’t give our full & absolute trust to any politician who is loved by the elites & MSM!  

We have kept the original North American spelling.  You can read the original article here:  https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/08/ten-years-later-snowdens-heroism-shines-ever-brighter/  

Please note that there are no official links between the National Liberal Party, Free Speech: How Do We Protect It?, Counter Punch & James Bovard.  

Ten Years Later, Snowden’s Heroism Shines Ever Brighter  

By James Bovard  

(Above) The Mike Mozart photograph of Edward Snowden which appeared with the original article on the Counter Punch daily news website.

TEN YEARS ago this week, Edward Snowden began shocking the world with his revelations of federal surveillance crime sprees. Unfortunately, many of the media outlets that used his disclosures of confidential information have long since shunned him or joined the shameless stampede calling for his prosecution.  

Snowden did heroic service in awakening Americans to Washington ravishing their privacy. Snowden’s “reward” is to be banished in Russia without a snowball’s chance in hell of a fair trial if he returns to America. But as he courageously declared, “I would rather be without a state than without a voice.” He explained why he leaked classified information: “I can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”  

To recognize Snowden’s contribution to liberty, it helps to review the political and legal landscape before his revelations. In 2008, Sen. Barack Obama’s denunciations of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps secured his image as a champion of civil liberties. Campaigning for president, Obama pledged “no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens…. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.” Unfortunately, Obama didn’t promise not to ignore the law when it was “really, really convenient.”  

Barack Obama: American spy-in-chief  

After Obama clinched the Democratic Party presidential nomination, he reversed himself and voted for granting immunity to telecom companies that betrayed their customers to Uncle Sam. This was a bellwether for Obama’s future constitutional depredations. After Obama took office, his appointees speedily expanded National Security Agency seizures of Americans’ personal data. The Washington Post characterized Obama’s first term as “a period of exponential growth for the NSA’s domestic collection.”  

The acid drip of revelations of illicit surveillance that began after 9/11 continued regardless of Obama’s “Hope and Change” mantra. Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, former NSA analyst Russell Tice declared that the NSA was monitoring “all Americans’ communications. Faxes, phone calls and their computer communications.” Tice also revealed that the NSA had targeted journalists and news agencies for wiretaps. Tice’s revelations failed to hold the media’s attention.  

In June 2009, the NSA admitted that it had accidentally collected the personal information of vast numbers of Americans. The New York Times reported that “the number of individual communications that were improperly collected could number in the millions.” But it wasn’t a crime; it was merely inadvertent “overcollection” of Americans’ personal data which NSA would retain for (at least) five years.  

In 2010, the Washington Post reported that “every day, collection systems at the [NSA] intercept and store 1.7 billion emails, phone calls and other type of communications.” In 2011, NSA expanded a program to provide real-time location information of every American with a cell phone, acquiring more than a billion cell phone records each day from AT&T. Regardless, the media continued portraying Obama as a civil liberties savior.  

Obama perpetuated perverse Bush-era legal doctrines to totally shield federal surveillance from judicial scrutiny. After the Supreme Court accepted a case on warrantless wiretaps in 2012, the Obama administration urged the justices to dismiss the case. A New York Times editorial labeled the administration’s position “a particularly cynical Catch-22: Because the wiretaps are secret and no one can say for certain that their calls have been or will be monitored, no one has standing to bring suit over the surveillance.”  

 The Supreme Court endorsed surveillance  

Cynical arguments sufficed for five justices. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, declared that the court was averse to granting standing to challenge the government based on “theories that require guesswork” and “no specific facts” proving federal targeting, based on fears of “hypothetical future harm.” The Supreme Court insisted that the government already offered plenty of safeguards — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court — to protect Americans’ rights. Law professor Stephen Vladeck commented on the decision: “The coffin is slamming shut on the ability of private citizens and civil liberties groups to challenge government counterterrorism policies.”  

Three months later, newspapers around the world began publishing confidential documents leaked by Snowden. Americans learned that the NSA can tap almost any cell phone in the world, exploit computer games like Angry Birds to poach personal data, access anyone’s email and web browsing history, remotely penetrate almost all computers, and crack the vast majority of computer encryption. The NSA used Facebook and Google apps to send malware to targeted individuals. NSA filched almost 200,000,000 records a month from private computer cloud accounts. Obama’s Justice Department secretly decreed that all phone records of all Americans were “relevant” to terrorism investigations and that the NSA could therefore justifiably seize everyone’s personal data.  

Snowden exposed the surveillance state  

Snowden revealed how the NSA had covertly carried out “the most significant change in the history of American espionage from the targeted surveillance of individuals to the mass surveillance of entire populations.” The NSA created a “repository capable of taking in 20 billion ‘record events’ daily and making them available to NSA analysts within 60 minutes.” The NSA is able to snare and stockpile a billion times more information than did East Germany’s Stasi secret police, one of the most odious agencies of the post-war era. Snowden later commented, “Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it’s only victimizing 95 percent of the world instead of 100 percent.”  

(Above) Barack Obama. Much of the increase in US ‘Big Brother’ activity took place when he was president. Yet he’s still subject to hero worship. Indeed, Many PC cultists effectively regard Obama as America’s only living saint!

Seeking to defuse the controversy, Obama justified NSA surveillance as simply “a tradeoff we make…. To say there’s a tradeoff doesn’t mean somehow that we’ve abandoned freedom. I don’t think anybody says we’re no longer free because we have checkpoints at airports.”  

On Capitol Hill, the response to Snowden’s disclosures ranged from vacuous to devious. House Speaker John Boehner declared, “When you look at these programs, there are clear safeguards. There’s no American who’s going to be snooped on in any way, unless they’re in contact with some terrorists somewhere around the world.” Other congressional leaders quickly denounced Snowden as a “traitor.” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and former NSA chief Michael Hayden publicly joked about putting Snowden on a government kill list. Rogers won the “D.C. Knucklehead of the Week” Prize when he defended illicit surveillance: “You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated.”  

Regardless of Snowden’s proof, Obama administration appointees and spokesmen insisted that NSA only targeted individuals linked to terrorism, but NSA’s definition of terrorist suspect was ludicrously broad, including “someone searching the web for suspicious stuff.” If someone used encryption for their emails, that alone justified wiretapping them. Snowden commented in 2014: “If I had wanted to pull a copy of a judge’s or a senator’s e-mail, all I had to do was enter that selector into XKEYSCORE,” an NSA program that required no warrant from FISA or any other court.  

President Obama sought to quash the controversy by boldly proclaiming: “There is no spying on Americans.” The New York Times headlined its report on Obama’s PR effort: “President Moves to Ease Worries on Surveillance; Talks of New Openness.” Talk was cheap.  

The Washington Post analyzed a cache of 160,000 secret email conversations/threads (provided by Snowden) that the NSA intercepted and found that nine out of ten account holders were not the “intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.” Almost half of the individuals whose personal data was inadvertently commandeered were U.S. citizens. The files “tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes,” the Post noted. If an American citizen wrote an email in a foreign language, NSA analysts assumed they were foreigners who could be surveilled without a warrant.  

FISA court rulings “created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans,” the New York Times reported in 2013. The classified rulings (leaked by Snowden) showed that FISA judges rubber-stamped massive seizures of Americans’ personal data that flagrantly contradicted Supreme Court rulings on the Fourth Amendment. The Times noted that the FISA court had “become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues” — and almost always giving federal agencies all the power they sought. The vast majority of members of Congress were unaware that a secret court had secretly nullified much of the Bill of Rights. That did not deter Obama from proclaiming that the FISA court was “transparent” — though only the White House could see.  

Snowden’s revelations outraged some judges. In December 2013, Federal judge Richard Leon issued a ruling denouncing the NSA surveillance regime as “almost Orwellian”: “I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.”  

Obama sought to defuse the controversy by selecting an expert panel that he expected to vindicate his surveillance. But the panel reported that there was not a single case where the telephone data roundup had been necessary to stop a terrorist attack. The panel’s report also warned: “Americans must never make the mistake of wholly trusting our public officials.” The panel concluded that the “bulk collection of American citizens’ phone records served little useful purpose in combatting terrorism,” ABC News reported. Panel member Richard Clarke commented, “There are very few pieces of data that have been collected in this program that have been useful.” But as Snowden observed, “These programs were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.”  

The Obama administration made few substantive changes in response to Snowden’s exposure of sweeping criminality. Author and NSA expert James Bamford observed shortly before the 2016 election, “Over his two terms, Obama has created the most powerful surveillance state the world has ever seen.” Despite the uproars over Snowden’s revelations, neither Congress nor federal courts fundamentally pulled in the reins on the Surveillance State.  

Snowden observed, “The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.” Any such consent to Washington has become increasingly a mirage. The pervasive secrecy that has proliferated in post-9/11 America has made it far more difficult for citizens to leash their rulers. Regardless of the health of U.S. democracy, Snowden’s warnings on the “architecture of oppression” are more relevant than ever.  

Another Snowden lesson for our democracy is the futility of passive obedience. Vast numbers of Americans presume they will be safe from government wrongdoing or other federal debacles if they simply keep their head down and don’t complain. By blighting resistance to government, however, surveillance unleashes rulers to do far more mischief. If politicians drag this nation into a major war, keeping your mouth shut won’t protect you against incoming missiles.  

Citizens cannot acquiesce to illegal government surveillance without forfeiting their right to any remaining privacy. There is no reason for people to trust secretive federal programs more than Washington trusts American citizens. The biggest delusion is that Americans will be more secure after the feds further decimate their privacy.  

An earlier version of this article was published by the Future of Freedom Foundation.  

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com  This essay was originally published by Future of Freedom Foundation.