"Here are some of the ideas that permeate the neoconservative philosophy."

"Here are some of the ideas that permeate the neoconservative philosophy.

 - The elite have a responsibility to deceive the masses.

 - Rulers are superior and have a right and obligation over those who are inferior. 

 - A cynical use of religion is important for delivering the message to a compliant society, arguing that this prevents individuals from independent thinking.

 - External threats unite the people; fear is a necessary ingredient for success.  According to Machiavelli, if an external threat does not exist, the leaders must create one. 

 - This unites the people and they become more obedient to the state.  Neoconservatives argue that this is in the best interest of the people since individualism is basically evil and the elite must meet their obligation to rule the incompetent.

 - Religion, lies, and war are the tools used by the neoconservatives to suppress individualism and fortify a ruling elite.  These views in various degrees and on certain issues are endorsed by the leaders of both political parties.  This is why individualism is under constant attack and why the philosophy of the Founders has been so severely undermined.  Neoconservatives will always deny they believe in these principles (part of their noble lying) since it would blow their cover. 

 - They actually do the opposite, claiming title to superpatriotism, and anyone who disagrees with their wars and welfare schemes is un-American, unpatriotic, nonhumanitarian, against the troops, and on and on.

Revitalizing the spirit of liberty could be achieved if the people demanded to hear the truth; that is exactly what the neoconservatives dread.  Today, most government lying, in cooperation with the main street media, is propaganda and spin.  This is recognized and accepted by those who are seeking truth.  War propaganda is a well-known phenomenon and even though many are aware of it, its incessant use by government officials and media works rather well in pushing people into a pro-war frenzy." -Pages 214 & 215 of Liberty Defined

“That is how black markets work: prohibiting something..."

“That is how black markets work: prohibiting something that is highly desired does not make the desire go away but merely ensures that the supply of that good is provided in the most dangerous and undesirable manner possible, and endows criminal sectors of society with additional wealth and power.” -Page 131 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The failure of the federal war on drugs..."

“The failure of the federal war on drugs should be clear enough from one simple fact:  our government has been unable to keep drugs even out of prisons, which are surrounded by armed guards.” -Page 131 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"Clogging our courts and prisons with cases involving..."

"Clogging our courts and prisons with cases involving people found in possession of tiny quantities of prohibited substances, and who have never done any physical harm to anyone, makes it all but impossible to devote the necessary resources to tracking down the violent criminals who really do threaten us.  Over the past two decades more people have been imprisoned on drug offenses than for all violent crimes put together.  And that is not to mention the continued erosion of our civil liberties for which the drug war has been responsible."  -Page 131 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"The resulting Marijuana Tax Act of 1937..."

"The resulting Marijuana Tax Act of 1937- yes, federal prohibition is really just seven decades old- had little to do with real science or medicine, and a lot to do with petty ethnic grudges, careerism in the Bureau of Narcotics, and disinformation and propaganda in the popular press, where yellow journalism still lived.  

Hearings on this important matter took a grand total of two hours, very little of which had anything to do with the health effects of marijuana, the alleged reason behind the proposed prohibition. * [*I am indebted for much of this discussion to Charles Whitebread and Richard Bonnie, Marihuana Conviction: The Legal History of Drugs in the United States (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1974).

A grand total of two medical experts testified on the subject.  One alleged expert was James Munch, a professor who claimed to have injected 300 dogs with the active ingredient in marijuana, and that two had died.  When asked whether he had chosen dogs for the similarity of their reactions to those of human beings, he shrugged, “I wouldn’t know; I am not a dog psychologist.”

We can be fairly certain that this professor had not injected these dogs with the active ingredient in marijuana, since that ingredient was synthesized for the first time in a laboratory in Holland years later.  But keep this gentleman in mind for a moment.

The other expert who testified was William Woodward, who represented the American Medical Association.  He denounced the legislation as medically unsound and the product of ignorance and propaganda. “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug,” he said.  To which one congressman replied, “Doctor, if you can’t anything good about what we are trying to do, why don’t you go home?”

In Congress, the entire debate on national marijuana prohibition took about a minute and a half.  

“Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?” asked a congressman from New York. 

“I don’t know,” came the reply.  “It has something to do with a thing called marihuana.  I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

Then a second question from the congressman: “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

The AMA opposed the bill, as we’ve seen.  But the Speaker replied, “Their Doctor Wentworth [sic] came down here.  They support this bill 100 percent.”

And with that untruth ended the entire congressional debate on the prohibition policy.  

[....]

You can guess what happened next.  James Munch, the one person at the conference who agreed with Anslinger on marijuana, was named the Official Expert on marijuana at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.  One person agrees with the government’s position and he is appointed the Official Expert.  If that doesn’t sum up how the government operates, I don’t know what does.” -Pages 128 & 129 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

".... people's opinions on this issue are so deeply and fervently..."

".... people's opinions on this issue are so deeply and fervently held that is can be very difficult to persuade them to revisit the evidence  dispassionately. 

But revisit it we must. We seriously mistake the function of government if we think its job is to regulate bad habits or supplant the role of all those subsidiary bodies in society that have responsibility for forming our moral character. Our misplaced confidence in government has once again had exceedingly unpleasant results. 

"A barrage of research and opinion," writes economist Dan Klein, "has pounded [the drug war] for being the cause of increased street crime, gang activity, drug adulteration, police corruption, congested courts and overcrowded jails. Drug prohibition creates a black-market combat zone that society cannot control."

The drug war has wrought particular devastation in minority neighborhoods, as decent parents find themselves consistently undermined when they try to teach good values to their children. When the lucrative profits from black market in drugs make drug dealers the most ostentatiously prosperous sector of society, it is much more difficult for parents to persuade their children to shun those profits and pursue a much less remunerative, if more honorable, line of work. Putting an end to the federal drug war would immediately pull the rug out from under the drug lords who have unleashed a reign of terror over our cities. 
...
The conservative economist Thomas Sowell finds the whole thing more utopian than conservative: "What would make still more sense [than the current policy] would be to admit that we are not God, that we cannot live other people's lives or save people who don't want to be saved, and to take the profits out of drugs by decriminalizing them. That is what destroyed the bootleggers' gangs after Prohibition was repealed. 
....
What is more, the law cannot make a wicked person virtuous. The law is simply incompetent here. What the law can do is provide the peace and order within which men can conduct their affairs. We ought not to shirk our own responsibility by looking to politicians- who are not exactly known for living beyond more reproach themselves - to carry out so important a function. 

When you actually study the beginnings of the federal war on drugs, you uncover a history of lies, bigotry, and ignorance so extensive it will leave you speechless." -Pages 125-127  of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely..."

“Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”?

Toward the end of 2007, Senator Jeff Sessions declared, “Some people in this chamber love the Constitution more than they love the safety of this nation.  We should all send President Busy a letter thanking him for protecting us.” What kind of sheep must politicians take Americans for if they expect us to fall for creepy propaganda like this?” -Pages 124 & 125 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“... a piece of legislation I introduced into Congress..."

 “... a piece of legislation I introduced into Congress in late 2007 concisely reflects my views on civil liberties and executive power in light of the war on terror.  I am referring to the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.  Among other things, the legislation 

• repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006 

• forbids the use of statements extracted by torture as evidence in any civilian of military tribunal; 

• subordinates the executive’s surveillance activities to the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); 

• gives the House of Representatives and the Senate legal standing to contest in court any presidential signing statement that indicates the executive’s intention to disregard any provision of a bill; and

• provides that nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 prevents any journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress “unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.”

[......]

Any individual detained as an enemy combat by the United States “shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.”

The Act also says, “No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President’s believe that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process.”  Knowing violations of this section are to be punished as felonies.” -Pages 123 & 124 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“It is time for us to wake up..."

“It is time for us to wake up.  We have allowed the president to abduct an American citizen [Jose Padilla] on American soil, declare him an “enemy combat” (a charge the accused has no power to contest, which is rendered by the president in secret and is unreviewable), detain him indefinitely, deny him legal counsel, and subject him to inhumane treatment.  [...]  Have we been so blinded by propaganda that we have forgotten basic American principles, and legal guarantees that extend back to our British forbears eight centuries ago?  This is an outrageous offense against America and her Constitution.  Claims that these powers will be exercised only against the bad guys are not worth listening to.” -Pages 121 & 122 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“We need to come to our senses: it cannot be tolerable..."

“We need to come to our senses: it cannot be tolerable for the president to have the right to detain people indefinitely, even for life, and not even permit them to review the charges against them.  The argument is not that criminals or terrorists should be let loose.  Constitutionalists are merely saying that people are at least entitled to confront the charges against them.” -Pages 120 & 121 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gives..."

“The Military Commissions Act of 2006 gives the president power to detain people indefinitely and to deny the accused any real opportunity to answer the charges against them.  It is anti-American at its core.”  -Page 120 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“A decent society never accepts or justifies torture...."

“A decent society never accepts or justifies torture.  It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence.  Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe.  It is not difficult to imagine American soldiers or travelers being taken hostage and tortured as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Ghraib.  

Beyond that is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. [...] But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties.  That’s why it is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it.  The Founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies.” -Pages 119 & 120 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“Much more is at stake here than privacy violations..."

“Much more is at stake here than privacy violations or unconstitutional searches, important and dangerous as those are.  For example, the president has made clear, in one of his signing statements, that he retains the power to engage in torture regardless of congressional statues to the contrary.  Defense Department memoranda say the same thing.”  -Page 119 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“For a patriotic American, there is nothing radical about..."

“For a patriotic American, there is nothing radical about this attitude at all.  This is how the Founding Fathers thought.  If our critics want to repudiate the Founding Fathers, let them go ahead and do it.  If they won’t be honest enough to do so, they should at least refrain from condemning those of us who still believe in the wisdom they left for posterity.” -Pages 118 & 119 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The record is clear and detailed that national security..."

“The record is clear and detailed that national security cover-up has been a practice of each of the Presidents since FDR.” -Page 118 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by allowing..."

“The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probably cause.  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts [...] may issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records.  It can do so secretly, and the person who turns over the records is muzzled and cannot ever speak of the search.  The attorney general is given the power, with no judicial oversight, to write “national security letters” ordering holders of any of your personal records to hand them over for the government to examine - a power that has already been abused.  You would have no way of knowing that this had been done.

....

In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement officials focus their efforts on true threats, thereby avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing. 

History demonstrates that the powers we give the federal government today will remain in place indefinitely.  How sure are we that future presidents won’t abuse those powers? Politically motivated IRS audits and FBI investigations have been used by past administrations to destroy political enemies.  Past abuses of executive surveillance are the reason FISA was passed in the first place.” -Page 115 & 116 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

 

“We now know that plenty of red flags..."

“We now know that plenty of red flags that should have alerted officials to the hijackers’ plot were ignored.  That was a matter of government ineptness, not a lack of surveillance power.  Our officials had the evidence.  They simply failed to act on it.  And they then turned around and exploited their own failure as an excuse to crack down on the American people, demanding new powers that would have done nothing to prevent 9/11.  Only government could get away with such a transparent sham.” -Page 115 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public..."

“The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an antiterrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists.  The definition of “terrorism” for federal criminal purposes is greatly expanded, such that legitimate protest against the government could someday place an American under federal surveillance.  Similarly, your Internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your Internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism.  Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, and checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. “Sneak and peek” and blanket searches are becoming more frequent every day.  Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism but rather to increase their police power over the American people.  The federal government has not shown us that it failed to detect or prevent the September 11 attacks because it lacked the powers over our lives that it was granted under the Patriot Act.” -Pages 114 & 115 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“What was frequently overlooked amid the..."

“What was frequently overlooked amid the ensuing controversy was that the executive branch apparently carried out even more invasive activities, but we never got any answers about those.  When asked whether they had engaged in domestic wiretapping or carried out warrantless searches of people’s homes or correspondence, officials have responded with carefully worded assurances that these things were not done under the program then under discussion - i.e., the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  But were these things being done pursuant to some other program?  No answer.  

When the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, for example, he dealt with questions about whether the administration had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of purely domestic calls.  “Not under the program in which I’m testifying,” came the reply.  Such activity, the attorney general said, was “beyond the bound of the program which I’m testifying about today.”

We do know that for some period of time between September 11, 2001, and March 2004, the executive branch was engaged in a kind of surveillance that was so at odds with American law that then Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Deputy Attorney General James Comey threatened to resign if it continued.  What exactly was the executive branch up to that caused so much dissent even among its own loyalists? Who was victimized during this time?  Why are we not hearing the answers - or even the questions?” -Pages 113 & 114 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct..."

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct, moreover, parts of the Patriot Act would have been unnecessary.  Finally, given that FISA, the existing law, deals explicitly and specifically with intelligence gathering, while AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] says nothing at all about foreign intelligence, FISA would automatically trump AUMP as a matter of legal principle, even if the administration’s interpretation were correct.

The administration itself didn’t seem to take this argument seriously.  When asked why, if the administration considered FISA inadequate to its purposes, it had not sought to amend it, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales frankly testified that they didn’t think they would be able to win congressional approval for amendments to FISA.  So they proceeded with the program anyway.  [....] Why did they consider amending FISA in order to give themselves a power they supposedly already had?

....

What was the real reason for the program, then?  Who was targeted and why?  No answers to these questions have been forthcoming.  Bland assurances that our leaders are trustworthy and good, and would never abuse powers they have secretly exercised in defiance of the law, can hardly be taken seriously by those who believe in a free society.  Remember Jefferson’s cautionary words about confidence in men: we should be on our guard against our government officials, binding them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.  Government surveillance of individuals has been abused in the past, and it has targeted political opponents and the politically unpopular.  That’s why the safeguards that were flaunted here were established in the first place.” - Pages 112 & 113 of The Revolution, A Manifesto