A few folks apparently were taken aback by a few of the things they’ve found at our site — shocked and dismayed, even. Yeah, I suppose we might’ve alienated our more timid and naive readership, but y’all were duly forewarned that this site contains controversial subject matter, so get over it already. A few choice comments follow (paraphrased):

"I was reading through your quotations section, and the part on "patriotism" wasn’t patriotic at all! In fact, due to recent events, it seems downright treasonous!"

"You guys seem fond of quoting unAmerican scumbags like loonies, leftists, and lesbians — what the hell’s the matter with you? Do you hate what this country stands for, or what?"

"What are you? A bunch of criminal subversives or something?"

I think you get the point. A lot of people are strongly opposed to hearing new ideas which conflict with their beliefs, and quick to brand them as "dissension" (if not "propaganda" or "treason"). As a matter of fact, we ourselves do not all agree on whether some of the quotes we’ve included are "appropriate," but they are each significant for one reason or another. For example, some of our quotes listed under the heading "diplomacy" are highly offensive (which we readily acknowledge), but they have been observed to be highly effective at defusing potentially violent situations (when used effectively, and under the proper circumstances). We can all agree that using words to drain the homicidal rage from unstable individuals is a good thing (certainly better than the inappropriate infliction of lethal force), if feasible.

Yeah, although we are apolitical "middle-of-the-roaders" we felt that it was important to include a few quotes from historical figures, political activists, and even in a few instances criminal outlaws, because a few things they said hold great significance in these troubled times. Do we agree with every quote listed? Of course not — in fact, many of our quotes seem to contradict one another — but the opinions expressed are often valid (although they’ve been actively suppressed by the corporate media). Why would we, as loyal Americans and good citizens, choose to allow dissenters freedom of expression? Remember, the 1^st Amendment supposedly guarantees the citizenry freedom of speech, yet in the wake of "America’s New War On Terrorism" we are seeing our freedoms, rights, and privacy rapidly being transgressed, restricted, and whittled away in such a shocking manner that we are starting to become deeply concerned about the future of this great nation. We believe that it is a good thing to be proud of one’s country, and it is also good that everyone suddenly seems willing to put aside their differences in order to work together — but the mass media has blatantly been running a paramilitary PSYOPS program since September 11^th, spewing propaganda to such a degree as to encourage a wave of rabid nationalism amongst the ignorant masses. University professors and talk show hosts are attacked, gagged, or dismissed for expressing views which might be construed as "unpatriotic," and the Bush administration publically announces that "People have to be very careful about what they say and do." What the fuck, indeed!

Attorney General Ashcroft makes us very nervous. We believe that he is a religious zealot masquerading as an unbiased moderate, and cannot be trusted to make sound decisions — but apparently he has the full support of the Bush administration. If you can remember back about 10 years, the former President Bush was once quoted as saying that "America is a Christian nation" and that he was considering an amendment to the Constitution which would deny atheists their citizenship. Since fundamentalist Christianity has become so corrupted over the years (indeed, it seems like nothing more than a devious form of mind control exerted over those who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions), to the point that the original teachings of love and compassion have been reversed to rants about hatred and intolerance, we see very little difference between fundamentalist Christians and their purported enemies (like militant Shi’ites, paramilitary racists, and even Satanists). How can we say this? Simply look at the followers — their wrong-headed belief systems might differ in the content of their dogma, but their insistence upon blind faith, unquestioning obedience, and no compromise results in brain death. The leaders of the fundamentalist movement do not believe the garbage which they spew to the masses — they only believe in the power of money and dominance over the weak. Putting a religious zealot (who has publically stated that he would work to pass an amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit abortion) in the position of "Main Cop" was a real bad Public Relations decision — but it looks like the public no longer has any say in the legislative process (or anything else for that matter), so why should they worry about public opinion anyway? With their new "emergency powers" they can pretty much do anything they want now.

Are we some sort of unpatriotic, anti-government whackos? Of course not! We believe that a strong government is essential, and we agree that many of the proposed counter-terrorism measures are good ideas — but good ideas have to be implemented by flawed bureaucrats, and there is a huge potential for flagrant abuse of the new powers which have been claimed by the government with minimal debate or significant media coverage. For examples: 1.) A mandatory National ID Card has been recommended (which would be a "smart card" which could possibly even include one’s medical records, employment history, credit rating, and DNA type — if the government chooses to add such information at a later date); 2.) Authorization for secret "black bag" searches of the homes of persons suspected of having "links to terrorism" (right now the focus is on Arab foreigners, but soon it will shift to "domestic terrorism." Who might be suspected of sympathizing with domestic terrorists? Anyone who dares to be openly critical of government policy, such as political activists, college professors, journalists, and outspoken public figures — similar actions have happened before, as any student of History knows well); 3.) The use of the military domestically. We haven’t seen anything yet — an extensive intrusion of the military into the affairs of the civilian sector is being proposed, and we’re not sure exactly what form it will eventually take; 4.) Implementation of a "Secret Police" force domestically. As above, much has been proposed and we’re not sure exactly what form it will take, but it is certain that there will be a massive increase in electronic surveillance, national informer hotlines (with cash prizes!) will be utilized, and it is possible that suspected dissidents will be abducted and held incommunicado (as have been over a thousand hapless Arabs whom the government now admits probably have no links to terrorist activity — although they technically violated various minor immigration statutes). Does this scare you? It should be cause for grave concern.

Let us make one thing perfectly clear: we are NOT an "anti-government" organization, but we ARE "pro-freedom." If we had more trust in our "elected" officials, we would be a lot less concerned about our rapidly changing government. However, we believe that our government is largely controlled by corporate interests, and that certain officials have various unstated motivations which might be contradictory to the beliefs upon which this country was originally founded. A few things that we are in agreement with follow: 1.) The formation of a national police force (Office of Homeland Security) is, theoretically, a pretty good idea — we’ll just have to wait and see if it works as well in practice; 2.) The usage of the CIA domestically isn’t that big a deal. They have a huge amount of resources available to them which the FBI lacks, and they’ve been operating in this country covertly since the agency was founded, but a lot of activists were really upset about this announcement nonetheless. We don’t have a problem with this. 3.) Heightened security at all airports is necessary, but our Secretary of Transportation seems to think that people wishing to board trains or buses should be similarly harassed — which is completely asinine. Furthermore, he wants all trucks and vans to be subject to search at various highway checkpoints, which we feel is mostly unnecessary except in certain "strategic" areas; 4.) Warrantless inspection of e-mails and cellular phone conversations — they’ve been doing this already, but just decided to admit that they were "now willing to use these capabilities," yet various dimwitted activist groups are screaming about it (as if they really expected their electronic communications to be private); 5.) Heightened security measures at the Post Office initially seem like a practical idea, but we’ll just have to wait and see exactly where they go with this; 6.) The CDC’s proposal to QUARANTINE ENTIRE CITIES in the event of a biological attack (specifically smallpox) seems pragmatic and reasonable (even though persons attempting to flee would be shot on sight), however, proposing mandatory innoculations for all citizens is completely unacceptable due to the significant potential for abuse; 7.) The inspection and testing of foodstuffs imported from hostile countries is just common sense, in view of recent events. You see, not all of the proposed actions are without merit.

In light of credible information available about such government scandals as: the Pearl Harbor attack, the MK-ULTRA experiments, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the blatant cover-up of data pertaining to the Kennedy assassination, unanswered questions regarding the status of American POWs and MIAs from several wars, the Watergate incident (which pales in comparison to nearly everything else on this list), the convoluted Iran/Contra/Mena clusterfuck, attributing Gulf War Syndrome to "malingering," and awarding huge grants, tax cuts, and "bailouts" to wealthy individuals and corporations (as well as voting themselves huge raises) whilst simultaneously eviscerating social programs and escalating the criminalization of the underclasses — yes, in light of all these flagrant abuses of power (which has, in effect, transformed government into the peoples’ master rather than their servant), we are still willing to believe that our government has the people’s best interests at heart, and that we’ll never see anything like what happened in Nazi Germany occur on American soil (checkpoints, random searches, raids on private homes, Gestapo activities, informer networks, children’s paramilitary organizations, and detention camps). Yet, a lot of people aren’t so sure, and with men like Ashcroft in power, we really can’t blame them. Will pagans, pot-smokers, lesbians, bikers, rock musicians, and others considered by those of Ashcroft’s ilk to be "on the fringes of society" (if not "of the Devil") be judged "enemies of the people" after all the radicals, activists, and other "suspected terrorists" have been locked up? We know exactly what Ashcroft thinks of those who refuse to lockstep with the status quo.