Why does censorship have to be official? When it becomes well known that all communications are being sucked up, self censorship quite quickly happens, sources and journalists have to go to extremes most people cannot (recent examples demonstrate this, Snowden fleeing to Russia) to remain safe. What we have now is far more insidious and intractable than an overt war. That you see the current situation as demonstrating liberty winning is perfect example of the double speak and mental gymnastics required to continue the charade.

The other difference between a conventional war and the civil liberty limitations are that victory and an endpoint were defined. The threat from the outside enemy was bigger than the restrictions on liberties. Now, victory is undefined: terrorism isn't going to stop, I am far more likely to be impacted directly and negatively by pervasive spying than a terrorist attack. If you asked me if I would prefer a little more risk of terrorism vs. the spying, I'd take the terrorism, thanks, and maybe some of the funding from the NSA applied to health care and poverty mitigation initiatives to really save lives. Stop being an apologist for the growing police state.

Sorry, a slight wording mistake: "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." from the preface of "Revolution: A Manifesto".

"The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies."

No, criminals acquire guns because they cannot dial law enforcement when someone commits what would be a crime against the law abiding section of society against them, so a black market version of law enforcement is needed within their world to fill the void.

Handguns by their nature are concealable, so it is highly unlikely that you will see them unless you or someone near you is in immediate danger. Hiking in the Rockies I haven't seen a mountain lion or a Grizzly, but I don't delude myself by thinking they must not be there.

The issue is much more complex than availability of guns to legal owners. The US has a border on the north and south with major illicit drug exporters (Canada - synthetics and pot, and Mexico). They have a huge demand partially driven by socioeconomic factors. The government treats illicit drugs like a war (rather than treating addiction as a disease/symptom), so the opposition gears up for one. The cops roll around in tanks and paramilitary gear, so the other side tries to do the same. There is no safety net. Drug addicts don't get health care access like they do in single payer systems, and better addiction therapy is only for paying clients.

I would suggest the inverse is true: when you get your panties in a knot about terrorism, it achieves it's goal of prompting a disproportionate reaction relative to the threat. If you take measured steps, and react within the confines of existing laws and the criminal code, while maintaining the freedoms we have gained while facing much greater real threats in the past, it withers and dies.

You ignore the US citizenship holding kids killed while they went after Anwar. They hadn't taken up arms, but had theirs scattered across the landscape.

Asking which programs is a dick move and you know it. The stonewall secrecy due to "terrorism" and "national security" excuses prevents us from even discussing the programs in the open, and even the panel that is supposed to be investigating it is closed.

Unreasonable search and seizure covers quite a lot of it in my mind. Spirit of the law regarding freedom of speech. NSA complicity in assassinating US citizens. That Clapper lied to congressional committee, should have been charged with lying under oath, and nothing happened, and better yet he is leading the inquiry into the transgressions points to something being wrong.

Intelligence agencies looking outward are a regrettable reality, but the inward Stasi shit you are an apologist for is not.

You're right, let's defer to private industry to provide for us. The great Wall Street Heist of 2008 proved that they have our best interest at heart and are the ultimate in sound fiscal management!

So now that the veil has been pulled back, when do we all realize that the next logical conclusion as citizens globally is to exit the stock market en masse? Any notion remaining that it was a fair game have been squashed - if NSA staff and contractors can monitor exes and lovers for months without effective oversight, imagine the financial incentive to do the same to C level execs?

What if you tape an encrypted microSD card to the folded paper in the envelope?

Agreed 100%. The deck is stacked against this choice of lifestyle though. Billions of dollars are spent on advertising buying the latest widget to the point that it is part of our cultural identity. Look at how every potential spec leak for the latest cell phone is breathlessly covered in the news. One of GWB's first pronouncements after 9/11? "Keep shopping"! That right there tells you what defines us.

Consuming green products isn't the answer - reduction of consumption is the answer - a nearly impossible task when we are programmed to define our self worth by the stuff we have, and economic growth defines our success internationally.

Our priorities are all wrong - if the US spent the equivalent of what they are about to drop on Syria on renewable power, and declare wars on nouns like renewable energy rather than terrorism and drugs, maybe we'd make some progress.

I don't think "literally" means what you think it does...

How "radically inclusive" of you!

Because there is corroborating evidence daily in the news that is leading us to the very rational yet difficult conclusion that we should not believe a damn word our government tells us (especially the NSA). That doesn't exist for your bigfoot, alien abduction, or ghost story examples.

It IS bad that it has gotten this far. Democracies are founded on trust, and the NSA and recent administrations are shredding that by treating the citizenry as threats.

So your point is that America is a free country because you can be killed for what you say? Please keep in mind that the US had several opportunities to take Anwar into custody and give him a trial, a right that used to be afforded to US citizens.