OK, so let me recap my position here. Apparently ther has been a failure to communicate. You originally said that there was "zero" surveilance going on by the government. I gave a well known example of this surveilance being obvious by mentioning that Rush probably felt that way (that he was not subject to surveilance) too till he was suddenly confronted with the evidence of gov. surveilance in his financial transactions. At this point we seem to have developed a divergent understanding, with you seemingly (to me) trying to propose both views: that there is "zero" government surveilance going on and that the banking surveilance regarding structuring financial transactions is, and has been for a time, going on. Rush, himself, is actually irrelevant. I could have used other examples, but the Rush example is very well known and I didn't feel there would be any need to dig out evidence of it in an extended discussion the way things like the new 'patriot act' expansions of surveilance might need.
This is where I find my understanding of our discussion to this point. So I have to ask you, are you saying that there is "zero" government surveilance or that there is government surveilance? And how have we come to our current disagreement if you do agree that there is government surveilance (of the citizenry) going on? (and if you do not agree there is surveilance, how do you get around the obbious surveilance in the Rush situation?)