John Tate | Campaign for Liberty

After a lone Nigerian would-be terrorist tried to detonate explosives in his underclothes Christmas Day on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, TSA immediately grabbed for even more invasive power over American citizens.

Most disturbingly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wants to implement full-body scans at the nation’s airports-allowing unelected bureaucrats to virtually strip-search and gawk at kids, moms, grandmothers, grandfathers — you and all other American passengers — through your clothes.

Predictably, misinformation on the graphic nature of the images and ability of TSA personnel to copy, photo, and save the images poured forth from TSA flaks.

I have included direct contact information for the TSA at the end of this post. Call them today and let them know how disgusted you are with their latest plan to invade our privacy.

It’s a peeping tom’s dream, and a nightmare for those of us who believe in the great American principles of liberty, restrained government, and privacy.

Unless we stop this outrage, TSA agents will be snooping at the undergarments of such “threats” as American kids, grandmothers, and grandfathers. And if you or they refuse? You will be physically searched by TSA employees just like a criminal after being arrested.

The TSA’s dirty little secret is the agency has been pushing for full-body imaging since 2002 and even introduced the technology at a handful of airports in 2007-without ensuring that passengers knew they were being watched in this manner.

As Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, “Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane.”

Despite self-serving assurances from the TSA, these full-body scans are an unconstitutional, unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of American passengers nationwide.

Last year, Campaign for Liberty Director of Development Steve Bierfeldt sued the TSA for detaining him for carrying cash. Because Steve so strongly stood up to them, the TSA backed down from its unconstitutional searches of passengers’ non-terrorism-related property.

But such victories for liberty are rare in today’s America and must be fought for by a vigilant public jealous of its liberty.

We now risk losing the gains we have made against the surveillance state, all because of the “systemic failure” of the federal government-as Obama himself called it. Now the TSA wants to know far more about us than just the amount of cash we’re carrying.

Use the numbers below to contact them today as we show the TSA that the freedom movement will not sit idly by in this fight.

Just as Big Brother advocates jumped on the intelligence failure of 9/11 to nationalize airport security, they once again want to use their own failure as an excuse for more power.

But we know that this latest move will not keep us safe. So far, it has been passengers and flight crew who have stopped such incidents as this and the attempted “shoebombing” of December 2001.

They can keep stripping away our privacy and liberty, all to foil the last attack, but the terrorists will continue to circumvent any of their freedom-crushing “security” measures.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained, “Airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, cockpit doors are like bank vaults, and the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals in the private sector, not by the government. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe-by keeping and bearing arms-9/11 would never have happened.”

If we want to diminish the threat of terrorism and fly more safely, we can restore the Second Amendment, hand airline security back to the private sector, and end our government’s policy of foreign interventionism.

Contact the TSA’s “Office of Civil Rights” by phone toll free at 1-877-EEO-4-TSA (1-877-336-4872) or (800) 877-8339 (TTY) and by email at TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Let us do our part to show Washington and the TSA that Americans not only deserve and want both, but that we will not stop until our privacy and all our other freedoms are secure.

One of the biggest problems in America today derives from the fact that most of the people, from the boomer generation on, haven’t a clue of the purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America. They tremble in fear at the thought of law abiding citizens possessing guns; while they have no objection at the 100,000+ federal government officials who have guns and use them to compel people to conform to questionable laws, which often undermine the Constitution and the protections afforded to the individual under law.

The original purpose of the second amendment was to protect the individual from possible tyranny of the Congress. If you need any confirmation of what happens when the people are disarmed; just look at Iran, China and the U.K. In all of these situations the people are severely limited in their ability to exercise free speech; their liberties are also curtailed to such an extent that life has become quite difficult to live without government intrusion.

Indeed, we are headed in the same direction as the countries mentioned in the United States of America; but I firmly believe the pace is slowed and the lines are drawn, by the fact that the citizenry are well armed and there is a facet of the population, however small, who understands the need to safeguard liberty from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The fact is, these leftists (and there are leftists on both sides of the aisle), while they may be well meaning in many cases; they are undoing what took centuries of struggle and bloodshed to achieve. If only they would read and understand the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the other writings of the founding fathers; they wouldn’t dare attempt to curtail liberty and build a larger and more invasive government.

Alas, they do not understand the protections afforded to an individual, or the reason for them; they are content in their self-righteous crusade to abolish the protection of the individual by undermining the original intent of the founders of the republic. I find it truly disheartening to see intelligent people supporting universal health care, gun controls, cap and trade energy taxes and the like; I know from these policies that they have not a shred of understanding of why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were authored; or why the founding members of our society sought to fight off the influence of the red coats.

My suggestion to leftists who don’t care for the original intend of the Bill of Rights, is to spend some time in countries where there are no protections for individuals; in fact, move there if you like tyranny so much.  Instead of trashing the liberties and the economy of the last great stronghold of liberty, just move to a place that has already been sacked like England, where you can be watched from dawn ’till dusk on CCTV cameras and you can wait months to get treatments using the “free” health care.

The Liberal Fear of Guns

By Jacob Hornberger | Campaign For Liberty

Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate his fear. In a column entitled “Freedom from Fear — and the Second Amendment,” Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think that the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, the Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment. Read the rest of this entry »

We must maintain our liberties. We must fight corruption wherever it lie. We must help others to realize that the Constitution of the united States of America must remain true to its original intent.

Our predecessors fought off the forces of the British crown, while our contemporaries kneel down and kiss their rings. They wrongly confiscate our monies through “income taxes” and “inflation,” then send it to the wall-street elite, who cannot produce anything of real value.

This America of today is overrun with minions, doing the bidding of the king. Grateful to him as they beg him to relinquish every liberty and every form of real wealth they hold dear. If there isn’t a real change, some day in the near future, we may find that all of our choices are made by the ruling government authorities; and we are not able to venture off on our own and live the way we choose.

We’re losing a little each day, of what made us a great people. The saddest part is the mind numbing complacency, as the people of today watch it all go away; seldom a word is said in condemnation.

The solution to this dilemma is quite simple, we needn’t fear nor hide. All we must do is uphold the Constitutional values of our founders, and realize that liberty lives in each of us; as we are the sole enforcers of the Constitutional law that forms the foundation of our people.

The meaning of the Constitution was never meant to be decided by an elite court, a president, or a body of politicians. The meaning is plain and clear, on the document itself. It defines the role of government and how we can best conduct our affairs, to ensure the protection of the individual, above all; not special groups or professions.

So, it is incumbent upon us all, to enforce the Constitution, by refusing to go along with corrupt practices, that violate these founding principles.

At one time men would die for liberty. Did it ever occur to us today, to gain an understanding, of why the preservation of liberty is so essential?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Listen to the Audio Version of this Speech

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. Read the rest of this entry »

Finally, true spritual freedom, at least for the Santo Daime.

For awhile there, I was thinking that we only had the freedom to have a “religion,” but not the spiritual aspect of it, if it happened to interfere with the prohibitions of the powers that be. Religion without spirituality is missing something essential, the real nectar, so it is essential that one be allowed to practice all aspects of their particular belief, including drinking of Ayahuasca tea if one is so inclined.

I am pleased to see that this is changing, though it remains to be seen if other spiritual practices will be removed from the prohibition list.

Federal Judge Owen Panner rules in favor of the Santo Daime Church!

“. . .I conclude that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ §
2000bb to 2000bb-4, requires that plaintiffs be allowed to import and drink
Daime tea for their religious ceremonies, subject to reasonable
restrictions. I will enter a judgment and permanent injunction.
These are my findings of fact and conclusions of law after

the court trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a). . .
”
“. . .Plaintiffs have established their prima facie claim by more than a preponderance of the evidence.
Plaintiffs have established that they are sincere in their religious beliefs, and that the ceremonial use of the Daime tea is essential to their religion. It is obvious that prohibiting the use of Daime tea would substantially burden the exercise of plaintiffs’ religion. . .”

“. . .The government has failed to show that outright prohibition of the Daime tea is the least restrictive means of furthering its interests. . .”

And finally:

“. . .Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under RFRA. Judgment will be entered for plaintiffs in accordance with this opinion.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18 day of March, 2009
Owen M.
Panner
US District Judge

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse here in the united States of America, the government makes a move to show that it can get far worse. In a dastardly move, the U.S. Senate passed an “immigration reform” bill that will require all Americans to gain “approval” from the Department of Homeland Security in order to work. Read the rest of this entry »

The “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms” is now raiding individuals in North-East Alabama for the crime of exercising their inalienable 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
-Bill of Rights

This is a blatant violation of their inalienable rights, by a rogue entity that is clearly operating outside of its jurisdiction. If there is any integrity left in the Judiciary, this situation should be remedied through the Federal court system.

It seems like an open and shut case to me, they have the right to form a militia, the militia’s stated aim is to protect the Constitution, they never hurt or threatened anyone. I fail to see any illegality here which could provoke the actions that were taken against them.

Notice how every time something of this sort happens, be it Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc, the ATF is in charge of the situation. They despise the Constitution and anyone who supports it and they go out of their way to make “examples” of anyone who challenges their phony jurisdiction over the American citizens. Read the rest of this entry »

Congressman Ron Paul warns elite believe they own us and are “always prepared” to take our liberties

Steve Watson & Alex Jones | Infowars.net
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that the US is now at a crisis point because the people have been so neglectful of protecting their liberties and big government has been so effective in eroding them. He warned that the elite are prepared to concoct events to scare the American people and asserted that the 2008 Presidential election is a contest between the people who care about their freedoms and those who are willing to succumb to the temptations of dictatorship. Read the rest of this entry »

Mac Johnson | HumanEvents.com

Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court’s inexplicable ruling was based on a “radical” interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given “a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment.” Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:

The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.

“[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder,” the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens. Read the rest of this entry »

Visit any shopping center, sporting event or restaurant and think about what you see there. Do you think that, as long as these people are contented with games and food, that they will care about the gradual erosion of liberty and the incremental increases in the power of the president?

After a rare stroll through the shopping mall yesterday, I came to this conclusion; nobody knows or cares about what is happening. Those who do find it necessary to pay attention, are generally caught up in the phony left-right paradigm and fail to see that the government is using this paradigm to destroy the constitution and bill of rights. Read the rest of this entry »

In this excerpt, Bushladin uses the constitution to justify illegal wire taps. He also confuses Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Heussein.Lets see now, which manufactured enemy am I referring to in this answer, aha!

The American people take in this Orwellian double speak without questioning… What is the motivating factor behind all of Bush’s reasons? FEAR.

He always says September 11 this, September 11 that, we have to protect our freedoms from others who want to harm us…

9/11 doesn’t give this man the right to abrogate the constitution. Where in the document does it give the president the authority to order wiretaps without court approval? Why doesn’t he cite the amendment? Are there now “secret” amendments, sort of like the “secret” provisions of the patriot act?

The fact is, these wiretaps are strictly forbidden; Bush is using classic Orwellian doublespeak to mask this and make himself seem officially “correct.”

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, there are no laws; people are simply taken away for whatever reason the government sees fit. It appears as if this may be happening in the United States; indeed it is a plague which is sweeping through the western world.

Press Conference of the President

…
Question: Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.

You’ve got to understand — and I hope the American people understand — there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they’re very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I’d be asking me these questions, too.

But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam — Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.

We’re at war, and we must protect America’s secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven’t ordered one, because I understand there’s kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.

The second part of the question is? Sorry — I gave a long answer.

Question: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I — right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack.

That’s what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.