The absolute perversion of government.

I have tried to wrap my head around the latest actions from Janet Napolitano's brown shirts. I can not really express how disgusted I have become with the actions of the current government. They have taken this "security theater" bullshit to extremes, to the point that I personally think criminal charges should be brought against them.

Consider what the new "pat down" procedures mean. Government agents will physically fondle your genitals. Consider this description from a woman who recently was subjected to what can only be called sexual assault.

She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.

She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.

She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.

She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia.

The government calls this "enhanced" pat down. This amounts to rape, as far as I am concerned. We literally have reached the point where government agents demand our compliance to allow them to fondle us in a manner that would put anyone else in prison as a sex offender. And YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, you are their slave who must obey or give up your natural right to travel.

John Tyner was flying out of San Diego when TSA officials (Total Sexual Assault) directed him to one of these new pornoscanners that the government has to take nude photos of your body (as well as the bodies of children I should point out). Tyner was reluctant to use this device and was told he would have to go through an "enhanced pat down."

Consider what I think the government intentionally did. They wanted to force Americans through the pornoscanners. But, since there is an option for a pat down, which takes more time. So they didn't want the public to take that option. To force people through the pornoscanner the Feds "enhanced" the pat down to include what has to be called sexual molestation. The "enhanced" version of the pat down is a punishment for anyone who "slows" down the security theater of the TSA. Rubbing the penis, or vagina, of members of the public is not needed to protect us from terrorists, it is meant to punish anyone who refused to cooperate with the pornoscanners.

Tyner said he didn't want to use Janet Napolitano's nudie machine so he was forced to go through the "enhanced" pat down. When the TSA agent was in the process of rubbing his hands all over his body, Tyner said: "You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested."

That is clear. Tyner was not saying they couldn't frisk him for weapons, just that the agent was not allowed to fondle Tyner's genitals.

And, the really great part of this exchange with TSA officials was that Tyner had the whole thing recorded on his cell phone. After telling the agent that he may not touch his genitals, Tyner was told: "If you're not comfortable with that, we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today." This amounts to blackmail. Either you give them permission to take nude photos of you, or they will fondle your genitals. If don't give your consent to the molestation they will force you to leave the airport and force you to miss your flight.

There is no doubt here that the government agents were using the fondling of Tyner's genitals as the lever to force him to comply. Tyner ONLY withheld permission for the agent to "touch his junk," nothing more. He told the agent: "I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying."

The agent said: "This is not considered a sexual assault." Tyner said: "It would be if you were not the government."

This reminds me of something that Sheldon Richman said about how so many people see government as a "morals launderer." They seem to think that if they act as government agents they are not bound by the same moral values as every one else. When you kill it is a crime, when government does it, it's collateral damage, capital punishment, or just DEA agents making a "mistake." When you take what is not yours it is theft. When government agents do it is emminent domain, taxes or tariffs. When you fondle the genitals of unwilling people it is sexual assault. When government agents do it, it is an enhanced pat down.

Can there be any more dangerous concept about government? The idea that moral laws don't apply to the State implies that the State may do anything it wants, to anyone it wants, at any time it wants. It says there are NO limitations

The government agent told Tyner: "By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights." That appears to be a section of the Constitution I missed—the part that says you voluntarily surrender your rights if you travel from one location to another.

How did we reach the point where government agents are allowed to fondle the genitals of any man, woman or child that wishes to fly.

And remember this is being done by the executive branch of the federal government, that means the person responsible is Barack Obama, the head of the executive branch of the government. The TSA is run by Janet Napolitano, who was directly appointed to her office by Obama. Anyone who still thinks Obama respects individuals rights in any area, is sadly mistaken.

I know that this can be mistaken, and I don't want anyone to assume I am suggesting anything, but I am surprised that these government-required molestations are not creating a class of home grown "terrorists" who are disgusted that the State has gone this far. I would hope that won't happen, I would hope the government wises up and ends this disgusting policy. But I don't think it will wise up, not under Obama, who actually doesn't give a damn what the public wants.

A cracker of a beginning. Stunning actually.

In my report on the UK elections I said that I suspected that the Tories and the Liberal Demcrats would form a coalition government, even though Labour was courting the Lib Dems. That happened. I was cautiously optimistic that the coalition "will form a more liberal [in the classical sense] government than the UK has seen in a very, very long time."

I felt there was a chance this coalition would make each of the two parties in government better than they would be governing alone. I am still optimistic, but more so, especially after the stunning announcements of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, of the Lib Dems. This is a man I've had my eye on for sometime and previously noted that he has been moving his party in a free market direction, without compromising their social liberalism. The big problem tends to be that parties are quite libertarian sounding when out of power and very statist when in power.

But Nick Clegg made an announcement that is absolutely breath-taking—one I can't remember any politician doing in my lifetime. He called on the public to submit recommendations for what laws need to be abolished. He didn't say reformed, he said abolished, as in axed, in the ashcan, obliterated from the books, ended, cease to exist, gone! This wasn't a pre-election speech but a post-election speech.

He said: "This Government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state. This Government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to the people, because that is how we build a society that is fair." Has he read my mind, or my blog? While I doubt that is the case, that is entirely the point I make about power, that it destroys fairness and harms the most vulnerable in society. If you have the heart of a modern liberal then you need the policies of a classical liberal to achieve your goals. Freedom helps people! It seems Clegg gets it.

He promised a "fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge." Here are a few bits from the speech (if anyone finds a video of it let me know).

As we tear through the statute book, we’ll do something no government ever has: We will ask you which laws you think should go.

Because thousands of criminal offences were created under the previous government. Taking people’s freedom away didn’t make our streets safe.

Obsessive law-making simply makes criminals out of ordinary people.

So, we’ll get rid of the unnecessary laws – and once they’re gone, they won’t come back. We will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences.”

The London Telegraph reports the reforms announced:

...will involve the end of the controversial ID cards scheme, the scrapping of universal DNA databases – in which the records of thousands of innocent people have been stored – and restrictions placed on internet records. The use of CCTV cameras will also be reviewed.

Dubbed the “Great Reform Act”, the measures will close down the ContactPoint children’s database. Set up by Labour last year, it includes detailed information on all 11 million youngsters under 18. In addition, schools will not be able to take a child’s fingerprint without parental permission.

In an attempt to protect freedom of speech, ministers will review libel laws, while limits on peaceful protest will be removed.

The measures to repeal so-called surveillance state laws will be included in next week’s Queen’s Speech. Under the coalition agreement, Mr Clegg and David Cameron said they would end “the storage of internet and email regulations and email records without good reason”. This is likely to mean the end of plans for the Government and the security services to intercept and keep emails and text messages.

The £224 million ContactPoint database can be accessed by 300,000 people working in health, education, social care and youth justice – leading to fears it could be exploited or fall into the wrong hands. Mr Clegg will add: “It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop. “This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state. That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent.”

I'm gobsmacked and thrilled. In my heart I'm dancing around the room shouting. The Daily Mail reports that Clegg "pledged the boldest rolling back of the state in modern hisotry. They say that Clegg said: "Incremental change will not do. It is time for a wholesale, big bang approach to political reform." He says: "We will end practices that risk making Britain a place where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question." Wow! Because this is such a stunning announcment I will publishe the entire speech below:

I have spent my whole political life fighting to open up politics. So let me make one thing very clear: this government is going to be unlike any other.

This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state.

This government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to people, because that is how we build a society that is fair.

This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again.

I'm not talking about a few new rules for MPs; not the odd gesture or gimmick to make you feel a bit more involved.

I'm talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great enfranchisement of the 19th Century.

The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes.

Landmark legislation, from politicians who refused to sit back and do nothing while huge swathes of the population remained helpless against vested interests.

Who stood up for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few.

A spirit this government will draw on as we deliver our programme for political reform: a power revolution.

A fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge.

So, no, incremental change will not do.

It is time for a wholesale, big bang approach to political reform.

That's what this government will deliver.

It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide.

It has to stop.

So there will be no ID card scheme.

No national identity register, no second generation biometric passports.

We won't hold your internet and email records when there is just no reason to do so.

CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people's DNA.

And we will end practices that risk making Britain a place where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question.

There will be no ContactPoint children's database.

Schools will not take children's fingerprints without even asking their parent's consent."

This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state.

That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent.

That's why we'll remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest.

It's why we'll review libel laws so that we can better protect freedom of speech.

And as we tear through the statute book, we'll do something no government ever has:

We will ask you which laws you think should go.

Because thousands of criminal offences were created under the previous government...

Taking people's freedom away didn't make our streets safe.

Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people.

So, we'll get rid of the unnecessary laws, and once they're gone, they won't come back.

We will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences.

CBS News report on cyberspying school district.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

CBS News has reported on the cyberspying school district that we reported previously.

Anytime you think the US is bad, give a thought for England

The American police state is god-awful, of that there is little doubt. But as bad as things are in the United States just remember they are far worse under the Labour authoritarians in the UK. Basically the Blair-Brown regime had made tourist filming a crime, defined as terrorism. The crime is filming any "public" building which includes virtually all sites of interest to tourists. If you pull out a camera, considered a dangerous weapon by the moronic Laborites, you can be arrested under various anti-terrorism legislation, which makes it a crime to photograph a public building.


Simona Bonomo, an Italian studying at London Metorpolitan University was filiming in London when the police approached her demanding to see her film. The porky in blue said that he can look at any film "if I think it may be linked to terrorism." Porky then accussed Bonomo of cycling the wrong way down the street. She apologize and porky left to return with a whole rasher of bacon—another six porkies. She was searched and arrested. All for filming in public. I will try to upload the film in question. This will show porkies around the world to be pretty much brain-dumb. You can see how dumb the officer is. When she tells him she is an artist he demands identification to prove she is an artist. Who exactly issues "artist ID"? No one. Watch the video and you will see how he becomes progressively more demanding and accusatory even though the woman did nothing wrong.



In public the police announce there is no law forbidding people from taking photos of public building. Yet Section 44 of the Terrorism Act (and more acts of parliament are terroristic in one way or antoehr) sys that police do not need suspicion to stop and search people. In a contradictory statement a police spokesman said: "These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense." so, the police have no such power, but thsee power are both "important" and "intrusive" and should be used wisely.

When the Guardian newspaper sent someone out to photograph the Gherkin building, a tourist attraction, he was surrounded by police in plainclothes who covered his cameral lens and said he was involve in "hostile reconnaissance." He was told two counter-terrorism police would arrive shortly to search him. A BBC photographer was harassed by police for photographing St. Paul's Cathedral. An amateur photographer was questioned for taking photos of Christmas lights in Brighton. Two Austrian tourists were forced by police to erase tourist photos they took and a photographer was arrested in Kent because he took a photo of a fish and chip shop. He was arrested under the Terrorist Act, as was architecture photographer Grant Smith when he photographed Christopher Wren's Christ Church building. When Smith was arrested a news crew from ITV arrived to film the incident and they were threatened under the Terrorist Act as well.

The great fraud of government power is that it is rarely used for the purposes which justify the existence of the power. They are almost wholly used for other purposes. The Patriot Act does very little to terrorists but it does control the American public. The Terrorist Act in the UK is used continually against innocent people. Politicians wait for every new crisis to pass sweeping new powers which do little to address the new crisis but which do expand the power and scope of the state bureucracy. If government stopped "defending" us so much we'd all be better off.

A Christmas gift I can live with.

Santas Against 1984 went around the Phoenix area handing out Christmas presents to the public. They covered up "speed cameras" that the government put into place. Of course, speed cameras aren't there to enforce safe driving, they are there to increase state revenue. I believe the evidence shows no positive benefits from speed cameras except as it lines the pockets of government -- which I consider a bad thing. I want a government so poor it can't afford to violate the constitution.

Shame that Christmas comes but once a year -- at least in this case.

Opposing death penalty gets people listed as terrorists.

The police in Maryland thought they were playing James Bond. They admit setting up and operating a covert, domestic spying campaign against individuals who are guilty of nothing more than opposing US government policy -- a criteria that includes all decent people.

According to the Washington Post, Police Superintendent Terrence Sheridan admitted that the State Police “classified 52 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects...”

What made these people terrorists? They were against the war in Iraq and the death penalty --- I think I better stay out of Maryland. This spying campaign went on for 14 months until 2006. A letter, from Sheridan, acknowledging that these people were classified as terrorist says that there is “no evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime.” Apparently want to stop killing makes one a terrorist in the eyes of the police -- which I guess explains why so many of them are so violent. This is Orwellian to the max: peace is violence and violence is peace. To oppose violence makes one a terrorist, to engage in violence makes one a peace officer.

The police superintendent who authorized the surveillance was Thomas Hutchins who apparently holds himself out as something of an expert on the Constitution since he opined: “I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government.”

Please note the pure dishonesty of that statement. Hutchins has offered no evidence that anyone was disrupting anything merely opposing it. Apparently peaceful opinions now qualify as “disrupting government” -- if only it were that simple. When government acts in this manner it cries out for disruption.

Englands surveillance state at work.

Dreary old England is suffering mightily under the weight of the authoritarian government of the Labour Party. Labour has been working assiduously to impose a total surveillance state trampling on traditional British freedoms. First, here is a video of the local police randomly stopping people and demanding to search them. As they make clear, if you do not “consent” to being searched you will be arrested. Of course, once they arrest you they can search you. In other words, in England, the police may search anyone they wish, anytime they wish without any probably cause.



One British “subject” has filmed this sort of police state mentality. It is hard to understand some aspects of the video as the sound is not totally up to par. Please note that these these officers are not only searching the man’s belongings but frisking him, going through his pockets, looking in his wallet, and flipping through the books he reads. Notice the lie they tell. They argue that they are looking for anything that can be used by terrorists. But they start going through his credit cards and looking through his wallet. And then, when they find nothing wrong, they send in his details to check up on the man.

Basically the cops end up arguing that anything a “terrorists” could use can be inspected by them at any time they wish. Of course the terrorists can use anything. Also watch as people walk by and look over at this poor man being searched. You know that many of them are wondering what this man did that was illegal to be apprehended by the police.

The last time I was in the UK I saw a thug harassing an older woman inside the local McDonalds. I complained to the staff who did nothing. I went outside and told the police. The thug walked out and I pointed him out. The police REFUSED to do anything saying they didn’t want to “embarrass” him in "front of his mates”. Apparently guilty people shouldn’t be embarrassed but innocent people deserve to be frisked, searched and checked out on some central data base. Zieg heil! The one thing I will say is that, as disgusting as this is, in the U.S. merely asking the police the questions this man asked would have gotten him beaten, perhaps tasered and possibly shot.

Meanwhile the Telegraph reports that the local councils are using the antiterrorism surveillance systems to spy on “couples’ sleeping arrangements.” Taxes are based, not only on the value of property, but also on the number of people living there. So councils “undertake ‘surveillance’ of cars registered to addresses ‘to substantiate the allegation of living together.’” Documents from one council show they are checking to see if couples are living “as husband and wife.”

In Thurrock single residents are required to sign a document giving blanket permission to local bureaucrats “to enter their home as part of an inspection” to determine if they really are single or in a couple. If they have a partner their tax rate increases by one-third. A spokesman for the Conservative Party said:

Day by day under Labour, the country is sleepwalking into a surveillance state, where spying on citizens has become the norm. Laws which were originally intended to tackle the most serious crimes and safeguard the public are now being deployed routinely and without hesitation.

Councils will naturally wish to ensure that council tax discounts and benefits are not wrongly claimed. But I am concerned that innocent citizens will be spied on through heavy-handed and disproportionate use by town hall snoopers. There are far less intrusive and more cost-effective ways of vetting council tax, such as through data matching, rather than paying town hall officials to camp out overnight outside people's homes.

The fact such snooping is already over-used by local authorities bodes ill for the planned powers for town halls to access communications data. There are insufficient checks and balances to prevent people's sex lives being habitually monitored by state bureaucrats, purely because they claim a council tax discount for living alone.

Bureaucrats with the Local Government Association have a unique stand on the matter. They say “Pretending to live alone to defraud the taxpayer is not a victimless crime.” This goes on the assumption that your wealth belongs to the government and they let you keep some of it. If you keep more of your own income then the government has to take more of other people’s income. So it is your fault that they are confiscating more wealth from other people. Thus keeping your own money is a crime against others.

Already it has been shown that government powers initially created to “stop terrorism” have been used by councils to arrest people whose dog took a shit in the wrong place or who dumped trash in the wrong location.

But one government official, with the title of Interception of Communications Commissioner, Paul Kennedy, complained that the local councils were not using their spying powers enough. He suggested that more councils spy on people to fight crimes “such as skipping work and filing fraudulent overtime claims.” The Telegraph reports: “Councils across the country were criticised last month as it emerged that they used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act up to 10,000 times a year to investigate such petty offences as dog fouling and under-age smoking.”

And while the Conservative Party is, this now, whining about the surveillance state, only days ago they were demanding that police powers be expanded to do more surveillance. Then another Tory spokesman said: “It is not right that we charge our police with combating crime and disorder and then tie their hands behind their backs.... the police should be given both the resources and the freedom to use those resources to do their job.” In that incident the Tories said that restraints to protect citizens from spying were “red tape” and promised to make it easier to spy, including putting in wire taps, without any court permission required.

British bureacrats routinely put citizens under surveillance.

England was once a free country. Of course that ended long ago and it is now has one of the most extensive surveillance systems in the world -- and the targets of that surveillance are not criminals or terrorists but average people going about their average lives.

The Regulation of Investigatoryh Powers Act was passed to give government agencies spying powers in order to go after criminals and terrorists. Well, that was the excuse anyway. Originally these spying powers were bestowed on nine government agencies. Of course, since the damn camel got its nose in the tent matters have escalated. Now 792 government agencies have the right to spy on people and they are doing so!

One family in Dorset discovered that local officials used the law to put them under surveillance for weeks. Their alleged crime was to apply to have their youngest child attend a school where the council said they were not allowed to apply. In reality two of their other children had been attending the school for years. Government bureaucrats followed the family aroundl and kept record of where they slept at night. The school itself had told the parents that admission was legitimate. But for weeks detailed notes of the family were kept by the local council. (See the attached sheet of notes as an example.)

Tim Joyce and his partner, Jenny Paton, and their children were the targets of the investigation in Dorsey. Mr. Joyce said: “It used to be that the Home Secretary had to talk to a judge to get surveillance through the police. Now it seems the world and his wife can carry out surveillance whenever they feel like it.”

Last year government departments, unrelated to policing, engaged in 12,484 cases of surveillance on citizens. That is one citizen being targeted for regular surveillance every 42 minutes, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The London Telegraph reports that this is a doubling from the previous year’s level of domestic surveillance.

In Gosport the local council has put dog owners under surveillance to see if they pick up the dog’s crap. Chris Davis, the would be “intelligence officer” for this sad little bureaucracy says: “We have strategically placed members of our enforcement team to blend in with the natural environment and observe people walking dogs. They are using digital cameras to get hard evidence.” In Stoke-on-Trent bureaucrats are using domestic spying to check on “illegal building work” and to see if people are dumping trash in violation to council rules.

Banks playing cop led to Spitzer case.

Banks in the United States are no longer private businesses serving their clients. They are police agents who willingly spy on you on behalf of the federal government. This has become much worse under the presidency of George Bush. The reality is that you bank is spying on you.

Apparently that is how Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York was caught hiring prostitutes. He transferred funds to the agency that ran the prostitution service. ABC News reports that this transaction “was initially reported by a bank to the IRS, which under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI’s Public Corruption Squad.”

Please remember this when you have a U.S. bank account. Any and all financial transactions can be investigated by employees at the bank who may report you to the federal government if they feel it is necessary. They need not have evidence you have actually violated any law. They just have to find something suspicious and your entire life could be turned upside-down while police agents comb through your life trying to see if they can find something warranting prosecution. Considering the overabundance of bad laws, stupid laws, vaguely worded laws, etc., if they can’t find something to charge you with then they aren’t trying.

Politicians tell you that these laws are for “evil doers” (to quote the Moron in Chief). But Mr. Spitzer, as repugnant a politician as he is, wasn’t violating the rights of anyone. He was having some sex with a hooker -- hardly something on the level of 9/11. Mr. Spitzer now faces potential criminal charges because he transferred money to pay a hooker.

This just proves that individuals who have done nothing truly criminal, in the sense of harming others, can be prosecuted and turned into media fodder because of the “know your customer” laws that turn banks into police spies. You may think it will never come to your doorstep. I suspect that Mr. Spitzer thought so as well. But when you have government this powerful and lethal acting on “tips” that come from hundreds of thousands of bank employees then you can bet more individuals will be prosecuted for minor offenses merely because their bank’s employees now cops.

Hoisted by his pitard but has he learned his lesson?

U.K. television presenter Jeremy Clarkson wanted to prove a point. And strictly speaking he did -- just not the one he intended.

In recent months England has been shocked by the systematic lose of personal data on millions of people. Inept bureaucrats now handling mountains of data on individuals as part of their fake “war on terror” -- fake because they aren’t engaging in surveillance on terrorists but on millions of innocent people.

Well, data disks with records on people seem to disappear right and left inside the Labour government. No one apparently knows who has what or where it is.

Clarkson thought the fury over these lost records was a tempest in a teacup and he set out to prove how harmless it is to have personal information in the hands of just about anyone. Poor Jeremy decided the way to prove his point was publish details about himself in a major newspaper. So he published his bank account details including his account number and sort code. And for good measure he even told people how to track down his home address.

He bragged: “All you will be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not take it out. Honestly, I’ve never known such a palaver about nothing.”

Clarkson wasn’t so smug when he got his next bank statement. A sum of just over $1000, £500 to be exact, had been extricated from his account and donated, on his behalf, to the charity Diabetes UK.

Of course in the world of surveillance the laws on privacy only apply to the private sector not to the State -- where they are needed the most. So when Clarkson attempted to find out who had taken the money from his account he was told that the Data Protection Act didn’t allow the bank to tell him. And they told they can’t prevent it from happening againg.

Clarkson admitted: “I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake.” He wrote: “Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick coctail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy.”

Close, Mr. Clarkson, but no cigar.

The problem isn’t just with the loss of the data. The problem is with the very collection of it.

A black day for America

Privacy International has released their ratings of how far down the road toward the surveillance society various countries have gone. The United States, which once prided itself as being a bastion of individual liberty, is now one of the worst in the world when it comes to state surveillance. Thanks, George. If you can stomach reading the entire report on our lost liberties you can do so here. Here is the world map with the color code. Read it and weep. You may enlarge it by clicking on it. Please note our friends in this special club. If anyone in D.C. took Constitutional rights seriously note only would Bush and Cheney be impeached but on trial for treason.

Stop the Big Brother State

Length 4:24. See more videos on the war on liberty at www.tvliberty.blogspot.com.
Versions with subtitles in Spanish, French or Italian are available there as well.

More FBI spying than previously admitted

Recent papers secured by the American Civil Liberties Unions showed that the FBI had infiltrated and conducted secret surveillance on the Thomas Merton Center. There is no indication that the Center is involved in any illegal activities but they are opponents of the Bush invasion of Iraq.

An ACLU attorney said: “These documents show that Americans are not safe from secret government surveillance, even when they are handing out fliers in the town square, an activity clearly protected by the Constitution.” During leafleting activities the FBI would photograph the individuals passing out the flyers for government records. The FBI says the photographs were later destroyed.