VIDEO: Big Brother is watching you and tracking your license plate

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Keeping cops honest ~ By Phil Elmore

In Maryland, a man faces a staggering 16 years in prison after he posted a YouTube video of his interaction with a state trooper. The trooper, driving an unmarked car (in other words, not driving an obvious law-enforcement vehicle) and not wearing a uniform, cut in front of Anthony Graber (who is a Maryland Air National Guard sergeant), brandished a gun and yelled at Graber – all before identifying himself as a police officer.

Motorcycle traffic violation - Cop pulls out gun

Video provided by nikotyc

Phil Elmore brings up the rising number of state and local governments that are making the video taping of authorities - mainly police officers in the process of making an arrest - illegal. This opens up a number of questions. Will elected officials like Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) finally decide that they no longer want to be seen by the world on youtube? I am sure that Rep. Pete Stark thinks that could be done, being that he thinks the federal government can do anything it wants to:

Rep. Pete Stark at Town Hall Meeting in California

Video provided by MrOutarsingh

The Chicago Tribune asks, "Police record citizens. Why not the other way around?"

But then, sometimes when the police do get a good dash cam video, it is shared with the world and goes viral:

Full Length - Hawkeye OL Josh Koeppel Crash

Video provided by HawkeyeHitter

The point is, Big Brother has surveillance of We the People in place to keep an eye on us. Should we be restricted from being able to keep an eye on the police or any other public official? As long as people with video cams are not interfering with official police actions, there should be absolutely NO restrictions. I consider it a First Amendment right. It is the freedom of the press that has kept the government (supposedly) in line.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We must have the ability to continue to monitor those in authority. Trying to use "wiretapping laws" as an excuse to prohibit the video camera from recording an incident is a big stretch, and it is doubtful that it would be considered Constitutional if tested in court. Just sayin'...

To preserve what remains of our free society, videotaping those in power when they operate in public (or in our homes) must be legal. It is the most effective way to help prevent abuses of power that would otherwise go unseen and unpunished. The danger presented to law-enforcement officers' safety, or to their efficacy as agents of our government, is negligible, in my opinion. The loss to every one of us should we give up the right to record police does far greater damage to society and to the individuals it comprises.

While I would never adopt the leftist, authoritarian attitude that, "If you've got nothing to hide you should welcome Big Brother looking over your shoulder for your own good," this isn't about public surveillance of free citizens. It's about providing a check on the otherwise unbridled power of law enforcement officers to abuse their considerable discretion when nobody is looking. It's about keeping honest the men and women who are empowered to exercise authority – and force in the name of authority – over their fellow free citizens. It's about watching the watchmen through the unblinking and unbiased eye of a camera lens.

Keeping cops honest

By Phil Elmore

Posted: September 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, I watched an online "viral" video in which a protester holding an "Impeach Obama" sign was roughed up by security personnel at a state fair. While the protester certainly was manhandled, the force used might or might not have been justified. I pictured a jury at the man's trial watching the video as evidence. Did the man's actions warrant the force he received? Did he give the security officers provocation? What about the context for the incident? And what do the security people have to say about it all – the people who, when they saw they were being videotaped, asked the cameraman to shut off his machine?

To his credit, that cameraman's answer was an immediate and emphatic "No." He was not going to be bullied into letting those in authority do whatever they liked behind metaphorical closed doors. What that cameraman may not have thought to ask himself, however, is this: Could he be charged with a crime for recording the protester's arrest? Just what are the consequences for filming someone in public – specifically, for filming a police officer in public?

As the technology to record video becomes ever more accessible and less expensive, the prevalence of handheld video cameras (often in the form of wireless phones) has increased dramatically. Public surveillance by our government has increased, too, and we as Americans must contend with the shadow of Big Brother looming larger over us with each passing day. The good thing about video, however, is that it makes no judgments, provided it is not edited in bad faith or filmed from a compromising angle. A video of an incident tells the truth about what happened more accurately than any eyewitness can relate. So why are more and more law enforcement and government officials trying to make criminals of citizens who record encounters with police?

The Chicago Tribune asks, "Police record citizens. Why not the other way around?" The Tribune story points out that Chicago has one of the largest networks of surveillance cameras in the country. In Illinois, however, it's illegal to record the police – even if you're trying to gather evidence of police wrongdoing. If you try it, you could be arrested and charged with a felony. This is because in Illinois both parties must consent to the recording of a conversation ... unless one of those parties is a police officer.

READ FULL STORY

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Preying on the National Day of Prayer ~ By Chuck Norris

A U.S. District Judge in Wisconsin, Judge Barbara B. Crabb, ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Chuck Norris explains how her progressive ruling goes against what the Founding Fathers meant in the 1st Amendment and the Establishment Clause.

If all the things the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, and other progressive groups said about the First Amendment were true, Jefferson would flunk their religious-state separation test. Progressives don't want Americans to know that for the founders, Judeo-Christian belief and practice and government administration and policy were not separated at all. Denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices had to be kept separate from government would have struck them as ridiculous because the very basis for the founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

The ACLU and like-minded groups are not preserving First Amendment rights. They are perverting the meaning of the Establishment Clause (which was to prevent the creation of a national church like the Church of England) to deny the Free Exercise Clause (which preserves our rights to worship as we want, privately and publicly). Both clauses were intended to safeguard religious liberty, not to circumscribe its practice. The framers were seeking to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

By Chuck Norris

Posted: April 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Proof that progressivism is alive and well on planet Earth came again last week via the Wisconsin federal judge's ruling that the National Day of Prayer, or NDP, is unconstitutional.

Appointed to the bench by Jimmy Carter, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic. She further gave the rationale, "The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy."

Even more preposterous logic is found in her words: "In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray."

As most know, the first Thursday in May has been honored as a National Day of Prayer since 1952, when its approval flew through the Congress as a way to help separate America as a country with a Godly heritage and to aid her success against atheistic communism. Ever since, presidents have commemorated the NDP. Even President Obama issued a proclamation in 2009 about the NDP, though he did not hold ecumenical and public events with religious leaders as former President George W. Bush had done.

Regarding Judge Crabb's ruling on the NDP being unconstitutional, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow hit the judicial nail on the head when he said, "It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it."

Though this ruling is only one, these skewed judgments permeate nearly every stratum of our society. And they often hinge upon erroneous and ignorant views of America's Judeo-Christian heritage, and especially the First Amendment and the so-called separation of church and state.

Liberals would have you believe that the First Amendment establishes an impenetrable and impassable "separation of church and state." But that phrase appears nowhere in the First Amendment, which actually reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The phrase "the separation of Church and State" actually comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. He told them that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. His words, "a wall of separation between Church and State," were not written to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination and even legislation of religious sectarianism.

The Danbury Baptists had written to Thomas Jefferson seeking reassurance that their religious liberty would be guaranteed, not that religious expression on public grounds would be banned. Proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from the fact he endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salary of the church's priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Dissenters To Be Detained As “Enemy Belligerents”?

I happened to come across this story tonight, and decided that it needed to be posted, even though it is a little over a month old. I am wondering if - especially thanks to this blog - I'd be determined to be an "enemy belligerent"? If so, can you imagine all the people like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck that I could get to meet in the detention camp?

Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. Perhaps the video below explains just how “enemy belligerents” will be identified on American soil.

New bill allows U.S. citizens to be kidnapped and detained without trial indefinitely based on “suspected activity”

By Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Monday, March 8, 2010

Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.

The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.

The full bill can be read here (PDF).

The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”

A person is considered a “high value detainee” if they fulfil one of the following criteria.

(1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.

However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.

This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.

The only proviso that even hints at some form of check or balance is the measure that states, “The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.”

"The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination," states the bill.

READ FULL STORY at PrisonPlanet.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Your purchases will help me to fund attending tea party rallies,

and maybe even buy a new computer someday!

Obama's assassinations of Americans ~ By Nat Hentoff

Rather than going in and capturing high-value terrorists, we've been sending in pilotless drones and killing them. That's a good thing in the War on Terror, right? Save money on holding and trying them. Well, maybe not exactly. Nat Hentoff talks about the fact that some of the terrorist "hit" targets are American citizens.

Focusing on American targets, Ben Wizner, a staff attorney of the ACLU National Security Project, in a Feb. 4 press release emphasizes: "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"

By Nat Hentoff

Posted: February 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

On Sept. 14 in Somalia, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a long-sought link between al-Qaida and its East African allies, was in a vehicle bombed by a helicopter flying from an American ship off the Somali coast. As Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick reported in a front-page Washington Post story – "Under Obama, more targeted killings than captures in counterterrorism efforts" (Feb. 13) – another U.S. helicopter "set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of (Nabhan's) remains for DNA verification."

That news story offered a telling consequence: "The opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever." And a senior military officer, careful not to give his name, lamented: "We wanted to take a prisoner. It was not a decision that we made."

That decision came from Obama, our commander in chief, who, as I've previously reported, has authorized in his first year more such assassinations than Bush and Cheney in their last years. The result, as the Washington Post noted, "has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions."

After all, there can be no fierce arguments about whether a charred corpse should be tried in a federal civilian court or by a military commission. Some American citizens, believed to be highly connected to al-Qaida or its affiliates, are also on these "hit" lists. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, pilotless U.S. drone planes have perpetrated these assassinations.

These are highly classified operations, but thanks to the First Amendment, an increasing number of these summary executions have been revealed in the Washington Post and on the Internet. There have already been probing, through unanswered questions, from the ACLU, human-rights groups and other constitutionalists about this corollary damage to such an anchor of our rule of law as the separation of powers when the executive branch alone decides who shall die instantly rather than having been permitted time-consuming and costly due process of law. And there are no defense attorneys to raise objections, even when an American citizen is marked for oblivion.

Resistance to these terminal operations – which often inadvertently but effectively end the lives of innocent civilians – intensified in February when a high-ranking American official at last confirmed that targeted assassination is a legitimate American way of self-defense.

During a Feb. 3 hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified that the U.S. intelligence community, when dealing with direct terrorist threats to the United States, does "take direct action against terrorists" (Washington Post, Feb. 4).

And "if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that." Blair – sensitive to the Obama administration's delicate use of language in these matters – did not use the word "assassinations," but the message was lethal enough.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Government schools are watching you ~ By Roger Hedgecock

Roger Hedgecock brings up a story I heard about a day or two ago, about the school district that could remotely turn on web cams on the computers that they had given their students. He brings up several of the issues about why case is so bad. I am sure we could think of many other reasons why this is so bad!

When the government schools can put a "peeping tom" camera and microphone into our homes in students' computers in the name of "security," we have no rights left.

By Roger Hedgecock

Posted: February 22, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The Lower Marion School District, which runs two high schools in this suburb of Philadelphia, gives an Apple laptop (MacBook) to all 2,300 of its high-school students for use during the school year.

Programs like this throughout the country have proven popular with students, teachers and parents. The computers enhance the students' capabilities in understanding assignments, keeping track of deadlines for work and researching topics, for example. Teachers and parents can better track performance in the classroom and with homework assignments.

But Harriton High School student Blake Robbins discovered a more sinister use of these computers by the school administration – a use that students, teachers and parents were not aware of.

Is this happening in your school district?

On Nov. 11, Blake was summoned to the office of Vice Principal Lindy Matsko, who told him that he had "engaged in improper behavior in his home."

On the CBS "Early Show Saturday Edition," Blake recounted that Ms. Matsko accused him of selling drugs and taking pills and showed him a photograph of him at home taken by the webcam in his MacBook as proof. Blake said he told the vice principal that the photo showed him eating candy.

The incident revealed that the school district had the power to remotely turn on the webcam in the MacBook at any time and record the images.

Blake's parents have sued the school district in federal court accusing the district of spying on the students and their families and asking for an injunction preventing the district from remotely activating the webcam, or recalling the MacBooks for fear the district will erase evidence of the cameras' activation.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily

Don't progressives like free speech? ~ By John Stossel

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: January 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington. The New York Times said what happened "strikes at the heart of democracy." The Washington Post quoted an authority who warned it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." No, not the Scott Brown victory. The media were upset because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forbidding corporations and labor unions to spend money on political speech before elections is unconstitutional. A horrendous section of the abomination known as McCain-Feingold campaign-finance "reform" had bitten the dust. It was long overdue. The case grew out of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton that Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, planned to show on cable television during the 2008 presidential primary season. The law said that was illegal. The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He couldn't have been more clear: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." He also said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy – it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people – political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it." And, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers." Of course, the "progressive media" condemned the majority for its judicial activism because the ruling overturned two precedents. I thought progressives favored judicial activism and dumping bad precedents. I also thought they favored free speech. Wrong. (To its credit, the ACLU was on Citizen United's side.) It depends on whose ox is gored. READ FULL STORY >

The spammer in chief ~ By Joseph Farah

From WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: September 10, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Where is the American Civil Liberties Union when you need it? Last week, WND revealed the audacious plot of the White House to harvest personal e-mail addresses from Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites for political purposes. Massive databases of unwitting American citizens are being created right now by the Obama administration for no legitimate government purpose. This is politics being subsidized by taxpayers – pure and simple. It is one of the most egregious abuses of power I have ever witnessed in my lifetime – and, not unlike Bill Clinton's use of the Internal Revenue Service to target political enemies in the 1990s, it is happening with scarcely a whimper of protest from so-called "civil libertarians." If any Internet business harvested e-mails in this manner and used them for its own purposes, it would be characterized for what it is – big-time spamming. Internet businesses are shut down for less. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

Woman accused of contempt for dinner blessing

From WorldNetDaily

Judge finds event was 'voluntary gathering outside of school' Posted: August 27, 2009 ~ 12:15 am Eastern By Alyssa Farah © 2009 WorldNetDaily A Florida school district worker whose husband read a prayer at a private banquet has been cleared of contempt accusations brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The case arose after the Santa Rosa County School District in January agreed to eliminate all religious activity, including prayer, at school-sanctioned events. However, district worker Michelle Winkler was at a private banquet held at a Naval base to honor non-instructional school district employees and her husband read a brief blessing prior to the meal, according to reports of the case. The ACLU alleged that subjected her to contempt charges. Two other district employees also are facing charges for a similar but separate incident. [READ ENTIRE STORY]

Do we deserve this? ~ By Pat Boone

From WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: August 22, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Here's a personal maxim gleaned from long years of experience, observation and active participation in the politics of our beloved country: In voting and political involvement, we get either what we need – or what we deserve. By that, I mean that if we the people stay informed, stay active and involved, and prayerfully exercise our constitutional power to vote like-minded representatives into government, we can have what we need. If, on the other hand, we become lethargic, apathetic, uninformed (even ignorant) about the issues confronting us; if we choose to "leave it to George" to sort out the best candidates and their positions, their leanings and integrity; if we even fail to vote and otherwise be involved in the electoral process – we will most certainly get what we deserve. We won't like it; we'll rail and complain and ask, "How could this happen?" But we'll be stuck with the consequences of our irresponsibility. Right now, we're getting a big, big dose of what we deserve. [READ ENTIRE COLUMN!]

MY NOTE: This is one of Pat Boone's absolute best columns! This is a must read! He's right, we got what we deserve. Well, some of us did... But, I didn't vote for B. Insane Obama. I knew he was a Socialist/Marxist/Communist. I knew about Obama's links to ACORN. I was informed. Just sayin'.... Pat Boone ended this column with the following wisdom:

Just today, I read Proverbs 21:22: "The wise conquer the city of the strong and level the fortress in which they (the strong) trust." From the fortress of the Democrat "strong," we heard a chant we thought was "CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!" Now, as we listen closer, we're recognizing that it's "CHAINS! CHAINS! CHAINS!" If we the people are wise, we'll mobilize and level the fortress – while we can.

The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages

From Common Sense from a Common Man

Since Congress doesn’t want to read the Health Care Bill and Obama, ACORN, Unions, Lawyers, & Special Interest Groups don’t want you to know whats in this monstrosity, I decided to do it myself. I’ve taken all my tweets on the HC bill and put them into one single place for your enjoyment. Additionally here is the link to the full bill – Health Care Bill Update: Folks, I’ve done this analysis and provided the fruit of my efforts here for free. I want all of you who read this to share it with as many people as possible. I’ve now come across sites that have advertising or services that generate income. No biggie, I love capitalism, but some have been using my work as their own. So I’m requiring that if any person or entity uses my work in any form then they must link to my blog and attribute my hard work to me. It’s still free but please give credit where credit is due. Enjoy and remember – the President & Congress are YOUR servants, not the other way around. [CONTINUE READING to see the analysis]

Christians, here come the lions ~ By Pat Boone

By Pat Boone Posted: June 13, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 WARNING: This column is written for, and addressed to, America's Christians only. Well, maybe devout Jews as well, but no one else. People of other faiths, or no particular faith at all, probably won't comprehend the looming danger or see anything to be concerned about. But this is a three alarm, red alert wake-up call for people who are serious about their Judeo-Christian religion. The end of our religious freedom in America could be at hand. Can you believe it? In "the land of the free, the home of the brave," the one country in human history whose original purpose was to create and preserve absolute religious freedom for all? The nation whose foundational documents, its Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and its subsequent Bill of Rights, specifically guaranteed that government would absolutely keep its grubby hands off its citizens' freedom to exercise their faith however, whenever and wherever they choose? I've always been awed by the incredible courage of the early Christians (many of whom were Jews). Human beings just like us, bound up in their cultures as we are in ours, who became willing to sacrifice everything – everything including their very lives – rather than repudiate or abandon their faith in God. They were tortured and persecuted in so many ways, but I think the most terrifying trials came in the Colosseum in Rome when Christian men and women were herded out into the arena, sometimes tied to posts, and left to be torn to pieces and devoured by ravenous lions. I still shudder when I imagine myself one of those fervent believers, just wanting to worship and serve God as I believe He wants me to, being forced to face the unreasoning, snarling beasts that will literally devour me, just because of my professed faith. Another reason I'm thankful to be living here and now instead of there and then. But now that time is seeming less distant! Our new president, his administration, a Congress and much of the judiciary ruled by ultra-liberal, "progressive" and humanistic men and women, egged on and abetted by the ACLU, are actively making plans and devising bills that will force Christians to either obey the new laws, or be fined, jailed – or who knows? Perhaps physically punished, imprisoned, or worse. You think I'm exaggerating? Think again. [Continue reading]

Digg this story

One column, varied responses ~ By Pat Boone

By Pat Boone © 2009 Posted: May 30, 2009 Last week in this space, I wrote "The ACLU, America's Taliban." In that piece, I presented a strong case against the activities and obvious goals of this lawyer group, which ironically is consistently and militantly opposed to virtually every civil liberty of the majority of Americans. It wasn't just a polemic, a knee jerk tantrum; it was a well documented list of the institutions and traditions that the American Civil Liberties Union attacks and an even longer list of aberrant, morally and socially corruptive issues they promote. If it's religious, moral or patriotic, the ACLU will likely bring suit against it; if it's sacrilegious, anti-American or degenerate, the ACLU will actively defend it. I presented the facts, which clearly reveal a well-funded activist group that, like an American Taliban, seems absolutely committed to destroying the foundations that have defined our country. Most of the reader response was very favorable. People have become very aware of the excesses and the near-gangland style of the ACLU, and many agreed with my assessment and warnings. One letter was from David Levin, of the Patriots Heart Network: "Thank goodness you mentioned the ACLU's efforts to support illegal immigration and illegal aliens themselves!" wrote Levin. "Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a felony. It allows for the invasion of our sovereign nation." David went on to quote latest official estimates of nearly 40 million illegals, almost half of them in California and Arizona, fanning out across the nation. The Taliban couldn't have hoped to accomplish an unprecedented invasion of our homeland like that – but the ACLU is all for it and treats aliens as if they are bona fide citizens. And of course, they see Islamic detainees and terrorists the same way, entitled to all legal rights and privileges of American citizens. [Continue reading]

Digg story

The ACLU: America's Taliban ~ By Pat Boone

This elitist, leftist and subversive organization (ACLU) has abandoned any pretense that it is committed to its stated purpose of protecting the civil liberties of Americans. To the contrary, it is openly hell-bent on erasing those liberties and, if possible, reinterpreting the Bill of Rights so as to eliminate the cherished freedoms most of us hold dear. read more | digg story

Christians: The new political lepers ~ By Pat Boone

Feeding off the campaign of intimidation, litigation and disinformation by the ACLU, the militant anti-religion Freedom from Religion Foundation has filed against Shirley Dobson, chairperson of the National Day of Prayer, claiming that the Day of Prayer creates a "hostile environment" for non-believers and that it "violates the First Amendment". read more | digg story