A Plan To Preserve Liberty ~ Ep. 1433 ~ The Dan Bongino Show

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode in his Show Notes (a.k.a. Newsletter!):

In this episode, I discuss the ongoing war on conservative free speech by the tech tyrants, media totalitarians, and liberals.

I am still praying for John Matze and Dan Bongino, and the employees at Parler.com, and their vendors!  I'm looking forward to getting back there, believe me!  Being that I'm doing the same thing as Dan, while I am keeping my Twitter account, I'm not using it any more to post things.  I already found out that I am unable to follow back people at Twitter.  Why I have lost that ability, is anyone's guess.  So, Parler is the only place I can really post links to this blog.  I don't dare do it on Facebook (Fakebook).  I only use that disgusting platform to keep in contact with family and friends, and most of them are not really interested in my Conservative blog.  The folks that do like this blog site have no problem right now with checking to see if I've posted anything new.  So, right now, returning visitors are the only way that I am getting views of my posts!

In this episode, Dan updates us on Parler's trials and tribulations, and that Parler has filed suit against Amazon Web Services for removing Parler from their servers.  Yes, it's going to be a fight for their lives.  Really.

This fight isn't just for Parler.com, Dan Bongino, and all of us that have been using Parler as our social media platform of choice.  Really, it's going to be a fight for all of us; for our freedom of speech, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Do you know where else people have had their speech restricted if it didn't go along with the government policy?  Where else have they gone after people where the ability to do business is restricted?  Where they get banks to stop doing business with entrepreneurs involved in business activities they don't agree with, like owning a gun store?  Hmm... Does "Operation Choke Point" ring any bells?  Do you remember where that took place?  Most of us would say the Soviet Union or Communist China.  But, how about that... it was here, in the United States:

A little-known program carried out by President Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) whipsawed small business for years, and to date no one has been held accountable. Federal officials pressured banks to close the accounts of businesses solely because they were ideologically opposed to their existence. This runs counter to the very principles of due process and fairness that form the backbone of our nation’s laws.

Did it occur to any of those people out there, that voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, that they surely would use those kinds of tactics to get people to be in line with their totalitarian, tyrannical regime's ideology, or did they just swallow Joe Biden's promises of "unity and peace?"

No, we haven't lost yet.  We will still be fighting on.  If you think it's scary now, wait until the government starts arresting people for saying things that the government doesn't agree with.  But, if you are following along with this show, I'm hoping that you understand what Dan is telling us in very strong terms:  This is just the beginning.  This is how it starts.  Even if it is some Big Tech monopolies that are doing this to us, it's just a matter of time until it is actually the government.  (And we're hoping it isn't a global government any time soon!)  We need to take actions, if we can, that Dan will explain toward the end of this episode.

Because I know that Dan Bongino would prefer that I embed the Rumble.com video here, I am now doing that! It finally came to me how to do it, and I am very pleased, because it doesn't require me to use the JavaScript code to do it! So, when you are watching, you will not be seeing it via youtube.com again. Nope, not here. Ever!  No more screwtube embedded video here! Forevs! So, it's now RUMBLE all the way, Dan.  For Dan's show page on Rumble.com, click here.

Be sure to see the SHOW NOTES for Episode 1433 for related news stories.

Looking for news? The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information.

I’m Daring YouTube To Kick Me Off YouTube For This ~ Ep. 1411 ~ The Dan Bongino Show

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode in his Show Notes (a.k.a. Newsletter!):

In this episode, I dare the tyrants at YouTube to kick me off their platform for covering alleged election fraud. I also cover the stunning lawsuit out of Texas which could upend the 2020 election. Finally, I discuss the pending collapse of this major American city and the obvious reason why.

The takeaways from this episode are huge, but very simple to understand.  Dan charged right out of the chute today, with commentary about youtube.com, or as Dan's listeners know, he calls it "ScrewTube."  Turns out that ScrewTube, just today, announced a policy that said, as reported by CNBC, that "More than a month after the election, YouTube decides to crack down on misinformation on results."  Dan's attitude about that is stunning; daring, and practically begging, that ScrewTube ban him.  As you would assume, that would hurt ScrewTube, and bring many more people to Dan's Rumble.com account.

Yes, Dan definitely gets it.  There is definitely a free speech issue. ScrewTube likes to decide what you can't post, or what you can't watch.  Like the good old Soviet Union, and it has been heading that way for quite awhile.  Yes, I was banned from youtube about a decade ago.  It kind of lead to a problem for my blogs here.  Many of the videos I had embedded were no longer able to be viewed, and many of them were embedded in my blogs.  Ouch.  And, of course, I've posted many of Dan's episodes in this blog page, as embedded videos.  Yep, you guessed it, those embedded videos show as unavailable when somebody is banned, or leaves youtube.  Whether or not Dan and his crew repost all of those episodes from youtube over to Rumble.com, I do not know, but I do know what the enormous effort that it would take, for them, and also for me to edit my posts to use the Rumble videos if they become available for the older episodes.  But, Dan or Paula, if you are reading this post, I will stand with you however it goes with ScrewTube.   

One thing, I know, is that there was nothing that Dan Bongino said today about the election results that could be determined to be misinformation.  None of Dan's episodes since November 4, 2020, could be said to be misinformation about the election results.  In fact, the Fake News media was the actual perpetrator of the misinformation campaign, all for the benefit of the Demonicrat opponents to President Trump.  

Like today, when Dan gave his remarks about the Texas lawsuit against several other states, that has to go to the Supreme Court.  And now, a bunch of other states have joined in that lawsuit with Texas.  What are you going to do, Screwtube, say that the lawsuit must have been filed in another universe?  Hmm, I wonder.  Because, that is a fact, and Dan stated nothing in the way of misinformation about that lawsuit.  In a big way, that is so much more honest information that Dan gave, in contrast to the lying mainstream Fake News media, who has been lying by omission since the election, or since Arizona was called by the once-lovable Fox News.

It would be a great disservice to Dan for me to say any more about this episode, as he has such a wonderful way of explaining things.  He has a definite knack for knowing how to provide information while keeping it interesting, and very humorous at times.  I like that.  And it is a quality that is somewhat rare, at times... Very rare when it is a liberal that is speaking.  Huh!  Explains why so many of my college professors were so boring to listen to!  

Enjoy the episode!  

PS: I'm really glad that I finally got to where I could use the Rumble embedding code for Dan's episodes, and keep ScrewTube off of this page!

Because I know that Dan Bongino would prefer that I embed the Rumble.com video here, I am now doing that! It finally came to me how to do it, and I am very pleased, because it doesn't require me to use the JavaScript code to do it! So, when you are watching, you will not be seeing it via youtube.com again. Nope, not here. Ever!  No more screwtube embedded video here! Forevs! So, it's now RUMBLE all the way, Dan.  For Dan's show page on Rumble.com, click here.

Be sure to see the SHOW NOTES for Episode 1411 for related news stories.

Looking for news? The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information.

Ingraham: What is coronavirus doing to us as a people? ~ Fox News Video

Winning the war against COVID-19 must not kill the patient.

The Left is using the Coronavirus Pandemic Shutdown for their advantage, where ever they have a chance. They were able to close gun stores, and churches, and the right to congregate. You have to wonder, would the press be taking this so well, if they were being shut down for whatever excuse the government could come up with? I mean, really, couldn't their 24/7 hysteria cause panic? Or, will it just be the Conservative pro-Trump bloggers that they go after? The left wing mainstream media wouldn't have any problem with that, I'm sure!

But, with all that being said, Laura is a lot like me right now. When we get back to "normal," we certainly hope that it isn't a "new normal" like Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has been talking about, with a "GREEN new normal," a "transformation of America." Wait, hold it right there. Shutting down the country to save us from the Covid-19 Pandemic isn't supposed to "kill the patient," that being our Constitutional rights.

And, maybe one of the biggest dangers to yet face us is.... Well, the election that is supposed to happen this year. While everyone seems pretty confident that President Trump will be re-elected, it would not surprise us to see a lot of Demonicrat shenanigans going on. Keep your eye on that, folks!

VIDEO: Chilling news story of the FCC News Police

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!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Hands off the 1st Amendment! ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb discusses the reality of people in the federal government actually suggesting regulations on broadcasters that "dictate the content broadcasters are required to air." And of course, he's talking Obama appointees, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and regulatory information czar, Cass Sunstein.

As Henry writes:

In a free society, it is not the job of government to decide what people should hear. In a socialist, communist or other dictatorial society, deciding what people should hear is the first priority of government.

That would seem to be a no-brainer, but what is even more obvious to us that love America and freedom is the last few lines of Henry's column:

It's hard to imagine a more effective way to destroy a free society than to empower government to control the flow of information available to its citizens. The crowd now in power in Washington seems to want this power – badly. They will take it, unless they are stopped. They can be stopped only by making sure that the president who appoints these bureaucrats honors, respects and abides by the Constitution. (emphasis my own)

Hands off the 1st Amendment!

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

December 11, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …," but the progressives on the Federal Communications Commission think their job is to do just that – regulate the speech of individuals and of the press. Speaking to the Columbia School of Journalism, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps spelled out his idea for a "community values test" to be applied to media outlets with every license-renewal application.

This is not a new idea from Copps. In 2007, at a Walter Cronkite Awards dinner, he told journalists that license holders should be required to meet a laundry list of standards the FCC dictates. What happened to the idea that in a free market, consumers set the standards? If the market does not like what the broadcaster is producing, the broadcaster will soon be out of business.

The FCC's only legitimate function is to see that broadcasters comply with laws enacted by Congress. It is certainly not the function of the FCC to dictate the content broadcasters are required to air. Copps is also bent out of shape because there are not as many black and Latino owners of broadcast stations as he thinks there should be. He wants the licensing process to insure that the distribution of ownership opportunities meets his requirements, even if it means taxing successful broadcast stations to provide a subsidy for new minority operators.

Could it be that Copps believes that the FCC is not limited by the First Amendment? Could it be that Copps thinks that requiring broadcast outlets to present content dictated by the FCC is not really "abridging" the freedom of the press? Or, could it be that he just doesn't give a damn what the Constitution says?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Free speech and the nose of the camel ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil's excellent column discusses a case being considered by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving a California law that is meant to prevent minors from purchasing "violent" video games. However, it really is quite a bit deeper than just the discussion on banning violent video games, as the Supreme Court would be deciding on where to draw the line on "Freedom of Expression," which refers to the free speech and free press clauses of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As I read on findlaw.com, there are many different philosophical differences concerning the freedom of expression:

Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underlying philosophical foundations, and hence proper interpretive framework, as has the guarantee of freedom of expression -- the free speech and free press clauses. The argument has been fought out among the commentators. "The outstanding fact about the First Amendment today is that the Supreme Court has never developed any comprehensive theory of what that constitutional guarantee means and how it should be applied in concrete cases." Some of the commentators argue in behalf of a complex of values, none of which by itself is sufficient to support a broad-based protection of freedom of expression. Others would limit the basis of the First Amendment to one only among a constellation of possible values and would therefore limit coverage or degree of protection of the speech and press clauses.

How the Supreme Court decides in this case could have significant impact on future interpretations of the free speech and free press clauses. Here is a case where the court will decide if society can depend on it's own ability to use the free market system to protect civilization from violence, or if we must depend on the government (Federal, state or local) to protect us. To use the free market system to protect ourselves, it will depend on parental supervision and our liberty to decide for ourselves what is moral or immoral, and safe or dangerous. To depend on the government to do that for us is to invite the camel into our tent.

In the video below, a lady is taking on the maker of a video game that she feels offended by. If you listen closely, she is suggesting NOT a government ban on the game, but instead, asking for the company to pull the plug on the product. This is an example of what the free market method of protecting ourselves would be, and where we "vote" with our pocketbook:

Video provided by CommentCrazed

In my humble opinion, the nose of the camel is definitely already in the tent. We already have a large number of things that the government controls "for our own good," or "for the children." You know, things like San Francisco banning "happy meals." That may be a case where the camel stuck his rear end into the tent (and it ain't a pretty smell, and in fact, it just plain stinks). Just sayin'...

I have used before the phrase "the camel's nose in the tent." If you've never really thought about what this means, you should. When a camel pokes his nose into your tent, it's only a matter of time before the rest of him follows.

Upholding the constitutionality of California's vaguely worded video game restrictions would serve only to force the camel of censorship under the tent-flap of society. Such a ruling would clear the path for further infringements on freedom of speech, not the least of which is to empower your government to decide, arbitrarily and capriciously, which expressions of art and entertainment are somehow legitimate. If this issue is to be decided at all, it must be decided by the voters, who collectively could choose to alter the protections of the First Amendment.

Absent so significant an intervention by the citizens it protects, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights should be respected. The courts have no business regulating the creation or sale of art. Video games are art. If they are not, a host of other artistic expressions become fair game for regulation – and millions of American citizens are about to find out just how large and foul-smelling is an entire camel standing in their living rooms.

Free speech and the nose of the camel

By Phil Elmore

Posted: November 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



I remember the day my father brought home our first Atari game system. It wasn't long before we were engaged in furious gunfights, as stick-figure cowboys hurled pixel blocks at each other. I could not know then that two decades later it would be possible to engage in immersive, first-person firefights with real people from around the world.

Games so simple they can now be played online in Web browsers or on the tiny screen of your wireless phone, games with file sizes so comparatively small that a handheld plastic game unit can hold a library of hundreds of "classic" video games, have been supplanted by serious "games" whose complex graphics and high-fidelity sound border on virtual reality. To examine the history and development of video games is to be at once nostalgic and awed, as the now-quaint pastimes of thirtysomethings' childhoods have become the juggernaut of an interactive entertainment industry. That industry is poised to overtake worldwide music sales through 2011, worth nearly 50 billion projected dollars.

Your government can't have that.

As PCWorld reported Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether your government can "protect" you – or "the children," who are so often invoked as a category to histrionics, hand-wringing and the strains of tiny violins – from "violence" in video games. As J.R. Raphael wrote:

According to [the wording of a California law forbidding sales of "violent" video games to minors], a violent video game would be defined as one "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in a manner that's "patently offensive," appeals to a person's "deviant or morbid interests," and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." ...

Even if you accept the "video games are different" argument, opening the door to government-controlled content regulation is asking for trouble. Do we want to make the First Amendment a medium-specific form of protection? … If this law is green-lighted, we'd better brace ourselves for an awful lot of asterisks under America's "free speech" header.

Raphael correctly points out that this isn't about video games at all, but rather the nature of freedom of speech. What is a video game? It is, when it is sold for profit, arguably a form of commercial speech. In and of itself it is also (and primarily) an artistic expression. Regardless of whether you consider it so, the average video game (particularly today) is the product of a tremendous amount of artistic input and merit, from the design of its characters to its music and voice-acting to its often cinematic interactivity, its pacing and its overall presentation. All of this is true before we even begin to consider the hours of effort in coding, debugging, play testing and implementation of the game's software.

Whether that artistic merit and those hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of effort produce a serene, puzzle-solving, picturesque classic (remember "Myst"?), a light-hearted adventure series (the name "Monkey Island" comes to mind), or a visceral and blood-soaked survival-horror game in which players shoot zombies in the head (or become zombies themselves), there is no denying the tremendous industry and art involved in such a production. How is it, then, that we are repeatedly told that blasphemous, offensive and outrageous "art" (a crucifix submerged in urine, the Virgin Mary rendered in dung, dead animals sawed in half, morbidly nude statues of Paris Hilton and other abominations that have figured in news reports over the years) is protected free speech ... and yet far less offensive but "violent" video games must be rebuked, restricted and regulated?

Worryingly, Businessweek's Jesse Holland says the Supreme Court has "expressed sympathy" for the California law. Holland did note, however, that "Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy ... noted that entertainment forms like comic books, movies, rap music and even children's fairy tales can also be violent but are not regulated by the state." Those justices, Holland reports, have said the California law might be too vaguely worded to pass constitutional muster. The key to the justices' debate seems to be whether the law draws "sensible distinctions" among the forms of entertainment it seeks to regulate.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Steve Jobs' flying monkeys ~ By Phil Elmore

Phil writes about the issue of technological changes making it ever easier for people to become "citizen journalists" - the digital "press" - and how it will affect the laws dealing with journalism and freedom of the press.

Dedication to the ideals of liberty requires that we be ever vigilant to new threats to our civil rights as they evolve. This evolution is often the result of technological innovation. As technology continues to empower ever-larger numbers of private citizens, effectively deputizing huge swaths of our society as members of the digital "press," the line between private citizen and officially sanctioned "journalist" will continue to pixelate. How we choose to deal with that as a free people, and whether we buckle to the pressures of stern corporate forces who respect neither freedom of speech nor your property rights in a free market, will determine the path we walk as a technologically interconnected people.

By Phil Elmore

Posted: April 29, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Picture this: You're sitting at your computer, typing about the day's news and events. You own a popular blog; let's say, and you have quite a few subscribers. You're in the process of adding your commentary to the day's news and editorial events when there's a loud knock at your door.

"Police!" a voice shouts. "Search warrant!"

Before you can even rise from your chair, a portable battering ram has hammered your front door aside and left the molding in splinters on your carpet. Balaclava-wearing latter-day ninja in ballistic vests emblazoned with law-enforcement tags are pouring into your home, pointing assault rifles in your face and demanding that you get on the floor, get on the floor. ...

As plastic zip-tie cuffs cut into the flesh of your wrists, you are forced to watch helplessly as black-clad law-enforcement ninja paw through your possessions, emptying your drawers, seizing your computers and laughing as they comb through your personal effects.

While he wasn't home when it happened, Gizmodo's Jason Chen surely knows what it feels like to have his home raided and his property seized. A tech blogger for the popular Gawker Media gadget site, Chen published what has been described as the most significant "tech scoop" in years: Gizmodo got its hands on a lost iPhone prototype. They evidently paid several thousand dollars to get it, then took it apart and published their findings. The information they published is apparently of value to Apple's competitors. The legal issues in the case are significant: If the phone is considered stolen rather than lost, Gizmodo is potentially in trouble for buying it. But if blogger Jason Chen can, in fact, be considered a "journalist," he can enjoy the protection of laws shielding journalists from prosecution for doing their jobs.

Gizmodo did itself no favors by taunting Apple over Apple's written request for the return of its lost (or stolen) property. The tone of the piece is smug and childish. It's not hard to picture some Dark Lord of the Sith at Apple silently, furiously sitting back in his high-backed chair far above the yard where technicians are busily scurrying over the framework of the soon-to-be-completed iDeath-Star, steepling his black-gloved fingers, and using the Dark Side of the Force to throw a switch across the room marked, "Unleash the Hounds and Lawyers."

All of this grief over a wireless phone prototype may seem like much ado about nothing, but this is no ordinary technology company we're talking about. This is the Great and Powerful Apple. Steve Jobs of Apple isn't just the man behind the curtain; the Wizard is also the Wicked Witch, and he'll send his flying monkeys to find you if you displease him. As just one example, if you "jailbreak" your iPhone (a hacker's term for disabling certain Apple restrictions on the device and its applications), Apple will try to deactivate the phone. Most companies don't care what you do with your property once you purchase your smartphone from them – but in Apple's view, you don't buy something from Steve Jobs' company so much as you rent it with their gracious permission.

Apple is so draconian in the enforcement of its security, in fact, that people have killed themselves over it. Last year, an employee of a Chinese electronics manufacturer, Foxconn, lost an iPhone prototype. Foxconn employees, fearful of Apple's wrath and the loss of its business, searched the man's home without legal authorization. They also subjected him to questioning so intense that it was, in fact, more like torture. Finally, when he could take it no more, he leapt to his death from the window of his own apartment.

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!

Oh, Canada! ~ By Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter's experience in Canada was not pleasant. Hey, could we send all our progressives up there? They will all feel at home.

If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech – which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech – is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech.


Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: March 24, 2010 ~ 5:44 pm Eastern

© 2010

Since arriving in Canada, I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my "bucket list").

Posters advertising my speech have been officially banned, while posters denouncing me are plastered all over the University of Ottawa campus. Elected officials have been prohibited from attending my speeches. Also, the local clothing stores are fresh out of brown shirts.

Welcome to Canada!

The provost of the University of Ottawa, average student IQ: 0, wrote to me – widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me – in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

This marks the first time I've ever gotten hate mail for something I might do in the future.

Apparently, Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle, advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

While it was a relief to know that it is still permissible in Canada to promote hatred against unidentifiable groups, upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle (French for "Frank A. Hole").

What other speakers get a warning not to promote hatred? Did Francois A. Houle send a similarly worded letter to Israel-hater Omar Barghouti before he spoke last year at U of Ottawa? ("Ottawa": Indian for "Land of the Bed-Wetters.")

How about Angela Davis, Communist Party member and former Black Panther who spoke at the University of Zero just last month?

Or do only conservatives get letters admonishing them to be civil? Or – my suspicion – is it only conservative women who fuel Francois' rage?

How about sending a letter to all Muslim speakers advising them to please bathe once a week while in Canada? Would that constitute a hate crime?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Dred Scott and corporate personhood ~ By Ellis Washington

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily

The negro has no rights which the white man was bound to respect. – Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

I can summarize in five words the Supreme Court's Jan. 23 landmark decision, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission":

Corporations are persons; money = speech

The First Amendment plainly states, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." However, since the 1907 Tillman Act, American businesses and corporations, the lifeblood of our market-capitalist economy for more than 230 years, have had their political voices injustly restricted through limits on how much money they can contribute to political campaigns. Alex Barker, writing for the Financial Times gave the shameful historical background of the Tillman Act:

The 1907 Tillman Act – named after "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a vile racist senator who made his name rampaging through the South attacking blacks and Republicans with his "Red Shirt" band of paramilitary terrorists – was the first attempt by Congress to clean up politics. Tillman's motive – stopping funding to civil rights politicians – was pretty disgraceful. But the means he sought was supported by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, who were more interested in tackling dirty politics.

The decision in "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" removed unconstitutional restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns. Regarding this case, the demagogue Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said, "This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case." In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been U.S. citizens. READ FULL STORY >

The pain – and penalty – of tolerance ~ By Pat Boone

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: December 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated But with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." ~ Thomas Jefferson (The above remains engraved on his monument)

Tolerance is good. Intolerance is bad. Right? Not always, in either case. Consider. One of the primary definitions of tolerance is "the capacity to endure hardship and suffering." How long should a person put up with a toothache before he sees the dentist? How long should parents indulge a spoiled child in his tantrums? How long should a woman endure those strange pains in her stomach before she consults the right doctor? Is tolerance the answer for a spendthrift "shop-a-holic" wife? For a teenager obviously building a drug habit? For a husband and father addicted to gambling? What about that dad in the news recently who was notified by Verizon that his son had incurred over $20,000 in iPhone charges, and had to take a second mortgage on their home? Americans are, and have always been, a tolerant people. We're all aware that we're an ethnic mix, that most all our forbears emigrated to these shores from other countries, and that this is truly "the land of the free." Our Declaration of Independence underscores the intended, rightful equality of all our citizens, and the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees that Congress shall make no laws restricting the free exercise of our religious beliefs, or of the press, or our freedom of speech. Though prejudices have still plagued our society, time and good will and earnest efforts have gradually dissolved much of the earlier intolerance toward others who believe, or act, or even look different than ourselves. So tolerance – accepting others for who they are, in spite of differences – has been a steady and worthy goal. Intolerance – rejecting and defaming, even persecuting others because of differences – has always seemed unworthy, even contemptible. So it's very troubling to see that, in some very real ways, our country is paying some painful prices for our very tolerance. And in some cases, "tolerance" may stem from apathy or ignorance, or just be an outward sign of non-involvement. Look at television today. Because of the steady, unrelenting pressure from writers, producers, network executives and ad agencies that are competing for the mighty dollars TV can produce, inviolate standards of decency we all lived by have all but vanished. Where even in movies, not long ago, a man and woman were not to be seen in the same bed, the soap operas on daytime TV apparently have been given the green light to portray just about any sexual or aberrant activity humans are capable of. The FCC has all but thrown up its hands and said "we give up; you people do whatever you want. Nobody seems to care." READ FULL STORY >

End of free press? ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: December 19, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Will globalism spell the end of free speech and freedom of the press? I wrote a book a few years ago called "Stop the Presses! The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution." In researching a chapter on the history of the free press, I was surprised to learn just how short and spotty that history is. In fact, it would be accurate to say freedom of press as we know it today was birthed in colonial America and enshrined as a natural "right" for the first time in the Constitution of the United States. That means the very concept is a little over 230 years old – the blink of an eye historically speaking. Further, freedom of the press is still little regarded by most of the world. It might even be more accurate to state that it is viewed as a threat to most authoritarian and totalitarian regimes – perhaps the biggest threat next to private ownership of firearms. With this background in mind, consider the banning of WND's access to and coverage of the U.N.'s Copenhagen climate convention over the last two weeks. So far as I can tell, WND was the only legitimate news agency banned by the U.N. convention – and banned on provably erroneous grounds that were merely a pretext for denying the one press outlet that has been skeptical of the hysterical claims about manmade, catastrophic global warming. This is the same United Nations that provides free and open access to the Nation of Islam and Hamas – even providing free office space to Louis Farrakhan's hate-mongering and fear-mongering racist newspaper, the Final Call. Do you get the picture? Think about this. Take it in. Consider what it portends for your future. READ FULL STORY >

Tweeting For Freedom

From The Left - Watch What They Do, Not What They Say!

By Nicholas Contompasis Sunday, October 11, 2009

"The Right side of the political spectrum doesn't do things like this, normally. They live their lives quietly around the country raising children and working hard to care for their families."

Wow, Twitter, what a simple concept but what a fabulous idea. The symbol for this mobile personal instant messaging system is a unassuming baby blue bird. Don't be fooled by this tiny birds meek demeanor, for when necessary the bird turns into a fierce and ferocious eagle for freedom. Superman and Batman can't hold a candle to this winged messenger for freedom around the world. As the common man fights the forces of tyranny that continually try to enslave him, this little bird is there to send the message of hope. This summer both the people of Iran and Honduras used the freedom loving bird to communicate with the outside world of their plight. Now, we find the people of America resorting to the use of this friendly but firm blue bird. Every day more people around the country are seeking to voice their displeasure with the Obama Administration and the way the economy is going. They are gathering but not at street corners. Their gathering on twitter and communicating their displeasure and seeking answers to the biggest questions they've been forced to answer in a long time. Their numbers are now in the millions and growing every day. The Right side of the political spectrum doesn't do things like this, normally. They live their lives quietly around the country raising children and working hard to care for their families. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Last Week on TheREALjohnny2k - 10/26 through 11/01/09

From johnny2k Is Home

By John Kubicek Monday, November 02, 2009 It was an amazing week! At the end of this blog, you will see the inspirational video that got me going this week. A very good friend of mine referred it to me in an email just a few days ago. It's called 2010, by Lloyd Marcus. But in order to understand the meaning of that outstanding video, you will want to see every one of the videos I posted this week. Think about it. America is STILL a free enough country that we can express our views in blogs, videos, in the news, on the news. We can even still speak to our friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors without the fear of being turned over to the government for .... Oh, wait, they have those pesky "hate crimes" laws now, don't they... For the most part, though, I really don't worry about the attacks on our freedom of speech. Not yet, anyway. But that is what this is all about, isn't it? Could you imagine a time in THIS great FREE country when we would have to worry about everything we say, let alone, think? [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE and SEE THE VIDEOS]

1st Amendment in the Age of Obama ~ By Ellis Washington

From WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: October 24, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ~ John Adams

The opening five words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law," represents the central tenets of what the Bill of Rights stands for: limits on government power to limit or compel religious beliefs, the right to hold political opinions and express them, protections for a free press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to petition the government, through protest or the ballot, for a redress of political grievances. Let's take a look at how the First Amendment is viciously and relentlessly attacked in the Age of Obama:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

George Washington, perhaps the greatest figure of American history, once said, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." John Adams, our second president said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Religion to the framers of the Constitution, not just any religion, but religion out of the Judeo-Christian traditions of intellectual thought, was indispensable to the success of America as well as to the continuing survival of our republic. If Christianity is so important, why did Congress allow the Supreme Court, in the 1947 case of "Everson v. Board of Education," to unilaterally remove funding to parochial schools through the judge-created doctrine "separation of church and state"? Such judicial tyranny as Everson over the past 62 years has denigrated American society and culture more than anything else. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

FCC not only agency seeking media regulation

From WorldNetDaily

Obama chief Sunstein drew up 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine' Posted: October 23, 2009 ~ 11:07 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily The Federal Communications Commission's unanimous support yesterday for a rule that would open the door to government regulation of the Internet has raised the concern of free speech advocates, but there are other members of the Obama administration who support similar measures. The president's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "fairness doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves. Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation. Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and little scrutiny. In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Sunstein: Force broadcasters to air 'diversity' ads

From WorldNetDaily

Obama chief argues media must not have final say in selection of commercials Posted: September 24, 2009 ~ 12:50 am Eastern By Aaron Klein © 2009 WorldNetDaily JERUSALEM – The U.S. government should have the right to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that foster a "diversity" of views, argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. "If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters, a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome," wrote Sunstein in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution." In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein cites hypothetical examples of private groups or individuals attempting to buy advertising time in the broadcast media to promote a certain view only to have their ads rejected by a private media company. "It is fully plausible that the refusal (of the media company), backed up by the law, violates the First Amendment, at least if other outlets are unavailable or far less effective," Sunstein posits in a radical interpretation of the Constitution. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Don’t Give Up, Even Though He’s Heavy (He’s My Big Brother) ~ By John Kubicek

From johnny2k Is Home

By John Kubicek Sunday, August 30, 2009 I keep asking myself, "Is resistance futile?" On one hand, I could say that I'm not worried, there are a few people out there like me that are going all out in order to save this country. With the Grace of God, we'll succeed, and we'll wake up many of the sheeple in America that were formerly oblivious to what is going on. God knows, I've tried my hardest. But, on the other hand, what I see on a daily basis is people in America that are totally oblivious to what is going on. There are many sheeple out in the pasture for the wolves to prey on. I'm tired, and would love to have a good day of sleep, but I feel I must keep on going. I've gotten to the point where I believe that America is hanging on the brink of tyranny. I'm not just believing that, but I'm feeling it right where it counts: In my wallet. That's the dose of reality that could eventually wake some of the sheeple up. But what counts is, could it be too late? There are many people - patriots - that are now laying it all out on the line. Whether it is those that are at the top of Conservative talk radio like Rush, Hannity, or Beck, there are also those of us that would not have nearly as much to lose, but the risk of losimg it all still has the same outcome. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

Obama Wants Control Over the Internet

From Obama Been Lying (Tyrant President - Killer of Freedom)

August 29th, 2009 Here is the 55-page draft of S.773, the bill that would give Obama the power to shut you up: (http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf)

• permits the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a “cybersecurity” emergency

• president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” in regards to “non-governmental” networks and do whatever they feel is necessary.

• include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals”

• requirement that some computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded a cybersecurity professional license

• Section 201: permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.”

• White House will engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. “Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks

• If your company is considered “critical”, you get regulated. Who you can hire, what info you must disclose, and when the government can take control of your computers and network

First off, this goes against the 1st Amendment on many levels. The US Constitution limits government and favors the people. The Obama Administration and the demacrooks in the Senate are trying to change that. This is a gross violation of privacy. [READ COMPLETE STORY]

RELATED STORY: Democrats echo Truman and threaten to nationalize Internet

Glenn Beck's fear of Obama: Seize power overnight

From WorldNetDaily.com

Rush: 'Most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country' Posted: August 26, 2009 ~ 9:30 pm Eastern By Joe Kovacs © 2009 WorldNetDaily Will President Obama "seize power overnight" in a move to consolidate White House control of the U.S. government? That's the fear of Fox News anchor Glenn Beck who discussed the issue at length today with another broadcasting powerhouse, radio's Rush Limbaugh. "I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought," Beck said. His comment came as he was analyzing the changing nature of the media since Obama's election, citing the administration's close ties with the NBC network, owned by corporate giant General Electric:

If you watch what could only be called the administration's organ – anything involved with GE or NBC – you've got [GE CEO] Jeffrey Immelt on the board of the Federal Reserve, you have him in the Oval Office consulting not only on health care, but the financial situation, and they are an organ. If you watch MSNBC, I contend that you will see the future because they are laying the ground for a horrible event ... anything from the right, there's some awful event and I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought.

Limbaugh responded, "I don't think they're going to be able to seize it overnight without anybody knowing about it." [READ ENTIRE STORY]

Thanks to LandofDaFree for posting this video on you tube.

The Silencing of the Sheeple ~ By John Kubicek

By John Kubicek I came up with the idea for this writing when I saw the following segment on Fox & Friends:

We all know that eventually, as we age, we come down with the CRS (Can't Remember Stuff) disease, but I was able to remember when those that protested the War In Iraq complained about being called unpatriotic because they disagreed with the war effort, especially in Iraq. That was back in the days when people still remembered the horrors of 9/11, and of course, anyone that complained about the course of action was just so unpatriotic. They were un-American. They were demonized. And the war protesters made a valid point that it was their right to speak out - even if they were part of the Code Pink minions. But, isn't it weird that those same people, those who claimed their rights to speak up were being taken away, seem to be the same people that are now calling the Town Hall dissenters "mobs," and Tea Party participants "teabaggers?" The same mainstream media that criticized the Bush administration for calling those that dissented against the War on Terror as being unpatriotic, are now calling people that voice their dissent on health care reform (known as ObamaCare), "un-American."[READ COMPLETE COLUMN]