Obama’s signing statement tries to reassure observers that he wouldn’t use the “law” to detain citizens, but that is an illusion; his signing statement is meaningless, and the establishment occupying Washington have pulled a hoax on The People in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to enslave them.

But you can’t legalize tyranny. One of the nation’s most well known legal precedents, Marbury vs. Madison, decided in 1803, makes clear that any “law” that is “repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.”

The blatant unconstitutional powers enacted in the legislature and executive branch is backfiring, however. This crowning act of tyranny is awakening people to the true intentions of Big Government in its takeover. The NDAA is so openly in violation of the American way, that Obama had to play lip-service to it in his signing statement language, even as he gave it the power of law.

Critics in the ACLU– by recognizing that Obama’s endorsement for NDAA will “damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law”– and the Human Rights Watch– in calling the bill’s passage a “historic tragedy for rights”– have abandoned their comfort zones and attacked the president from the left for crossing the Rubicon on rights, as they rightly should. Now is the time for more to join that call; for Americans of all stripes to speak out against so-called “laws” that enable the blatant political targeting of dissidents and declare a war against the citizens of this country.

Make no mistake, if we sit idly by and let this precedent become accepted– like the Patriot Act, with the appearance of law– more and more unconstitutional legislation will obviously take hold.

You and I both know that freedom is not free. Its price cannot be measured in dollars – and its defense requires eternal vigilance.

On December 1, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a vote of 93-7.

A slightly different NDAA, H.R. 1540, had already passed the U.S. House in May, and it has been reconciled with the Senate version in a closed session of a Joint Conference Committee.

The NDAA is passed annually to specify the budget and expenditures for the U.S. Department of Defense, but this year's version would essentially strip American Citizens of due process – protections that used to set us apart from despotic nations.

The Senate version of the NDAA declares the homeland to be part of the battlefield in the "War on Terror."

In simple terms, Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely – without charges or trial – until the War on Terror is declared over.

There has been some recent confusion over what exactly the Senate bill actually stipulates.

In fact, when you call your representative and BOTH of your senators, as I'm about to ask you to do, the staff will probably give you one of two canned responses:

1.) "The Feinstein amendment #1456, which passed on Dec. 1 (by a vote of 99-1), says that no provision of Sec. 1031 can be taken to "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens."

In reality, this was added nearly unanimously at the last minute to appease those of us rightly opposed to these detention provisions. In the Congressional Record that day, there are arguments from Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, both of whom supported this amendment, stating they believe the President and Congress already have the authority to detain American Citizens, since the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled otherwise. This is not the case, but it explains why the bill's main supporters did not oppose the Feinstein amendment.

2.) "It already exempts American Citizens. You should know that Sec. 1032 actually states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Don't fall for their cleverly chosen legislative language.

A careful reading of the suspect sections bears out that, while there is no requirement to detain an American citizen, the act thereof is not explicitly prohibited. By extension, it is actually permitted.

As if the above is not bad enough, the power to determine which American citizens will be indefinitely detained without charges or trial will be left to the President alone.

I'm certain you would agree that something as important as overturning longstanding American jurisprudence deserves to be the subject of a vigorous debate in a public forum.

But, late last week, the House, by an overwhelming majority (406-17), passed a motion that allowed this Joint Committee to meet in secret.

Last night, the House and Senate conferees emerged without having changed the offending detainee provisions of the NDAA.

And the section numbers (formerly 1031 and 1032) have been changed to 1021 and 1022.

A vote on the conference report could come as early as this Wednesday in the House of Representatives!

Controversy over whether or not Americans are exempt from a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act bill, set to be voted on this week by the Senate, which defines the the entirety of the United States as a battleground in the war on terror, has been addressed by Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who warns that the bill does apply to U.S. citizens.

As we previously reported, under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

That provoked concerns that American citizens could be targeted as terrorists and indefinitely detained without trial or charge.

“One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech earlier this month.

Following an ACLU alert on the legislation, some pointed out that the text of the bill actually exempts Americans from being detained under the new “homeland battlefield” designation under the proviso that “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

The controversy over whether or not the text of the bill suggests the legislation applies to U.S. citizens is largely inconsequential given the fact that every piece of anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11 has been used against Americans, both at home and abroad.

The Patriot Act was passed in the name of giving federal authorities the tools to catch terrorists, but it has been used in hundreds of cases against American citizens, often in cases that have no relation whatsoever to terrorism.

Furthermore, as Ron Paul has pointed out, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who has never been charged with any crime, was the victim of extrajudicial killing because of the same unconstitutional legalese that defines the entire globe as a “battlefield,” where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are declared null and void if they are designated as terrorists by the federal government.

Indeed, national intelligence director Dennis Blair openly stated last year that, “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.”

Recall that José Padilla, an American citizen, was held without charge for 3 and a half years as an “enemy combatant” and denied a trial in civilian court, after being accused of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb,” an accusation that was enough to keep Padilla in a military brig for over three years yet was never proven.

As far back as December 2002, the Washington Post reported that a “parallel legal system” had been put in place under the auspices of the war on terror, in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.”

The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.

The difference is that the danger of American citizens being detained without trial as terrorists on frivolous pretexts is an even greater danger now given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.

Article written by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, November 28, 2011

Question: What does it take to get bitter rivals, Google and Facebook – the two most popular and powerful entities on the planet, to put aside their differences and join forces for a common cause?

Answer: Internet censorship in America, or the threat thereof.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past month or so, you’ve no doubt been hearing on TV news, and reading in newspapers and on blogs about a controversial new bill called SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act).

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R.3261, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011 by Representative Lamar Smith [R-TX] and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The aim of the bill is to help U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders fight online transmission of restricted intellectual property. (Source: Wikipedia)

Serious First Amendment Ramifications

New bills that police the Internet get passed all the time, so why all the commotion over this bill? Because this particular bill has serious first amendment ramifications – a potential encroachment of free speech. Even famed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams, a paid advocate for supporters of the bill, admits SOPA would censor protected speech. In a letter sent to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Abrams writes:

“Regardless of the particular standard or definition of foreign infringing sites, court-approved remedies under the Stop Online Piracy Act may result in the blockage or disruption of some protected speech. As discussed above, the bill provides a range of injunctive relief…, with a court making the final determination as to whether and how to craft relief against a website operator or owner or third party intermediaries. When injunctive relief includes blocking domain names, the blockage of non-infringing or protected content may result.” (Source:Techdirt.com )

Goodbye Internet Freedom

Opponents of the bill (including yours truly) think the bill would fundamentally change the Internet as we know it – and not for the better. Let me explain.

The idea behind SOPA came about as a way to try to eliminate piracy on the Internet. According to a recent article on PCWorld.com, online piracy costs the U.S. economy $58 billion in losses every year, including 373,000 jobs. And while I agree online piracy is indeed a serious problem that needs to be addressed, the excessive and invasive measures contained in SOPA are simply the wrong approach. The bill would unduly and randomly grant content owners the power of censorship.

That’s right, if SOPA were passed, content owners would have the power to obtain court injunctions to block access to certain websites that were simply considered “copyright infringement friendly.”

For example, if my website, Free-Marketing-Tips-Blog.com happened to have content that could be interpreted as “piracy-friendly,” my domain name could be blocked so it would be inaccessible by visiting my URL address. What the bill can’t do, however, is block numeric IP addresses. So if I were indeed a pirate, you could still access my website, or any other censored website for that matter, if you had their IP address. And while SOPA might discourage casual pirates, more determined and sophisticated hardcore pirates would likely not be dissuaded – at least not to any significant degree.

Why? Because the business of piracy is much too lucrative to be deterred by such measures. It’s sort of like burglar-proofing your front door… burglars will just come in through the back door.

Effective at Censorship

So essentially, the bill would be ineffective at what it was specifically designed to do – eliminate piracy. But would likely be very effective at censoring any suspected websites – even if the offense is unwitting and something as minor as you or one of your friends posting a copyrighted image to your Facebook page.

Heck, even a seemingly innocuous comment in a blog post could be considered piracy friendly. How preposterous is that?

There is also a concern the bill would stifle critically important technical innovation and job creation by overturning existing laws that were catalysts for the technological boom of the last decade; which could prove damaging to an already fragile and slow recovering economy.

Add to the equation the fact the bill has such vague standards and sweeping language, and you can begin to understand why so many people are up in arms over the bill.

Powerful Opposition

How strong is opposition to SOPA? According to an article on the blog PureVPN.com titled Protest Against SOPA Bill Reaches a Fever Pitch…

“An open letter against the SOPA bill was jointly written by the industry giants including Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, Zynga and AOL. The letter addressed the congressional sponsors of the bill urging them to reconsider the measures and it appeared as a full-page ad in The New York Times on Wednesday.

Apart from this letter a lot of other websites are protesting against this bill in their own way. For example Reddit, Firefox and Tumblr drew broad black lines on their websites to protest against this proposed law. When a user logs in at Tumblr he gets to see that all user-generated content has been blacked out. When users click on the gray lines to investigate, a message appears which tells them about the bill and encourages them to oppose it. Reddit and Mozilla have censored their logos which click through to instructions for contacting representatives.”

Even the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden has spoken out against the bill in a remarkably compelling speech on Internet Freedom.

So What’s Next?

At the time of writing this article, the bill currently sits in the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet. It has yet to be introduced to the floor for a vote. A sham hearing on the bill took place on Wednesday, November 16, 10:00 a.m. in the House Judiciary Committee.

Why was the hearing a sham? Because present at the hearing were parties overwhelmingly supportive of the bill, including Pfizer, MasterCard and MPAA, while Google was the only party present allowed to voice opposition. Talk about a stacked deck.

Will the Bill Pass?

Despite the tendentious hearing, Reuters is reporting that Darrell Issa, the Republican congressional representative for California, has said that there is no way that SOPA will pass.

“There is a very broad coalition from far left to far right who realise this will hurt innovation, something we can’t afford to do. And there are other ways to accomplish what they say is their goal.

“I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor. I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.”

Conclusion

While Darrell Issa’s statement might seem like good news on its face, my position is, I’ll believe it when I actually see the bill die in the House. Remember, we’re dealing with politicians on both sides who are bought and paid for by corporate interests. Don’t take Internet freedom for granted. If you are against the SOPA bill, I urge you to take action by contacting your members of congress and voicing your opposition to SOPA today!

This article courtesy of SiteProNews.com

UPDATE ON SOPA
Matt Cutts Blog – Progress against SOPA
CNet – How SOPA would affect you: FAQ
TechDirt – Microsoft’s Cold Feet Over SOPA Behind BSA’s ‘Rethinking’ Its Views

Under Operation Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.” Some of the weapons were later used to kill US Border Patrol agents like Brian Terry.

An editorial posted at Investors.com this week asks, Was Fast And Furious A Gun-Control Plot?, a reasonable assumption to make given the fact that Obama has openly revealed his administration’s plans to sabotage the second amendment by stealth.

“Rather than a botched attempt to catch criminals, was the ATF program actually an attempt to advance gun-control efforts by an administration that has blamed Mexican violence on easy access to U.S. weapons?” asks the author.

“If “Operation Fast and Furious” was merely a botched attempt at law enforcement, why was a supervisor of the operation, David Voth, “jovial, if not, not giddy but just delighted about” marked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico, as career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent John Dodson told Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee?”

The Obama administration and the ATF claim that the program was part of a sting operation to catch leading Mexican drug runners, and yet it’s admitted that the government stopped tracking the firearms as soon as they reached the border, defeating the entire object of the mission, unless the mission was about pushing through gun control in the US and had nothing to do with the drug war.

That would also explain why ATF agents like James Casa were repeatedly ordered to stand down and not seize the firearms, while the Obama administration failed to even inform Mexican authorities of the program’s existence.

Unbelievably, both Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder maintain that they had no knowledge of the operation until it became public, and no one will admit to authorizing it. ATF Acting Chief Ken Melson is “strongly resisting pressure” to resign over the program, claiming that he is being used as a “fall guy” to take the blame and make the controversy disappear.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsGlobal (Ad)

However, the notion that the Obama administration would deliberately implement a program they knew could later be used to demonize gun rights is hardly conspiratorial given the fact that Obama himself told gun control advocate Sarah Brady earlier this year that his administration was working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment.

During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley.

There also seems to be little motivation on behalf of the US government to catch drug smuggling kingpins in Mexico by way of sting operations involving firearms given the fact that those same kingpins are in many cases working for US intelligence itself.

As we reported years ago, former DEA agent Cele Castillo has blown the whistle on how the US government controls the Los Zetas drug smuggling gang and uses it as the front group for their narco-empire.

With the gang having first been trained at the infamous School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, Castillo affirms that Los Zetas are still working for the US government in protecting drug routes to keep the wheels of Wall Street well-oiled. Castillo has gone on the record to state that the commandos are working directly for the US government drug cartel in carrying out hits on rival drug smugglers who aren’t paying their cut.

In addition, it was recently revealed that Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the “logistical coordinator” for another top Mexican drug-trafficking gang, Sinaloa, the organization responsible for purchasing the CIA torture jet that crashed with four tons on cocaine on board back in 2007, also obtained guns from the U.S. that were later used to kill people in Mexico City. Niebla recently told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago that he has been working for the U.S. government since January 2004.

The Obama administration has repeatedly invoked rhetoric about the flow of guns being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico as a talking point with which to chill gun rights of American citizens, repeating the demonstrably false myth that 90% of weapons confiscated by Mexican authorities originate in the U.S.

Before his election, Obama attracted the fury of gun rights activists when he said that Americans frustrated with the declining economy “cling to guns or religion” as a means of relieving their stress.

Just months into his term in the Oval Office, Obama told Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the U.S. was to blame for much of Mexico’s drug violence because of firearms that were purchased in America.

“I will not pretend that this is Mexico’s responsibility alone. The demand for these drugs in the United States is what’s helping keep these cartels in business,” Obama told Calderon during a press conference. “This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”

Back in April, the administration failed in its bid to push through a law that would have mandated licensed gun dealers in the southwestern states to “file reports with BAFTE on all sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles larger than a .22 caliber”.

Given the Obama administration’s open hostility to the second amendment, with Obama himself promising to launch a sneak attack against the second amendment “under the radar” shortly before the details of Fast and Furious were made public, coupled with the highly suspicious methods employed during the program itself, and added to the US government’s history of controlling Mexican drug lords, there seems little doubt that the entire scope of the mission was to launch a false flag against the second amendment, one that has thankfully failed due to the program being revealed by whistleblowers.

“Anyone, even a member of al-Qaida could purchase a train ticket and board an Amtrak train without so much as a question asked,” Schumer said. “So that’s why I’m calling for the creation of an Amtrak no ride list. That would take the secure flight program and apply it to Amtrak trains.”

Schumer issued his demand after the Pentagon supposedly gleaned information about terrorists attacks from Osama bin Laden’s home in Pakistan. The Department of Homeland Security sent an advisory to law enforcement officials around the country stating al-Qaeda discussed tampering with an unspecified U.S. rail track so that a train would fall off the track at a valley or a bridge.

Protecting the rail system in the United States would be virtually impossible. There is 140,000 miles of freight and passenger track in the country, not counting subway systems and light rail. In addition, there are 3,100 train and transit stations. There were over four billion passenger rail trips last year.

Last year Amtrak police doubled their bomb-sniffing dog teams, randomly screened thousands of bags and periodically sent “surges” of militarized cops into train stations, Amtrak police chief John O’Connor told Newsday.

In October of 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a FOIA to obtain information about the then secret no-fly list compiled by the Transportation Security Administration under the Department of Homeland Security. When the TSA failed to respond to EPIC’s request, EPIC filed suit in December 2002.

In late 2002 it was learned that the government used the list to prevent political activists from flying. In 2006, the TSA and the FBI agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys’ fees for two anti-war activists who sued after they were told by airline agents at San Francisco International Airport that their names appeared on a FBI no-fly list.

In addition to targeting political activists, the lists are used to intimidate the public and acclimate them to the police state.

“What the ‘watch list’ or ‘no-fly list’ is doing is training Americans to submit to warrantless searches, to abandon their constitutional rights, and to submit to humiliation by thugs and bullies,” writes Paul Craig Roberts. “A Gestapo is being trained to have no qualms about searching and intimidating fellow citizens, using any excuse to delay or arrest them. Americans are being taught to use arbitrary power and to submit to arbitrary power.”

In November, DHS boss Janet Napolitano said naked body scanners would eventually find their way into U.S. public transportation.

“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?” said Napolitano, indicating that naked body scanners and invasive pat downs will eventually become a necessity in order for Americans to use mass transit.

The following month, Napolitano said her agency was looking at expanding its presence into hotels and shopping malls. She said the DHS has trained employees in Stasi techniques. “We look at so-called soft targets — the hotels, shopping malls, for example — all of which we have reached out to in the past year and have done a fair amount of training for their own employees,” she said.

Following a tidal wave of hype after the government claimed it killed Osama bin Laden – a claim made without evidence and accepted as fact by the corporate media – numerous law enforcement agencies around the country stepped up a militarized presence at airports, train stations, and mass transit hubs.

2011 is shaping up as the terminal year for American democracy. The Republican Party has degenerated into a party of Brownshirts, and voter frustrations with the worsening economic crisis and military occupations gone awry are likely to bring Republicans to power in 2012. With them would come their doctrines of executive primacy over Congress, the judiciary, law, and the Constitution and America’s rightful hegemony over the world.

If not already obvious, 2010 has made clear that the US government does not care a whit for the opinions of citizens. The TSA is unequivocal that it will reach no accommodation with Americans other than the violations of their persons that it imposes by its unaccountable power. As for public opposition to war, the Associated Press reported on December 16 that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. can’t let public opinion sway its commitment to Afghanistan.” Gates stated bluntly what has been known for some time: the idea is passé that government in a democracy serves the will of the people. If this quaint notion is still found in civics books, it will soon be edited out.

Continue reading Amerika Has Caught Up With 1984
by Paul Craig Roberts

It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat down" that touches people's breasts and genitals in an aggressive manner. You should never have to explain to your children, "Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK."

The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent. This day is needed because many people do not understand what they consent to when choosing to fly.

Here are the details:

Who?
You, your family and friends traveling by air on Wednesday, November 24, 2010. Remember too, as the TSA says, "Everyday is opt-out day." That is, you can opt out any time you fly.

What?
National Opt-Out Day. You have the right to opt-out of the naked body scanner machines (AIT, or Advance Imaging Technology, as the government calls it). All you have to do is say "I opt out" when they tell you to go through one of the machines. You will then be given an "enhanced" pat down. This is a right given to you by the TSA. There is no intent or desire to delay passengers en route to friends and family over Thanksgiving. People also need to remember to stay within the confines of the law and the regulations of TSA when exercising their right to a pat down. Passengers, please note there has been at least one report of long delay for people who take the TSA up on their offer to opt out of the naked body scanners, so please keep that in mind when planning your airport arrival time.

Where?
At an airport near you!

When?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010. We want families to sit around the dinner table, eating turkey, talking about their experience – what constitutes an unreasonable search, how forceful of a pat down will we allow on certain areas of our body, and that of our children, and how much privacy are we will to give up for flying? We hope the experience then propels people to write their Member of Congress and the airlines to demand change.

Why?
The government should not have the ability to virtually strip search anyone it wants without cause. The problem has been compounded in that if you do not want to go through the body scanner, the TSA has made the alternative an "enhanced" pat downs. There are reports from travelers across the country about how the TSA now touches the genitals and private areas of men, women and children in a much more aggressive manner. We do not believe the government has a right to see you naked or aggressively touch you just because you bought an airline ticket. And we would hope that Congress would act to ensure TSA respects the privacy of the flying public.

How?
By saying "I opt out" when told to go through the body imaging machines and submitting to a pat down. Also, be sure to have your pat down by TSA in full public – do not go to the back room when asked. Every citizen must see for themselves how the TSA treats law-abiding citizens.

Be sure to write Congress to let them know how you feel!

To write your Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, please visit: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To write your U.S. Senator, please visit:
http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

If you have experienced a problem with TSA when flying, use the Electronic Privacy Information Center or ACLU's incident report to lodge your complaint:
http://epic.org/bodyscanner/incident_report/
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageNavigator/TSA_Travel_Complaint

Testimonials from travelers here: http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/

When you enter an American airport these days and purchase an airline ticket, you are relinquishing your Constitutional rights and are no longer protected by the Bill of Rights. TSA boss John S. Pistole testified before Congress saying the TSA will enforce the new policies despite complaints that the search methods are too invasive and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The TSA warns that any “would-be commercial airline passenger” who enters an airport checkpoint and refuses to be subjected to “the method of inspection designated by the TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.”

The TSA has warned Americans that they may be arrested and fined $11,000 if they refuse to cooperate with the agency’s invasive and humiliating techniques.

“Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process,” Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, told the Palm Beach Post. The policy includes people who decide not to fly. The TSA will work with local police in order to make sure the person remains on the premises and answers questions. “Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.”

"All of us have a right to travel without such crude invasions of our privacy," the ACLU said in a statement. "You shouldn't have to check your rights when you check your luggage."

Perhaps we should all take the advice of the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, and if you don't want to pass through an airport scanner that allows security agents to see an image of your naked body or to undergo the alternative, a thorough manual search, you may have to find another way to travel this holiday season.

Tell Janet Napolitano and the airlines, "Hell no, I won't go."

Sign the Petition to Boycott Air Travel

It is a wise to thing to always get advice from an expert gun dealer when you are trying to decide what sort of gun you should use for protecting yourself. They could think a pistol is an excellent choice or you might like a revolver better. Once you have handled both sorts of hand guns, then you may be able to make your decision a little easier. You could need protection in the wilderness where there are not that many people or you could need it if you live in a crowded city.

If you have always wanted to try your hand at hunting, then you will surely have to get some guidance from someone that is a gun enthusiast and a hunter as well. Hunting varies from animal to animal and so do the guns that are utilized to hunt them. Rifles are usually used for big game like deer and shotguns are commonly employed for smaller the likes of birds. There are so many unusual rifles and shotguns your head will be spinning before you have learned them all and what they're best for.

After you have the gun that is most suitable for your needs, you need to recognize how to keep it clean and how to tell if there is an issue with any part of it. You can get on line a find gun supply and accessory sites that that} will in all probability have anything you might need when looking at taking great care of your gun. Taking care of your firearm is an important part of owning a gun.

A gun should always be an asset to you and not a liability. The fastest way to make it a liability is to not take your ownership of it seriously. Learn how to make use of it properly and how to prevent yourself or others from being hurt by it. Your gun may be your friend or it might be your enemy if you use it the wrong way and are not as responsible as you ought to be in utilizing it and owning it.

This information was brought to you by Gun Supplies, specializing in the sale of high quality laser grips.