In the now bankrupt state of California, it's amazing that anyone is surprised that services are not quite what they used to be.
According to NBC Los Angeles, it will now take "months" to get your new drivers liscense.
Why not take the Libertarian approach? Why do I need a liscense to drive a motor vehicle that I own, on roads that I have through taxation, contributed to the cost of construction, or pay tolls to use?
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Are you kidding me? For what cost of Liberty is your perception of Safety?
Miami/Dade County to begin using Predator Drones for "Law Enforcement" and the ACLU thinks it's just great. Who paid them off?
The American Civil Liberties Union? Apparently not. It seems that the only things that the ACLU raises a stink about are violations of our rights by "conservatives" or anyone who doesn't ascribe to a Liberal social agenda. We have the government spying on US citizens, and the ACLU signs off on it? WTF? Someone ought to waterboard the Miami-Dade Police Director to get their attention.
Make no mistake, these machines have only one function: Surveillance. I don't care what the "county officials" have to say about it. "It gives us a good opportunity to have an eye up there. Not a surveilling eye, not a spying eye. Let's make the distinction. A surveilling eye to help us to do the things we need to do, honestly, to keep people safe," said Miami-Dade Police Director James Loftus.
An eye.......not surveilling, not spying......what the hell does that mean? What else does an aircraft built for surveillence do? Take pictures of bikini clad hotties sunbathing? I think not.
We are under surveillence by our government, plain and simple.
The American Civil Liberties Union? Apparently not. It seems that the only things that the ACLU raises a stink about are violations of our rights by "conservatives" or anyone who doesn't ascribe to a Liberal social agenda. We have the government spying on US citizens, and the ACLU signs off on it? WTF? Someone ought to waterboard the Miami-Dade Police Director to get their attention.
Make no mistake, these machines have only one function: Surveillance. I don't care what the "county officials" have to say about it. "It gives us a good opportunity to have an eye up there. Not a surveilling eye, not a spying eye. Let's make the distinction. A surveilling eye to help us to do the things we need to do, honestly, to keep people safe," said Miami-Dade Police Director James Loftus.
An eye.......not surveilling, not spying......what the hell does that mean? What else does an aircraft built for surveillence do? Take pictures of bikini clad hotties sunbathing? I think not.
We are under surveillence by our government, plain and simple.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Thousands of Dead Birds and Fish. Related to BP Gulf Oil Spill?
Look at the map of the Earth HERE. Give it a minute or two to load and then check out the links associated with the "pins" on the map. Hundreds of thousands of dead birds and fish around the globe in a matter of a few days. Very strange, indeed.
I'm going out on a bit of a conspiracy limb here, but, you will notice that except in the USA, the vast majority of the dead animals are right along the sea shore. Bear with me, it's coming.
There were and still are millions of gallons of oil and dispersants like Corexit (proven to be hazardous and the EPA asked BP to stop applying, which BP ignored), associated with the BP Gulf oil spill, flowing around the globe in the currents of the oceans. Now, back to the USA and the large numbers of dead birds and fish. Notice on the map that the majority to the deaths are in the Eastern Half of the country, either along the coasts that are associated with the Gulf Stream or, inland directly North and East of the Gulf of Mexico.
Where were all of those chemicals again, oh, yeah the Gulf of Mexico. Remember the blizzard of Christmas 2010? Where did all of the moisture come from? Well, in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Western Texas, it was from the Pacific Ocean. As the storm moved East, it took a dip with the Jet Stream and picked up a tremendous amount of water from the warm Gulf of Mexico and deposited all of that moisture in the form of snow and rain all along the Eastern half of the Country.
Is there any validity to my hypothesis? I don't know, but it sure seems coincidental.
I'm going out on a bit of a conspiracy limb here, but, you will notice that except in the USA, the vast majority of the dead animals are right along the sea shore. Bear with me, it's coming.
There were and still are millions of gallons of oil and dispersants like Corexit (proven to be hazardous and the EPA asked BP to stop applying, which BP ignored), associated with the BP Gulf oil spill, flowing around the globe in the currents of the oceans. Now, back to the USA and the large numbers of dead birds and fish. Notice on the map that the majority to the deaths are in the Eastern Half of the country, either along the coasts that are associated with the Gulf Stream or, inland directly North and East of the Gulf of Mexico.
Where were all of those chemicals again, oh, yeah the Gulf of Mexico. Remember the blizzard of Christmas 2010? Where did all of the moisture come from? Well, in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Western Texas, it was from the Pacific Ocean. As the storm moved East, it took a dip with the Jet Stream and picked up a tremendous amount of water from the warm Gulf of Mexico and deposited all of that moisture in the form of snow and rain all along the Eastern half of the Country.
Is there any validity to my hypothesis? I don't know, but it sure seems coincidental.
More Gloom On The Horizon In This "Recovering" Economy
World food prices rose to a record in December on higher sugar, grain and oilseed costs, the United Nations said, exceeding levels reached in 2008 that sparked deadly riots from Haiti to Egypt, according to Bloomberg Today, on that Liberal Lapdog network CNN there was great information about the spike in other commodity prices, like oil and gold.
"Experts are a bit more bullish about oil than gold, with more than a third of the 32 survey respondents predicting $100-a-barrel crude prices by the end of 2011. Nearly half of those surveyed think gold will rise at least 7% to $1,500 an ounce by year end. " CNN says.
What does this mean? Well, when accompanied by the news that World Bank has issued it's first bonds in a currency other than US Dollars, it could be the signal of a coming total collapse of the US Dollar. The World Bank began issuing bonds in Chinese Yuan today in Hong Kong. This is not going to be good for anyone holding Federal Reserve Notes.
"Experts are a bit more bullish about oil than gold, with more than a third of the 32 survey respondents predicting $100-a-barrel crude prices by the end of 2011. Nearly half of those surveyed think gold will rise at least 7% to $1,500 an ounce by year end. " CNN says.
What does this mean? Well, when accompanied by the news that World Bank has issued it's first bonds in a currency other than US Dollars, it could be the signal of a coming total collapse of the US Dollar. The World Bank began issuing bonds in Chinese Yuan today in Hong Kong. This is not going to be good for anyone holding Federal Reserve Notes.
Bludgeon and Skewer, Who Knew?
I have to send out a big thank you to my pal Shane over at the ole Bludgeon and Skewer. It seems, that his followers love my ramblings and musings. Or, they aren't quite right in the head and just read it to be polite.
I only say this, since the B&S is my number one referral!!!!
Thanks, Shane, I really appreciate it.
I only say this, since the B&S is my number one referral!!!!
Thanks, Shane, I really appreciate it.
Constitution under fire again
President Obama has allowed these United Sates to be sucked into a compact, or Treaty, with the rest of the world, in which, he takes full personal responsibility in the face of usurpation of Constitutional authority. He has pushed an agenda and signed off on a policy that amounts to a Treaty, and in full contempt of his authority.
This is an operation that should qualify as an impeachable offense. Will the Senate take it up?
I doubt it.
This is an operation that should qualify as an impeachable offense. Will the Senate take it up?
I doubt it.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Land of The Free? You Have Been Lied To. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: One of the Most Evil Books in Print
I recently obtained the latest edition of West’s Criminal Code and Rules, the book containing the rules you need to know if you are ever accused of a federal criminal offense. The book is updated every year, and each new edition supersedes the prior edition. It gets worse every year.
The West’s edition now runs to more than 1600 pages, with abridgments and supplements. In addition to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the book contains selected federal criminal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. On virtually every page are mechanisms to hurt, humiliate, control and enslave people to the government’s will – all presented within a framework of procedural rules.
In theory, these rules provide an accused with avenues to defend himself. But one can judge a scheme of procedural rules by its fruits, and the codification, growth and expansion of the Federal Rules of Procedure (of which most state procedural codes are virtual copies), have produced the world’s highest incarceration rate – and probably the highest incarceration rate ever registered in any society in human history. Even more significantly, the Federal Criminal Code and its procedural rules and guidelines have almost eliminated criminal trials in many jurisdictions, because most defendants are unable to defend themselves effectively under the rules and simply plead guilty. Such is the lopsided nature of the Federal Rules that they produce untold mountains of printed accusations and claims against individual Americans, while facilitating no more than a few sentences (generally at sentencing hearings) in rebuttal in most cases.
Footnotes are found on virtually every page of the Federal Rules, tracing dates of amendments and the steady progression of punishments over time. In general, Congress has ratcheted up sentences, expanded the limitation periods in statutes of limitations, expanded rewards for those who cooperate with the government, and limited or eliminated avenues for people to challenge government accusations and court judgments. One is hard pressed to find crimes described in the book as misdemeanors, even if they were misdemeanors long ago. Today, most federal crimes are felonies, and conviction brings more or less automatic prison time.
Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers? Up to 5 years in Federal prison. Using the telephone to incite or to "organize, promote," or even encourage a riot? Up to 5 years. Attempting to coerce any federal employee into "any political activity"? Up to 3 years. Removing or affixing a U.S. Customs seal on any merchandise without government permission? Up to 10 years in prison. Transporting "terrorists" on your boat? Up to life in prison. Engaging in "street gang" activity? An additional 10 years may be added to your sentence. Knowingly using a misleading domain name on the Internet in order to attract viewers to online porn? Up to two years in prison. Sending a letter in the mail urging insurrection? Up to 10 years. Trading with known pirates on the high seas? Up to 3 years.
The book seems to provide dozens of separate laws exposing unwary Americans to federal prison for simply filling out paperwork wrong. (Note that these provisions are almost never applied to people in government, who regularly fill out paperwork incorrectly.) There are provisions subjecting Americans to life in prison for cocaine possession. There are open-ended provisions which may (or may not) criminalize pouring a cup of coffee on the ground (and thus violating the Clean Water Act) or accidentally catching certain breeds of fish from the oceans. It remains only for a savvy prosecutor to fill in the blanks and add to the list of crimes that Congress may (or may not) have created.
Few people are aware that the Federal Rules (not just of criminal procedure but of civil procedure, appellate procedure, bankruptcy procedure and Supreme Court procedure) are riddled with provisions that grant more time to the government to file and respond to pleadings and briefs, greater privileges of appearance, and greater ease of prosecuting and defending litigation than individuals in the private sector. The governing advisory committees that produce these rules of procedure have offered no explanation for these filing requirement disparities.
Just a few examples:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) provides that U.S. government parties have 60 days to answer civil complaints, compared with only 20 days for private-sector parties. (This same 60-day/20-day filing disparity applies to the filing of cross-claims, counterclaims and third-party claims as well);
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) provides that litigants have 30 days to file appeals in civil cases, "but if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after such entry";
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) provides that the United States has 30 days to appeal from criminal judgments, compared with only 10 days for criminal defendants.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) provides that petitions for rehearing "may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment" in a civil case unless "the United States or its officer or agency is a party," in which case any party may seek rehearing within 45 days of judgment.
There are also provisions of the Rules that grant the government greater privileges with regard to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of government positions:
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 allows "[t]he United States or its officer or agency, or a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia" to "file an amicus-curiae brief without the consent of the parties or leave of court" while "[a]ny other amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing";
U.S. Supreme Court Rule 37.4 provides that "No motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is necessary if the brief is presented on behalf of the United States by the Solicitor General; on behalf of any agency of the United States . . . ; on behalf of a State, Commonwealth, Territory, or Possession when submitted by its Attorney General; or on behalf of a city, county, town, or similar entity when submitted by its authorized law officer." All other amici are required to seek permission to file such briefs.
When compounded over time and federal jurisdictions since the 1930s (when the feds began codifying rules of court procedure), these differing deadlines for drafting briefs and pleadings have translated into millions of hours of extra time for Justice Department lawyers to research and prepare litigation documents. The disparities have almost certainly contributed to profound inequalities exhibited between Americans of different social, income and political strata in the past several decades.
FILING FEES: $350 FOR NON-GOVERNMENT PARTIES, FREE FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Americans seeking to access the federal courts independently will find that the filing fees are substantial. It now costs $350 to file a petition or a lawsuit in federal court. That is, unless you are a government lawyer, and then there are no filing fees whatsoever. Filing an appeal? Another $450 for parties in the private sector. Again, free for the government. In recent years there have been repeated arguments that certain politically marginalized individuals (incarcerated prisoners, for example) file too many "frivolous" lawsuits. Congress responded by drastically limiting the rights of such people to file suits in federal court. Not so for the greatest single source of truly frivolous cases – the U.S. Justice Department – whose access to the courts remains limitless. This entity alone is responsible for thousands of false accusations against innocent Americans, many of whom have languished in prisons over the decades.
When neoconservatives gripe that federal courts coddle defendants (or would coddle "terrorists"), they are depicting a fictional court system that exists only in their imaginations. In practice, the federal courts overwhelmingly favor the government, and the rules of procedure are loaded with tricks and traps for the poor and the unwary. Anyone who faces the federal government in court knows that these "protections" are elusive, far-fetched, and in some cases illusionary.
Most so-called defense lawyers shiver in fear at the thought of trying to actually "defend" a client from a federal prosecution. Most begin their "defense" by seeking a plea bargain. Here is an interesting article describing the exodus of criminal defense lawyers from the field due to the increasingly lopsided rules of procedure. Criminal defense is not only unrewarding financially; it can be downright dangerous. Many of the most high profile defense lawyers of the past century – including Clarence Darrow, William Kunstler, F. Lee Bailey, Bruce Cutler, Lynne Stewart, Geoffrey Fieger (and doubtless many others) – have been subjected to criminal prosecution themselves after defending clients too zealously.
A recurring trick in federal court occurs when "defense" lawyers convince their clients to plead guilty to what a defendant believes is a minor count of a large indictment, in exchange for the government dropping other counts. After the guilty plea, a sentencing investigation is conducted by the U.S. Probation office (which is theoretically neutral but which in practice works closely with the prosecution). The Probation Office’s "presentence investigation report" invariably recommends a sentence consistent with conviction on all the counts that were "dropped" by the government in the plea deal, and the defendant is then sentenced according to the worst allegations of the prosecution (without any ability to challenge such allegations at a trial). The lawbooks are literally filled with appeals of such sentences. I have read many dozens of these cases. There are probably hundreds. Here is a thoughtful dissent by a federal judge regarding this shameful practice.
What makes the Federal Criminal Code truly despicable is its disguise as a code of fair and equal procedural protections. Indeed, this deception makes West’s Federal Criminal Code and Rules worthy of inclusion among other infamously cruel books of human history. It deserves a place on the shelves next to the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. The Federal Criminal Code documents the advancement of coordinated, systematic scheme of state tyrannical control – with a procedural overlay.
January 4, 2011
Dr. Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D. [send him mail] has recently authored a detailed article on the unfairness of the Federal Rules of Procedure for the American Journal of Trial Advocacy.
The West’s edition now runs to more than 1600 pages, with abridgments and supplements. In addition to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the book contains selected federal criminal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. On virtually every page are mechanisms to hurt, humiliate, control and enslave people to the government’s will – all presented within a framework of procedural rules.
In theory, these rules provide an accused with avenues to defend himself. But one can judge a scheme of procedural rules by its fruits, and the codification, growth and expansion of the Federal Rules of Procedure (of which most state procedural codes are virtual copies), have produced the world’s highest incarceration rate – and probably the highest incarceration rate ever registered in any society in human history. Even more significantly, the Federal Criminal Code and its procedural rules and guidelines have almost eliminated criminal trials in many jurisdictions, because most defendants are unable to defend themselves effectively under the rules and simply plead guilty. Such is the lopsided nature of the Federal Rules that they produce untold mountains of printed accusations and claims against individual Americans, while facilitating no more than a few sentences (generally at sentencing hearings) in rebuttal in most cases.
Footnotes are found on virtually every page of the Federal Rules, tracing dates of amendments and the steady progression of punishments over time. In general, Congress has ratcheted up sentences, expanded the limitation periods in statutes of limitations, expanded rewards for those who cooperate with the government, and limited or eliminated avenues for people to challenge government accusations and court judgments. One is hard pressed to find crimes described in the book as misdemeanors, even if they were misdemeanors long ago. Today, most federal crimes are felonies, and conviction brings more or less automatic prison time.
Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers? Up to 5 years in Federal prison. Using the telephone to incite or to "organize, promote," or even encourage a riot? Up to 5 years. Attempting to coerce any federal employee into "any political activity"? Up to 3 years. Removing or affixing a U.S. Customs seal on any merchandise without government permission? Up to 10 years in prison. Transporting "terrorists" on your boat? Up to life in prison. Engaging in "street gang" activity? An additional 10 years may be added to your sentence. Knowingly using a misleading domain name on the Internet in order to attract viewers to online porn? Up to two years in prison. Sending a letter in the mail urging insurrection? Up to 10 years. Trading with known pirates on the high seas? Up to 3 years.
The book seems to provide dozens of separate laws exposing unwary Americans to federal prison for simply filling out paperwork wrong. (Note that these provisions are almost never applied to people in government, who regularly fill out paperwork incorrectly.) There are provisions subjecting Americans to life in prison for cocaine possession. There are open-ended provisions which may (or may not) criminalize pouring a cup of coffee on the ground (and thus violating the Clean Water Act) or accidentally catching certain breeds of fish from the oceans. It remains only for a savvy prosecutor to fill in the blanks and add to the list of crimes that Congress may (or may not) have created.
Few people are aware that the Federal Rules (not just of criminal procedure but of civil procedure, appellate procedure, bankruptcy procedure and Supreme Court procedure) are riddled with provisions that grant more time to the government to file and respond to pleadings and briefs, greater privileges of appearance, and greater ease of prosecuting and defending litigation than individuals in the private sector. The governing advisory committees that produce these rules of procedure have offered no explanation for these filing requirement disparities.
Just a few examples:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a) provides that U.S. government parties have 60 days to answer civil complaints, compared with only 20 days for private-sector parties. (This same 60-day/20-day filing disparity applies to the filing of cross-claims, counterclaims and third-party claims as well);
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) provides that litigants have 30 days to file appeals in civil cases, "but if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after such entry";
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) provides that the United States has 30 days to appeal from criminal judgments, compared with only 10 days for criminal defendants.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) provides that petitions for rehearing "may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment" in a civil case unless "the United States or its officer or agency is a party," in which case any party may seek rehearing within 45 days of judgment.
There are also provisions of the Rules that grant the government greater privileges with regard to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of government positions:
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 allows "[t]he United States or its officer or agency, or a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia" to "file an amicus-curiae brief without the consent of the parties or leave of court" while "[a]ny other amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing";
U.S. Supreme Court Rule 37.4 provides that "No motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is necessary if the brief is presented on behalf of the United States by the Solicitor General; on behalf of any agency of the United States . . . ; on behalf of a State, Commonwealth, Territory, or Possession when submitted by its Attorney General; or on behalf of a city, county, town, or similar entity when submitted by its authorized law officer." All other amici are required to seek permission to file such briefs.
When compounded over time and federal jurisdictions since the 1930s (when the feds began codifying rules of court procedure), these differing deadlines for drafting briefs and pleadings have translated into millions of hours of extra time for Justice Department lawyers to research and prepare litigation documents. The disparities have almost certainly contributed to profound inequalities exhibited between Americans of different social, income and political strata in the past several decades.
FILING FEES: $350 FOR NON-GOVERNMENT PARTIES, FREE FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Americans seeking to access the federal courts independently will find that the filing fees are substantial. It now costs $350 to file a petition or a lawsuit in federal court. That is, unless you are a government lawyer, and then there are no filing fees whatsoever. Filing an appeal? Another $450 for parties in the private sector. Again, free for the government. In recent years there have been repeated arguments that certain politically marginalized individuals (incarcerated prisoners, for example) file too many "frivolous" lawsuits. Congress responded by drastically limiting the rights of such people to file suits in federal court. Not so for the greatest single source of truly frivolous cases – the U.S. Justice Department – whose access to the courts remains limitless. This entity alone is responsible for thousands of false accusations against innocent Americans, many of whom have languished in prisons over the decades.
When neoconservatives gripe that federal courts coddle defendants (or would coddle "terrorists"), they are depicting a fictional court system that exists only in their imaginations. In practice, the federal courts overwhelmingly favor the government, and the rules of procedure are loaded with tricks and traps for the poor and the unwary. Anyone who faces the federal government in court knows that these "protections" are elusive, far-fetched, and in some cases illusionary.
Most so-called defense lawyers shiver in fear at the thought of trying to actually "defend" a client from a federal prosecution. Most begin their "defense" by seeking a plea bargain. Here is an interesting article describing the exodus of criminal defense lawyers from the field due to the increasingly lopsided rules of procedure. Criminal defense is not only unrewarding financially; it can be downright dangerous. Many of the most high profile defense lawyers of the past century – including Clarence Darrow, William Kunstler, F. Lee Bailey, Bruce Cutler, Lynne Stewart, Geoffrey Fieger (and doubtless many others) – have been subjected to criminal prosecution themselves after defending clients too zealously.
A recurring trick in federal court occurs when "defense" lawyers convince their clients to plead guilty to what a defendant believes is a minor count of a large indictment, in exchange for the government dropping other counts. After the guilty plea, a sentencing investigation is conducted by the U.S. Probation office (which is theoretically neutral but which in practice works closely with the prosecution). The Probation Office’s "presentence investigation report" invariably recommends a sentence consistent with conviction on all the counts that were "dropped" by the government in the plea deal, and the defendant is then sentenced according to the worst allegations of the prosecution (without any ability to challenge such allegations at a trial). The lawbooks are literally filled with appeals of such sentences. I have read many dozens of these cases. There are probably hundreds. Here is a thoughtful dissent by a federal judge regarding this shameful practice.
What makes the Federal Criminal Code truly despicable is its disguise as a code of fair and equal procedural protections. Indeed, this deception makes West’s Federal Criminal Code and Rules worthy of inclusion among other infamously cruel books of human history. It deserves a place on the shelves next to the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. The Federal Criminal Code documents the advancement of coordinated, systematic scheme of state tyrannical control – with a procedural overlay.
January 4, 2011
Dr. Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D. [send him mail] has recently authored a detailed article on the unfairness of the Federal Rules of Procedure for the American Journal of Trial Advocacy.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
TSA Photocopies Traveller's Credit Cards and Other Personal Documents
Perhaps they just wanted to know how to keep tabs on someone who stood up to them? Papers Please!
Saturday, January 1, 2011
A New Year brings new ways for the government to infringe upon our rights.
In a brave stand against the TSA, a Charlottesville, VA man stripped naked at a security checkpoint in Richmond yesterday. On the chest and stomach of 21 year old Aaron Tobey were written these words: " Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures will not be violated".
Mr. Tobey was witnessed at the checkpoint "absent of shirt and pants in full public view, exposing language regarding the 4th amendment, on his chest and abdomen". He was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct, given a citation and released. The article did not mention if he was allowed to continue on his journey via air.
As frustration grows amongst air travelers who are very vocal to the airlines, many airports are considering dropping the TSA in favor of private security firms, a move that many Libertarians, such as myself, consider the right thing to do.
We all must remain diligent and steadfast in our rights and challenge the unconstitutional behavior of the Federal Government every time it occurs or we will find ourselves one generation away from totalitarianism.
Mr. Tobey was witnessed at the checkpoint "absent of shirt and pants in full public view, exposing language regarding the 4th amendment, on his chest and abdomen". He was promptly arrested for disorderly conduct, given a citation and released. The article did not mention if he was allowed to continue on his journey via air.
As frustration grows amongst air travelers who are very vocal to the airlines, many airports are considering dropping the TSA in favor of private security firms, a move that many Libertarians, such as myself, consider the right thing to do.
We all must remain diligent and steadfast in our rights and challenge the unconstitutional behavior of the Federal Government every time it occurs or we will find ourselves one generation away from totalitarianism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)