Update: Bonnie Blue Flag Bracelet/wristband

Show your pride and politics!!

I revised the wristband design, and made two versions:
Version One:

Front: Star, Bonnie Blue Flag
Back: States' Rights

Version Two:
Front: Star, Bonnie Blue Flag
Back: Blank

I am not seeking donations to run my blog;  it is my passion.  I did it because I couldn't find a similar product on google, ebay, or any of the online Confederate stores.


If you want one or more, send an email to honourablemeans@gmail.com


I decided to make and provide these for free to you, only asking that you make a donation to a charity dealing with Southern tornado relief, southern heritage, or southern nationalist organization, you commit verbally to meon your honor.  

Suggestions:
Sons of Confederate Veterans
United Daughters of the Confederacy
League of the South

Cheers.



Both versions have this as the front, version two has nothing on back.



New Version One has "States' Rights" on the back, correcting the punctuation



Quote of the Day 5/21

Under every government the [last] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes.  Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.


--attributed to unknown framer of the Constitution

Netanyahu urges US return to 1845 borders

U.S aggression has forced Mexicans into a life of hopelessness, drugs and underemployment.

Netanyahu Urges U.S. Return to 1845 Borders

Israeli PM calls for “just solution” to end the conflict.

Aboard Air Force Aleph (Reuters) – Speaking to reporters accompanying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his long flight to the United States tonight, Netanyahu spoke of the injustice and hardship Mexicans have endured since American forces annexed Texas in 1845. “Tens of thousands of ordinary Mexicans were driven out of their homes – the only homes they had known for centuries – and forced to live in poverty and squalor south of the border imposed by American aggression,” Netanyahu said. “The Israeli and Mexican people agree on this: This festering wound will never heal until America takes bold steps to return to the internationally accepted lines of 1845. Clearly the settlement activity that’s taken place in occupied Mexico since then is illegal. When I meet the President tomorrow I will tell him to halt all building activity in Texas immediately. Two lands for two peoples, yes, but not on land taken by force from Mexico,” the Prime Minister said.

Asked if his hard-line stance could hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship, Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s commitment to America’s security and the unshakeable friendship shared by the two countries, then added, “But who was it who said, part of friendship is being able to tell your friend the truth. The ball is now in Obama’s court.”

From Breitbart's Big Peace

Measuring the success of the Yankee culture war

After Sherman and Grant finished grinding the flower of Southern youth into the mud in 1865, the political disenfranchisement of the heretofore free Southerners began, lasting at least until 1877. However, I would argue a cultural war of North against South, Yankee against normative American, has not ceased in the past 150 years.  


The vilification of Southern culture in the North began before the War Between the States of course, and you can debate when it began in earnest.  Since the end of the war, the hostility between Northerner and Southerner continued, waxing and waning in public, always simmering beneath the surface in private.


Antebellum Southern political culture was closer to Jeffersonian ideals of decentralized government and free market principles than in other areas of the country.  


The memory of the people as sovereign, the state as servant was and is an existential threat to Statism, whether it is the National state of Lincoln, the Progressive State of FDR, LBJ, and BHO, new world order collectivism, or the large totalitarian states.  


The proactive self-reliant individual citizen of a Constitutional republic is the antithesis of the obedient fear controlled citizen of a militarized Empire.


So Statists, particularly of the Progressive stripe, have targeted Southern culture and Southern ideals for vilification and marginalization.  


They have been particularly successful in this Kulturkampf in the last 50 years.  


Take the example of how "official" North Carolina has decided to observe the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States, and how the state observed the 100th anniversary, in 1961.

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, May 19, 5:32 PM

RALEIGH, N.C. — Fifty years ago, North Carolina celebrated the Civil War centennial with a two-day Confederate Festival managed by a state-supported commission. On Friday, the state will mark the 150th anniversary of secession not with a party but with a symposium on how Americans remember the war.

“It will be thoughtful and reflective,” said Mike Hill of the N.C. Office of Archives and History. “We reject celebration. And we believe the 1960s event was more celebratory than commemorative. (emphasis added)

The weekend events include a re-enactment of the secession vote, period music and a drill and dress parade. But the 1961 Confederate Festival included a reception at the Governor’s Mansion; theatrical productions at Memorial Auditorium re-creating war-era plays; a parade with floats; and a ball at Reynolds Coliseum that mimicked debutante balls with 40 Confederate belles.

Fifty years later, the state has provided no extra funds for the sesquicentennial celebration. Instead, the Office of Archives and History is paying for events with existing money.

And Friday’s symposium, titled “Contested Past: Memories and Legacies of Civil War,” is the first of three parts of North Carolina’s anniversary observance.

The state has divided its commemoration into three parts: Memory, which begins Friday at N.C. Museum of History; Freedom, beginning in 2013 to coincide with the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation; and Sacrifice, in 2015, to mark the fall of Fort Fisher, Wilmington and Raleigh and the negotiated surrender signed at Bennett Place in Durham.


Link here.

Southern patriots should celebrate the good in Confederate history, and learn from the bad, but yes, celebrate, not just commemorate the achievements and goals of the volunteer private soldiers in the Confederate  States Army:  They fought for self-determination and freedom from domination of a remote oligarchy, just as their great grandparents did in the Revolution.

I'll place my knapsack on my back, My rifle on my shoulder, I'll march away to the firing line, And kill that Yankee soldier, And kill that Yankee soldier, I'll march away to the firing line, And kill that Yankee soldier. I'll bid farewell to my wife and child Farewell to my aged mother, And go and join in the bloody strife, Till this cruel war is over, Till this cruel war is over, I'll go and join in the bloody strife, Till this cruel war is over. If I am shot on the battlefield, And I should not recover, Oh, who will protect my wife and child, And care for my aged mother? And care for my aged mother, Oh, who will protect my wife and child, And care for my aged mother? And if our Southern cause is lost, And Southern rights denied us, We'll be ground beneath the tyrant's heel, For our demands of justice, For our demands of justice, We'll be ground beneath the tyrant's heel, For our demands of justice. Before the South shall bow her head, Before the tyrants harm us, I'll give my all to the Southern cause, And die in the Southern army, And die in the Southern army, I'll give my all to the Southern cause, And die in the Southern army. If I must die for my home and land, My spirit will not falter, Oh, here's my heart and here's my hand, Upon my country's altar, Upon my country's altar, Oh, here's my heart and here's my hand, Upon my country's altar. Then Heaven be with us in the strife, Be with the Southern soldier, We'll drive the mercenary horde, Beyond our Southern border, Beyond our Southern border, We'll drive the mercenary horde, Beyond our Southern border.

The 16th North Carolina Regiment of Infantry--Secession til Appomattox!

My great great great grandfather joined the 16th North Carolina on May 7th, 1861, and was paroled on April 9th, 1865 at Appomattox.

Up the boys from Buncombe!

Never forget

Quotes of the Day 5/20

It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate. 

 -- Thomas Jefferson

If the wind will not serve, take to the oars. 
-- Latin Proverb

Why supporters of Israel should support Ron Paul

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none."--Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural, 1801

Supporters of Israel (I am a strong supporter, and have been there many times) have voiced anxiety over Ron Paul's stance on Israel.  He has been variously smeared by the statist right, left, and their mainstream media shills as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel.  This is not the case.  His attitude is consistent on every subject, as he is anti big government, anti foreign aid to all nations, anti militarist.  This is easily verifiable to anyone willing to spend the time reading Dr. Paul's articles and interviews. 

I am a big supporter of Ron and Rand Paul, and will financially support their current and future campaigns.

This is taken from a 2007 op-ed piece from israelnationalnews.com, probably the only right-wing news service in Israel, before the 2008 presidential campaign, now relevant again for 2012.

15 November 2007

by Shmuel Ben-Gad

"He opposes US foreign aid to Israel.

Since the Six Day War, US presidents and presidential candidates have tended to speak of the US and Israel as great friends and allies. They have also tended to favor the shrinking of Israel's borders. This has reached a low point under the Bush administration, which is the first one to explicitly make its policy the establishment of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Thus, the US alliance with Israel has been a decidedly mixed blessing.

Israel receives military and financial assistance, and also some diplomatic support at the United Nations, but the US puts pressure on Israel to surrender parts of the homeland. Even worse, this relationship seems to foster a mentality of dependence amongst many Israelis who, it seems, cannot imagine Israel defying the United States in any major way.

In the upcoming presidential election, however, there is a chance to change this dramatically, by electing Congressman Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. Paul favors a non-interventionist foreign policy. He has written:

"Yet, while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.... It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe.... 'Peace plans' imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.... The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses."

In this, Dr. Paul is hearkening back to what George Washington counseled in his famous farewell address: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

 

read the rest here. 

Nationalism is not the same as patriotism

Let the Kennedy brothers teach you.  Link here.

Hat tip to Tom DiLorenzo writing on lewrockwell.com.

Nationalism celebrates force; it frolics in force; international status is nurtured and grows with force. Force expands the nation’s control over its own people every

time it is successfully applied to an enemy; therefore pure nationalists seek enemies to

destroy. Nationalism looks beyond the nation’s borders for opportunities to expand the

nation’s influence—be it economic, ideological, commercial and/or military influence or,

when the opportunity allows, not just influence but absolute control. Notice that this new

“nation of force” will ultimately look and act more like an empire than a simple nation.

Nationalists

Patriotism, on the other hand, is local; it looks inward to a community with local

traditions. Patriots see the nation as a means to protect local communities that compose

the nation. Patriots are members of local communities and their primary desire is

simply to be “let alone.” Patriots view people residing outside of the nation’s borders as

possible trading partners in which they can engage in voluntary exchange—an

exchange in which both sides gain. Patriots rally to the flag to defend the nation

because the nation is necessary to preserve and defend local communities.

Patriot

Get to know your neighbors.  Befriend a cop.  It can only help.

400 years of rights dating to 1603 destroyed by Supreme Court

(400 years = Semayne's Case "Every man's house is his castle" Kings Bench 1603)


Mike Church, speaking from NOLA, on the 8-1 Supreme Court decision allowing police to enter your home without a warrant "if they believe evidence is being destroyed".  


Since the police will construe whatever they want to justify what they do, and thanks to the post 1865 14th amendment that applies federal law to all states, police may now enter your home without a warrant with IMPUNITY.


What is your definition of TYRANNY?

Huge potential threat by fed.gov, in new bill

Via Washingtonsblog, verbatim:

Congress Proposes Bill to Allow Worldwide War ... Including INSIDE the U.S.

Americans who have been paying attention are outraged that Bush lied us into Iraq by making up false claims about weapons of mass destruction and pretending that Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.

Many are disgusted that Obama got us into a war in Libya without Congressional authorization.

But as the ACLU noted yesterday, Congress is going even further ... proposing handing permanent, world-wide war-making powers to the president - including the ability to make war within the United States:

A hugely important provision for Congress to authorize a new worldwide war has been tucked away inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill was marked up by members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) last Wednesday that poured into Thursday morning (2:45 a.m. to be exact).
A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.
Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists.
***
While a new authorization for worldwide war has had its first public debate, it unfortunately only lasted a hair over 10 minutes and occurred after midnight.
Though it is a very troubling expansion of war authority, it has been lingering for more than three years as a “sleeper provision,” and it is finally getting the attention of some members of Congress. We hope that further debate in Congress in the weeks ahead will allow for a more in-depth examination of unchecked authority to wage worldwide war, and what the outcomes of such a provision will yield.

As I noted in 2008:

An article in the Army Times reveals that the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team will be redeployed from Iraq to domestic operations within the United States.
The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with "civil unrest" and "crowd control".
The soldiers are learning to use so-called "nonlethal weapons" designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.
This violates posse comitatus and the Constitution. But, hey, we're in a "national emergency", so who cares, right?

(We're still in a declared state of national emergency).

I noted a couple of months later:

Everyone knows that deploying 20,000 troops on U.S. soil violates Posse Comitatus and the Constitution.
And everyone understands that staging troops within the U.S. to "help out with civil unrest and crowd control" increases the danger of overt martial law.
But no one is asking an obvious question: Does the government's own excuse for deploying the troops make any sense?

Other Encroachments On Civil Rights Under Obama

As bad as Bush was, the truth is that, in many ways, freedom and constitutional rights are under attack even more than during the Bush years.

For example:

Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon.

As Marjorie Cohen - professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild - writes at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy:

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is facing court-martial for leaking military reports and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, is being held in solitary confinement in Quantico brig in Virginia. Each night, he is forced to strip naked and sleep in a gown made of coarse material. He has been made to stand naked in the morning as other inmates walked by and looked. As journalist Lance Tapley documents in his chapter on torture in the supermax prisons in The United States and Torture, solitary confinement can lead to hallucinations and suicide; it is considered to be torture. Manning's forced nudity amounts to humiliating and degrading treatment, in violation of U.S. and international law.
Nevertheless, President Barack Obama defended Manning's treatment, saying, "I've actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures . . . are appropriate. They assured me they are." Obama's deference is reminiscent of President George W. Bush, who asked "the most senior legal officers in the U.S. government" to review the interrogation techniques. "They assured me they did not constitute torture," Bush said.
***
After State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley criticized Manning's conditions of confinement, the White House forced him to resign. Crowley had said the restrictions were "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid." It appears that Washington is more intent on sending a message to would-be whistleblowers than on upholding the laws that prohibit torture and abuse.
***
Torture is commonplace in countries strongly allied with the United States. Vice President Omar Suleiman, Egypt's intelligence chief, was the lynchpin for Egyptian torture when the CIA sent prisoners to Egypt in its extraordinary rendition program. A former CIA agent observed, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt." In her chapter in The United States and Torture, New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer cites Egypt as the most common destination for suspects rendered by the United States.

As I pointed out in March:

Former constitutional law teacher Glenn Greenwald says that - in his defense of state secrecy, illegal spying, preventative detention, harassment of whistleblowers and other issues of civil liberties - Obama is even worse than Bush.Indeed, Obama has authorized "targeted assassinations" against U.S. citizens. Even Bush didn't openly do something so abhorrent to the rule of law.
Obama is trying to expand spying well beyond the Bush administration's programs. Indeed, the Obama administration is arguing that citizens should never be able to sue the government for illegal spying.
Obama's indefinite detention policy is an Orwellian nightmare, which will create more terrorists.

Furthermore - as hard as it is for Democrats to believe - the disinformation and propaganda campaigns launched by Bush have only increased under Obama. See this and this.

And as I pointed out last year:

According to Department of Defense training manuals, protest is considered "low-level terrorism". And see this, this and this.
An FBI memo also labels peace protesters as "terrorists".
***
A 2003 FBI memo describes protesters' use of videotaping as an "intimidation" technique, even though - as the ACLU points out - "Most mainstream demonstrators often use videotape during protests to document law enforcement activity and, more importantly, deter police from acting outside the law." The FBI appears to be objecting to the use of cameras to document unlawful behavior by law enforcement itself.
The Internet has been labeled as a breeding ground for terrorists, with anyone who questions the government's versions of history being especially equated with terrorists.
Government agencies such as FEMA are allegedly teaching that the Founding Fathers should be considered terrorists.
The government is also using anti-terrorism laws to keep people from learning what pollutants are in their own community. See this, this, this and this.
Claims of "national security" are also used to keep basic financial information - such as who got bailout money - secret. That might not bode for particularly warm and friendly treatment for someone persistently demanding the release of such information.
The state of Missouri tried to label as terrorists current Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters, former Congressman Bob Barr, libertarians in general, anyone who holds gold, and a host of other people.
And according to a law school professor and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act:

Anyone who ... speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

Obama has refused to reverse these practices.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, isn't that special?



It seems we have a king, not a president, wouldn't you say?

How to avoid anxiety when going through TSA line

Via LewRockwell.com:  All we need is Soma, the drug that kept the masses contented and in order in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Please Pass the Soma

Posted by Christopher Manion on May 17, 2011 10:35 AM

LA Times Travel Editor Catharine Hamm recently advised flustered travelers how to keep their cool when dealing with the TSA at airports. “So I asked an expert,” she writes, “what steps travelers should take to stay calm and keep their IDs and wits about them.” Here’s what the “expert” told her:

Micah R. Sadigh, a psychology professor at Cedar Crest College in Allentown, Pa., notes we might become flustered when we “feel that our rights are infringed upon and … [by] the fact that we feel pushed around by forces over which we have little or no control.”

The antidote, he says, is daydreaming. “It reduces tension and helps us sublimate our frustrations into something very helpful.”

Professor Sadigh’s students will no doubt inherit the earth. Meanwhile, back at the airport,  the Flight from Reality is now taking off. Good advice for the Gulag, too — just watch what you daydream about, Comrade.

Quoting the Arctic Patriot, verbatim: An Unassailable Force

AP, You've captured my feelings, exactly.Our rights, not privileges, they cannot be taken without our consent.  Dearest Fed.gov:  Don't push us.
5.16.2011

An Unassailable Force

I have this to say to our National Government (and Indiana's .gov), over their recent eviscerations of the Fourth Amendment.

TSA as well.

Keep pushing.

You strip your citizens of dignity when traveling, and you would take away the sanctity of our homes.

What is left?

Let me be crystal clear:

You do not have my permission to violate my family's dignity, nor do you have permission to enter my home.  At any time, for any reason.

Leave me alone.

You enforce your rules, .gov, and I'll enforce mine.  That's what it all comes down to in the end.  Determine whatever you want.  Rule whatever you wish.  Whether the decision in the SCOTUS is 9-0, 5-4, or 8-1, or the polls are 51% to 49%, 80% to 20%, or 99% to 1%, no one has the right to vote, legislate, or rule me into slavery.

I decide that. 

I can choose to give away my liberties, dignity, and privacy, but no one can take them from me.

Your badges, elected offices, and titles, as currently being used to enforce tyranny, mean nothing to me. 

Nothing.

To be respected, a person and/or a law must first be respectable (rough Bastiat paraphrase).  Recent rulings and actions by our government are anything but respectable, and in many cases, blatantly illegal.

You're quickly making physical resistance the 

only 

honorable 

option.

Keep pushing.

A man with nothing to lose is truly free, and, as Colin Ryan put it, an unassailable force.

Resist.

Texas nullifies TSA. TSA responds with propaganda; the people call TSA's bluff (very well!!)

First, the TSA blog issues this propaganda piece, citing the Supremacy clause as their right to impose porno-scanners and grope-a-thons (...oh-ho, now you gone and done it): 

5.14.2011

Texas House of Representatives Seeking to Ban Current TSA Pat-Down

What's our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government. 

We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn't the case unfortunately.  Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes that could cause catastrophic damage.  It's important to note that if a passenger (or bag) alarms during screening, our officers must resolve the alarm before allowing the passenger and their baggage on the airplane.

Here are some pat-down myths and facts:

Myth: Everyone who travels will receive a pat-down.

Fact: In fact, less than 3% of passengers receive pat-downs. Only passengers who alarm a walk through metal detector or AIT machine or opt out of the AIT receive a pat-down. In addition, some passengers may also receive a pat-down as part of our random, unpredictable security measures.  In his testimony to a Senate subcommittee, Administrator Pistole said: "The bottom line is few people in the overall scheme of things will actually receive those pat downs. Now, we've heard some examples, and obviously, there's a vocal group out there who have experienced this for the first time, and, rightfully so, raising concerns, what's behind this. And the bottom line is we, the transportation security officers in particular, are trying to work in partnership with the traveling public to say we want to ensure that you are safe on this flight. Work with us in a partnership to provide the best possible security. And that's what it comes down to."

Myth: All children will receive pat-downs.

Fact: No. TSA officers are trained to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family, while providing the best possible security for all travelers. Children 12 years old and under who require extra screening will receive a modified pat down. 

Myth: Complaints about the pat-downs are extremely high.

Fact: Only a small percentage of the traveling public receives a pat down as they travel through the security checkpoint.  Between November 2010 and March 2011, TSA screened nearly 252 million people. In that same time period, we received 898 complaints from individuals who have experienced or witnessed a pat down. That's roughly 0.0004%.

Myth: Pat downs for certain individuals are limited to the head and neck.

Fact: No one is exempt. Everyone is subject to the same screening. TSA is sensitive to religious and cultural needs, but everyone must be screened effectively.

...I got a question for the TSA's blogger Bob:  On an x-ray, is a baby's poop the same density as C-4?  Is a breast implant the same density as C-4?

Would you trust your anus to this man?

"Ma'am, I'm gonna have to ask you to remove your baby's diaper...Can't be too careful, can we?"

And just look how the American people respond in the TSA blog's comments section (I am proud of them) ...here is a sample of the comments below the article:

 Anonymous Said...

Feel free to raise your number of complaints to 899.

May 14, 2011 12:11 PM

 Anonymous Said...

If you're gonna plead the Supremacy Clause, then you have to abide by the enumerated powers. And you're not gonna wanna go there, cuz that would mean no federal role in aviation at all.

May 14, 2011 12:12 PM

 CJ Grisham Said...

Nice take on states rights. Texas isn't trying to regulate the federal government , it's doing what all need to do which is keep te federal government from infringing on Constitutional rights and putting them back where they belong. The FACT is that TSA putdowns are a violation of our 4th amendment rights and criminal in their execution. I'm proud of my state for challenging the federal grab of the TSA. Most of you should be on a federal sexual predator list.

I'm also ashamed that my federal government would use the "everyone else was doing it first" argument as an excuse to violate our rights. Tell me, how many of those other countries have a constitution like ours?! NONE!! It's a petty, childish, and illogical argument.

About your "facts": 3% of Americans are having their 4th amendment rights violated for searches that have yielded NOTHING! Not a single thing. One child is too many if they don't set off a detector. Keep your hands off our future! Only a small percentage of us are sheepdogs, willing and able to stand up to the TSA and actually complain. The rest are Sherpa and have no problem with the Feds overstepping their constitutional limits.

See, I'm not even afraid to use my real name. You people don't scare us sheepdogs. We know who you work for. The American people. Not the other way around. TSA employees should be ashamed of violating our rights willfully!

May 14, 2011 12:22 PM

 Anonymous Said...

The government has no role in the airlines operation...anymore than the .gov has any right to screen someone that is entering the mall. .gov has no Constitutional right to search anyone without a warrant. These are unreasonable searches and seizures and thank God for Texas. The TSA has never caught or stopped a ter'rist with these screenings.

May 14, 2011 12:34 PM

 Anonymous Said...

I was wondering how long it would take for a response.

And, you still continue with the lies. For example you state complaints are low regarding the pat-downs. This is because of the threatening response always used by the TSA agent when encountering an irritated passenger "DO YOU WANT TO FLY TODAY". And you call this working with the public, sheesh.

It is no wonder the TSA has the distinction of being the most hated and despised agency in the United States with the IRS now in second.

Great work ladies and gentlemen.

May 14, 2011 12:44 PM

 Anonymous Said...

Your propoganda is misleading... Just because people do not file complaints, it does not mean they are not there. I know a large number of people who refuse to fly at all because of your "screenings".
When we live life based on fear mongering, the terrorists have accomplished their goals.

On another more important note, the U.S. was founded on checks and balances. Where is the TSA's check or balance? All I see is an unchecked agency doing as it pleases (while giving large amounts of taxpayer money to corporations to which some TSA officials are tied).

Is this justice for the American people? Is subjecting a terrorized people to screenings and humiliating pat downs appropriate? When will the TSA be reigned in?

May 14, 2011 12:48 PM

 Anonymous Said...

Sadly to everyone saying the government has no role in regulating aviation your arguments will be struck down thans to the (IMESHO) over broad powers the courts have granted the Federal government under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

And sadly I can see the courts siding with the Feds under that clause in this instance too. However it might be nice to have a TSO or two arrested to sort this out. That might have a chilling effect on the pat downs....

May 14, 2011 12:54 PM

 Anonymous Said...

This is a country by the people for the people of the people. WE THE PEOPLE get to say when enough is enough. Neither the TSA, DHS, or the White house get to say they don't care if the public doesn't like the security procedures we are doing them anyway. If we the people say you have gone to far it is time to stop then you must stop. We WILL stop you from alienating our rights one way or another.

May 14, 2011 12:54 PM

---------------------------------------------


There's a lot more comments following, just gave you a sample.


In the opinion of those of us who hold by the compact theory of the origin of the United States' Constitution, the Supremacy Clause only applies when: 


a) The Federal government passes a law within the Enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8
b) The law passed is deemed constitutional by the member State in question.


When the Fedgov is the final arbiter of it's own limits, just what do you suppose those limits are going to be?


If a State determines that a particular Federal law is unconstitutional, the State legislature is not only permitted, but morally and ethically obligated to (interpose the power of State law between the Federal government's enforcement of the unconstitutional law and that State's people) nullify that law. 


The current Texas example in question is a perfect illustration of what nullification (The Principles of 98) is supposed to be for.


My solution: give the individual airlines the responsibility for security.  They will have an incentive to be less expensive and more efficient.  


If an airline fails in providing their passengers tight security, their business will drop precipitously, maybe catastrophically (no pun intended). 


Passengers can then choose which airline to fly.  The individual carriers would have to publicize their approach to security and to which procedures its passengers are consenting when they purchase a ticket with that company. 


Some airlines may choose to market lower fares with lesser security, and others may market to the opposite thinking consumer, and let the buyer beware.


Thanks to the Drudge report for both main links that inspired this post.