Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[Mudboy Slim]

"Ring DemBells!!"
(To be sung to Bob Dylan's "Ring Them Bells")

Ring Dem bells, you heathens with yer Big Guv'ment schemes...
Ring Dem bells from yer sanctuaries where Vile Lib'rals preach!!
"Re-Impeach!!" Mudboy cried...
"We got Truth on our side...
"And Clinton's Power's fractured...Sweet Justice be thine!!"

Ring Dem bells, good FReepers, let yer OUTRAGE show!!
Ring Dem bells...make yer Righteous stand, so Ashcroft will know!!
Folks, it's Rush Hour now...
Help us FReep 'gainst RATS' Power!!
Lord, the sun is settin' low upon Left's sacred cows!!

Ring Dem bells, Sweet Justice, tell yer Congressman...
Ring Dem bells so the World will know McAuliffe's SCUM!!
Folks, the Networks are asleep...
But their Power's weak...
And the Country's still filled with lost sheep.

Ring Dem bells...fer Left's Blind Ignorance!!
Ring Dem bells for RATS' morally-bereft!
Ring Dem bells for Left's chosen few...
Who would judge the many...
Yet say, "Slick is KEWL!!"
Ring Dem bells for the Chi-Com SPIES...
For the kids that died...
When innocents FRIED!!

Ring Dem bells, brave Patriots, shan't let Tyranny bloom!!
Ring Dem bells for our Sailors whom Slick Willie entombed!!
List of crimes is long...
But Bold FReepers are strong...
And We're Breakin' Down Resistance to Rightin' Wrongs!!!

Mudboy Slim

Folks, it's time we demonstrated the Power of FReepin' to those who would deprive us of Justice and Liberty!! Terry McAuliffe, outspoken proponent of Campaign Finance Reform and Chairman of the DNC, has committed multiple FELONIES to get to his position of prominence in the DemocRATic Party, yet no one seems willing to hold him accountable!! As Bill Clinton's Chief Fundraiser in the '96 Presidential elections, McAuliffe was the mastermind behind the Union/DemocRAT scheme to bilk hard-working blue-collar workers out of Millions of Dollars of Pension Funds so as to provide Bill Clinton with the cash to retain his position of Power, and no INDICTMENT has been forthcoming. Elle Bee tells me there is a 5-year Statute of Limitations--expiring this Fall--on this Crime, and George Bush's Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has not said one word about holding the DNC Chairman accountable for his crimes!! THIS INJUSTICE SHALL NOT STAND!!

A small contingent of Justice-loving FReepers have--for over over twenty months--been promoting a series of threads exposing McAuliffe's long criminal history, but now it's time to take the Truth beyond FreeRepublic!! Please assist our efforts with your emails, phone calls, and snail mails to those who need to expose this lowlife SCUM for all the World to see!!

Thanks for your help in Ringin' the Bells of Justice!!

FReegards...MUD

1 Posted on 08/17/2001 22:59:43 PDT by Mudboy Slim (NOW or NEVER Time, FReepers!!)

[general_re]

The federal government does not have the authority to "regulate" commerce inside the individual States. The fact is that the Federal government actually does regulate commerce within individual States.

Your ticket is a contract, obligating you to be searched before boarding an intrastate flight. You're going to get searched, no matter what, but am I to understand that your objection is solely to who does the searching?

[exodus]

To: exodus
I think you can get in trouble by over-generalizing. I consider myself a libertarian and I'm very suspicious of the Patriot Act and other measures that appear to impinge on our freedoms. However, Bush and the feds are NOT conditioning us to be afraid. They are telling us every chance they get that "Islam is a religion of peace" and to go about our lives, fly in planes, etc.
# 605 by BigBobber
**********************

Our government isn't conditioning us to be afraid of the Moslems, BigBobber. They're conditioning us to accept the end of our freedom.

The Patriot Act doesn't "appear" to impinge on our freedom. The Patriot Act is a direct attack on our freedom.

[general_re]

The complaint has to do with the public disrobing, and the public groping, of this man's wife.

So if the searches are conducted in private, you have no objection? Hell, why didn't you say so in the first place - I can certainly agree with that...

[exodus]

To: exodus
"... I asked a simple question that no one is willing to answer. How do you tell if a "pregnant" women is really pregnant and not a Muslim terrorist? ...
# 605 by BigBobber
**********************

Simple, BigBobber.

Search the pregnant women in private.

There's no reason to give the entire building a lesson in public humiliation.

That is, if it really is a security issue, and not just an attempt to intimidate people into giving up their freedom.

[BigBobber]

I agree no one should ever have to disrobe in public. However, it is much preferred that these searches go on on public for the following reasons:

1) The visibility of the searches acts as a deterent to would-be terrorists.

2) The security people are carrying out their searches in full view of dozens of witnesses. Public scrutiny is the best way to moderate their behavior and keep them in check. Once they take you to a back room all bets are off.

[Tauzero]

The word 'regulate' in the context of the constitution means to make regular, not control.

Furthermore, the security regulations do not regulate the buying and selling of goods or services (i.e. commerce.)

The commerce clause does not give grounds for them.

[exodus]

Once again, you tell me that I only have the rights my government listed in the Constitution. Rights do not come from government, general_re.

To: exodus
That may very well be, but asserting a right that society does not recognize or protect is of no practical value whatsoever. We have a contract enumerating the rights that society recognizes and protects - if you wish to add to that list, there is a procedure for so doing.
# 607 by general_re
**********************

The "contract" does not add to the list of rights, general_re.

You ought to read it sometimes. Particularly, the 9th Amendment -

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You're wrong, general_re. My government has publicly named anyone who is familiar with the Constitution to be a "possible domestic terrorist." I guess you're not one of those.

[Orbiter]

That you answered any of their questions boggles the mind.

[general_re]

The word 'regulate' in the context of the constitution means to make regular, not control.

And what, precisely, does it mean to make interstate commerce "regular"?

[exodus]

Thanks, pupdog.

Great link.

[Tauzero]

"That may very well be, but asserting a right that society does not recognize or protect is of no practical value whatsoever."

That depends on the manner of assertion, and how many people similarly assert.

Large numbers with guns might have practical value.

"We have a contract enumerating the rights that society recognizes and protects - if you wish to add to that list, there is a procedure for so doing."

We also have a contract enumerating the powers of government. If you wish to add to that list, there is a procedure for so doing.

[Tauzero]

See Federalist 42, for example.

[general_re]

Thank you. I am intimately familiar with the Consitution and the laws derived thereof. The Ninth Amendment is a dead letter for eminently practical reasons - namely, there is no practical way to distinguish what is and is not a right under the Ninth Amendment. You assert that the Ninth Amendment frees you from having to be searched before boarding. I suggest that the Ninth Amendment gives me the right to free health care for the rest of my natural life, daily sexual favors from the female citizen of my choice, and a salary for sitting around and watching TV. Unfortunately for both of us, the Ninth Amendment does not speak to which of us is correct in our assertions of our rights - indeed, we both could be right under the rather spare language of the Ninth Amendment...

[general_re]

That depends on the manner of assertion, and how many people similarly assert.

Large numbers with guns might have practical value.

When the masses storm Capitol Hill over searches in the airports, then we'll talk. I see no signs of that happening, however.

We also have a contract enumerating the powers of government. If you wish to add to that list, there is a procedure for so doing.

Not necessary in this case. Both the Commerce Clause and your contract with the airlines provide adequate grounds for consensual searches before boarding a commercial flight.

[TaZ]

Why should an American citizen, female by gender and pregnant be searched at all??

That is the question, and any men left in this country with their balls intact would be asking it about the time some low-life moron at an airport terminal asked his wife to step out of line.

Of course, most sheeple just bend over spread their cheeks willingly, whining, "anything you want sir, anything at"... all...

[exodus]

A search is not "consensual" if it is forced upon you.

To: exodus
No search is being forced upon you. You are free to refuse to be searched at any point during the boarding process.
# 610 by general_re
**********************

If a man points a gun at you, and says "Give me your money or I'll shoot you," you're not forced to give him your money because you could always say "no."

A parent tells a child, "If you don't come into the house, you'll be sorry!" The kid's not forced to come inside, he can always say "no."

I'm not being facetious. It's only a matter of degree from what you're saying.

A man who's livelihood depends on air travel has no choice. He must fly, or give up his job.

If I have a three day vacation in Hawaii, the ONLY way I can go is if I fly to Hawaii. Any other method is impossible.

Force is force, whether a "little" force, or a big one.

[general_re]

Thank you, I am familiar with the Federalist papers. I am interested in your interpretation of the Constitution.

[exodus]

Ditto, my friend.

[general_re]

The fact that you don't care for the choices offered to you does not obligate society to expand the menu to cater to your personal tastes.