Monday, November 15, 2010

Abolish the TSA Part 2: The Government in the Pornography Business

As I mentioned in my previous post, the government has began molesting innocent American citizens, but that's not all. They are also in the business of forcefully taking pornographic images of American citizens and saving them.  These images come from the Body Scanners that the TSA is using. The Body scanners are used to take a picture the looks beneath the clothes of a person to see if they are carrying any weapons.  The picture is automatically saved to a computer instead of deletes so employees of the TSA can look it up at anytime. The TSA claims that there is nothing wrong with the body scanners and I want to look at each claim they make.

1. The Body Scanner images do not show details of the genitalia: That is absolutely wrong. The images show every detail of the victim's body including their genitals. Not only does the image that comes out show the details, the color can be inverted to show the way the person exactly. An inverted photo can be seen here. And as you can see, every detail is viewable on that woman's body proving that the TSA has lied. It is obvious that these photos, since they are saved, can be used as pornography without the consent of the victim in the photo. In fact, we can already see it happening. It has happened in Lagos. It is obvious that since these images show the details of a body, any image taken of a child is child pornography and in violation of the Protection of Children Act of 1978. Every official in the TSA that has agreed to put these in airports should be arrested.

2. They give you a choice to opt of being scanned: The choice isn't really a choice at all. Either you have a picture of your naked body taken against your will or you opt out and get molested by a TSA. Both "choices" are intrusive and illegal violation of the fundamental rights of an American Citizen.

3. The Body Scanners are effective in finding bombs that terrorists hide: That is wrong. It may find some, but not all. Rafi Sela, leading Israeli airport security expert, said, "“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747. That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport.” He brought enough explosives through a body scanner to bring down a 747 and yet the TSA claims these are effective? Bull.

4. The Images aren't saved: Yeah. Obviously.

Airport security is no longer about protecting people. It is about creating a system that takes away the rights of the people. The more government you have the more opression you will always have. Government wants one thing: Power and they are willing to eradicate anyone's rights in order to get that power.

Abolish the TSA Part 1: The Government Molesting American Citizens

I am pissed. And I keep getting more and more pissed the more I hear about the TSA and their invasive methods of "keeping America safe." The TSA, in my opinion, should change its name to reflect what they truly are: The U.S. Department of Pedophilia, Pornography and Molestation. The name says it all. American Citizens innocent of any wrong doing are being molested by the TSA and have images of their naked body taken and saved to computers.

I want to look at a couple of different stories that I have come across lately that have mad my blood boil. I have never been as angry at anything as I am about these two stories. These are the kinds of issues  that our government needs to look at and fix.

Three Year Old Groped by TSA Agent

This incident took place at an Airport where a CW 90 News anchor was taking his wife and three year old daughter on an air plane. Since the three year old set off the alarm twice, she was searched by a TSA agent. It was all caught on video. You can see the agent groping the three year old in places that should never have been touched. The video was shot by her father, the news anchor, and he was the one who actually reported on the incident.

Popular Blogger Sexually Assaulted by the TSA

A popular blogger for the blog "Our Little Chatterboxes", Erin, recently had a run in with the TSA while traveling with her infant.  I could explain the incident, but I think quoting her would be the best.  After her baby formula was taken away to be tested, a TSA agent told her that she was going to be patted down. Erin writes:

"She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.

She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.

She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.

She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia
I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.

Here is why I was sexually assaulted. She never told me the new body search policy. She never told me that she was going to touch my private parts. She never told me when or where she was going to touch me. She did not inform me that a private screening was available. She did not inform me of my rights that were a part of these new enhanced patdown procedures."

What is America coming to when the rights of our own citizens are being discarded in the name of "safety?" Is what little protection (if any at all) worth the government taking away our humanity? One of my favorite quotes by the founding fathers is one by Ben Franklin. He said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Even at this point, it is obvious the TSA needs to be abolished. They provide very little security (If any at all) and demand our rights and everything that makes us Human. And what is wrong with Americans? We cheer our government on as they strip us of our rights. From the Patriot Act to the TSA. Everything our government is doing to "protect" us is destroying every principle on which America was founded. But stay tuned! I have yet another article on the TSA coming up about body scanners.

Introduction to Libertarianism: The Basic Principles of a Libertarian

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
The ideas of Libertarianism are not talked about a lot. The Libertarian Party is a third party, so they get very little attention, especially in the media. When the average American thinks of Libertarians they usually think of radical anarchist conspiracy theorist. And while those do exist within Libertarianism, they only make a small portion of the entire population of libertarians. There is a different, more rational side to Libertarianism that people never hear about. As a result, myths and fictions get intertwined with one another. When you understand the basic principles of Libertarianism, you can understand a Libertarian's position on anything.
 There are two basic principles to Libertarianism. They are the opposition of Government interference and the rejection of force. There two principles guide Libertarians through their beliefs, policies and platforms. These two principles are the center pieces for complete freedom.
So what exactly is Libertarianism?
  1. Reduce the size of the government: The government has strict powers and responsibilities granted to it by the United States Constitution. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that protects the rights and liberties of all citizens, the government should shrink to a Constitutional size. Otherwise, what protects our rights and liberties if the politicians and the government don't have a set of rules to follow?
  2.  Allow Voluntary Interaction:  When two consenting adults agree on anything, government should not interfere. It does not matter if it is economics (Someone buying a product or service from someone else) or in their personal lives. All consenting adults should be allowed to interact anyway they choose as long as it does not hurt a third party. 
  3. War is only Justifiable in self defense:  No preemptive war should be started. Any war created to intervene in a sovereign nation's internal affairs or because politicians use scare tactics against another nation is justifiable or legal.
  4. The Constitution is not just a piece of paper: George W. Bush was quoted in saying "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face.  It’s just a goddamned piece of paper.” Whether or not this quote is true, it describes most politician's attitudes toward the Constitution. It just a 200 year old piece of paper. But this 200 year old piece of paper limits the government to a Republic. Without it, the government could transform into any form of tyranny. It could become a Monarchy, Communist government, dictatorship, or any other one man with complete authority. It gives the government limits and states the freedoms and liberties that Citizens have.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Spending Blame Belongs to Both Parties

I was visiting the Campaign for Liberty website, and I found a video that has become one of my favorites. This video points out that for the past 100 years spending has been a bipartisan issue. Both parties are to blame for our current multi-trillion dollar deficit.  This video was produced by the Commonwealth Foundation.

Lindsey Graham Wants to Start World War III

Lindsey Graham has stated that President Obama cannot take a preemptive full-scale attack on Iran off the table. To be exact, he wants Obama to "Sink their navy, destroy their air force, and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard. In other words, Neuter that regime."

Would that actually be better than a nuclear Iran? Absolutely not. It would cause a lot more problems in the world then it has now.  There would be one of two out comes if we made a preemptive strike Iran.

1) It would start World War III.  If this out come came to be, it would create a massive amount of Chaos in the world. The real weapons of mass destruction that do exist would be filling the sky on either side of the war. America would be attacked by a military at least once during the fight and probably early on.  The world as we know it would be over. It would created a pathway for a military rule over the world by the U.S and its allies.

2) America's "Allies" will want no part in the preemptive strike. We can see the rest of the world got tired of the two wars we are already fighting, so who is to say that any country other than Israel would fight beside of us (Israel has declared it already wants a military strike against Iran by the U.S.)?  China has already said it would not support a preemptive strike against Iran.  If we go in it alone, we would be entering a war that we may not be able to handle. It would be most of the Middle East, North Korea and probably a couple other countries who hate the American Imperialist foreign policy against two or three countries (South Korea would probably fight if the North got involved).  America might not win a war like that.

So would a preemptive strike against Iran like Senator Lindsey Graham wants be better than a Nuclear Iran? Absolutely not. #1, who is to say Iran will ever develop Nuclear weapons?  They say they are developing a nuclear energy program and we automatically call them liars without any proof? #2, even if they develop a couple nuclear weapons, who is to say they would use them?  Did we not create an air of fear of Russia using nuclear weapons from the 50s to the 80s? Did they ever use them? No. The Politicians in Washington realize the more they make the citizens fear other nations, the more they can gain control over them. Our Republic is going to come crashing down to thunderous applause as those in Washington claim to be protecting us from "evil" and strip us of all the rights that make us free Americans.

This kind of Warmongering is not just Republicans, it is Democrats too. In the conference where Graham said he would like a full out preemptive strike against Iran, Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) agreed that a strike may be necessary to keep a Nuke free Iran. What is wrong with these people? It doesn't take much logic to realize the terrible outcomes of a preemptive strike.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Why I am Not a Republican

As a fan of limited government the Republican Party seems like the best choice for me to vote for in elections. And most people seem to think that voting third party is a wasted vote. So I have been asked time and time again why I don't vote for the closest major party to my views (That would be the Republican party at first glance). It's simple, really. The Republican Party isn't a small government party. It is a small government where their lobbyists pay them to be small government party.

Republicans are as big government as Democrats/Liberals/Progressives:  In fact, George W. Bush's spending on big government would put any liberal to shame. Republicans consistently vote for big government programs like giving the FDA the power to outlaw certain kinds of cigarettes, spending billions forcing their agenda on education instead of letting actual educators decide what to teach kids, spending billions on Abstinence only education, etc. They continuously expand this failed "War on Drugs" regardless of what the states have to say. The Republican Party is a big government Party.

Republicans love war, I don't: Republicans hold the the policies of Interventionism and Preemptive warfare. Interventionism is when a Country interferes in the internal affairs of another country (What would Americans think if China sent soldiers to the U.S. to create a new government?). Preemptive warfare is invading a country that hasn't done anything to us because they might at some point maybe plan to do something. I am a non-interventionist. That means I only think war is justifiable in cases of Self Defense.

Republicans Don't believe in Capitalism, they believe in granting special favors to big business:  Capitalism is a completely free market. That means in a truly capitalistic economy, the government does not regulate or get involved in anyother way.  Republicans, on the other hand, continuously give out free handouts and exemptions to the law to their big bussiness buddies and to lobyists. That is not Capitalism.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Rand Paul: The Liberal Media's Punching bag

Dr. Rand Paul is the new Senator from Kentucky elected on November 2, 2010.  He beat Jack Conway 56%-44%. But ever sense Dr. Paul started running for senate, liberal media like MSNBC has continuously tried again and again to smear Dr. Paul's name.  It even lasted to after Dr. Paul's victory speech on November 2. Most of what MSNBC and other liberal media outlets are saying about Rand Paul is absolutely wrong. Let's take a look what has been said.

Rand Paul wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act:  It is repeated over the Liberal media that Rand Paul wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. They make it seem like Rand Paul is in favor of racial discrimination. But that is absolutely untrue. What he has said, and continues to say is simple. He believes that no government should be allowed to discriminate. And because of that he supported 9 out of the 10 titles to the Civil Rights act (Yes, most of the Civil Rights act was about Public discrimination, not private). He even said on the Rachel Maddow Show that "Discrimination and racism is a horrible thing and I don't want any form of it in our government."  He has stated that when he says "private discrimination" he means all Government departments and government funded programs which include: Government positions, schools, buses, government funded charities, etc. The main point of his argument is this: Who owns a private business? Is it the government or the actual owner who puts in his own money and time into running the place? Again, on the Rachel Maddow show, Rand Paul asks her if she thought that the owner of a business had the right to say guns are not allowed to be used in a private business (Mind you, Rand Paul is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment) regardless of the public gun laws. He says it is absolutely up to the private owner on what happens within his own business, not the government. He has even stated that if he was in Congress when the Civil Rights Act had passed if he would have voted for it by CNN's Wolf Blitzer and his answer was simple: "Yes. I would have voted yes."

Rand Paul wants to Appeal the Americans with Disabilities Act: Again, Rand Paul has never stated this. What he has said is: "You know, some of the things, for example we can come up with common sense solutions — like for example if you have a three story building and you have someone apply for a job, you get them a job on the first floor if they’re in a wheelchair as supposed to making the person who owns the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean?" In other words, Rand Paul said he wanted businesses to be allowed to make common sense decisions. Also notice the phrase "Some of the things."  This also implies that Rand Paul agrees with a lot of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but think some things in it are so common sense that they should not be regulated.

Rand Paul Drugged a woman and made her worship an "Aqua Buddha" during College: Come on, folks. This is up there with the "Obama is a Muslims" or "Obama was not born in America" bull.  Like those two assertions fought constantly by the liberal media, this has absolutely no proof. In an article by GQ ( a well know Liberal magazine) an anonymous source claimed that Rand Paul and a secret organization kidnapped her, drugged her and forced her to worship an "aqua Buddha." An anonymous source said all of this. After the publication of the article, journalists all over the country tried to find any sort of evidence they could find regarding this issue. None was found. The "anonymous source" never came forward again. And while this accusation was failed to be proven, the liberal media, like MSNBC, continued to display these accusations as absolute fact.

It is obvious Liberals fear this man. Fear creates lies and wild accusations.I think the following video sums it all up.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Interview with Senate candidate Mike Labno

Back in April I had the great pleasure of interviewing United States Senate Candidate Mike Labno from Illinois.  The Answers I received from Mr. Labno were very different from those you would receive from a Republican or Democrat. The main difference I saw was that Mr. Labno was direct and honest. You won't find that in the establishment parties candidates. He did not side-step any question and answered them all directly. Make sure to visit Mike Labno's campaign site.

Q: "What moved you to run for senate?"

A: "Though I have always been interested in politics, I really never considered running for office until about one year ago. The rising financial crisis, never-ending military occupations of the past several years, and the unfunded national debt are what finally persuaded me to get much more involved in politics. As is usual for me, I didn’t take the easy road; and since I tend to aim high, I’m running for the senate. Government at all levels needs Liberty-minded individuals, but it is the federal government that has the biggest stranglehold on the American people; so I decided to take a chance and see if the rest of the people in Illinois are as determined as I am to regain the power that they’ve lost. Government mismanagement is destroying our great nation, and this must stop now – before it is too late."

Q: "If elected, what programs, if any, would you be willing to cut in order to balance the budget? Do you think working down our deficit is realistic?

A: "Yes, it’s realistic, and we must face it now. I refuse to pass this debt along to my daughter and her generation without at least putting up a fight; otherwise they face greater taxation, a reduction in both the quantity and quality of services, and inevitable economic collapse. Here is an abbreviated list of what I propose:
 1) End Social Security: No new enrollments, but older Americans would have the option to stay in the program, and buyouts offered to younger participants. Privatize the funding. Remaining unfunded liabilities can  be subsidized by the sales of U.S. owned assets
 2) Department of Education – Eliminate it.
 3) Department of Defense
     – Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and maintain ONLY enough support to complete our criminal investigation and apprehend suspects related to the disastrous 9/11 attack.
     – Close bases abroad. I refuse to allow Europe and the rest of the world to have their socialist societies protected by the umbrella of American military might. They can purchase our equipment if they like, otherwise our toys come home too.
     – The military in general needs some cuts and consolidation, but to assure the nation is protected, I support full-scale anti-missile technology. To maintain our dominance and deterrence, I also like a strong Navy with nuclear-armed subs in international waters at all times. Active troop and aircraft carriers are also essential. I would not eliminate land-based armies completely, but their numbers and locations should reflect the national security threats we actually face
  4) Department of Agriculture – Cut just about everything except the Food Stamp program and inspections. Inspections can then be phased out quickly to private organizations. As the economy strengthens, the Food Stamp program can also be phased out.
  5) The sale of public land to private investors, particularly oil-rich lands in Alaska, the Bakken Formation, and the Rocky Mountains.
  6) The sale of newly vacated government assets
Q: "Would you vote against any bill that supersedes the rights of the states or the American people?"

A: "I will remain true to a Constitutionally-limited federal government"
Q: "How would you create jobs for American citizens?"

A: "Lowering and eventually eliminating personal income taxes.
Corporate income taxes should be minimal to provide incentive for companies to produce in the United States
Eliminate sugar tariffs which will allow alternative-fuel manufactures an economical option for producing vast amounts of eco-friendly ethanol. Review restrictions on nuclear power facilities and ease the requirements where possible to allow expansion of this clean energy source.
End the “War On Drugs”
  1)This “war” only perpetuates violence in urban environments and keeps these neighborhoods impoverished. Safe communities lead to business investments and the weaning off of government (taxpayer) funding.
  2)Hemp is EXTREMELY efficient for paper production – with an added benefit of reducing the destruction of trees for paper production.
  3)Drug sales can be taxed."
Q: "What is your view of the Tea Party? Do you think they are the same liberty-minded people that began with Ron Paul's presidential campaign? Or do you think they have been co-opted by big wig Republicans like Sarah Palin?"

A: "The Republican Party surely is jumping on what was originally a Libertarian bandwagon. I would not dare say it is a Republican movement completely, because I meet many independent-minded individuals at the events. But for those that are only Liberty-minded when it comes to economics, they are definitely getting to hear much more about Libertarianism by way of local speakers and other major players at news media outlets. Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid” is still valid, and it is why I support the Tea Party movement; because without a strong economy, everything else will just fall apart."
Q: "Do you think, as Obama and the majority of our government does, that more troops are needed in Afghanistan?"
A: "No. As stated earlier, I want our troops to come home immediately. Our troops are facing increased local resistance, and dislike of America is growing. I would like to avoid further conflicts, especially on American soil; but we do need to find Osama bin Laden and his gang and bring them to justice for the crimes committed on 9/11/01"
Q: "What do you think about faith based initiatives from our government?"

A: "Charity begins at home – not with the government. As soon as the government is stopped from picking their pockets the true, kind nature of most individuals will blossom when and where it is needed most. Government “charity” is just another opportunity for waste and corruption."
Q: "Would you work to repeal Obamacare?"

A: "Access to healthcare is something that everyone wants, but not at the expense of our jobs and economy. We must repeal the recent healthcare bill, eliminate excessive and redundant regulation, implement real changes like interstate medical insurance sales, constructing more private hospitals, increasing the supply of physicians, letting nurses play a stronger role in medical care, etc. A strong economy will allow everyone to get the care they desire."

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Proposition 19 On the November Ballot in California

California is the closest thing that America has to a pure democracy (A pure democracy being ever issues is decided by the people, not elected representatives), because ever law that is passed by their legislature has to be voted on by its citizens. One law to be voted on in November is Proposition 19.  This law, basically, legalizes the use, selling and growing of marijuana. The law gives the power to local governments to regulate the sale of it (ie. taxes, hours allowed for businesses to sell it). But the federal government has not taken this lightly. The Federal DEA has come out and said all Federal laws on marijuana will be enforced. Even some state and local police have said they will continue to enfore federal laws regarding the use and selling of Marijuana.

Why can the federal government not realize the Constitutional limits to its power? It seems every day the federal government ignores the supreme law of the land in order to increase its power over the people and the states.  The powers that the federal government (all three branches) are listed in the first three articles of the United States Constitution. Yet, the government fails time and time again to stick to those powers. The result is always lost liberties for the people and the states. The federal government's opposition to Proposition 19 in California is an obvious sign of that.

It is obvious an ideological revolution is needed among the people. Luckily, through the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, one has begun to start.  People are begining to wake up. What needs to happen next? We need to out the two parties that are in power now and replace them with more Constitutional-minded parties. Niether party works for the benifit of the people, but they work for themselves and their own greedy agenda. It is time that ended.