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.