Sit Sit .. good boy .. TSA more crazy than crazy

http://www.infowars.com/bizarre-tsa-freeze-security-drill-caught-on-camera/


with a video

He didn't say "Barry says!"

Oh, TSA should be encouraged in this sort of thing. Yes, please, dream up some more. Anger enough travelers and the backlash will cause change.

It's stories like this that almost make me wish I did fly more often. I'd love to be able to show my fellow travelers what it means to be a free people. I just hope I can keep my Tourrette Syndrome in check.

Citizen said:

Anger enough travelers and the backlash will cause change.

Click to expand...

I think your giving the American people too much credit. I really believe there is no limit to what the gov can require of them, they will comply. BAAAAA

twoskinsonemanns said:

I think your giving the American people too much credit. I really believe there is no limit to what the gov can require of them, they will comply. BAAAAA

Click to expand...

That's not the sense I get on this subject. People are angry about this. The push-back forced the fedgov agency to recently scale back assaulting children and elderly. The fedgov agency almost broke its tongue with the linguistic gymnastics required to explain the backstep without conceding its earlier justifications were spurious, but it did nonetheless backstep.

I would likely have answered "no...it's too warm in here" and have kept walking and just ignore them entirely.

how could anyone possibly know what was really going on from that 24 second clip ?

I am glad that I don't fly anymore. I have not flown on a commercial airline since 2001.

I would have ignored the TSA idiot and if they tried anything I would have demanded that they produce the constitutional authority for the government to have created the TSA in the first place.

Freedom1Man said:

I am glad that I don't fly anymore. I have not flown on a commercial airline since 2001.

I would have ignored the TSA idiot and if they tried anything I would have demanded that they produce the constitutional authority for the government to have created the TSA in the first place.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think that one's already been ratified by SCOTUS. I vaguely recall reading that there was SCOTUS ruling within the last several years that these suspicionless, warrantless, and totally unnecessary components of security theater were justified under something called the special needs doctrine.

So... What do we do? Obey the Stay commands? What would result if we don't?

carracer said:

So... What do we do? Obey the Stay commands? What would result if we don't?

Click to expand...

Oh, TSA has already acknowledged they have no authority to compel people to obey the commands. Its in one of the newsstories about this. Which is just another way of saying TSA was trying to use authority they didn't have. No surprise there. Government will always try that, thus Patrick Henry's warning to guard with jealous attention the public liberty.

Citizen said:

Oh, I think that one's already been ratified by SCOTUS. I vaguely recall reading that there was SCOTUS ruling within the last several years that these suspicion-less, warrant-less, and totally unnecessary components of security theater were justified under something called the special needs doctrine.

Click to expand...

Then in that case our country is at an end. Now I just hope to survive the up coming meltdown.

I believe it will be more violent that the collapse of Rome was.

Freedom1Man said:

Then in that case our country is at an end. Now I just hope to survive the up coming meltdown.

I believe it will be more violent that the collapse of Rome was.

Click to expand...

As long as people live here, our country will not end. But, the fedgov might.

You see, I do not equate the government with the country, nation, or society.


Separately, I recently read an article about the fedgov. The gist was that the constitution must have been written to allow the expansion of the government. This aligns with Lysander Spooner's comment that the constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Part of the article was a long quote from someone else pointing out that the federal courts are really just part of that system, designed less to protect the rest of us than to ratify the expansions (usurpations) of the other two branches. That is to say, the federal courts legitimize the usurpations of the other two branches. Been going on since practically day one. And, a little bit of thinking/remembering will come close to justifying that view. Just think of all the times the federal courts sided with freedom on substantial questions, and then think of all the times they sided with the fed gov. Just compare the weight and long-range effects of the liberty decisions with the anti-liberty decisions. Its not hard at all to see if you think about it for a bit.*

Shoot, just a few cases is enough to stand your hair on end. Take for example Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce. Conventional wisdom says it wasn't until the Gun Free School Zone Act decision of 1992 that SCOTUS finally said "no" to a commerce clause violation. The fedgov tried to justify the overturned law on the spurious premise that students who have to worry about guns in schools won't do as well academically and thus won't contribute as much to the economy when they grow up. SCOTUS said congress had no power to regulate that. Some 30 to 40 years of opportunity to put the brakes on government expansion, and they toss us a little bone like that. I say a little bone because not too many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that a Ms. Raich could not grow her own marijuana even for her own medical necessity** because, among other things Wickard v Filburn meant growing her own did indeed affect interstate commerce and that the fedgov could make it illegal even if states made it legal.

*It helps to have read two books: Who Killed the Constitution by Tom Woods, and It Is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano. Plenty of examples in those two books.

**I once supported the War on Drugs, but even her list of symptoms and the lack of relief from medical drugs would have made me support her. I think her name is Angel Raich (if you want to google her). The case is Gonzales vs Raich.

I believe the best thing to do, as you continue walking, is say "Cool. Now make them roll over."

Lasjayhawk said:

I believe the best thing to do, as you continue walking, is say "Cool. Now make them roll over."

Click to expand...

You win today's "awesome" award.

Citizen said:

. Take for example Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce.

Click to expand...

I remember reading about that case. It did make my hair stand up on end so to speak. To this day that case scares me.

Citizen said:

.... Take for example Wickard vs Filburn, the case in the 1940s where SCOTUS said the fedgov could regulate farmers' grain that does not move in interstate commerce because using his own means he won't buy grain thus affecting interstate commerce.....

Click to expand...

While I agree with most of what you are going for, I ask you to stop using Wickard v Filburn as the whipping boy. Filburn did not use a portion of his wheat crop only for his exclusive personal (family) use. Go read the case and see exactly how much grain the feds were talking about, and then calculate how much flour might be involved based on .75 pounds flour from every pound of wheat. Also calculate how much bread we would be looking at based on 1.25 pounds of flour per loaf of bread. Go ahead, presume a large family subsisting mostly on bread because of economic hard times, and factor three loaves of bread per meal. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel is some help in figuring it out - or to save you time: it's 14,340 pounds of wheat. Seven tons! For personal use?

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.[SUP] [/SUP][Chen, Jim (2003). "Filburn′s Legacy". Emory Law Journal 52: 1719. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=901026.]

Click to expand...

I still despise the fact that the .gov has been allowed to stick it's nose and fingers into what should have been an off-limits area based on a "proper" reading of the Commerce Clause. But Filburn is not your ideal poster boy.

stay safe.