Category Archives: Bill Of Rights

Next Up At The Smithsonian

This out of the Winter Wonderlands:

“This undated [AP] photo provided by Amber Caldwell, shows a snowman that depicts a white hooded figure associated with the Klu Klux Klan in the front yard of Mark Eliseuson in Hayden, Idaho.

Kootenai County sheriff’s deputies told Eliseuson Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010 that he could be charged with a crime because the 10-foot-tall snowman was holding what appeared to be a noose. Deputies were called by neighbors who were appalled by the pointy-headed snowman with two dark eyes”

Will the same Kootenai County sheriff’s deputies be stopping by the Smithsonian to curb the freedom of speech on display there in the Hide/Seek Exhibition.  Will Blake Gopnik approve of Mr. Eliseuson’s display?

Maybe Mr. Eliseuson’s best bet is to drive his hooded snow-man to Washington, DC where it will be proudly displayed at the Smithsonian’s Art Institute.

Mr. Eliseuson’s display is certainly not one I would put up in my yard, and neither would I run a video of and ant-covered crucifix.  But, it is certainly his right under the First Amendment to erect such a display!

Would the Kootenai County sheriff’s deputies and Blake Gopnik approve if Sarah Palin was hung in Eliseuson’s noose?

Would the Kootenai County sheriff’s deputies and Blake Gopnik approve if George Bush was hung in Eliseuson’s noose?

Would the Kootenai County sheriff’s deputies and Blake Gopnik approve if Barack Obama was hung in Eliseuson’s noose?

Bottom line.  While disgusting, Eliseuson has the same free speech and expression rights as the Smithsonian!

It’s a hate crime?  Read the the last sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 3, 2010 in Amendments, Bill Of Rights, Racism


Tags: , , ,

The New TSA Guessing Game

Which One Is The Terrorist?

Which One Is The Terrorist?


Which One Is The Terrorist?

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 29, 2010 in Bill Of Rights, Terrorism


Tags: , , , ,

TSA And A Fourth

The Fourth Amendment to our U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Boiling it down to the issue with the TSA, the Amendment would read:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Thus, to allege that the Federal Government is infringing upon our 4th Amendment Rights, one would need to prove that:
– The search is unreasonable
– The search is without probable cause
– There was not a warrant, oath or affirmation


The Supreme Court has held that to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, a search of a student by school officials [Federal Government] must be reasonable at the start.  In the case of Savana Redding, the court found the strip search to be unreasonable and without cause.  Yet, at least she was accused of possessing prescription strength Ibuprofen on school grounds — against the rules.

In the case of the TSA vs You and Me, the Federal Government, under the guise of security, is requiring U.S. Citizens to show their naked bodies to Federal Agents or allow Federal agents to touch their (usually clothed) genitalia.  The question of whether or not that search is reasonable might be answered by comparing the security requirements of air travel to that of other areas in the U.S. that need to be most secure.

Are there AIT Scanners and Aggressive Pat-Downs required to enter the White House?  NORAD?  The Pentagon?  The Supreme Court?  The Capitol?  A University Of Nebraska Football Game?  A St. Louis Cardinals baseball game?

How about the Northern U.S. Border?  The Southern U.S. Border?

If those security-necessary locations are not employing the same rigorous screenings, why is the airport front and center?  One could kill 50 thousand football fans with a bomb in their underwear.  Since 9/11, the terrorists haven’t been able to get past a few airline passengers!

I was recently at the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court and such rigorous screenings were not required.  If it’s not required at the above sensitive locations, then it is not reasonable as a pre-condition for passenger flight.

Additionally, it has been widely reported that other more reasonable methods for reviewing airline passengers are available:
– Obscured AIT Scans
– Thermal Infrared
– Psychological Profiling


Simply put, the purchase of an airline ticket and arrival at an airport is no more probable cause to require an unreasonable search than the purchase of a baseball ticket and arrival at the stadium.

If the person purchasing the ticket exhibits any of the tell-tale signs of such terrorist activities (one-way tickets / no baggage / cash purchase) or is on a terrorist watch list, the TSA can easily ‘affirm’ that there is ‘probable cause’ to aggressively search or scan.

Otherwise, there is not probable cause to search / scan a 3-year-old, nun, Marine, cancer survivor or a pilot.


Again, pretty simple, a judge didn’t even hear your name.


A local radio host suggested a couple of things.

1.  (Paraphrased) “You don’t have a right to go to any restaurant you want.  They can have signs that say they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. ”

While that is true, restaurants are not going to refuse your patronage without a good reason (probable cause).  Additionally, there are other restaurants that I can frequent. In the case of air travel, the Federal Government (again) has taken away my right to choose.  There are no non-groping, non-porno-scan options for me.

2. (Paraphrased) “If left to their own devices, an airline’s invasive security methods might be much worse should they be assigned with the task of handling their own security.”

I strongly support the idea that American Airlines, Delta, and Southwest would handle their own security.  To keep customers at their doors, the airline would have the desire to match the desire to keep their planes bomb-free with the passengers’ desires to be clothed, untouched, and protected by the 4th Amendment.  Then, I (you know… …with freedom) could choose the airline whose security screening methods best meet my concern for safety and my 4th amendment rights.

The TSA does not care about the passengers’ desires — obviously.  As Janet Napolitano said, “Don’t fly!”

Under the free market paradigm, if American Airlines chose to subject all its passengers to full body scans and aggressive pat-downs, then I could choose to fly on an airline that chose to use magnetometers, light pat-downs, and psychological screening — say Delta.  If Jet Blue decided to use Racial and Religious Profiling, magnetometers, and below-the-knee AIT Scanners, I might decide to fly with them.

And, if Southwest decided to “refuse service” to anyone known to be a Muslim or of Arab descent, I’d buy stock!

Freedom and the free market would provide the necessary security and screening options for the U.S. Citizen traveler!


Posted by on November 24, 2010 in Amendments, Bill Of Rights, Free Market, Freedom


Tags: , , ,

Chamber Of Commerce – Problem Solved

The recent flap over the Chamber of Commerce and the accusations by President Obama, David Axelrod, and the liberal mouthpieces evince an attempt to alter the debate against the massive failure of the Administration’s policies.  The accusation that there is foreign money and donations flowing into the Chamber of Commerce and being used to persuade the electorate.

Ignoring the fact that such activity is and has been illegal since 1907 under the Thomas act, the President and his minions are using the word ‘appears’ to provide cover from suits for libel and slander.

But, the problem could be quickly solved with two words:  Name Change

The President and his sycophants have no problems with Union influence on elections  (hell, back in 2008, they didn’t even care about making sure their web site runs software to ensure foreign monies are rejected by the campaign). Unions have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into elections to promote their liberal candidates.

So, let’s make a simple name change to the Chamber of Commerce and all will be well.

Here are some suggestions:

  1. Chamber of Unions
  2. Union of Commerce
  3. Chamber Union
  4. Commerce Union
  5. It Doesn’t Matter What It’s Called As Long As Union Is In The Title

There you have it; problem solved.  Now back to examining the pathetic record of the Obama Administration.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 14, 2010 in Bill Of Rights, Election, Obama


Tags: , ,

Horsepower: The Latest Insanity From The 9th Disctrict Court


Big Brother still at it in San Francicso.


In 1787, the Founding Fathers set up a government of the people, by the people, and for the people with limitations on the responsibilities and activities of the Federal (and State) governments with Amendments to ensure the rights of the people.

And in 1787, in the words of the Constitution and Amendments, the Founding Fathers legalized the government’s ability to track your horse.  Yes, the Founding Fathers said the government could, without warrant, track the movement of your horse throughout the countryside, city or state.  Only if you were rich living inside a gated community were you able to escape this tracking.  If you were poor and just hitched your horse outside your house (or tee pee), the government has the right to track the movement of that horse.

Sound crazy?  Well, it’s not crazy in our (favorite) 9th Circuit Court.  In their latest madness, the court has ruled that the government, without warrant, can attach tracking devices to the vehicles (horses) of suspects and track their movements.

The dissenting justice on the 3-judge panel declared that 1984 had arrived — a bit late.  The other two justices agreed that placing a GPS device on a suspect’s car is the same as tossing a newspaper into a yard or retrieving a wayward kickball from a neighbor’s yard.

I suspect those two judges of insanity, and without warrant, I want GPS devices attached to their vehicles to see if they are behaving incoherently as they move throughout the community.  With that evidence, I will have them committed to the nearest sanitarium.  Would those two judges accept that usurpation of their rights?  Of course not.

The bottom line is that the Declaration of Independence was created to throw OFF the bonds of tyrannical government, to limit the power of the government, and, simply, to give man freedom.  The Constitution set up the Courts to protect that freedom!  Read that again.  The courts were set up to protect the freedom of the people from the tyranny of government power evident in all National Governments throughout history.  Apparently, the Ninth Circuit Court needs to read their job description.  Apparently, they have more horsepower than horse sense.

Would the founding fathers agree that the government, without warrant, could place a GPS on your horse?  Not just ‘No’… …HELL NO!!

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 27, 2010 in Amendments, Bill Of Rights, Constitution


Tags: , ,

Go-Along Grahams

Yesterday, RINO Lindsey Graham voted with the Democrats in the Judiciary committee to present radical justice nominee Elena Kagan to the full Senate for confirmation vote.  Conceding that Elena Kagan is his philosophical Antichrist, he related the pathetic argument that “elections have consequences”.  Then, he quoted Phil Graham from whom he copied his logic for his Kagan vote:

“So I’m going to vote for this nominee not because I agree with him philosophically, but because I believe he is qualified. I believe he is credible. I believe his views, though they’re different than mine, are within the mainstream of thinking of his political party.

“Whether I like it or not — and I do not — I do not — the American people put Bill Clinton into the White House. This nomination is a result of that. I’m not going to stand in the way of it because I differ philosophically with this nominee.

“I’m going to vote for him, and that doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice. I’m very pro-life. I’m going to vote for him because I believe that the last election had consequences and this president chose someone who was qualified, who has the experience and knowledge to serve on this court, who’s in the mainstream of liberal philosophy and understands the difference between being a liberal judge and a politician.”

Lindsey Graham will pretend Kagan is in the mainstream when she already said she will be glad to try to fill the shoes of the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens (who is retiring) AND JUST VOTED twice to remove our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  Graham Redux feels that elections have consequences and thus we rubber-stamp the President’s nominees.

Well, Lindsey, then why fight? Don’t we just want to rubber-stamp his policies on all issues?  Bail-outs, Health Care, Cap and Tax, Financial Reform, Extending Unemployments and Deficit Spending?  Why put up a fight on any issue?  Why not be like Missouri’s Memorex-McCaskill and do Harry Reid’s bidding?

If you didn’t notice, the people of South Caroline voted you into office to be THEIR voice — not the voice of Washington politics.  Do you think for one minute the majority of South Carolinians want you to vote for someone that would strip them of their right to bear arms — someone also with radical views on free speech?  Don’t answer; you know it was a rhetorical question, and everyone knows the answer.

Senator Barack Obama didn’t play the “elections don’t matter” card when he voted against George Bush’s nominees Alito and Roberts.  Now he laughs as you pathetically play Washington insider instead of voting South Carolina’s conscience!

Think ya been there too long!

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 21, 2010 in Bill Of Rights, Bush, Supreme Court


Tags: , ,

Bond, McCaskill, and Kagan

This was sent to the Southeast Missourian as  a Letter To The Editor on 7/12/10:

In the near future, Missouri’s Senators will have an opportunity to vote to confirm Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. The question this time is whether or not Bond and McCaskill will vote with Missouri values or with Washington Politics.

Both Missouri Senators voted to confirm Sotomayor. During her nomination hearings, Sotomayor, under oath, testified that she believed in the 2nd Amendment. “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.”

However, in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, which extended Heller to a state-level gun-ban, Sotomayor joined the dissent saying:

“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”

Here ( is a great review of Kagan’s anti-gun stance!

We know that Sotomayor lied during her confirmation about her anti-gun stance; we know Kagan will do the same in dancing around the issue. Will Bond and McCaskill this time face the reality of her views against the text of the Constitution and Missouri’s values?

I pray this time they’ll vote NO! You already have one reason to vote out McCaskill (Sotomayor); her vote to confirm Kagan will just be more fuel for the fire. And, the RINO Kit Bond… …he can’t retire fast enough for me.

Take some time and look into her thoughts on the 1st Amendment if you want a REAL scare!


Tags: , , ,