Detroit TSA Security Theater

January 20, 2010 by Sam Dodson
Filed under: National, News, Obscured Truth Network, Police, Thuggery, Video

On a recent layover in Detroit, I was filming roaming squads of TSA agents searching passengers at the gates. I didn’t feel like answering their questions, and their response was, well, see for youself . . .

In part 1 I interact with Janetta a TSA “Behavior Detection Officer”

The airport police show up to continue the harassment in part 2:

In part 3 I go on the offensive asking about body scanners, security failures, and more. Check Obscuredtruth.com for part 3 which will be posted soon.

Update: Part 3 will post here when it’s done:

http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Chumlee, the numbering system is for the whole site. When there is a break in the numbers, it only means someone posted on another story.

I've never been sexually assaulted in my life. I, and many many others, can't stand what the cops are becoming, or the TSA. They are not peace officers anymore — connected to the community, motivated to maintain peace, and stop those who have harmed innocents. They have become authoritarian goons, enforcing their will and the politicians' with violence on a hair trigger. The stories of abuse pile up by the day, and the "thin blue line" always defends even the most outrageous behavior of its own. Good cops would stand up against the abuse, not defend it. They would also stand against the blatant violations of the constitution, and of basic human decency, that occur continually.

Few good cops still exist.
anonymous

> Anonymous…First of all I can see that you also are a COWARD posting as “anonymous”.

You're just as anonymous. Why does my handle have any impact on my personal fortitude in comparison to anyone else on this site?

> Secondly, he complains and cries about FREE SPEeCH, yet you say he can remove any comment that he does not agree with? Played right into my hand.

The two aren't contradictory, I suggest you learn something about a concept called 'private property.'

> And speaking of a “KOOL-AID” line? The only kool-aid line there was is the one you and sam were in on November 4th 2008. When you took a gig giant gulp, and cast your vote for the government that is controlling the very people that your in fear of. Your pathetic ANONYMOUS. You will follow the rules and you will like it. PERIOD.

lol
CHUMLEE

Well hello paul. I was hoping you would respond. Im not buying the "Responding to other topics" answer you gave in reference to the numbers missing on the blogs. Im pretty sure your removing posts. But,like "Anonymous" said…its your site. You can control the whole conversation. Too bad you couldent at Metro.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Ok Chumlee, click on the main page. Notice that your comment is now the second most recent under the "Most recent comments" list, on the right. Notice that the number next to your comment is "86086". Now click on the comment right below yours. It's on the brad jardis thread. Here's a link: http://freekeene.com/2010/01/24/the-heroic-brad-j…

And the number on the comment? 86085, one before yours.

Can we drop the paranoia now?

And I'm not an admin by the way, so I'm not controlling anything. I know the way the software works is that if you have lots of links, the post gets automatically placed into the spam folder. It's happened to me once before — just ask, and an admin will repost it.

If somehow a comment of yours got lost (are you sure you answered the math question correctly?) just repost.
bil

Boy,you go away a few days,and look what happens!! I have been having fun with the TSA,but no camera.Remember,it is not a matter of security,it is a plan to get us all used to being asked for our 'papers',and being searched,at any time. —bil
Mic

Whadamm, Sam! Loved every minute. To think, you didn't even speak of the DNA damage or cancer concerns of the full body scanners. TSA= Totally Stupid Asshats.

Keep 'em coming.
theKINGofKEENE

Paul, please stop feeding the trolls. The scrap fish tossed over the side of a fishing boat to attract other, more-desired fish, is known as *CHUM*…as in, chumlee…///…& now thinkliberty and anamazedreader are spatting!!!…this is the most fun I've had on a Friday night in a long time…If enough folks stop flying commercial airlines, we can put the whole TSA out of business…dreaming, dreaming…….
dean

This incident has been covered by the local news in Detroit:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22368244/detai…

Comments seem to be leading in the "This guy's a jerk" direction. It is sad that so many are ready to throw away all their freedom for a false sense of security.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian

They call him a "vigilante journalist". Vigilante means "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands". I don't think that's a very accurate representation of what Sam was doing, but it does sound pretty cool!
http://www.soundclick.com/thinkliberty thinkliberty

I am glad I live in NH, away from the boot licking idiots that plague Detroit.
FreedomFighter

I agree w/ your rights to film. However, and there is a BIG however here, you pushed this situation to extremes. Once you pass through the secure area in the airports, you consent to searches just by entering into the area. Those are the rules posted very clearly as you enter into the premises (much like a concert venue). The TSA agent should not have confronted you, but she did. Other actions should have been taken to ensure a better outcome, not being so confrontational would have been a good step. You provoked them, and clearly said you were going to "have some fun" with the TSA agents and that is when your mass problems started. Had you left well enough alone everything would have gone smoothly. You "having fun" (as seen in video 2) provoked the situation to what it became.

I fought for your liberties protected under the constitution for 6 years, and that was violently taken away from me (I would have given the full 20 years) from an injury caused by war. So lets not twist this into I don't believe in your rights. I do. As much as I despise the idea, everyone has the right to burn our flag without repercussions. You have the right to film, within the laws provided to us. You just pushed the situation a little too far with you wanting to "have some fun with the TSA agents."
http://soundclick.com/thinkliberty thinkliberty

LOL@FREEDOMFIGHTER You think you fought for people's liberty and protected the constitution by volunteering for a job in a standing army that has been engaging in illegal wars for the last 50 years? If you join the military and get hurt that's called karma.

What illegal war did you get hurt in? Let me guess, you had everyone else to pay for your injury? Even those people that are opposed to the illegal war you wanted to fight in.

Sam is a really freedom fighter. The TSA is a violent monopoly that only exists because they can steal people's money via taxation. They don't keep anyone safe, they just leach money from productive people. If the TSA was any good at providing security, they would not need a government monopoly to provide it.

Violent thugs are easy to provoke. Sam did a good job exposing them for what they are. The TSA acted like any other criminal gang would act.

Everyone should videotape the TSA at the airport, exactly like Sam did. It's as close to perfect that anyone will ever get. (Please prove me wrong, by doing it. )
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
Once you pass through the secure area in the airports, you consent to searches just by entering into the area.

Uh, no. This is a big fat fail. They no more own the airports than they own the passengers, the bags, or the airplane. They have no right to force people to submit to warrant-less searches just because they're in the area. Why not just get it over with, and declare that once I step out of my front door I "consent" to have my rights violated?

My rights apply everywhere. Period.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
Those are the rules posted very clearly as you enter into the premises (much like a concert venue).

See, thing is, the rules at a concert are posted by the OWNERS. Last I checked, the government doesn't own the country. Or are they admitting we're full on serfs now? The progress of tyranny is so hard to keep up with.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
you provoked them, and clearly said you were going to “have some fun” with the TSA agents and that is when your mass problems started.

No, the problems started when he was approached, harassed, and followed by the TSA, for peaceably filming a large distance away, as is his right. The TSA instigated the conflict every step of the way. Sam just wanted to be left alone.

Not obeying the every order of bureaucrats in funny outfits does not constitute "instigating conflict" by the way. Giving immoral and unconstitutional orders does.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
I fought for your liberties protected under the constitution for 6 years, and that was violently taken away from me (I would have given the full 20 years) from an injury caused by war. So lets not twist this into I don’t believe in your rights.

No war in the last 60 years has had anything to do with our liberties. There are plenty of soldier-tyrants. I'm not saying you're one — you sound like you have a more balanced perspective than some TSA apologists, but the fact that you were in the military is certainly no evidence that you respect liberty.
FreedomFighter

I dunno how you do your neat little green letter trick so I just will star your points.

***** Uh, no. This is a big fat fail. They no more own the airports than they own the passengers, the bags, or the airplane. They have no right to force people to submit to warrant-less searches just because they’re in the area. Why not just get it over with, and declare that once I step out of my front door I “consent” to have my rights violated?

My rights apply everywhere. Period. ******

This is incorrect. Your rights do not apply everywhere. You consent to searches in airports under the rules posted. Under the law provided to you by the consistitution of the United States of America (The United States Supreme court has upheld this particular law), once it is posted in a clearly visable area that you consent to search (IE: Airports, Military Bases, the White House, or any other venue) and you enter under your own free will, you consent to search. Period.

***** See, thing is, the rules at a concert are posted by the OWNERS. Last I checked, the government doesn’t own the country. Or are they admitting we’re full on serfs now? The progress of tyranny is so hard to keep up with. ******

Unfortunately, the government does own this country, in technical terms. They make the laws that we obide by or we suffer the consequences.

******No, the problems started when he was approached, harassed, and followed by the TSA, for peaceably filming a large distance away, as is his right. The TSA instigated the conflict every step of the way. Sam just wanted to be left alone. ******

Sam CLEARLY says I am going to have some fun with these guys, provoking the TSA agents into the confrontation. Please see minute 3:18 of film #1. He provkes them. They were only following him. Big deal. Once he interacted with them (ON HIS TERMS!) his problems started. I can't find his "lets have some fun line in the film again, but it is said (I am not searching 21:00 or so of film though for it. Not only did he do that. He provoked one by calling him a terrorist in minute 3:35 of film #1. That is absurd. While the TSA is clearly idiotic at times (IE making someone drink their own breast milk, or something along those lines), they do not hire terrorist.

***** Not obeying the every order of bureaucrats in funny outfits does not constitute “instigating conflict” by the way. Giving immoral and unconstitutional orders does. ******

If you don't like our laws that are provided to you, you are free to move to a country that has more liberal laws that you like (such as Iraq…. wait they cut your fingers off if you rob someone. Or France… wait they don't have the miranda rights. Or Mexico… uh no… they have impoverished prisons. Canada? Maybe you'll like it there. Oh nope. They operate under French law (see France). Maybe Brittian? Nope again. They can search your home w/o a search warrant. I guess you're stuck unless you can think of a country with better and more liberal rights).

****** No war in the last 60 years has had anything to do with our liberties. There are plenty of soldier-tyrants. I’m not saying you’re one — you sound like you have a more balanced perspective than some TSA apologists, but the fact that you were in the military is certainly no evidence that you respect liberty. ******

Unfortunately you are right about solder tyrants. But there are also people who think blacks should be slaves and not have the right to vote (the KKK in particular). There are people who believe women should be in the kitchen fat and pregnant, not in the work force. There are people who believe that gay's should't have the same rights as everyone else. There are also people who believe immigration should be cut off to everyone. There are people who believe that the rich should pay for the poor. There are people who believe that welfare should be a government gift for life. There are people who believe something that isn't right with our common morals at every turn we make. That does not make them right, that makes them idiots of the first class nature. I joined the service I joined because I believe in the Bill of Rights, the US Consistitution, the laws we are provided and every other thing that is uniquely American. I freely signed that piece of paper knowing one day I may die for those ideals, even in a war I didn't argee with (which I don't). But I damn near did die and give the ultimate sacrafice along with 2500+ other of my friends. I respect your liberties more than the common man that you will meet. I don't agree with the Patriot Act. I don't like that our communications can be tapped at any time without warrants. I don't agree with many policies that have come out recently. But they are there. And because I can't find another country in the world that gives us such freedoms, I will live with them. I trust in the person I voted for (Obama). I trust that he will make most everything right, as much as he can with the 4 years that the conservate US will give us liberals until they massively f up again with another GW. But in the mean time live with the laws given. One of them is you consent to search once you enter the secure area of the US airports. See the signs posted, and the supreme court rulings which up held those signs.

We can keep editing our comments back and forth to fit our arguements (which I know a few will do), or we can agree to disagree. I disagree with you for this reason: I believe the searches are for the good of the whole flight. One person, or two, or 50, or 75, or the entire damn flight being searched is fine with me so long as no damn bombs make it on board. I don't want to end up in a large tower, in the side of the Pentagon (God Rest your souls brother and sisters (both from the plane and who gave for service to your country that day)), the a field in some state, in the bottom of the sea, or any place else in little bits and pieces. Here's what should piss me off but doesn't: I was leaving to go to Germany for my overseas tour (we are mostly routed through Germany on our way to Iraq or Afghanistan) in service uniform, and was searched while an Arabic gentleman freely passed through without a second glance. Did I fuss? Hell no. I should have, because I was in uniform and had orders to deploy to a war zone. But I knew there was a chance (albeit a small chance) that a terrorist could dress in BDU's and fake some orders. So I took 5 minutes and inconvienced myself to let someone look in my bags after I passed through into the secure area as I was boarding the plane. The agent said thank you and thanked me for my service. Was I pleased? Hell to the NO. But it happened, and I went on with my day without provoking a confrontation. Sam could have left after the first encounter. He didn't.
John

"This is incorrect. Your rights do not apply everywhere."

Those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are natural and by definition apply always and everywhere. Though I can grant consent for a search, I can at any time revoke that consent no matter where I happen to be standing at the time.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">I dunno how you do your neat little green letter trick so I just will star your points.

It's the "blockquote" tag — look right above the window where you type messages, and there are a list of tags you can use.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
This is incorrect. Your rights do not apply everywhere. You consent to searches in airports under the rules posted. Under the law provided to you by the consistitution of the United States of America (The United States Supreme court has upheld this particular law),

What the supreme court says does not determine morality. They've said slavery was a-ok too.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
once it is posted in a clearly visable area that you consent to search (IE: Airports, Military Bases, the White House, or any other venue) and you enter under your own free will, you consent to search. Period.

Perhaps they should just post one of these signs outside my front door, then they can claim I "consent" to their abuse 24/7.

The fact that they put up a sign no more gives them the right to forcibly search people than the fact that I put up a sign would give me the right to do so. "Clearly visible" is not the issue. They have no right to force everyone who enters the airport to obey their arbitrary diktats.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">Unfortunately, the government does own this country, in technical terms. They make the laws that we obide by or we suffer the consequences.

Nope, I don't accept this. I am a free man, not a slave. The king of England didn't own this country, and neither does Barney Frank. I own myself, I own my labor, and I own my land, which I acquired by the free exchange of that labor.

Street gangs like MS-13 also act like they own their "territory", as do mobsters like Al-Capone. The reality is, all they have is the immoral threat of aggressive violence, to force obedience and to extort property from innocent people.

Legitimate ownership is created by free exchange of the fruit of one's labor — not acquired by threats of violence.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
Sam CLEARLY says I am going to have some fun with these guys, provoking the TSA agents into the confrontation. Please see minute 3:18 of film #1. He provkes them. They were only following him. Big deal. Once he interacted with them (ON HIS TERMS!) his problems started. I can’t find his “lets have some fun line in the film again, but it is said (I am not searching 21:00 or so of film though for it. Not only did he do that. He provoked one by calling him a terrorist in minute 3:35 of film #1. That is absurd. While the TSA is clearly idiotic at times (IE making someone drink their own breast milk, or something along those lines), they do not hire terrorist.

Actually, he was harassed by the TSA starting at 1:22, when all he had done was film them. He stated that he didn't want to interact, and they said "you WILL come with us".

You missed the point of the terrorist comment. He was pointing out the double standard. All the TSA needs to do is be "suspicious" of him, and they can demand ID, and go through his luggage. But, if Sam is suspicious of one of them, he can do nothing of the kind.

Also, I would say forcing someone to drink their own breast milk goes a long way past "idiotic". What would happen to me if I did such a thing? I'd be in jail for many years.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
If you don’t like our laws that are provided to you, you are free to move

Sorry, neither you nor the government owns the country, nor do you have a right to force me out of it if I don't obey your arbitrary diktats, or hand you half of my money every year.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
to a country that has more liberal laws that you like (such as Iraq…. wait they cut your fingers off if you rob someone. Or France… wait they don’t have the miranda rights. Or Mexico… uh no… they have impoverished prisons. Canada? Maybe you’ll like it there. Oh nope. They operate under French law (see France). Maybe Brittian? Nope again. They can search your home w/o a search warrant. I guess you’re stuck unless you can think of a country with better and more liberal rights).

Oh, governments around the world are mostly as abusive as the U.S. government, or more so. I'm not going to argue with you there. That doesn't make abuse ok.

Suppose every country on the planet still had brutal slavery of people of African descent, but slaves were allowed to choose what plantation they went to. Suppose someone objected to being enslaved. Would you tell them, "Well, go somewhere where the slavery is better, if you don't like it."? Of course not. You'd recognize that they have a right to their liberty, and the fact that other places have slavery too does not make slavery moral.

The same applies here. Theft is theft, and abuse is abuse. The fact that other governments would extort my property from me as well does not make the practice acceptable.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
Unfortunately you are right about solder tyrants. But there are also people who think blacks should be slaves and not have the right to vote (the KKK in particular). There are people who believe women should be in the kitchen fat and pregnant, not in the work force. There are people who believe that gay’s should’t have the same rights as everyone else. There are also people who believe immigration should be cut off to everyone. There are people who believe that the rich should pay for the poor. There are people who believe that welfare should be a government gift for life. There are people who believe something that isn’t right with our common morals at every turn we make. That does not make them right, that makes them idiots of the first class nature.

There certainly are lots of people with immoral beliefs. Did you intend for your statement here to make a point beyond this?

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
I joined the service I joined because I believe in the Bill of Rights, the US Consistitution, the laws we are provided and every other thing that is uniquely American.

Many laws often have been, and are immoral. Even the constitution itself has, and does, endorse immoral behavior. The beginning of this country, taken as a whole, was a huge leap forward for liberty over anything that had existed before, but it was not the be all end all. We need to keep moving forward, until we no longer accept or tolerate aggressive violence, and violations of liberty, no matter who perpetrates it.

Jefferson said that every generation needs a revolution — I agree, but add that it can and should be a peaceful one. We are mainly regressing, as a country, and we have been for at least 200 years.

Liberty is the principle for which the colonies won their independence, and it is to liberty that we should be beholden — not to any government.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
I freely signed that piece of paper knowing one day I may die for those ideals, even in a war I didn’t argee with (which I don’t).

I don't want to offend you, but in the interests of bold and honest discussion, why do you believe dying in a war with which you don't agree would further those ideals? If the war is unwise, or worse, immoral, why would furthering that war further anything but foolishness and immorality? Would it not be better to stand against it publicly, as one should stand against all foolish and immoral things?

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
I respect your liberties more than the common man that you will meet. I don’t agree with the Patriot Act. I don’t like that our communications can be tapped at any time without warrants. I don’t agree with many policies that have come out recently. But they are there. And because I can’t find another country in the world that gives us such freedoms, I will live with them.

I am glad you disagree with these things, but instead of tolerating them, why not fight against them — the way Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, MLK, Susan Anthony, Gandhi, and others fought against the immorality of their day?

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
I trust in the person I voted for (Obama). I trust that he will make most everything right, as much as he can with the 4 years that the conservate US will give us liberals until they massively f up again with another GW.

Why do you trust Obama? As best I can tell he's the third term of GW. We still have secret prisons, multiple wars going on overseas, wiretaps, the patriot act, signing statements, protection for the perpetrators of torture, etc.

You know what the biggest difference is now that Obama's been elected? I no longer see anti-war protests on the side of the road, because the anti-war protesters were more interested in getting a president with a "D" next to his name, than actually ending war.

It was the same when the Republicans elected Bush. They all spoke against the big government of the democrats, but once Bush got in and increased government at astronomical rates, there was dead silence. They didn't really want small government, they wanted the "R"s to win.

That's what we've been reduced to. It has nothing to do with principle, it has everything to do with Red team vs. Blue team. There's not a dime's worth of difference between them, but each side is too furious at the other to notice.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">But in the mean time live with the laws given.

Why should we "live with" immoral laws? Those among our ancestors who we most honor, were those who least tolerated immoral laws.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
We can keep editing our comments back and forth to fit our arguements (which I know a few will do), or we can agree to disagree. I disagree with you for this reason: I believe the searches are for the good of the whole flight. One person, or two, or 50, or 75, or the entire damn flight being searched is fine with me so long as no damn bombs make it on board. I don’t want to end up in a large tower, in the side of the Pentagon (God Rest your souls brother and sisters (both from the plane and who gave for service to your country that day)), the a field in some state, in the bottom of the sea, or any place else in little bits and pieces.

Those are not the only alternatives. Remember Ben Franklin? He said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There should be free choice in the air industry, as there are in other aspects of life. Different airlines can offer different security, and you can balance your desire for privacy with your desire for safety. You can choose the airline that contracts with the TSA for security, and takes naked pictures of everyone and their kids, if that's really what you want. I'll just choose the one that allows the pilots (and passengers) to have guns, and locks the cockpit door.

Patrick Henry said, "give me liberty or give me death". Now we say, "Here, take all of my liberty, and my dignity too. Just make me feel a little safer".

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">
Sam could have left after the first encounter. He didn’t.

Rosa Parks could have moved to the back of the bus. I'm not saying their actions were equivalent, but they were for the same purpose: standing up for individual rights, against abusive government behavior.
FreedomFighter

Paul,

Like I said before, I am going to disagree with you. I suppose you will do the same with me. Have a great day. Hopefully one day you will see the foolishness that Sam caused himself. In the meantime have fun standing up against what you believe is immoral. Hopefully you don't land your foolish butt in jail because I can guarentee you that those places aren't nice.
FreedomFighter

Paul,

I lied. One last thing. I could name AT LEAST 10 operations or actions in the last 30 years (1/2 your 60 years quote) that had to do with our liberties.

1. 1980 – Operation Eagle Claw

2. 1983 – Operation Urgent Fury

3. 1985 – Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.

4. 1986 – Libya. Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986) On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, US forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.

5. 1986 – Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.

6. 1987 – Persian Gulf. USS Stark was struck on May 17 by two Exocet antiship missiles fired from an Iraqi F-1 Mirage during the Iran-Iraq War killing 37 US Navy sailors.

7. 1987 –October 19, Operation Nimble Archer

8. 1987-88 – Operation Prime Chance

9. 1988 – Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.

10. 1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs.

11. 1989 – Operation Classic Resolve, Philippines

12. 1989-90 – Operation Just Cause, Panama

13. 1990 – Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.

14. 1981 – Libya. First Gulf of Sidra Incident On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.

15. 1991 – Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War).

16. 1992-95 – Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope"

17. 1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.

18. 1993 – Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia

19. 1996 – Operation Assured Response, Liberia.

20. 1996 – Operation Quick Response, Central African Republic.

21. 1997 – Operation Silver Wake, Albania

22. 1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of U.S. military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation

23. 1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, U.S. military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain U.S. government employees and private U.S. citizens

24. 1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 U.S. military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations

25. 1998 – Operation Infinite Reach, Afghanistan and Sudan.

26. 1999 – Operation Allied Force (also Operation Nobal Anvil)

27. 2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed

28. 2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.

29. 2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing

30. 2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines

31. 2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.

32. 2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped US military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania

33. 2006 – Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American MQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border. (sucks to be them…)

34. 2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to the leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.

35. 2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid[14], helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia

36. 2009 – Pakistan, In relation to efforts in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces struck an insurgent encampment in the Northern mountains, killing 24, with missiles fired from an unmanned aerial assault vehicle.

If we wanted to go back further in time I could easily get that number up to 60. I could easily name 60 operations or actions that were directly or indirectly linked to our freedom in the last 60 years. I named 36 in the last 30 years just now. The lesson here: Watch what you say with your comments, some of them are just plain recockulous.
Lpviper

Hi 'freedomfighter'.

I just looked at your list of atrocities, and leaving aside the fact that I never heard of most of that stuff, in reading the list I find nothing in there that made me freer or defended my freedom in any way. Please explain to me how these actions defended me. You don't have to do the whole list, just hit a couple high spots for me.

Thanks
Lpviper

One guy like Sam is a 'vigilante' or a 'punk' or a 'crank'. 1000 people like Sam is a good start toward ending the harrassment of the people by unelected bureaucrats.

What Sam and those like him are doing is demonstrating to the people that they, too, can stand up against police state tyranny. Inevitably, more will gather the required courage, some inspired by those who have gone before, others reaching that point all on their own.

I applaud the bravery of all who stand up against these people and show them, or at least tell them, that they, too, are just people who eat and shit and sleep like the rest of us.

When this simple concept, the idea of true equality among men, sinks in to the hearts and minds of many, their cries of outrage will be heard often and loudly, and these things Sam is doing will be as a pebble compared to a rockslide.

That day cannot come soon enough.

Thank you, Sam, for bringing a tiny sliver of sanity to my neck of the woods.

Happy Trails!
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

I lied. One last thing. I could name AT LEAST 10 operations or actions in the last 30 years (1/2 your 60 years quote) that had to do with our liberties.

I said war, but ok, let's take a look at these.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1980 – Operation Eagle Claw

This would never have happened if the CIA hadn't overthrown the Shah. And I quote, "The Shah had been restored to power in a 1953 coup against a democratically elected nationalist Iranian government organized by the CIA at the American Embassy"

So, we overthrow their democratically elected leader, in an operation planned and executed from the embassy, and then they storm the embassy … hmmm.

If we minded our own business, we wouldn't have so many problems.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1983 – Operation Urgent Fury

Are you kidding!?!? How on earth is invading Grenada a protection of our liberties?

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1985 – Italy.

I'll give you this one — rescuing people is good … although this is more of a police activity than a military one, and it's certainly not a war.

Note how all of these take place outside of the United States. Whatever happened to the military protecting us from invasion? It's called the "Department of Defense" after all … we don't need 700 bases in 103 countries overseas, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

I support something a lot closer to the constitutional approach — militias.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1986 – Libya.

Again, how on earth does this defend any liberties? We shouldn't have even been over there.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.

LMAO. The war on drugs DEFENDS liberty!??! Now I've heard everything. Nothing says "liberty" like the government telling me what I can and can't put in my body.

Here's a question:

Why do you think people go to the convenience store, rather than their local violent gang, to get beer?

Why do you think people don't make aspirin in dangerous labs in their basements?

Why do you think cigarettes don't fund terrorists overseas?

Why do you think people don't break and enter to get money to buy coffee?

That's right, because these things are legal. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it doesn't work with drugs. It does, however, finance nearly every violent gang in the country, finance foreign terrorists, lead to property crime, destroy lives and families, and land over a million people in jail every year for simple possession, when they belong in a doctor's office.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1987 – Persian Gulf.

We. Shouldn't. Have. Been. Involved.

Post one about how the red army invaded Texas, and the military defended it. That would be a defense of our liberties.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1987 –October 19, Operation Nimble Archer

Great. We blew up an Iranian oil platform. I feel freer already. Oh wait, no I don't.

Why do you think there are so many people who hate us in the middle east? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that we've been overthrowing their leaders, subsidizing their enemies, conducting brutal economic sanctions, occupying their countries, and blowing up their family members for decades?

Naw, they probably just hate us for our freedom.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1987-88 – Operation Prime Chance

Shouldn't have been involved with the conflict. Certainly had nothing to do with our liberties.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1988 – Panama.

Yes, because nothing says "defense of liberties" like overthrowing the head of state of Panama. I mean, overthrowing foreign heads of state is exactly what the founders envisioned as the role of the military.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, it's pretty much exactly the opposite of what the founders envisioned.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs.

See above, on the war on drugs. I'm sure this upped the price of drugs nicely, so the cartels could make a tidy profit, and addicts would have to rob even more people to get their fix.

You know how second amendment supporters say, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?" I wonder why they never apply that logic to the drug trade …

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1989 – Operation Classic Resolve, Philippines

I don't support coups, but I also don't support U.S. intervention — especially with tax money. And this certainly has nothing to do with defending our liberty.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

12. 1989-90 Operation Just Cause, Panama

More foreign invasions and interference in the internal affairs of other nations. HooRay!

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

13. 1990 – Liberia.

I don't think we should have embassies, but if we're going to have them, rescuing those people when they're in danger makes sense.

I'll give you this one — but again, this is a rescue operation, not a war.

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

1981 – Libya.

Shouldn't have been there. You think this is "defending liberty"!? Did you read these?

<blockquote cite="freedomfighter">

15. 1991 – Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War).

We should not have been involved.

GTG for now, more later
FreedomFighter

LPVIPER,

Seems like your an uneducated woman or man. Paul seems to know what my list is and can speak on an inteligable level about them…
FreedomFighter

Paul,

I'll wait until you're done with my list to respond in an educated manner about them (like you are). I really can not stand the folks who call me an idiot or moron without explaining themselves fully (like you are).
Lpviper

Excuse me, but every one of the ventures you mentioned was carried out by a military that was funded by the involuntary taking of money from people in the United States. Every last one founded in and funded in theft and aggression.

Denigrate me as you will, but every time a gang steals from someone, I don't like it and I will say something about it.

Thanks
FreedomFighter

LPVIPER,

You: womp womp woompawamp womp woopmpawamp
Me: ????
You: womp womp woompawamp womp woopmpawamp
Me: Please speak in a manner we all understand.
You: Blah blah blah blah blaaaahhhhhhh

Like I said, I will confine my conversation with folks that have something intelligable to say (like Paul). You already admitted you didn't know diddly doodilly about what I listed.

You're dismissed now LPVIPER.
Lpviper

Thank you for so politely excusing me from your glorification of paid killers paid with blood money. I needed a way out. I really appreciate it Mr. Bag, or shall I just call you Douche?

Cheers
FreedomFighter

LPVIPER,

I said you're dismissed. Not please respond with more Womp Womp Wompawaaah Womp…

Let me spell it out for you

Y O U A R E D I S M I S S E D

That spells — You are dismissed

Bye now.
anonymous

Dude is trolling. Quit feeding it.

Last war the US was in that was probably worth being in was WW2. Even though Socialism would've failed eventually anyways, it was still in our economic interest to help defend our trading partners.

Rest of the wars were just asserting our newfound military strength and world position on other (mostly unwilling) countries.
FreedomFighter

Paul,

I am not being sarcastic just inquistive here. Is that all that is going to be responded to in my list. If so I will respond. If not, I will wait until you're done so I can respond to all of them at once.

Thanks
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

I will, sorry, I've just been busy. I'll get to this as soon as I can.
Lpviper

Excuse me, asshat, but I'll stay until Ian finally decides to kick me out.

Thanks anyway for your concern, I know you're just looking out for me.

I can take care of myself.
Lpviper

Anyway, 'freedomfighter', you're amusing me with all this Womp stuff. Honestly I thought my point was rather clear. What was not made clear was how you can reconcile all the 'good deeds' of the United States military with the bare assed FACT that their whole existence is based on theft from and aggression toward people IN THE UNITED STATES. How can an organization claim to be defending me when it plainly exists by aggressing against me? HMMM? Oh, I'm sorry, is this more Womp? Or do you cry Womp when you ain't got a fuckin clue how to respond?

The suspense is killing me, not like killed by US military people killing, but anyway…
the kingof keene

oh, jeezum crow, kids!!!….wicked stupid argument! LPVIPER, you stay, OK, YOU MY SPECIAL GUEST! Don't let freedomspider, or whatever his(it's???) name is – scare you off, OK?…*grin*…you're correct, most of those were/are needless foreign interventions on our part – except – America "inherited" a couple thousand years of global intrigue. We're just the biggest, baddest, country left standing, while China, & maybe Russia, etc.,rebuild for future "adventures"…///…I support the imminent military coup.
Lpviper

It was more fun than telling him to read his history. Notice the absence of rebuttal.
wayne

This is exactly why you can't trust any government (and ours) that is in the business of infringing rights and grabbing guns.

Who do you think all these empty FEMA camps are for?

Hitler did the same thing; as did Stalin and the rest of those socialist dictators like Obama… build camps, grab guns, take away property rights; oh yeah property rights.

Think you own your car or house, take off the plates and stickers; they'll lock you up under foreign commerce laws hiding the admiralty enforcement; stop paying property taxes you agreed to pay; and they'll kick you out and sell your house and land; yeah, you're free alright… feel screwed yet?

In the past 100 years; more than 70 million Citizens have been murdered by their own government right after they grabbed all the guns that people need to defend themselves, period.

If gun control works; then why do England's cops now where body armor and traded in their sticks for guns in a gun free country?
Makes Me Laugh

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners. Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you.

It would be a win-win for everyone, and there would be none of this crap about racial profiling!!!!!
Mitch

Wow, things have gone quite here.

Sad to see that was starting to pass as a political discussion about the actions Sam took, right or wrong vs. the actions of the TSA, and their 'government charter' or how it impacts our freedom, has sunken to US and military bashing.

God Bless the USA!
Paul

Absolutely — I care very much about our country. That's why I want the government to stop screwing it up, and start living by the basic standards for decent behavior the rest of do every day.
Lpviper

Hi Mitch

The US government hasn't fought a defensive war since 1812.

Of course I'm being critical of the military.

God bless the USA? Why would God bless a corporation? Pretty audacious to demand such a thing, if there were a God.

Instead of spouting cliches, look at the real things that the real soldiers are really doing in a purely aggressive conflict. Think about how much blessing such an institution, engaging in such activity, really deserves.

Thanks
Mitch

Paul, I too want the Government to stop screwing up the country. Smaller and less government is best, but both of the political parties tend to GROW government and not shrink it. Grow debt, not reduce it, and just exist to bash the other party and not really solve any problems. TERM LIMITS for ALL members of Government! That would help, of course if more than 20% of the country would care to vote, that would help too.

I do not believe that the US government must be limited to fight only defensive wars or battles. The best defense is a good offense. If not, we would be speaking German or Russian right now.

That said I do not believe all wars or combat that the US President’s have involved us as a nation in are justified. Well intended or not.

I will call this a fact, but it is my belief. There are people in this big world who want to harm/kill us and destroy our way of life, for no other reason that we do not believe as they do, we act in ways they do not allow, or they are culturally driven to hatred because of past actions of the US Government. (The US Government as an entity has done horrendous things and actions to people of all countries, including our own.)

But, because I live in this great country called the United States of American, which includes government representatives that I have voted for and pay a substantial amount of my income too. I expect the US Government (i.e. Militarily if necessary) to protect me and my family from those that want to harm me.

The trick with that statement, is that in order to be protected, I must be willing to allow the Government to impose a set of balanced laws/rules/policies that will impact my freedoms, but in exchange keep me safer than if they did not exist at all. The hard part is finding the right balance and way to ensure safety, but maintain individual rights.

Also, by expecting the US Government to keep me safe, I have the expectation that it may take military actions upon other countries/people that are actively allowing or participating in the acts of harming US Citizens, both reactively (in response to an attack) and proactively (To prevent and attack).

I do not want another 9-11 attack to take place.

All Government organizations, political parties, military members are made up of individuals. These individuals can have a substantial impact on how laws, rules and policies are enforced, and what may be intended to be reasonable, some ass is on a power trip takes it to an extreme and then everything goes off in the weeds or worse. If they are high up in an organization, the more impact for positive or negative can occur.

God bless the USA is not a demand, it is a request. You appear to not believe in God, I guess your belief is that it all started with one giant big bang, from nothing to this. Ok.

LPViper, what do you believe in? (Serious question here, not trying to attack or demean)

Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Buddhist, (New Age, everyone is god?) Spirits? Atheist?

Do you not believe in the military? or just the use of the military in offensive action? Or humanitarian uses?

Can you describe your Political beliefs? Republican (My guess is no), Democrat, Libertarian, Other?

Do you volunteer or do charity work for any organization? (I was a volunteer Firefighter for 5 years, till I had kids)

Do you vote? Have you run for a political office or participated in protests, or marches?

How would you solve the issues that face us today? We can keep it to Airport security or any other topic?
Lpviper

'LPViper, what do you believe in?'

The good neighbor rule. You leave me alone, I leave you alone.

'Do you have any spiritual beliefs?'

Pantheist (what you call New Age) is closest.

'Do you not believe in the military? or just the use of the military in offensive action? Or humanitarian uses?'

I believe that standing armies are unnecessary. Look at the Revolutionary period. It was argued back then that the government needed to raise an army to 'protect our borders', when we had just finished defeating the mightiest military in the world with an all volunteer militia. Government will always scaremonger to try to justify a standing army, because war enriches the State, its workers and their friends. Any humanitarian issue a military could be thought to be needed for can be, and often has, been handled by volunteers and/or mercenaries.

'Can you describe your Political beliefs?'

Voluntarist is closest. I would like to see violent monopolies eliminated from the Earth so that a real society of men (and women), based on consensual transaction and division of labor, could be realized.

'Do you volunteer or do charity work for any organization?'

Yes, I do FIJA outreach, volunteer to help out the local government with special projects (I have explained my philosophy to them, they say 'yes, son, that's nice), and I volunteer for the Cub Scouts (though without all the genuflection for the flag).

'Do you vote?'

Yes.

'Have you run for a political office or participated in protests, or marches?'

I have not run for a political office because I could not swear their oath. I have participated in protests, which honestly fall largely on deaf ears around here. Also, the local 'libertarians' seem to have a problem with gay people and Mexicans. I don't like that bigotry very much, I grew up with it and I don't need or want any more of it.

'How would you solve the issues that face us today?'

By considering not only the seen, but the unseen effects of all group actions, and by eliminating the government teat wherever possible and teaching people about doing for one's self rather than standing around with one's hand out.

We can get more specific if you want, Mitch. Obviously I am no expert and I learn something new every day, and I love hearing different points of view. I appreciate the civil discourse. You don't get a whole lot of that around here. By that I mean where I live, not this website(!)

Take Care
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Paul, I too want the Government to stop screwing up the country. Smaller and less government is best, but both of the political parties tend to GROW government and not shrink it. Grow debt, not reduce it, and just exist to bash the other party and not really solve any problems.

Absolutely true.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
TERM LIMITS for ALL members of Government! That would help,

Maybe a little. I don't think it would solve the problems. There are enough scumbags in this country to keep the congress occupied for a long time.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
of course if more than 20% of the country would care to vote, that would help too.

I suppose it would depend how they vote.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
I do not believe that the US government must be limited to fight only defensive wars or battles.

Great, you believe in aggressive war. That's just peachy. Do you also chuck bombs at your neighbors, or is it just foreigners you're in favor of murdering?

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
The best defense is a good offense.

You're right. I'm grabbing my gun and heading over to the neighbors as we speak. He looked at me funny, and who knows, if I don't take him out now, he might get me later. Once I kill everyone I think maybe might harm me eventually, then I'll be really safe.

Well, unless me killing people pisses other people off. I'm sure that won't happen.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
If not, we would be speaking German or Russian right now.

Baloney. WW2 was defensive, and the Russians never had anything close to the capability to invade.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
That said I do not believe all wars or combat that the US President’s have involved us as a nation in are justified. Well intended or not.

I don't see why not, given that you blatantly endorse aggressive killing.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
I will call this a fact, but it is my belief. There are people in this big world who want to harm/kill us and destroy our way of life, for no other reason that we do not believe as they do,

A swing and a miss.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
we act in ways they do not allow,

Strike two.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
or they are culturally driven to hatred because of past actions of the US Government.

It's a hit!! How would you react if the Chinese set up bases on U.S. soil? How about if they bombed us and constructed no-fly zones. How about if they overthrew our elected leaders and installed their own (see: the shah). Do you think you might be pissed?

But I'm sure if we just blow up a few more innocent families (and call it "collateral damage"), occupy a few more nations, subsidize a few more despots, etc, everything will get all better.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
(The US Government as an entity has done horrendous things and actions to people of all countries, including our own.)

Very true. As have other governments. Kind of makes you think governments aren't a great kind of organization to have running everything.

By the way, I thought you were for small government? Do you think running around the world bombing people, nation building, occupying people's land, and maintaining 700 bases in 140 countries, is "small government"? Or is it just that you think bureaucracy is magically great as long as the bureaucrats are carrying guns?

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
But, because I live in this great country called the United States of American, which includes government representatives that I have voted for and pay a substantial amount of my income too. I expect the US Government (i.e. Militarily if necessary) to protect me and my family from those that want to harm me.

You must be very disappointed then. They have done nothing but put us at greater risk. If I were you, I'd want to get my money back, so I could spend it on protection from an agency that could do a good job at a good price. Governments (and forced monopolies in general) are always inefficient and ineffective. Personally, I prefer local militias when it comes to protection, but you should be free to spend your own money the way you want.

Unfortunately, the government steals most of it.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
The trick with that statement, is that in order to be protected, I must be willing to allow the Government to impose a set of balanced laws/rules/policies that will impact my freedoms, but in exchange keep me safer than if they did not exist at all. The hard part is finding the right balance and way to ensure safety, but maintain individual rights.

I suggest you figure out what that balance is, and sign a contract with the government, and go live with other similarly minded people. I suggest you leave me out of it. I want nothing to do with 'em.

I think safety, just like all other goods and services, can be provided most effectively when people are free to choose. Forcing everyone to pay for a one sized fits all solution, provided by a giant bureaucracy, with no competitors, is a bad idea. It's a bad idea for other services (medical care, schools, retirement, etc), and it's a bad idea for defense.

It's also immoral.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Also, by expecting the US Government to keep me safe, I have the expectation that it may take military actions upon other countries/people that are actively allowing or participating in the acts of harming US Citizens,

If a person has attacked someone else, they should be held accountable. That doesn't mean occupy their country, and blow up the neighborhoods of all their friends.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
both reactively (in response to an attack) and proactively (To prevent and attack).

Again, you endorse aggressive violence, which makes you the attacker.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
I do not want another 9-11 attack to take place.

Then I suggest your "government" stop occupying other countries, and blowing up innocent people, which was the direct cause of the first 9-11 attack.

Some decent security might be nice too. You know, security not provided by federal bureaucrats.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
All Government organizations, political parties, military members are made up of individuals. These individuals can have a substantial impact on how laws, rules and policies are enforced, and what may be intended to be reasonable, some ass is on a power trip takes it to an extreme and then everything goes off in the weeds or worse. If they are high up in an organization, the more impact for positive or negative can occur.

How about this: You have a right to live your life and use your finances as you choose, as long as you don't harm anyone else. If you want to pay for global murdering sprees, go for it, but stop forcing me to do so.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
God bless the USA is not a demand, it is a request. You appear to not believe in God, I guess your belief is that it all started with one giant big bang, from nothing to this. Ok.

I believe in God.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
LPViper, what do you believe in? (Serious question here, not trying to attack or demean)

I'll answer these too, just FYE. I've gone this far, after all .

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

Do you have any spiritual beliefs? Buddhist, (New Age, everyone is god?) Spirits? Atheist?

I'm a Christian.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Do you not believe in the military? or just the use of the military in offensive action? Or humanitarian uses?

I believe local militias, who join together in case of general attack, would be much preferable to a standing army. This is actually much closer to the constitutional approach.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Can you describe your Political beliefs? Republican (My guess is no), Democrat, Libertarian, Other?

I'd call myself a libertarian, although there are a lot of people who also use that term who I would disagree with on a number of issues. Voluntaryist is pretty close too, as lp said.

Basically, I believe the initiation of aggressive violence is wrong. The only justifiable use of violence is defense against the aggression of others.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Do you volunteer or do charity work for any organization? (I was a volunteer Firefighter for 5 years, till I had kids)

Yes, I do tech work and coffee at church. I've volunteer taught and tutored in the past, and I'd like to do more, but I'm very busy. Also lots of random work days, soup kitchens, etc. This question kind of seems like an invitation to brag though — I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with it.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Do you vote?

Yes.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
Have you run for a political office

No. I may at some point, but I'm concerned about the oath as well. I wonder why I must swear allegiance to the U.S. government in order to participate in town or state politics. So much for respecting "the will of the people".

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
or participated in protests, or marches?

Yes.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">
How would you solve the issues that face us today? We can keep it to Airport security or any other topic?

Again, I believe people should be free to make their own choices about their lives and finances, as long as they don't harm others. Jamming everyone into one sized fits all solutions, and the corporatism, corruption, and giant government bureaucracy that this entails, is the source of most of our political and economic problems today, as well as more personal conflict than most people probably realize.

If you believe in something, support it yourself, and try to convince me to support it as well — don't advance your goals by jamming a gun in my back and extracting money from me, or forcing my participation. People need to respect the choices of their neighbors.
Vix

I'm surprised no one brought this up to Mitch the government has no responsibility to keep you safe (or give you anything) the courts have said many times that the government can ignore your pleas for help any time they want and there is nothing you can do about it.
Mitch

Paul and LPViper thank you for your responses.

Paul, do you intend to insult me with your responses, or is it just a passionate reply? Just trying to keep things civil here, and LPVipers response was quite nice, direct and to the point… My respect increased significately for him(her?). Paul, yours has a different tone, and I want to make sure I am reading it right.

Just to put myself out there a little as well:

I am Christian, and conservative… (Guess you couldn't guess that.) But, I do not consider myself a far right type of guy, I am in the middle, Pro Choice, I have a good friend who is gay.

I really think the two party system is broke right now… and the term limits was just a glimmer of hope to start things in the right direction.

I have not served in the military, but my father and brother-in-law have as well as a host of other family members.

I vote, and have never run for office, most likely never will. I have no problem with the oath of office, for we the people have let this problem develop over time and now it is up to us to solve it.

What I hope here, is to find different minded people and have a sharing of views, hopefully without attacking each other, or insulting each other and see what comes from it.

And, Vix, I hold no illusions about what the Government is really capable of doing or not, but in a very broad way, they do pretend to be protecting the citizens of the US.

Final question, what area of the country do you live in, big assumption that you are in the US. West, East, North Central, South Central… I am in the South Central…
Lpviper

I live in Metro Detroit. Being as how I only live a few minutes from an international border, there's a whole mess of bureaucracy up here. Unemployment is rampant. I have a job and keep getting asked how I do it, and the simple answer is I travel to better places than this. People are living off unemployment stipends from the state, then pouring the money back into local coffers in the form of property tax, all so we can fund every teacher, secretary, bus driver and janitor that has worked for 'our' schools for the last 50 plus odd years. Where is the incentive for people around here to pick up the slack? Where is the business climate for a manufacturer to set up his procduction/assembly operations? The answer is they aren't anywhere around. The government handed all the favors out to all the biggest outfits years ago, and left the semi skilled laborers in this country holding the effing bag. That's why I want these government monsters gone from us. They are so evil, so diabolical, so shrewd, that my grandparents in law, some of the hardest working smartest people I know, have lost probably 75% of the buying power of their money in the last few decades, have had to sell all their secondary homes to afford one nice one, and are taking a beating on all their investments in taxes and inflation. But they continue to just eat the flag waving, god bless america BS right up, even when they're bent right over for the world to see. That's why I oppose this. This twisting of good American people into money machines and vassals for the State is disgusting, immoral, and outrageous. I'm even getting to the point where I find a lack of outrage over it to be outrageous in itself. So there's my manifesto, not trying to be a jerk, I don't have to be, I'll just 'splain the best I can and have a take and not suck and all that good stuff

Be well
Mitch

Obama Administration Awarded Hundreds of Thousands in Airport Grants to Stupak’s District Two Days Before Vote

Was this Yet Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?

Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare.

Did Stupak compromise his supposed principled stand against taxpayer funding of abortion in exchange for taxpayer dollars for pet projects?

Alpena County Regional Airport received a $85,500 grant, but had only 7,519 passenger boardings in 2008 (the most recent year for which there is information) according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data. Alpena County Regional Airport serves fewer passengers than even the late Rep. John Murtha’s famous “Airport for Nobody.”

Delta County Airport has even less customers than that, but still received a $179,209 grant.

Chippewa County International Airport received a $461,700 grant, but had only 13,733 passenger boardings in 2008.

Will Stupak come clean about this apparent backroom deal for his vote?

Call Stupak’s district office at (989) 356-0690 and ask.
Mitch

Airport device follows fliers' phones

By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Today's smartphones and PDAs could have a new use in the nation's airports: helping passengers avoid long lines at security checkpoints.

The Transportation Security Administration is looking at installing devices in airports that home in and detect personal electronic equipment. The aim is to track how long people are stuck in security lines.

Information about wait times could then be posted on websites and in airports across the country.

"This technology will produce valuable data that can be used in a variety of ways," TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said, noting it could help prevent checkpoint snarls.

But civil-liberties experts worry that such a system enables the government to track people's whereabouts. "It's serious business when the government begins to get near people's personal-communication devices," said American Civil Liberties Union privacy expert Jay Stanley.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2010-03-23-…
Lpviper

Stupak is a scumbag. I've done some running around for his Libertarian opponent up here, but no go so far. My so called representative voted against health fascism, so there's one point in her favor, anyway. All that money the government is sending to the northern lower (basically a wilderness with a town here and there) is ridiculous. If capital had needed to be invested up there, people would be doing it themselves. More displacement of labor, more reallocation of resources away from the proper market mechanism, more suffering for those of us that work for a living and are extorted by these government people, for what they know is best for us. I want to peuk, and thanks for the heads up, I will call Mr. Stupak and let him know there's a Ron Paul Republican up in his district that's gonna eat his lunch.
Lpviper

This is why the satellite detectrion switch in my phone is always set to off unless I need it for something specific

Again, thanks for the heads up, and don't forget to empty out your 401k accounts before the socio-fascists in government steal those, too. They're talking about it
Paul

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

Paul and LPViper thank you for your responses.

And thank you

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

Paul, do you intend to insult me with your responses, or is it just a passionate reply? Just trying to keep things civil here, and LPVipers response was quite nice, direct and to the point… My respect increased significately for him(her?). Paul, yours has a different tone, and I want to make sure I am reading it right.

I don't intend to insult you, but your endorsement of aggressive war is very offensive to me. You are endorsing the killing of innocent people.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

Just to put myself out there a little as well:

I am Christian, and conservative… (Guess you couldn’t guess that.) But, I do not consider myself a far right type of guy, I am in the middle,

I find left/right can be kind of inadequate to describe people sometimes.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

Pro Choice, I have a good friend who is gay.

I'm actually pro-life, which might surprise you, after the fetus/baby has a pulse and brain waves. After that point I consider them a person.

I don't think the government should be involved in defining marriage at all — have whatever ceremony you want, call it whatever you want, and let others call it what they want.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

I really think the two party system is broke right now…

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

and the term limits was just a glimmer of hope to start things in the right direction.

I'd support term limits — but I see nullification as a brighter glimmer. We need to increase state independence.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

I have not served in the military, but my father and brother-in-law have as well as a host of other family members.

I vote, and have never run for office, most likely never will. I have no problem with the oath of office, for we the people have let this problem develop over time and now it is up to us to solve it.

I don't understand your last statement — how does the fact that we've let the problem grow and that we need to fix it makes you OK with the oath?

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

What I hope here, is to find different minded people and have a sharing of views, hopefully without attacking each other, or insulting each other and see what comes from it.

It's good to branch out, and very mature of you .

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

And, Vix, I hold no illusions about what the Government is really capable of doing or not, but in a very broad way, they do pretend to be protecting the citizens of the US.

Lol, they certainly pretend to do so. And, they actually do to an extent — police and fire often do actually help people who are in trouble.

<blockquote cite="Mitch">

Final question, what area of the country do you live in, big assumption that you are in the US. West, East, North Central, South Central… I am in the South Central…

I'm from New Hampshire, but I currently live in LA.