The left fawns over Barack Obama. He, according to them, is the smartest prez ever, worldly, experienced, and a new kind of politician. He was, you know, a Constitutional Law Professor and he knows that document. We need to listen to King Hussein because he will bring us back to the Constitution.

Obama spoke to commemorate the Supreme Court’s flawed decision in Roe v Wade, the decision that gave us federally recognized abortions and removed the decision on whether to allow them or not from the states. The decision violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that anything not in the Constitution (or prohibited by it) belongs to the states or to the people.

If you search the Constitution you will not find anything about abortion. There is nothing in there that allows the federal government to decide on abortions. Therefore, the issue belongs to the states or to the people.

But the SCOTUS decided on it anyway and we have been stuck with a flawed decision ever since.

Obama said that the 39^th anniversary of Roe is a chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right to abortion.” There is no fundamental Constitutional right to an abortion because it is not enumerated in the document. Allowing an abortion or not is something that should have been left to the states but that would overshadow Obama’s murderous position on the subject.

Obama also said that abortions allow our daughters the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. Really now? Murdering your unborn child gives you this? I guess it should come as no surprise since Obama thinks pregnancy is a punishment.

What amazes me is that the alleged expert on the Constitution is all too happy to run around touting a nonexistent right while he completely opposes a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Barack Obama opposes gun ownership. He is a big proponent of gun control and he was even involved in a scheme to gin up phony gun problems in order to push for tougher gun laws (Fast and Furious). Obama does not believe that gun ownership is an individual right even though the SCOTUS has affirmed that which is written in the Constitution. Obama covertly works to impose tougher gun laws in violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a document of convenience for liberals and Obama is no exception.

Interestingly, Obama made this claim:

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.” [emphasis mine] CNSNEWS

How come that broader principle does not extend to not having to buy health insurance if you do not want it? That is a choice, that is a private issue and yet Obama is not on the side of allowing us to decide for ourselves. He will force this on us. Why is it that Obama favors gun control and wants to remove the private matter of whether to own a firearm?

Obama and his liberal/progressive/Socialist party have no problem getting involved in our private family matters each and every day. We have an intrusive government and Obama is fine with that. He has no problem being involved in private matters, just not abortion.

Obama thinks that pregnancy is a burden on women and that abortion allows our daughter to have the same opportunities as our sons.

Don’t you wish his mother had felt that way?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It is no secret that Barack Obama has little regard for the Constitution. He thinks it puts up to many barriers to redistributive change (taking from one to give to another). He believes that there should not only be a level playing field (everyone has the same chance) but that outcomes should be equal. This is one of the things Socialists like and they particularly like the part where they live like kings while the rest of the population lives in poverty.

So there is little regard for the Constitution, no surprise there. Democrats do not like the thing because it makes it harder for them to run roughshod over us.

Eric Holder, the lawless Attorney General, made a speech today discussing voting rights. He was with the head of the NAACP in South Carolina where the US has blocked voter laws. Yes, the US has blocked ID laws because Democrats think it will discriminate against voters (OK, they think Democrat voters or they would not care). They might have a point, illegals are voting in our elections. This is the Democrat voting base so yes, laws would discriminate against them but not in a bad way. They are not allowed to vote.

This is what laws are for and this is one of the reasons states are getting tougher. They are doing it because the system is broken and is wide open for fraud despite what the morons in DC say. The regime knows that it is in deep stuff and that it needs every vote it can get, legal or otherwise, in order to win. Voter laws that improve the integrity of the system are a barrier that the regime does not like. Then again, integrity is not a strong point of these people (and by these people I mean Democrats).

To Democrats the Constitution is a document of convenience. If it suits their purpose they will use it and if it does not they will ignore it.

Eric Holder does not even know the thing. He filed suit in a federal court to block Arizona’s immigration law but the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when any state is a party.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

From an article in Canada Free Press. Bold as appears in the article.

This regime is lawless and will do whatever it can get away with in order to push its agenda of making America a Socialist nation. Many Americans are too blind or too deluded to see this but those who lived under an oppressive government can see what is going on. Russian immigrants are not thrilled with Democrats and are flocking to the GOP.

The states need to push back against the tyranny of the federal government. States need to enact whatever voting laws they desire and take the feds to court if they interfere. Arizona needs to continue with its immigration laws and ignore the court that decided against the state because that court and its judge had no Constitutional authority to act.

It is time for the states to take control and to put the federal government and the Obama regime in their place.

Related:
The Examiner

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

King Barack Hussein* made a few appointments by declaring that the Senate was effectively in recess so he had the authority to do so. His mouthpieces claim that the White House Legal Council has reviewed the issue and said it was OK for King Hussein to make the appointments. Interestingly, the Department of Justice is the agency that normally reviews items of Constitutionality. I imagine that Hussein figured that his Council could say it was OK and then after the fact he could persuade his buddy Holder to write a favorable opinion.

The rule of law. Hussein said the Senate was effectively in recess for weeks so he could make the appointment because the Constitution says so. If Hussein wants to be technical, let us do so. My well worn pocket Constitution, Article II, Section 2, last paragraph reads:

The President shall have the power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [emphasis mine]

So let us assume, for a moment, that Hussein is correct about the Senate being in recess. Technically, the vacancies DID NOT HAPPEN during the alleged recess. The Constitution is clear in that the President may fill a vacancy that occurs while the Senate is in recess. These vacancies have been present for quite some time and DID NOT occur during the recess Hussein claims exists.

Therefore, he had no authority to begin with regarding making the appointments. This will likely go to court and it would be great if a ruling came down expressing exactly what the Constitution states and thereby prevent Congress and presidents from playing games regarding appointments. If the vacancy did not occur during a recess the president cannot fill it, period.

Let us suppose that a court does not rule this way (and some past rulings might run counter to it). Referring to my trusty Constitution, I see this under Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The US Senate has a website that spells out what a pro forma session is and how it relates to the last paragraph of Section 5. That section reads:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

And the Senate site explains it this way:

This section was included to prevent either chamber from blocking legislation through its refusal to meet. Each chamber takes very seriously its independence of the other body. To avoid having to ask the other chamber for permission to adjourn, the Senate and House simply conduct pro forma (as a matter of form) sessions to meet the three-day constitutional requirement. No business is conducted at these sessions, which generally last for less than one minute.

Additionally, the Senate explains that pro forma sessions occur, last a few minutes, and no business is conducted:

Pro Forma Session: A pro forma session is a brief meeting (sometimes lasting only seconds) in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.

There is no doubt that pro forma sessions are part of business and are recognized as such. It is also evident that they are held so that one chamber does not have to ask the other to adjourn which means they have NOT adjourned. The methods for recess in the Senate are as follows:

In the Senate, the Chair has no inherent authority to declare recesses. Recesses are accomplished only (1) by the full body giving unanimous consent to hold recesses “subject to the call of the Chair,” or (2) by adopting a motion to recess, offered by any Senator from the floor. Wiki Answers

The best I can figure from reading the Congressional Record for the month of December (you have to search with the month parameters), the Senate did not motion for a recess and has been adjourning every three days. I also note that some of the Senators who held the sessions were Democrats. It is possible the Senate adjourned three days at a time because the House was still in session debating the tax cut extension and the Senate did not want to ask permission to adjourn (under the Constitution) so it held pro forma sessions and most Senators left town. Since they never adjourned a quorum to motion for a recess they have been in pro forma sessions every three days. It is interesting to note that the Senate did this because it was unlikely the House would have granted permission to adjourn. It wanted to remain and hash out the tax cut bill. The Senate passed its version and did not want to stay so it used pro forma sessions to avoid having to ask. The leadership of the Senate (Democrats mind you) is responsible for the Senate not being in recess. Don’t expect to see this on the liberal media. They have to blame it all on Republicans.

There is not doubt that these kinds of sessions are the practice of the House and Senate as part of their procedures (procedures they are Constitutionally authorized to enact) so I cannot see how King Hussein is able to do a recess appointment. He does not get to decide if they are in recess or not, they do.

So it looks like Hussein has bombed on several issues of the Constitution. Wasn’t he allegedly a Constitutional law professor?

Of course I am no lawyer and this will have to be settled in the courts. No matter how it all turns out things are going to get uglier than they already are, if that is even possible.

I believe, as do many who have looked at this, that King Hussein has overstepped his authority and has usurped the Constitution.

NPR has an interesting article about it

*If he is going to act like a dictator I will address him as one.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The United States Postal Service is a bloated government agency that is charged with delivering our mail efficiently. It charges for the service so the money it gets to operate is not supposed to come from the taxpayer. The establishment of the Post Office is a Constitutional requirement but there is no Constitutional requirement for that service to be run by the government.

Government does NOTHING efficiently and money is never a concern because government begs, borrows, or steals the money it gets and since it makes the laws, it can beg, borrow, or steal as much as it wants without the fear of being jailed.

The Post Office is a prime example of government inefficiency. It has grown, and grown, and grown, over the years while offering extravagant benefits to the people who work for it. The Postal Service has tens of thousands more employees than it needs but can’t seem to downsize appropriately.

In addition, those tens of thousands of employees retire and receive very generous benefits. Those benefits are a huge part of the Postal Service’s fiscal problems because the Service is required to pay into the benefit fund up front and the cost has risen to more than the Service can afford.

This has not stopped the Service from keeping employees on or from closing facilities over the years regardless of the dire circumstances. It seems to live in a vacuum ignoring the reality of its fiscal circumstances in hopes that some Congressman will bail it out.

The Postal Service claims it is finally doing something because it is facing bankruptcy. Some sorting facilities will be closed and the cost of a First Class letter will rise to 45 cents (up one cent) starting January. I doubt the increase will have an immediate impact because the Postal Service sells what it calls forever stamps. Purchase them at the current price and you can use them forever regardless of what the actual rate is. People will be buying a lot of forever stamps this month. In addition, the Service will have reduced service in that letters will take longer to arrive. Yes, we will pay more for decreased service.

There are several problems with what the Postal Service is doing. The biggest is that it is retaining its employees. No one who works at the closing facilities will be released, they will just be reassigned. The amount of mail has decreased year after year but they can’t seem to downsize the workforce.

Another problem is that the Postal Service is a branch of government. It is, by its very nature, inefficient. There is little regard given for costs or to fiscal responsibility (until they start talking about reducing pensions) and there is no concern for efficiency. One only needs to go to a Post Office this time of the year to see one clerk at the counter with a line around the block. It is not like they don’t have enough people to man the place, they just don’t do so. It is almost as if they do it on purpose to fool the public into believing they need more help (or to punish us)…

The government is responsible for the Post Office. This cannot change as it is a Constitutional requirement. However, serious consideration should be given to making the Postal Service a private entity that can work efficiently and for profit. The government would still have legal and oversight authority but a private company would work to deliver our mail. It could earn a certain profit and all other money would go to the federal coffers. If several companies were allowed to carry out postal functions they could compete for our business and provide better service.

Don’t look for this to happen any time soon (if at all).

Perhaps it is time to go postal on the Postal Service…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It is Constitution Day. Look at what is taking place in this country and think about whether or not our Founders envisioned what is happening and if this is what they intended.

The Patriot Post weighs in on the issue.

This is an open thread to discuss what you think about the Constitution, the people who wrote it and what they intended.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The left is all worked up because Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered the presidential race and is an instant front runner. The liberals have awakened because they are worried about Perry being so unconstitutional because he believes in his religion and he held a a public prayer which was attended by tens of thousands of people. This, according to the left, is against the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a politician can’t hold public prayer. Nowhere does it say that prayers can’t be said in government buildings. Nowhere does our Constitution say that religion can’t be part of our government.

What our Constitution says is that Congress can’t make a law that establishes a specific religion as the state religion, or religion of the government. The Constitution also says that Congress can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion (any religion) in this country.

Morons on the left don’t understand this so Perry is perceived as a person who does not follow the Constitution.

The irony is that the very left that makes such a claim is concerned about Perry’s position on firearms. Perry believes that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms if they so desire and that government should not infringe upon their ability to do so. This is too much for the left and they are worried about a Perry presidency leading to more guns in this country.

The irony is that Perry’s position on gun ownership is absolutely Constitutional (as is his stance on religion) but the left will cry about Perry not following the Constitution on one hand (even if they are wrong about it) and then oppose him for a position that is absolutely Constitutional.

The left is full of morons that view our Constitution as a document of convenience that is right when it agrees with what they want and wrong when it does not. The mob that is the liberal world is easily led astray by great speeches and false information. They are whipped into a frenzy by their mob leaders and are lied to so often that they can’t understand the truth. They have trouble with reality because they have been taught liberal BS all their lives.

This is how we get liberals who are worked up over a politician who actually follows the Constitution (at least in the two examples cited) and who can’t grasp what is Constitutional and what is not.

The mob is dangerous and the only way to defeat it is with force.

While we have a long way to go and anything can happen, Perry might just be the one to apply that force.

BTW, in the linked article Al Sharpton says:

Perry, Sharpton said, “is looking to go to the O.K. Corral and start shooting. … Rather than the left get caught sleeping, we better load up, because he is bringing it.”

This seems like violent rhetoric. Did Sharpton not hear Obama call for civility? This seems much worse than cross hairs on a map and yet Sharpton is spewing such violence. Al is the first one to point his blood stained fingers at people when violence occurs and he is more than willing to blame the right for that violence (even though it is caused by the left and sometimes by Sharpton himself) so how dare he use such violent terms?

Is Sharpton suggesting that the left should not retreat but should reload instead? My, my, my… I wonder how something like that would be perceived by the left if someone like Sarah Palin said it. Oh, wait…

How long will it take for the liberal morons who went after Palin and other conservatives after the Tuscon shooting to come to Sharpton’s defense?

We already know they will call me a racist for bringing it up.

That is, after all, the mob mentality.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Obama regime is granting amnesty by fiat and allowing illegals the regime deems pose no threat to national security to stay in the US. It is bad enough that the government refuses to secure our borders and prevent people from walking in but now it is allowing those it catches to continue on as if they broke no laws.

I know the argument. These poor folks are children of people who came here illegally. They had no choice in the matter and they grew up here so why send them away? Because they are here illegally. Not to mention that those who are not adults are kept here and their parents then stay so we do not split up the families.

The Congress has been fiddling with legislation to address illegal immigration and it has been stalled in Congress for quite some time. Let’s face it, Democrats don’t want to lose their voting base.

So instead of allowing the process, as slow as it is, to work things out, the Obama regime has just decided to bypass Congress and do what it wants via fiat.

This should come as no surprise. Obama and his regime do not like the Constitution and these people do not like the constraints placed on them. They have an agenda to push and they will not let the law of the land get in the way.

This, of course, is a move to placate illegal immigrants and their support groups before the next election. Obama made a ton of promises to his illegal supporters and he has been unable to fulfill them so he is bypassing Congress in order to appease those who have no say in things. He is shoring up his base so he can get the Hispanic vote.

Period.

This moron is playing politics with our sovereignty and our national security in order to get votes.

How is it that this guy claims to love America and then pushes on to fundamentally transform her? If you love her why does she need fundamental transformation?

The only conclusion is that he hates America as it is and will not be happy until his Socialist dreams are realized.

Maybe they need to organize a flash mob on DC and get rid of all the dead wood…

Related:
Washington Times

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama was speaking to the racist group the National Council of La Raza about immigration reform. The group basically wants open borders and unlimited free entry into this country as well as amnesty for those here illegally. Obama is more than willing to oblige but told them he needs a dance partner. What that means is he wants Republicans to get on board so he will have political cover.

Obama told the group that the idea of doing things on his own is very tempting, and not just with immigration reform. He then went on to say that this is not how our Democracy works. But was that statement his attempt to test the waters?

Obama has already loosened immigration law enforcement by Executive Order so what does he want to do on his own?

Perhaps he is releasing a trial balloon with regard to the debt limit talks. The idea has been floated by Obama’s henchmen that he should invoke the 14^th Amendment and bypass Congress in order to take on more debt. Even Slick Willy Clinton thinks Obama should do that and Bernie Sanders thinks so as well and says they can worry about the courts later.

Here are supposed leaders in this country discussing ways to subvert the Constitution and do what they want knowing that the damage will be done long before the courts ever decide the issue. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube and they know it. They can get slapped by the courts and yell “my bad” but they will have gotten away with it.

Or will they? Obama might be testing the waters to see if there would be much opposition to going it alone. As stated, he has already loosened immigration laws, not to the satisfaction of La Raza, but he has done an end run around Congress. The sad thing is that Congress seems willing to sit by and let him.

However, there is one thing the courts can’t weigh in on and that is impeachment. If Obama tries to invoke the 14^th Amendment then Congress should draw up articles of impeachment.

The 14^th Amendment does not give any president the authority to borrow money. The Constitution is clear that this is the responsibility of Congress.

He might have been speaking out of frustration but with this guy one has to be careful because he is one who thinks the Constitution is too limiting. He does not like it and he is willing to ignore it (see Obamacare).

So go ahead Mr. Obama, test those waters and see how things pan out. Perhaps all your supporters will be behind you. Hell, you already have Clinton in your corner and the liberals all love him.

But keep in mind that if you do anything on your own Congress might just show its teeth with impeachment proceedings.

And that is something the courts can’t help you with.

Of course the Senate would probably save him but the courts and the Senate won’t be able to stop the folks with their pitchforks and torches…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The debt ceiling is looming in the near future as members of both parties haggle over how to solve the issue of raising the credit limit on the US. Republicans want cuts and many are insisting on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Democrats say they want cuts but also want to increase taxes. There is a stalemate as Tea Party Republicans buck the entrenched Republicans who would likely make another flop of a deal in order to get this done.

There is increased talk of Barack Obama doing an end run around Congress by invoking the 14^th Amendment. Some legal scholars and Democrats say that Section 4 of the Amendment allows Obama to continue to incur debt because it reads (the applicable portion):

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The key here is debt authorized by law. The law is in place and that law imposes a debt ceiling. No president has the authority to incur more debt or to ignore the debt ceiling because that ceiling is authorized by law. Also, the new debt incurred by an end run would not be debt authorized by law because the Constitution gives the authority to incur and pay debt to Congress. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power; “…to pay the Debts…”

In addition, the second paragraph of that section states that Congress has the power:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

The Executive has no authority to raise the debt limit and therefore authorize the borrowing of money. Only Congress can do that. If Obama attempts to use the 14^th Amendment to bypass Congress he will have violated the Constitution and will be subject to impeachment. The only thing that is authorized under the 14^th is to pay the debt we already have. The validity of that debt, already authorized under Section 8, shall not be questioned.

Not to mention, the Amendment gives the authority over the matter to Congress. Section 5 reads; “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Maybe it is just me but I don’t see where it says the president can do anything here.

We have the ability to pay our debt even if we hit the debt ceiling. We can service our debt from the money that is confiscated from us each month by the government. What will be required is for us to cut programs that are not authorized by the Constitution and are not part of the debt process. Our debt is held by private entities and other governments and we will be required to pay that.

We will not be required to pay for the plethora of programs that are not public debt.

There are legal scholars on both sides of this issue and it could get dicey. The reality is that an end run would incur more debt and that is not something any president is allowed to do.

Larry Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University School of Law, said he doubts the argument that Obama could declare the debt limit unconstitutional. The debt ceiling, according to Rosenthal, limits the president’s ability to issue more debt. It doesn’t say that the existing debt is invalid. So if the president runs out of borrowing authority, he must find other ways — including suspending government programs — to pay the debt.

“What the government can’t do under the 14th Amendment is repudiate a debt that’s been authorized by law. It can’t say, ‘I’m not going to pay,’ ” Rosenthal said. Washington Post

If Obama does an end run he will effectively put an end to his reelection. He will be impeached and even if that is not successful, he will incur the wrath of the American public, the people who pay the bills.

Obama will find that he overstepped his bounds and that he will end up paying a heavy price.

And he will ensure that the GOP presidential candidate wins in a landslide and the GOP will pick up a lot of House and Senate seats.

As an aside, if this happens and nothing is done about it then Congress can never cry about any future leader taking its authority. No matter what, Congress will have to sit on its hands and be quiet.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The great State of Texas has passed a law that makes it illegal for security screeners to touch people on certain parts of their bodies. This is in response to the invasion of privacy that takes place when TSA officers conduct enhanced pat downs of air travelers. The TSA has struck back in a posting at the TSA blog that lists its response to Texas as; you can’t do that because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says states can’t regulate the federal government.

That is very true but only in cases where the actions of the federal government are allowed by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is responsible for the traveling public. Let us assume though, that the federal government would be allowed to regulate our travel under the Commerce Clause (it is stretched for so many things that this is not out of the question). That still would not allow the federal government to claim supremacy when the act involves the violation of our Constitutional rights. The actions by the TSA are a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure without probable cause and without a warrant.

No matter how supreme the federal government is, it cannot invoke supremacy on issues where it is violating the Constitution or where it has no Constitutional authority in the matter. The Tenth Amendment gives the states or the people the supremacy over any item NOT listed in the Constitution.

If the TSA wants to drag out the dusty, seldom used copy of the Constitution that the agency has then it must be willing to accept the limits placed on the federal government by that very document. The federal government has no enumerated power to search people as the TSA agents are doing. NONE, period.

It is obvious that the TSA thinks it, as part of the federal government, has supremacy in this issue but the reality is Texas has exerted its Tenth Amendment right to supremacy over an issue not Constitutionally enumerated to the federal government.

Let us also not forget that Texas did not pass a law that interferes with airline travel so even if one can claim supremacy under Commerce, the law in question does not involve that. The Texas law simply says that if a screener touches certain areas of people’s bodies without probable cause or a warrant then they have committed a crime.

Setting off an alarm in the metal detector is not probable cause to touch people in areas that would have one arrested if done on the street. Being a baby or a child is not probable cause to molest a child in hopes of finding a bomb. Refusing to go through the X-Ray machine is no more probable cause for an invasive search than is refusing to allow a police officer to search your vehicle during a traffic stop. If police officers started pulling people who refused searches out of their cars and subjected them to the pat down performed by the TSA then every civil rights group would be up in arms and the people would be rebelling against such invasion. However, the TSA does the same thing and then has the nerve to claim it can do so and has supremacy over the states that try to stop it.

I am not sure the TSA wants to open the can of worms involved in citing the Constitution to rebuke a state because that would lead to closer scrutiny involving the Constitutionality of what the TSA is doing, the role of the federal government in the process and the violation of our Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights.

For those who say it is moot because we do not have a right to travel, the federal government has codified travel as a right that will not be impeded (if one agrees that government can regulate travel under Commerce then this law has to be allowed as part of that regulation).

TSA impedes us unnecessarily in the name of security. Remember folks, no terrorist has been caught by the TSA and the TSA routinely fails screening tests where “harmful” items are sneaked through security.

Not to worry though, the TSA does ensure our genitals are in place prior to boarding a plane…

Where our genitals are is not the issue here. The issue is where the TSA is keeping its collective heads…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.