Obnoxious "celebrity" chef plays nanny.

On the left is "celebrity" chief Jamie Oliver, an English twat if ever there was one. Oliver. The photo on the left is Jamie before he started playing Nanny. The to the right is Jamie today. Notice anything?

As Nanny Oliver is using his "reality show" to harass American schools he himself is living high on the hog. I might suggest he is eating high on the hog.

Oliver has celebrityitis, that disease that causes someone who gets attention to suddenly become personally weird while pompously lecturing the world. The weird includes the typical "celebrity" trait of saddling their poor children with bizarre names. So Oliver has named his kids, in order, Poppy Honey Rosie, Daisy Boo, Petal Blossom Rainbow and Buddy Bear. The poor kids.

Oliver has a couple of gimmicks he pulls to get himself noticed. One is that the picks poorer regions to go lecture them like some "high class" missionary being sent to heathens. He did this in Rotherham, England, with TV cameras in tow, and again in Huntington, West Virginia.

Oliver's desire to make the rules for what people eat may just be revealed in the name of one of his "reality shows:" The Ministry of Food.

A lot of the Nanny State measures that ban foods from the schools started with the campaigning of chubby face Jamie. Typical of "celebrities" Oliver is gaga over expensive "organic" foods. He bragged that he buys "from specialist growers, organic suppliers and farmers" and not "supermarkets" which "are like a factory." Of course, being a millionaire makes that easy for him to do. It is much harder for the poorer folks he goes out to "save" from themselves. That didn't stop him from taking £1.2 million per year to hype the up-market food chain Sainsbury's. He then turned around attacking the store for selling items of which he doesn't approve. Sainsbury's CEO Justin King responded: "Dictating to people—or unleashing an expletive-filled tirade—is not the way to engagement." Poor Mr. King does not realize that "dictating to people" is precisely what a "Ministry of Food" is intended to do.

Oliver convinced a school in England to allow him to bring his cameras into the school and let him prepare all the meals for students. He used his time to campaign for government measures to "improve" what people eat. Tony Blair, the George Bush of England, immediately promised to spend £280 million more per year on school food. Hey, those organic foods are costly. But, it seems the main thing Oliver wants is publicity for himself, hence his confrontational style and publicity stunts, such as his slaughtering a live lamb on television.

One school in the UK allowed itself to be used as a publicity stunt for Oliver. Oliver came in and mandated what foods students would be allowed to eat for lunch and what they couldn't eat. Parents revolted by coming to the school at lunch time and handing banned food items to their kids through the fence.

While Oliver claims that only "local produce" should be used, and that all meals should be prepared from scratch, it turned out that sauces he used in his own restaurant were produced at a factory, 400 miles away.

Oliver, like many do-gooders simply became tired of people not taking his advice so he lobbied for government programs that would force his recipes down the throats of school children. Other that the extra millions that Tony Blair was happy to spend, the net result was that 400,000 British school children left the school lunch system preferring to bring bagged lunches from homes. Oliver also created a black market in the snack foods that he hates. Students started smuggling foods onto campus and selling them to classmates, which lead to kids being suspended from school. That causes me to wonder what the primary purpose of the school is: Is it to educate children or make them eat according to the dictates of Chubby Jamie? It would seem that students being thrown out of school for disobeying "The Ministry of Food," pretty much made it clear that education takes a backseat to Jamie Oliver's politics.

After his efforts in Rotherham, Oliver wrote an 8 page "manifesto"to try to pressure the British government to establish a "Ministry of Food center in every British town." Oliver's manifesto used the wedge of national health care to control everything. He argued that what people eat is a "massive social issue" because any health issues related to diet will cost the National Health Service money. This, by the way, is one hidden cost of nationalized health care, it is then used as an excuse to control over any area of life that might impact one's health—and what doesn't qualify? Oliver warned, "the government urgently needs to be putting cooking right at the top of its agenda."

Reason magazine noted that one meal Oliver suggested as a "wholesome meal" to take to school actually contained 1,183 calories and 55 grams of fat. They noted the same student could eat a Happy Meal at McDonald's and another Chicken McNugget's Happy Meal and get less calories and less fat than they would from Oliver's "wholesome" suggestion. Is it any wonder that Oliver had become a fatty eating his "healthy" food. This isn't an issue of health, but of control.

Republican Wants to Give Rapists Free Pass

A Republican State Representative, Ryan Fattman, wants to give rapists a free pass provided they make sure they rape women who are "illegal" immigrants. Republicans, the organized party of hate in America, were protesting the decision by Gov. Patrick to not join a federal "Secure Comminities" program that tuns local cops into immigration thugs.

The Governor noted that law enforcement says that such measures push the immigrant community away from cooperating with the police when it comes to criminal investigations—and by criminal I mean things that actually violate the rights of others, not the kind of "crimes" Republicans want enforce, which merely offend the tastes of fundamentalist Christians.

Fattman was asked about a female "illegal" immigrant who might be raped and then afraid to come forward to report the rapist. Exuding the love of Christ that is so typical of Republicans, Fattman said: "My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward." He then repeated the lie bigots use to excuse their bigotry: "If you do it [immigrate] the right way, you don't have to be concerned about these things."

I will try to explain this slowly, so that even mentally-challenged Republican office holders can understand. First, it is almost completely impossible to "do it the right way," thanks to their big government, bureaucratic hurdles meant to actually prevent people from immigrating legally. When my ancestors came to the US, they just got on a boat and then walked in. They didn't have to hire immigration attorneys and jump through the hoops that the hate-mongers have erected to prevent immigration. One actually just walked across the border, from Canada. Damn him, but for that I could have been born in a free country!

Fattman also said the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't "extend to illegal immigrants." And he is not worried about racial profiling. Of course not. Neither is the Klan.

Now I wonder if a child is raped, who is hear illegal, if Fattman's hatred goes so far as to claim that the rapist of the child shouldn't be reported because the "illegals" have to be taught a lesson.

Let us assume that Mr. Fattman has managed to find a brain-dead female, besotted enough with the Bible to marry him. Let us assume that one night she is walking home from her local church five minute of hate meeting against gay, illegal, Muslim, Mexicans. Along the way a good, God-fearing 'Merican, who had the sense to be born here in the first place, not like them "take-our-jobs, welfare-consuming brown people, comes up to Mrs. Fattman and violently has his way with her, as his contribution to the furtherance of the white race.

Mrs. Fattman is not a particularly observant woman, hence the reason she married Fattman in the first place. She doesn't notice the "God, Guns & Guts" bumper sticker on the pick-up truck, or the license plate number as her rapists drives off to his local Klavern meeting at the GOP offices. But, not far off, is a one of those 'Mexcans" who came here illegally. He say the entire rape. In fact he got a photo of the rapists, clear as day, along with the license plate number.

Then he thought about calling the police to give them the evidence. But then he remembers that Fattman and his fellow fanatics said that people like him should be afraid "to come forward." And he doesn't. He erases the photo. He doesn't call the police. He goes home to his family and tells them it was an uneventful day. Of course if Mrs. Fattman got pregnant then Mr. Fattman would want to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. After all that baby was coming into the country the right way!

In the end Fattman and others like him are telling "illegal" immigrants that if they witness a crime they shouldn't report it. If they can testify against a murderer they better keep their mouths shut. If they know where the child-killer lives, keep that information to themselves. Even if they are learn of some real terrorist plot, "they should be afraid to come forward." And this is what passes for "tough on crime" in Republicans circles. They would rather catch someone for the non-victim crime of looking for a job without government permission slips, that catch rapists, killers or terrorists. They hate immigrants so much they would rather give a free pass to real criminals.

Secret Service Interrogates Kid Without Parental Knowledge

What the hell is going on in this country when any government department takes a child, without parental permission or access to legal counsel, and interrogates the child?

In this case 13-year-old Vito Lapinta had posted on his Facebook page that the assassination of bin Laden could inspire retaliations and that Obama ought to be concerned about that. That is hardly earthshaking, Obama own people said pretty much the same thing.

But Vito was taken out of his classes by a Secret Service agent, apparently with the full cooperation of the school officials. The Secret Service are police agents, albeit of a special kind. And no police agent has the right to interrogate children without parental permission. Even kids have rights to legal counsel.

In this case the Secret Service said he was fine and released him. But his innocence is not relevant to issue that his rights were violated. What if he had said something that sane people, that is people who are not part of the political hysteria, would deem to be threatening? Anything he said could result in criminal charges being filed against him.

It is the possibility that criminal charges may result which is the reason that government thugs have no right to interrogate children without parents, or legal counsel, there to protect the rights of the child.

Vito says he was scared and that he will now be more careful about what opinions he expresses. That is sad, that is precisely the sort of response that government thugs want, but it the opposite of what we need in a free society. No child should be afraid to speak his mind, no adult either. Civil libertarians should be outraged.

I also feel it necessary to remind people that government schools are branches of the government. You can not expect government bureaucrats to protect your children from other government bureaucrats. Quite the contrary in fact. Every teacher and administrator has to be considered an agent of the state and it has to be assumed they will put the interests of the state ahead of the interests of your child. The great immorality of state education is the relationship it creates between educators and government. It makes them opponents of the best interests of the child, which ought to be their first concern.

MYOB isn't always the best policy.

One of the problems with platitudes about life is that life is more complex than they allow. Consider one that is popular with libertarian types: MYOB or Mind Your Own Business.

It’s not a bad rule if it is properly understood. But often I think it is misunderstood. There are most certainly times when you should NOT mind your own business.

Think about the obvious ones: you see an adult physically assaulting a child. Clearly you don’t want to mind your own business. You need to do something to stop the assault on the child. You have to judge how you do that, but minding your business would be monstrous under these circumstances. Perhaps you merely wish to call the police. Or, perhaps, you feel you have to intervene immediately.

Similarly there are times you ought not intervene.

One of the more interesting television shows is the reality show What Would You Do? It is interesting because the show sets up moral dilemmas for unsuspecting members of the public and then watches how they react.

Often people are heroes who make a stand for what is right. Too often there are just nasty, unpleasant people who turn a blind eye. Worse, some condone the cruelties they witness.

Often the show sets up scenarios where the moral imperative is to intervene. For instance, a teenage boy is seen screaming at his girlfriend in public, she is crying and he is threatening to hit her if she doesn’t obey him. People do step in. Sometimes they watch for a second, some just immediately call the police. But others immediately intervene.

I faced this dilemma once while in New York City. I was at NYU for a seminar and had taken a lunch break and was walking through Washington Square with its famed arch. A boy of about 13 was practicing tennis against the arch. His father was standing there pouring out the most abusive, screaming, tirades I had ever heard directed at a child. The whole reason was that the boy wasn’t perfect with his tennis strokes.

I first heard the shouting from a distance and looked around to see what was happening. I could see the boy cowering from this bully of a father, trying to make him happy. But this jerk kept screaming at the frightened boy. People were close to them. Some were only a few yards away. They all tried to pretend that nothing was happening. Maybe they thought they were minding their own business.

I was furious and when I get furious I rush in first, think later. I came barreling down on this bully and unleashed an equally vituperative volley of verbal assaults on him. As I got closer and closer he started backing away—typically cowardly of bullies like him. I truly felt like slapping this asshole across the face with a 2 x 4. The poor boy was terrified and like so many abused kids starting apologizing for his father and telling me that he, the boy, was the one at fault.

The poor kid wanted to blame himself for the monster that he witnessed in his father. I turned to the boy and said: “Don’t ever say that. It’s not your fault. It’s his fault!” I pointed at the trembling bully when I said it. People in the park watched the whole incident.

I walk away and not two minutes later I heard this jerk of a father starting over again. I turned back; ready to pounce on the jerk. Then I saw a man who had previous witnessed my altercation with the man heading it that direction. He immediately started telling off the father. He acted because my actions gave him moral permission to do so.

But in an episode of What Would You Do? the situation was turned around, sort of. When shouldn’t you intervene?

In this case they had a woman in a wheelchair with a physical handicap. An actress would play a customer who wouldn’t leave the woman alone, always wanting to “help” her. She was insisting on helping even when the woman was telling her to please stop. They then showed how other shoppers responded to this “well-intentioned” woman who wouldn’t mind her own business. The woman in the wheelchair neither needed, nor wanted the help being offered.

There is a lesson in that as well. Yes, we ought intervene when someone is being attacked by others. But, when they are doing fine on their own, and they don’t want you help then MYOB is quite appropriate.

This is what government can’t understand. They seem unable to make that sort of distinction. This is why government is such a pathetic problem-solver, often doing more harm than the problem it attempts to solve.

They see a girl being raped and they intervene. But they define her voluntary relationship with her boyfriend as rape and intervene even when she begs them not to do so. Politicians see individuals who exploited children to make pornography and ban it. But then they equally punish teens who take nude photos of themselves and punish them like rapists.

The obvious difference is helping people against their will. Government has trouble operating with moral nuances. It kills flies with sledgehammers. Now, there may be times to swing a sledgehammer at a problem, but often there are times when that is not wise. Government views life as black and white, not the multiple shades of gray that actually exist. So it is constantly swinging a sledgehammer that does far more harm than good.

Consider the young boy in Colorado with anger issues. His therapist told the boy to draw a picture expressing his anger, to release the anger. The boy got pissed at his teacher—given the state of government schools that is often a justified emotion. He few a picture of a stick figure with a gun and wrote: “teacher must die.” Remember, there was NO indication that he would, or even could do anything to carry this out. He finished the drawing, felt better and was throwing it away.

The teacher took the drawing from him. She talked to the parents and the therapist even confirmed the situation. Everyone was fine, and then the police stuck their nose into things. The child was then arrested and jailed while the parents scrambled to get him out. Police in particular seem to find it difficult to make moral judgments. They rush in, fists flying, when often a simple word or two would solve the problem. Now that government schools are acting more like cops than educators they are adopting the same “zero tolerance” mentality that infects the police.

Take the situation of another student, 15 year-old Nick Stuban. Stuban was suspended for buying one capsule of a synthetic compound that supposedly mimics pot. The product was legal, by the way. No laws were broken.

School officials had heard rumors of illegal drugs and investigated, not finding those they did discover that Stuban had purchased this legal substance and then questioned him, and had him sign a statement, without his parent’s present. This, by the way, is one of the most evil and dangerous features of government schools. The schools act as if they are police officers, but without any of the legal restraints that cops would have. They are doing a policing end-run around the Constitution. All employees at government schools are government employees or agents of the government. But the courts pretend they are not.

A teacher takes a cell phone from a 17-year-old girl and searches it without a warrant or probably cause. The courts say the teacher doesn’t need them. Teacher discovers a photo of the girl topless and shrieks “child porn” and calls in the police officer that is now often routinely stationed in schools to arrest children. The police officer looks at the photo and arrests the girl as a child pornographer and her life is ruined, as she is place on a sex offender list for the rest of her earthly existence.

Stuban was active in Boy Scouts, active on the football team, but these activities took place on campus. With a signed “confession” the school instantly suspended for 10 days and said they would suspend him completely. The appeal process took weeks. The 10 days turned into 20 days. Nick felt increasingly isolated from his friends.

The “zero tolerance” sledgehammer convinced many of Nick’s peers that something far worse had to have happened, otherwise the school wouldn’t act this way—a naïve view of government education. The education bureaucrats who have the kids and parents by the throat say they are merely “helping” the kids. An attorney who has worked with such cases said that the people being “helped” “feel very often that they are in the middle of criminal prosecution.”

The pressure built up for Nick. His mother was on a ventilator suffering from ALS. She struggled to stay alive telling her family she did it because she wanted to live long enough to see Nick graduate high school. The school bureaucrats and their sledgehammer made it appear that Nick would never graduate. Nick’s father, Steve, was confused. The school said they had no idea what the substance was that they were prosecuting Nick over. Steve said, “You have an infraction, you don’t know what the substance is and you arbitrarily apply the harshest standard to it.” Yes, that is the government sledgehammer.

A disciplinary hearing was held and school bureaucrats warned the family against bringing an attorney by the bureaucrats. They foolishly listened. Steve says the hearing turned accusatory and vicious. Sandy Stuban started crying in her wheelchair. Nick started crying. The school officials, no doubt, were proud of their sledgehammer.

Two more weeks dragged on before the bureaucrats told the family anything. Nick would be assigned to another school, where he couldn’t be with any of his friends. The bureaucrats thought they were being lenient. Steve told Nick, “There’s no way to win.” Depressed the teen actually did turn to drugs, something that wasn’t the case before. He was trying to find a way to ease the depression and pain he was suffering. The boy texted a friend that he wanted to take his life. The family took him to a psychiatric hospital where he diagnosed as clinically depressed. They treated him and advised counseling, which Nick started.

Nick took his own life, describing how much pain he was in and how unfair life was. Nick didn’t understand. Life is neither fair nor unfair, it merely is. People are fair, or unfair. In this case the government officials who pretend to be educators were the ones who were unfair. They used the sledgehammer.

They were morally and intellectually incapable of telling when help is needed and when it is intrusive. But that is how government is.

Every Decent Belgian Should be Ashamed

Just a few hours ago I reported that a judge in Belgium ruled that Laurent Ghilain is legall the father of the child known as Samuel. The fact of this was never in question, but the Belgium goverment refused to recognize the paternity because the mother was a surrogate and thus refused to give little Samuel a passport. Since the surrogacy took place in Ukraine, without a passport allowing him to enter Belgium the child was sentenced to life in an orphanage. This, in spite of his father, and his father's spouse, Peter, having a home waiting for their son. The monsters in the Belgium government said they had no "regulations" that covered the situation so they damned this little boy to a loveless existence due to their own shortcomings.

Well a judge yesterday recognize the "lineage" that Samuel is the son of Laurent and said the child could come home to his fathers. Laurent's partern, Samuel's other father, Peter Meurren emailed me about two hours ago: "We're back to zero, the ministry doesn't agree with the judge's decision... :-("

But the utter indency of bureaucracy had to once again show its inhumane and ugly face. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has appealed the case saying they do not wish to give the child a passport. For what reason! Is it still the pathetic excuse that they don't have any guidelines to make such decisions because no asswad sat down and wrote rules that these brainless pieces of shit could understand? How can it be? The court issued a ruling which gave even the dumbest of these morons some guidelines. But they plow ahead with their determined effort to damn this baby to a life where no one loves him!

This is one of the most heartless, cruel sides of bureaucracy that I have ever seen. They are harming a baby. What sort of souless monsters run the Belgian government?

Please protest this measure. Write the Belgian authorities. For information on that go to an English Facebook page here. I am sorry to say the gay media has yet to catch on to this story. It needs to be publicized and people need to start working on taking the Belgian government before the European Court of Human Rights. Belgium needs to be shamed before the world.

Now maybe these assholes hate children, or maybe they hate gay people. But ever decent Belgian should be ashamed to be associated with what their government is doing.

And now, for a change: just some good news.

Almost two weeks ago we reported the sad case of Laurent Ghilain and Peter Meurrens, a Belgian couple that were caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. They wanted a child in their family and decided to use a surrogate in the Ukraine with Laurent as the donor. Their son Samuel was born two years ago but they have not been able to bring him home because the Beligian government has refused to issue a passport for the child. Even though the boy has a home waiting for him he has been stuck in a Ukrainian orphanage. The bureaucrats claim they have no regulations for this situation so they can't do anything because they don't know what to do. (A Facebook page for this case is here.)

Today Laurent sent out a notice:

The Belgian judge said YES, we just got the decision. The judge recognizes, after 2 years of waiting, the "lineage" (bond between father and son). Prosecutors still have 1.5 months as from 28/02 to appeal. We will demand a Belgian passport for Samuel at the Ministries of Foreign Affairs this week, and we cross our fingers that the response is immediate and that we do not hear of an appeal. If all goes well, it should go fast... let's hope."

This is damn good news and I'm thrilled for little Samuel and his fathers. Given the nature of bureaucrats, they aren't human, I still worry that more heartache will come to this family before final victory. But I believe they will eventually win, but they need the loving support of everyone.

More Justice, Well a Little Bit

Kelley Williams-Bolar is a mother who lied, and I applaud her for doing so. Kelly is a 40-year-old mother of two who is working on a teaching certificate and works with special needs kids at a local school. She lives in a housing project and the local government school is a pretty awful place to send children. Kelley's father lives in a a different school district and she registered her children in that school district using her father's address. Kelley would drive her daughters to a school bus stop, and after school they would walk to their grandfather's, who would watch them until Kelley got off work and could pick them up. For this "crime" she and her father were arrested.

When those damned bureaucrats (yet again) learned of this they demanded Kelley pay them $30,000 for tuition fees. When she was unable and unwilling to do so they put her on trial and she was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, reduced to 10 days, two years on probation and 80 of community service.

After hundreds of thousands of protests were lodged, the Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, has asked the Ohio Parole Board to consider a pardon. Of course, that is a rather cowardly way for Kasich to deal with the situation since he could issue a pardon on his own. But he'd rather have a bureaucratic stamp of approval on it first. Kasich said: "Many people have shared their thoughts with me in letters, e-mail and phone calls and I appreciate their outreach." (Anyone want to bet he doesn't appreciate their outreach and finds this whole thing a headache?

The teacher's unions don't like cases like this as they don't want any attention drawn to the sorry state of public education, unless, of course, it is to find a reason to increase their salaries again. And the sad reality is that the public school system is now run for the benefit of the teacher's unions and not the students.

The best solution to the inequality situation is allowing parents to send their children to any school they wish, with the funding following the student. Yes, that would defund some schools—the shitty ones, who either have to get their act together or go under. But the unions want to protect those schools and those teachers at the expense of the children.

And, of course, Egypt

There is really good news in Egypt as well. As you no doubt know the entire Middle East is in turmoil after the Tunisian people successfully rid themselves of their dictatorial government. Then Egypt erupted in similar protests with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets in amazingly peaceful demonstrations—in spite of violence being used by the government and their thugs. I was absolutely convinced these would succeed and that Mubarak would be ousted. It took a few days more than I thought it would, but he resigned.

The most recent marches in Egypt, however, were quite interesting. It was the police marching, telling the public they are sorry about how they treated them. I guess they realized that things have changed and they better apologize if they want to have employment, and with Mubarak out of power they aren't working for him anymore. Now, if we can just get the TSA employees to walk off their jobs and apologize to the American people for their groping, fondling, intrusive photos, abrupt and rude manners and flagrant disregard for the humanity of their victims.

More good news out of the Middle East is that the protests are spreading from one Arab dictatorship to another. Contrary to the hysteria pushed by the war lobby and Israeli lobby, a very large percentage of people in Muslim nations actually do want modern government that is democratic and, at the very least, respects a greater amount of individual rights than currently is the case. These sentiments are held down by an alliance between the dictatorial government and the radical Islamists—which in Iran is the same group.

Now hundreds of thousands of people are protesting, yet again, in Iran. The Islamist theocracy there has never been popular. It was put into power as the only real opposition to the tyrannical rule of the US-backed Shah of Iran. Had the US not backed the Shah I doubt that the Ayatollah's would have come to power and the modern Islamists political movement would be much less than what it is today. Truly, US foreign policy has created, as Jonathan Kwitny put it, "Endless Enemies."

Iran has always been one of the most Western Muslim nations in terms of culture. And with most the population being young people, who are not enamored with the moralistic rule of Iran's version of the Republican Party. There has been widespread hatred in Iran for their godly rulers. The one thing that would unify the people behind their government would be US intervention there. That is not likely so there is a chance that this time the people will topple the religious regime that is holding them down.

In many ways American ideals—even those now discarded by our own politicians—and culture still inspire those who seek freedom in other nations. Unfortunately our foreign policy has continually botched up our natural appeal by linking us to oppressive regimes. The US continually backed Mubarak as it backed the Shah of Iran, pushing the oppressed people into the arms of the very groups we say we are working against. American interventionist policy is the biggest boost the Islamic radicals have had. I do think the true sentiments of a large percentage of the Muslim world is what we are seeing in these protests. We could quite possibly be in the first stages of multiple revolutions across the Islamic world that will push them toward modern, liberal values.

Court strips man of right to have sex.

The British Nanny state has gone one step further than most by stripping a man of the right to have sex based on the court's belief that the man is unable to make this decision for himself.

The man, only known in court records as Alan, is 41 years old. The man is clearly mentally challenged and has a low IQ. He was in care with the state due to his mental state and while living in care met another man named Kieron, which whom he developed a relationship.

But state bureaucrats argued that Alan isn't able to consent because he doesn't understand enough about sex to do so. But suggestions that Alan be given some basic sex education was dismissed by the same bureaucrats who argued such information would only "confuse" him.

The judge has ordered Alan and Kieron to end their relationship and put Alan under "close supervision" to guarantee that he does not have sex.

Under a 2005 law judges have the power to declare people mentally incapable of making their own decisions and then take those powers upon themselves. This includes the power to force people to have surgery, to force them to have abortions and force them to use contraception. It also includes, apparently, the ability to force people to never have sex again.

What is particularly bizarre is that the judge said Alan is incapable of making the decision to have a relationship with Kieron because he (Alan) didn't understand how sex between a man and woman could create babies. The judge noted that Alan thought babies were brought by the stork. Even if one were to accept the argument that this lack of information means Alan could run into unwelcomed problems regarding causing women to be pregnant, his sexual relationship was NOT with a woman. This strikes me as being on par with denying a person the right to drive a car because they don't understand the mechanics of flying.

There are two aspects to this issue. One legitimate aspect is the man's ability to consent, but the second is the nature of the acts to which he is consenting. We allow individuals with little understanding of dietary needs to make decisions regarding the foods they eat, though government is trying to strip that right away as well. The consequences of eating a candy bar are relatively trivial. One doesn't need to have some high level of understanding to make that choice.

So what level of understanding is needed in this case. Given that pregnancy is clearly not a threat the only real potential problems might be health risks. But wouldn't a less intrusive—certainly less authoritarian—measure be simply checking Kieron and Alan for any diseases that might be contracted. If both are healthy in these matters, and the implications of the reports I've read indicate they are, then there is negligible risk on the part of Alan. His ability to consent should not be judged merely on the basis of his mental abilities but also as to the risks he is realistically facing. If both men have a clean bill of health then there is virtually no risk and Alan would appear to be capable to consent to something of no risk.

There might be a case to make sure that someone with Alan's mental abilities isn't wandering the streets having sex willy-nilly, with no understanding of the risks he faces. But that was not the issue the court addressed. It addressed what appears to be a monogamous relationship with one other individual.

But it appears the court has ONLY considered Alan's mental abilities and paid no attention to the actual risks involved in this specific case. Instead the judge dragged in unrelated issues, such as a woman becoming pregnant, even though Alan was not having sex with a woman.

I do not immediately dismiss the necessity of a court to make decisions in those rare cases where a person's individual mental level is so low that they are incapable of informed consent. But informed consent should not be seen in a vacuum but understood in the context of what it is that the person is wishing to consent to. That is something the court failed to do here.

A child sacrificed on the altar of bureaucracy

This is a disturbing story, one that leaves a child stuck in an orphanage when his loving father and partner have been trying for two years to bring him home. But heartless bureaucrats argue they have no regulations to cover the situation so they leave the child a legal orphan, though he has parents and a home waiting for him

Unless you are fluent in French and Dutch, I suggest you hit the "CC" at the bottom of the screen for English subtitles.

Laurent Ghilain, and his partner Peter Meurrens are a married gay couple who decided they wanted to have a child. Adoption for gay couples is technically legal in Belgium but they were told extremely difficult and unlikely. After some discussion they decide to go the surrogacy route. A surrogate was found in the Ukraine and Ghilain is the father. Upon the birth of the child, Samuel, Ghilain and Meurrens flew to the Ukraine to meet their new son.

Everything seemed fine until they went to the Belgian embassy. The embassy said that Belgium has no regulations regarding surrogacy. It isn't technically illegal either. But, with no regulations at all, the embassy said they would not give the couple a passport for their child, which means they can't take him home. Imagine that! Government officials were basically telling the couple to abandon their son because bureaucrats had not come up some regulations to cover the existence of the child. The couple hoped they could find a solution. They found a foster family that the paid to care for the child while they continued to work the heartless, perhaps brainless, bureaucracy.

Over and over they came to a dead end. Since the fucktwat bureaucrats never wrote regulations they acted as if the child were an illegal commodity. Apparently, in the absence of regulations, rights are ignored. The default state, in this theory, is that people have NO rights unless bureaucrats write out the regulations to control those rights. Disgusting!

Over and over the couple were told that they had to abandon their son. Like all decent, loving parents they continued to fight for Samuel. Then tragedy! The foster family told them that too much time had gone by and that if they didn't take Samuel they would abandon him at an orphanage. Desperate they flew to Ukraine with a female friend who went to drive across the border with Samuel, pretending he was her son. She was arrested. The couple bailed her out and she was released, but Samuel was confined in an orphanage.

Samuel has two fathers waiting for him, two fathers who love him. Yet he sits alone in the orphanage with no love, with no parents, only because cruel bureaucrats have no regulations regarding him. This is a shameful blot on the reputation of Belgium. It is the bureaucratic mentality gone made, sacrificing a child to the fetish of regulations.

Individuals are urged to write Jan Matthysen, the Belgian ambassador. A Facebook page for the couple is here.

Washington@diplobel.fed.be.

It also seems an appropriate time to repost this video from Dutch television.

Welcome to Homeland America: Big Sister is Watching

What more needs to be said. The indignity we are subjected to by an aggressive, uncaring, bureaucratic political machine is too much.

Paranoid Priests Perjure Possible "Pervs"

This blog has reported on the various sex panics that pervade Christian, mainly Protestant, cultures such as the US and the UK. The result is a plethora of laws meant to "protect" the population from the ever expanding category of people deemed to be "sex offenders." Never mind that the laws are now so broadly defined as to be entirely worthless. Sorry, I misspeak, the laws are not worthless, which implies they have no net value at all. They are worse than worthless, they impede the ability of police to actually protect people by mandating that they waste mountains of time keeping track of the people on the list: which can include someone who pissed at the side of the road because they couldn't wait to get to a toilet, teens who have consensual sex with one another, or a high school boy who shows a Playboy magazine to another boy.

The UK may be near Europe but it is infected more with American-style paranoia than the more traditional European laissez faire attitude. That paranoia bubbled over at Gloucester Cathedral and the victims of this panic were a dangerous group of potential perverts—the Flower Guild, a group of mainly elderly ladies who arrange flowers in this monument to superstition. I guess if you can buy into virgin births and resurrections you can buy the claim that a group of old ladies are potential sex offenders out to molest little boys. Absurd? Of course, but absurdity and Anglicanism go hand in hand.

Yes, the Cathedral dreads that these dangerous old women might be out to molest boys—certainly that privilege is reserved to the priests. Or is that Catholicism? Sorry, I get them all confused. The Cathedral is demanding that all the old women have police checks run on them. Why? The London Telegraph gives the answer:

"At issue seems to have been a bizarre fear that because the women shared a toilet with choirboys, there was a risk that paedophiles could infiltrate the flower guild. A vetting system that was set up to protect children and vulnerable adults thus appears to have mow down a cohort of mostly retired women, average age 70, who represent the backbone of Britain's voluntary movement."

These loving Christians who run the Cathedral are a suspicious lot and demanded that all members of this criminal gang, known as the Flower Guild, be subjected to a police check. When several of them refused the Cathedral threw them out on their ears, a reward for loyal service to the Church. Five of the 60 volunteers have been dismissed to teach this dangerous gaggle of grannies not to mess with the Church.

The chairwoman of the Flower Guild, also know in police parlance as the "gang leader," is Mrs. Annabel Hayter. She adamantly refused to go through police checks and was fired. Five of the other "gang" members resigned in protest and the Telegraph reports others are sure to follow. Another possible sex fiend, Nancy Selwyn, 75, said: "I've had enough. I've told the canon to take me off the list. These checks are absolute rubbish." Potential criminal Marjorie Corley, worked as a flower arranger at the Cathedral for 7 years and 12 years leading tours. She points out: "What makes this all the more absurd is that the choirboys are at school when we are working at the cathedral so even if we did pose a threat we would never see them."

Even if one of the grannies wanted to play Humbert to a choirboy's Lolita it just isn't going to happen. They aren't in the Cathedral at the same time using the same toilet. Given that elderly woman, even when given the opportunity, are not likely to molest choirboys the whole panic is misplaced. But such is the nature of panics.

The local minister, with an extremely pretentious rank, the Very Reverend Nick Bury, told the women they needed to be vetted by the police lest they try to get into the pants of young boys. Hayter was fighting the absurd requirement quietly but when she finally went public the canon of the church said she could no longer be trusted. Apparently the church doesn't trust its own congregation even when they are obediently silent since it is requiring police checks.

The Very Moronic Nick Bury "retired" in September and the sect's bureaucracy is still working on his replacement, perhaps a trained baboon would do. But the Cathedral can be emailed here: fiona@gloucestercathedral.org.uk. Note this is the secretary of the Cathedral Dean and she is not responsibility for asinine church policies, so if you protest (as you should) remember she is not responsible and keep it polite.

Before my American readers get too uppity about the absurdity of British overreaction remember that millions of Americans are being sexually fondled by TSA thugs because of "terrorists." In politics "terrorists" and "pedophiles" serve similar roles: scare the ignorant and get them to obey authoritarian over-reaching bureaucrats in the name of "protecting" everyone and everything, except individual rights and liberty, of course.

And while the morons at the Cathedral were worried about flower ladies diddling choir boys the New York City police were arresting men for fondling their bishops. And, no, that isn't a euphemism. The NYPD sent in a team of cops in bulletproof vests to arrest a group of elderly men playing chess in a city park.

The park has "chess tables" set out for the public to use, but that was in the olden days before fear dominated American politics. Now the panic-mongers are worried that the chess tables are close to the playground and that means close to children and that means potential molesters could hang out, and that means, why, that means, well.... it's just too horrible to contemplate. Cue scary music!

It sure is a good thing the park doesn't have a Flower Guild, the chess-players are scary enough. The chess tables were built in an area that is now "reserved" for children and where all adults are banned unless accompanied by a child under the age of 12. (I am unsure of why they assume that kids are safer if the "molester" is accompanied by a child—I thought that was what they were trying to prevent.) But, according to the New York Post, "Police said the rule protects kids from pedophiles or others who might want to harm them."

Let's be clear about something, "stranger danger" is mainly a myth. The typical molester of a child is not some man in a raincoat with a pocket full of sweets but a male relative of the child, usually a father, step-father, or the mother's live-in boyfriend. They tend to act in isolation, not in gangs of men with chess boards. And they usually only molest children when there are actually children around—oh, I forgot to mention that the men were in the park during school hours and that NO children were present!

Not only do both these cases represent fear-driven overreaction to protect kids from mostly "imaginary monsters" but in both cases they are protecting imaginary kids. The choirboys were in school away from the Flower Guild and similarly the men playing chess were in an empty park!

The New York police responded with the typical lament of the fear-driven bureaucrat: "It's the broken windows theory... small things can turn into bigger things. Some citizens may see it as police harassment, but God forbid something happens to a child, people would be complaining., Why didn't the police enforce these rules? That's what they would be griping about." Truly this cop doesn't need a lobotomy—it would be redundant.

Remember there were NO kids present when the men were playing chess. Remember that "child predators" really don't travel in gangs. And none of the men have any criminal record for diddling with kids. One had a criminal record (which given the over-reaching nature of the law, doesn't mean much). He was previously charged with drug possession (which could be marijuana), reckless endangerment and larceny. But NONE of them pose a threat to children. And if he were accompanied by his own child he would be allowed in the park no questions asked.

These assaults on liberty are often overlooked because the imbeciles implementing them invoke "the children" as the excuse for the policy. But they all ignore the real threats to kids in order to concentrate on imaginary monsters that, while not protecting kids, do enhance the power of the idiocracy and the idiocrats that are now regulating every inch of America life.

Yes, there are real threats to kids. But the reality is that the threats are far more likely to be at home than on the playground. Yes, some people sexually fondle children. But the reality is that it is more likely to be done by the priests at the Cathedral than by the flower ladies. Yes, there are terrorists who will blow up planes, but fondling old ladies and children is not the way to stop them.

The political classes use fear to intimidate the voters in giving away freedom and rights. And as long as the Boobus Publicus respond in some Pavlovian fashion the politicians and bureaucrats will continue to exaggerate threats in order to enhance their own powers. And this is precisely why I don't laud the Tea Party Movement. The typical member of that group is fear-driven, not rights-driven. You can stampede the Tea Party types into the Big Government corral by waving the red flags of immigrants and gay marriage at them. If you do there will be the thudding sound of millions of metal walkers hitting the ground as the Tea Party types demand Big Brother to save them.

FDR was not my favorite president, though he looks better with each election. But he was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear-driven politics is used to stampede us toward the omnipotent State. Be if terrorists, pedophiles, or global warming, fear pushes us into making irrational decisions. We overreact, pass stupid and counterproductive laws, and regulate ourselves into oblivion, all in the name of seeking that illusionary goal of perfect safety.

State says sperm is hazardous material

Exactly how far into your personal business will the government go? We already have them rubbing peoples genitals and sliding fingers between their ass cheeks in order to "protect" us from terrorists. This is spite of the fact that the TSA terrorizes fliers by the millions on a daily basis. I remember one of these obese clowns screaming at dozens of people because they were not in a "straight" line. He literally yelled: "You will get in a straight line. You will stand up against the wall. If you do not do so no one will be flying today." That's just a power trip for the ignorant.

Now we have a government agency treating sperm like it is nuclear waste and defining is a hazardous material. More on that in a second.

There are two kinds of power trips. One for stupid people, one for relatively intelligent people. The TSA, like law enforcement, tends to attract the less intelligent. Their power trip is based on the thinking found in the lower echelons of moral development: obedience and punishment. They bark out orders and demands and believe that use of physical force is one of the first means to deal with those who don't snap to attention each time they vomit out orders.

But there is a also a power trip for the more intelligent. These are the classes of people who believe they are so smart that they are endowed with some superior right to control others. While they are often as self-serving as their less intelligent counterparts they justify their intrusions as "help," even when those being helped resent it very much.

The real difference between the upper echelon power trippers and those below them is in their justifications. Those attracted to the TSA and similar agencies (DEA, ICE, police, etc.) believe they are the right to coerce others because they have the power. These are the old schoolyard bullies of your childhood, the ones who believe that because they are ABLE to smash your face in, they have the right to do so. They immediately resort to physical force and authority because their ability to think at higher levels of moral development tend to be stunted, limited by their own lack of intelligence.

Their superiors, the ones who make the rules that the thugs physically enforce, tend to honestly believe that they are endowed with a superior intelligence which allows them to control others "for their own good."

And this brings us back to the issue of a newly discovered hazardous material as defined by the intellectuals at Cal/OSHA. Bizarrely they are the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, but call themselves Cal/OSHA instead Cal/DOSH. Go figure.

These bureaucrats, let us call them the DOSHies, went after a gay porn studio called Treasure Island Media and fined them $21,470 for the violation of "workplace safety regulations" because individuals had sex without condoms. The state agency actually spent five months investigating these charges—and you wonder why California is bankrupt.

According to the DOSHies: "Employees were exposed to semen and other potentially infectious materials due to work activities during filming and set cleaning." Please be clear that semen is being defined as a "potentially infectious material" according to DOSH. Of course it is, just like someones saliva, and sneezes. But it is "hazardous" in an entirely different way from something like radium or acid.

These are materials produced by the human body in very natural ways. They are the natural byproduct of sexual activity.

If one government agency can define semen as a hazardous material exactly where does the slippery slope lead? Government loves slippery slopes. They love to over-react and go to bizarre extremes. One lunatic tries to smuggle explosives on a plane in his underwear and we have millions of people being fondled daily by government thugs as a result. Government exaggerates threats and then over-reacts to the exaggeration. The end result is always a more intrusive, violent, offensive government than before the alleged crisis.

When the bureaucrats get, however, is vastly better for them. First, they have large agencies with more powers. They have more "prestige" and often higher salaries justified by the fact that they now have to control more things. They get lovely retirement plans, often get exempted from the very regulations they have to control (top TSA officials don't have to get fondled for instance) and they get emotional satisfaction. The thugs at the bottom get the satisfaction from barking orders and threatening people, the satisfaction of the bully. The puppet-masters who pull the strings on these thugs get the satisfaction that they are "doing" something about the crisis they invented. It tells them that their "intelligently designed" social system is valuable. They go to sleep believing they are helping people by stripping them of their freedom and dignity.

One DOSHie, Deborah Gold, with the pretentious title of "senior safety engineer" said of the porn actors: "Anybody may be infected, therefore you have to treat everybody's blood and other potential infectious materials [such as semen] as thought it can be infectious."

Do we really want that view of sperm to dominate government thinking?

Let us be clear as to what was happening. Adults were choosing to engage in sexual activity on film. The government is defining sex as a hazard unless people have sex in a manner prescribed by faceless bureaucrats making up rules about how to have sex. In this case some actors who were HIV+ were having sex with one another. That is, all of them were HIV+ positive and thus could not infect one another. Other actors who are HIV- were having sex with other actors who were negative as well. Thus no infection could take place.

But still, this was sex. If voluntary sex can be controlled by the DOSHies, in the name of safety, what can be the result? Is this not just another form of Puritanism. Instead of protecting your moral health they justify it by claiming they are protecting your physical health. But in both cases they demand the right to use government coercion against individuals because of the sexual acts they choose.

Does the fact that a camera is running, while they having sex, really make this less intrusive? Does that camera give a state agency the right to control the sexual activities of consenting adults? If the answer is yes, then what about amateur porn?

Today a large percentage of pornography is being produced by amateurs who film themselves at home and then sell that material online, or often just give it away. A quick click of the mouse can open a website where there are 1253 cams operating with individuals having sex for anyone to watch. These include every possible sexual variation that adults can engage in. And these "performers" can be giving "tips" for their show by viewers.

You have sexual activity, being performed for public consumption, in exchange for financial gain. How does that differ from what was going on with the Treasure Island Media production? That is only one site which uses live performances. Another site like Xtube simply allows people to upload their home porn films. They can either release them for free consumption or viewers can be charged a small fee to watch the film, with the site keeping most the funds and the "performers" getting the rest. How precisely does that differ from what was happening in the studio?

Is porn produced for profit at home different from porn produced in a studio? Is sperm less "hazardous" at home? You might argue that at home they are having sex with their partner but that is not necessarily the case. In fact many of these home productions include numerous individuals who are not in relationships with one another. And guess what, a very high percentage of these performers don't use condoms.

Do the DOSHies assert a right to regulate home produced porn, if it is produced for profit? And what if the porn is produced in one year for no profit, and then a year later the "performers" decide to release it?

I can see one of these sperm cops easily arguing that they have to be able to protect porn actors even if they perform from home. After all, being self-employed doesn't exempt you from reams of "safety" regulations, and neither does working from home.

Consider also safety regulations on other "hazardous" materials. There are pesticides which the government bans because it deems it too dangerous to use. Whether you are using it commercially or privately is not their concern. That they say it is hazardous is all that matters and it is banned for use in both locations. Regulations regarding hazardous materials still exist when it the use is entirely private. They may have slightly different regulations and different agencies may be involved but if something is deemed hazardous they eventually get around to controlling private use as much as public use.

Do we really want to live in a world where sperm is deemed a hazard? It's mind-boggling. Do we want EPA teams having to come in just to change the sheets on the beds of teenage boys across the country? Should the back seats of cars parked on "lover's lane" be proclaimed hazardous waste sites?

As I see it, if consenting adults choose to have sex, whether on film or not, whether for pay or not, the state has no business in the matter. Many porn performers are not just there for the pay, which often is not that generous. I've known individuals, male and female, who worked in the adult film industry and they fairly universally said they did it because they enjoyed it, not because of the pay. Many of them had other jobs that paid their way, it wasn't the porn. One performer was rather wealthy on his own receiving money from his family. Yet he traveled the world making porn films because he liked it.

I'm old enough to have watched how politicians act. I've seen it over decades and seen it in multiple countries. And it is fair consistent.

First, they look for anything they can call a problem in order to "address" it. Then they exaggerate the problem in order to justify their solutions. They always pretend their solution will be far less intrusive than it will be, far less costly than it will be, and far more effective at solving the "problem" than it will be.

Once they are given the power to address the problem the problem will continually remain unsolved. If anything they will find more problems than they ever "anticipated" requiring more action on their part and more powers for themselves. The costs will expand until they are out of control.

They will offer assurances that they will NEVER go beyond a certain point. A small tax will NEVER become a big one. Searching everyone going onto to planes will NEVER lead to touching the genitals of passengers—or as they claim now—will never lead to strip searches. But the intrusive measures they take ALWAYS go much further. The will almost always exceed all the limitations that they voluntarily set for themselves. And, once they apply the principle in one place, they spend the rest of their working day trying to find other areas of life where they can get away with applying it as well.

Inconvenient Logic: What Have You Got to Hide?

When it was discovered that the Bush administration was using warrantless searches against Americans civil libertarians complained. Those who excuse every increase in State power screamed at us: "What have you got to hide? If you are innocent you have nothing to fear."

When we learned that Homeland Security agents were going into public libraries to check up on what people were reading the civil libertarians again complained. And once again we were told that if we had done nothing wrong we would have nothing to fear.

The Homeland Gestapo now has scanners which basically take nude photos of every passenger. Civil libertarians shrieked but the authoritarians among us were adamant that this too was necessary. And, of course, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

For those unwilling to be scanned in such a revealing manner the government makes sure it punishes those who resist by a new "enhanced" pat-down which includes government agents touching the genitals of resisters. Sure those crazy libertarian-inclined types were horrified. But yet again, it was made clear that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear. Only the guilty fear revelations, the innocent can have their entire life, or their genitals, open for inspection.

Now the people at Wikileaks has open for public scrutiny a slew of diplomatic reports and correspondence.

Have you noticed what we are not hearing from the authoritarians? None of them are saying, if the government has nothing to hide it has nothing to fear. None of them are saying that only the guilty need secrecy and darkness. I wonder why that is.

TSA strips and "pat downs" young boy

Just watch it. This is what America has become. It is disgusting and offensive beyond words. Napolitano and her criminal conspirators in the TSA should be put on trial. Obama should be sent packing.

The absolute perversion of government.

I have tried to wrap my head around the latest actions from Janet Napolitano's brown shirts. I can not really express how disgusted I have become with the actions of the current government. They have taken this "security theater" bullshit to extremes, to the point that I personally think criminal charges should be brought against them.

Consider what the new "pat down" procedures mean. Government agents will physically fondle your genitals. Consider this description from a woman who recently was subjected to what can only be called sexual assault.

She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.

She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.

She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.

She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia.

The government calls this "enhanced" pat down. This amounts to rape, as far as I am concerned. We literally have reached the point where government agents demand our compliance to allow them to fondle us in a manner that would put anyone else in prison as a sex offender. And YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, you are their slave who must obey or give up your natural right to travel.

John Tyner was flying out of San Diego when TSA officials (Total Sexual Assault) directed him to one of these new pornoscanners that the government has to take nude photos of your body (as well as the bodies of children I should point out). Tyner was reluctant to use this device and was told he would have to go through an "enhanced pat down."

Consider what I think the government intentionally did. They wanted to force Americans through the pornoscanners. But, since there is an option for a pat down, which takes more time. So they didn't want the public to take that option. To force people through the pornoscanner the Feds "enhanced" the pat down to include what has to be called sexual molestation. The "enhanced" version of the pat down is a punishment for anyone who "slows" down the security theater of the TSA. Rubbing the penis, or vagina, of members of the public is not needed to protect us from terrorists, it is meant to punish anyone who refused to cooperate with the pornoscanners.

Tyner said he didn't want to use Janet Napolitano's nudie machine so he was forced to go through the "enhanced" pat down. When the TSA agent was in the process of rubbing his hands all over his body, Tyner said: "You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested."

That is clear. Tyner was not saying they couldn't frisk him for weapons, just that the agent was not allowed to fondle Tyner's genitals.

And, the really great part of this exchange with TSA officials was that Tyner had the whole thing recorded on his cell phone. After telling the agent that he may not touch his genitals, Tyner was told: "If you're not comfortable with that, we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today." This amounts to blackmail. Either you give them permission to take nude photos of you, or they will fondle your genitals. If don't give your consent to the molestation they will force you to leave the airport and force you to miss your flight.

There is no doubt here that the government agents were using the fondling of Tyner's genitals as the lever to force him to comply. Tyner ONLY withheld permission for the agent to "touch his junk," nothing more. He told the agent: "I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying."

The agent said: "This is not considered a sexual assault." Tyner said: "It would be if you were not the government."

This reminds me of something that Sheldon Richman said about how so many people see government as a "morals launderer." They seem to think that if they act as government agents they are not bound by the same moral values as every one else. When you kill it is a crime, when government does it, it's collateral damage, capital punishment, or just DEA agents making a "mistake." When you take what is not yours it is theft. When government agents do it is emminent domain, taxes or tariffs. When you fondle the genitals of unwilling people it is sexual assault. When government agents do it, it is an enhanced pat down.

Can there be any more dangerous concept about government? The idea that moral laws don't apply to the State implies that the State may do anything it wants, to anyone it wants, at any time it wants. It says there are NO limitations

The government agent told Tyner: "By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights." That appears to be a section of the Constitution I missed—the part that says you voluntarily surrender your rights if you travel from one location to another.

How did we reach the point where government agents are allowed to fondle the genitals of any man, woman or child that wishes to fly.

And remember this is being done by the executive branch of the federal government, that means the person responsible is Barack Obama, the head of the executive branch of the government. The TSA is run by Janet Napolitano, who was directly appointed to her office by Obama. Anyone who still thinks Obama respects individuals rights in any area, is sadly mistaken.

I know that this can be mistaken, and I don't want anyone to assume I am suggesting anything, but I am surprised that these government-required molestations are not creating a class of home grown "terrorists" who are disgusted that the State has gone this far. I would hope that won't happen, I would hope the government wises up and ends this disgusting policy. But I don't think it will wise up, not under Obama, who actually doesn't give a damn what the public wants.