Authoritarian Molesters Lectured On Rights By Citizen Patriot

Matt Kernan details his encounter with authoritarian molesters:

Now, I’ve read a fair amount about the controversy surrounding the new TSA policies. I certainly don’t enjoy being treated like a terrorist in my own country, but I’m also not a die-hard constitutional rights advocate. However, for some reason, I was irked. Maybe it was the video of the 3-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter. Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.

So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

I have uploaded the audio and it is available here.

If you are being illegally searched and detained for several hours at an airport by government agents, even if you manage to talk your way out of being searched, your rights have still been violated.

Let us re-visit the 4th amendment:

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

Pretty self-explainatory.

The government can not search you without first getting a warrant issued from a judge; and a judge may not issue a warrant unless the police can articulate probable cause for the judge to issue a warrant.

It’s also important to note that the 4th amendment is an explanatory addendum to the Constitution in its bill of rights. It is not necessary for this amendment to exist in order for us to have the right to be free from unlawful searches. That right exists no matter if it is specifically detailed in the US Constitution or not.

Now square that Constitutional amendment with what the 9th circuit court recently ruled:

The high court, he explained, has held that the government may conduct a warrantless search in the exercise of its regulatory authority, provided that there is a “special need” and the search is no more intrusive than is justified by the administrative need. He cited cases upholding a warrantless search of a junkyard and its records, as part of a regulatory program designed to deter theft and control insurance rates; as well as the use of sobriety checkpoints.

The Supreme Court, Bea noted, as held that a valid administrative search does not require consent. In United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972), the court held that a gun dealer’s participation “in this pervasively regulated business” subjects the business premises to warrantless searches authorized by federal statute.

The 9th circuit has no authority to issue such a ruling, since such a ruling is clearly in violation of our natural rights.

As any fan of US history will tell you, the 4th amendment was specifically crafted to prevent exactly what the 9th circuit is allowing to take place.

The colonists were invasively searched on a routine basis by British agents who were attempting to enforce the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act declared that every piece of paper produced in the country have a special tax stamp affixed to it. The government granted itself the power to search people’s property in order to enforce this regulation.

The federal government is supposed to be a protector of rights, but since it gets its funding through coercive theft, it necessarily can not protect our rights. It must engage in violent looting, invasive searches, and other disruptive behavior in order for it to exist in the first place.

The courts are simply upholding the power of the coercive body that puts food on their plate. The courts will not grant relief from this kind of behavior because they have a vested interest in seeing it continue.