“Southerners are extremely patriotic,” said Ann Coulter on Fox News Business, while explaining the phenomenon of a Southern Democrat (like Rick Perry), who has always been far more conservative than the northern Republican. “[Southern Democrats] were not going to remain with the party of George McGovern,” observed Coulter, who is, arguably, the Republican Party’s most powerful and most devoted pundit.
That’s a little deceptive. Is it at all possible that the much-malignedSouthern Democrat has found it hard to join the party of Abraham Lincoln? Perish the thought!
Ann Coulter says, correctly—and at last—that Ronald Reagan should not be held up as “the touchstone for every [other Republican] candidate.” If only Ms. Coulter was capable of arriving at a similar epiphany about Lincoln, but that would demand too much by way of philosophical integrity.
How do TSA tormentors consolidate more control over American travelers? They escalate the security threat. It was a matter of time before the home-grown terrorists of the Transportation Security Administration found a ruse to move from using technology that scans the surface of their victims’ bodies to technology that exposes our internal organs by means of medical X-rays.
Reports of al Qaeda preparing so-called “belly bombs” designed to be surgically implanted in potential terrorists before they board airplanes have already led to increased scrutiny for anyone traveling to the U.S. who appears to have had recent surgery, U.S. officials said.
The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a bulletin warning of renewed interested in the tactic — suspected to be the latest innovation from infamous alleged bomb maker Ibrahim Asiri. According to U.S. officials, a would-be attacker would slip through airport security, board a plane and detonate the bomb using a chemical-filled syringe. …”With proper skill, a surgeon could indeed package a bomb or explosive device [and] it could be implanted inside the abdominal cavity,” he told ABC News. Melrose said that if placed properly, a bomb the size of a grapefruit may not even cause the patient discomfort.
This is the dynamic behind the subjugation at the airports.
And why not? Tea-Party “freshmen” are getting stale. They’ve been doing nothing much about the assaults on citizens who travel by air. Why should they? Sure, there was a bit of a commotion, late last month, over the obviously necessary humiliation of a 95-year-old, gravely ill woman, whose adult diapers TSA trash removed in the course of a securing the nation’s flying public. The protests amounted to meek requests for a TSA apology, no more. None was forthcoming.
Tea party representative have forgotten the little people—with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who penned an op-ed in The Hill, today, 07/05/11:
The requirement that Americans be forced to undergo this appalling treatment simply for the “privilege” of traveling in their own country reveals much about how the federal government feels about our liberties. The unfortunate fact that we put up with this does not speak well for our willingness to stand up to an abusive government.
Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuse by saying, “I don’t mind giving up my freedoms for security.” In fact, they are giving up their liberties and not receiving security in return. Last week, for example, just days after an elderly cancer victim was forced to submit to a cruel and pointless TSA search, including removal of an adult diaper, a Nigerian immigrant somehow managed stroll through TSA security checks and board a flight from New York to LA — with a stolen, expired boarding pass and an out-of-date student ID as his sole identification! He was detained and questioned, only to be released to do it again 5 days later! We should not be surprised to find government ineptitude and indifference at the TSA.
At the time the TSA was being created I strongly opposed federalization of airline security. As I wrote in an article back in 2001:
“Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport security.
I “Cued The Mariachi Band” when Rick Perry, the (dashing) governor of Texas, defied Mexico City, The Hague, and their enablers in Washington, and ended José Medellin’s miserable life. Bush, on the other hand, was willing to wrestle a crocodile for Medellin, the man who raped Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña in every which way possible and then proceeded to strangle, slash, and stomp the young Texan girls to death.
Fair enough: Seventy percent of all jobs created in the US last year were in Texas. Alas, the governor’s record is at best spotty. And at a time when no one but a minority cares to sweat the “social issues,” these, unfortunately, formed a good part of his address in New Orleans.
UPDATE I: I’d like to clarify (but not discuss abortion, because the abortion issue is one hill upon which I refuse to die): When, last night, I praised Gov. Perry for “whooping it up for property rights,” I added in parenthesis that “this precludes a woman’s self-ownership.” What I meant is this: I always wonder why it is that, when speaking of the right of ownership (property), which is an extension of each individual’s dominion over his body and the things he homesteads—conservatives sidetrack the problem of a woman’s dominion over her body. I don’t wish to discuss abortion. However, conservatives never flesh out this inconsistency. Perhaps they believe human beings, women in particular, don’t have a property right in their own bodies. How does ownership arise, in the conservative mind? Does property not include one’s own body?
UPDATE II (June 20): Cross-posted @ facebook: Kevin (Williamson), I have worked out a formulation about abortion that appeases (as opposed to pleases) me as a paleolibertarian and an absolute propertarian. But is it safe to share it? I worry, because I die on enough hills. It seems prudent not to come out on this issue. Libertarians can agree that no state funding, local or federal, should be allocated to such a procedure. Liberals should be exposed, but never are (certainly not by conservatives), for conflating this position (no public funding) with a denial of what they term “abortion rights.” However, it’s highly problematic to say that by virtue of her fertility, a woman loses a property title in her body. She doesn’t.
UPDATE III (June 20): Kevin, Myron, Don, Joseph, Guy, etc: The tone on this Facebook thread/Wall is pleasingly rational and civil. It’s not surprising among these respondents/writers/thinkers, here. I wonder how many friends I’d lose if I shared my solution, which is still unsatisfactory. Look, abortion is a horrid procedure; especially now that what was promoted as a “blob,” can be viewed by available technology. At 6 weeks in utero, my daughter’s heartbeat was loud—it melted me. Walter Block, a dear friend, has developed “the evictionism theory of abortion.” I don’t subscribe to it, needless to say. But any traditionalist/libertarian solution to the abortion vexation has to be rational, and consider a person’s dominion over his body.
UPDATE IV: From the Facebook thread/Wall: It’s, however, incontrovertible to say that “late-term” termination is a euphemism for cold-blooded murder. Not to evoke the Argument from Nazi-ism (one of the laziest and lowest forms of argument); but it’s the stuff of Josef Mengele, or his female counterpart (his right-hand “service provider,” the proverbial Brunhilda).
“Tomorrow is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. Familiar Lincoln idolaters will gather to celebrate the birth, on Feb. 12, 1809, of the 16th president of the United States and finesse his role in “the butchering business” – to use professor J. R. Pole’s turn-of-phrase. Court historian Doris Kearns Goodwin is sure to make a media appearance to extol the virtues of the president who shed the blood of brothers in great quantities and urged into existence the “American System” of taxpayer-sponsored grants of government privilege to politically connected corporations.
On publication, in 2002, of the book “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,” the “Church of Lincoln” gave battle. The enemy was the author, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who had exposed Lincoln lore for the lie it was – still is. DiLorenzo had dared to examine the Great Centralizer’s role in sundering the soul of the American federal system: the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry.
Steeped as they were in the Lockean tradition of natural rights and individual liberty, the constitutional framers held that the unalienable rights to life, liberty and property were best preserved within a federal system of divided sovereignty, in which the central government was weak and most powers devolved to the states, or to the people, respectively, as stated in the 10th Amendment. If a state grew tyrannical, competition from other states – and the individual’s ability to switch allegiances by exiting the political arrangement – would create something of an agora in government. This was the framers’ genius.
The concentrated powers Lincoln sought were inimical to the founders’ loose constitutional dispensation.” …
