What Is A Right: Part Two

I guess I couldn't ask for more perfect timing on this one.  I was listening to Inga Barks sitting in for Mark Levin. The show was from Monday or Tuesday before Thanksgiving, and the hot topic is the TSA screening.

At least a couple of callers made the statement that flying was not a right, but a privilege, similar to driving.  Inga is a smart lady with her own radio show in Fresno, but even she can't come up with correct responses on the spot like Levin can most of the time.  And I'll admit, unless you've already thought about this one, it would be easy to hear someone make that statement and think, "Yeah, that sounds right."  But it's not.  Why isn't it?  Let's start with driving.

For you to operate a motor vehicle out on the commonly held public roads, everybody else, including yourself would like to be reasonably sure that you know what you are doing.  We don't let young children or people with disabilities that are too severe operate motor vehicles as a right because doing so would unreasonably endanger other people.  Therefore society, and in America that means the State level, our elected legislatures come up with minimum standards for which you can obtain a license in order to operate this potentially fatal piece of machinery.  If you want to buy a large enough parcel of land and have a vehicle delivered there and then want to drive it all over your property without ever getting it registered or insured or getting yourself a license, go ahead.  It's your right.

It's pretty much understood that you have a right to travel in and among the several States. Freedom of movement is and ought to be a right.  If you can't or don't want to obtain a license to drive, you can get someone else to carry you, or you can walk or ride a bicycle or whatever.  If you take a cab or a bus, you've simply entered into a contract (also considered a right) with another private entity to take you where you want to go.  That entity's license to transportation in whatever medium has nothing to do with your right to travel.
However, (and it pains me that I have to state this because somebody reading this doesn't know any better) that private entity that has jumped through all the hoops for the license, is a private entity that has the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.  If you call a cab and then want it to take you into a drug infested, dangerous part of town, the driver can say, "I'll take you this far and no farther."  If Greyhound won't sell you a ticket because you don't know how or won't bathe, I think the other passengers will be grateful.

This is why the American public screwed up royally when they didn't bombard their congress critters to put the kabosh on creating the TSA in the first place.  As well, what would have had a great effect would have been to tell the airlines that they had better lobby against turning over security to the Feds.  Travelers should have threatened a boycott of any airline that supported creating the TSA.  But I understand why they supported it. By transferring the responsibility to the Feds, they absolve themselves of any liability for security.

This whole TSA thing is simply more methods by the political ruling class to condition the populace to accept any and all intrusive and abusive destruction of our rights in the name of security.  My prediction is that before too long, the terrorists will carry out an assault on a large public venue.  Shopping mall, sports arena, concert, mega-church gathering, you name it.  Then expect to see metal detectors and other devices springing up in all those places where they aren't already in place, but then there will be more invasive search procedures.  Just a little bit more, and a little bit more.  All in the name of safety.  Then before too long, you won't be able to travel a single road for more than five miles without being asked, "Your papers, please."

For some other very enlightening commentary on the TSA scandal, I highly recommend reading what Daphne has to say on the matter.

Why Didn't I Write That?

Trying to seem like a fair guy, I almost took the wrong side in this issue.  I even started to sympathize with David Petraeus. My own wife had immediately come down on the side of the preacher wanting to burn the copies of the Koran.  She was right, and on more reflection, understanding that Islam is not, and never has been a "religion of peace," I agree that we should remember who we are as Americans and that Islam is not and can never be compatible with this constitutional republic.  In case you are still under some illusion, let me help you out.  "Islam" doesn't mean peace, it means "submission." The word for peace in Arabic is "salaam."  And NO, we are not a democracy and if the founding fathers were alive to hear someone say it they would condemn the idea. The founders understood and stated quite plainly in their writings that this republic could only work for a people who were devoutly Christian.  They used the word religious, but at the time, they only knew ONE religion.  I've thoroughly done my research, so don't waste your time with the "deist" stuff.

I came across the letter below at Eternity Road, and being encouraged to pass it on, I re-post it here with only one bad adjective deleted even though the expletive really does seem fitting. If you do go there, read the post about sh'riah law as well. It's titled "Life In The Crosshairs."  The original post of this letter by Chuck Prime is here.

OPEN LETTER TO GEN. PETRAEUS (Please re-post to anti-jihad sites)

“Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.” 

– Gen. David Petraeus 

General, I ask you this: what in hell is your “mission” if We The People jeopardize it by exercising our First Amendment rights in our own homeland? Is your “mission” to defend our rights against foreign enemies, or to defend foreign enemies against our rights? 

You made your choice, and you justified by claiming that you and those under your command have been taken hostage by our 7th Century terrorist enemy, and that the ransom demand you deliver to us is that we submit to your captor’s restrictions on our natural and constitutional rights – or they’ll kill you. 

I remind you and your captors that we do not negotiate with terrorists. 

And I remind you that you are the most revered general in the present day, commanding in the most powerful military in all of history, during the most justifiable war in the last seventy years. So please either remember your priorities and slaughter your captors, or resign in disgrace so that we may replace you with a warrior. And if you resign, you should do so right along with President Obama, Gen. Caldwell, Pentagon Spokesman Lapan, Sec. of State Clinton, Atty. Gen. Holder, NATO Sec. Rasmussen and all others in all branches of government and in all alliances who echoed your request, whether they did so mindlessly or with surrender aforethought. 

To have our own military leaders beg us to refrain from exercising our Constitutional rights on our own soil is completely un-American. And to have you make that request of us in the name of cowardice is a shocking and unthinkable perversion I still don’t have the words for. 

But I do have the plan for it. We The People will force the issue right here and now. We don’t want harm to come to our military, but if peacefully exercising our rightful freedom on our own property here in our own homeland endangers you, then we will endanger you! 

We will burn the Koran for freedom and post the videos for all the world to see. We can be overt or covert, named or anonymous, sparse or numerous – but ultimately we will be unstoppable, and eventually we will be effective. 

We will do this because you have no $%&$ right to sell our freedom down the river for the sake of our enemy’s sensitivity. We will do it because you more than have the power to defend yourselves against that enemy if only you would use it. We will do it because facing danger to defend our rightful freedom is why we pay you, train you, equip you, promote you, appoint you, deploy you, and – formerly! – revere you. 

You work for us, General, not for our enemy. Therefore we will regain control over you and over this war from the command center of our own backyards. We will force you to end any of your appeasement and nation-building which would restrict our Constitutional rights. We will force you to defend yourselves and us, and to do the job you were appointed to do: destroy the enemy in defense of our freedom. 

Our military has the power. We hired you to use it. Now we’ll make sure you do. 

When Americans can burn our own copies of the Koran on our own soil without credible threats from jihadists or appeasement of those threats from our President and our Generals, then we will gladly stop burning them. 

We are a free people, and although we clearly live in occupied territory psychologically, we do not yet live in occupied territory legally or physically. We will do as we please, and we will continue to expect all branches of our government to secure our right to do it. 

I remind you that securing our rights is the only legitimate reason that governments are instituted among men in the first place, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 

And not everybody among the governed consents to surrendering our rights to terrorists. 

Freedom for all,