One Man's Junk

One Man’s Junk
© 2010 Ross Williams

Janet Napolitano wants us all to “play” our “important part” of a “layered defense” against a “determined enemy”. I couldn’t agree more.

I would merely disagree with her about who that enemy is.

Janet Napolitano, ex-democrat governor of Arizona and part of the idiot-cabal who wept huge tears and emptied multiple bladders full of wee-wee in public over the tactics of the prior Bush Administration, is now the Secretary of the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security under Barama’s democrat administration. She would seem to have forgotten what her party ever believed – as I knew would happen. It’s amazing how consistently the party out of power forgets the reasons they criticized the party in power once they themselves get in power and have their own fingers on the levers of authority.

But that’s an old argument: the hypocrisy of political adherents. Warrantless phone data-mining is abhorrent until “we” get into power, and then not only is warrantless data-mining fine but warrantless sexual molestation of the general public is perfectly reasonable as well.

It is that word – reasonable – which is at the heart, or possibly crotch, of this matter:

Fourth 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.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution specifically ties “reasonable search” to the existence of a warrant built from probable cause. That cannot be rationally quibbled. ...which means many loyyers will line up to do that very thing.

Yet the Constitution says what it means and it means what it says; i.e., 2+2=4. So when you go to the airport you cannot be searched – electronically, chemically, radiationally, or physically – without a warrant. The warrant cannot be issued without having probable cause. It’s not a difficult concept.

It’s simply difficult to accomplish. It’s inconvenient. And the certain loyyers I mentioned above have argued from the inception of our Constitution for cracks and crevices within the wording of various parts of the Constitution which grant authority to violate the rules if the government has a “really good reason” for doing so. The really good reason usually devolves upon governmental expedience.

...and when I say “usually” I mean “universally”.

Among the first of the really good reasons for violating the Fourth Amendment was for non-criminal emergencies. “We aren’t here to search your property for illegal activity; we are simply following the tracks of a lost child...”. That’s a really good reason if I ever heard of one, and the courts bought it.

Yet, it does violate the Fourth Amendment. Hmmmm.

The Fourth Amendment says 2+2=4 and the courts have replied, “No, 2+2=4.01”. That’s close enough for government work, isn’t it?

Also among the first of the really good reasons for violating the Fourth Amendment is searching and seizing during an arrest. A bank robber holds up a bank and is caught leaving the front door. Cops immediately detain him, search his pockets for weapons and money. Another really good reason.

Yet, this also violates the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution still says 2+2=4, but the courts are now saying 2+2=4.03. Incremental dilution of rights.

In no particular order, courts have given the government these various exemptions to the dictates of the Constitution – plus many, many more:

• Plain view – if an item of contraband is clearly visible to cops while in a person’s effects, they don’t need a warrant to search that effect. 2+2=4.07
• Open fields – the “plain view” of your property that requires trespassing to discover. 2+2=4.12
• Border – the Constitution does not apply to citizens reentering the country. 2+2=4.18
• Schools – the Constitution does not apply to citizens in schools. 2+2=4.25
• Government workers – and contractors. 2+2=4.33
• Automobiles – drivers and passengers, both. 2+2=4.42
• Ignorance – anyone who doesn’t know they can refuse being searched can be warrantlessly searched. 2+2=4.51

And you know what happens when you cross that magical threshold of 4.5, doncha...? We can round up!

That is, in fact, what happened. The federal government has spent so long dreaming up exclusions and exceptions and exemptions to the “reasonable search means having a warrant citing probable cause” thing that they’ve rounded up to a warrant being effectively a meaningless formality in all but the most egregious criminal circumstances. A reasonable search is now what the government says is reasonable and because the government said so. Constitution be damned.

Of course, in order to rationalize their newly interpreted 2+2=5, they have to backfill with a lot of anti-Constitutional and dishonest gimcrackery. They explain the corrupt notion that automobiles, and the people in them, are exempt from unreasonable search while in vehicles by declaring that “driving is not a right”. So what is it instead? A “privilege”. It is something the government allows you to do. …like staying up past your bedtime.

Aww. Isn’t that swell of the government? This nonsense has been repeated so often that people actually believe it. “Driving” isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore the right to do it isn’t there.

Incorrect:

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because those who wrote the Constitution couldn’t think of everything doesn’t mean that what they couldn’t think of doesn’t count or doesn’t exist. We The People have more rights than were written down.

But the federal government has only those authorities that were originally outlined:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless the Constitution specifically gives the federal government the authority to do something the authority does not rest with the federal government, but is given to the states to do, or the people to do if the states don’t want to do it. Somehow I don’t recall reading any authority to regulate traffic, or regulate access to same in the Constitution. The claim that “driving is not a right” is formed out of fresh bullshit.

The States have the authority to regulate driving, and to regulate the vehicles that are driven, but that doesn’t imply that the right to drive doesn’t exist. The state has the authority to regulate business ownership and business operation the same as they do automobile ownership and operation. Yet, the right to own and operate a business isn’t under serious threat of federal denial; there’s too much tax money to be lost.

If the cops believe you are running a front for organized crime out of your pizza parlor, they have to get a warrant to search it. “Running a business isn’t a right; it’s a privilege” would be laughed out of every court in the land the first time the FBI tried to use it on a mob boss.

Further compounding their corrupt notion is the belief that one’s automobile [or one’s ‘open field’] is not part of a citizens’ “effects”. “Effects” are – legally – that which belongs to a person, whether it can fit in a pocket or not. Despite pretzeled court rulings, this includes real estate and automobiles; courts have ruled that the intangible item of telephone conversations made from public phone booths are included in “effects”. The back yard and the back seat, if legal consistency has any meaning, have to be as well.

Now, this, of course, is all predicated upon the political philosophy that the Constitution means what it says and it says what it means. There’s a group of people, incremental tyrants mainly, who call the Constitution a “living document” and suggest that its intention was to not remain static but to change with the new needs of an ever-changing nation. And there is nothing wrong with that notion at all. Just in the manner by which these ninnies believe the Constitution is alive.

The Constitution itself creates the mechanisms by which it is allowed to change to meet the new needs of the We The People it serves. The first mechanism is by amendment, when We The People identify an item we feel should be included. The second is by Constitutional Convention, when We The People become tired of the whole thing and want to start from scratch.

If you believe that the Fourth Amendment protection from “unreasonable” search [i.e., a search conducted without a probable cause warrant] no longer serves our needs, why, then, just breathe some life into the document by getting a supermajority to agree with you and change the thing to say that warrantless searches and seizures are permissible when national security or drunk driving is at issue. That is all the “living” the Constitution is allowed to do.

...according to the Constitution.

Instead, the “living document” numbskulls believe that the words in the Constitution are fluid and can change meaning in midstream. What’s worse, they also believe that a “living document” must be fairly mobile – “Run, run, run as fast as you can! You can’t catch me, I’m the Constitu-tian!” ...loyyers the nation over, and for decades, have argued that the fairly simple and straightforward Fourth Amendment contains myriad clauses and codicils, written in invisible ink which only they can see, and that allows increasingly relaxed adherence to the right of the people to be free from a nosy and intrusive government.

Among the most offensive of these exemptions to warrantless search prohibition is for “administrative” searches. These are the routine searches that everyone must submit to or else be prohibited from taking part in an activity you otherwise have a right to do. Such as driving. Or flying. Or entering a courthouse.

Part of the quote reasoning endquote for this brain-dead rationalization is that the Fourth Amendment is only a criminal rights amendment. A non-criminal citizen has nothing to fear from his government, therefore he has no “reasonable” expectation of privacy being granted by that government. ...a remarkably similar sentiment to the one offered up by King George in the 1770s.

This means – according to the Living Document Despots – that criminal suspects are entitled to better treatment under our Constitution than normal, everyday citizens simply trying to get through their day. Criminal suspects are entitled to protection from governmental overreach; we aren’t. And if it takes more than two nanoseconds for you to identify the legal and moral indefensibility of that position then you are a budding tyrant and not well suited to living in, let alone governing, the United States.

You are particularly unsuited for governing.

Which brings us back to Janet Napolitano and her Slavery is Freedom blue-shirted brownshirts. Like all good nazis, they’re “just doing their job” – which still netted the conscript Treblinka guards the same hanging for watching over the Final Solution as their officers got in implementing it. Maybe the memories are not as fresh any longer, but it’s disturbing to me how many people are willing to rationalize doing stupid, offensive, insupportable, illegal or immoral things because they get paid to do it. As if money rights the wrongness.

If news reports are to be believed, the trained apes of TSA don’t like being called perverts, child molesters, pornographers, Gate Rapists, ... trained apes.... Poor them. After all, they’re just doing their jobs. They want us safe. Ain’t that sweet. The segregationists wanted us all equal, as well, and we let them know we didn’t appreciate how they did it.

The same thing needs to happen now. Opt for the groping and keep it public; the ape rapist is going to humiliate you, you may as well return the favor. To do that you’ll need an audience. Don’t forget the crude terminology. The following suggestions might be construed as humorous and you may only succeed in making your extra special agent laugh, so pepper what you say with terms like fag, queer, homo, and whatever else you can think of. Keep in mind, we’re not out to humiliate the real queers, just those who are told to behave like their worst stereotype in order to get a government paycheck.

So guys, here’s some before-the-grope suggestions for you:

Put on your best flaming queer voice, point to one male rapist and say, “I want him; he’s divine!” Request a smooth, disease-free, drug-free pervert. Tell your rapist to skip the sweet-talk and get right to the hand-job. Tell him that you’d have brought the lube but you couldn’t find any in less than 3oz tubes. Inform him that you paid for a happy ending and you’ll speak to his supervisor if you don’t get one. Ask if you can request show tunes while he’s going at you. Inform him you went commando for just this moment. “Is that a pencil in your pocket? or are you happy to see me?”

Mid-grope notions: Emit audible gasps, and oohs, and ahs when he gets to the junk. Ask him to please regrope the junk. And again... and again. Tell him you know he’s not used to handling such a large tool, so please go over it very, very carefully. “So are you usually a bottom...?” Tell him you aren’t really gay, but he makes it so-o-o tempting. “Are you getting a chubby from this? " Turn your head and cough. ...or don’t turn your head, your choice. Ask him to check your prostate while he’s there. Don’t forget the dirty-talk – “Stroke me, stroke me, oh! cup those balls!”

Post-rape comments to try: Tell him you developed a sudden need for a tissue. Request his phone number so you can reciprocate. “I just can’t quit you.” Ask for a cigarette. Inform him that next time you expect dinner and a movie. Ask if this job works like Viagra. Blow him a kiss.

Ladies, your turn to be pawed. Same advice as the guys: you’re going to be humiliated so dish it back. Make your rapist as uncomfortable as you. Terms like butch, dyke, lesbo and all the rest are an indispensible tool. We’re not being offensive to homosexuals here, but to government-sponsored same-sex assaulters. I believe GLAAD will understand.

Before your assault: Request a feminine lesbian, bull dykes don’t turn you on. Tell her you need a lot of foreplay, but it’ll be worth it. Remind her which side is exit only. “Is that a fish in your pocket? or are you just looking forward to this?”

During your rape: comment that you’re surprised she isn’t wearing a flannel shirt. “Hey! I don’t have a prostate!” Re-enact Meg Ryan’s part of the diner scene from When Harry Met Sally. Ask if she’s supplying the strap-on. “Hmmm. Your gloves smell like fish. Is that from you? or from your previous victims...?” Ask if doing this makes her wet. ...or nipply. And, as with the guys, don’t forget the dirty-talk.

When she’s done, blow her a kiss. Feel free to ad-lib as well.

Chances are pretty good that someone in line with you will try to get instant YouTube fame by catching your rape on camera with full sound. Revel in it. If you play it right, you won’t be half as humiliated as the clown with the hands in your crotch. And the event may just bring home the realities of overreaching government impositions to the craven sheep in line behind you who see nothing wrong with forcible sexual assault in the name of safety. Some of us are innately aware that this amounts to sexual exploitation; others need to be shown again and again before it enters their little rock skulls.

Like other social movements of the past, most of those who willingly comply do so out of reflex and without thinking about what they do; they convince themselves that a pre-flight finger fuck is essential to safety and security just like their predecessors 50 years ago convinced themselves that pushing blacks to a separate fountain was necessary for equal treatment under the law.

Consider this grotesque, deliberate sexualization of the government’s mass sexual assault the lunch counter sit-in of the new generation. The Fourth Amendment still matters. Play your important part. The enemy is determined to eradicate your rights before the terrorists do.