There are a lot of stories out there about an out-of-control TSA when it comes to their new screening techniques. One was a man being threatened with a $10,000 for refusing to go through the gauntlet and left the airport. What? You get fined for changing your mind and not flying?

John Tyner, 31, said he was told he could face a civil lawsuit and a $10,000 fine for leaving the screening area before the security check was complete.

It is crazy stuff like this that begs the question, just what kind of police power over travelers’ behavior does this group of government agents have? And, why is it not published or put out there so travelers can make their own informed decisions as to whether or not they want to object, fly, or drive?

There were reports where a woman wore a bikini and said ‘you’re welcome to see what I have under there if you want.’  And a guy wore a speedo.  This is hilarious, and a non-violent way to protest the politically corrrect security theater directed by Big Sis and produced by the TSA.

I want to see a video of a woman getting patted down and imitating the orgasm scene in ‘When Harry Met Sally.’ Or a guy putting one of those 18 inch dildos down his pants and see what reaction he gets. Figuring that it would be a news item, writing Janet Napolitano’s name on it, or maybe Big Sis, would be a good idea too.

I mean, surrendering yourself to a pat down and having a little fun isn’t against the law is it?

Links:

• California Man Tells TSA, Don’t ‘Touch My Junk’
• Original TSA encounter, cell phone video
• Woman Wears Bikini To LAX
• Passenger strips down to Speedo at TSA checkpoint

Spread the Word, Not the Wealth

Communism, it is often said, will work under the proper conditions. Though it might fail in a big country with millions of disconnected individuals, it should work in a small community of relatively close-knit comrades, who would thrive under a system of shared burden and harvest.

If you think that successful communism is small communism, the experience of America’s first settlers should dispel any romantic notions you may harbor on the subject.

Plymouth Colony, a small community of settlers struggling to survive in a new land, learned about the benefits of private property the hard way. When the colony began in 1621, all the goods and products were held in a “common stock.” All were to contribute equally and share equally in the community’s bounty—or lack thereof. The governor of Plymouth Colony, William Bradford, recorded the experiment of communal living in his journal. As he explains, there was little harvest and much dissatisfaction. Young men objected to working for the benefit of other men’s wives and children. The strong objected that they received the same amount of food and clothing as the weak. The older men objected to laboring the same amount as the young. The women objected to performing household chores for men other than their husbands, deeming it “a kind of slavery.”

In response to the dearth of crops, starvation, and overall miserable condition that communal living had produced, Bradford introduced a system of private property in agriculture. He assigned “to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family.” This new system of private property proved prosperous and enlivening. Men, women, and children no longer thought labor to be tyrannical and oppressive, and instead became industrious stewards of their individual plots of land, resulting in bountiful harvests.

From Plymouth Colony’s transformation, Bradford concluded that communism was incompatible with human nature. It is vain to advocate that “taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make [men] happy and flourishing. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

It only took Plymouth Colony three years (and several bouts of starvation) to clarify that pilgrim socialism was a failure. Equality is not desirable when it means equally starving to death. This Thanksgiving, as we celebrate family, and friends, and the blessings of this life, let us also recall our other inheritance from the Pilgrims—that of private property.

The above was graciously lifted from The Heritage Foundation.

Audio file: The history of Thanksgiving.