And of course also expanding into train stations, highways, etc.

I'm glad you're still able to keep up this fight, Amy. After hearing that the courts have stated that flying is voluntary and that choosing to fly implies consent to the searches, I've essentially given up hope. This is one of the bill of rights that we, as a society, is willing to let go.

Other examples include our second amendment. Before even all the facts of the James Holmes shooting are in, we have people crying out, "Gun control."

So, we'll just make something else outlawed, whether or not that would have actually kept a gun out of James Holmes' hands, and we'll feel better. We'll just tell ourselves that we've done something about it. Even though all it's done is taken another piece out of the second amendment.

The first amendment, since we don't like the message of Westboro Baptist Church, has also taken a hit. We'll just make those pickets required to keep a distance of five hundred feet. And the last president's tender widdle feewings huwt by those nasty protesters. No problem. We'll just relegate them to "free speech zones," a device that our Founding Fathers would have no doubt regarded as an obscenity, since the whole country is a "free speech zone." But we'll just make the ostensible justification that we have to protect the president against assassination attempts. Never mind that presidential assassins, such as Czolgosz and Guiteau were seen as supporters.

President Obama gets four times the death threats that George W. Bush has gotten. Does he use free speech zones?

I haven't tried in a few years, but even post 9/11 they had unmanned, open gates on the civilian side of the airport.

You could drive up to the private hangars. There was nothing to stop a person from driving up to a hangar, parking, and then putting on a jumpsuit or uniform looking type clothing, hanging a badge and then walking to the commercial side of the airport.

Security is always porous. If you look like you belong there in normal circumstances or don't look out of place in abnormal circumstances -- you can walk away.

An example of this would have been Holmes dumping his battle armor after he was done shooting and running out with the crowd. His fingerprints may have been left behind, and definitely his DNA, but without a criminal record they probably would have never found him.

Someday, when technology permits, we're going to colonize another planet (perhaps Mars, the most inhabitable planet besides earth in this solar system), and the oppressed who first move to this new planet are going to create their own Constitution. And it's going to look remarkably like ours. But with one slight alteration.

When it declares freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from unreasonable searches, it's going to say, "And this time, we really mean it."

I do, partly, understand where the courts are coming from. Airlines are privately-owned, not government property, therefore they can place any old restrictions we want. And the government, I suppose, since planes have now been used to inflict considerable harm upon the population at large, has a vested interest in therefore in airline safety.

And while we have a right to travel, that does not stipulate a right to fly. Amy pretty argues this point, when she maintains that parents with recalcitrant noisy children should use the minivan until the children are old enough to keep quiet. So, yes, we have a right to move from state to state. We do not have the right to specify that it be on a jet.

In this new world (which I will not live to see), when making its Constitution, I would like to see another Amendment. Something that stipulates organizations that are intended to improve public safety must be able to show proof of their effectiveness within a reasonable time and at regular intervals, or be dismantled.

Requiring TSA to prove they're effective would end its very existence.

"President Obama gets four times the death threats that George W. Bush has gotten. Does he use free speech zones?"

Citation, please?

And - are you saying that BECAUSE of President Obama, those zones are not longer used/enforced?

I just passed through the Vancouver BC airport. If you thought TSA is stupid the Canadian equivalet is worse. In Vancouver BC they are still using the metal detectors, so they had a woman with one of those wands where she would take a swipe from your hands and belt buckle place the tissue in a machine to check for bomb making chemicals. Where here is the absurd part.

There were about a half dozen metal detectors. Passengers could self select which metal detector you would pass through. The lady with the wand was standing next to the last metal detector in line. So, if you didn't want to be checked for bomb chemical residue you simply self selected one of the metal detectors before you got the lady with wand.

Although it's said that the supposed 9-11 hijackers boarded in Boston, they had their flight training-- REAL training-- at secure US military facilities. That was blurted out in the news immediately post 9-11 and then disappeared.
In fact, US bases have given flight training to thousands of Arabs. The flight school in Florida was a sham.

Hey, Rad! A citation? I assume you mean for the number of death threats Obama receives, and not about the use of "free speech zones," since I asked if Obama had used them. I didn't say that he did.

Here's one that states that Obama receives (apparently on average) 30 death threats a day and that it has increased 400% from Bush's term.

Now this is interesting. When I looked up the death threats on Bush, I found this information from Politico, which says that it's pretty much the same under Obama as it was under Bush and Clinton.

So, I guess it's a matter of who to believe. (Isn't it always?)

According to this report from CNN, the death threats against the president of the U.S. are up 400 percent since his inauguration. However, I notice it's dated 2009.

Possibly, the death threats go up when the new president takes office, then dwindle over the years.

I don't know that the President actually has free-speech zones like Bush did. I've never heard of them during this President's terms. I object to the concept of free speech zones. All of public property is a free speech zone.

If he doesn't use them, I won't pretend to know why he doesn't while Bush did.

(Amy, I kept getting a content submisson error when I tried to post, claiming I didn't answer the question. But I did answer it. I tried again and again, and finally had to switch from Firefox to IE to get this to post. Perhaps master of all thing technical to this blog should take a look?)

Hey, Rad! A citation? I assume you mean for the number of death threats Obama receives, and not about the use of "free speech zones," since I asked if Obama had used them. I didn't say that he did.

Here's one that states that Obama receives (apparently on average) 30 death threats a day and that it has increased 400% from Bush's term.

Now this is interesting. When I looked up the death threats on Bush, I found this information from Politico, which says that it's pretty much the same under Obama as it was under Bush and Clinton.

So, I guess it's a matter of who to believe. (Isn't it always?)

Possibly, the death threats go up when the new president takes office, then dwindle over the years.

I don't know that the President actually has free-speech zones like Bush did. I've never heard of them during this President's terms. I object to the concept of free speech zones. All of public property is a free speech zone.

If he doesn't use them, I won't pretend to know why he doesn't while Bush did.

Hey, Rad. Here's another one. I kept getting content submission errors for trying to post three links, so here's the third, from CNN.

According to this report from CNN, the death threats against the president of the U.S. are up 400 percent since his inauguration. However, I notice it's dated 2009.

(Amy, I kept getting a content submisson error when I tried to post, claiming I didn't answer the question.

It thinks you lied.

Thanks, Amy. And I think I double posted, but for my parenthetical remark, if you could remove one, please.

It thinks I lied? Outrageous, Steve! I wouldn't lie about about my work driving myself into a pirate! It's despicable! It's abominable. It's horrible!

Amy, I'm very sorry. I didn't realize it was going to spam. That's not what it said. When I tried to post three links, it said that I didn't answer the content control question. So, I tried again, and again, and it still didn't work.

So, I opened IE, changing from my usual Firefox, and it gave me the same message. When that didn't work, I figured I had one too many links, and success at last!

Sorry to fill up your spam folder, Amy, but as I said, it didn't tell me it was going to spam.

I do, partly, understand where the courts are coming from. Airlines are privately-owned, not government property, therefore they can place any old restrictions we want.

Not even close. The airlines don't like the stupid security theater any more than the passengers. Airports don't want it either (many are trying to throw the TSA out but Fatherland Security is fighting that). The government is the driving force behind it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The TSA is in violation of the Commerce Clause. You buy an airline ticket, you enter into a contract with the airline. This is legally interstate commerce. If you are denied access to the plane (by refusing the unconstitutional searches), the TSA is interfering and is in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Hey, DrCos. I never happened to see your previous comments on it, but that is a very interesting approach to the problem that I never heard articulated. Very interesting. I will bounce this off some lawyer friends of mine and see what they say.