By Jonathan Benson
(NaturalNews) The next time you are assaulted by TSA agents at the airport that try to force you through the naked body scanner or perform a full-body grope down on you, why not just grab them back?
This is exactly what 61-year-old Yukari Mihamae recently did at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PSHI) after TSA agents tried to subject her to the unlawful and unconstitutional “enhanced” security protocols — but when she decided to essentially perform the same procedures on a TSA agent, police arrested her on suspicion of sexual abuse.
A regular air traveler, Mihamae is quickly building a reputation for herself as a true American patriot, and one that refuses to allowthe TSAto violate her personal privacy no matter how often she travels. During her most recent attempted travels through PSHI, she decided to give theTSAa little dose of its own medicine, and she paid the price.
After getting into an argument withTSA agentsfollowing her refusal to go through thenaked body scanner, reports indicate that Mihamae grabbed a TSA agent’s breasts with both hands, and proceeded to squeeze and twist them. The incident ended up landing her in jail overnight, but she was released the next day with no charges were filed against her.
At the prompting of her lawyer, Mihamae has decided not to publicly explain why she grabbed the TSA agent’s breasts. But based on her history of fighting back against TSA tyranny, it seems clear that Mihamae is just a no-nonsense traveler who demonstrates a little extra “pizazz” every now and again — she apparently flies routinely and almost always ends up getting into an altercation with TSA agents for violating her rights.
Supporters of Mihamae have set up a Facebooksupportpage for her entitled “Acquit Yukari Mihamae” (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Acquit-Yukar…). As of this writing, the page had 1,834 supporters and counting.
by: Alan Phillips, J.D.
(NaturalNews) A current California bill, AB 499, would “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents’ knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: “Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for theprevention. . . of venerealdiseaseand other [reportable] diseases…” I call theselaws“Stealth Vaccine Laws” because they provide for the administration ofvaccineswithout the word “vaccine” or “immunization” appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches forvaccinebills and laws using those terms.
There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine bills and laws. First, they violate parents’ fundamental Constitutional rights. InTroxel v. Granville, 430 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “theConstitutionpermits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear theirchildrenonly to preventharmor potential harm to achild.”Troxelrequires a “threshold showing of harm” that is lacking in the California bill andNorth Carolinalaw.Troxelalso tells us thatparentsare presumed to be fit and to make decisions that are in their children’s best interests. So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent tomedical treatmentat any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are givenauthorityto consent. Continue Reading
By Matthew Lasar
Meet Roy Olmstead and Charles Katz—one was a Prohibition era bootlegger, the other a ’60s gambler. Neither did anything earthshaking with their lives, but history remembers them both because their arrests, based on warrantless telephone taps, reached the United States Supreme Court.
In the two cases that resulted, the Supremes took starkly different perspectives on whether the men’s constitutional rights had been violated by wiretaps without a warrant.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” says the Fourth Amendment. But as telephone wires invaded the 20th century, judges had to constantly rethink what that sentence meant. In doing so, the justices paved the way for modern wiretap law and for the controversies over warrantless wiretapping that would become a feature of the “War on Terror.” Continue Reading