So When Did Democrats Adopt the No-Fly List?

So, how are all you libertarians feeling who supported Obama hoping he could not make too much of a hash of the economy, but were willing to take the risk in exchange for an expansion of civil rights, a demobilizing of the post-9/11 security state, and curbs on executive power?

This from Rahm Emanuel is just nuts.  I remember just 6 months ago Democrats were rightly critical of the no-fly list, arguing (as I do) that there cannot reasonably be a million terrorists running around America and that the list unreasonably curbs civil liberties of everyone put on it without due process, and without any hope of removal in case of mistakes.

I had to listen to the youtube video (in the linked article) to confirm for myself he really said this and in context, but this is exactly what he means, garnering applause from the Brady Center:

"if you're on that no-fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is cancelled, because you're not part of the American family; you don't deserve that right. There is no right for you if you're on that terrorist list."

Wow, a lot of due process here.  What's next,  sending every girl who has her name on a men's room wall (you know, the ubiquitous "for a good time call..." graffiti) to prison as sex workers?

If your second ammendment rights are cancelled (it can't be an accident that he is using nearly the exact text from the Constitution) then doesn't that imply that other Constitutional rights can be cancelled as well?  After all, its dangerous to let terrorists assemble, is it not?  And speak.  And practicing their religion can be a problem.  Etc...

Please, let's not go here.


  1. John Moore:

    Every once in a while, an ugly cat escapes from the bag. Rahm is clearly a fascist, pure and simple.

    BTW, my name is on that list. Do you have any idea how many John Moore's there are there?

  2. morganovich:

    that second amendment right is not derived from government, it is an inalienable "natural right" derived from personhood. unlike many countries our rights according to our constitution do not flow from the government.

    i question how such a policy can be constitutional under any sort of even vaguely strict constructionism.

    abridging rights without due process is PRECISELY the sort of tyranny the untied states was founded to prevent.

  3. NewEnglandDevil:

    Is it a coincidence that the federal gov't is now labeling people who believe in conservative causes as "potential terrorists"?

  4. Evil Red Scandi:

    I keep hearing about these alleged "libertarians" who voted for Obama thinking he'd offer some sort of improvement on individual rights. Even if these people claim to be libertarians, a more apt description would be "fucktards." The progressives have always been worse than Republicans in this area (which takes effort) in both rhetoric and actions.

    @John Moore - if you added an "s" at then end of your last name then we'd have to call you out for terrorizing the quality of Baseball in San Diego, but since you're a letter short we'll let you slide :-)

  5. Jim Collins:

    I'll bet there are more people out there with the same name as mine than there are with yours.

    As of last Thursday my name wasn't on the list. This post might change that.

    Right now we are just two Supreme Court Justices away from having the Constitution thrown out the window.

  6. Scott:

    "Aren't you afraid they'll put you on a list?"

    "They aren't the only ones that can make a list."