Ohio’s “GOP-controlled Senate” recently passed a resolution that ”would placean issue on the November ballot … prohibit[ing] any law from forcing Ohioans to participate in a health care system.” The measure now heads to Ohio’s House. It needs 60 votes there, which seems likely since “Republicans hold 59 out of 99 seats.”

Ohioans are probably shaking in their boots lest the proposition pass. Sure, it could save them from dying in wretched, government-controlled hospitals, but what if the Feds retaliate by closing all the doctor’s offices in the state? Or, horror of horrors, they could declare Ohio a “No-Health Zone.” Then, too, statists who adore an overweening central government might laugh at Ohio’s legislature for daring to challenge the over-weenies.

Those fears probably resonate with Texans. After all, Obama’s goons threatened to ground aviation in the state and turn the place into a “No-Fly Zone” last month when its legislature toyed with prohibiting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from sexually assaulting passengers. And now, as the re-incarnated bill struggles for life, the Speaker of Texas’ House worries that it could make his little fiefdom a laughingstock.

So the Democratic Party is pressing the oh-so-appropriately named Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) to resign – not because its members find his sexcapades morally repugnant but because the Party might lose a fraction of its overweening power otherwise: “Democrats said the concerted call for a resignation had been brewing for days, as senior party officials concluded the scandal was interfering with their attempts to gain political momentum in advance of the 2012 elections. ‘We had decided we were not going to have one more week of Anthony Weinergate,’ said one official …”

Which makes it our patriotic duty to keep the perv front and center. Perhaps we can thereby save the country from a bit of the Democrats’ socialism.

Were Tony a citizen minding his own business, his exhibitionism and filthy flirting would lie between himself, his wife, and his God. But he isn’t. He’s one of those benighted thugs who consider themselves entitled to run our lives. Tony will decide what medical care we receive, thank you, and how we’ll spend our money: on other people’s abortions, but not our own pleasures. And he’ll censor what we watch on YouTube.

All in all, Tony’s a tyrant of the first order poking his nose into every detail of our days – even as he graphically demonstrates his total incompetence to run his own affairs, so to speak. Why would anyone trust this pervert to flip burgers, let alone micromanage a nation?

If you’re wondering whatever happened to the country we all knew and loved, look no further than the sociopaths ruling us. We can hang just about every problem plaguing us on their ignorance, foolishness and corruption.

Case in point:  Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). Jackie’s your typical knee-jerk socialist, a moron who blindly parrots politicians’ standard talking points without apparent concern for the contradictions, wickedness, and appalling illogic.

For example, here she is on nationalizing medical insurance: “32 million uninsured Americans will have access to health coverage” thanks to Obamacare. Yo, Jacks: I’m one of those 32 million, and I already “have access.” But I’ve chosen to spend my money on other needs. I deeply resent your second-guessing that, requiring me to buy something I don’t want — especially when your accomplices in the states’ legislatures have protected Big Insurance with one law and subsidy after another. No wonder rates are obscenely high.

Her prattle on “Defense & Foreign Policy” [sic for “American imperialism”] is just as silly and offensive: “While I strongly and vocally opposed President Bush’s decision to wage war in Iraq, I do believe we owe it to the men and women of our armed forces to protect them when the decision is made to put them in harm’s way.” Really? Jackie, did it ever occur to you that if we stop “protecting” the boots on the ground — and stop bribing them with “free” education, housing, medical care, and all the other goodies recruiters dangle — Bushbama will have no “men and women of our armed forces” with which to bomb innocents overseas?

News from the “Dog-Bites-Man” file: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lied.

Again.

On the same topic as several of its many previous lies: its porno-scanners.

Yes, the scanners save your naked snapshot despite the TSA’s repeated insistence that retention is impossible. But that was January 2010’s whopper.

The one most recently exposed — for the third time, no less: scientists from the University of California, San Francisco and from Johns Hopkins have each previously protested the government’s deceptions — concerns the hazards to our health.

Porno-scanners are dangerous. No one knows exactly how dangerous since the TSA refuses to allow independent evaluation, rigs the tests run on the things, and censors the reports on those tests so stringently technicians can’t assess the information. But the machines are certainly not “safe for all passengers, including children, pregnant women, and individuals with medical implants,” as the agency avers. And they dose us with considerably more radiation than “two minutes of flying on an airplane,” one of the TSA’s favorite whitewashes.

Why do the Feds hand $3 billion of our money each year to Pakistani politicians?

"It's inconceivable that [Osama] bin Laden did not have a support system in [Pakistan] that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time," announced John Brennan, “czar” of terrorism or counterterrorism depending on your perspective, after last week’s raid on Abbottabad.

Other politicians echoed that while speculating that the “support system” was no less than Pakistan’s military and government – but I repeat myself. In fact, American officials alerted neither to their plans for capturing bin Laden lest they warn him or thwart the raid. That’s some return on our $3 billion.

All this has Our Rulers in an uproar. A few argue that we should cut or eliminate Pakistan’s foreign aid. Others seem to have succumbed to the efforts of “Mark Siegel, a lobbyist for Pakistan, [who] told a wire service that he had been on Capitol Hill every day to promote Pakistan's position on [bin Laden’s] killing, talking to congressmen, senators and their aides” to keep the funds flowing. Gee, thanks, Mark, you’re a stand-up guy what with making only a million a year off this arrangement.

Maybe I need glasses.

I’ve read and re-read the Constitution, trying to find an amendment, clause or even a word that allows the Feds to murder foreign nationals. And I’m coming up dry. But it has to be there: after all, US Attorney General Eric Holder assured the House Judiciary Committee that the homicide of Osama bin Laden was "lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way.” Whew! Always good to have Leviathan authorizing its own crimes.

Doesn’t every guy on death row say the same of his offenses, though usually in words less glib? And like those unofficial murderers, the Feds disposed of the evidence ASAP – if indeed there was any for a man credibly reported to have died years ago. Nor did they resist the urge common among the criminal classes to brag about their alleged exploit.

Meanwhile, picture Americans’ reaction were the shoe on the other foot: what if Pakistan had dispatched ninjas to Wichita, Kansas, to rub out American citizen and patriot, John Q. Binlading?

The lust to run other people’s lives, to decide each question large or small for them, to dictate their choices and punish them when they don’t hop to, has always baffled me. For starters, I have enough trouble managing myself; I certainly can’t assume responsibility for you. Second, such minutiae as what sort of drugs you prefer, how you educate your kids, which hobbies you enjoy, the type of showerhead you install – well, OK, if you teach your kids in a yellow submarine or your shower spouts wine instead of water, it could get intriguing. Otherwise, you’re as boring as I. And unless we’re marrying or hiring one another, why would either of us worry about the other’s habits?

Naturally, the political class doesn’t see it this way. Bureaucrats care – intensely, fanatically – about every detail of our days. They put small-town gossips to shame with their obsession over stuff that’s not even remotely their business.

Which is infuriating enough. But what’s fodder for revolution is the harm they wreak on busy, productive people – the folks with such full lives they don’t need to poke their noses into their neighbors’ affairs, the ones whose horrifically high taxes pay the leeches and busybodies harassing us.

Yes, it’s a horrifying, unspeakable outrage: one of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) pedophiles molested six-year-old Anna Drexel as though she were a porn star rather than a little girl boarding a plane.

Her parents filmed the assault and “uploaded the video on YouTube, where it generated huge interest. Network morning shows picked up the story as did countless blogs and websites. One of the liars and hypocrites in Congress – which body could put the TSA out of business tomorrow by refusing to authorize its funding – announced that he was "personally outraged and disgusted" at Anna’s abuse while another prattled that “the head of the TSA” – i.e., a pervert who was caught lying to that very assembly of liars and hypocrites and who leads an agency frequently caught lying – “assured him that reviewing pat-downs for children was a priority.”

Anna is not the TSA’s only young victim with parents canny enough to document the attack. Spencer Sheahan is eight years old; after “the checkpoint [sic] … ‘beeped like a beep you normally don't hear,’” the TSA’s predators fell on him, too, while his mother snapped pictures. “’They went up his leg, into that area, down the next leg, up here (chest), felt all over,’ [his mother] explained.”

When confronted with its criminality, the TSA usually lies. But the photographic evidence is so overwhelming, so visceral, and so publicized that this time it challenges even the TSA’s fabulists, despite their extensive experience.

Increasing numbers of passengers are shedding their patriotism along with their clothing at airports. These pathetic wusses object to their government’s sexually assaulting them, incredibly enough – though it’s for their own good. So what if the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) hasn’t groped a single terrorist in the six months since adopting “Enhanced Pat Downs” (sic for “Sexual Molestation”) and “Advanced Imaging Technology” (sicfor “ogling via contraptions that function like Superman’s X-ray vision”) as its official policies? The Homeland’s security demands that the government empower the otherwise unemployable to fondle and leer at us.

And yes, the TSA hasn’t discovered any terrorists via its fondling and leering, but it valiantly protects us from other threats. For instance, there’s the Bunny Lady it foiled on Valentine’s Day. Good gracious, but for Our Rulers’ vigilance, she might have offered everyone aboard her flight chocolates or something.

I’m picturing myself before a judge – not as far-fetched a scenario as I would hope; given the country’s free-fall into a police-state, many of us may find ourselves pleading for our lives and liberty one day – who offers me the choice of “community service” or reading Islam: How Allah Can Help You, Whatever Your Sin. Count me in for the latter, though I’m a devout Christian who won’t convert on pain of death, let alone by skimming a book.

I would also despise the ACLU more than I already do were it to interfere with the bargain Hizzoner and I have struck. Given the bogus “crimes” with which the State charges most of its victims, you might think anyone who values liberty enough to put it into his organization’s name would applaud a judge who “punishes” the unfortunates before him with mere study rather than the silly slavery of community service.

But as you probably suspect, the American Civil Liberties Union has little to do with “liberty” and everything to do with “civil,” i.e., the State. Founded in 1920 at the height of Progressivism, it promotes not freedom but “civil rights.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines these as “the basic legal rights a person must possess in order to have [the status of equal citizenship in a liberal democratic state]. They are the rights that constitute free and equal citizenship and include personal, political, and economic rights.”

"No one is required to [submit to] full-body scanners," Judge Douglas Ginsburg announced Thursday at the US Court of Appeals in Cesspool, DC since we can “choose” for government’s thugs to grope us instead. He’s one of a threesome hearing a challenge from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on the Feds’ carcinogenic ogling of passengers at airports.

This hypocritical pothead warms the bench rather than a prison cell because he’s white, wealthy, and educated rather than black, poor, and semi-literate. He’s also knee-deep in ironies, though I don’t know which is greater: the fact that his profession rewarded him but punishes us for flouting tyrannical laws, or that he’s one of the best arguments going for eschewing marijuana since clearly, with logic like that above, he’s lost all rationality. Maybe the DEA can exploit him as a poster boy.

You gullible, easily manipulated American, grow a spine, will you? Don’t allow the media to stir you up any longer against those patriotic perverts at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Submit to the agency’s “freedom fondles” like a man, or at least what passes for a man in Congress: Rep. Peter “9/11! 9/11! 9/11!” King, R-NY.

"I come from an area that lost over 400 people on 9/11," Mr. 9/11 Himself bellowed last week "during an event at Georgetown University celebrating the eighth anniversary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” Excuse my poetic license: I don’t know that he actually bellowed, but he certainly looks the type who would. Casting directors for On the Waterfront should have recruited this nut to play a union thug or petty hoodlum and spared us his reign of terror in DC.

Video of the “event” at Georgetown posted on the internet could confirm whether I’m correct on the bellowing. And though Your Intrepid Reporter will go to almost any lengths for accuracy, I feared for my life had I viewed this footage: the retching would have been terminal.

Planning on shopping this weekend, piling up the bargains on your credit card? Good luck. Cardholders have become almost as suspect as passengers boarding a plane: cashiers demand ID a lathe blue-shirted bullies at the airport and become peeved with anyone refusing to hand it over, too.

The pleasant woman at the register of the proudly “local,” Midwestern grocery I shopped while home for Christmas turned frosty when I objected to showing my driver’s license before charging $137 of merchandise. “It’s for your own good,” she snapped. Isn’t everything anymore? When the private sector mimics government, it becomes just as silly and annoying. She added, “I like it when places want to see mine because I know they’re keeping me safe.”

Kidnappers sometimes enjoy forgiveness and even gratitude from their victims when they don’t brutalize them as mercilessly as they might have. Perhaps the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) hopes for a similar phenomenon: it is testing new software on its porno-scanners that it claims “enhances privacy by eliminating passenger-specific images and instead auto-detects potential threat items and indicates their location on a generic outline of a person.”

That translates to English as, “Instead of your naked bod, our Peeping Toms will only see a stick-figure on their monitors from now on, the same figure for everybody, with little red boxes highlighting any contraband – say that ticket-stub you forgot in your pocket. Yes, of course a ticket-stub can blow up a plane. But we can’t say how because that’s Sensitive Security Information. Besides, you’re a slave and we’re the masters. So just trust us on this, and be sure you relinquish all stubs and other threats to the ol’ Homeland before heading through our contraption.”
 
The agency imagines its “generic outline of a person” will soothe our ruffled feathers. “We believe it addresses the privacy issues that have been raised," the TSA’s head pervert, John Pistole, smugly opined.

Long, cold, dismal January affords enough pain without listening to politicians bloviate in various State of the Union/State/City speeches. So I pity the reporters at the New York Times who “examin[ed] … more than two dozen opening addresses of incoming governors in recent days.” Imagine the sadistic editor who proposed this project, and hope he treats his minions to Starbucks and lots of Dunkin’ Donuts.

Meanwhile, this dread survey revealed a “consensus” among rulers: they realize they must “slash spending. Avoid tax increases. Tear up regulations that might drive away business and jobs. Shrink government, even if that means tackling the thorny issues of public employees and their pensions.”