Traveling the world is not as easy for me as it once was. It seems that the Government has implemented a new program (or a pilot program) to molest freethinkers such as myself.
In Aptheker v. State, 378 US 500 (1964), Justice William Orville Douglas wrote (regarding the First Amendment  to the United States Constitution) that, “Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security….Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities — for cultural, political, and social activities — for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society. Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. War may be the occasion for serious curtailment of liberty. Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him.This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful.”
The Fifth Amendment  to the United States Constitution provides that no citizen shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 111 (1958), the Supreme Court held that foreign travel is necessarily implied as part of this “liberty,” stating:
“The right to travel is a part of the `liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”
It appears that the First and Firth Amendments may no longer be applicable or relevant in the land of the Bushes and the Obamas.
I will report again soon.