"Those that would trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."
The call has gone out for a mass aviation protest today, for fliers to "opt out" of pornographic screenings at airports on what has been called the busiest travel day of the year. The concept of the protest is to slow down the screenings by choosing to be groped rather than photographed, much to the chagrin of the chief executives of TSA and the White House, who are exempted from both.
I have ran security checkpoints in far more dangerous locations than a US Airport. I understand why VIPs get checked less than the less affluent, less famous. And I have a pretty good idea what to look for on the person that is potentially a threat. And I have been searched by some of the most successful security agents in the world, as well as received "special selected screening" by the TSA, even while traveling on orders of the US Government.
At no time was I groped, nor viewed/photographed naked personally or remotely. There are simply better, more efficient ways to check potential threats for dangerous items than physical groping and/or remote viewing pornography.
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment to the US Constitution
Judge Napolitano, Fox News Contributor as opposed to his look alike who heads up the Department of Homeland Security, made a very good point on this topic. Since our government is derived of the people on the principal of authorities delegated by the people to the government, we, the people, cannot grant the government authority which we don't as people have. The guy in the "Don't touch my junk" video also makes that point. He correctly states that the new TSA procedures would in fact be considered sexual assault in any court of law. Acting as an agent of the government does not change that.
Law Enforcement, which is reactionary to crimes committed rather than proactive to preventing crime, is required by law and the US Constitution to have a warrant, or at least "probable cause" to enter your property and your person. A Police Officer can't simply pull you over and search your car because he feels like it. He must get a warrant, or ask you permission, unless he has a valid reason to believe something criminal is occuring in the car. If you have blood dripping out of your trunk, he can search it without a warrant.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1.
How then do the political appointees in the White House think that without cause, without a warrant, they can view American Citizens pornographically, or grope their genitals? The elitists try to calm the public by pointing to the necessity as a result of the Christmas bomber in 2009 but simultaneously telling us that they blur the face and genitals in the pornography machines. Only one can be true. If the underwear bomber is their impetus, then blurring the genitals makes the effort pointless.
Worse, TSA is already considering its 3rd set of exemptions (elitists are the first, pilots the second set). Neither Grandma nor your 12 year old daughter is being considered for exemption. Not even flight attendants are up for consideration. And neither is it Our Military that is being considered. Upon challenge from CAIR, the political wing of islamism in America, TSA is considering exempting veiled Muslim women from a search below the neck.
Numerous cases exist of Islamist Terrorists attempting escape by cross-dressing (a Koranic sin) in a veiled dress. It is believed that bin Laden himself used a veiled dress to escape in 2001, 2002, and 2006. I'm not a fan of cross-dressing, but I can tell you that it can be difficult to tell if a cross-dresser in a tank-top is a male/female. Female suicide bombers became a speciality in Iraq, with rape being used as a method of recruitment. Exempting the most likely threat while groping the least likely is just plain stupid.
Yet, the same politicians that tell us that is a necessity to view pornographic images of American citizens also protect Islamists desires to conceal their face, even in airports!?!? Why there hasn't been a rash of bank robberies by veiled criminals is surprising to me, but I'm fairly certain it is illegal to enter a bank wearing a bandana or Halloween mask, for good reason. In the most stringent of Sharia Law countries, Saudi Arabia, women aren't even allowed to drive, much less get a driver's license in veil.
Still, there is another, important aspect of this. The American People have a right to be upset. The TSA is ordering its agents to commit crimes; sexual assault and pornography. And both the measures taken by the TSA and the resulting outrage are goals of the terrorist leaders. Did OBL, Zawahari, and Awlaki sit down and ask: "How can we get the US Government to grab the genitals of American Citizens?" No, but terrorism hopes to elicit a response greater than its actual impact.
Awlaki spells it out in his latest edition of its new glossy recruiting magazine. They don't need to kill thousands if they can impair trade or liberty. He was bragging about the effects of the more recent package bombs, but it is just as pertinent, if not moreso, to the groping pornography of illegal searches at airports.
It is not dissimiliar to the reasons why the Taliban hold hostage Afghan civilians while invading their homes, even and especially during combat with the Coalition. The Taliban want Afghan Civilians killed, preferably by the Coalition, but by Taliban hands if necessary. They want dead Afghan Civilians so that they can then complain about the "atrocity." They orchestrate the killing of civilians, then complain loudly about it, so they can recruit outraged Afghans to fight for them, or at the very least to protest and riot about it.
The strategic cycle is 1) violence, 2) reaction by government, 3) outrage to reaction, 4) violence/protests, 5) distrust in that government, 6) sympathy to opponents of government 7) antipathy or support for overthrow of that government.
To sum this up: The new TSA procedures are Unconstitutional & Illegal. They are unnecessary and idiotic. They do not make us safer, particularly with potential exemptions for the most likely of terrorists. They play directly into the hands of terrorists. While TSA has never been perfect and the terrorist threat is constantly evolving, during our most dangerous days and for eight years, TSA did not need to grope Grandma nor view pornographic images of cheerleaders in order to keep the flying public safe from terrorists.
The political appointees heading up the TSA are flat out lying. If an underwear bomb is the threat, then their claim to blur the genitals renders the entire expensive equipment moot. And since he boarded a plane with his panty bomb in a foreign country, he still wouldn't be caught with the new measures, even if they weren't blurred.
But their next assurance was that their pornography can NOT be stored at all, when the first scandal related to the equipment was that not only had it been stored, but had been published in a database in Florida. If it could not be stored, then we wouldn't have versions of it available on TV and the internet. If they'll lie once, they'll lie as many times as they feel it necessary. There is no reason to expect the truth when asking a liar if they're telling the truth, not even if they swear on the grave of their political party or favorite politician's political grave.
Stumble It!
