« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Another Atrocity: TSA Agents Molest Three-Year Old

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  November 22nd, 2010 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

On September 11, 2001, 19 men killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children. All of the killers were of Middle Eastern descent and in their 20s.

Not having been born on September 11th, this little boy is undoubtedly too young to know of the death and despair that occurred on that day.

He is still probably too young to learn about it even now.

He is not, however, too young to learn what it is like to be molested at the hands of his government [via Fox31].




Although this young man is neither of Middle Eastern descent, nor is he in his teens or early 20s, he apparently does fit the profile of an average American terrorist, according to Janet Napolitano.

___________________

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, 1755

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • othugoisaloser1

    Pistole is going to be SO LOATHED at the end of TURKEY DAY OTHUGO will be FORCED to can him!!!
    WITHIN, at MOST A WEEK

    • Duke

      He’ll probably leave on his own, like all the other rats leaving the SS Titanic Fail.

  • mjdzfun

    I keep hearing and reading commenters say “Enough is Enough!” and I have had enough already. Bu after the ObamaCare debacle, it’s clear that the govt will do as it pleases and we are fodder. God, I don’t even know where to start on this crap. Enough already. Enough.

    BTW–the victim here is white…….again. Where are the “random” searches on Muslims? Or any other race, for that matter?

  • pantera

    its sad all this is necessary but the process will be streamlined and less physical as knowledge of more effective procedures are implemented.

    for those that say Israel has the better solution ,I agree but Israel is the size of rhode island has 1 major airport with 20,000 passengers daily(just my estimation),

    the US has 2,000,000 daily fliers 100+ airports spread over 50 states.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      …

      • JadedByPolitics

        …

      • grandma

        TSA is doing the conditioning of young people to accept being touched by strangers.

    • mjdzfun

      Pulling a 3 year old baby out of line for enhanced screening is a definition of egregiously broad measures. And how a sane person can watch that video and then “tsk, tsk…sad but necessary” is the tad dead center definition of a sheeple.

    • jdw4america

      None of this is necessary. The TSA, like ALL of the apologists for these ATROCITIES – because that’s what groping an innocent person on behalf of any government is, an atrocity – is claiming that these measures will make us all safer. That is unadulterated bs.

      The people who have attempted to kill some of us in the name of their religion and their god have gone out of their way to make sure that we know who they are and why they are shoving explosives up their rectums. Islamic terrorists are the people who have been plotting the flights into buildings, the car bombs, the spree shootings, the shoe bombs, underwear bombs, etc…the list is endless.

      Neither their super cool – are those puppies real? – scanners nor their sexual assaults on children will reveal if someone has a bomb up his butt. Are barry’s appointees going to start recruiting proctologists and gynecologists to find out? Or are they just going to use the staff at hand?

      And are we now supposed to teach young children that if any adult tries to touch them under their clothes they should “Yell, Run and Tell” unless the adult works for the federal government?

      This is not safety – this is political correctness run amok, and its being advocated by people who don’t have enough guts to identify our enemy. But we can’t profile them, they might get mad at us. These are the same people who b@%tched and moaned that wiretapping terror cells would lead to the abolition of the Bill of Rights. Privacy rights for mass murderers, but not for American children boarding a plane.

      God help us all.

      • satin

        When it comes to national airport security, American airports are lacking consistency. There shouldn’t be any profiling concerning any passenger, young or old, when it comes to boarding an airplane. A major problem America has right now is consistency throughout all 100+ airports. So for people to say this is molestation, I think that is a little extreme.

        As a nation, no one should be underestimated or profiled whether a person is 74, or whether they are 3. You never know what a parent may place with their child or in a stroller.

        • Scope

          You are sick and deluded. American parents don’t produce and raise children to use them as explosive devices. Don’t see you lasting here long.

          • satin

            Hey Scope, I’m sorry you have a perverted mind and took what I said the way you did. I was referring to placing things in children’s pockets, bags etc. If you read it again, it says “with”. So maybe you and your sick, deluded mind should think twice before writing again.

            Thanks

          • Scope

            You have a perverted mind to think that this is some kind of middle eastern muslim country, where we sit our children in front of the TV to watch how glorious it is to be a martyr in the name of Allah, or to “strap a suicide belt” around our children and send them into a crowd to blow up with as many others as possible.

            You have taken the position of expanding the invasions to our rights and freedoms to every airport, and, I would guess you would also agree with doing the same at train stations, and bus terminals. Our borders are wide open, our ports and shorelines are mostly unguarded, and you’re worried about not profiling with anyone. What about all of the incoming flights from third world countries that have little if any security procedures. To the best of my knowledge, no Americans have become suicide bombers, or have tried to kill as many Americans as possible.

            You are a Progressive.

          • satin

            Wow, I’m pretty sure you are now putting words into my mouth. So you think American airports should profile, even racially profile? Isn’t that something that, as a counrty, Americans are trying to work on, not discriminating and not stereotyping?

            Also, I don’t see why the length of my presence on this website matters that much. In fact, this is a research project and I might make you my main point. So thank you for your response and reaction to my words. It’s great to find out that libertarians stake out on conservative sites to cause trouble rather than write on a liberal site. I guess if you like the negative energy, continue what you’re doing. Just remember there are two sides to every argument.

    • Bedell

      as a test case for the Israeli style system in the US? And if that seems to work, do you think we could expand to maybe Idaho? I just don’t get the “well Israel only has one airport” argument.

    • mjdzfun

      Every totalitarian, fascist government in history got it’s start by first implementing choking measures under the guise of national security.

  • izoneguy

    The dems lose big on Nov 2.
    Enhanced patdowns were introduced it seems right after the dem implosion.

    The dems are sitting up the Republicans for January.
    The “evil” Republicans will demand that the TSA stand down.

    Then we get a terrorist attack and Obama and the dems will play
    victim and say see!!!!!

    Right out of the Cloward Piven playbook.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html

    • izoneguy

      Lawmakers Seek Probe of TSA’s Pat-Down Training After Reported Misbehavior

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/lawmakers-seek-probe-tsas-pat-training-reported-misbehavior/#ixzz163iwqWaE

    • webcorex2

      Anyway, about the topic. I didn’t come to this blog to be partisan, but I find talk of Obama et al setting up a “police state” extremely hypocritical coming from conservatives since practically all of these stringent policies began under the Bush admin. as a response to 9/11. When liberals complained at the time that these policies restricted our freedoms, we were told it was necessary for our protection. I’m not really convinced that were McCain president now instead of Obama, the conservative response to this would have been any different than it was then.

      That isn’t to say I don’t find this sort of treatment disgusting. The difference is, I have found it disgusting for years. Things never change because both sides silence their dissent when they think “their people” are in power.

      • izoneguy

        The TSA was not grabbing crotches and fondling kids from 2001-2009…..this started just a few weeks ago.

        Whats next? Naked anal cavity searches? That would be the only way to stop a really mad jihad bomber.

        The left always said Bush was a Nazi…..

        The behavior of the TSA in the Obama era is really Nazi like…

        • webcorex2

          And as for the kid, unless you are implying that Obama and co. drafted some sort of legislation targeting children for molestation at airports, this seems like a simple case of one office (or whatever) overzealously enacting one of these said searches, something I have no reason to believe didn’t happen under the Bush admin.

          “Whats next? Naked anal cavity searches? That would be the only way to stop a really mad jihad bomber.”

          That’s what the liberals said the first time around!! The only thing that has changed is the party in control of the White House, and thusly I fear, The opinions of many a conservative on the issue.

          • Menlo

            I was among the few who thought Bush, Congress and others in and out of government hastily overreacted in a rather knee-jerk fashion following Sept. 11. I understood it, even though I disagreed with it.

            I’ve known about the x-rated x-rays since 2002 and was surprised to see so little fuss until much later. I had been complaining all along.

            That said, the current complaints result from increased publicity and Obama appointee John Pistole’s policy of “more aggressive” measures that he acknowledged were new and were of his making. Obama appointee Janet Napolitano takes the same side.

          • webcorex2

            If the people don’t like a policy when it is strictly enforced, then they essentially don’t like the policy in general.

          • JSobieski

            under Bush, it was clear that the restrictions were stupid and destined to get worse.

            The problem with all this stuff is that it is utterly senseless.

      • acat

        I recall the origins of the TSA somewhat differently. Specifically, they and “DHS” were compromises, demanded by a Congress seeking to “look like they’re doing something” (on both sides of the aisle) and by led by lobbyists looking to sell shiny security baubles.

        I recall more Conservatives objecting, usually quoting Ben Franklin’s “those who give up liberty to gain security” quote.

        Now that you’re done congratulating yourself on your superiority, cut the B.S., grow up, and propose some alternatives. Where do you stand on using profiling? Because one of the things I recall was that the Bushies wanted to use it, but were told they couldn’t get Dem support for it in Congress.

        Mew

        • cactusjack

          good will than any President in American history and in less than two years he has squandered it all with nothing to show. It’s Bushes fault didn’t hold any water for more than about 3-4 months after O was sworn in, if that much. Do the libs know how pathetic they sound when they even try it anymore? I do notice the MSM gave it up long ago. They’re too busy trying to rehabilitate their false picture they painted of him, for their own nefarious purposes, If it werent for the destruction 0 is committing on our America, I would wish he would continue on this path, then we might not have another Dem President for a generation.

          • webcorex2

            In this case, it’s true. I do hold O responsible for not stopping it, for example, but lets not pretend he started it, and let’s not pretend that America’s road to police state, if we truly believe this is happening, began only less than two years ago. That’s all I’m saying.

          • Tbone

            by trying to blame Bush? All you saying is that you have no problem with child molestation.

          • webcorex2

            And in the post you responded to, I blamed obama for continuing this policy.

          • powertothepeople

            If I punch you in the face for 10 minutes then TBone takes over and even starts to drop kick you in the face, who is to blame for the blows TBone is laying on your ass? Am I too blame for all of it leaving TBone free of any blame, or are both us of to blame but only for what we each did? It is a simple question, please answer in the same manner.

            After you answer it, you can shove your BS! At no time under Bush did TSA agents molest a child and call it normal duty. And when Obama asked for an reason, got a lame excuse, and then walked off like a kicked dog, he accepted ALL blame for the actions of agents working for agencies under is watch. So stop with the lame ass Bush excuses. Even Obama was not stupid enough to play that card.

          • ocleverone

            for name calling.

            I don’t agree with webcorex2 at all but I think we would lose if we turn it into a name calling free for all.

          • powertothepeople

            you added so much to this conversation. But thanks preacher man, we all need someone following us around telling us how to treat the liberals.

            And if “jerky” is so bad in your opinion that you felt the urge to preach, you really need to get outdoors more often.

          • ocleverone

            Second, we were having what is called a discourse, debate in civil tones with no personal attacks.

            Third, I believe that if you actually read the thread, you would find that there was a lot contributed without resorting to insults.

            And yes, jerky is bad. (See paragraph One.) It adds nothing to the conversation and coming in lobbing verbal hand grenades off the bat does nothing to further the discussion.

            I think several people made their points and outlined great debates without attacking the poster.

            You are not becker, you have no fuzzy bunny.

          • powertothepeople

            Ma-am, you failed to add one iota to the conversation. And going back, I would dare say a few words used such as scum, are much worse than an 80′s term.

            I am sure you relish the role of conscience and look forward to playing the pious part, but go find a post that actually is offensive and is in need of your angel on the shoulder attitude. I long left my parents home and do not need a replacement set here.

            But thanks anyway!

            PS, Plenty of posts where words such as scum, idiot, jackass, etc where your type of posting may be warranted. But if the word Jerky does this to you, you may want to avoid them or you would really be in a hissy fit.

          • acat

            …”let’s not pretend he started it” is that health care hadn’t been brought up since Hillarycare close to two decades back, and not since Nixon before. He absolutely brought that back up.

            Or, did you mean “America’s road to police state”? Because there’s a couple problems with that statement too… Waco comes to mind.

            As for just how we’re becoming a police state, well .. I’m seeing a lot of inept airport security-by-keystone-cops… not a police state.

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            I don’t believe this incident represents a “police state” either.

            Also when I said “let’s not pretend he started it”, I was referring solely to the TSA.

          • acat

            life in police states. Your homework assignment is to find and read every diary written by Vassar Bushmills.

            And as for the TSA, it was demanded by Congress… Bush gave in on that little bit of security theater – remember that before the TSA, the airlines and airports each managed their own security; bringing it “inside the government” was only necessary to increase the number of government employees.

            Bush also capitulated on the creation of the DHS. In both cases, Dem elements in Congress saw opportunity to advance their agendas and that Bush really couldn’t stop ‘em since if anything happened they’d claim it was because he wouldn’t go along, eh?

            Mew

      • jdw4america

        and not everyone who owns a phone. According to the left, it’s evil to target our enemies when we have probable cause and a reliable profile, but it’s okay to invasively search anyone with an airline ticket.

        Yeah, that’s exactly the same thing. We’re all insane. We’re the braying, irrational, cowardly hypocrites, hoping if we bend over far enough they won’t hurt us…oh no, wait, we’re not, that’s you on the left.

        Why not go back and preach to your choir, we’re not interested.

        • webcorex2

          It’s a deliberative democracy we live in, and if you aren’t even interested in knowing what the other side has to say, you don’t belong in it. That’s why I’m here and not at the Huffington post or something.

          • izoneguy

            This would really be hilarious, except the left is helping “pre-condition” everyone.

            NOW if the TSA had acted this way during Bush when we were closer to 9-11??? What do you think the left would be doing???

            Now that they have the one in office – a “police-state” is acceptable???

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/19/gloria_allred_on_tsa_pat-down_i_liked_it.html

            SEAN HANNITY, HOST: “Did they touch your body parts?”

            GLORIA ALLRED: “Yeah, they did and it was a first time anybody touched them in a long time and frankly, I liked it.”

            ——————————————————————
            Whoopi Goldberg defended the TSA’s controversial new screening procedures on Saturday’s “Huckabee,” saying they are needed to keep people safe.

            Speaking to Mike Huckabee on his Fox News show, Goldberg praised the TSA, saying the agency is doing “a good job.”

            Huckabee said that the new procedures, which have sparked fury across the country, seemed to come from a police state. Goldberg said that “we are in a bit of a police state,” but that such restrictions were needed to keep people safe:

            “People keep seeming to get on planes with bombs…we are in treacherous times and, no, it’s not comfortable, and it’s not the way I would like to live, but if it’s going to keep me from getting blown out of the sky, you can check anything you want and if you feel something you like and squeeze it, what am I going to do?”

            This Junk Won’t Fly

            http://www.slate.com/id/2275681/?from=rss

          • ocleverone

            Deliberative democracy creates a dangerous illusion of warm and fuzzy government while the fists of politicians close around citizens throats.

          • webcorex2

            Whether you like the idea or not.

          • acat

            Whether you like the idea or not.

            Look at the effects of limiting the number of Representatives to 535 or the effects of directly electing Senators or the effects of giving powers that should be under the purview of the States over to the Fed.

            We are at a point where the deliberation is done by a decreasing percentage of the population, reduced in their responsibility to We The People.

            Whether you like it or not.

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            rather than adapting to later imperfections. we can begin outside of government debating civily with people of other viewpoints until we come up with the best idea that pleases the most people.

          • acat

            I’d rather strive for a small government that will leave people alone to work out their own lives, not wasting time seeking some utopian ideal.

            What plays in Peoria won’t go over well in Manhattan .. and what works in Dallas, TX won’t work in Dallas, OR … except small, locally controlled government.

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            All democratic forms of government need it, whether it’s large or small.

          • acat

            What you seem to want to do is to sit in a drum circle or around a hookah and dream up the perfect government form.

            What I’m telling you is that you’re several centuries too late. The perfect form is a limited central government, strong State governments, the right of citizens to travel and to relocate from state to state, and associate with whomever and in whatever way they like.

            If you want to live alone in the woods with a hareem, and can recruit successfully, I don’t care. If you wish to live in a city where the government provides all your services, and you can recruit others to join you, that’s fine too. I don’t care. You, though, must respect my wish to live in a place with minimal government.

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            I may have lost track of my original point in the process, which is that without taxation we would have no form of government at all (a problem unless you are an anarchist), and because taxation necessitates representation we need a democratic or republican form of government. Because we need a national popularly controlled form of government (if we are to remain a Union), and because we the people are tasked to make discisions in that government (even a government relegated to only a few small functions), there will always be public debate and for debate to function properly one needs to here the opinion of the opposition from the opposition.

            Apart from all of this, I think it is intellectually benificial to understand what someone with an opposing viewpoint believes and why they believe it. It’s all about coming to informed conclusions. I need to sleep now.

          • acat

            but I would point out that the devil is in the details. Consent of the governed is an important principle – and it’s much easier to control a local government.

            There’s a reason why the catchphrase “don’t make a federal case out of it” came into common use – rather than permitting local control, state control, groups pushed to make things federal cases … not respecting the right of locals, instead “making a federal case out of it”, and forcing the D.C. government to decide for everyone.

            I find this unacceptable – and also exactly where we started going awry as a country.

            Mew

          • Tbone

            unable to grasp reality is a waste of time. Your comments are like dog turds on a sidewalk, unworthy of consideration except to avoid stepping in.

          • ocleverone

            the purest of intentions and assumes they pose no danger to the citizens while serving in their elected positions. Our Founding Fathers knew better. Jefferson noted that when a politician covets his position, his conduct rots. Deliberative democracy requires that we put more faith in our elected officials (and our government) than they do us.

            There is also the unicorn requirement of mutual respect by opposing political parties in this school of theory. Exactly when has this happened in the last two hundred or so years?

            Deliberative democracy resides in the academic cocktail circuit not in reality.

          • webcorex2

            If our congress weren’t meant to function this way, than it would look more like the House of Commons, where the opposition have next to no power in crafting legislation.

          • izoneguy

            The Republicans were shut out of the ObamCare debate because Obama said he “won”. Hmmmm, funny how those 2010 elections turned out.

            Senate Democrats View 2012 with Trepidation

            http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/22/senate-democrats-view-2012-trepidation

            That looks like a really thin Senate majority you got there….
            be a shame if something happened to it.

          • webcorex2

            Was it not Republican policy from the very beginning to sink the bill no matter what it looked like just to hurt the President? I point you towards DeMint’s “Waterloo” statement.

            Republicans aside, conservatives had plenty of input via blue dogs and others, to the point where the end product was almost the same as the healthcare plan Nixon proposed over 40 years ago.

            Mind you, I’m no fan of Obamacare, so don’t ask me to defend it.

          • nessa

            The terms “conservative” and “Republican” are not interchangable.

            You suggested earlier…

            “we can begin outside of government debating civily with people of other viewpoints until we come up with the best idea that pleases the most people.”

            I believe “what pleases most people” is freedom. I also believe that has been proven in our Nations history. Curbing our liberty by adding gov’t regulation, oversight, taxation, redistribution and searches is not pleasing anyone except those who would further curb our liberties in order to expand their own.

          • webcorex2

            My only quibble is that there are other organizations besides government that also seek to curb our liberties, and I believe that only government has the power to protect us from these forces. It is also necessary, however, that this government is truly democratic (or representative, of you like), because above all, we the people need to be the strongest power. I actually talked about this in my first set of posts.

            I certainly am wary of a government that’s too big. I’m no communist.

          • ocleverone
          • webcorex2

            Less obviously, monopolists and corporate oligarchies, who use their influence not only to disrupt the free market but also to corrupt politicians and the democratic process. George Soros and the like.

          • ocleverone

            That politicians have the best of intentions. If the organizations can corrupt (or leverage corrupt) politicians, then the theory of deliberative democracy is flawed.

          • webcorex2

            I mean that A. we were set up as a deliberative democracy, and B. our democracy, indeed all democracies, require people to be involved in public issues, and this invariably involves debate between both sides, which benefits everyone.

          • ocleverone

            We were not set up as a deliberative democracy nor were we set up as a democracy. Those terms are not completely compatible with the words constitutional republic.

            Debate is a healthy thing but I bristle at the thought of throwing the word democracy around to describe our form of government. True democracies don’t work – just ask Socrates.

          • webcorex2

            Fair enough if you prefer that I differentiate between democracy and republic.

          • acat
          • ocleverone

            In a written forum, you cannot use terms associated with a Yugo when describing a Mercedes.

          • runner12

            That would be because there is a big difference. You have continually referred to our form of government as a democracy, which it is not. It is a republic and intentionally so. Please read the Federalist papers and listen to the arguments for a republic versus a true democracy, then you can rejoin the conversation and be enlightened on how our country was founded and why.

          • webcorex2

            I figured that since democracy literally means “the people rule”, it was as good a term as any. Also, I believe the points I tried to make apply to republics as well as democracies. Our country is both a republic in practic and a deliberative democracy in governing philosophy.

          • runner12

            country, you need to be factually accurate. There is a big difference between the two. Again, read the Federalist Papers and you will discover why many argued against a pure democracy.They noted the failures of past pure democracies (ie Greek states). The problem with people who call themselves liberal is that 1.) They do not believe in the Founding Fathers intent. They want to mold the US into what they think it should be (ie them in charge). 2.) They believe the government is the answer to everything, despite thousands of years of history to the contrary. Centralized governments have given rise to the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen and yet liberals have the arrogance to assume their way will be different. Learn from history. But I guess in order to learn from history, one has to read it.

          • webcorex2

            Just to see what happens.

            Any way as to your two points. Firstly, surely conservatives also imagine the perfect government as having their people in power. That’s why we support different ideologies; that doesn’t make us anti-republic (that seems clunky; are you sure I cant use democratic as a blanket term? after all, a Republic is still a democratic system of government, even if it isn’t a Democracy). Also, The us government was meant to change a situations changed, that’s why we have an amendment process. This is as important a part of the Founders inentions as anything else. This desire to change how the government works and what it does is also not limited to Liberals; consult the SoCons on things like flag burning amendments or marriage amendments.

            On your second point, if you investigated I think you would find there is some dissagreement within Liberalism on how big the role of the government is. Even so, the only people who believe that government is the answer to everything are communists, and liberals by their very definition aren’t communists. Hell, socialists aren’t even communists. On economic issues, I would say that liberals want government to ensure social mobility and provide for what they believe the free market cannot, Socialists want to redistribute wealth for the sake of economic equality rather than practicality, and communists want to do away with capitalism all together.

          • webcorex2

            Weren’t they this country’s first argument in favor of big, centralized government?

          • acat
          • webcorex2

            conservatives and liberals have read the same documents and come to different conclusions. Shock of the century, I know.

          • acat

            And no, it’s not a surprise, it’s the elephant. (5 blind men examine an elephant, one says it’s pointy like a spear, one says it’s twisty like a snake, one says it’s round and tall like a tree, yadda yadda)

            Mew

          • nessa

            Monopolists? Again I’ll use Obamacare as an example and the monopolist would be the Federal government, another example would be Google and their Net Neutrality BS, once again with the helpful hand of the Federal government. Or perhaps we should consider Crap and Tax (our term for Cap and Trade) or the various State governments regulating salt in restaurants etc. etc.

            I am capable of defending myself from a good many things, even more so if I am not over-whelmed with defending myself from the very entity which was designed to defend me from foreign nations.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

            But your erroneous basic assumption is that government is an autonomous entity rather than being the creation of people and operated by people. And the power of government consists of what we give to it – unless the people in power decide to seize more power than what is given.

            If you take a careful look, I think you will find that most of these organizations that seek to curb our liberties have gained that position because of the exercise of government power, forming an self-reinforcing cycle that crushes the freedom of those outside, especially competitors.

            So could you identify what organizations your are concerned about curtailing our liberties who have not gained that position in some part due to government action? And then perform a threat assessment as to where the danger to freedom lies – too much government power or not enough.

            Since what sustains this incestuous relationship is the coercive force of government (as businesses are subject to the market unless they find protection against the market forces by enlisting the government) – the solution is not more government coercion, as this just further politicizes (intensifies) the process.

            Rather the way to unwind the coils of the boa is to start reducing government power in areas which it has no mandated authority, thereby enabling market forces and individuals initiative to emerge.

            Or to translate this into code: the far greater danger is the corrupt relationship between big business/big labor and government that strangles us as they squeeze harder. Plus wealthy individuals who “invest” in increasing government power to unjustly enrich themselves by the government actions they receive for their “investment”.

            Which means that the basic divide is not between the labels “Democrat” and “Republican” but between those who want more government and those who want to reduce the size of government or at least decentralize the power to more accountable units, such as states and local authorities. The corresponding division between collectivism and individual freedom.

            Though the imbalance is that virtually all the smaller government folks are in the Republican Party (or in scattered 3rd party movements) battling it out with big government Republicans – whereas in the Democrats, the smaller government folks have been driven out. Which is why I thus find myself in the Republican Party as the only lever than can reverse the trend towards more oppressive government that imposes collectivist policies.

          • nessa

            Well said!!

          • acat
          • ocleverone
          • acat

            I’m not sure what you can cite that shows Repubs were asked for or able to offer input.

            As for “blue dogs”, that refers to a specific group of congressmen from the South from time gone by. All the current so-called “blue dogs” or “conservative democrats” vote in lockstep except where their leadership have the votes without them. They are not “principled”. Case in point, so-called “anti abortion Dem” Bart Stupak voted *for* abortion-funding Obamacare… and was run out of office for it.

            Oh, and a little history. There’s Republicans, and there’s Conservatives and the two are *not* the same. Ronald Reagan was opposed to government mandated health care back then.

            It’s not a matter of whether or not we have “input”. It’s a matter of “we want less government”, “we do not want this government benefit”. Or, if you prefer, “I like the health care plan I have and want to keep it”. Note – since Obamacare passed, my premiums are up 30% so far…. I can keep it .. for now.

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            After all, it ought to be conservatives who decide what conservative means. My point with the Blue Dogs was that they certainly dragged the legislation further to the right than Obama wanted it. Whatever happened to the public option, for example? As for republican input in Obamacare, I forgot to mention Olympia Snowe and Chuck Grassley. The Dems certainly went to great lengths to court them.

          • acat

            An unfair one would be one that’s made by a debating trick, not honest factual statements.

            As for the public option, it’s still there – it’s just going to be arrived at by bankrupting the insurance companies, or by pricing corporate customers out of the market.

            Like I said, my insurance cost went up 30%. My income went up 0%. You wanna do the math on how many companies would be able to take that kind of a hit to their balance sheets and not look at dropping their insurance plans? And when they do .. where do these people go? Private plans that make people into their own “pools” are bloody expensive… they’ll go for the government plan.

            Once enough people are in the public plan, it becomes impossible for private companies to compete – just like flood insurance. There’s only one group who sell flood insurance – the government – because nobody else can complete.

            So, while the Dems were courting Repubs, and making special deals with Landrieu and Nelson, they weren’t looking at making the bill “better”… just “good enough to pass”.

            Mew

          • nessa

            Like the GOP contributions to Obamacare? Or any of the other Dem/Socialist agenda items?

          • ocleverone

            nt

          • acat

            While it looks like the majority party is totally in control, the minority parties – at least the ones that stand to win a majority – maintain a permanent “shadow government” which gets most of the same briefings as the actual government, and while they don’t get input into legislative moves, they still have “their guys” inside every major ministry.

            You also appear to have a poor understanding of the American government – our congress is intended to have a deliberative body – the Senate – but with direct elections it’s no longer deliberating. Our president was to be elected by the Congress, not the “silly” electoral college – that was intended to end in deadlock, throwing it to the Political Class.

            The early political parties were designed to break that part of the constitution, the direct election of senators to break the deliberative nature of the upper house, the limit to the number of representatives to break the ability of each rep to really know his or her constituents….

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            All the same, they have no input into the legislation that comes out of the government in power, unless you have a government such as the corrent british one, where they could entice the small third party to break coalition. Is that incorrect?

            and I’m afraid I don’t understand your point about the Senate. It seems to reinforce what I said, in that congress was indeed intended to be deliberative.

            I hope it’s noticed that I’ve tried to dial up my politeness :)

          • acat

            of the shadow government. Yes, the opposition has no official input, but the current government knows that the shadow government will bring force to bear if the current government pushes anything too far. Not writing legislation, but .. there are parlimentary procedures, there are press releases, there are options available.

            And as for the Senate, when the Senators have to raise funds and run for direct election, it makes polarization more the order of the day than honest deliberation…

            Mew

          • eburke
          • webcorex2

            I would subject no one to such searches without some kind of actionable intelligence. What constitutes actionable intelligence I leave to the professionals.

          • acat

            Not even close. Your initial self-congratulatory cheap shots don’t lend themselves to a conversation, but nothing there is “attack”.

            Look at it this way – if you walk into a Florida State victory rally wearing Alabama gear, they’re gonna look at you funny… and that’s about what you just did.

            We do know what Liberals have to say. We are listening. We compare what they say to reality and we make up our own minds, though – which is what separates us from you.

            Now, if you want to read and discuss and – this is key – if you want to ask questions and learn, then stick around. Otherwise, you’re not going to get very far.

            Mew

          • webcorex2

            The latter is little fun unless both sides have differing opinions. I did resolve to be civil when I first signed up here, and I’m sorry if you found my post needlessly provocative.

            If you think I don’t strive to make up my own mind, you are mistaken. If I feel insufficiently informed on an issue I try not to get involved; I don’t have much of an opinion on abortion, for example. If I am factually wrong, I am certainly grateful towards those who point it out.

          • acat

            We’ll see how you do over time, then.

            Mew

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Alas, this is a site for Republican/conservative activism. I had forgotten that we get nonsense like this when our side’s winning.

            Ciao.

      • Scope

        and are as sickening as they always are.

  • tngal

    And stop this insane crap. Three year old American kids are not killing us. How can one administration screw up so much in so little time? its completely incomprehensible. One guy has a shoe bomb and everyone has to take off their shoes, another guy stuffs something down his underwear now we’re down to our underoos. And if the next has explosives in the shape of buttons, what then? Do we all fly wearing hospital gowns? Go to wikipedia and look up all the guns, bombs and lasers James Bond hid in tiny unassuming places.

    Don’t tweek the screenings, don’t modify them a little just develop a workable profile and go from there. ( Hint: This kid just barely be out of pull ups doesn’t fit anyone’s profile of a terrorist )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_gadgets

    • mjdzfun

      It takes a little effort.

      • Scope

        It just takes making sure that only one political party is in control of EVERYTHING, and, using the previously Liberal appointed Judges to make it happen.

  • californiagold

    With all the controversy regarding pat downs and scanners, it’s interesting reading the background on how the scanners became law.

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/16/investigate-the-tsa-not-tyner/

  • cactusjack

    True Story from late 1950′s buddy of mine’s dad in the navy back then, on shore leave in San Francisco, once went into town to get a good suit at a clothiers in SF (he was a Utah farm boy). While he’s getting measured for the inseam of the trousers, the male tailor takes liberties (should I say a love pat?) with my buddy’s dad, that were *unmistakeable.* The Utah farm boy, knowing what his momma taught him, hauls the tailor up eye level by the scruff of his neck and punches him out – cold! Bam! No questions asked, no civil rights actions, no protests, no federal investigations. Didn’t have to explain *common sense* to anyone in 1959.Compare this to the mental picture I have in my mind for this Thanksgiving 2010of tens of thousands of Americans standing in line submissively, waiting for their turn to be groped, fondled, and humiliated by Napolitano’sgoons many of whom themselves are either disgusted with what they have to do, or, someothers, having emotions we care not delve into on this site. It is a picture of sheer madness.

  • warkarma

    Have people really lost all measure of common sense? Someone posted this on my Facebook feed today, and I totally lost it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhkQoiaf7Uc&feature=player_embedded

    I wrote my Congressman and Senators this morning, I encourage everyone else to do the same.

  • Next93

    I got my fill of the sob-story strategy during the health care “debate”. You can’t base public policy on the end-cases and oddities. This is what the libs have done to establish abortion as a “right” and to engineer a government takeover of the health care system.

    It’s to be expected that if you’re using minimum wage rent-a-cops to frisk thousands of people on a daily basis, there’s going to be the odd screw-up.

    The issue here isn’t the outrages, it’s the new definition of “normal”; are we willing to abandon two hundred years of tradition and hand the federal government the authority to treat citizens like criminals until they can prove otherwise? Are we going to define the act of trying to get on an airplane as an “articulatable suspicion” for search? Are we going to let some undersecretary of whatever make this decision without a public discussion on the merits of temporary security versus personal freedom?

    There’s been some idiotic talk comparing the TSA to the nazis, but I’m a lot more concerned about how’s they’re acting like thee Brits. Unbounded power to search and seize property was one of the complaints lodged in the Declaration, and was the reason the founders established the fourth amendment

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      If stories like these are not posted, then all assume that violating the Fourth Amendment and the abject depravity of situations like this is normal…

      You may dislike seeing the ‘sob-story strategy’ put forth, however, it is the abuses of a wayward government that needs to be pointed out over and over and over again in order for people to take stock of what they have lost–their freedom.

      • Next93

        If we focus on the horror stories, then the TSA and the administration can respond with “we’re working to correct the problem areas” (which they’re already doing), and the punditocracy can claim that we’re up in arms over a few unfortunate examples.

        At the risk of repeating myself, the problem isn’t a few goons going overboard, it’s the system that gives the goons this kind of authority in the first place. We don’t want them to “correct the mistakes”, we want them to get out of the business of treating the flying public as “gulty until proven innocent”. Placing this emphasis on the outrages simply gives the government the out of (making concilliatory noises about) smoothing over the rough spots of a program that’s a violation of the fourth amendment in the first place

    • Scope

      just as there isn’t any such utopia in Communism or Socialism. There really is a reason why the Libertarian party has never garnered much support. Most rational people realize that the answer against Liberalism/Socialism/Marxism/Communism is not to move to the far radical right positions, where it appears some Libertarians want to move the country. The country is, and has been for along time, right of center, not radical right.

  • Next93

    My hard spot with this is the fact that it’s a government search. If it was the airlines saying “you’re not getting on our plane unless we’ve checked you for explosives”, it would be a private agreement between two parties.

    • Scope

      You would be OK if it was capitalism doing the deed, but have a problem with the government doing it. You are a classic case of Libertarianism. It only matters to you if a profit seeking organization does it, but, you are OK with it if it makes money, and helps the economy. Libertarians=money, and nothing more beyond that.

      • Next93

        I beleive that the people who own property have the right to control that property, and people who own businesses have the right to refuse to do business with people they don’t trust.

        If I owned an airplane, I would be perfectly within my rights to say that no one gets on MY airplane until they prove to me that they’re not a human cruise missile. And anyone who wants to get on MY airplane has a perfect right to refuse to do so, and find someone else’s airplane to ride on.

        It’s a different story when the government gets into the act and decides that anyone who wants to get on an airplane is a criminal unless proven otherwise.

        Oh, and by the way, if the government has taken away your ability to make (or keep) money, the other rights don’t really matter much.

  • izoneguy

    Security and Terrorism Expert Bruce Schneier: TSA Scans “Won’t Catch Anybody”

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/tsa-scans-security-theater-interview

    Bruce Shneier argues that much of the TSA’s airport screening procedures are “security theater.”

  • mjdzfun

    The real perps here are the Congressmen/women who approved this. There is a $**t load of money in this contract and the appropriation had to be approved by Congress. We need the actual names of Congress who approved this deal. Since Chertoff comes from DHS, he knows how the system works. What do you want to bet that the construction (from raw materials all the way to the end line product) is more than likely spread over as many congressional districts as possible…that way, you have a lot of friends in Congress who are “creating jobs back home” and being courted by the lobby.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with security and I just wonder a couple of things:
    1) What will Congress/TSA/Rapiscan do when the next attempt gets by them
    2) How is Congress going to walk this back due to the backlash from the public? (But still keep the $$$ flowing)

  • wayfarin

    i’m a 24 year old white male. they can profile me and others like me all they want. uncomfortable about making about race? fine. go with gender and age. as long as you stop groping women and children, for the love of god…

    • Next93

      People who fly often, particularly if it’s mostly domestic flying, should be able to apply for a security clearance, and be provided with an ID card. Show up at the airport with the card, provide a fingerprint/cornea scan, and slide on through.

      • Scope

        with the government intruding into your personal background in order to secure a false sense of “freedom.” Last I heard, the national ID was widely rejected.

  • Adjoran

    Number of terrorists stopped from boarding planes by TSA screeners: ZERO.

    Number of psychological tests and screens given to TSA screener applicants and hires: ZERO.

    Now, the legitimate point was made that Israel’s screening process only has to deal with a fraction of the air traffic and travelers, but the solution isn’t to disregard their sane procedures, but rather to get the number of necessary screenings down. There is already a “trusted traveler” card for frequent fliers, but others should be allowed to enroll ahead of time, allowing a quick background check and passport record check to be done before they ever get to the airport.

    Basically, males under 45 who paid cash for a one-way ticket, or quit their job and traveled to Yemen or Pakistan or Somalia or Nigeria in the last year, we need to have a conversation. Grandmothers of five, working mothers, labor lawyers, toddlers, not so much.

    The quicker scan through metal detectors is plenty adequate for 98% or more of fliers. But dammit, interview the ones we need to interview, and if CAIR is offended, tell ‘em to suck on it.

  • qurys

    Very frankly, because there were armed National Guardsmen in the airports at the time with rifles at ready, it was the only time since then that I have felt any “safety”. The safety argument doesn’t work, under the GOP or the Dems or even a king or a dictator. The government cannot stop people from doing what they want to do. The Christmas Day bomber could have been stopped by the government before he ever got on the flight. The government did not stop him. The mass murderer at Ft. Hood had a calling card for goodnes sake. He didn’t need an airplane. The Times Square bomber did not seem to use an airplane and could have been extrememly effective. The cargo planes did not have full body scans. All this has gone on while Americans are searched, walked thru metal detectors, etc. We will never be safe from extremists who have declared holy war on us. We do the best we can WITHIN our rights and OUR constitution and let God deal with the rest.

  • izoneguy

    Union that represents airport screeners urges agency to protect employees

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318901/ns/travel-news/

  • johnt

    No telling what he’s got packed in those droopy jeans.
    It’s liberalism folks, congenital, ceaseless insanity, in all walks of life, in all policies, never ending insanity.
    It’s what happens when the mentally shaky struggle to be different & they think, superior to others. The lie comes too easy.

  • chrisinva

    Another fine example of insanity.

    Who in their right mind would consider a three-year old a highly likely threat of hijacking a plane? What’s he going to use to hold passengers at bay? Incessant screaming and crying!

    Time for the TSA to check back into reality.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/ILrightside ilrightside

    He’s not quite 3 yet. And the worst offense he has ever committed is throwing a matchbox car at the dog.

    Way to keep an eye on the prize TSA…

  • After Seven

    This is a Perfect Example of why the APA should be repealed and that the only Rulemaking/Lawmaking procedure should be via Congress not via Executive Branch Bureaucracy.

    During the Roosevelt Admin. there was a bloodbath over the APA with an alleged compromise to avoid Dictorships and/or ‘central planning’. It failed.

    No bureaucracy should be making any rules with the full force and effect of law
    - Let alone with the power to modify the rules on an ad hoc basis,
    - Let alone from solely within the Executive Branch,
    - Let alone with no accountability to the public, and the states
    - Let alone on issues not within a specific enumerated power,
    - Let alone with the power to grant “waivers”
    - Let alone with the ability to imprison a citizen and/or confiscate their personal property.

  • runner12

    You made my point about wanting to shape America into your own personal world view. In case you have missed the last two years, every single Democrat has voted for Obama’s socialist agenda. I can only conclude that most Democrats in fact support socialism. I did not use to believe that way, but their conduct has changed my opinion.
    As for the Federalist Papers, you apparently have not read it. I suggested it because it debates both sides of the arguments and takes assessment of the risk/reward of each system.
    While it does argue for some centralized government, it argues for a much more limited central government than Dems want. In fact, even Hamilton would roll over in his grave at what you all are supporting. I stand more with Madison, than Hamilton, because Hamilton was to much of a centralist for me. Madison eventually agreed and the two’s friendship eventually dissolved because of it.
    I would love to believe that you are on this site to truly open your mind, but your comments have proved otherwise. You are a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who has bought everything the media has sold you hook, line, and sinker. I give you a challenge. Go out and read Madison, Franklin, and Jefferson and then maybe you may begin to see the light. I am finished trying to convert you. You can either be a part of the restoration of the Republic or you can be on the side who seeks to destroy it. Choose your side. You will be held accountable by history.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Master it, please.

      • runner12

        No need to be rude.

    • webcorex2

      I like to think of myself as open minded, but I can only be honest about what my beliefs are, whether or not they are a result of “media brainwashing”. Regardless of whether you think I’m ill informed, have my responses been so irrational or dogmatic? Have I gotten angry or used ad hominem attacks etc.?

      It will take more than one conversation to convert me wholesale to conservative ideology. I’m certainly open to being conviced on single issues; I am ambivelent about several issues from abortion to gay marriage. I was enjoying our conversation, but apparently we were expecting different things out of it.

      • runner12

        know why you believe what you believe. I am not accusing you of being ignorant. I am simply suggesting that you study the roots of liberalism and progressivism. Study their founders and read their speeches. Then compare that with our Founding Fathers and what they wrote. If you decide that you agree with the progressives, then you are by definition a socialist (that is not name-calling, it is a reference to a political idealogy)..
        However, if you find that you agree with the Founding Fathers and what they wrote, then you are more of a conservative than you think. I do appreciate your polite behavior, but you can be polite and very wrong.