By Becky Akers
No doubt you'll be as shocked over yet another outrage from the TSA as Capt. Renault was at Casablanca's gambling.
This time, the Thieves and Sexual Assailants are spying on passengers in an anti-constitutional program dubbed "Quiet Skies": "Federal air marshals have begun following ordinary U.S. citizens [at airports and aboard flights] not suspected of a crime or on any terrorist watch list and collecting extensive information about their movements and behavior under a new domestic surveillance program..."
The 4th Amendment absolutely prohibits such horrors, but that hasn't stopped our rulers yet. Indeed, it hasn't even given them pause.
And so "national security expert[s]" are "concern[ed]" not about Quiet Skies' flagrant espionage against us, but about the probability that it "profiles." Profiling is the sole remaining sin in Dim-ocratic eyes... an offense far more damning than sodomy, murdering babies while robbing us to pay for the slaughter or mutilating children's bodies. Accordingly, Dimo-crats castigated the TSA.
So you might suppose they would have rejoiced at another report three days later that the TSA might cease to infest smaller airports. Less victims for it to profile, right? Astoundingly, the agency itself had proposed this unprecedented decrease in its scope; its rationale — and I use the word loosely since rationality at the TSA is as scarce as courage among politicians — is that "eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the U.S., ...serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring [only] a 'small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity.'" Moreover, "the move could save $115 million annually," which the agency would squander on more harassment at larger airports.
Given Dim-ocrats' fear that Quiet Skies relies on profiling as well as the fact that the TSA's incompetent buffoons have never caught a single terrorist despite groping millions of travelers, wouldn't you think the Left, including the fake-news media, would have applauded — heck, would have leapt to their feet in a standing O — at any reduction in the agency's reign of terror?But such a reaction would be far too logical for "Democratic Socialists," aka, Marxists. Instead, they got their collective panties in a wad. You could hear the caterwauling all the way to Lenin's Tomb: "It simply boggles the mind to even think that the TSA has plans like this on paper in the first place," UpChuck Schumer [Communist-NY] whined. And fellow-traveler Ed Markey from the People's Republic of Massachusetts "is 'deeply troubled by this proposal.'"
Their lackeys in the media echoed and amplified the hysteria: "CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said it was 'stunning that this is even seriously being considered. Al-Qaida and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target...' he said. 'They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States...'"
Is anyone surprised that our rulers and their fourth estate columnists hyperventilate over the slightest easing of our chains? We expect no less from these bozos. What astounds and saddens are the allegations that passengers supposedly object to this bit of freedom, too.
I say "supposedly" because those allegations come from the fake-news corps. Whenever I encounter such claims, I remember the complaints of an acquaintance who wrote for that Old Crazy — sorry, Gray Lady, The New York Times. She moaned that when she filed a story departing even slightly from the Times' Progressive agenda, her editors would dictate what her sources should have said, then send her back to her phone for "more accurate" quotes. Yes, this is hearsay. Yes, you'll have to trust me since I didn't tape our conversation. But still, it explains the propaganda the Fourth Estate feeds us, doesn't it?
And so the fake-news teams assert that passengers reject even the tiniest liberation from the TSA: A "frequent flyer" in Louisiana, "traveling hundreds of miles every two weeks ...says he's all for extra security. 'Because of the world we live in today, anything could happen anywhere,' he said. 'I feel better knowing that they're watching over us as we get on these planes.'" And a journalist writing as just another passenger ("It is the route my daughter takes to come here or that I would take to visit her") cravenly asks, "What if a terrorist bought a ticket, checked in and checked his luggage with a timer-triggered bomb in it? What if his bag made it onto the plane but he didn't? Would officials notice and delay the flight long enough to take his bag off the plane? Would they discover this in time?"
What if the Founding Fathers had been fraidy-cats as jittery as this moron? What if the very real, incredibly abundant dangers on the frontier had panicked our great-great grandparents as they surged west? They contended with hungry wild animals and resentful natives eager to scalp trespassers, not mythical "terrorists" invented by a government to justify its enormous power.
But before we rail too much against such Nervous Nellies, let's look in the mirror. How many of us react with the same lunacy in other contexts? We insist we need the State to protect us, though its record for doing so is cataclysmic. We laud and honor cops and demand more of them as they stomp on expectant mothers and shoot or even execute elderly taxpayers. We worship the soldiers who "give us our freedom" while they rape and murder folks who've never harmed us. We believe that corporations and entrepreneurs will cheat us but for the endless bureaucracies hampering them — though only the bureaucratic state can empower such cronies in the first place.
We can certainly blame serfs who defend the TSA for the demise of the can-do, brave and autonomous American spirit. But aren't those who excuse any part of government's behemoth equally responsible?
When you next assume that you "need" the State, recall the cowardly cretins who "need" the TSA.
No comments:
Post a Comment