We’re deeper in liberal madness than ever—is there any end to it?
spreading over the naked body scan and grope regime, even as the conservative blogger Allahpundit tells us
to grow up and acknowledge its necessity.
Meanwhile, has a single Republican politician or a single prominent conservative commentator pointed out that the way to make the naked body scan and grope regime unnecessary is to profile possible terrorists in airports, as the Israelis do?
I’m not aware of one.
We are so far gone, that not only (it goes without saying) will not a single prominent person in America argue that we should start removing sharia-believing Muslims from this country; and not only will not a single prominent person in America argue that we should stop importing unassimilable peoples (such as Somali Muslims) into this country; but not a single prominent person will even argue that we should profile airplane passengers and limit special security measures to those who are likely to pose a risk. It doesn’t even occur to anyone to raise the question. Thus has the anti-American, pro-Islamic airport security regime that was initiated by the calamitous George W. Bush taken over the American mind.
Think of the absurdity of it: An African Muslim and al Qaeda agent named Abdul Mutallab flew into the U.S. and tried to blow up the plane he was on with an explosive sewn into his underclothing, and as a result of that event the U.S. authorities now view all airline passengers—including ourselves, including even airline pilots!—as equally likely as Abdul Mutallab to be carrying explosives sewn into their underclothing.
Lydia McGrew writes at her blog:
So: Because we will not stop Muslim immigration, because we will not profile passengers, everybody now, including children, must be willing either to have a photo taken of his naked body (through the clothes, by an X-ray machine), which photo will be viewed by a government agent, or must be willing to be touched all over, including in the genital area, by a government agent.
—end of initial entry—
Are we insane? The government must have a warrant to search your house. Vile criminals, drug lords, et. al., can have evidence withheld from use against them in court if it was collected without a warrant, and the apparent motivation for this is to discourage police from doing “dreadful” things like looking through a window without a warrant or searching a car trunk without a warrant. But the TSA can take (with a potentially cancer-causing machine) and view a picture of your naked body without a warrant, and if you refuse, can touch your entire body, including your private parts, full palm on, without a warrant. This, as the price one pays simply for engaging in normal travel in an ostensibly free country.
This is police state territory. What would those who wrote the Fourth Amendment (that’s the unreasonable search and seizure one, by the way) say about this? What would Patrick Henry say? “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!”
I am not in the least amused by the fact that on an ostensibly “conservative” blog site we are being told to get over our problems with having our children touched in this manner because we would presumably prefer this over their being blown up by terrorists. The stupidity of this response—again, from an ostensibly conservative source—is beyond belief. It involves the assumption that everybody, including children, must be subjected to these invasive and inappropriate measures if anybody, including children, is to be safe. This is just wrong. I am appalled by the Allahpundit article.
(For the record: If, which heaven forbid, I ever were in a situation where I had to fly with a child and the child were selected for the screening, I would have the child accept the machine screening, despite knowing the type of image it would produce. To the child it would not seem like anything untoward was happening, and hence it would be far less traumatic for the child than the “enhanced pat-down.” But it is a terrible choice to make, and at this time I am determined—even more than I already was—to avoid traveling by air with children in response to these new, outrageous procedures, for as long as they are in place.)
Bill Carpenter writes:
They can’t bear to tell America’s enemies, “We’re not on your side.”
“but not a single prominent person will even argue that we should profile airplane passengers and limit special security measures to those who are likely to pose a risk.”
Ann Coulter has.
You make my point for me. Coulter is a character and a sarcastic put-downer of liberals, not someone whom anyone takes seriously on substantive matters.
Philip M. writes from England:
This was a very powerful piece. Sexual liberation, amongst other things, has destroyed modesty, and so now even supposed conservatives will give their body to the state in the service of Equality. In fact they go beyond destroying modesty, they despise it, and everything it stands for. It just goes to show the true fruits of liberal “freedom” is slavery to the state. Perhaps sexual liberation was not about taking on of a personal responsibility towards your own body, rather abortion, contraception etc shows that people are transferring their responsibilities for their body onto the state? They therefore lack shame and responsibility about their own body or anyone else’s. Perhaps your modesty in these situations would offend because they see how this attitude conflicts with the freedoms (ie lack of responsibility for the body) that they value more?
Philip is making a profound point, worth returning to.
The blogger Allahpundit is engaging in a popular logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. In fact, it is an example one could use in a text on logic. Here is what he is saying:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 13, 2010 02:38 PM | Send
We tolerate these un-Constitutional, illegal, deliberately intimidating police-state tactics
Terrorists will routinely succeed in blowing up commercial aircraft, killing all persons aboard.
The false dichotomy is nothing more than an attempt to justify that which is unjustifiable by comparing it to something that is beyond the pale, horrible in the extreme. Implicit in the false dichotomy is the sweeping aside of any reasonable alternative. In this case, reading the comments on Allahpundit’s site, it is obvious that some, possibly many, of his readers are fully aware that Israel does not engage in such absurdities, and yet El Al aircraft are quite safe.
This is, as the President is wont to say, a teaching moment. The American people are increasingly up in arms over this, what they need is to see a legitimate, workable, alternative to the obscenity that is the TSA irradiate—grope—fondle regime.
We cannot expect any of the neoconservative or paleo conservative writers even to address this. Note that not one of the major allegedly conservative publications with a web presence (hello, NRO) have even brought it up. Drudge is the major source covering this, although I am informed World Net Daily is attempting to coordinate a national “No Fly” day in protest.
The choice before Americans is stark: either allow very realistic images of their wives and children stark naked to be taken, or allow fondling of them in a way that is arguably sexual assault in every state of the Union OR accept a realistic, profile-based security system that will inevitably discriminate against some groups, specifically Moslems.
That’s it. The current head of TSA appears totally unwilling to back down on this. So it is up to the ordinary citizen to “Tea Party” this security theater out of existence. Rational discrimination, or insane pawing at the genitals of women and children, forever.
The choice must be made clear as crystal, and I believe that many Americans will demand the correct path. If we allow any muddying of the waters, if we do not point out the insanity of the false dichotomy that Allahpundit and others are offering, then we will be stuck with this obscenity. Let’s raise a ruckus, right now.