One of the worst effects of the Transportation Security Administration's practice of pat-downs is that it has conditioned innocent people to easily and willingly surrender their dignity and privacy to authority figures--even in the private sector. The private-sector invasions of personal space have become most severe at sporting events.
If you have been attending sporting events during the last few years, you may have noticed a gradual increase in the aggression from the security guards and their increasingly intrusive pat-downs. Now, the NFL is recommending all game attendees be patted-down from the ankles to the knees and the waist up. Now, if you attend a lot of games, you have probably already had more intrusive pat-downs than that. You have probably had a security guard's hands way up near your crotch. Procedures must vary from stadium to stadium or perhaps some security guards are more frisky than others.
What is bad about the NFL pushing more aggressive pat-downs is that this measure will eventually lead to future requirements that could be even more intrusive. It would not be surprising to see aggressive acts of molestation happening at sporting events in a couple of years. We're talking a stranger's hand way up in your crotch and all over your genitals just half an hour before you are in the stadium singing the National Anthem. (How ironic is that?)
What is happening here is our rights are eroding. Or sense of dignity is vanishing. Sadly, the NFL has every right to conduct whatever searches they want. They are a business, and the fans are customers. If fans do not want to be molested, they do not have to go to games.
The football fans should rebel against these insulting pat-downs and boycott the games. If people stopped paying to see the games until the pat-downs stopped, the NFL would end the pat-downs immediately.
The problem is, the football fans are not going to stand up for their dignity. For a decade, they have been conditioned to surrender their pride and privacy by the TSA's intrusive searches. Since becoming felt-up by uniformed strangers is now commonplace in America, people have little trouble bowing to the NFL and allowing their bodies to be violated.
This NFL pat-down move should be a lesson to all. If you surrender your freedoms in one place, you will eventually lose them elsewhere until, someday, you find you have no more freedoms left to lose.
Showing posts with label security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label security. Show all posts
September 16, 2011
July 16, 2011
TSA Security Breaches Hit 25,000 Mark
Under the Transportation Security Administration's watch, 25,000 security breaches have occurred since November 2011.
Read the story by Frances Romero at the link below.
"Report: 25,000 Security Breaches at U.S. Airports Since November 2001"
Read the story by Frances Romero at the link below.
"Report: 25,000 Security Breaches at U.S. Airports Since November 2001"
July 7, 2011
TSA Searches Black Woman's "Poofy" Hair
Now the Transportation Security Administration is concerned with your hair, especially if it "poofs from the body." Actually, the TSA's official policy is apparently now to "examine anything that poofs from the body."
When Laura Adiele, a Black woman, attempted to board a flight at Sea-Tac Airport in Washington, she went through the TSA's full-body scanner. After accepting that dose of radiation, Laura Adiele was pulled aside for a pat-down. The TSA was not comfortable with her hairstyle (or perhaps they found it arousing) and they wanted to run their fingers through it.
Laura Adiele objected at first, but the TSA was not going to let her on her flight until they got to feel-up her hair, so she eventually complied. The TSA then spent some time rifling through the woman's hair. Of course, they found absolutely nothing, and Adiele got to board the flight and arrive at her destination with tussled hair.
So, even with all of their metal detectors, cameras, full-body scanners, explosive sniffers etc., the TSA cannot determine if a woman's hair is a threat to public safety or not without actually running their fingers through it. In reality, the TSA could have easily used their devices to rule out the woman's hair as a threat. When the TSA does stuff like this, they do not do it because they have to. The TSA does this because they can.
While the TSA was busy messing around in this unfortunate Black woman's threatening poofy hair, how many foreign nationals do you suppose walked right through TSA security wearing Muslim head-coverings?
When Laura Adiele, a Black woman, attempted to board a flight at Sea-Tac Airport in Washington, she went through the TSA's full-body scanner. After accepting that dose of radiation, Laura Adiele was pulled aside for a pat-down. The TSA was not comfortable with her hairstyle (or perhaps they found it arousing) and they wanted to run their fingers through it.
Laura Adiele objected at first, but the TSA was not going to let her on her flight until they got to feel-up her hair, so she eventually complied. The TSA then spent some time rifling through the woman's hair. Of course, they found absolutely nothing, and Adiele got to board the flight and arrive at her destination with tussled hair.
So, even with all of their metal detectors, cameras, full-body scanners, explosive sniffers etc., the TSA cannot determine if a woman's hair is a threat to public safety or not without actually running their fingers through it. In reality, the TSA could have easily used their devices to rule out the woman's hair as a threat. When the TSA does stuff like this, they do not do it because they have to. The TSA does this because they can.
While the TSA was busy messing around in this unfortunate Black woman's threatening poofy hair, how many foreign nationals do you suppose walked right through TSA security wearing Muslim head-coverings?
June 28, 2011
TSA Misleading Public About Adult Diaper Incident
Feeling the heat from the public backlash against the embarrassingly invasive search on June 18, 2011 of a 95-year-old leukemia patient who has to wear a diaper and can barely get around without a wheelchair, the Transportation Security Administration is now attempting to spin the story by saying they never ordered the leukemia patient to remove her diaper.
The official statement from the TSA is, "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally, according to proper procedure and did not require this passenger to remove an adult diaper."
While that statement may be technically accurate, it is deliberately misleading. The TSA may have not actually demanded the woman remove the diaper, but Jean Weber, the daughter of the woman, said the TSA agents made it clear the woman was not getting on the plane unless they were able to inspect the diaper (or perhaps have it discarded). Jean Weber decided to remove the diaper.
This is all semantics. The old woman was trying to get on a flight. The TSA would not let her get on the flight until someone removed the diaper. There is not much of a difference here. The TSA can say, "Take off that diaper or else you are not getting on your flight."
Alternatively, the TSA can say, "You are not getting on your flight with that diaper."
There is a difference in those two positions, but the effect is essentially the same. This poor old woman was going to have to take off her diaper or miss her flight.
This is how the TSA operates. The TSA knows they have a tremendous advantage over you at the airport, because they have the power to make you miss the flight for which you paid hundreds of dollars and cause an extraordinary amount of inconvenience as you attempt to arrive in time to make connecting flights, check into hotels, pick up rental cars, etc. The TSA knows they have the ability to dramatically inconvenience you and effectively take away your right to travel freely about the country by air, and they will hold it over your head to get you to comply with all of their disgusting invasions of your privacy.
The TSA can say, "Let us squeeze your testicles and let us rub our hands around your anus, or we will not let you on your flight."
Alternatively, the TSA can say, "You cannot get on that flight unless you voluntarily let us squeeze your testicles and rub our hands around your anus."
The nuances of the differing statements do not really matter much. Essentially, the TSA wants to molest you, and they are going to use the ability to restrict your right to travel to make that happen.
The most ridiculous aspect of this whole adult diaper situation is how we are now engaged in a big public discussion over whether the old woman's diaper was removed by order or voluntarily as a condition of boarding a flight. The real problem here is the federal government is now in our pants. One of the last free places we had in this country was our pants, and now the government feels the need to look around in there too. When the federal government is looking around in the pants and up the dresses of innocent citizens, things have gone terribly wrong.
By the way, if you are taking solace in thinking, if the government is in your pants, at least there is nowhere else for them to invade, do not be so sure. Terrorist, Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, has already successfully detonated a bomb concealed in his rectum. Do not be so sure the federal government will not want to peek in there someday too. Sure, it sounds like a crazy thought now, but ten years ago, did you ever imagine the federal government would be touching your genitals and taking naked images of you at the airport? You never thought that would happen, but it has been going on the entire time you have been reading this article. We should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves for letting the terrorists win like this. We have played right into their hands by choosing to live in a constant state of fear where privacy, dignity, and freedom mean nothing.
The official statement from the TSA is, "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally, according to proper procedure and did not require this passenger to remove an adult diaper."
While that statement may be technically accurate, it is deliberately misleading. The TSA may have not actually demanded the woman remove the diaper, but Jean Weber, the daughter of the woman, said the TSA agents made it clear the woman was not getting on the plane unless they were able to inspect the diaper (or perhaps have it discarded). Jean Weber decided to remove the diaper.
This is all semantics. The old woman was trying to get on a flight. The TSA would not let her get on the flight until someone removed the diaper. There is not much of a difference here. The TSA can say, "Take off that diaper or else you are not getting on your flight."
Alternatively, the TSA can say, "You are not getting on your flight with that diaper."
There is a difference in those two positions, but the effect is essentially the same. This poor old woman was going to have to take off her diaper or miss her flight.
This is how the TSA operates. The TSA knows they have a tremendous advantage over you at the airport, because they have the power to make you miss the flight for which you paid hundreds of dollars and cause an extraordinary amount of inconvenience as you attempt to arrive in time to make connecting flights, check into hotels, pick up rental cars, etc. The TSA knows they have the ability to dramatically inconvenience you and effectively take away your right to travel freely about the country by air, and they will hold it over your head to get you to comply with all of their disgusting invasions of your privacy.
The TSA can say, "Let us squeeze your testicles and let us rub our hands around your anus, or we will not let you on your flight."
Alternatively, the TSA can say, "You cannot get on that flight unless you voluntarily let us squeeze your testicles and rub our hands around your anus."
The nuances of the differing statements do not really matter much. Essentially, the TSA wants to molest you, and they are going to use the ability to restrict your right to travel to make that happen.
The most ridiculous aspect of this whole adult diaper situation is how we are now engaged in a big public discussion over whether the old woman's diaper was removed by order or voluntarily as a condition of boarding a flight. The real problem here is the federal government is now in our pants. One of the last free places we had in this country was our pants, and now the government feels the need to look around in there too. When the federal government is looking around in the pants and up the dresses of innocent citizens, things have gone terribly wrong.
By the way, if you are taking solace in thinking, if the government is in your pants, at least there is nowhere else for them to invade, do not be so sure. Terrorist, Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, has already successfully detonated a bomb concealed in his rectum. Do not be so sure the federal government will not want to peek in there someday too. Sure, it sounds like a crazy thought now, but ten years ago, did you ever imagine the federal government would be touching your genitals and taking naked images of you at the airport? You never thought that would happen, but it has been going on the entire time you have been reading this article. We should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves for letting the terrorists win like this. We have played right into their hands by choosing to live in a constant state of fear where privacy, dignity, and freedom mean nothing.
June 26, 2011
TSA Makes 95-Year-Old Leukemia Patient Remove Soiled Diaper for Search
Jean Weber of Destin, Florida is angry with the TSA. Her 95-year-old, 105-pound mother, who is battling with leukemia can barely walk. When the elderly leukemia patient went through a TSA checkpoint at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport on June 18, 2011 in a wheelchair, she was selected for an extensive search.
During the search, the TSA told Jean Weber to change her mother's diaper because it was soiled and impeding their search. Jean Weber did remove her mother's diaper, but did not have a fresh one to replace it. Presumably the elderly leukemia patient had to go without out a diaper until someone was able to locate a new one for her.
In all, the elderly, diaper-wearing leukemia patient was detained forty-five minutes. This is disgusting for so many reasons. This poor old woman is battling for her life. She can barely walk and probably has little life left in her. All she wanted to do was get on an airplane, but in order to exercise her right to travel, she had to be treated like a criminal, detained for an excessive amount of time, and humiliated by federal agents in front of her family.
This is the TSA. This is what they do. Do you feel safer?
During the search, the TSA told Jean Weber to change her mother's diaper because it was soiled and impeding their search. Jean Weber did remove her mother's diaper, but did not have a fresh one to replace it. Presumably the elderly leukemia patient had to go without out a diaper until someone was able to locate a new one for her.
In all, the elderly, diaper-wearing leukemia patient was detained forty-five minutes. This is disgusting for so many reasons. This poor old woman is battling for her life. She can barely walk and probably has little life left in her. All she wanted to do was get on an airplane, but in order to exercise her right to travel, she had to be treated like a criminal, detained for an excessive amount of time, and humiliated by federal agents in front of her family.
This is the TSA. This is what they do. Do you feel safer?
April 29, 2011
Gay TSA Screeners and Same-Gender Pat-Downs: A Touch of Confusion
TSA Pink Triangle Badge
The Transportation Security Administration proudly proclaims there is nothing sexual about their pat-downs, which happen to include significant contact with breasts, butts, inner thighs, and sometimes even genitals. The TSA claims to ensure the intrusive pat-downs are completely platonic by matching up the passengers with screeners of the same gender. This begs the question: What does the TSA do about the homosexual TSA screeners?
There are plenty of homosexual members of American society. They have jobs in every industry. Clearly homosexual people work for the government, and it just seems obvious that there must be some homosexual people working for the TSA. Are these homosexual TSA employees allowed to conduct pat-downs on airline passengers?
This is a legitimate question, because the TSA pat-downs do involve intimate contact. In fact, the contact during these pat-downs is so intimate that TSA screeners should be (and may be at some point in the future) tried for sexual assault. We have federal employees fondling people's genitals in airports all over the country right now. In almost any other situation, if one person fondles another person's genitals in an unwelcome fashion, the offender will get arrested.
The TSA seems to think it is important to gender-match passengers and the TSA screeners conducting the pat-downs; therefore, the TSA must see the obvious potential for a pat-down turning into a sexually charged encounter. Certainly, we can all see the potential problem with a heterosexual man patting down an attractive woman. Allowing a heterosexual man to rub his hands all over the breasts and crotch of a woman may very well take on an unwanted sexual element. The man may abuse the opportunity to get in a little extra touching for his own sexual gratification, and the woman will be left feeling understandably violated. This could also apply if a straight woman were to pat-down a male passenger.
Since the TSA seems to understand the pat-downs could become sexually charged, how is the TSA handling the issue of homosexual TSA screeners and homosexual airline passengers? If the pat-downs are too sexual for straight men to pat-down heterosexual women and vice versa, then the pat-downs must also be too sexual for other combinations where sexual tensions and attractions could exist. Here are a few examples.
- a heterosexual man pats down a gay man
- a gay man pats down a heterosexual man
- a gay man pats down a gay man
- a heterosexual woman pats down a lesbian
- a lesbian pats down a heterosexual woman
- a lesbian pats down a lesbian
In all of these scenarios, at least one person could be made to feel uncomfortable. In the scenarios where the TSA screener could potentially be sexually attracted to the passenger, there is a clear opportunity for sexual violations. What is the TSA doing to protect the employees and passengers from this?
It would not be fair to bar homosexuals from being TSA screeners; however, there are few scenarios where a homosexual TSA screener can conduct a pat-down on a passenger without creating some sort of potential for trouble. If a gay man pats down a heterosexual man, the heterosexual man may get violated. If a gay man pats down a gay passenger, the gay passenger may get violated. If a gay man pats-down a heterosexual woman, the woman may feel uncomfortable being touched by a man. It works the same way in reverse with lesbian TSA screeners.
Homosexuals cannot conduct pat-downs without upsetting just about every group of people. The only scenario that might work is to restrict gay men to conducting pat-downs on lesbian passengers. Perhaps the lesbian passengers could identify themselves as homosexuals and request gay male TSA screeners for their pat-downs. That way everything can remain platonic. Conversely, maybe the lesbian TSA screeners could be restricted to conducting pat-downs on only gay men who wish to declare their sexual orientation to the TSA. Maybe, to keep the confusion to a minimum, all of the homosexuals could wear inverted pink triangles on their shirts. That way, the screeners and the passengers could find an even greater sense of security in knowing the sexual orientation of everyone passing through the TSA checkpoints. Hopefully, by now, you are seeing how ridiculous this is.
If things are not ridiculous enough for you yet, ask yourself how the TSA should be handling transgender employees and transgender airline passengers. The issue gets even crazier when you consider that some TSA screeners and airline passengers may not be clearly classified as either male or female. Some people are going through gender changes that take years. Other people were born hermaphrodites and have no choice. Should people who are not obviously one gender or another be expected to choose a gender when approached by the TSA at an airport? This gender-bending stuff is going to get way too confusing, so let's just skip this and get back to the main issue: how the TSA addresses the concerns of homosexual screeners and passengers.
A fact of life is that some men are attracted to other men, and some women are attracted to other women. We cannot expect the homosexual men and women who work for the TSA to officially declare their sexuality and recuse themselves from same-gender pat-downs. We also cannot expect homosexual passengers to declare their sexuality to the TSA to avoid same-gender pat-downs.
By now, hopefully the absurdity of this article has exposed the true problem. The problem here is not gender or sexual orientation. The problem is the pat-downs. The pat-downs are far too intrusive, and they are violating common human dignity. The questions should not be about whether or not the TSA screeners might find the pat-downs sexually gratifying or whether or not the passengers might find the pat-downs to be sexual. The question should be this: Should government workers be permitted to stick their hands in the sexually sensitive areas of innocent people's bodies without probable cause?
People are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc. People just have different lifestyles. Even though these groups all have their differences, they are human beings and deserve basic human dignities. When a law-abiding citizen goes to the airport, that person deserves the respect of not being treated like a criminal. At the very least, people should be able to travel freely in America without the overwhelming fear of being molested by a government employee.
April 12, 2011
TSA Child Pat-Down Is Child Molestation
TSA Agent Pats Down Six-Year-Old Girl
In this YouTube video, you can see a TSA pat-down of a six-year-old girl. You will notice that the female TSA screener touches the girl's butt, sticks her fingers inside of the girl's pants at the waistband, rubs her inner thighs, and touches the girl's right breast.
If this occurred at a public park, mall, or school, the adult would be arrested and convicted of child molestation. It would be an open-and-shut case. The adult would go to jail and be a registered sex offender for life.
Any rational person would agree that adults may not touch children in this manner, but since this adult happens to be wearing a Federal uniform, somehow this is considered perfectly legal. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing children to victimized in this way.
March 2, 2011
TSA Misses Three Boxcutters at JFK Airport
The Transportation Security Administration has managed to publicly embarrass themselves yet again. The TSA let, New Jersey man, Eusebio D. Peraltalajara pass through security with boxcutters in his carryon luggage and board JetBlue Flight 837 to Santiago, Dominican Republic on February 26, 2011.
As Peraltalajara was stowing his bag, he accidentally discovered the boxcutters. To Peraltalajara's credit, he immediately notified the JetBlue staff. The plane was evacuated, the plane was searched, the passengers were re-screened, etc. Peraltalajara was not charged with any crime, and the incompetent TSA screeners are supposedly being disciplined and retrained.
Don't people remember that al-Qeada managed to pull off the most horrific act of terrorism in American history using several boxcutters? If the TSA is not capable of keeping boxcutters off of the planes, what good are they? This is not nearly the first such incident. TSA screeners are constantly failing tests where undercover agents attempt to sneak all sorts of contraband onto the planes. Fake bombs, guns, knives, etc. are making it onto the planes. The security failures are staggering.
The most irritating thing about all of this is that the TSA is so busy virtually gazing at our naked bodies with scanners and poking around in our crotches that they do not have enough time to actually look for any weapons in the luggage. So not only are we having our privacy and dignity violated by the TSA, they are doing very little to keep us safer.
As Peraltalajara was stowing his bag, he accidentally discovered the boxcutters. To Peraltalajara's credit, he immediately notified the JetBlue staff. The plane was evacuated, the plane was searched, the passengers were re-screened, etc. Peraltalajara was not charged with any crime, and the incompetent TSA screeners are supposedly being disciplined and retrained.
Don't people remember that al-Qeada managed to pull off the most horrific act of terrorism in American history using several boxcutters? If the TSA is not capable of keeping boxcutters off of the planes, what good are they? This is not nearly the first such incident. TSA screeners are constantly failing tests where undercover agents attempt to sneak all sorts of contraband onto the planes. Fake bombs, guns, knives, etc. are making it onto the planes. The security failures are staggering.
The most irritating thing about all of this is that the TSA is so busy virtually gazing at our naked bodies with scanners and poking around in our crotches that they do not have enough time to actually look for any weapons in the luggage. So not only are we having our privacy and dignity violated by the TSA, they are doing very little to keep us safer.
January 13, 2011
TSA Pays Settlement for Exposing Lynsie Murley's Breasts
Lynsie Murley, an attractive young Amarillo woman, is another brave individual standing up for the civil rights and dignity of innocent travelers. Murley sued the Transportation Security Administration for an incident in which the TSA pulled down her blouse and publicly exposed her breasts during a pat-down at Texas' Corpus Christi airport in March of 2008.
After the humiliating incident, TSA workers joked with her about it. One TSA worker, who had missed the incident, told Murley he was sorry he had missed the event and would have to watch it later on security camera footage.
Rather than face the lawsuit, the TSA paid off the woman in a settlement. Apparently, the amount was nominal. According to the lawyer, the settlement was "way less" than $100,000.
Regardless of the cash amount, Lynsie Murley got a little justice out of the TSA. Most importantly, Lynsie Murley did not passively take the abuse TSA is routinely dishing out to innocent citizens. If more people stood up to the TSA, this out-of-control agency would not be tormenting innocent people so flagrantly.
If the TSA abuses you, consider suing. You might get a little money. You might get a little justice. You might even help preserve the civil rights of other people.
What does the TSA care? They get to feel you up, and when you sue, they will pay you off with taxpayer dollars. Think of it as a groping lottery you get to play every time you try to get on a plane.
After the humiliating incident, TSA workers joked with her about it. One TSA worker, who had missed the incident, told Murley he was sorry he had missed the event and would have to watch it later on security camera footage.
Rather than face the lawsuit, the TSA paid off the woman in a settlement. Apparently, the amount was nominal. According to the lawyer, the settlement was "way less" than $100,000.
Regardless of the cash amount, Lynsie Murley got a little justice out of the TSA. Most importantly, Lynsie Murley did not passively take the abuse TSA is routinely dishing out to innocent citizens. If more people stood up to the TSA, this out-of-control agency would not be tormenting innocent people so flagrantly.
If the TSA abuses you, consider suing. You might get a little money. You might get a little justice. You might even help preserve the civil rights of other people.
What does the TSA care? They get to feel you up, and when you sue, they will pay you off with taxpayer dollars. Think of it as a groping lottery you get to play every time you try to get on a plane.
December 25, 2010
TSA Gate Rape Resistance Gets Claire Hirschkind Arrested
On December 22, 2010, Claire Hirschkind, a 56-year-old rape victim was arrested at Austin-Bergstrom Airport in Texas after refusing a TSA pat-down. Claire Hirschkind could not pass through the full-body scanner due to safety concerns about a pacemaker-type device imbedded in her chest.
Hirschkind told a female TSA agent not to touch her breasts during the pat-down. The TSA agent insisted she would touch the rape victim's breasts. When Hirschkind refused to have her breasts touched by the federal employee, she was forced to the ground and arrested.
The story probably has a few more details that will certainly add to the reasons behind this woman being pushed to the ground. Logic says there must have been some sort of additional resistance, but this is the TSA, so logic is not necessarily applicable. Thee fact remains, however, that an innocent, law-abiding rape survivor with a pacemaker-type device was humiliated, inconvenienced, and tormented because she did not want a federal employee to touch her breasts.
How many more places can you imagine this going on? Imagine trying to walk into Grand Central Station and an NYPD cop stops you and says, "I am going to have to feel your breasts and crotch before I let you in the building."
Don't worry. This sort of thing will not be happening for at least another few weeks. If it makes us feel a little safer, it's perfectly okay, right?
Hirschkind told a female TSA agent not to touch her breasts during the pat-down. The TSA agent insisted she would touch the rape victim's breasts. When Hirschkind refused to have her breasts touched by the federal employee, she was forced to the ground and arrested.
The story probably has a few more details that will certainly add to the reasons behind this woman being pushed to the ground. Logic says there must have been some sort of additional resistance, but this is the TSA, so logic is not necessarily applicable. Thee fact remains, however, that an innocent, law-abiding rape survivor with a pacemaker-type device was humiliated, inconvenienced, and tormented because she did not want a federal employee to touch her breasts.
How many more places can you imagine this going on? Imagine trying to walk into Grand Central Station and an NYPD cop stops you and says, "I am going to have to feel your breasts and crotch before I let you in the building."
Don't worry. This sort of thing will not be happening for at least another few weeks. If it makes us feel a little safer, it's perfectly okay, right?
December 24, 2010
Sacramento Whistleblower Pilot Being Intimidated
A Sacramento pilot who used YouTube to expose serious security problems regarding the TSA is being intimidated by federal and local law enforcement. Click here to read the story from NEWS10 ABC.
December 22, 2010
DC Metro Bag Searches Are Unconstitutional
On December 21, 2010, random bag searches began for those wishing to board the DC Metro system. Passengers are selected at random to undergo searches of their private property. Those who choose not to be searched are not allowed to board a train. This is unconstitutional, and here is why.
The DC Metro, like all public transportation, is funded by the taxpayers; therefore, the DC Metro is public property, which belongs to the taxpayers. Barring innocent taxpayers from public property without just cause is a violation of civil rights and a misuse of public property.
Those who have already surrendered their rights to the TSA in order to get on a plane will cynically reply, "This is no different from the airport. We have surrendered our rights there, so we should surrender them on the DC Metro."
This is a flawed argument. Commercial airplanes are private property. Taxpayers do not own the airplanes, but they do own the trains. Yes, it is wrong that innocent people get violated when attempting to board planes, but the plans are private property, so the owners of the planes do not have to allow people to board. The DC Metro trains are different. The taxpayers own the trains, and they are intended for public use, so the taxpayers have a right to ride the trains. Making people subject to searches before being allowed to board a DC Metro train is barely different than making people subject to searches before allowing them to walk down a public sidewalk.
The DC Metro, like all public transportation, is funded by the taxpayers; therefore, the DC Metro is public property, which belongs to the taxpayers. Barring innocent taxpayers from public property without just cause is a violation of civil rights and a misuse of public property.
Those who have already surrendered their rights to the TSA in order to get on a plane will cynically reply, "This is no different from the airport. We have surrendered our rights there, so we should surrender them on the DC Metro."
This is a flawed argument. Commercial airplanes are private property. Taxpayers do not own the airplanes, but they do own the trains. Yes, it is wrong that innocent people get violated when attempting to board planes, but the plans are private property, so the owners of the planes do not have to allow people to board. The DC Metro trains are different. The taxpayers own the trains, and they are intended for public use, so the taxpayers have a right to ride the trains. Making people subject to searches before being allowed to board a DC Metro train is barely different than making people subject to searches before allowing them to walk down a public sidewalk.
November 10, 2010
TSA Surpasses NAMBLA As the Largest Group of Child Molesters in America
For many years, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) was the largest organized group of child molesters in the country. They have now been surpassed by the Transportation Security Administration. The TSA's controversial radiation-based full-body scans have put parents in a horrible predicament. If a child is selected for a full-body scan at an airport security screening checkpoint, the parent must then choose between having his or her child exposed to the radiation of the full-body scanner or subjecting the child to groping by a TSA employee in the optional pat-down. Either way, the child gets exposed to things a child should never have to endure: radiation, exploitation, and molestation.
No matter which option the parent chooses, the TSA will commit a felony against the child. If the TSA scans your child in a full-body scan, they will be capturing an image of a child's naked body. This is child pornography. Imagine if some adult were going to a playground with one of these full-body scanning machines in a van and demanding children pose for it with their arms and legs spread so he could virtually peak under their clothes. The pervert would be arrested within an hour and spend years in prison.
If the parent wishes to not subject the child to posing for child pornography, the child may have his or her entire body touched by an absolute stranger during a pat-down. TSA employees may even touch the child's genitals. Intentionally touching a child's genitals without a specific medical reason is child molestation. Imagine if a school teacher went poking around a random child's crotch to make sure the child did not have any contraband in his or her underwear. The teacher would be fired and arrested as soon as the parents found out about it.
This is what the TSA has brought us. They take naked images of our children or fiddle with our kids' genitals. Either way, the TSA gets to engage in felonious and exploitative sexual acts with whichever children they happen to choose from the airport security screening lines. This is a child molester's dream come true. They get to pick children out of a line (like a perverse smorgasbord of innocent young flesh) and then get to either allow a complicit colleague to virtually look under the child's clothes or just feel up the kid directly. Even better, the parent gives permission and stands by helplessly while it happens. Best of all for the perverts, they get paid to do this all day and never get arrested. The TSA is paradise for anyone who likes to look at naked kids or grope them, and your tax dollars are funding the whole thing.
Are you a parent? Are you concerned that a child molester might be thrilled at the idea of having a job where an adult gets paid to look at naked images of children and/or touch children's genitals? Does it bother you that a TSA employee may be finding sexual gratification by looking at or touching your child under the guise of security?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)