I would like to start by saying that this reporting from InfoWars dot com is obviously over the top. Then I would like to say that I question the use of taxpayer money to conduct this degree of surveillance across the Fruited Plain. The thought that TSA agents may soon be demanding "Papers, Please" is disturbing.
We all want security, but few of us want a system that includes internal checkpoints and frequent demands that one prove who one is. Deep down inside true Americans is the belief that you should be able to walk around outside without an identification at all and be free from police harrassment while doing so.
The question is, where is the tipping point? Searching bags at a Paul Ryan rally may not be it, although why TSA and not some other agency comes to mind. A Little League baseball game seems a little far. We are depending on the courts and the Congress to protest us from a too powerful "Interior Ministry" evolving out of the Department of Homeland Security, which may have been a bad idea from the get-go. It is still not apparent to me that we needed something beyond the Office of Homeland Security, instituted by President Geo W Bush and headed by former Governor Tom Ridge.
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
If one only reads just a little bit of history, the parallels are there...plain as day. Dictatorships and other repressive regimes all have very active and omnipotent "state security agencies." From the NKVD to elements of the KGB, the Gestapo, the SS, the Palace Guards, and other "agencies" too numerous to remember..or mention. All had and have but one single purpose...to find and eliminate "enemies of the state" (tbd from time to time by those in power) who in modern times might well be called "dissidents," or Republicans, or Tea Party members.
Frankly, the TSA and its exceptional growth (much of which the public is completely unaware) is deeply troubling in its implication and potentialities. Their glorious leader Janet Napolitano has on numerous occasions called out various groups of loyal, hardworking, and honest Americans as being (at least potential) domestic terrorists. What that means in plain English is anyone who doesn't fully support Obama and his various ministries and czars.
Now we have so called TSA "Viper squads."
THIS is why we fought and won WWII?
This is exactly what I'm on about. You consider this over the top, but I'm amazed that the coverage isn't even more strident. Neal's paranoia about the present administration is not necessarily misplaced, but I would suggest the real problem is down the road when the next RMN or whoever decides that political use of the expanding powers of the Presidency are justified simply because they exist. We can all agree (I hope) that we presently enjoy a strong leadership bias against being caught using the levers of power in a heavy-handed way against citizens. (Pat downs aren't quite gunning down citizens in the street a la Kent State, but they're absolutely chilling in their implication). But it's only a matter of time. Even Dubya didn't dare do a lot oof what Barry has been brazenly doing, and this is just the evolution of a few years. Imagine where we'll be four, eight or twelve years from now if we don't all stand up and insist that this nonsense be stopped. They already cage protesters during political conventions. The trends are obvious.
And, oh, by the way? That nice little office that Tom Ridge was brought in to manage with which you were and remain so satisfied? Can't you now see how its genesis was the exact moment when all the stuff you don't like became possible? The Patriot Act and all related Dubya-isms that went along with it are why were are here with the Obama problems. The Obama excesses will be exactly why the next escalation will occur. We have to insist that it all be dismantled, just like you need to pull weeds out from the roots. Otherwise, they just grow back all that much more vigorously.
My recollection is that the Tom Ridge office was what President Geo Bush to try to meet the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the US Congress said, "Whao, not enough". I wonder if Harry Reid thought Pres Bush was an idiot for not embracing the more strident views.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment