No Furlough For Fondlers

Homeland Security,Individual Rights,Regulation,Terrorism,The State

            

Aren’t you relieved that the TSA child fondling professionals will not be furloughed, now that our overlords in DC have come together to screw us all royally? (Link) As a mother—as a human being with a heart—it is particularly hard seeing children, like the little girl below, subjected to the cruelty of strangers. Watching footage of this kid between whose miniature trousers a TSA goon is reaching—I can’t help but wonder: Where in all this is the effing FLOTUS? If Michelle Obama has experienced a gut reaction to the ordeal inflicted by her husband’s administration (begun under his predecessor) on travelers and their tots—she is not letting on. The First Lady, as you know, is in touch with her gut—and the gut of every kid in the country. The FLOTUS of the fat-based initiatives “cares” enough to decide what America’s bloated babes will ingest, but not enough to weigh-in when their bodies are being invaded by state workers.

By the way, WHERE ARE THE MEN in all this?

8 thoughts on “No Furlough For Fondlers

  1. Dennis

    This is PRE-CONDITIONING of youth to Fear, Stand-Still, Allow the Touching by a Stranger, GO WHERE THEY TELL YOU, and without their parents to GET ON THE TRAIN!

    Do the movies “SOPHIE’S CHOICE” and “SCHINDLER’S LIST” ring any bells?????

    Attention all you geniuses out there – no, this is not sarcasm – there has got to be a better, technological way to screen for the few who wish to bomb us. How about asking questions and taking high definition eye reaction recordings? Perspiration? Breathing? Heart Rates?

  2. Myron Pauli

    Found the video at:

    http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14536

    A FREE COUNTRY would have a governing document which would say something like: “he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Securing cockpit doors and arming pilots are sufficient to prevent airplanes from being turned into Al Queda Cruise Missiles. As for other security, the PRIVATE SECTOR (e.g. airline industry) could and should provide it. Could you imagine McDonalds folding 6 year olds coming in for a Happy Meal – yet our McDonalds are theoretically all vulnerable to some jackass with an Ak-47 shooting up the place. Somehow, for no sensible reason, the government has made airplane flying into some KAFKAESQUE nightmare:

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

  3. greenhell

    Ideally, I understand your feeling behind “WHERE ARE THE MEN?” Real men in gov’t who wouldn’t have set this up, real men running the airport who would have the sense to not do this, real men as police officers who would have arrested the screener, real men as travelers who would have stopped the screener. I see this vividly.

    But realistically, what do you expect? Not to be overly personal, but if you and your husband were at the airport witnessing this – would the severe consequences resulting from stepping in be worthwhile in any form?

    [You don’t know me: this is why I avoid flying, if I can. I’d have spoken up.]

  4. greenhell

    I wasn’t implying that I knew what you would do, I was trying to find out what you would consider to be an honorable response to that situation. Speaking up, intervening, tackling the agent, etc. I have great respect for your opinion and certainly was not “calling you out”. My wife and I also do not fly.

    I wonder how much further our options will be whittled down as we seek to avoid these situations.

Comments are closed.