Saturday, November 20, 2010

Submit or Stay - Show us your …

Where we are now is that you may not have the freedom to travel unless you agree to provide a current photograph of your and your wife nude, you must agree to allow both of you to be molested by "government" agents. Apparently we now have a protected class of sexual criminal who is allowed to grope at will.

Then consider that muslims who will not go through the full frontal (and rear) nudity camera are not to be "enhanced patdown screened", they may only be felt up on their head and neck. Makes sense? NOT

There have been various TSA agents recorded (no possibility of misconstruction) saying in effect, "If you don't go through the full nudity scanner, we will molest you sufficiently that next time you will." Where is the ACLU now?

Clearly this is an absolute abrogation of our rights. Our founding fathers were clear on this, note the various quotes attributed to Franklin:

• They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

• They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

• Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

• He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

• He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

• People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

• If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.

• Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

• He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

• Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.

• Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

The head of the TSA has said publicly that no amount of pressure from the public (I might add the citizens of the country of whom he is a servant) will cause him to change "MY rules." HIS rules? Who the heck is he that he has his own rules? I thought we had the Rule of Law. Clearly that is in the rearview mirror at this time. Change? Yes, we need change. Let's do a 180 and get out of here.

I've written my congressman and told him that unless he sponsors legislation to eliminate completely this police state system that I will vote for any candidate that will. I fully understand that would mean voting for a third party candidate who "cannot get elected." So be it. I will not vote for someone who backs a police state.

No comments: