Video: Jack Webb Goes After The TSA

Another fine video from Bullet People.

It’s great to know that the sensibilities of easily offended Muslim travelers are more important to the administration than the well being of our children:

Was that a tad melodramatic? I don’t know…you tell me.

See also:

IOWAHAWK: Comply With Me, the Video

Red State: The U.S. Police State Outrages Continue: Why is the TSA strip searching little boys?


TSA backing off?


Video: Fox News Sunday: Lame Plans For Lame Ducks/ Big Bro Run A-Muck?

If you’re like me, you’re in church when the Sunday talk shows are on. I like to catch up on YouTube.

Here, via The Patriot Network, is the FoxNews Sunday panel  discussing the lame duck session:

Here, the panel discusses grope and change: Big brother/sis run amuck?

More TSA outrages are detailed, here, in this report out of Chicago, via Gateway Pundit:

I don’t know how anyone can defend this stuff, (Juan and Bill). It’s PC run a-muck, is what it is. More profiling, and more invasive intelligence gathering on the real suspects, please.


George Will: The T.S. of A takes control

The theory – perhaps by now it seems like a quaint anachronism – on which the nation was founded is, or was: Government is instituted to protect preexisting natural rights essential to the pursuit of happiness. Today, that pursuit often requires flying, which sometimes involves the wanding of 3-year-olds and their equally suspect teddy bears.


How The Obama Administration’s National Security Failures Led To “Grope and Change”

In light of the recently enacted “grope and change” airport security measures, I though it might be instructive to review what brought us to this point in our nation’s history where nuns, toddlers, college kids, priests, rabbis, etc are being (“properly”) patted and pawed  by TSA  officers like common criminals at airport check points.

Since Obama was elected, there has been an alarming uptick in successful or near successful attacks on the homeland by Muslim extremists.

May 2009, Binghamton NY: N.Y. Shooting Massacre

June 2009, Little Rock, AR: Military Recruiting Center Shooting

November 2009, Fort Hood, TX: Fort Hood Gunman Who Killed 12, Wounded 30 Survived Gun Battle

December 2009, Detroit, MI: Panty-bomber, Northwest Airlines Flight 253

May 2010, NYC: Faisal Shahzad, Times Square Attack

AJ Strata has done an outstanding job detailing how Obama’s national security team, esp. John Brennan, Eric Holder, and Harold Koh made risky and dangerous decisions that left the United States exposed in at least two of those terrorist attacks. It had been  apparent early on that the Obama team felt that Bush’s national security policies put too much emphasis on checking out all threats, and felt it had not enough ‘probable cause’ to assess everyone in contact with known radicals. Strata argues persuasively that the national security changes that ensued led to the Ft Hood Massacre and Christmas Day bombing attempt.

…during the summer the Hasan investigation was shut down and Hasan was able to be in a position later in the fall to murder over 30 fellow Americans at Ft Hood.

Also during this time period, another African far from the war front and without any clear connections with al Qaeda was banned from the UK. One Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab – the underwear bomber.  He too was in contact with Islamist cleric al Aulaqi. But at this point it seems al Aulaqi was now being given the benefit of the doubt. No connection would be made until after his Christmas Day attack. Is it really coincidence that dots were not being connected at the same time the Obama administration was requiring strong proof of allegiance to al Qaeda before we would begin responding to threats?

Strata created the following timeline based on news reports from the Ft. Hood/Pantybomber attacks.

click to enlarge

Last year, as I noted in the post above, Team Obama began to restrict when we would use our hair triggers and when we would use the slow due process of the courts:

With the president’s directions in hand, Mr. Obama’s Justice Department came back on March 13, 2009, with a more modest position than Mr. Bush had advanced. It told Judge Bates that the president could detain without trial only people who were part of Al Qaeda or its affiliates, or their substantial supporters.

There was broad agreement that the law of armed conflict allowed the United States to detain as wartime prisoners anyone who was actually a part of Al Qaeda, as well as nonmembers who took positions alongside the enemy force and helped it. But some criticized the notion that the United States could also consider mere supporters, arrested far away, to be just as detainable without trial as enemy fighters.

What this meant was lots of marginally or distantly related allies could not be determined to be enemy combatants – there protections went up and our risk went up. That was especially true for American traitors like Anwar al Aulaqi, who is tied to all three attacks since last October. To act preemptively meant the government had to have already proven the suspect was a terrorist – which was impossible in the cases of Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Shahzad.

This insane determination actually lines up well with pre-election comments by Holder, and especially by Obama’s terrorism advisor John Brennan:

I would argue the government needs to have access to only those nuggets of information that have some kind of predicate. That way the government can touch it and pull back only that which is related. It’s like a magnet, set to a certain calibration. That’s what I think we need to go to.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the threshold, quite frankly, was low, because we didn’t know the nature of the threat we faced here in the U.S.

[Post 9-11] Every effort was made by the government to try to get as much understanding and visibility into what else might be out there that’s going to hurt us again. Now that a number of years have passed, we need to make sure the calibration is important.

The wording is classic bureaucrat babbling, but it has a meaning. It meant Brennan, Holder and Obama concluded they knew enough about the threat to adjust our early warning network to be much less sensitive and intrusive on suspects. They were arrogantly wrong. Their changes introduced openings that al Qaeda and its allies exploited with surreal success.

You got that? As a direct result of the Obama administration’s decision to be less intrusive on actual terror suspects, it has become profoundly more intrusive on everyday Americans.

Remember that the next time a blue gloved hand slides up your inner thigh at an airport checkpoint.You gave up some rights when you bought the ticket, they’ll tell you.

Once upon a time the US government protected your rights. In Obamerica it protects the terrorists’ rights.

Linked by Conservative Hideout, thanks!