Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

American Fathers and the ACLU: Exposed

Recs

21

November 13, 2010 – Comments (33)

If we have learned anything from the TSA's new policy of forcing Americans into humiliation, molestation, and degradation, it is that two groups of Americans have now been exposed as total frauds: American fathers and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Where are all the outraged American dads?  You know these blow-hard types.  They watch To Catch a Predator and then fascinate about what they'd do to any scumbag that ever laid hands on their child.  They work themselves into a mini rage as they contemplate how badly they'd hurt a child molestor.

Then they go through airport security and watch silently as their sons and daughters are groped in the breasts and genitals by goons that are barely above postal workers on the competence/intelligence scale.

TSA Screener Gropes 3 Year Old at Security Checkpoint

Ok, so we can let that slide, right dads?  I mean, we all know that Al Qaeda has a history of using three year old American girls as operatives. So a TSA agent running their hands all over your daughter's body, even as she cries and begs them to stop, is perfectly OK to protect American freedoms. 

(Advice for TSA: It's not rape if you yell 'Surprise!')

I don't condone initiating violence (groping a three year old IS a violent act.)  But I am somewhat amused since it turns out that American fathers are just as spineless and gutless as you would expect from a country that hands over all responsibility to a faraway cabal of bankers and unelected bureaucrats. They always talk a big game about how they'd hurt anyone that laid a hand on their children.  Yet, it happens every day at airports around American, and no TSA agent has been taken behind the shed.  Interesting......

(Note: if you think the link above is an isolated case, google this tem: 'TSA grope')

Another group exposed as total frauds is the ACLU.  Let's break down the case for them, since they are so inept that can't raise a peep in protest:

1. Body scanners
- Two typs of body scanning devices: Backscatter X-ray (BXR) and Millimeter Wave (MMW.)
- MMW is physically safe. BXR is not.
- TSA claims BXR is relatively safe.
- That's because they hope you don't know about MMW, which is actually safe.
-
Michael Chertoff makes a profit with every BXR machine bought by TSA

Do I have to say more?

2. The choice between the Porno-Tron and sexual molestation is not a choice.
3. The entire operation can be challenged on Constitutional grounds, specifically for violating the 4th Amendment
4. The scanners are actually useless!
5. Herding hundreds of travellers into a cramped space to peep and molest actually creates a kill zone, i.e. a perfect target for a suicide bomber. And he doesn't even have to take flying lessons =D

So let's review:

1. It's a scam that bankrolls Neocon scum like Chertoff
2. It's perveted
3. It's unconstitutional
4. It's ineffective
5. It creates an even more attractive target for terrorists!

Look, I always knew that deep down inside, every Communist Neoconservative from Dick Cheney to Rush Limbaugh is a child molestsr.  I just didn't think they'd actually make money off their perverted desire to see young boys and girls groped and disrobed.

But I'm definitely not surprised that American fathers and the ACLU have been exposed as total frauds unwilling to do anything about it.  All these years they've talked a big game, but when push came to shove, daddy's little girl isn't so untouchable after all.

David in Qatar

33 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 13, 2010 at 11:58 PM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

One more symptom......

Report this comment
#2) On November 14, 2010 at 12:13 AM, 100ozRound (29.72) wrote:

I get to fly out of San Diego terminal 1 on Tuesday and I'm not looking forward to it.  Maybe I'll ask the screener if he's enjoying himself and ridicule him a bit.  But I know the TSA frowns on "jokes".

Have you seen optoutday.com?

Report this comment
#3) On November 14, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Momentum21 (96.83) wrote:

Report this comment
#4) On November 14, 2010 at 9:12 AM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

This one is special.

You are attacking the ACLU because THEY did not do anything to defend YOUR freedom.

Excellent job, attacking an organisation that has done far more than you to defend Liberty. Perhaps you could find us a position paper on the front page of the ACLU website concerning this issue, rather than post some sort of undeserved attack.

I wonder if suggesting the ACLU has not stood against the scanners since 2007 will increase or decrease support for the ACLU if they were actually to have been lobbying against the scanners since 2007 -way ahead of you. The ACLU is on the same side of this issue as your post seems to be, and unlike you, the ACLU is actually doing something about it.

Perhaps you could take a stand against the private enterprise that is selling the scanners as a solution to terrorist threats by discussing with us wheher or not they are likely to be as effective as the private enterprise claims them to be, and more of the possible unintended consequences of using the scanners.

Perhaps you could also supply these posts with links to the congressional phone number so that readers who would like to speak to their congressman on this issue and possibly suggest to their congressman that they would like them to side AGAINST the use of scanners and WITH the ACLU would find it easier to do so.

I am also curious what action you expect "blow-hard" dads "who work themselves into mini-rages"  to take during airport screeinings. Should they - in advance of their travel - stand in the lobby of Kennedy airport and ask travelers to sign petitions asking the Congressman to ban the use of scanners? Or are you asking something else from these people who express support for the use of violence before trials.

Kind of makes me wonder which side of the freedom fight you are really on.

 

The ACLU filed its lawsuit in June on behalf of Steven Bierfeldt, who was detained on March 29, 2009 in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. Bierfeldt was carrying the cash in connection with his duties as the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization that grew out of Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Bierfeldt repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told Bierfeldt that he was being placed under arrest. Bierfeldt recorded audio of the incident with his iPhone.

Following a lawsuit filed by American Civil Liberties Union, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has revised its policies governing airline passenger screening to make clear that TSA agents are authorized to conduct searches related to safeguarding flight safety, not to engage in general law enforcement. Calling the policy changes a victory for civil liberties, the ACLU has moved to drop its lawsuit, originally filed in June on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA agents at the airport after they discovered he was carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

“This new policy provides much needed clarity to TSA screeners and reflects the critical requirement that TSA agents must adhere to their important but limited mandate of protecting flight safety,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “The airport is not a Constitution-free zone, and the price of traveling is not exposure to limitless government searches.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) consists of two separate non-profit organizations: the ACLU Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization which focuses on litigation and communication efforts, and the American Civil Liberties Union, a 501(c)(4) organization which focuses on legislative lobbying.[2] The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."[1][3] It works through litigation, legislation, and community education.[1] Founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles,[4] the ACLU was the successor organization to the earlier National Civil Liberties Bureau founded during World War I.[5] The ACLU reported over 500,000 members in 2010.

Lawsuits brought by the ACLU have been influential in the evolution of Constitutional law.[6] The ACLU provides legal assistance in cases in which it considers civil liberties to be at risk. Even when the ACLU does not provide direct legal representation, it often submits amicus curiae briefs.

Outside of its legal work, the organization has also engaged in lobbying of elected officials and political activism.[7] The ACLU has been critical of elected officials and policies of both Democrats and Republicans.

Report this comment
#5) On November 14, 2010 at 10:01 AM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

Always on stand-by to defend government excess.  

You are attacking the ACLU because THEY did not do anything to defend YOUR freedom. 

Nope. I'm attacking them because they are frauds.  I could care less if the ACLU even existed. They are irrelevant stooges, not some noble government watch dog.  

Excellent job, attacking an organisation that has done far more than you to defend Liberty. 

That would be saying something... if I was founded in 1920 and had received $$$ billions along the way.  Then we could compare records.  But in terms of one person blogging for two years with a $0 budget, versus a large organization with tons of money and 90 years of history, I think I hold up OK.  Thanks, though.

Perhaps you could take a stand against the private enterprise that is selling the scanners as a solution to terrorist threats by discussing with us wheher or not they are likely to be as effective as the private enterprise claims them to be, and more of the possible unintended consequences of using the scanners. 

Um, did you read the post.  That's point #1 under the ACLU section. It's a scam pimped by the Chertoff Group.  Michael Chertoff. You do remember him right?

Perhaps you could also supply these posts with links to the congressional phone number 

You do your job, don't tell me how to do mine. That's not difficult information to find.  After all, you found it. I'm sure a curious reader can look it up. If you think that'll help, that's wonderful. That's how the bank bailout was defeated, right?

Kind of makes me wonder which side of the freedom fight you are really on 

You would be able to tell, if you were on the side of freedom.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#6) On November 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Valyooo (99.64) wrote:

I hate to be the guy that does this but I responded to your response on my "environment vs economics" blog, so, check it out when you get a chance...I am very interested in it

Report this comment
#7) On November 14, 2010 at 11:12 AM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

Valyooo,

Sorry man, I promise I will. I just forgot about that discussion. I just looked and saw that your response is really long.  I hope you don't mind if I wait until tomorrow to add to the discussion.  It's very interesting.

David in Qatar  

Report this comment
#8) On November 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Always on stand-by to defend government excess?!  What a hoot.

The ACLU is not a Government organisation. As you said they have raised billions to defend liberty despite attacks from "freedom fighters" such as the one delivered today, by you.

What side of the issue of using scanners is the ACLU on despite your attacking scanners, fathers, and the ACLU?

We can all visit the ACLU website and find out, too. I just think it is ok to  remind people to do their own Due Diligance, and have a different perspective on what freedom is than you do.

No apology for thinking for myself. Nor do I expect thanks from you for helping the free thinkers who read your posts to remember to check facts.

I do not care whether or not it is ok with you that I reach a different conclusion on whether or not the ACLU has a more intelligent response, to the issue of invasion of privacy, than you do and therefore has earned my support. I like in their posts that they discuss the need for some security even if they dissapprove of scanners.

I have read the ACLU attacked on this website for only defending Liberals and Minoritys, yet I can a post a link where they succesfully defended a  white Ron Paul supporter.

I think you have posted that you believe that politicians attempt to play some Americans against others for political benefit. I think you are an example of that.

Report this comment
#9) On November 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

I think you have posted that you believe that politicians attempt to play some Americans against others for political benefit. I think you are an example of that.

Uh, are you simply a crazy person?  I attacked the ACLU.

You attacked ME.... for attacking the ACLU.

In fact, you attack me on just about every post while I mostly ignore your posts.

The ACLU is a worthless organization.  That has nothing to do with my feelings about you.

What I do think, after your response, is that you have serious mental issues and are obsessed with me.

And not in a good way that makes me want to dress real nice for our encounters, but in the creepy way that makes me want to make sure my doors are locked.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#10) On November 14, 2010 at 12:11 PM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

And um, I just have to add that on the same post I attacked the ACLU, I literally went out of my way to insult anyone who watches FOX news on a regular basis.

You are beyond bizarre. Thank God for football.

David in Qatar  

Report this comment
#11) On November 14, 2010 at 12:21 PM, catoismymotor (36.11) wrote:

In my opinion the ACLU is a curious animal. There have been cases they have persued that I disagree with, others where I have grabbed my pom-poms and shouted my best "rah-rah-hiss-boom-ba!" in support. I can't pinpoint the cases in question. Well I could, but it is Sunday. There seems to be different factions within the ACLU with agendas, not one personality uniflying all their staff.

Report this comment
#12) On November 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Robuh (26.22) wrote:

Interesting related story

Report this comment
#13) On November 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

As always, thanks for the thoughts.

 

Report this comment
#14) On November 14, 2010 at 10:15 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

I feel so much safer after I have had my fingernail clippers taken away from me at the airport.  I asked them if there was some 'secret CIA killing technique' using only nail clippers, lol. "Give me control of this plane, or I will clip your nails down to the quick", lol.

I wonder how much productivity, and of our life's energy for personal satisfaction has been stolen by these inane procedures.

When some terrorist goes through with an explosive up his butt, will we all need to undergo a rectal exam?

And since when is $4700 in cash that is not hidden a major concern?

Report this comment
#15) On November 15, 2010 at 7:33 AM, outoffocus (23.66) wrote:

ACLU and American Fathers aside, am I the only one who feels this has gone way too far? I feel like the TSA (via the CIA and DHS) is the new gestapo. And considering the majority of this country probably doesnt know what the gestapo is, I wouldnt be surprised if we repeated that part of history.

Report this comment
#16) On November 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

outoffocus,

You're exactly right. And I'd like to add that the TSA gestapo/molesters have yet to catch a single terrorist.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#17) On November 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Outoffocus,

No you are not alone in feeling that way. That is why I support the ACLU's lawsuits - succesful lawsuits - to protect our freedoms, and will not be party to disparaging them in a fashion I believe they do not deserve.

Report this comment
#18) On November 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Here is an example of what a sterling example of morality the ACLU is:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38540

 

Report this comment
#19) On November 15, 2010 at 3:01 PM, leohaas (36.25) wrote:

I'm staying out of this "ACLU is complete fraud" vs "ACLU has done more for Liberty than you" discussion.

"Communist Neoconservative" is definitely an interesting term. I always thought that conservatives hated communists (and the other way round), but what do I know: I am neither, and despise both!

Report this comment
#20) On November 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

NOTvuffett,

What is your point?

Report this comment
#21) On November 15, 2010 at 9:46 PM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

OMG, the ACLU is even more worthless than I thought. Browsing their "Action" items on their website reads like a cornucopia of egalitarian nonsense. They've always been a group that focuses on "political rights" (which are just privileges) rather than natural rights (the only form of liberty.) Now they appear to be as bad as the SPLC.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?page=UserActionInactive&id=1599

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On November 15, 2010 at 9:49 PM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

leohaas,

Hi buddy! Always good to see you on my posts. I realize that few people will understand the reference to "Communist Neoconservatives." I think I should just do a post on that. There are so many ways in which the neoconservatives are communistic. They are definitely the antithesis of liberty, and everytime a Limbaugh or a Cheney or a Frum talks about trading in liberties it's important to understand that they never wanted you to have any liberties in the first place.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#23) On November 16, 2010 at 2:19 AM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

Forget petitioning the government on this issue. It's a waste of time. I recommend going directly at the airline industry as this person did:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/muratore/muratore16.1.html

"Lisa’s email says that Orbitz appreciates my concern for privacy. I would like to repeat here what I told the US Air representative who made a similar statement: I do not think that you fully understand my concern. If you did, I would not be offered a mere pittance of a waiver of the penalty fee for changing my ticket. I was in tears last weekend as I contemplated the corner that the airline industry has backed me into. I must either become a victim of voyeurism or become a victim of sexual assault in order to take my daughter to see her grandparents, great aunt, great uncle, and great grandmother for Christmas. Not only that, but I have to make the same choice for my child. I absolutely will not allow either of us to be victims of abuse."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#24) On November 16, 2010 at 9:29 AM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

David,

It is nice to be on the same side of an issue as you, even if as always, our solutions are not entirely the same. I would recommend a two-pronged attack, going directly at the airline industry and petitioning you government because ultimately, they have to make the decision to abandon the scanners as a defense against a terrorist attack.

But your last post is a much better solution than the original post wherein you disparage those who verbally threaten violence for not taking action. Now you can use the phrase "I don't condone initiating violence", but you certainly seem to be calling out dads as cowards for not escalating violence.

Now you have told us that you returning to the States soon. This is an opportunity for you to bring a video camera and show us you are not just a blow-hard. I would hate to learn the voice of freedom on CAPS is spineless and gutless and willing to be groped by goons slightly above Postal workers on the competence/intelligence scale.

Now, I would never condone initiating violence, (but groping your person IS a violent act)...

Anyway, you are abviously allowed to decide how best you wish to handle your return to the States. I would suggest that most dads would be far better served by voicing support and joining the ACLU, rather than disparaging them, far better served by contacting their Congressmen, and far better served by complaining to the travel industry than giving in to anyone who dares them to act violently against people who are ultimately, also their countrymen.

As always David, it is nice talking civil rights and politics with you.

Report this comment
#25) On November 16, 2010 at 10:13 AM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

First off, you have this thing where you either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent me.  I think it's lame.

The post is clearly directed at a certain type of person, not every American father, and certainly not every American.

Now I don't see why that's so hard to understand.  I'm clearly talking about protective parents, and even more specifically about the kind that talks about how they would love to kick the bleep out of a child molester.  If you don't know anyone like that, consider yourself lucky.

I don't have kids, and I don't fantasize about kicking people's rear ends.  And you are the only person that thinks I'm advocating violence.  That's on you bro. Everyone else can clearly see that I'm mocking them.

As for my trip home, I do have a date with the porn-or-grope for one trip to see my mother.  I will be opting out and taking the "enhanced rub down." (no happy ending?)

Here's my reasoning:

1. It makes TSA's job harder if you opt out. They want you to go through the Porno-tron. I don't want to do things that make their life easier.  I hope everyone opts out every time.  It would end the policy.

2. It will slow down the line. I want to do my teeny, tiny, little part to make the airline industry suffer. Making customers unhappy is part of that.

I just wish I owned a kilt.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#26) On November 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM, mtf00l (43.65) wrote:

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism 2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means — neo·con·ser·va·tism\-və-ˌti-zəm\ nounneoconservative adjective from;http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative

Report this comment
#27) On November 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, mtf00l (43.65) wrote:

Post #26 brought to you as a public service message from mtf00l.

Know the difference.

Report this comment
#28) On November 16, 2010 at 11:00 AM, whereaminow (46.24) wrote:

Neoconservative definition and neoconservative ideas must be two very different things :)

I'll leave it as a subject for another post. 

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#29) On November 16, 2010 at 11:39 AM, 100ozRound (29.72) wrote:

Well I have nothing to report.  There are no scanners in Terminal 1 of San Diego airport and I didn't get patted down.  Whew!

Report this comment
#30) On November 16, 2010 at 11:39 AM, 100ozRound (29.72) wrote:

Well I have nothing to report.  There are no scanners in Terminal 1 of San Diego airport and I didn't get patted down.  Whew!

Report this comment
#31) On November 19, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

So, here's a link that can tidy the past, present and potential together with respect to Chertoff (really does ring like jerk-off), his colleagues former Director of CIA and NSA,former Morgan Stanley/Godlman Sachs personell (surprise surprise) and others in this organization.

http://publicintelligence.net/the-chertoff-group/

http://scrapthescanners.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/scanners-abdulmutallab-reid-chertoff-that-nicely-dressed-indian-man-and-the-great-terror-lobby/

 

The first link talks about the Chertoff Group, its the second link that describes the activities that result in today's discussion.  After reading the sedon link, it leaves me wondering whether Chertoff orchestrated the whole deal becuase I have to think that Al-Qaeda is smarter than that since they we're able to control our unmanned aircraft using parts from radio shack.

 

So, if you have a moment, check the links.

  

Report this comment
#32) On November 20, 2010 at 10:09 PM, blesto (31.55) wrote:

That does it for me. I'm not flying anywhere ever again out of some huge airport on any major airline. I will drive or take the train. Only fly if I can get a small private plane at a small municipal airport

Report this comment
#33) On December 06, 2010 at 3:59 PM, mtf00l (43.65) wrote:

I know this thread is stale however, this comment applies.

I recently learned that Muslim women are exempt from "pat downs" beyond their head wear.  Really, why not exempt all females as all terrorist have been males?

Enough with the double standards.

I need to go research if Muslim children are exempt as well, then I will blog that all children should be exempt too!

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement