The Little Congress and the TSA

Posted: November 16, 2010 in opinion/news
Tags: , , , , , ,

Back in the days when Lyndon Johnson was a congressional aide rather than a congressman or senator he participated in a group known as the Little Congress. This was an association of congressional aides formed to promote public speaking but in 1933 recognizing the potential for publicity and power that the organization had Johnson arranged without warning to bring in many additional voters of dubious eligibility and managed to win election as the speaker. He ruled over the little congress as speaker and then as boss until eventually a young man from Mississippi decided he was not going to go along with Boss Johnson.

In the 1935 elections for the little congress he managed to rally enough members to pass reforms (strenuously opposed by Johnson men) requiring people to sign ballots and to check them against the voter rolls. This of course eliminated the secret ballot, a sacrosanct right among voters but it turned out that once the ballots were properly checked against lists The Johnson candidate was defeated.

Lyndon being Lyndon instantly decided that the Little Congress was not worth his time he abandoned it and shortly thereafter the informal voting methods returned because the cause that prompted the draconian measures was gone. (this information is from The Years of Lyndon Johnson The Path to Power by Robert Caro)

Which brings us to the TSA.

A lot of people are objecting on the basis of decency and the 4th amendment. I disagree with the 4th argument since all passengers are subjected to the same methods thus not constituting an unreasonable search, but this debate is not the point.

The point is that the only reason why these methods are necessary is because The Flemish Menace a group of Islamic fanatics have declared war on the west and are attempting to kill us.

Our unwillingness to face and waste resources on people not remotely connected to terror would be as if the FBI decided to concentrate an equal percentage of resources examining the black community in Mississippi when investigating the murders of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner in 1964.

The day we face that threat and acknowledge and act accordingly is the day that intrusive searches and pat downs will be unnecessary because we will be examining the actual people who have a motive to strike at us.

Of course the administration being the administration we are not only not doing it, but apparently considering the exact opposite.

Hey we elected this government, we did this to ourselves.

Comments
  1. Proud2Serve says:

    “since all passengers are subjected to the same methods thus not constituting an unreasonable search”

    This may not be your point, but it is THE underlying premise. One that is not only false, but also incredibly dangerous. If this were truly the determinant for constitutionality, we all can live in a police state. Examples: If everyone’s phones are tapped, it is not an unreasonable search. If everyone’s retinas are scanned . . . . If everyone has a digital implant . . .

    The concept of reasonableness is tied to methods and reasonable suspicion than to the universality of their execution.

    Is it reasonable to expect “free” citizens to undergo an electronic strip search or invasive “pat down” (or groping, depending upon definitions) simply because they wish to use a legal form of transportation? In no way can I support this. It is un-American and inhuman.

    You do identify the underlying cause for this foolishness. We are in a war of national survival, yet we as a society are unwilling to identify our enemies for fear someone in the UN will call us names. So much for sticks and stones.

    We all know that El Al has this figured out. And they don’t resort to public humiliation and intrustions into the most private areas of the person. They use common sense to identify their enemies and then deal with them accordingly.

    Besides, not “all passengers are subjected to the same methods”. The rich use charter or private flights. The powerful bypass normal security. It is the sheeple that must obey these ridiculous and largely ineffective abuses. The day I see Secretary Napolitano ‘s electronicly stripped body on the internet, or a photo of Judge Ginsberg, Goerge Soros, and President Obama with a TSA agent’s hands down their pants is a day I might reconsider.

    Lastly, I submit that you may be guilty of enabling this policy. By accepting the police state alternative, we do not hold our leaders accountable for the cowardice you identified above.

    Sorry — I cannot see the logic in your argument for this one.

  2. Proud2Serve says:

    The scanner also has many unanswered health questions. What are the radiation risks for frequent flyers? How about for developing infants, toddlers, and adolescents? Pregnant woman?

    What if, in the the “disease” (protecting hundreds on an airplane) is worse than the “cure” (perhaps finding out later that we sickened and led to he early deaths and arrested development of tens of thousands)? Emotional and rapid reactions frequently fail to consider big picture, secondary effects and unitnended consequences.

    There are also questions as to cronism in the decision to spend $300 million dollars on this very expensive equipment (of which I am unaware anyone else on the planet is seriously considering) — see Representative Duncan’s floor speech on this topic.

    This entire process has been rushed, filled with potential corruption, completely unecessary, and will also prove to be largley ineffective. I predict that it will, thankfully, not last.

    What will be lasting is the money wasted, and the liberty lost from the precedent.