Posted on BigPeace 11.19.2010
All over the planet, Islamic extremists are plotting the murder of Americans by blowing airplanes out the sky. “Aviacide” seems to be the preferred method of terror by these hateful idiots whose minds have been poisoned by jihad. In recent years (and at a rapidly increasing rate) we have seen planes crashed into skyscrapers, underwear bombs, shoe bombs, bombs shoved into the rectums of both people and dogs, bombs in luggage, bombs in printer cartridges—and who knows where else. Pardon the apophasis, but if it weren’t such a serious subject I might quip about how writing about these kinds of assorted explosives feels like writing part of a Dr. Seuss book.
While there exists no way to fully protect us from these murdering zealots, we do have new technology and a new approach to this problem that the Obama Administration has apparently sanctioned. On the technological side are two new scanning devices: the millimeter beam and the backscatter. While these technologies appear to be safe, I am a seasoned enough physician to know that everything deemed to be safe is only really safe until the inevitable next study that refutes its safety.
I am pleasantly surprised that the President—in between mea culpa’s and apologizing to Muslims around the world for the horrors that America has allegedly perpetrated against them—approved aggressive but respectful “pat-downs” of passengers who refuse scanning.
It comes as no surprise that The Council on American-Islamic (Islamist?) Relations, CAIR, recently issued a travel caution to Muslim airline passengers on U.S. aircraft in response to the Transportation Safety Administration’s heightened “pat down” policy that went into effect in October. In the “special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab,” it advises: “Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.”
It also points out that: “Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers per form a chemical swipe of your hands.” So, it seems, if any Muslim terrorist wants to be certain to escape either scanning or a body pat down—they now simply need to wear a hijab. Thanks again CAIR, for doing what you do best: exploit the American obsession with appeasement. Can we blame CAIR? They know from our pattern of response that we’ll trip over ourselves to provide extremist Muslims with special privileges if they fall under the umbrella of bogus religious protection or “tolerance.”
Many conservatives have come out strongly against both airport scanning and pat-downs. It seems that for these folks, the “small and unobtrusive government” tenet of conservatism wins over the overarching responsibly that every government has to protect its citizens. While I generally denounce what I believe to be the more destructive and divisive ideology of the left, in this instance, the right is wrong. I understand that most conservatives oppose having “choices” made on our behalf by the hand of government, but life is full of contradictions; in this case, one of the screening technologies (scanner vs. pat-down) should be mandatory if one is to fly to or within the US. While I’m well aware of Ben Franklin’s well-known adage, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither,” in the real world compromise is necessary. As I point out in my book, Re-United States, while most Americans object to the inconvenient sacrifices of certain privacies associated with air travel, we would object much more to being blown out of a plane’s fuselage at 35,000 feet above the ground.
In summary: we should ignore CAIR, get our priorities straight, and welcome the greater scrutiny that just may prevent the next tragedy.