TSA has never, (and I invite them to prove me wrong), foiled a terrorist plot or stopped an attack on an airliner. Ever. They crow about weapons found and insinuate that this means they stopped terrorism. They claim that they can’t comment due to “national security” implications. In fact, if they had foiled a plot, criminal charges would have to be filed. Ever hear of terrorism charges being filed because of something found during a TSA screening? No, because it’s never happened. Trust me, if TSA had ever foiled a terrorist plot, they would buy full-page ads in every newspaper in the United States to prove their importance and increase their budget.
And he should know — the FBI has been responsible for every domestic terrorism attempt since 9/11.
TSA’s de facto policy to this point has been to react to the latest thing tried by a terrorist, which is invariably something that Al Qaeda identified as a technique not addressed by current screening. While this narrows Al Qaeda’s options, their list of attack ideas remains long and they are imaginative. Therefore, if TSA continues to react to each and every new thing tried, three things are certain:
1. Nothing Al Qaeda tries will be caught the first time because it was designed around gaps in TSA security.
2. It is impossible to eliminate all gaps in airline security.
3. Airline security screening based on eliminating every vulnerability will therefore fail because it is impossible. But it will by necessity become increasingly onerous and invasive on the travelers.
He gives lots and lots of examples of how and why the TSA is guaranteed to never contribute anything positive to airline security, while continuing to be an ever-growing behmoth of waste. Unfortunately, he fails to mention the TSA is full of criminals, perverts, and pedophiles, stealing from passengers, sexually assaulting children, and physically abusing the old and afflicted.
It’s amazing, when you think about it, how the worth of things in relation to gold is fairly constant, and it’s our paper money that’s plummeting in value.
In 1971, right before Nixon closed the gold window and took the $35 fixing off of the price of gold, oil was roughly $3/barrel and an ounce of gold would buy 11 barrels of oil. Today, with gold at $1750 and West Texas oil around $109, an ounce of gold will buy 16 barrels of oil. If the world was on a currency exchange standard that was based just on oil and gold, does it look like the price of gold is in some kind of investment bubble, as Buffet would have you believe? That example shows the remarkable stability of gold as a currency versus the remarkable depreciation of fiat dollars, as it takes slightly less gold in 2012 to buy a barrel of oil than it did in 1971 BUT it takes 36 times more fiat dollars to buy the same damn barrel. Which would you rather hold in your pocket to use as a currency?
This month’s Wisconsin Lawyer has an article entitled “Nullification: A Jury’s ‘Secret’ Power,” by Erik R. Guenther. Here is an excerpt:
When “[t]he purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power – to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge,”should the jury be kept in the dark about its fundamental power to decide the justness of the law as applied in a particular case? Should the power remain a secret which is referred to only by a pejorative – nullification rather than be acknowledged as an inherent, appropriate, and recognized part of the jury function?
I chuckled and cheered my way through this article – a list of ~102 things some liberal thought no one would do if government agents didn’t take your money at gunpoint and then do themselves.
It is quite invigorating to see another person rebut so many inane assertions with the plain and simple “It is not the job of government to do X, and it is a myth that nobody would do it if the government didn’t.”
Because I don’t like to pay taxes, I was intrigued by the title of the article by Stephen Foster that I was directed to titled: “102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes.” The article is a liberal defense of the legitimacy of the government (usually federal, but sometimes state or local) confiscating a portion of Americans’ incomes and redistributing and reallocating the incomes because the government provides certain services. Implied throughout the article is the myth that none of the 102 things listed “NOT to do” would exist without the government. The above Holmes quote appears at the end of the article.
Before the list of the 102 things “NOT to do if you hate taxes,” the article is prefaced with this statement: “So, you’re a Republican that hates taxes? Well, since you do not like taxes or government, please kindly do the following.”
Since when do Republicans hate taxes? Since when do Republicans not like taxes or government other than when it is Democrats collecting the taxes and running the government? There is only one Republican member of Congress that I am aware of who has called for the complete elimination of the federal income tax – Ron Paul. Although I am not a Republican, since I still “hate taxes” and “do not like taxes or government,” I feel compelled to analyze the list of things I should not do.