I am of the opinion that everyone in the world needs to affiliate themselves with an organization, coalition or an association. Apparently, everyone needs a watchdog to protect their “constitutional rights” to “not have their feelings hurt” or to “not have their delicate sensibilities lacerated.” The “National Sikh Coalition” stands at the ready in this regard.What brings this all up for discussion is an article entitled, “Sikh’s Angered Over New TSA Hat Checking Policy.” It tells of a “national embarrassment” when a monkey made it past security and TSA agents at two separate airports “under a mans hat.”
A few points if I could: 1) “National embarrassment?” I, along with hundreds of millions of other Americans, did not hear a peep about this until today. Usually when I hear of a “national embarrassment,” the name of a Massachusetts senator is not far behind. 2) “Under a mans hat.” “Hat??” Unless he was an Abe Lincoln impersonator in full costume, I would venture a guess that this “hat” was a turban. It is possible that other chapeau’s could store potentially dangerous contraband, however none of them have the impressive square footage of your average turban. 3) Now I know how Dennis Kucinich has managed to travel across the country relative to his comical candidacy without having to ask all four of his campaign contributors to fork over the balance of their disability checks..
The story itself, taken from a CBS web site, oozes with liberal media “impartiality” disguised as cultural sensitivity. The article claims checking and searching “hats” is causing, “serious controversy, with many now asking, is it a necessary security measure or another act of racial profiling?”
A few points if I could: 1) “Serious controversy?” We are talking about CBS here, so they must be assuming that all ten of their viewers are engrossed with this “controversy”. 2) “Many?” How “many”? One is always considered “many” within the agenda driven drivel of the impartial media. 3) “Necessary?” Who, without an agenda under their “hat,” is questioning the necessity of security searches? If anyone needs help with this, I suppose what would make it “necessary” would be the nightmare of another granite or steel monument in the middle of a cornfield. One marking the spot where another “sensitively UN-searched terrorist” absent-mindedly stashed a cell phone and some C4 in his hat or upon his person, where upon it spontaneously went “boom” at 30,000 feet.
Why are we constantly apologizing for sensible security measures based on political correctness and more importantly, why is it necessary for innocent civilians to die BEFORE we implement additional common sense security measures? Are the “rights” of an easily offended solitary person of more importance than the collective rights of the two hundred other airline passengers?
One individuals imaginary “rights” cannot supplant the cumulative and overwhelming rights of a group. (In this case, by group I mean those gathered or accumulated within a confined area, not scattered across the world possessing some membership card with all the contact numbers for the ACLU on the back.) Especially when the individuals “right” (imaginary) is “not to be offended or upset” (You can find this “right” in the liberal’s version of the constitution right next to the section protecting abortion ) and the groups rights (genuine in this instance) are centered on security and safety. (Something you WILL find in the American Constitution.)
There are no constitutional rights to air travel. If you do not like the rules and regulations utilized by the airlines and the airports, consider carpooling with a liberal or two if you can shoehorn yourself into their hybrid car and if your olfactory senses and intelligence can withstand the assault.
Where is it written that one person has the right to bypass security measures in order to salvage what is left of that individuals “feelings” while potentially jeopardizing the safety of everyone else on board? There are a few places that come to mind where this style of writing is habitual: The New York Times, otherwise known as “The al-Qaeda House Organ” and the Democratic platform.
An attorney (surprise!) for the National Sikh Coalition believes the end result here is “profiling.” “Flying with Turban” takes its place along side “Driving while Black” as ridiculously infantile responses to lawful requests by those responsible for safety and security. This has nothing to do with the Sikh religion nor are there any subtle attempts to discriminate against any individual Sikh. ANYONE wearing a hot air balloon on his or her head should be subject to a through search.
It’s not as though there is anything obvious about being a Sikh. In order for this “religious exclusion to search” to be utilized, one simply needs to claim that “I am a Sikh” and all the comfortable liberal protections must immediately apply. There is no “proof” required other than ones word. There will not be any pop quizzes testing your Sikh knowledge: “Excuse me sir, could you tell me who Bhagat Kabir is and what he means to you?” No one at the terminal will ask: “Has your turban been out of your sight at any time while you have been at the airport? Has anyone packed your turban without your knowledge or consent? Did anyone ask you to wear a turban onto the plane for them?” Therefore, our new “sensitivity inspired security policy” is going to be: Taking everyone’s word for it that they will not be attempting or participating in, any terrorist activities while onboard the plane. On the up side, at least I can wear lace up shoes at the airport but on the down side, I think we are out the money we spent on all those metal detectors at the gates…
Unfortunately, “recent events” have changed how we must approach safety for everyone. It is not right to single out one person to be searched and it is not right for one person to be excluded based on the claim of religious insistence. There is nothing stopping the industrious Islamofascists from using this security sidestep if the practice of ignoring turbans for the sake of scalded sensitivities ever comes to fruition.
Sensitivity is quite the “hot button” issue here but the individual in this situation needs to understand the justifiable sensitivities of the overwhelming majority hoping to simply travel safely. Innocent citizens of this and other countries have been the unfortunate victims of a number of “hateful, insensitve” incidents involving airplanes and terrorism, so airport security is something the rest of us are more than just a little sensitive to. When the Islamofascists get wind of this security dodge, the sensitivities of the civilized travelers will still take precedence over the fictitious sensitivities of those standing in the “Terrorist self check out line, 100 infadels or less.”
According to the article, this “hat” is “part of their religion.” This strangely becomes a clarion call to the liberals who normally go into a fit of the vapors when religion is mentioned in their presence. Actually, it is just Christianity that sits atop their hit list. When any other religion or its acolytes are the “victims” of alleged wrong doing, suddenly there is great upheaval within the liberal world as “religion” mysteriously becomes sacrosanct and needs to be “protected.” This religious epiphany is only temporary, as the ever-vigilant liberal knows there is a cross, placed by some insensitive Christian, on a flag or on a mountain somewhere that is offending someone as we speak….
What a great relief it is to the sensitivity cabal that the TSA stated it “employs multiple checks and balances to ensure profiling does not happen.” Those of us with nothing to hide when boarding an airplane would appreciate “multiple checks and balances” to ensure that any and all terrorist scalawags miss out on the opportunity to be posthumously selected “Fanatic of the Month” or “Most Valuable Slayer” back at the “Mosque of the Fevered Brow.”
This is certainly not meant as an attack upon the Sikhs. This is certainly not meant to correlate the past actions of the Islamofascist terrorists with the members of the Sikh religion. This is not profiling nor is it discrimination. This is just another attempt to protect ALL airline passengers and to equally afford each of them the opportunity to reach their destination in the same condition as when they embarked upon their trip. Sensitivity is secondary to safety.