Inside the Minds of Hillary Clinton and the TSA

Inside the Minds of Hillary Clinton and the TSA

People say that if we allow the threat of terrorism to affect how we live, the terrorists will have already won. Hillary Clinton seems to agree.

As if anyone would dare to touch the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton–or want to–our Secretary of State made it vividly clear on Sunday’s “Deface the Nation” and on “Meet the Depressed,” (sorry, Rush). that no one will get the opportunity. It’s unclear whether she included hubby Bill Clinton in that declaration, not that it would much matter to Bill.

Mouthing platitudes about the unfortunate necessity of invasive pat-downs and naked body scans at airports, the former first lady, ever hopeful of squatting in the same Oval Office as the nation’s first Presidentress where hubby Bubba was, umm, serviced by Monica Lewinsky, was actually implying the need for allegedly-unconstitutional profiling.

Hillary said that we clearly need tighter security but that ways should be found ”to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” and that she empathized with “how offensive it must be” for some people to undergo the searches. What America needs is “the right balance” in order to “get it better and less intrusive and more precise.”

She then added the non-PC kicker in response to a query as to whether she would submit to a pat-down. ”Not if I could avoid it,” she said, smiling, ”No. I mean, who would?” (http://tiny.cc/ibxtj)

Let’s do a little Hillary-Speak parsing here since, apparently, she doesn’t see the practicality of the purported, creative, very effective but explosive Israeli idea on eliminating airborne terrorist attacks–and the terrorists, themselves :http://tiny.cc/dzzav

First of all, limiting ”the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” could only be accomplished by TSA hands-on employees drawing rational conclusions on whom to pat-down and whose naked bodies to surveil. They would have to distinguish between the swarthy or non-swarthy, between the snarling or non-snarling, between potential suicide bombers and kids, nuns, elders, and just your average travellers out to pay a final visit to grandma before she shuffles off this mortal globe.

That would be a relatively simple task for the TSA but our government forbids it. Profiling is deemed a far worse offense than humiliating the public or, for that matter, blowing the public out of the skies.

Secondly, . . .
(Read more at People say that if we allow the threat of terrorism to affect how we live, the terrorists will have already won. Hillary Clinton seems to agree.

As if anyone would dare to touch the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton–or want to–our Secretary of State made it vividly clear on Sunday’s “Deface the Nation” and on “Meet the Depressed,” (sorry, Rush). that no one will get the opportunity. It’s unclear whether she included hubby Bill Clinton in that declaration, not that it would much matter to Bill.

Mouthing platitudes about the unfortunate necessity of invasive pat-downs and naked body scans at airports, the former first lady, ever hopeful of squatting in the same Oval Office as the nation’s first Presidentress where hubby Bubba was, umm, serviced by Monica Lewinsky, was actually implying the need for allegedly-unconstitutional profiling.

Hillary said that we clearly need tighter security but that ways should be found ”to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” and that she empathized with “how offensive it must be” for some people to undergo the searches. What America needs is “the right balance” in order to “get it better and less intrusive and more precise.”

She then added the non-PC kicker in response to a query as to whether she would submit to a pat-down. ”Not if I could avoid it,” she said, smiling, ”No. I mean, who would?” (http://tiny.cc/ibxtj)

Let’s do a little Hillary-Speak parsing here since, apparently, she doesn’t see the practicality of the purported, creative, very effective but explosive Israeli idea on eliminating airborne terrorist attacks–and the terrorists, themselves :http://tiny.cc/dzzav

First of all, limiting ”the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” could only be accomplished by TSA hands-on employees drawing rational conclusions on whom to pat-down and whose naked bodies to surveil. They would have to distinguish between the swarthy or non-swarthy, between the snarling or non-snarling, between potential suicide bombers and kids, nuns, elders, and just your average travellers out to pay a final visit to grandma before she shuffles off this mortal globe.

That would be a relatively simple task for the TSA but our government forbids it. Profiling is deemed a far worse offense than humiliating the public or, for that matter, blowing the public out of the skies.

Secondly, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2770)