[Update November 24, 2010: I added two very strong clarifying comments to the bottom of this post. The first is in response to a dear brother’s question, “I can appreciate where you are coming from in this article but I must ask, how does this advance the cause of Christ?” In short, my response to him—included in an edited form within my comment at the bottom of this article—is that once we loose our First Amendment rights of Freedom of Religion in one area, it is only a matter of time before we loose them across the board and the Gospel cannot be spread freely. The second comment that I posted makes it very clearly that it is patently unbiblical to submit to “antichrist” type agendas. Such behavior will ALWAYS lead to a loss of religious liberties; and this would also eventually lead to the loss of life as well, as the citations from the Book of Revelation within that comment make very clear.]
Let me begin this article by pointing out very honestly that I am extremely angry. However, I will make every effort to tone down my truly “righteous indignation” and communicate my points clearly and with due sobriety.
Nevertheless, the recent unconstitutional usurpation of individual rights by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) within the United States of America has me angry. But more than that, the overt apathy of the docile “sheep” who submit to such violations of their God-given and Constitutionally protected personal liberties has me especially ticked off.
So it is my stated purpose of this article to use the Bible, history, and sound logic, to encourage other U.S. citizens in general—and Christians in particular—to get similarly angry about these ungodly abuses.
As Un-American as Nazi-Strudel
One of the phrases often used within the United States regarding our culture is, “As American as apple pie.” However, the behavior of the TSA and executive branch of the Federal government is far more akin to being, “As Un-American as Nazi-era apple strudel.” We are being forced to choose between:
- Being photographed naked by digital imaging technology that also subjects us to radiation, or
- Being fondled and groped within our crotch and other private areas by another person against our will, or
- Being thrown into jail for refusing either of these indignities, if we have already entered the “secure screening area”, or
- Being subjected to the inconvenience and/or financial loss that comes from simply not flying a commercial airliner anymore.
And I, for one, am fed up with this course of events.
Declaring Our Independence
The United States was founded upon a document entitled, “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America;” but which is most commonly referred to simply as The Declaration of Independence. Through this, our nation was born and became a free people. Further, this text clearly states upon what moral foundation our society claimed its independence, and indicated that this same foundation would be the cornerstone of the new Republic. It begins as follows (emphasis added):
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
And included among those intolerable acts by the King, listed by our Founding Fathers, are the following atrocities. For your benefit, and to contextualize these evils with modern events, I have added [in brackets] what modern “laws” and conditions exist today in similar fashion:
…He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. [e.g. The TSA, Department of Homeland Security, and DEA—all of which have at times used dictatorial authority at will, and often without affording us our Constitutionally guaranteed due process of law to ensure our rights are not violated by tyranny.]
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. [e.g. The increasing numbers of Federal police and law-enforcement personnel in our cities and towns, often without State government consent.]
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. [e.g. Usurped states’ duly elected local governments of their authority through Federal mandates, which is then enforced by Federal agents.]
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:… [e.g. NATO and UN troops doing “training exercises” within our own U.S. cities and towns; signing of UN treaties that undermine U.S. and state sovereignty; etc..]
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:… [e.g. TSA agents are currently immune from all criminal and civil law, which their “search procedures” all violate, and it is nearly impossible to even get an agent fired for perpetrating obvious offenses to U.S. citizens.]
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: [e.g. George W. Bush’s “Patriot Act” which allows the executive branch to arbitrarily declare U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and then torture them in Guantanamo Bay as terrorists without a trial, as happened under his tenure repeatedly.]
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:… [see above example]
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:… [e.g. passing “laws” that are clearly unconstitutional; creating Federal agencies, such as the TSA, who can write their own “regulations” that clearly do the same; etc.]
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever…. [e.g. The TSA chief and U.S. Attorney General telling us we “lose our rights” by simply buying an airplane ticket, or should surrender our rights to free travel in order to protect our other rights and dignity.]
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. [Amen.]
And in concluding their address to the despotic tyrant, they finish with this solemn pledge of fidelity to the principles upon which their actions are founded:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
“Patriots” or Pawns?
So upon what did good ol’ King George base his “authority” to oppress the Colonists and create such an uproar? Simple. He passed “The Patriot Act” to force the Americans to surrender their dignity and civil liberties. About two hundred years later, another “George” did the same thing, effectively creating a semi-dictatorship in America. One noted law professor explained it this way, as is recorded within “Bush Claims More Powers Than King George III, Constitutional Scholar David Adler Contends.” This quote is taken from a press release back on May 27, 2008:
The Bush administration has arrogated powers to itself that the British people even refused to grant King George III at the time of the Revolutionary War, an eminent political scientist says.
“No executive in the history of the Anglo-American world since the Civil War in England in the 17th century has laid claim to such broad power,” said David Adler, a prolific author of articles on the U.S. Constitution. “George Bush has exceeded the claims of Oliver Cromwell who anointed himself Lord Protector of England.”
Adler, a professor of political science at Idaho State University at Pocatello, is the author of “The Constitution and the Termination of Treaties”(Taylor & Francis), among other books, and some 100 scholarly articles in his field. Adler made his comments comparing the powers of President Bush and King George III at a conference on “Presidential Power in America” at the Massachusetts School of Law, Andover, April 26th.
Adler said, Bush has “claimed the authority to suspend the Geneva Convention, to terminate treaties, to seize American citizens from the streets to detain them indefinitely without benefit of legal counseling, without benefit of judicial review. He has ordered a domestic surveillance program which violates the statutory law of the United States as well as the Fourth Amendment.”
Adler said the authors of the U.S. Constitution wrote that the president “shall take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land” because “the king of England possessed a suspending power” to set aside laws with which he disagreed, “the very same kind of power that the Bush Administration has claimed.”…
“In these last eight years,” Adler said, “we have seen presidential powers soar beyond the confines of the Constitution. We have understood that his presidency bears no resemblance to the Office created by the Framers… This is the time for us to demand a return to the constitutional presidency. If we don’t, we will have only ourselves to blame as we go marching into the next war as we witness even greater claims of presidential power.”…
And where were we Christians when this happened? Most of us had supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 elections, so we figured we were in “safe hands” by handing such dictatorial power to “our guy.”
This idea proved to be stupid, however, as it forgot that the Constitution was written to protect us ALL from whoever is in the White House. Now that President Obama wields that same power—and his cronies are groping men, women, children, and even nuns, at “security” check points—many of us are beginning to wake up to the fact that administrations DO change, and that unconstitutionally strong government power is probably NOT a great idea after all.
Freedom of Movement
Even the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees says in Article 26 thereof that, “Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances.”
So the USA, which signed this treaty, has agreed that refugees can move around freely within its boarders. Um, can that perhaps be because such a thing is an “inalienable right” of all people? If so, why would it not apply to U.S. citizens too?
The Declaration of Independence citation above made it clear that GOD Almighty Himself has endowed ALL humans with certain inalienable rights. The word “inalienable” means, “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” according to the Legal Dictionary on Dictionary.com. In short, God gave us certain rights as human beings, and these rights are both self-evident and inseparable from us as individuals. (And this applies to any person, regardless of race, religion, or nationality.)
Furthermore, the United States of America has a Constitution, which is supposed to be the “highest law of the land.” From this foundational legal framework given to us by our Founding Fathers, all other laws are to be subordinate and must derive their authority. In other words, the Founding Fathers knew we had God-given rights that are inalienable, and they formed a Constitutional framework for our Republic that they believed would guarantee those same rights and freedoms to U.S. citizens and residents.
However, the so-called “U.S. Attorney General,” Janet Napolitano, (who not only is a lawyer, but who also swore to “uphold” the Constitution) and the TSA Chief, John S. Pistole, do not agree with either the Founding Fathers or our need for Constitutionally guaranteed rights. As far as they are concerned, we can all drive our cars or “take a bus or train” if we want to get anywhere with our dignity and rights intact. (And how long will we be able to do even that if this trend continues?)
So let’s take a look at a few points and see just how many “inalienable” rights we are being forced to abdicate if we want to take a commercial plane somewhere:
The American legal precept of “innocent until proven guilty” is being uprooted.
At present, people are presumed “guilty” (i.e. to be terrorists, criminals, or murderers) until we “prove” ourselves to be innocent through invasive and overreaching government intrusions into our body parts (and families). This is not only “Un-American;” it also reduces us to being mere cattle, to be easily controlled by the government for “our good” instead of according to constitutional legal principles.
Such behavior disregards the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
That amendment states clearly, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Sure, there may be “probable cause” if a person is dressed with suspiciously baggy clothing, and looking around like a paranoid schizophrenic—especially if happens to fit a known profile of a terrorist or a wanted-criminal. However, even then a judge-issued “warrant” is required if the person does not willingly submit to the search. And for the rest of us, it is quite “unreasonable” to search our “persons” with such blanket scrutiny, and it clearly undermines our 4th Amendment Constitutional rights.
This was added to the Constitution in order to protect our liberties from an over-reaching governmental authority, as our Founding Fathers knew firsthand could eventually occur.
This also disregards our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
I am not only referring to Muslims, but also Christians and Jewish people as well. The Bible declares nudity before someone other than a spouse (or perhaps a doctor) to be a “shame.” Here are only two examples:
And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies): Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’s side?
Your nakedness shall be uncovered, yes, your shame will be seen…
(Exodus 32:25-26; Isaiah 47:3).
The TSA procedure DOES “promise” that only same-sex people will view the naked body scans or perform this heinous grope of people’s body parts (e.g. men on men, and women on women). But the Bible certainly does not support another man fondling a man’s privates, or a woman fondling the breasts and crotch of another woman, does it? So several issues/questions come readily to mind:
- Could more “mistakes” and “errors” occur where opposite gender people are seeing these images?
- How do they ensure that same “gender preference” individuals do the pornography viewing of our bodies or groping of our private areas? In other words, is the TSA ensuring that NO homosexuals or lesbians are viewing or fondling their same-sex passengers? (Apparently not, as a note further below will explain.)
- Did the “Lust of the Flesh” (i.e. groping body parts), the “Lust of the Eyes” (i.e. porno scanners of our bodies), and the “Pride of Life” somehow cease to exist for TSA agents the moment they put on their uniforms? The New Testament says that one or more of these three elements are at the root of any and all kinds of sin (1 John 2:16). So are these TSA screening agents no longer human, and no longer subject to being “excited” by such images and/or physical contact? We already know from experience and observation that TSA agents (and their superiors) are full of arrogance and tend to “power trip”—so the “Pride of Life” factor is surely still at work, is it not? What does that say about the other two?
- Does child molestation become legal simply because the person doing the heinous act is a TSA agent?
The absurdity—and obvious opportunity for sexual perversion or exploitation—should be clearly seen for what it is. And if you doubt whether this might be a genuine concern or not, please consider what one female ABC News employee went through when her “female” TSA screener decided to feel round within her underwear, as is described within this disturbing article from ABC News. Then think how you want yourself, your spouse, and your kids, to be treated when you travel.
Regardless of what YOU think or believe, MY religious beliefs give me a conscience and conviction that refuses to participate in this obscenity. My family shares the same beliefs as well. So do my wife and children and I now no longer qualify to purchase air-transportation services within the “home of the free and brave” because we refuse to have ourselves molested?
So why does a simple business transaction (i.e. exchanging money for air transportation services) qualify as justification to set aside our natural God-given rights AND Constitutional rights?
A police state without Constitutional limitations is forming within the USA.
Israel has far more “threats” to its sovereignty and existence than the USA could imagine having against it, and yet nobody has to go through such intrusive screening processes without proper due process of law. EVEN the Taliban are treated with more respect and personal dignity in Afghanistan by our coalition forces than US citizens are by its own government at the airport.
What some gullible Americans are tolerating (and some perverted ones are even advocating) is WORSE than the “yoke of slavery” that Patrick Henry and our other freedom-loving founding fathers were willing to fight—and to even die fighting—in order to remove such abuses from off of their necks. And this brings me to my eschatological point:
Peace and Safety
The abundant “sheep” who seem so ever willing to subject themselves to this inhumane treatment are emphatically concerned with getting “peace and safety” when they fly. They obviously do not realize that such is the promise given by the Antichrist in exchange for slavery. The Holy Spirit warned:
“While they are saying, ‘Peace and safety!’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.”
(1 Thessalonians 5:3, NASB)
The Greek word translated “safety” therein is the word asphaleia (Strong’s# 803) and means, “security from enemies and danger” (Thayer’s Lexicon). So in short, the Antichrist will “sell” his despotic rule on the populations within his jurisdiction in-part by promising them government-ensured “security from enemies and danger” such as terrorists.
You may want to read up on Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Then you will discover that his totalitarian reign of terror was proceeded by manufactured “security threats”—through which he was able to convince the population to turn over all their guns and civil liberties so that he (and the Gestapo) could “take care of them” and keep them “safe.”
However, the 12 million dead people—to include Jewish people (6 million), Christian pastors and church leaders, political dissidents, “undesirables” (such as homosexuals), and many others—who were murdered within concentration camps and by other means, should confirm to you that this is a bad idea indeed.
I am a former U.S. Marine. I know what security is. I know what it means to carry a loaded M-16 A2 riffle on guard duty, and why “standing orders” are used to ensure that Marines do their job. So I can certainly accept “security” when it is “reasonable” and Constitutional.
Nevertheless, I REFUSE to give up either my dignity or Constitutional rights in exchange for some alleged “security.”
It really does NOT bother me if the person sitting next to me on the airplane was not given an intrusive and unconstitutional “pat-down” grope by an unaccountable TSA agent (which is really a frisk, and not a mere pat-down, by the way). Nor would it bother me if his God-given and Constitutional rights were not violated by his being digitally “undressed” in a naked body scan. To be sure, I will be just fine and content if the following security measures have been performed:
- His carry-on and checked luggage was scanned for explosives and weapons;
- Bomb-sniffing dogs were used to double-check the cargo before loading it into the plane;
- A metal detector scan was performed to ensure that he is not armed with anything that I am not.
Now, if some guy next to me or in a nearby seat, decides to try and blow up the airplane with explosives in his underwear or shoes, I have a contingency plan with which I am perfectly a peace. I will simply beat him to within an inch of his life (as most passengers since 9-11 are willing to do, or at least to call someone else over to do for them) and pin his unconscious body to the floor until an air marshal gets over there to handcuff him.
Any further security that I need can be provided by God Almighty Himself, as He has “commanded His angels concerning me to guard me in all my ways” (Psalm 91). I am also very willing to step off this planet,(with my family if they are with me) and into God’s presence—for I am very assured of my salvation through Jesus Christ, and my family and I would all consider it to be a promotion.
However, I simply refuse to surrender any of my God-given rights or dignity, under some pretense to get more “security” from an unaccountable and unrestrained government agent or agency. Period.
Benjamin Franklin was similarly minded on such issues. In contrast to some of the ludicrous apathy being shown by some towards their civil liberties (and the civil liberties of others, including women, children, the elderly, and nuns). Franklin was steadfast that security was NOT something to be purchased with liberty. The following excerpt from Wikiquote.org explains his position very well:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.
An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard’s Almanac (1738): Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.
Well said, Ben. Well said.
In closing, please consider first the following video segments for additional information and education.
The first is from Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch program, as he interviews Congressman Ron Paul about these issues and the two discuss Dr. Paul’s new legislation, the American Traveler Dignity Act (H.R. 6416):
Now the following video reveals about how New Jersey state lawmakers are tackling this situation:
In the light of this article and all the links and videos above, I exhort you to consider the similarities between the current TSA regulations and:
- Those of both the Thirteen Colonies during the Revolutionary period, and
- Nazi Germany’s infamous practices in more recent history.
Then give some serious consideration and prayer about where you should stand on these issues. I am hoping you will decide that serving an antichrist agenda at the airport, or anywhere else, is not an option for you and your family either. If so, then make your voice heard in some way also, as the Lord directs.
Always in Jesus,