Searches Show A Contempt For Americans

By Thomas Sowell 

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com  No country has better airport security than Israel — and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. 

Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?
"Security" may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. 

Can you remember a time when a cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his "foot on the neck" of some business or when the president of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens' anatomy? 

Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One cabinet member warned that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech? 

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways.
What other administration has had an attorney general call the Americans P "cowards"? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a secretary of homeland security warn law enforcement officials of security threats from people who are anti-abortion, for federalism or are returning military veterans?

If anything good comes out of the airport "security" outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people. Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama's long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger's hand in their crotch. 


As for the excuse of "security," this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico — and then released on their own recognizance within the U.S., that tells you all you need to know about this administration's concern for security.

When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security.

The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them.
Not many people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families exposed to revenge by the terrorists' bloodthirsty comrades.

What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter — and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.

Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned "profiling" into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning.
Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned. 

SOURCE:

Jewish World Review Nov 23, 2010 / 16 Kislev, 5771  Thomas Sowell Archives

Obama Administration Threatens Independence of Catholic Colleges

For Immediate Release

November 2, 2010
Obama Administration Threatens Independence of Catholic Colleges

Manassas, Va. -- In its latest threat to the religious liberty and independence of Catholic colleges and universities, the Obama administration has issued new regulations that open the door to possible state intrusion into curriculum, student policies and hiring decisions.

The regulations issued Friday effectively force many states to increase oversight of postsecondary education through state chartering or licensing, which is a necessary condition for colleges to participate in federal student aid programs.

Most Catholic colleges accept low-cost federal student loans and grants. If forced to forego federal aid, these colleges would be at a disadvantage in recruiting students.

"The door is opened for state politicians and bureaucrats who would impose their social agendas on private and religious colleges," warned Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society.

"Already the Obama administration has seized direct ownership of student loans, and now a college's eligibility for student loans is subject to the political whims of its state legislators and regulators. Many states have demonstrated callous disregard for the religious identity of Catholic colleges, from mandating contraceptive coverage in student and employee health plans to requiring employee benefits for same-sex couples."

Although the Higher Education Act has long required state authorization for a college to participate in federal aid programs, many states do not aggressively monitor colleges and their consent was assumed unless otherwise reported to the U.S. Education Department. The new regulations require state approval of colleges "by name" and a state process "to review and appropriately act on" complaints about any approved institution.

When issuing the regulations Friday, the Education Department acknowledged that it had received complaints from college leaders that "a State's role may extend into defining, for example, curriculum, teaching methods, subject matter content, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes." Others feared that states might "impose homogeneity upon institutions that would compromise their unique missions."

In response, federal officials agreed that the new regulations do "not limit a State's oversight of institutions."

Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, must cover birth control in its employee health insurance plan despite the college's religious objections. An appeal to the EEOC is under review.

Catholic colleges and students may also not be protected from similar mandates for abortion and contraceptive insurance coverage under the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—i.e., President Obama's health care overhaul.

After the EEOC ruling against Belmont Abbey College, The Cardinal Newman Society launched its project to defend the religious liberty of Catholic colleges through its division, The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education. The Center published three papers—from experts in law, health insurance and ethics—to help Catholic colleges defend against government mandates for employee health benefits that violate Catholic morality.

Later this month, the Center will release a new legal analysis prepared by a prominent legal interest organization on steps Catholic colleges must take to defend themselves against increasing threats to their Catholic identity.

# # #

This press release is also online here.