Undoctrination.org

For as cliché as it is to call the government “Orwellian” or to refer to “Big Brother”, it has become impossible not to. And yet, it is in daring to honestly address the complete disregard for our Constitution that the greatest danger lies. The TSA’s search techniques are so overreaching and unconstitutional that even former TSA security director Mo McGowan admits that they are in violation of the 4th Amendment. He goes on to defend this unabashed assault on the rights endowed by our Creator as necessary— as though an exchange of freedom for security is even possible, let alone justified.

He is far from alone in this opinion—even more horrifying, he seems to be in the majority when it comes to those who carry the most authority in matters of national security. In response to the public outcry about the full body scanners, the TSA and DHS have teamed up to draft a memorandum referring to dissenters as “domestic extremists”. With an administration that whitewashes Bush’s euphemistic references to Islamic Extremists by eliminating all traces of the true motive behind terrorists, the purpose of this label is clear: the Patriot Act designed to protect the American people from terrorists now allows them to be treated as such.

Blogger Mac Slavo describes the DHS directive thusly:

“The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.”

Even more dangerous to America’s chances of returning to a Constitutionally-based government is that the amount of effort needed to silence dissenters is minimal. There simply aren’t enough informed Americans that are willing to speak up—and weren’t, even before they risked being equated to terrorists for doing so.

Our republic has become a nation of men too fearful of tyranny to denounce it. In Orwell’s 1984, the simple act of taking a pen to paper to describe one’s government was a “thoughtcrime” so dangerous that it didn’t even need to be made illegal in order to be discouraged. To outspokenly defend the Constitution that our elected officials are sworn to uphold, we are committing the same act of defiance—with the only difference being that the Thought Police have authority to send you to Guantanamo Bay instead of the Ministry of Love for your interrogation. It is no wonder that so many would rather try to make the best of their lives than to rock the boat and risk retribution.

Much of our docile nature can be blamed on the false perception that the First Amendment remains intact and that surely the government would not punish Americans for exercising their right to free speech. Indeed, that there are such a wide range of opinions available in old media (i.e. radio, print, and television) does seem to point toward the rule of the almighty dollar superseding that of the government’s authority. This is false—though not in the “left-wing media bias” way that some may believe.

There remains a finite amount of places available as professional dissenters, ordinarily no more than three or four. Right now those positions could fairly be listed as including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones. Set aside your personal opinions for a moment, and focus instead of why they are permitted to have such tremendous power in influencing public opinion.

Though these men are often lumped together as elements of the fringe whose views lie outside of the mainstream, each have attained their tremendous success because of the things that make them so different. The overlap in their disgust with the progressives, socialists, and communists is clear—as are the controversies used to discredit them.

What their critics—professional, civilian, and ruling alike—can also see clearly is that they are polarizing figures whose ideas can be easily dismissed if attached to the speaker himself. Any prominent figure carries with him the baggage attached to their identity and politics, and whether through brands such as “birther”, “religious zealot”, “truther” or the ever-popular “racist/islamophobe/homophobe”; or by dismissal of their predictions and theories, it is easy for the establishment of both sides to remind the public that these wingnuts aren’t to be taken seriously. Many so-called libertarians proudly proclaim their moderation by specifying that they “aren’t (Ron) Paultards”, as though it would be something to be ashamed of if they were.

Indeed, some of their theories and reporting to occasionally end up proven to be untrue or flawed. This is intrinsic in their value to those who would otherwise wish to silence them. Every time that Jones pauses from his crusade against the TSA to claim that Bush was behind 9/11, his enemies lean back and smile at his folly. Similarly, when Beck reports on a $200M/day trip by Obama that will cost less than 1/20th of that figure, the error is held up as an exception that proves the rule—as though the countless other news stories he has broken are some how negated. Such issues, whether the result of the speaker’s organic views or by stories deliberately leaked serve the purpose of helping to destroy their credibility.

Though the predictions of Limbaugh, Beck, and Jones are correct nine times out of 10, they are dismissed just as often. It is in this regard that the limitations of our supposed freedom of speech become apparent. The reason that men such as Limbaugh, Beck, and Jones are permitted to remain on center stage is that we have been well-trained to dismiss them as kooks. When the mainstream media carries a segment on these men, the result is a modern-day version of the Two Minute Hate. In giving them the freedom to reach such a vast audience and acquire such large followings, the government is able to do something far worse than silencing them.

Similarly, the informed public is silenced—not in that they are restricted from expressing their views, but that they have so few who will listen to them. Freedom of speech is meaningless unless with it comes the freedom to communicate. Average Americans who dare speak out might as well be screaming silently as one does in a nightmare—for they are in one. And soon, they will not even have a silent scream to comfort them and help keep them sane.

In spite of a lack of Congressional authority to do so, the FCC plans to vote in December to grant itself authority to regulate the internet. The collectivist left has long dreamt of a way to silence the threat that unrestricted political speech poses to their agenda. Just as the EPA, IRS, and TSA have evaded both congressional and Constitutional checks on their authority, the FCC also plans to have unquestionable power to make laws and also to enforce them. Not only will dissent in the name of the Constitution carry with it inherent danger, it will become exponentially more difficult. The end result is not only one a nation of cowards too afraid to call out to warn others of the threat facing them, they will find themselves unable to do so at all.

While it is tempting to close with a solution, there isn’t one to offer. But never forget that, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” A violation of the 4th Amendment is unconstitutional—and to every American who respects the Constitution on which our republic was built, it is also unacceptable.

Recognize the wolves, and cry out that you see them.