As controversy persists to swirl around the TSA's latest intrusive screening procedures, finger pointers from both ends of the political spectrum are hard at work blaming each other for giving birth to the one federal bureaucracy that has become a poster child for the tyrannical apparatus known as the police state.

The so-called "left" has been quick to point out that the TSA came into existence during the tenure of Republican President George W. Bush, who signed the agency into existence in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.  They also like to remind us that it was under the Bush administration that Homeland Security director, Michael Chertoff, laid the groundwork for the proliferation of "full body scanners" throughout our nation's airports.

Those on the so-called "right" have been just as quick to point out that the creation of the TSA was facilitated through the "Aviation and Transportation Security Act," a bill that was sponsored by a Democratic Senator, Fritz Hollings, and co-sponsored by 22 of his fellow Democrats (of course there were also 8 Republican co-sponsors to that bill, but conservatives aren't so quick to point that out).  They also like to remind us that it was Obama's TSA director, John Pistole, who introduced the "enhanced pat-downs" that have become the focus of so many 4^th amendment protests being reported this holiday season.

So, who was to blame?  Certainly, both parties were responsible for bringing the TSA into existence.  Even if the "Aviation and Transportation Security Act" were largely a brainchild of the Democrats, the bill faced virtually no opposition as it raced through the Republican controlled house.  From there, it went on to the floor of the senate—where it was passed by a unanimous vote—before being sent it off to the President for his enthusiastic approval.  

So there you have it.  In the immortal words of former Alabama Governor, George Wallace: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats."

Everyone seems to be missing the point.  The birth of the TSA was merely a reaction to the events that took place on September 11, 2001.  By now, we should be used to the fact that both political parties will use any crisis as an excuse to expand the power of the federal government.  When put in that perspective, it really has becomes of little significance as to who penned the legistlation, who signed it, or who ended up expanding the programs into the paranoid mechanism of control that it has evolved into.  More important are the catalysing series of events that occurred on 9/11 that caused politicians to react in the way that they did.  Whoever is responsible for those attacks are the ones we should be blaming for giving us the TSA.

So who were they?  If you want to believe the official story that the government gives us, then I suppose you believe that 19 radical Muslims hijacked 4 planes and flew two of them into the World Trade Center towers, one into the Pentagon and one into the ground.  If that's what you want to believe, fine.  Let's suspend all disbelief and pretend that's precisely what happened. 

If 19 radical Muslims were responsible for the attacks, you've got to ask youself what their beef was with the United States?  If you want to take George W. Bush's word for it, then I suppose you believe that "they hate us for our freedoms."

Come on, Folks, do you really buy that?  No one hates freedom.  As living beings, we are born with an inherent love of freedom.  Why do you think toddlers cry when you take their toys away?  Why do children pout when you turn off their TV and tell them it's time for bed?  It's because you're infringing upon their freedoms.  And that love of freedom is not just something confined to the human species.  Animals love their freedom too.  Why do dogs jump fences?  Why do raccoons chew off their legs to be sprung from a hunter's snare?    As we grow older, we learn to adapt to controls and limitations society places upon us, but we never lose that inherent love of freedom. 

Do you think Muslims are any different?  Perhaps you do.  We are constantly fed endless propaganda that characterizes Muslims as something otherworldly.  One of the more common theatrics offered to us in the mainstream media are the large crowds of angry Muslims burning effigies and chanting—or carrying signs that read—"Death to America!"  That's always bound to stir a reaction out of the English only speaking American voter, who rarely ventures outside his or her living room.

For centuries, the burning of effigies has been a legitimate form of peaceful protest.  It is a symbolic gesture of odium that has been traditionally carried out by people of all faiths and ethnicities.  It is intended as to be loud and visually compelling.  But it is still a peaceful expression of outrage.  In the United States, this form of expression has become uncommon.  Propagandists take advantage of the American public's ignorance in this regard and portray the demonstrations as overtures to violent acts.  These unfamiliar images are edited into a montage to ellicit a pavlovian response, intent on making the viewer feel threatened.   

What propagandists also intentionally fail to explain to you is that the word "Death" is a common slur used by Arabs and Persians in the same manner that we use "Hell" or "Damn."  If you or I get caught in traffic, we may say "Damn this traffic, I'm getting off at the next exit!"  An Arab will respond in the same way, except he might say "Death to this traffic!"  Or, if a Persian woman in Tehran get's an article of clothing back from the dry cleaner—but finds a new stain that wasn't there when she ndropped it off—she may very well exclaim "Death to that dry cleaner"  in the same manner that you and I might exclaim "To Hell with that dry cleaner!"

The language barrier between Americans and people of other nations is perhaps one of the greatest tools propagandists use to manipulate minds into adopting biased attitudes and prejudices against their enemies.  Because the word "Death" is not considered to be one of the many slurs used in the English language, the phrase "Death to America" is taken quite literally by American audiences.  This stirs us all the wrong kinds of emotions, and terrorizes the gullible into fearing for their very lives. 

Once we allow ourselves to believe that a significant percentage of the world's population is intent on carrying out a campaign of genocide against the rest of us, we begin to adopt those attitudes ourselves.  Our fears give way to an ‘Us Vs. Them' mentality, and we respond to our perceived enemies with even greater threats of our own.

Naviagte through any number of the more popular internet hate sites sponsored by Fox News, the American Thinker or the Washington Times.  Follow any one of the countless Islamophobic articles you'll find there to the comments section at the bottom of the page.  There you will find dirty walls, spray painted with hate speech and anti-Islamic threats that go far beyond the use of slurs like "Hell" or Damn."  Calls for the extermination of "Them Moozlims" and turning their nations into "Glass parking lots" are far more common than any kind of figurative condemnation.  And these comments are coming from people who have never suffered at the hands of a foreign invader.  They may relate—peripherally—to the loss of American lives as a result of the attacks on 9/11, but they have not personally lost a loved one, had their homes destroyed, or been displaced after a military operation levelled the village they grew up in.

But those angry Muslims you see burning effigies in the streets have lost loved ones and friends.  They have had their homes demolished and have been forced to live like nomads as they move what's left of their families to the few remaining places of refuge that exist in an otherwise barren wasteland of death and destruction.

When they chant "Death to America," they are—in effect—saying "Damn you America!  Damn you for killing our children!  Damn you for stepping foot on our sacred soil and laying waste to what our ancestors took centuries to build!" 

And when they speak of "America," they are not speaking about you and I.  They are speaking about our leadership.  It is our leadership that has carried out this abominable foreign policy that has claimed over a million lives and created a living hell for millions more.

In his book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," Michael Scheuer, the former station chief assigned to the CIA's "Osama Bin Laden Task Force" writes:

"Osama Doesn't Hate Our Freedom: The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society."

Then there's this:  In 2007, during a Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina, Rudolph Guliani and Ron Paul squared off on the root causes of terrorism.  It was an explosive exchange.  After Guliani falsely accused Ron Paul of suggesting "that we invited the attack [on 9/11]because we were attacking Iraq," Paul responded by saying:

"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"

The recently deceased Chalmers Johnson, a former consultant for the CIA, university professor and author of the book "Blowback," says the same thing in an article entitled "The Lessons of Blowback," penned just three weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

 "We must recognize that the terrorism of Sept. 11 was not directed against America but against American foreign policy."

Do you need more confirmation?  How about the conclusions reached in this unclassified study; published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004:

"Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.  Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

So, now that we have determined that our foreign policy is what the Muslims find so objectionable, the next step is to determine who it is that dictates that foreign policy.  I think you know where I'm going with this.

There is no larger, more influential lobby operating in Washington D.C. than the American Israeli Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC).  While most other lobbies campaign on behalf of America's domestic issues, AIPAC lobbies exclusively on behalf of Israel.  What makes this lobby unique from other foreign lobbies is that they have refused to register as agents of a foreign power.  There have been attempts to force them to register, but those efforts have thus far failed. 

Their power over our politicians has become even greater in recent years with the passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law that came into effect in 2003.  Jeff Gates, author of the book, "Guilt By Association-How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War," explains how this works:

"The influence-peddling process works like this. Candidates are summoned for in-depth AIPAC interviews. Those found sufficiently committed to Israel's agenda are provided a list of donors likely to "max out" their campaign contributions. Or the process can be made even easier when AIPAC-approved candidates are given the name of a "bundler."

Bundlers raise funds from the Diaspora and bundle those contributions to present them to the candidate. No quid pro quo need be mentioned. After McCain-Feingold became law in 2003, AIPAC-identified bundlers could raise $1 million-plus for AIPAC-approved candidates simply by contacting ten like-minded supporters. Here's the math:

 The bundler and spouse "max out" for $9,200 and call ten others, say in Manhattan, Miami, and Beverly Hills. Each of them max out ($10 x $9,200) and call ten others for a total of 11. [111 x $9,200 = $1,021,200.]

Imagine the incentive to do well in the AIPAC interview. One call from the lobby and a candidate can collect enough cash to mount a credible campaign in most Congressional districts. From Tel Aviv's perspective, that political leverage is leveraged yet again because fewer than ten percent of the 435 House races are competitive in any election cycle (typically 35 to 50).

Additional force-multipliers come from: (a) sustaining this financial focus over multiple cycles, (b) using funds to gain and retain seniority for those serving on Congressional committees key to promoting Israeli goals, and (c) opposing any candidates who question those goals."

But don't just take his word for it.  In a 2006 letter to AIPAC supporters, then-President Howard Friedman boastfully writes:

"AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship--so it's clear where they stand on the subject."

"Members of Congress, staffers and administration officials have come to rely on AIPACs memos. They are VERY busy people and they know that they can count on AIPAC for clear-eyed analysis. We present this information in concise form to elected officials. The information and analyses are impeccable--after all our reputation is at stake. This results in policy and legislation that make up Israel's lifeline."

Every conflict that is being waged in the Middle East, by the United States, is done so on behalf of what Israel believes is necessary to insure its security.  Israel will not feel safe until it has completely taken over the region.  That includes Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.  Israel also relies on the United States to veto any resolution by the UN that holds Israel responsible for the atrocities it commits against the people of Palestine. 

George W. Bush told us that the reason we invaded Iraq was to liberate its people and destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.  But this was a lie. 

First of all, faulty intelligence provided by Israel overstated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, as reported by retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.

 "Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the US and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability."

"It badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed."

The real reason we invaded Iraq was because that's what Israel wanted.  In 2002, Phillip Zelikow, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003, admitted as much in a speech he gave to the University of Virginia.  He said:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel."

Do you think it might be foreign policies like these that cause Muslims hate "America?"

In an article entitled "Please Forgive U.S.?" author Mickey Z. sums it up best:

 "We have demonized the Muslims as dangerous fanatics, subsidized Israel's military with billions of taxpayer dollars, blocked all progress towards a Middle East peace settlement, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war, banned 'Arab-looking' people from air travel during that so-called war, and we're surprised and stunned if something is done in retaliation?"

Of course we're still working off the assumption that 9/11 was pulled off by 19 radical Muslims.  If you still believe that one, then I suppose you've chosen to ignore some of the relevant facts. 

Like this excerpt from a report issued by the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS); September 2001:

"[The Israeli Mossad is] ruthless and cunning, with the capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian-Arab act." 

Remember, it was Larry Silverstein who leased the World Trade Center (WTC) only seven weeks before the 9/11 attacks, along with Frank Lowy, who was once a member of Israel's Golani Brigade.  The authorization to lease the WTC to Silverstein was made by Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the New York Port Authority.  All three of these men are all also prominent members of the Anti Defamation League (ADL) and the United Jewish Appeal.

Did you also know that an Israeli owned company, ICTS, ran security at all three airport checkpoints involved in the alleged 9/11 hijackings? 

Maybe you'd also like to check out some of the investigations into Israeli spying operations just prior to 9/11.  Over 140 Israelis were arrested for suspected espionage.  Many of these the suspects served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and explosive ordinance units.

After 9/11, 60 more Israelis were rounded up and were found to have links to Israeli intelligence.  Many failed polygraphs when asked questions concerning their involvement in espionage activities in the United States.  Eventually, they were released and quietly flown out of the country. 

Then there are those "five dancing Israeli's", who were caught in New York City videotaping and celebrating the fall of the towers.  They later admitted on Israeli TV that they were there that day to "document the event."

More Israelis were arrested that day as they were driving a white van carrying bombs, intended to be used on the George Washington Bridge.  Another group was caught in yet another white van—that had a mural painted on the side—which depicted the attacks.  The vans were later connected to a Mossad front group, "Urban Moving Systems."  The operator of the company, Dominic Suter, fled to Israel immediately following the attacks on 9/11.

Do I need to go on? 

Whether you want to go with the official story of 9/11, or care to investigate into Israel's direct role in carrying out the attacks, one thing is perfectly clear:  All roads lead to Israel.  They're why we have the TSA.

In the wake of the 2009 Christmas Day "crotch bomber" incident, Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff began pushing the implementation of the full body scanners.  Even that false flag event has Israel's fingerprints all over it.  Once again, we find ICTS running the security that the suspect successfully evaded.  Then, according to an article entitled "Evidence Mounts for U.S. Complicity in Terrorism," Gordon Duff writes:

"When nothing adds up, its time we starting looking at what we know.  Our recent terrorist, now dubbed "the crotch bomber" is another dupe.  He could have been working for anyone, drugged, brainwashed or simply influenced, maybe by crazy Arabs, maybe by the Mossad, maybe by the CIA.  We only know the game is falling apart.

We do know a couple of things.  Dad, back in Nigeria, ran the national arms industry (DICON) in partnership with Israel, in particular, the Mossad.  He was in daily contact with them.  They run everything in Nigeria, from arms production to counter-terrorism.  Though Islamic, Muttalab was a close associate of Israel.  He has been misrepresented.  His "banking" is a cover."

Shortly after the "crotch bomber" incident, MSNBC's Richard Wolffe—in an interview with Keith Olbermann—stated that his sources in the White House were exploring the possibility that the incident was deliberately created in order to embarrass Obama.  Here is that exchange:

OLBERMANN:  "And what is the focus here right now?  Is it the pushback borders at other airports?  Is it the indication that intelligence such as what the NSA knew about al Qaeda in Yemen, using a Nigerian man for an attack was not—maybe is not being utilized?  Where is the focus right now?"

WOLFFE:  "Well, I was speaking to White House folks earlier today and it‘s clear the president is still deeply concerned and troubled, even angry at the intelligence lapses.  But they see this more as an intelligence lapse more than a situation of airport security faults."

"So, the question here is: why didn‘t the centralized system of intelligence that was set up after 9/11, why didn‘t it work?  Is this conspiracy or cork up?  Is it a case of the agencies having so much rivalry between them that they were more determined to stymie each other or the centralized system rather than dealing with the terrorist threat?  Or was it just there were so many dots no one could connect them because it just was all too random to figure out?"

"It seems that the president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda."

Further evidence, to support that this incident was staged, comes from this article in the Detroit News, entitled "Terror Suspect Kept Visa to Avoid Tipping Off Larger Investigation," where we learn:

"Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."

The "intelligence officials" Kennedy is referring to to have so far gone unnamed, but I think you can guess who I believe those sources to be. 

If Muttalab's visa had been taken away, he would not have gotten on that plane.  There would have been no incident, and therefore provide no opportunity for Chertoff to make his pitch for the body scanners. 

I believe this is all part of a larger plan.  The goal is to get everyone so outraged about the current screening procedures, that they beg for the kind of profiling done by Israel.  Republicans are already making that proposal. 

But don't think that will eliminate the body scanners.  Those will still be installed regardless, if for no other reason than to enrich the manufacturers at the expense of the American taxpayer.

So-called Israeli "experts" on profiling will be the ones who will get the no-bid contracts to conduct their operations in the United States.  That's the last thing we need.  Not only are these methods more invasive, but they will also cost a fortune.

In an article entitled "Why the Israeli security model can't work for the U.S.," Dana Milbank, writing for the Washington Post, states that:

"El Al, Israel's national carrier, reported spending $107,828,000 on security in 2009 for the 1.9 million passengers it carried. That works out to about $56.75 per passenger. The United States, by contrast, spent $5.33 billion on aviation security in fiscal 2010, and the air travel system handled 769.6 million passengers in 2009 (a low year), according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. That amounts to $6.93 per passenger."

And in an article entitled "What would it cost for the U.S. to get Israel-level airport security?," Annie Lowry, writing for Foreign Policy, did this calculation:

"Say each passenger flying through a U.S. airport received on average 10 minutes of questioning from one guard. That would work out to 7.35 billion minutes, or 123 million hours, of work annually. We'd need 3 million full-time guards to perform it. That's 200,000 more people than the total number of active and reserve military personnel, and twice the number of U.S. Wal-Mart employees. It would cost somewhere north of $150 billion a year. Sheesh!"

Yep, that's a lot of dinero.  But don't think that will stop politicians from pushing it through.  Remember, this is a package that will further enrich the nation to which they serve:  Israel.

So get ready, America!  You're about to have it all—naked body scanners, pat downs and profiling—all brought to you by the same people who gave you the terror.

Feel safe yet?

©  EsinIslam.Com