y William L. Anderson

Earlier this year, I took on the authorities who put Tonya Craft on trial in North Georgia for allegedly molesting three children, including her own daughter. Thanks to Ms. Craft’s tenacity for the truth and a good legal team, the jury acquitted her of all 22 counts after a month-long trial in which prosecution witnesses clearly committed perjury and one of the prosecutors, Christopher Arnt, openly lied to jurors in closing arguments. (The jurors themselves were the ones making that last statement, not me.)

Ms. Craft was one of thousands of Americans who each year are charged and tried for what supposedly is an epidemic of child abuse/molestation, and it also is clear that the charges often are false, brought by ex-spouses in custody proceedings (in order to gain leverage) or by vengeful neighbors and others. In the Craft case, it was both.

This set of judicial travesties came, not surprisingly, after the passage of federal legislation, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, also called the Mondale Act after the law’s sponsor, Walter Mondale. (Perhaps it is ironic that Mondale, who is a self-proclaimed “social justice” advocate, is more responsible for wrongful convictions and destruction of individuals and families than any other American in the nation’s history, as literally thousands of people have gone to prison even though it is clear the charges against them were false, fed by the hysteria that Mondale helped to create.)

The authorities want us to believe that there are abusers and molesters lurking behind every tree and that they are operating everywhere. On my blog, I have written about a number of cases in which authorities at government schools and elsewhere, along with an army of “child protective” workers employed by government, have interrogated children until they “disclosed” abuse, even when it was obvious that no abuse had occurred. (Schools especially are hot to push children to “disclose” what authorities call “bad touches” even if that touch might be a pat on the back. I’m not kidding.)

Moreover, authorities are hot to prosecute individuals for possession of “child pornography,” and even parents who innocently took pictures of their young children in the bathtub have been prosecuted as “child pornographers.” Even to glance at a picture of a nude child in America today is a crime and can land an unsuspecting person in prison.

One would think that federal and state authorities, then, would be highly interested to know that each day, individuals wearing costumes engage in both child pornography and “bad touches,” and do it in full view of others. Where does this happen? At U.S. airports, which feature the infamous backscatter “imaging” machines, along with full “pat-downs” for people who decline to be subjected to a virtual strip search.

While the government has released the fuzzy photos of actual people who have been scanned by these machines, in reality the pictures are extremely clear. Furthermore, the people wearing Transportation Security Administration costumes each day examine both full frontal and rear pictures of the nude bodies of adults and children, even though it is against the law for anyone to look at a picture of a nude child on a computer screen, something that has landed many people in prison for long terms.

I am not joking. Moreover, people who decline to be photographed are then subjected to the “pat down” searches in which TSA employees rub their hands upon the genitals and breasts of women (on the outside of their clothing). What one needs to understand is that if one does that to another person in another setting, one can go to prison for sexual assault. In fact, one does not need even to touch any of those areas to be charged with child molestation.

Let me give an example. In Catoosa County (where Tonya Craft’s trial took place), Georgia, James Combs, a substitute teacher, is charged with child molestation because he patted some children on the back during class. (I have read the police reports in this case, along with other documents, and can tell readers confidently that Mr. Combs did not molest anyone, but in the aftermath of the Craft debacle, the Catoosa County authorities are desperate to get back their credibility and hope a jury will convict Mr. Combs.)

Nowhere in those police reports has there been a credible description of Mr. Combs doing what TSA workers do every day at airports. In other words, these workers have a free pass to do what would land anyone else into prison.

But there is more. Readers might object to my contentions, claiming, “They are just doing their jobs!” That, of course, is nonsense, but it is worse than nonsense; it is dangerous nonsense.

Why do I say that? We already know that certain jobs will involve self-selection of people with certain traits and viewpoints. In my own profession, academic economics, the field of labor economics often attracts activist women on the Left because of “discrimination” issues in the area of race and sex in the workplace. Furthermore, because leftist women so dominate the field, most males in economics doctoral programs avoid the labor field altogether, as federal hiring laws make it difficult for them to gain academic jobs when women apply for the same position.

Given the realities of occupational self-selection, one almost can be sure that the prospect of looking at photographs of nude children and engaging in the act of “feeling up” adults and children will attract sexual perverts to TSA employment. Does that mean everyone in the TSA is a sex pervert? Obviously, not.

However, because the jobs really do involve being able to examine what clearly are pornographic images and the placing of one’s hands on the genitals and breasts of adults and children, there is no doubt that the job description alone is going to attract sexually perverted people. After all, TSA employment permits workers to do something “under color of law” that would land one in prison elsewhere.

At this point, I am sure that some readers will object, claiming that I am making false accusations against “the brave men and women who protect us from terrorists.” To that, I say: Yeah, right. We are speaking about people who are making salaries that dwarf what most people make in the private sector (or in the classroom as teachers, for that matter), and who really need no qualifications other than being alive. To my knowledge, no TSA worker ever has prevented a “terrorist” attack, nor has their ubiquitous presence made flying any safer. In truth, TSA workers are useless (and often dangerous) tax feeders.

Furthermore, because they are protected by law, TSA workers are able to push the bounds of decency beyond limits that ordinary people can imagine. For example, Lew Rockwell recently published this post on his blog:

A great man had to go through his first invasive pat-down at the airport the other day, since his knee replacements bar him from the naked x-ray machine. This is a the kindest, most well-mannered man I know, but after four very hard jabs to his genitals, he asked the federal agent: “How can you live with yourself, feeling up men all day?” “I love my job,” sneered the goon.

Lest someone think I am being unfair, if James Combs or anyone else charged with child molestation in the line of work had made such a statement (“I love my job”), prosecutors would use that statement against him in court, as they would claim that it was a self-admission of guilt.

Don’t kid yourselves. The prospect of getting one’s sexual jollies on the job is so great that I can guarantee you that TSA employment is attracting real sex perverts, people who both can “love their job” while engaging in sexual assault. A lot of people today are in prison for doing much less than what these people do every day of the year.

November 5, 2010

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.