Andrea Fornella Abbott of Clarksville, Tennessee got angry on July 9, 2011 when the Transportation Security Administration wanted to pat-down her daughter when they were preparing to fly to Baltimore from the Nashville International Airport.
Abott insisted she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately" or have her “crotch grabbed,” by the TSA. Of course the TSA cannot let innocent young flesh pass through its domain without copping a feel or at least capturing some naked body scans, so the TSA insisted.
According to, TSA goon, Sabrina Birge, the anger elevated, and Abott become irate. When Abott yelled and cursed at the sensitive TSA workers, she was arrested for disorderly conduct and hauled off to jail. Abott was later released on bond.
Not only did this woman's daughter nearly become a victim of a federally sanctioned sex crime, she missed her flight, and had to watch her mother go to jail. We will never know what sort of horrible terrorist attack was thwarted by the TSA when this angry mother was arrested and taken to jail. Hmm, if someone insisted on molesting your daughter, do you think you might get just a little upset?
July 13, 2011
Obama Using ATF to Pass Gun Control Under the Radar
When Barack Obama told Sarah Brady he was pursuing gun control "under the radar," people began to wonder exactly what he meant. Now, we have a specific example of how a President can abuse his power, overstep his authority, and circumvent the system to enact his own special gun laws.
Under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, commonly known as the ATF, has unilaterally passed a new rule that requires firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to report to the ATF sales to an individual of multiple semiautomatic rifles, greater than .22 caliber, with detachable magazines during any five-day period. The stated purpose of this new law is to limit the flow of firearms from the Untied States to Mexico.
This new rule essentially amounts to a new federal gun-control law; however, it was passed without a single vote in Congress. Barack Obama knew he could never get this sort of gun-control law through both houses of Congress, so he just created the law through executive authority and got in through the backdoor.
One of the most problematic features of this new gun law is that is does not apply equally to all states. American citizens who live in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas are now subject to more federal gun restrictions than those citizens in other states. Since the federal government cannot impose federal laws on specific groups of people, this law is unconstitutional.
We may not have to spend a lot of time worrying about the uneven application of this law on the southern border states, however. If the ATF gets away with this law, they are bound to expand it to more states. Eventually, the Obama administration will argue the law was so effective in curbing illegal gun sales in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas that the gun smugglers have started using buyers in states like Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, etc. Then the ATF will expand the law to other states. Eventually, the law will probably apply to Alaska too. Do not be surprised if Barack Obama and the ATF start claiming people are buying guns in Alaska, putting them on boats, and sailing them down the Pacific coast to Mexico.
A ridiculous part of this new rule is the "greater than .22 caliber" clause. Nearly all firearms, except .22s themselves, are greater than .22 caliber. The ATF probably threw in this clause to give the illusion the ATF is concerned only with high-powered rifles. In reality, this law going after just about any rifle caliber. For example, the ATF has always been very aggressive about targeting, AR-15s, the civilian version of the M16. Standard AR-15s fire .223 (similar to 5.56 NATO). Even though the .223 round is only moderately powerful, when compared to most rifle rounds, the ATF probably set the power threshold so low for this law so they could include AR-15s.
Also note that the ATF is specifically mentioning "detachable magazines" and "semiautomatic" rifles in the rule. This is just code for "assault weapons." The ATF simply does not like people have assault weapons, and those are the first weapons they would abolish if given the chance. That is what they are pursuing with this rule. This rule is what will set the stage for eventually placing stricter controls on the types of guns the ATF does not like.
The most egregious element to all of this ATF reporting business is the hypocrisy. The Obama administration is claiming that too many firearms are ending up in Mexico, but the ATF's "Fast and Furious" program was deliberately allowing actual working firearms to be transferred to Mexican gangs. Obama and the ATF are out panicking everyone about how many US weapons are ending up in the hands of gangs in Mexico when our government was just caught intentionally allowing--and even encouraging--those weapons to flow into Mexico as part of a organized effort. You just can't make this stuff up.
Under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, commonly known as the ATF, has unilaterally passed a new rule that requires firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to report to the ATF sales to an individual of multiple semiautomatic rifles, greater than .22 caliber, with detachable magazines during any five-day period. The stated purpose of this new law is to limit the flow of firearms from the Untied States to Mexico.
This new rule essentially amounts to a new federal gun-control law; however, it was passed without a single vote in Congress. Barack Obama knew he could never get this sort of gun-control law through both houses of Congress, so he just created the law through executive authority and got in through the backdoor.
One of the most problematic features of this new gun law is that is does not apply equally to all states. American citizens who live in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas are now subject to more federal gun restrictions than those citizens in other states. Since the federal government cannot impose federal laws on specific groups of people, this law is unconstitutional.
We may not have to spend a lot of time worrying about the uneven application of this law on the southern border states, however. If the ATF gets away with this law, they are bound to expand it to more states. Eventually, the Obama administration will argue the law was so effective in curbing illegal gun sales in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas that the gun smugglers have started using buyers in states like Colorado, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, etc. Then the ATF will expand the law to other states. Eventually, the law will probably apply to Alaska too. Do not be surprised if Barack Obama and the ATF start claiming people are buying guns in Alaska, putting them on boats, and sailing them down the Pacific coast to Mexico.
A ridiculous part of this new rule is the "greater than .22 caliber" clause. Nearly all firearms, except .22s themselves, are greater than .22 caliber. The ATF probably threw in this clause to give the illusion the ATF is concerned only with high-powered rifles. In reality, this law going after just about any rifle caliber. For example, the ATF has always been very aggressive about targeting, AR-15s, the civilian version of the M16. Standard AR-15s fire .223 (similar to 5.56 NATO). Even though the .223 round is only moderately powerful, when compared to most rifle rounds, the ATF probably set the power threshold so low for this law so they could include AR-15s.
Also note that the ATF is specifically mentioning "detachable magazines" and "semiautomatic" rifles in the rule. This is just code for "assault weapons." The ATF simply does not like people have assault weapons, and those are the first weapons they would abolish if given the chance. That is what they are pursuing with this rule. This rule is what will set the stage for eventually placing stricter controls on the types of guns the ATF does not like.
The most egregious element to all of this ATF reporting business is the hypocrisy. The Obama administration is claiming that too many firearms are ending up in Mexico, but the ATF's "Fast and Furious" program was deliberately allowing actual working firearms to be transferred to Mexican gangs. Obama and the ATF are out panicking everyone about how many US weapons are ending up in the hands of gangs in Mexico when our government was just caught intentionally allowing--and even encouraging--those weapons to flow into Mexico as part of a organized effort. You just can't make this stuff up.
July 12, 2011
The National Sheriffs' Association Wants Internet Data Retention Rules
The National Sheriffs' Association wants more control over Internet service providers by requiring ISPs keep records of Internet usage for a minimum of eighteen months. This is all being done under the guise of fighting child pornography, but it could affect anyone who uses the Internet. This further invasion of privacy, which is to be imposed on private companies and presumably at their own expense, is going to make it much easier for all sorts of government agencies to spy on you.
Hey, here's an idea. If child pornography is such a big problem, maybe we should stop constantly letting the sex offenders out of prison. If we keep more perverts in jail and away from kids and computers, maybe a lot the child pornography problems will go away.
Click below to read Declan McCullagh's full article on CNET News.
"Police: Internet Providers Must Keep User Logs"
Hey, here's an idea. If child pornography is such a big problem, maybe we should stop constantly letting the sex offenders out of prison. If we keep more perverts in jail and away from kids and computers, maybe a lot the child pornography problems will go away.
Click below to read Declan McCullagh's full article on CNET News.
"Police: Internet Providers Must Keep User Logs"
July 11, 2011
TSA Fails to Stop Stun Gun from Getting onto Plane
The latest event to be added to the growing list of Transportation Security Administration's failures involves a stun gun. A cleaning crew (not the TSA) found a stun gun onboard JetBlue Flight 1179 from Boston to Newark. This is alarming, because a stun gun could conceivably be used to hijack a plane. The stun gun's ability to intimidate and incapacitate people could be very desirable to someone wishing to take over a plane. The 9/11 hijackers even considered trying to use stun guns in their attack but later decided box cutters would be more practical.
Given the dangers stun guns could pose in the wrong hands on an airplane, it seems the TSA's primary function would be to keep weapons like stun guns off of planes, but they do not seem to be performing that function very well. The TSA, however, has shown incredible skill at molesting small children, harassing wounded veterans, humiliating handicapped people, and running hot chicks through full-body scanners.
On the topic of stun guns, why are the flight crews not armed with stun guns? A stun gun could be a very effective weapon against a hijacker. If the pilots and some flight attendants had stun guns on 9/11, all or most of the hijackers could have been stopped. Given the morbid incompetence of the TSA these days, the flight crews definitely need to be armed to fight against all of the terrorists and weapons the TSA allows on the planes.
Given the dangers stun guns could pose in the wrong hands on an airplane, it seems the TSA's primary function would be to keep weapons like stun guns off of planes, but they do not seem to be performing that function very well. The TSA, however, has shown incredible skill at molesting small children, harassing wounded veterans, humiliating handicapped people, and running hot chicks through full-body scanners.
On the topic of stun guns, why are the flight crews not armed with stun guns? A stun gun could be a very effective weapon against a hijacker. If the pilots and some flight attendants had stun guns on 9/11, all or most of the hijackers could have been stopped. Given the morbid incompetence of the TSA these days, the flight crews definitely need to be armed to fight against all of the terrorists and weapons the TSA allows on the planes.
July 10, 2011
Woman Faces Jail for Vegetable Garden in Front Yard
 |
| Jason and Julie Bass Housein Oak Park Michigan Photo: WJBK |
 |
| Kevin Rulkowski, Oak Park City Planner Photo: My Fox Detroit |
suitable
adj.
1. [OBSOLETE]: similar, matching
2. a : adapted to a use or purpose
b : satisfying propriety : proper
c : able, qualified
Even if Rulkowski is attempting to use the obsolete definition for "suitable," he is still on shaky ground. If he wants all yards to be "similar" or "matching," he is opening a huge can of worms. "Similar" or "matching" could mean all sort of things. Maybe all homeowners could be required to plant matching oak trees. Maybe homeowners could be required to plant the same kind of grass. The interpretations could go on and on. Rulkowski might even be able to bend the ordinance to a point where everyone in Oak Park has to have a yard similar to his.
This mindless conformity is ridiculous. Why does Rulkowski have enough time to worry about some lady's vegetable garden? Maybe the garden does not look nice, but is it hurting anyone? So what if it hurts the property values a little. Is a slightly higher selling price worth selling personal freedoms? Is it so terrible people are making good use of their land to grow food in a world where millions of people are starving? This is just another example of an abusive government with too much power.
Well, Julie Bass has been charged with a misdemeanor over her garden, and she is going to court on July 26, 2011 to stand trial for the heinous crime of planting vegetables in her front yard. She could go to jail for ninety-three days.
For more information visit the following Facebook site.
Oak Park Hates Veggies
July 9, 2011
Racial Quotas for Dolls in Colorado Daycares
The Colorado Department of Human Services is apparently concerned that there is not enough racial diversity among the dolls in daycares. A ninety-eight page document contains many proposed regulations in Colorado like requiring the daycare to obtain a note from a doctor to give a child whole milk. Even more ridiculous, the Colorado Department of Human Services wants daycares to have dolls that represent three races.
There is nothing wrong with dolls that represent different races. In fact, it is probably a good thing for children to see racial diversity among toys. The problem here is that the government of Colorado wants to demand private businesses purchase dolls of different ethnicities. How can these government officials possibly have time to worry about such petty things? This sort of decision be up to the privately owned daycare and the parents.
If you are living in Colorado and you are wondering why your taxes are so high, it is partly because you are paying a bunch of government officials to sit around a table a discuss racial quotas for dolls. Think about that next you pay your taxes.
There is nothing wrong with dolls that represent different races. In fact, it is probably a good thing for children to see racial diversity among toys. The problem here is that the government of Colorado wants to demand private businesses purchase dolls of different ethnicities. How can these government officials possibly have time to worry about such petty things? This sort of decision be up to the privately owned daycare and the parents.
If you are living in Colorado and you are wondering why your taxes are so high, it is partly because you are paying a bunch of government officials to sit around a table a discuss racial quotas for dolls. Think about that next you pay your taxes.
July 8, 2011
TSA Agent Stealing Electronics from Passengers
 |
| Nelson Santiago Photo: Broward County Sheriff's Office |
TSA Agent, Nelson Santiago, was arrested on July 4, 2011 after he was caught taking an iPad from a passenger's luggage and stuffing it into his pants. It turns out that Nelson Santiago had made stealing from passengers at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport into a lucrative side business to supplement the money he normally made from his TSA job.
Santiago would steal iPads, computers, GPS devices, cameras, etc. from the luggage he was supposed to be screening, and he would sell the stolen items over the Internet. He would sometimes manage to sell the items before his shift was over. Police say Santiago managed to steal around $50,000 worth of electronics over the past six months. Of course, the TSA did not catch Santiago. The TSA does not care about your valuables and theft. It took an observant Continental Airlines employee to catch the thieving federal employee.
So, when you take your valuables on a flight, please know that they may be stolen by federal employees who have been granted nearly unlimited access to your personal possessions. That smart phone that contains loads of important personal information, that camera that holds your vacation photos, the computer that contains sensitive business information, and that GPS that can provide your home address to a thief who happens to know you just left for a vacation could just vanish from your luggage and be sold over the Internet before your plane lands. These TSA employees should be looking for explosives and weapons, but how can we possibly expect them to focus on that task when they are busy digging for treasure in your luggage?
July 7, 2011
TSA Searches Black Woman's "Poofy" Hair
Now the Transportation Security Administration is concerned with your hair, especially if it "poofs from the body." Actually, the TSA's official policy is apparently now to "examine anything that poofs from the body."
When Laura Adiele, a Black woman, attempted to board a flight at Sea-Tac Airport in Washington, she went through the TSA's full-body scanner. After accepting that dose of radiation, Laura Adiele was pulled aside for a pat-down. The TSA was not comfortable with her hairstyle (or perhaps they found it arousing) and they wanted to run their fingers through it.
Laura Adiele objected at first, but the TSA was not going to let her on her flight until they got to feel-up her hair, so she eventually complied. The TSA then spent some time rifling through the woman's hair. Of course, they found absolutely nothing, and Adiele got to board the flight and arrive at her destination with tussled hair.
So, even with all of their metal detectors, cameras, full-body scanners, explosive sniffers etc., the TSA cannot determine if a woman's hair is a threat to public safety or not without actually running their fingers through it. In reality, the TSA could have easily used their devices to rule out the woman's hair as a threat. When the TSA does stuff like this, they do not do it because they have to. The TSA does this because they can.
While the TSA was busy messing around in this unfortunate Black woman's threatening poofy hair, how many foreign nationals do you suppose walked right through TSA security wearing Muslim head-coverings?
When Laura Adiele, a Black woman, attempted to board a flight at Sea-Tac Airport in Washington, she went through the TSA's full-body scanner. After accepting that dose of radiation, Laura Adiele was pulled aside for a pat-down. The TSA was not comfortable with her hairstyle (or perhaps they found it arousing) and they wanted to run their fingers through it.
Laura Adiele objected at first, but the TSA was not going to let her on her flight until they got to feel-up her hair, so she eventually complied. The TSA then spent some time rifling through the woman's hair. Of course, they found absolutely nothing, and Adiele got to board the flight and arrive at her destination with tussled hair.
So, even with all of their metal detectors, cameras, full-body scanners, explosive sniffers etc., the TSA cannot determine if a woman's hair is a threat to public safety or not without actually running their fingers through it. In reality, the TSA could have easily used their devices to rule out the woman's hair as a threat. When the TSA does stuff like this, they do not do it because they have to. The TSA does this because they can.
While the TSA was busy messing around in this unfortunate Black woman's threatening poofy hair, how many foreign nationals do you suppose walked right through TSA security wearing Muslim head-coverings?
July 6, 2011
Surgically Implanted Body Bomb Threat Should Not Be News
This big news today was the Department of Homeland Security's announcement that terrorists are considering surgically implanting bombs to evade airport security measures imposed by the United States. It is good that Homeland Security is thinking ahead and anticipating potential threats, but why are they just now waking up to this very real threat?
In 2006, Colombian smugglers were caught smuggling surgically implanted heroin inside of live puppies. If the drug smugglers thought of implanting drugs inside of animals, is it not completely logical that suicide bombers would think to implant bombs inside of their own bodies? After all, if the bomber is going to blow up himself anyway, why should we think he would have any reservations about having the bomb implanted? People routinely get breast implants, butt implants, pectoral implants, etc. just to look good. A bomb could easily be implanted and concealed with similar surgeries. If a terrorist is dedicated enough to die just for a chance to kill others, having a bomb implanted is a relatively small sacrifice to make.
Also, what is the big concern with surgically implanted bombs all of a sudden? Smugglers have been swallowing and smuggling drugs for decades. The terrorists could use the "swallow and smuggle" method as well. Of course, there are other body cavities such as rectums and vaginas that could be used to conceal bombs. Body bombs are a threat, and they have been since criminals figured out the human body is a pretty effective place to hide contraband.
Here is the alarming part. If a suicide bomber chooses to place a bomb inside of his (or her) body, the TSA's current security procedures are unlikely to detect the bomb. So, what does this mean? We will either continue along with the TSA's current methods of performing security theater to appease the public, or the TSA will become even more invasive in its searches of innocent citizens.
Right now, the TSA is just looking under our clothes. Next, they are going to want to look under our skin. Do not be surprised if, in the near future, the TSA wants to X-ray people before each flight. Sure, that will involve very unhealthy doses of radiation, but we will not have to worry about it long, because the TSA will convince us they came up with a way to make the radiation safe. If that sounds hard to believe, just look at all of the airline passengers marching through those radiation-based full-body scanners. A logical person would assume all of those repeated exposures to radiation might pose some considerable health risks, but the TSA tells us there is no reason to worry, and most of us believe them.
In 2006, Colombian smugglers were caught smuggling surgically implanted heroin inside of live puppies. If the drug smugglers thought of implanting drugs inside of animals, is it not completely logical that suicide bombers would think to implant bombs inside of their own bodies? After all, if the bomber is going to blow up himself anyway, why should we think he would have any reservations about having the bomb implanted? People routinely get breast implants, butt implants, pectoral implants, etc. just to look good. A bomb could easily be implanted and concealed with similar surgeries. If a terrorist is dedicated enough to die just for a chance to kill others, having a bomb implanted is a relatively small sacrifice to make.
Also, what is the big concern with surgically implanted bombs all of a sudden? Smugglers have been swallowing and smuggling drugs for decades. The terrorists could use the "swallow and smuggle" method as well. Of course, there are other body cavities such as rectums and vaginas that could be used to conceal bombs. Body bombs are a threat, and they have been since criminals figured out the human body is a pretty effective place to hide contraband.
Here is the alarming part. If a suicide bomber chooses to place a bomb inside of his (or her) body, the TSA's current security procedures are unlikely to detect the bomb. So, what does this mean? We will either continue along with the TSA's current methods of performing security theater to appease the public, or the TSA will become even more invasive in its searches of innocent citizens.
Right now, the TSA is just looking under our clothes. Next, they are going to want to look under our skin. Do not be surprised if, in the near future, the TSA wants to X-ray people before each flight. Sure, that will involve very unhealthy doses of radiation, but we will not have to worry about it long, because the TSA will convince us they came up with a way to make the radiation safe. If that sounds hard to believe, just look at all of the airline passengers marching through those radiation-based full-body scanners. A logical person would assume all of those repeated exposures to radiation might pose some considerable health risks, but the TSA tells us there is no reason to worry, and most of us believe them.
July 4, 2011
Bob Novak Quote
"Always love your country, but never trust your government!"
- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)