Usa Thread

[cavanami]

So much for the "land of the free"...

[Flashermac]

10 Facts That Prove Big Sis Is Wrong

 

 

 

by Paul Joseph Watson

 

6 September 2011

 

 

Janet Napolitano’s contention that Matt Drudge is “just wrong†about privacy worries surrounding airport screening technology is completely at odds with the facts, which illustrate how the DHS has been caught time and time again lying about both privacy and health issues in a transparent ploy to undermine genuine concerns.

 

“I think that what he means is we are watching too much—kind of an Orwellian view. He’s just wrong. I mean, he’s just wrong,†Napolitano told Politico, labeling privacy concerns “overblownâ€.

 

A quick fact check however shows that it’s Napolitano who is “just wrongâ€. The DHS has repeatedly lied about the privacy and health threats posed by naked body scanners in an effort to keep the controversy under wraps, as well as withholding evidence.

 

- Privacy concerns were completely justified after a recent release under the Freedom of Information Act of DHS plans for the mass rollout of mobile body scanners, documents which were largely redacted, with entire pages having been blacked out by the agency.

 

- Before the agency was forced to roll out new “stick man†software upgrades, to deflect genuine privacy concerns, the DHS simply lied about the fact that the scanners produced naked images of the body which showed genitalia in crisp detail.

 

- When the agency was finally forced to admit that the scanners do produce naked images, they then claimed that it was not a privacy concern because such images could not be printed or saved in any way. This claim was exposed as yet another act of mass public deception when documents emerged confirming that the U.S. Marshals Service had surreptitiously saved thousands of naked images from a scanner at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. The Electronic Privacy Information Center also obtained documents from the DHS showing that the machines used by the department’s TSA screeners are not only able to record and store naked body images, but that they are mandated to do so.

 

- In claiming that the body scanners were safe, DHS cited a study by Johns Hopkins University. This was a complete lie. In reality, Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine, concluded that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-raysâ€.

 

- In brushing aside radiation concerns, Big Sis also completely ignored the warnings of numerous highly respected scientific bodies and academic authorities that the scanners posed serious health risks, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, and the University of California. When a “cluster†of cancer cases developed amongst TSA screeners at Boston Logan, the TSA attempted to cover up the story.

 

- Big Sis was also caught lying about the level of radiation emitted by the scanners. Scientists at Columbia University found that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck.

 

- For those who refuse to go through the scanners on privacy or health grounds, the notorious TSA pat down has also been repeatedly mischaracterized and lied about by the TSA in a bid to downplay a privacy furore. Napolitano herself claimed that the pat-downs were discreet, yet hundreds upon hundreds of accounts and reports of travelers being harassed constantly prove otherwise. At one stage the TSA even tried to claim that no squeezing or groping whatsoever was taking place, even as reports of people literally having their genitals grabbed poured in.

 

- The TSA was also caught lying about subjecting children to pat downs in yet another transparent ploy to undermine genuine privacy concerns. In April, the TSA defended the groping of a 6 year-old girl, saying it followed policy. Yet in November 2010, the agency had vowed to conduct no ‘enhanced’ pat-downs for children under 12.

 

- Napolitano’s attempt to dismiss the “Orwellian†nature of how the DHS operates in the context of airport security is noticeably absent the fact that journalists who have been critical of Homeland Security have found their names being placed on a terror watchlist, people like CNN reporter Drew Griffin.

 

Indeed, anyone who opposes minimum wage criminally-inclined morons who would struggle to hold down a job flipping burgers fondling their kids has officially been labeled a “domestic extremist†by the TSA in its own memo. It doesn’t get much more “Orwellian†than that.

 

 

My link

[Flashermac]

Kill for the love of Kali!

 

 

Destroy the Tea Bagger zombies!

[Flashermac]

Female Blogger Threatened With Defamation Suit For Writing About TSA 'Rape'

 

 

Attacking the TSA for its privacy-invasive screening procedures has become a favorite activity for many journalists, especially Matt Drudge. TSA horror stories are often featured prominently on The Drudge Report and he has taken to calling Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (of which the TSA is a part) “Big Sis.â€

 

Napolitano, who doesn’t think Drudge “means [the nickname] kindly†said at a recent Politico event that Drudge is wrong in describing DHS programs as Orwellian and that “the privacy impact of new airport screening technology and similar programs are thoroughly vetted before they are implemented,†in Josh Gerstein’s words.

 

“We want to be conscious of civil liberties and civil rights protections—and we are,†Napolitano said, as reported by Politico.

 

On the same day as this piece came out, TechDirt reports on a passenger who would likely disagree with the Secretary. After a particularly aggressive patdown in March that might be better described as a feel-up, advice blogger Amy Alkon graphically described how she sobbed loudly while a TSA agent put her hands “into†her — four times. She screamed “You raped me†after the LAX patdown and took the agent’s name with plans to file charges of sexual assault. Those plans fell through after consulting an attorney, but she did blog about it and included the agent’s name, thereby inflicting her own assault — on the agent’s Google search results.

 

The TSA agent then hired a lawyer who contacted Alkon asking her to remove the post, threatening her with a defamation lawsuit, and asking for a settlement of $500,000. “Rape is a very serious charge,†writes lawyer Vicki Roberts on Thedala Magee’s behalf. She also says that Alkon, on a return trip to the airport in May called her client “a bad person†who had “sexually molested†her.

 

Free speech lawyer Marc Randazza has stepped in to assert Alkon’s right to post about her patdown experience, and to defend both her definition of the patdown as rape and, regardless of that, her right to rhetorical hyperbole. Techdirt has a copy of the letter Randazza drafted in response to the defamation threat.

 

“After [the agent Thedala] Magee’s assault on Ms. Alkon’s vagina and dignity, Ms. Alkon exercised her First Amendment right to recount this incident to others in person and through her blog,†writes Randazza. “This was not only her right — it was her responsibility.â€

 

Forced to perform patdowns now required by law, TSA agents are the ones who have to face the public’s anger. Texas abandoned its effort this year to pass a law making overly aggressive patdowns a misdemeanor subjecting agents to arrest and a fine, but bloggers can certainly keep on trying the agents in the court of public opinion. I have some sympathy for the agent whose name will now be linked with rape in Google results for eternity — though it should surely serve the purpose of making her a bit less touchy-feely during patdowns — but I hope Randazza and Alkon persevere. TSA screening procedures have already taken a toll on the Fourth Amendment; let’s not add the First Amendment to the list of victims.

 

 

Forbes

[Steve]

Even its for purely political reasons, Obama could get so much public goodwill by channing the TSA functions. Republicans who complian about it would look badly because they could be painted as being for 'big brother'. Its a political no brainer for me to reign the TSA an Homeland Security in.

[Steve]

This bothers me. The military guys on this forum will tell you that even if you hate the guts of an officer, you salute the rank not the person. Same with the President. You respect the office even if you don't like the man. Joint sessions of Congress are a political show for the President. Been that way for a while. Dems gotta play the game for a Republican president as they did with Bush. I'm wary of the growing disrespect for the office. First that 'You lie' thingy that I doubt was not rehearsed. Any excuse other than a personal emergency, members of Congress should be there. Boring as it may be. Political as it may be. The state of the union has become a political event. It wasn't till Wilson I think (not sure) that the President started giving it in person. Beforehand it was written and given to Congress. Its a show as well but you show respect for the office by showing up, standing when he enters and respectfully attend.

 

If you're not respecting the office I can't trust you if you're in. Quid pro quo.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/more-republicans-skipping-obama-jobs-speech-205144814.html

More Republicans skipping Obama’s jobs speech

When President Obama delivers his address on a new job-creation plan to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, he won't be speaking to a sold-out crowd. Several lawmakers are still determining whether it is worth their time to stay in Washington to hear the president, and some are already planning to skip it.

Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia is the latest to announce that he will not be attending, and will instead watch the speech from his office across the street. During the speech, Broun will post his comments about Obama's remarks on Twitter, a tradition he keeps during State of the Union addresses.

"Dr. Broun will not be attending President Obama's joint address, but he looks forward to hearing the president's proposal for job creation," Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told The Ticket. "Dr. Broun will instead watch the speech from his office where he will host a live town hall via Twitter to interact with his constituents."

Broun remained in his office during Obama's State of the Union address in January, providing his own commentary on the social networking website throughout the speech.

"Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism," one of Broun's tweets read.

Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh was the first to announce his intentional absence last week, saying he didn't want to act as a "prop" for Obama's speech.

In the upper chamber, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, told Jon Karl of ABC News that he "probably" won't show up either.

"If he sent a written proposal over first, I would go hear him explain it, but frankly right now I'm so frustrated I don't think I'm going to go," DeMint told ABC News. "I can't imagine too many Americans wanting to hear another speech with no real plan attached."

There's also a chance that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio won't be there, but his absence would have nothing to do with politics: Rubio's mother has fallen ill after suffering a series of recent strokes. The freshman senator's schedule this week is "fluid" because of his mother's health, a spokesman from Rubio's office said.

[Flashermac]

Poll illustrates California voters' anger

 

 

Nearly 3 in 4 say the country is on the wrong track, and nearly half favor slashing government spending — a potentially dismal finding for President Obama, who will unveil a jobs plan this week.

 

California voters are increasingly downcast about the direction of the country, but — like their leaders in Washington — many would rather adhere to party orthodoxy than compromise to address the current economic problems, a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll shows.

 

The findings offer little guidance for President Obama, who will unveil a jobs package this week that he hopes to push through a polarized Congress. Further troubling for the president: The survey results suggest that Republicans, even in deep-blue California, are winning the rhetorical war of words over how to frame the country's economic troubles, and how to get out of them.

 

Although Obama has previously called for strategic government investments to stimulate the economy, only 37% of California voters said they favor such an approach. Instead, the Republican view — that slashing government spending to restrain the deficit will better lead to prosperity — was preferred by 49% of respondents, according to the survey sponsored by the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and The Times.

 

"The argument of 'We need to cut the size of government, we need to reduce the deficit' has won, even in California," said David Kanevsky, research director for American Viewpoint, a Republican firm that co-directed the bipartisan poll. "Stimulus is almost a four-letter word here."

 

With California unemployment mired at 12%, the electorate is clearly dissatisfied with the status quo. Nearly 3 in 4 voters say the country is on the wrong track, up sharply from the 55% who felt that way in November 2009.

 

...

 

 

LA Times

[Flashermac]

Robert Redford disappointed in Obama

 

 

Though many stars have already signed on to support Obama’s re-election, not everyone in Hollywood is happy with the president. The latest disillusioned celeb: Robert Redford.

 

The actor has penned a column in the Huffington Post questioning Obama's dedication to environmental causes.

 

“One reason I supported President Obama is because he said we must protect clean air, water and lands. But what good is it to say the right thing unless you act on it?†Redford writes.

 

“Since early August, three administration decisions - on Arctic drilling, the Keystone XL pipeline and the ozone that causes smog - have all favored dirty industry over public health and a clean environment. Like so many others, I'm beginning to wonder just where the man stands.â€

 

 

My link

[Flashermac]

Obama hits all-time lows, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll

 

 

President 'is no longer the favorite to win re-election,' Democratic pollster says

 

 

When Barack Obama unveils his jobs and economic plan to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, he'll do so at the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

 

When Barack Obama unveils his jobs and economic plan on Thursday, he'll do so at the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

 

After the bruising debt-ceiling fight — as well as Standard & Poor's subsequent downgrade of the nation's credit rating — Obama's job approval rating has sunk to a low of 44 percent, a 3-point drop since July. His handling of the economy stands at a low of 37 percent. And only 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, the lowest mark for this president.

 

Perhaps most ominously for Obama, a majority of poll takers — 54 percent — think he's facing a longer-term setback from which he's unlikely to recover. Back in January, just 39 percent agreed with that assessment.

 

Indeed, that 54 percent is virtually identical to George W. Bush's score on the same question in the Nov. 2005 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which was released just months after Bush's widely criticized handling of Hurricane Katrina.

 

"When [Obama] addresses the American public, he is going to have one more chance to provide some sense of hope and optimism that he ... can provide answers to what is a woeful economy," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

 

But both Hart and McInturff contend that Obama wasn't the only party damaged by the debt ceiling debacle. A whopping 82 percent now disapprove of the job Congress is doing. In the history of this poll, it's an all-time high level of dissatisfaction with Capitol Hill.

 

In addition, when asked who is most to blame for the S&P downgrade, a plurality points to congressional Republicans.

 

And a majority of respondents say they would vote out every single member of Congress if they could.

 

"Everybody in Washington is taking a substantial hit," McInturff said.

 

Yet Obama, in particular, took a gut punch. According to the poll, just 42 percent give the president high marks for possessing strong leadership qualities. That’s a 12-point drop from May (in the days following Osama bin Laden’s death).

 

In addition, his high marks for being a good commander in chief have plunged 10 points (from 51 percent in May to his current 41 percent rating); his high marks for having the ability to handle a crisis have dropped 14 points (from 53 percent to 39 percent); and his high marks for achieving his goals have declined another 14 points (from 41 percent to 27 percent).

 

If there's a silver lining for Obama, it's that a combined 70 percent of respondents still find him likeable (though nearly six in 10 say they disapprove of many of his policies). And 50 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, which Hart says is significant because it suggests that the public doesn't think that everything Obama touches can be viewed negatively.

 

What's more, in a hypothetical general election contest, Obama leads Texas Gov. Rick Perry by five points, 47 percent to 42 percent. And he leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by one, 46 percent to 45 percent, though that margin is down five points since June.

 

But for the first time in the poll, more say they'd probably vote for a generic Republican candidate (44 percent) than say they'd probably vote for Obama (40 percent).

 

"Obama is no longer the favorite to win re-election," Hart said, explaining that a head-to-head score will usually conform to the generic one, especially when so many believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

 

 

MSNBC

[Julian2]

One day we'll be looking back on it all.

Found this while doing a bit of historical reading...

Memories are made of this eh?