As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:
When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards. Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.
First, everyone was forced to get off the plane-even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.
It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.
The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo-just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.
This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.
So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:
TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.
Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.
TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.
Soldier: Why?
TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.
Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.
TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.
Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?
TSA Guy: [awkward silence]
Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.
Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]
To top it off, the tsa demanded we all be swabbed for “explosive residue” detection. Everyone failed, [go figure, we just came home from a war zone], because we tested positive for “Gun Powder Residue”. Who the F**K is hiring these people?
This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns-but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.
Can someone please tell me What the F**K happened to OUR country while we were gone?
Sgt. Mad Dog Tracy
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
FCC Push To Socialize Broadcast Media
Kurt Nimmo - Back in June, we reported on a plan by the FCC and the feds to regulate content on the internet. Since that time, the agency that controls the broadcast communications medium “in the public interest” has proposed a scheme to regulate content sent out over the airwaves.
Call it the Son of the Fairness Doctrine.
FCC bureaucrat Copps tells BBC “American media has a bad case of substance abuse.”
Last week FCC Commissioner Michael Copps suggested broadcasters be subject to a new “public values test” every four years. Copps said that the test would make a broadcaster’s license renewal contingent upon evidence that they meet a prospective set of federal criteria.
Broadcasters would have to prove to the FCC and the government they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming (as determined by the government). They would have to prove they are committed to diversity programming, report to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25 percent of their prime-time coverage to local news, according to a story posted by The Hill.
In short, the FCC is moving toward a state-run media no different than the one in the Soviet Union and any number of crackpot dictatorships around the world.
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas asked Copps whether “five commissioners can do a better job of ensuring that Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints than Americans can themselves by expressing their preferences … in the vigorously competitive marketplace.”
For the feds, of course, the move has nothing to do with making sure Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints. The move by the FCC is a brazen attempt to shut down talk radio and mandate television and radio stations broadcast government propaganda designed to combat free speech on the internet. Millions of Americans have tuned out the corporate media and now get their news from alternative news websites.
Call it the Son of the Fairness Doctrine.
FCC bureaucrat Copps tells BBC “American media has a bad case of substance abuse.”
Last week FCC Commissioner Michael Copps suggested broadcasters be subject to a new “public values test” every four years. Copps said that the test would make a broadcaster’s license renewal contingent upon evidence that they meet a prospective set of federal criteria.
Broadcasters would have to prove to the FCC and the government they have made a meaningful commitment to public affairs and news programming (as determined by the government). They would have to prove they are committed to diversity programming, report to the government about which shows they plan to air, require greater disclosure about who funds political ads and devote 25 percent of their prime-time coverage to local news, according to a story posted by The Hill.
In short, the FCC is moving toward a state-run media no different than the one in the Soviet Union and any number of crackpot dictatorships around the world.
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas asked Copps whether “five commissioners can do a better job of ensuring that Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints than Americans can themselves by expressing their preferences … in the vigorously competitive marketplace.”
For the feds, of course, the move has nothing to do with making sure Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints. The move by the FCC is a brazen attempt to shut down talk radio and mandate television and radio stations broadcast government propaganda designed to combat free speech on the internet. Millions of Americans have tuned out the corporate media and now get their news from alternative news websites.
Eric Holder's DOJ "Open Hostility" Where White People Are Perceived As Victims
Sister Toldjah - The Washington Times writes about an explosive report released over the weekend by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that calls into serious question the neutrality of Eric Holder’s DOJ when it comes to racially tinged cases involving alleged offenses committed against white people by minorities (via Memeorandum):
The Justice Department stonewalled efforts by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate the dismissal of a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party, leaving open the question of whether the department is willing to pursue civil rights cases “in which whites were the perceived victims and minorities the alleged wrongdoers.”
In a 144-page report completed in November and released over the weekend, the commission said its lengthy investigation had uncovered “numerous specific examples of open hostility and opposition” within the department’s Civil Rights Division to pursuing cases in which whites were the victims.
The report, posted on the commission’s web site, said testimony obtained by the panel during its investigation included allegations that some Justice Department lawyers refused to work on cases involving white victims; that lawyers who worked on such cases were harassed and ostracized; and that some employees, including supervisory attorneys and political appointees, openly opposed race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws.
Noting that two high-ranking lawyers in the department’s Voting Rights Section testified that the hostility to race-neutral enforcement had influenced the decision-making process in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case, the report concluded that the Justice Department’s failure to cooperate in the commission’s investigation left unanswered “these serious accusations.”
“While the department has issued general statements that it enforces the laws without regard to race, these assurances do not confirm, deny or explain the specific allegations of misconduct,” the report said. “Unfortunately, the department has thus far refused to address many of these specific claims or to provide the type of information that would allow the commission to properly review the decision making relating to the NBPP lawsuit.”
[…]
Christopher Coates, chief of the department’s Voting Rights section when the New Back Panther case was brought, said he felt compelled to testify despite orders by Justice not to appear because of what he deemed inaccurate statements made to the commission and elsewhere by department officials defending the handling of the case.
Department officials consistently said they were following the law and evidence when they dismissed the case after they had won it by default judgment, but Mr. Coates posited a different explanation.
“Based upon my own personal knowledge of the events surrounding the division’s actions in the Panther case and the atmosphere that existed and continues to exist in the division and in the voting section against fair enforcement of certain federal voting laws, I do not believe these representations to this commission accurately reflect what occurred in the Panther case and do not reflect the hostile atmosphere that existed within the division for a long time against race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act,” he said.
Mr. Coates said this hostility became clear to him while pursuing a 2005 Mississippi case in which white voters were the victims of intimidation. He said some department employees refused to work on the case, which, according to Mr. Coates, also drew criticism from civil rights groups.
He said the election of President Obama allowed those most opposed to “race-neutral enforcement” to move into leadership positions at the Civil Rights Division. One of those officials, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.
J. Christian Adams, lead prosecutor in the New Black Panther case, testified in July that Justice Department officials instructed Civil Rights Division attorneys to ignore cases that involved black defendants and white victims. He said that “over and over and over again” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases.
[…]
Mr. Coates has a long history in voting rights matters, formerly working for the ACLU in the 1970s and 1980s in Georgia, generally bringing cases on behalf of black voters. He received two prestigious awards from the department since he began work there in 1996. He said the only two voting rights cases he ever brought at Justice with white victims were the Mississippi case and the Black Panther case.
In other words, Coates is not some partisan gunslinger with his sights set on Holder and the DOJ because he’s hostile to a Democrat President. Both Coates and Adams, in fact, have impeccable credentials that can’t be denied by this DOJ and administration, no matter how hard they try.
I don’t even have to tell you what the reaction would be if this were a situation in which the highest levels of the Bush DOJ were instructing their high-ranking attorneys to ignore cases where it was alleged that black voters were victims of voter intimidation by white people.
But here we are in the third year of the so-called “post-racial” Obama presidency and there is little to no outrage amongst The Usual Suspects both inside and outside the beltway on this issue - nor is there widespread mainstream news coverage and media saturation over the findings from this report. Some would say it’s because the report could draw no definitive conclusions … but it is indeed news in and of itself that an administration that promised “transparency you can believe in” as well as a departure from what they called “Business as Usual” in Washington, DC has a DOJ that is at every turn stonewalling an investigation into very serious allegations that they don’t take cases where the alleged victim is white and the alleged perp is a minority seriously – if they are even willing to take them on at all. This news is huge, and we should be hearing much more about it and having a lot more discussion and debate, and President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder should be questioned relentlessly by the mainstream media on the reluctance of the DOJ to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation. And the same Democrats who screamed the loudest over the alleged politicization of the Bush DOJ should be screaming even louder about the Justice Department’s refusal to answer directly to the specific allegations of “reverse racism” within the Dept.
But let’s not hold our collective breath. As far as the MSM is concerned, President Obama is still “their guy” even though he keeps letting liberals both inside and outside of the media down on multiple fronts (the Bush tax cuts, no quick withdrawal from Iraq, etc). And as far as the liberal Democrats who yelled at the top of their lungs during the Bush years about how it was “essential to our democracy and legal system” that the DOJ be free from politicization and bias? Well, apparently that same rule doesn’t apply when the President is from their own party and the allegations have a lot more substance and merit.
Same BS, different day.
Moving right along
The Justice Department stonewalled efforts by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate the dismissal of a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party, leaving open the question of whether the department is willing to pursue civil rights cases “in which whites were the perceived victims and minorities the alleged wrongdoers.”
In a 144-page report completed in November and released over the weekend, the commission said its lengthy investigation had uncovered “numerous specific examples of open hostility and opposition” within the department’s Civil Rights Division to pursuing cases in which whites were the victims.
The report, posted on the commission’s web site, said testimony obtained by the panel during its investigation included allegations that some Justice Department lawyers refused to work on cases involving white victims; that lawyers who worked on such cases were harassed and ostracized; and that some employees, including supervisory attorneys and political appointees, openly opposed race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws.
Noting that two high-ranking lawyers in the department’s Voting Rights Section testified that the hostility to race-neutral enforcement had influenced the decision-making process in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case, the report concluded that the Justice Department’s failure to cooperate in the commission’s investigation left unanswered “these serious accusations.”
“While the department has issued general statements that it enforces the laws without regard to race, these assurances do not confirm, deny or explain the specific allegations of misconduct,” the report said. “Unfortunately, the department has thus far refused to address many of these specific claims or to provide the type of information that would allow the commission to properly review the decision making relating to the NBPP lawsuit.”
[…]
Christopher Coates, chief of the department’s Voting Rights section when the New Back Panther case was brought, said he felt compelled to testify despite orders by Justice not to appear because of what he deemed inaccurate statements made to the commission and elsewhere by department officials defending the handling of the case.
Department officials consistently said they were following the law and evidence when they dismissed the case after they had won it by default judgment, but Mr. Coates posited a different explanation.
“Based upon my own personal knowledge of the events surrounding the division’s actions in the Panther case and the atmosphere that existed and continues to exist in the division and in the voting section against fair enforcement of certain federal voting laws, I do not believe these representations to this commission accurately reflect what occurred in the Panther case and do not reflect the hostile atmosphere that existed within the division for a long time against race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act,” he said.
Mr. Coates said this hostility became clear to him while pursuing a 2005 Mississippi case in which white voters were the victims of intimidation. He said some department employees refused to work on the case, which, according to Mr. Coates, also drew criticism from civil rights groups.
He said the election of President Obama allowed those most opposed to “race-neutral enforcement” to move into leadership positions at the Civil Rights Division. One of those officials, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.
J. Christian Adams, lead prosecutor in the New Black Panther case, testified in July that Justice Department officials instructed Civil Rights Division attorneys to ignore cases that involved black defendants and white victims. He said that “over and over and over again” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases.
[…]
Mr. Coates has a long history in voting rights matters, formerly working for the ACLU in the 1970s and 1980s in Georgia, generally bringing cases on behalf of black voters. He received two prestigious awards from the department since he began work there in 1996. He said the only two voting rights cases he ever brought at Justice with white victims were the Mississippi case and the Black Panther case.
In other words, Coates is not some partisan gunslinger with his sights set on Holder and the DOJ because he’s hostile to a Democrat President. Both Coates and Adams, in fact, have impeccable credentials that can’t be denied by this DOJ and administration, no matter how hard they try.
I don’t even have to tell you what the reaction would be if this were a situation in which the highest levels of the Bush DOJ were instructing their high-ranking attorneys to ignore cases where it was alleged that black voters were victims of voter intimidation by white people.
But here we are in the third year of the so-called “post-racial” Obama presidency and there is little to no outrage amongst The Usual Suspects both inside and outside the beltway on this issue - nor is there widespread mainstream news coverage and media saturation over the findings from this report. Some would say it’s because the report could draw no definitive conclusions … but it is indeed news in and of itself that an administration that promised “transparency you can believe in” as well as a departure from what they called “Business as Usual” in Washington, DC has a DOJ that is at every turn stonewalling an investigation into very serious allegations that they don’t take cases where the alleged victim is white and the alleged perp is a minority seriously – if they are even willing to take them on at all. This news is huge, and we should be hearing much more about it and having a lot more discussion and debate, and President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder should be questioned relentlessly by the mainstream media on the reluctance of the DOJ to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation. And the same Democrats who screamed the loudest over the alleged politicization of the Bush DOJ should be screaming even louder about the Justice Department’s refusal to answer directly to the specific allegations of “reverse racism” within the Dept.
But let’s not hold our collective breath. As far as the MSM is concerned, President Obama is still “their guy” even though he keeps letting liberals both inside and outside of the media down on multiple fronts (the Bush tax cuts, no quick withdrawal from Iraq, etc). And as far as the liberal Democrats who yelled at the top of their lungs during the Bush years about how it was “essential to our democracy and legal system” that the DOJ be free from politicization and bias? Well, apparently that same rule doesn’t apply when the President is from their own party and the allegations have a lot more substance and merit.
Same BS, different day.
Moving right along
Friday, December 3, 2010
Obama Administration Keep Pushing Un-American Dream Act
Scott Wong - The Obama administration has trotted out a parade of top officials to push the long-shot DREAM Act in recent days, even as tax, spending and defense issues dominate the lame duck session.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan this week said the immigration bill would enable thousands of young, undocumented immigrants go on to college, while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano argued it would help her agency enforce immigration laws.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said the DREAM Act would boost military recruitment since the legislation would provide a path to citizenship for some young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military for two years.
And on Friday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made the case the DREAM Act makes good economic sense. He said 65,000 students graduate from publicly funded schools each year but can’t go to college or get good jobs because of their illegal status.
“The American taxpayer has invested in them, and unless we pass the DREAM Act we will keep throwing away this hard-earned investment,” Locke told reporters on a conference call. Also, a quarter of start-up companies that eventually went public in the past 15 years were started by immigrants, he said, meaning some of these students could “develop the next Google or Intel.”
The latest push comes as Hispanic groups and immigration advocates step up pressure on the White House and Congress to pass the long-stalled immigration bill before Republicans take over the House and gain more power in the Senate next month. Democrats are listening, given that Hispanics were credited with helping Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) fend off a tough election challenge last month and will be crucial to Obama keeping the White House in 2012. “We have a team at the White House working on this every day. The president himself is engaged,” said Cecelia Munoz, the White House’s intergovernmental affairs director and a longtime immigration advocate. “We are going stay absolutely engaged in this as we wait for congressional action.”
The House is expected to consider the measure next week, though chances of Senate passage remain slim.
All 42 Senate Republicans pledged this week to filibuster any legislation before the chamber deals with expiring Bush-era tax cuts and funding the government. With time running out in the lame-duck session, Senate Democrats also want to ratify the START nuclear-arms treaty and pass a massive defense bill that includes a repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members.
And even though new versions of the bill aim to address critics concerns and build broader support, it doesn’t appear that Reid has secured the 60 votes needed to move the DREAM Act forward.
Opponents say the bill would provide amnesty for lawbreakers and lead to more illegal immigration. On top of that, the measure is filled with loopholes, said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
“All they have to do is really just attend college for two years. They do not have to have a degree. Only a sliver of those will use the military. Ninety percent plus would use the college type and degree program to gain this amnesty,” Sessions said during an appearance on Fox News Thursday night. “It's just not the right policy. It would in fact be just the opposite of what message we should be sending, which is that we're going to end the lawlessness at the border and create a lawful system of immigration and stop rewarding illegal immigration.”
Education Secretary Arne Duncan this week said the immigration bill would enable thousands of young, undocumented immigrants go on to college, while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano argued it would help her agency enforce immigration laws.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said the DREAM Act would boost military recruitment since the legislation would provide a path to citizenship for some young illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military for two years.
And on Friday, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke made the case the DREAM Act makes good economic sense. He said 65,000 students graduate from publicly funded schools each year but can’t go to college or get good jobs because of their illegal status.
“The American taxpayer has invested in them, and unless we pass the DREAM Act we will keep throwing away this hard-earned investment,” Locke told reporters on a conference call. Also, a quarter of start-up companies that eventually went public in the past 15 years were started by immigrants, he said, meaning some of these students could “develop the next Google or Intel.”
The latest push comes as Hispanic groups and immigration advocates step up pressure on the White House and Congress to pass the long-stalled immigration bill before Republicans take over the House and gain more power in the Senate next month. Democrats are listening, given that Hispanics were credited with helping Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) fend off a tough election challenge last month and will be crucial to Obama keeping the White House in 2012. “We have a team at the White House working on this every day. The president himself is engaged,” said Cecelia Munoz, the White House’s intergovernmental affairs director and a longtime immigration advocate. “We are going stay absolutely engaged in this as we wait for congressional action.”
The House is expected to consider the measure next week, though chances of Senate passage remain slim.
All 42 Senate Republicans pledged this week to filibuster any legislation before the chamber deals with expiring Bush-era tax cuts and funding the government. With time running out in the lame-duck session, Senate Democrats also want to ratify the START nuclear-arms treaty and pass a massive defense bill that includes a repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members.
And even though new versions of the bill aim to address critics concerns and build broader support, it doesn’t appear that Reid has secured the 60 votes needed to move the DREAM Act forward.
Opponents say the bill would provide amnesty for lawbreakers and lead to more illegal immigration. On top of that, the measure is filled with loopholes, said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
“All they have to do is really just attend college for two years. They do not have to have a degree. Only a sliver of those will use the military. Ninety percent plus would use the college type and degree program to gain this amnesty,” Sessions said during an appearance on Fox News Thursday night. “It's just not the right policy. It would in fact be just the opposite of what message we should be sending, which is that we're going to end the lawlessness at the border and create a lawful system of immigration and stop rewarding illegal immigration.”
Banksters Finanical Oligarchy Dictates Terms Of Irish Bailout
Jordan Shilton - The €85 billion bailout agreed on Sunday evening between the European Union, International Monetary Fund and the Irish government will enforce the demands of the financial elite through the further impoverishment of the working class. It will ensure that those responsible for the current crisis are protected from any losses, while state finances will be raided once again to bail out insolvent financial institutions.
Negotiations were held throughout the weekend, with fears that failure to secure a deal by the opening of trading on Monday would precipitate a market collapse—driven in particular by concerns over bondholders being made partially liable for bank debt. This was explicitly ruled out, although a vague commitment was made by EU member states to consider imposing sanctions on bondholders after 2013.
Even such a limited proposal was too much for financiers. As European Central Bank policy-maker Christian Noyer warned, “As far as I’m concerned, I exclude that there will be haircuts [for bondholders] in the future. It will be a major objective of all members of the EU to do everything necessary to be in a position to fully honour their debts in the future. I exclude this as an eventuality even if it’s legally possible.”
The bailout for Ireland will see €67.5 billion in external assistance, €45 billion of which will come from the EU and €22.5 billion from the IMF. The remaining €17.5 billion will be raised from Irish state finances, including the removal of €12.5 billion from the national pension fund—a move which will reduce its value by more than half.
The bailout imposes a crippling interest rate of 5.83 percent, the repayment of which would cost Ireland as much as a fifth of all tax receipts. To make things worse, the terms of the agreement provide for rates to vary according to market conditions, making the repayments potentially far greater.
The terms will be enforced by means of regular “reviews” of Ireland’s progress, which will take place quarterly. This will mean that whoever sits in government in Dublin will impose the demands of the financial oligarchy under the threat that installments could be withheld.
At least €35 billion of the fund will be used directly to prop up Ireland’s bankrupt financial institutions. This includes an immediate injection of €10 billion, along with a further €25 billion “contingency fund” in case losses increase. NAMA, a state agency set up to manage bad loans popularly known as the “Bad Bank”, will assume responsibility for a further €16.6 billion in bad debt, including agricultural and property loans from Allied Irish and Bank of Ireland.
The full extent of the debts confronting Ireland’s banking sector remain unknown, and such sums will only be the beginning of higher levels of financial support. This would come from the remaining €50 billion of the bailout, which has initially been earmarked to cover “government expenditure”.
The loans have been coupled with terms that permit Ireland to take an extra year—until 2015—to reduce its budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP. This in no way indicates a lessening of austerity measures—quite the opposite. The reason given in the agreement for the extension is a downward revision of projections for economic growth. Given that the cuts outlined in last week’s four year plan by the Fianna Fáil-Green Party government were predicated on growth predictions which are now overestimates, austerity measures must be adjusted accordingly.
The bailout agreement concretises many of the proposals outlined in last week’s four-year plan, binding any future government to a 12 percent or one euro cut in the minimum wage, workfare measures, as well as spending cuts across the board. The plundering of the pension fund will mean that the income upon which many would have relied in later life will either be sharply reduced or removed altogether.
EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn confirmed that the measures contained in the agreement would not be up for renegotiation, stating that the use of the pension fund, the interest rates and the levels of austerity were “key parts” of the deal which he would “not advise” reopening for discussion.
A number of so-called “structural reforms” will ensure that public money is channeled directly into the coffers of the financial elite and away from public services. A “fiscal responsibility law” must be implemented, which will cap spending in each government department on a yearly basis. In the event that extra funds are raised by the state, this must all be directed to debt reduction.
A Budgetary Advisory Council will be created, the task of which will be to provide an “independent” assessment of government figures. This will prove to be yet another means for imposing vicious cuts on the working class.
While ordinary working people will suffer the devastating consequences of the deal, the bailout ensures that the financial speculators whose criminal activity brought about the crisis will escape unpunished.
There are no provisions contained in the agreement to make bondholders pay a single cent towards the debts. In fact, such a course is explicitly ruled out for Ireland. At the press conference announcing the terms of the deal, Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Brian Cowen stated that the failure to impose any of the burden on bondholders was due to the fact that no “political support” for this existed within Europe.
Finance Minister Brian Lenihan claimed, “In the course of these negotiations I did raise the issue of senior debt [held by major investors], and the unanimous view of the European Central Bank and the commission was no programme would be possible if it were intended by us to dishonour senior debt because such a dishonouring of senior debt would have huge ripple effects throughout the euro system.”
The Financial Times commented that Ireland had “refrained” from taking action “that could have sent further shocks across the eurozone”—a telling reference to the power exerted by the speculators over all aspects of economic and political life.
The Times attributed this agreement by Dublin in particular to the “behind-the-scenes role played by the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank, which had “strongly opposed forcing writedown on Irish banks’ senior bondholders”.
Contradicting himself, Lenihan also said in Brussels, “As far as senior bondholders are concerned, I’ve always made it clear that as long as we were in the markets, senior debt was fundamental for Ireland.”
The threat of contagion has not been halted by the bailout, however. Although markets responded positively in early trading on Monday, shares later fell back. The euro reached its lowest level in two months. This was amid increasing fears that Portugal will require a similar bailout, a move which could force Spain in the same direction. EU officials have admitted that existing funds would not be sufficient to cope with a Spanish bailout.
There is growing speculation amongst commentators that the main opposition parties, Fine Gael and Labour, have initiated talks with a view to forming a coalition government after elections in January.
Stephen Collins wrote in yesterday’s Irish Times, “Fianna Fáil will be fighting for its very survival in the election and has little or no hope of being back in office unless the main Opposition parties refuse to work with each other. That is highly unlikely for both historic and contemporary reasons, and all the signs are that Fine Gael and Labour are already preparing to share power in a new coalition.”
Whatever the outcome of the elections, however, the austerity measures directed at the working class will continue.
The main opposition party, Fine Gael, has raised certain criticisms of the bailout plan, while agreeing with all the fundamentals of the austerity program. The party’s Enterprise spokesman, Richard Bruton, expressed “concern…that the banks could receive an extra €35 billion, and all of that is going on taxpayers’ shoulders.” He also pointed to the rising cost of credit as a result of the bailout.
Fine Gael has, however, already committed itself to the framework of the cuts outlined in the government’s plan last week and the EU/IMF bailout. The party most likely to head a new government after elections early next year, it has made clear that it would not flinch from implementing devastating austerity measures.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was also critical of the deal, calling it a “national sell out”.
Labour is nevertheless positioning itself to enter the government, and it will play its part in carrying through the austerity measures. In response to the four-year plan, Gilmore reasserted his fundamental agreement with budget cutting, stating that he would not seek to overturn cuts that would be imposed in a Fianna Fáil government, but would instead consider measures on a “case by case” basis.
Negotiations were held throughout the weekend, with fears that failure to secure a deal by the opening of trading on Monday would precipitate a market collapse—driven in particular by concerns over bondholders being made partially liable for bank debt. This was explicitly ruled out, although a vague commitment was made by EU member states to consider imposing sanctions on bondholders after 2013.
Even such a limited proposal was too much for financiers. As European Central Bank policy-maker Christian Noyer warned, “As far as I’m concerned, I exclude that there will be haircuts [for bondholders] in the future. It will be a major objective of all members of the EU to do everything necessary to be in a position to fully honour their debts in the future. I exclude this as an eventuality even if it’s legally possible.”
The bailout for Ireland will see €67.5 billion in external assistance, €45 billion of which will come from the EU and €22.5 billion from the IMF. The remaining €17.5 billion will be raised from Irish state finances, including the removal of €12.5 billion from the national pension fund—a move which will reduce its value by more than half.
The bailout imposes a crippling interest rate of 5.83 percent, the repayment of which would cost Ireland as much as a fifth of all tax receipts. To make things worse, the terms of the agreement provide for rates to vary according to market conditions, making the repayments potentially far greater.
The terms will be enforced by means of regular “reviews” of Ireland’s progress, which will take place quarterly. This will mean that whoever sits in government in Dublin will impose the demands of the financial oligarchy under the threat that installments could be withheld.
At least €35 billion of the fund will be used directly to prop up Ireland’s bankrupt financial institutions. This includes an immediate injection of €10 billion, along with a further €25 billion “contingency fund” in case losses increase. NAMA, a state agency set up to manage bad loans popularly known as the “Bad Bank”, will assume responsibility for a further €16.6 billion in bad debt, including agricultural and property loans from Allied Irish and Bank of Ireland.
The full extent of the debts confronting Ireland’s banking sector remain unknown, and such sums will only be the beginning of higher levels of financial support. This would come from the remaining €50 billion of the bailout, which has initially been earmarked to cover “government expenditure”.
The loans have been coupled with terms that permit Ireland to take an extra year—until 2015—to reduce its budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP. This in no way indicates a lessening of austerity measures—quite the opposite. The reason given in the agreement for the extension is a downward revision of projections for economic growth. Given that the cuts outlined in last week’s four year plan by the Fianna Fáil-Green Party government were predicated on growth predictions which are now overestimates, austerity measures must be adjusted accordingly.
The bailout agreement concretises many of the proposals outlined in last week’s four-year plan, binding any future government to a 12 percent or one euro cut in the minimum wage, workfare measures, as well as spending cuts across the board. The plundering of the pension fund will mean that the income upon which many would have relied in later life will either be sharply reduced or removed altogether.
EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn confirmed that the measures contained in the agreement would not be up for renegotiation, stating that the use of the pension fund, the interest rates and the levels of austerity were “key parts” of the deal which he would “not advise” reopening for discussion.
A number of so-called “structural reforms” will ensure that public money is channeled directly into the coffers of the financial elite and away from public services. A “fiscal responsibility law” must be implemented, which will cap spending in each government department on a yearly basis. In the event that extra funds are raised by the state, this must all be directed to debt reduction.
A Budgetary Advisory Council will be created, the task of which will be to provide an “independent” assessment of government figures. This will prove to be yet another means for imposing vicious cuts on the working class.
While ordinary working people will suffer the devastating consequences of the deal, the bailout ensures that the financial speculators whose criminal activity brought about the crisis will escape unpunished.
There are no provisions contained in the agreement to make bondholders pay a single cent towards the debts. In fact, such a course is explicitly ruled out for Ireland. At the press conference announcing the terms of the deal, Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Brian Cowen stated that the failure to impose any of the burden on bondholders was due to the fact that no “political support” for this existed within Europe.
Finance Minister Brian Lenihan claimed, “In the course of these negotiations I did raise the issue of senior debt [held by major investors], and the unanimous view of the European Central Bank and the commission was no programme would be possible if it were intended by us to dishonour senior debt because such a dishonouring of senior debt would have huge ripple effects throughout the euro system.”
The Financial Times commented that Ireland had “refrained” from taking action “that could have sent further shocks across the eurozone”—a telling reference to the power exerted by the speculators over all aspects of economic and political life.
The Times attributed this agreement by Dublin in particular to the “behind-the-scenes role played by the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank, which had “strongly opposed forcing writedown on Irish banks’ senior bondholders”.
Contradicting himself, Lenihan also said in Brussels, “As far as senior bondholders are concerned, I’ve always made it clear that as long as we were in the markets, senior debt was fundamental for Ireland.”
The threat of contagion has not been halted by the bailout, however. Although markets responded positively in early trading on Monday, shares later fell back. The euro reached its lowest level in two months. This was amid increasing fears that Portugal will require a similar bailout, a move which could force Spain in the same direction. EU officials have admitted that existing funds would not be sufficient to cope with a Spanish bailout.
There is growing speculation amongst commentators that the main opposition parties, Fine Gael and Labour, have initiated talks with a view to forming a coalition government after elections in January.
Stephen Collins wrote in yesterday’s Irish Times, “Fianna Fáil will be fighting for its very survival in the election and has little or no hope of being back in office unless the main Opposition parties refuse to work with each other. That is highly unlikely for both historic and contemporary reasons, and all the signs are that Fine Gael and Labour are already preparing to share power in a new coalition.”
Whatever the outcome of the elections, however, the austerity measures directed at the working class will continue.
The main opposition party, Fine Gael, has raised certain criticisms of the bailout plan, while agreeing with all the fundamentals of the austerity program. The party’s Enterprise spokesman, Richard Bruton, expressed “concern…that the banks could receive an extra €35 billion, and all of that is going on taxpayers’ shoulders.” He also pointed to the rising cost of credit as a result of the bailout.
Fine Gael has, however, already committed itself to the framework of the cuts outlined in the government’s plan last week and the EU/IMF bailout. The party most likely to head a new government after elections early next year, it has made clear that it would not flinch from implementing devastating austerity measures.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was also critical of the deal, calling it a “national sell out”.
Labour is nevertheless positioning itself to enter the government, and it will play its part in carrying through the austerity measures. In response to the four-year plan, Gilmore reasserted his fundamental agreement with budget cutting, stating that he would not seek to overturn cuts that would be imposed in a Fianna Fáil government, but would instead consider measures on a “case by case” basis.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
California Law Allows Police To Enter Homes Without Search Warrants
To cut down on underage drinking, county officials will begin enforcement of a new ordinance next month that allows officers entry into residencies if they suspect minors are drinking on the premises.
The Social Host Liability Ordinance grants law enforcement the ability to issue citations to hosts knowingly permitting the consumption of alcohol by minors on their property. Although officers are scheduled to begin enforcing the ordinance Dec. 1, officials may postpone enforcement until administrative measures are ready.
The Social Host Liability Ordinance — set to be enforced on Dec. 1 — gives law officers the authority to enter a residence if they suspect minors are consuming alcohol. The ordinance aims to keep residents and landlords accountable.
The ordinance defines a “host” as any person either owning, renting or in control of the property, and a “party, gathering or event” as a social gathering of five or more persons, at least one of whom is a minor. Hosts violating the ordinance for the first time will be fined $500 and required to complete a mandatory educational class. Second-offenders are handed a $1,000 fine and subsequent offenses result in a $2,000 fine.
Fifth District Supervisor Joseph Centeno said the ordinance aims to hold residents and landlords accountable for what occurs in their homes.
“We were trying to also ensure that people who rented properties to youngsters and knowingly condoned the booze parties, that they were going to be held responsible,” Centeno said. “We also want to protect absentee owners who are not on their properties and knowledgeable of what is happening.”
Although critics of the ordinance have voiced concerns that police may use the ordinance as an excuse to enter a house, Centeno said officers will enforce the ordinance only as needed, like situations when law enforcement responds to noise complaints and other calls.
“I do not think the sheriff’s department will look for these things going on,” Centeno said. “When they respond to a complaint they will make the appropriate response [if they are in violation of the ordinance].”
Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr provided the single vote against the Social Host Ordinance, based on the implications the ordinance has on her district, which includes Isla Vista — where student residences may have numerous youth and adults age 17 to 24 or older living under one roof.
“Of course, it will be much more problematic in Isla Vista, where many household units do not have typical families and are groups of students, some who are underage and some who are not,” Farr said. “How are you going to correctly assess if someone is actually furnishing alcohol to a minor or is simply living in a residence with alcohol in it?”
In addition to enforcement concerns, Farr said she voted against the proposal because it lacked the administrative planning necessary for effective implementation.
“The other part was it did not come to the board’s agenda through the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services, it came from Supervisor Centeno on the request of members of the community,” Farr said. “It did not come with a full analysis of how this would be administered.”
County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services has been charged with the ordinance’s administration. Interim Program Manager John Doyle said ADMHS will work alongside local officials on an education program prior to the start of enforcement. Additionally, Doyle said, the county has allocated additional time and resources for these efforts to be carried out in Isla Vista.
“It is a countywide ordinance, but it has the potential to affect Isla Vista the most, and we really need to protect the district who voted against, very strongly I might add, the Social Host Liability Ordinance,” Doyle said.
According to Doyle, outreach efforts have included the distribution of pamphlets and other informational outlets both on campus and throughout the county.
The Social Host Liability Ordinance grants law enforcement the ability to issue citations to hosts knowingly permitting the consumption of alcohol by minors on their property. Although officers are scheduled to begin enforcing the ordinance Dec. 1, officials may postpone enforcement until administrative measures are ready.
The Social Host Liability Ordinance — set to be enforced on Dec. 1 — gives law officers the authority to enter a residence if they suspect minors are consuming alcohol. The ordinance aims to keep residents and landlords accountable.
The ordinance defines a “host” as any person either owning, renting or in control of the property, and a “party, gathering or event” as a social gathering of five or more persons, at least one of whom is a minor. Hosts violating the ordinance for the first time will be fined $500 and required to complete a mandatory educational class. Second-offenders are handed a $1,000 fine and subsequent offenses result in a $2,000 fine.
Fifth District Supervisor Joseph Centeno said the ordinance aims to hold residents and landlords accountable for what occurs in their homes.
“We were trying to also ensure that people who rented properties to youngsters and knowingly condoned the booze parties, that they were going to be held responsible,” Centeno said. “We also want to protect absentee owners who are not on their properties and knowledgeable of what is happening.”
Although critics of the ordinance have voiced concerns that police may use the ordinance as an excuse to enter a house, Centeno said officers will enforce the ordinance only as needed, like situations when law enforcement responds to noise complaints and other calls.
“I do not think the sheriff’s department will look for these things going on,” Centeno said. “When they respond to a complaint they will make the appropriate response [if they are in violation of the ordinance].”
Third District Supervisor Doreen Farr provided the single vote against the Social Host Ordinance, based on the implications the ordinance has on her district, which includes Isla Vista — where student residences may have numerous youth and adults age 17 to 24 or older living under one roof.
“Of course, it will be much more problematic in Isla Vista, where many household units do not have typical families and are groups of students, some who are underage and some who are not,” Farr said. “How are you going to correctly assess if someone is actually furnishing alcohol to a minor or is simply living in a residence with alcohol in it?”
In addition to enforcement concerns, Farr said she voted against the proposal because it lacked the administrative planning necessary for effective implementation.
“The other part was it did not come to the board’s agenda through the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services, it came from Supervisor Centeno on the request of members of the community,” Farr said. “It did not come with a full analysis of how this would be administered.”
County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services has been charged with the ordinance’s administration. Interim Program Manager John Doyle said ADMHS will work alongside local officials on an education program prior to the start of enforcement. Additionally, Doyle said, the county has allocated additional time and resources for these efforts to be carried out in Isla Vista.
“It is a countywide ordinance, but it has the potential to affect Isla Vista the most, and we really need to protect the district who voted against, very strongly I might add, the Social Host Liability Ordinance,” Doyle said.
According to Doyle, outreach efforts have included the distribution of pamphlets and other informational outlets both on campus and throughout the county.
Crazy: United States Ready To Back EU Bailout
EconomicPolicyJournal.com - The United States would be ready to support the extension of the European Financial Stability Facility via an extra commitment of money from the International Monetary Fund, a U.S. official told Reuters.
I have an anticipated a lot of moves by the U.S. government. Given the government has debt problems at the federal, state and local levels. That President Obama may hold off his Hawaii vacation for budget and tax talks, the last thing I expected is for the government to jump in to the PIIG pen.
I don’t know who this official is, but he sure sounds high level, and Reuters is unlikely to run with a story like this unless it is from a clear in the know source. Here’s more from Reuters :
“There are a lot of people talking about that. I think the European Commission has talked about that,” said the U.S. official, commenting on enlarging the 750 billion euro ($980 billion) EU/IMF European stability fund. “It is up to the Europeans. We will certainly support using the IMF in these circumstances.”
“There are obviously some severe market problems,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “In May, it was Greece. This is Ireland and Portugal. If there is contagion that’s a huge problem for the global economy.”
Knowing this. This is really scary:
The remarks foreshadow a visit to Europe this week by a U.S. Treasury envoy who is expected to visit Berlin, Madrid and Paris to hold talks on the ramifications of the debt crisis.
Well, it was fun to watch the clips of the Greeks and Irish getting squeezed by the banksters. Now, the bastard bankers are coming after us.
UPDATE: Contradicting the Reuters report, according to WSJ, the US is not discussing a larger IMF contribution to the European Rescue Fund.
Still we have a Treasury envoy headed over next week, which is not a good sign.
I have an anticipated a lot of moves by the U.S. government. Given the government has debt problems at the federal, state and local levels. That President Obama may hold off his Hawaii vacation for budget and tax talks, the last thing I expected is for the government to jump in to the PIIG pen.
I don’t know who this official is, but he sure sounds high level, and Reuters is unlikely to run with a story like this unless it is from a clear in the know source. Here’s more from Reuters :
“There are a lot of people talking about that. I think the European Commission has talked about that,” said the U.S. official, commenting on enlarging the 750 billion euro ($980 billion) EU/IMF European stability fund. “It is up to the Europeans. We will certainly support using the IMF in these circumstances.”
“There are obviously some severe market problems,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “In May, it was Greece. This is Ireland and Portugal. If there is contagion that’s a huge problem for the global economy.”
Knowing this. This is really scary:
The remarks foreshadow a visit to Europe this week by a U.S. Treasury envoy who is expected to visit Berlin, Madrid and Paris to hold talks on the ramifications of the debt crisis.
Well, it was fun to watch the clips of the Greeks and Irish getting squeezed by the banksters. Now, the bastard bankers are coming after us.
UPDATE: Contradicting the Reuters report, according to WSJ, the US is not discussing a larger IMF contribution to the European Rescue Fund.
Still we have a Treasury envoy headed over next week, which is not a good sign.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Watchdog Group Probes DHS Spying On Drudge
Paul Joseph Watson - A Freedom of Information Act request filed by former Congressman Bob Barr seeks to discover whether the Department of Homeland Security has been keeping tabs on the Drudge Report and other prominent media outlets who have spearheaded a nationwide revolt against invasive TSA airport security measures.
The FOIA request, filed by Barr’s Liberty Guard organization (PDF here), demands that the Transportation Security Administration, an agency of the DHS, turn over all information related to “Matt Drudge,” “drudgereport.com,” along with other media personalities and websites that have been at the center of the TSA controversy, including “Alex Jones, “John Tyner” and “prisonplanet.com”.
The request seeks to ascertain whether any of these names have been linked with the term “domestic extremist,” in reference to a reported TSA memo that was leaked last week which, according to Doug Hagmann, “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”
Numerous confirmed memos originating out of federal or state law enforcement agencies, such as the infamous MIAC report, have listed conservatives and libertarians as “domestic extremists” and even potential domestic terrorists for opposing big government and supporting Constitutionally-minded campaigns and causes.
Barr’s attempt to discover whether the federal government is treating critics of the TSA as domestic extremists is key in light of TSA chief John Pistole’s announcement yesterday that all travelers flying in US airspace would be checked against a government watch list before they are given permission to board an aircraft, a system some have likened to Communist-style internal checkpoints.
The notion that Matt Drudge, a constant thorn in the side of ‘Big Sis’ Janet Napolitano, along with other prominent media critics of the TSA, could be the target of DHS surveillance is hardly far fetched considering the fact that Homeland Security was caught recently spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.
The TSA is turning into an arm of the DHS’ political police force – how long before Matt Drudge, Bob Barr and Alex Jones are put on a list and prevented from flying? Will everyone who opposes being radiated in a naked body scanner or having their kids felt up by TSA goons be put on a list?
Drudge has been at the forefront of a national rebellion against the TSA’s new enhanced pat down procedures which subject travelers, including children, the disabled and the elderly, to humiliating treatment which falls not far short of sexual molestation. The Freedom of Information Act request also aims to uncover why the TSA made the decision to “stand down” on its normal security procedures the day before Thanksgiving in what was a blatant public relations ploy to deflate the impact of the national opt out day protest which had been scheduled for the same day.
“We’d like to think that the TSA has been listening to citizens concerned about being given a choice between naked imaging or pat down searches of people’s private parts,” said former Congressman Bob Barr, Liberty Guard’s Chairman. “If this is the indeed the case, we’d like to commend the TSA for applying a bit of common sense to the controversial situation. However, it’s far more likely the reason was political and we think the public should be made aware of the motivations of our country’s security chiefs.”
As we highlighted on Monday, according to numerous reports, major airports around the country roped off body scanners and refrained from conducting the more invasive pat downs on national opt out day. Our own reporters, who were flying from Denver International Airport, confirmed that the body scanners were out of use and pat downs were either light or non-existent.
This was later spun by the TSA and the establishment media to claim that the body scanner opt out protest had been a total failure, when in fact that majority of the body scanners were not even in use and millions more had boycotted airports altogether and traveled via clogged highways.
“Considering recent hardline statements made by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole, this apparent sudden reversal in the TSA’s direction warrants additional scrutiny,” said Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard. “We’d like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures.”
Statement from Alex Jones, one of the individuals named in the FOIA request.
“If the TSA really believes that the terror threat is so imminent that old ladies have to have hands put down their pants, then why did they turn off scanners on the busiest travel day of year?”
“This is right out of the old Soviet Union and then some, the TSA is boldly going where no police state has ever gone before, sticking hands down people’s pants and radiating them, and when the public speaks up about it and the press reports on it they’re labeled extremists and spied on?”
“The TSA needs to be investigated by Congress and grand juries for standing down and removing security on the busiest travel day of year, security that they say is so vital to prevent terror attacks.”
“They didn’t announce they had changed security, then simply lied to everyone while mockingly taunting critics in claiming that the public loved the pat downs and scanners.”
“This is a group of bureaucrats gone wild, Big Sis is developing the TSA as a Gestapo force to be used on the streets of America, trained to humiliate Americans on highways, at shopping malls, sporting events and any other public gathering. Regardless of your political persuasion, me must stand up to this tyranny in unison.”
“Now the TSA is talking about putting its critics on lists? How about we put everyone who’s a real American on a list and then we can see who’s not on the list and find out who the real enemies are. Let Matt Drudge and Alex Jones go down in history as being at the top of the list when it comes to opposing sticking hands down children’s pants and groping them.”
The FOIA request, filed by Barr’s Liberty Guard organization (PDF here), demands that the Transportation Security Administration, an agency of the DHS, turn over all information related to “Matt Drudge,” “drudgereport.com,” along with other media personalities and websites that have been at the center of the TSA controversy, including “Alex Jones, “John Tyner” and “prisonplanet.com”.
The request seeks to ascertain whether any of these names have been linked with the term “domestic extremist,” in reference to a reported TSA memo that was leaked last week which, according to Doug Hagmann, “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”
Numerous confirmed memos originating out of federal or state law enforcement agencies, such as the infamous MIAC report, have listed conservatives and libertarians as “domestic extremists” and even potential domestic terrorists for opposing big government and supporting Constitutionally-minded campaigns and causes.
Barr’s attempt to discover whether the federal government is treating critics of the TSA as domestic extremists is key in light of TSA chief John Pistole’s announcement yesterday that all travelers flying in US airspace would be checked against a government watch list before they are given permission to board an aircraft, a system some have likened to Communist-style internal checkpoints.
The notion that Matt Drudge, a constant thorn in the side of ‘Big Sis’ Janet Napolitano, along with other prominent media critics of the TSA, could be the target of DHS surveillance is hardly far fetched considering the fact that Homeland Security was caught recently spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.
The TSA is turning into an arm of the DHS’ political police force – how long before Matt Drudge, Bob Barr and Alex Jones are put on a list and prevented from flying? Will everyone who opposes being radiated in a naked body scanner or having their kids felt up by TSA goons be put on a list?
Drudge has been at the forefront of a national rebellion against the TSA’s new enhanced pat down procedures which subject travelers, including children, the disabled and the elderly, to humiliating treatment which falls not far short of sexual molestation. The Freedom of Information Act request also aims to uncover why the TSA made the decision to “stand down” on its normal security procedures the day before Thanksgiving in what was a blatant public relations ploy to deflate the impact of the national opt out day protest which had been scheduled for the same day.
“We’d like to think that the TSA has been listening to citizens concerned about being given a choice between naked imaging or pat down searches of people’s private parts,” said former Congressman Bob Barr, Liberty Guard’s Chairman. “If this is the indeed the case, we’d like to commend the TSA for applying a bit of common sense to the controversial situation. However, it’s far more likely the reason was political and we think the public should be made aware of the motivations of our country’s security chiefs.”
As we highlighted on Monday, according to numerous reports, major airports around the country roped off body scanners and refrained from conducting the more invasive pat downs on national opt out day. Our own reporters, who were flying from Denver International Airport, confirmed that the body scanners were out of use and pat downs were either light or non-existent.
This was later spun by the TSA and the establishment media to claim that the body scanner opt out protest had been a total failure, when in fact that majority of the body scanners were not even in use and millions more had boycotted airports altogether and traveled via clogged highways.
“Considering recent hardline statements made by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole, this apparent sudden reversal in the TSA’s direction warrants additional scrutiny,” said Joe Seehussen, President of Liberty Guard. “We’d like to know if we can expect a policy shift from the TSA or if they were merely attempting to shut down the public outcry regarding their search procedures.”
Statement from Alex Jones, one of the individuals named in the FOIA request.
“If the TSA really believes that the terror threat is so imminent that old ladies have to have hands put down their pants, then why did they turn off scanners on the busiest travel day of year?”
“This is right out of the old Soviet Union and then some, the TSA is boldly going where no police state has ever gone before, sticking hands down people’s pants and radiating them, and when the public speaks up about it and the press reports on it they’re labeled extremists and spied on?”
“The TSA needs to be investigated by Congress and grand juries for standing down and removing security on the busiest travel day of year, security that they say is so vital to prevent terror attacks.”
“They didn’t announce they had changed security, then simply lied to everyone while mockingly taunting critics in claiming that the public loved the pat downs and scanners.”
“This is a group of bureaucrats gone wild, Big Sis is developing the TSA as a Gestapo force to be used on the streets of America, trained to humiliate Americans on highways, at shopping malls, sporting events and any other public gathering. Regardless of your political persuasion, me must stand up to this tyranny in unison.”
“Now the TSA is talking about putting its critics on lists? How about we put everyone who’s a real American on a list and then we can see who’s not on the list and find out who the real enemies are. Let Matt Drudge and Alex Jones go down in history as being at the top of the list when it comes to opposing sticking hands down children’s pants and groping them.”
Obama Imposes 7-Year Eastern Gulf Of Mexico Oil Drilling Ban
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will not be allowing new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years, according to a senior administration official.
The ban is being imposed as a result of the April 20 explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf, which killed 11 people and triggered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.
An estimated 4.9 million barrels (206 million gallons) of oil gushed into the Gulf before the broken well, 5,000 feet below the surface, was capped.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is scheduled to hold a briefing on the decision at 1:30 p.m. ET Wednesday.
The administration lifted a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling in October.
"There will always be risks associated with deep-water drilling," Salazar said at the time. But "we have reached a point where we have significantly reduced those risks."
Salazar argued that the moratorium provided time to make sure similar accidents involving a failed piece of equipment called a blowout preventer wouldn't occur and that rig operators were prepared to deal with worst-case scenarios if they did happen.
Critics of the ban, including Republican leaders, Gulf state officials and Gulf Coast residents, said it would only hurt oil and gas workers in hard-hit coastal communities, where hundreds of jobs were lost because of the disaster.
Environmental groups and other supporters of the moratorium argued that it was necessary due to a lack of effective regulation of deep-water drilling that allowed the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent spill to occur.
The ban is being imposed as a result of the April 20 explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf, which killed 11 people and triggered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.
An estimated 4.9 million barrels (206 million gallons) of oil gushed into the Gulf before the broken well, 5,000 feet below the surface, was capped.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is scheduled to hold a briefing on the decision at 1:30 p.m. ET Wednesday.
The administration lifted a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling in October.
"There will always be risks associated with deep-water drilling," Salazar said at the time. But "we have reached a point where we have significantly reduced those risks."
Salazar argued that the moratorium provided time to make sure similar accidents involving a failed piece of equipment called a blowout preventer wouldn't occur and that rig operators were prepared to deal with worst-case scenarios if they did happen.
Critics of the ban, including Republican leaders, Gulf state officials and Gulf Coast residents, said it would only hurt oil and gas workers in hard-hit coastal communities, where hundreds of jobs were lost because of the disaster.
Environmental groups and other supporters of the moratorium argued that it was necessary due to a lack of effective regulation of deep-water drilling that allowed the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent spill to occur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)