"Opt Out"

[karim0028]

Re: "Opt Out"

Damn thugs.

• TSA Now Putting Hands Down Fliers’ Pants
• TSA says: “It really is irresponsible to encourage anyone to opt out"
• It is illegal ($11,000 fine) to refuse the check and leave the security area unchecked
• TSA pats down a screaming toddler (3 yr. old)
• Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. "It's all about everybody recognizing their role."

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), now 67,000 employees strong (there are only perhaps 30,000 commercial airline flights per day in the USA) has declared a cold war of tyranny on America. Travel must be made difficult. Resistance must be futile. Walking out justifies fines and investigations. Hijab wearing Muslim TSA agents will feel up nuns wearing habits. Male TSA agents will feel up good looking females. Adult strangers will feel up young children. Clueless agents will take nail clippers from lawfully armed and weapons carrying airline pilots. They will try to take Congressional Medals of Honor from America's finest heroes, because "the medals have sharp points." The compliant will provide naked body scans (and get a free dose of X-Rays.) Any objections -- a platoon of armed men with automatic weapons will show you who's boss.The TSA is deliberately and willfully flaunting their abusive power in our face, daring us to resist, in order that our resistance might justify an increased intensity of their oppression.

The oligarchy is training an army of brutes, bullies and thugs to manage our oppression. It is training most of us to submit, and identifying those who would resist.

I had a TSA dumbass try that on me in 2003... Asked me to unzip my pants in a security line and said he needed to "check inside" bc my jeans button was beeping.... I promptly told him he had better go put on a skirt if he had any hopes about getting my pants off... And that i could provide him detailed guidance on what he was going to find down there Anyway, back then i actually refused, his manager came out and i told him how idiotic his subordinates request sounded and that i wasnt going to comply and i began to make a fuss and the manager just said "fine, let him go"... Never thought that this would become Standard Operating Procedure.....

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: "Opt Out"

funny that you should mention this. wonder how far up incompetence goes at the tsa? check this guy out.

mouth, meet foot.

<

I was so astonished at this statement that I listened very carefully and transcribed it exactly. First, verbatim:

“…uh, we are not dictating, necessarily, these events that are occurring; you know, there’s, there’s the events that are happening across the world; there’s intelligence, there’s driving us to be able to, us as a society to have to, uh, actually go to these measures. I mean, nobody likes having their fourth amendment violated going through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, uh, we’re, uh, we’re going to have to do it.”

Now, one more time, with comments added:

“…uh, we are not dictating, necessarily, these events that are occurring;"

Why “necessarily”? He clearly means “maybe, maybe not” The next passage sounds like a liar fumbling to cover his slip up.

".. you know, there’s, there’s the events that are happening across the world; there’s intelligence,.."

now, another unintended admission

"there’s driving us to be able to, us as a society to have to, uh, actually go to these measures."

He caught himself saying " us to be able to " and corrected it to " us as a society to have to ". He was clearly changing “us the authorities getting permission ” into “we the people with no alternative”.

Next comes the unambiguous admission of intentional unconstitutional actions:

"I mean, nobody likes having their fourth amendment violated going through a security line, but the truth of the matter is, uh, we’re, uh, we’re going to have to do it.”

Overall, he strikes me as a bad liar, lying badly about reprehensible actions and intentions with which he has become so comfortable personally that he wants to just say it plain. The old cliche says "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".

Perhaps Pythonic Cow can advise me where to get a good tinfoil hat, because I think I want one now.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: "Opt Out"

Perhaps Pythonic Cow can advise me where to get a good tinfoil hat, because I think I want one now.

None of the ones I've tried so far work. The weird signals keep getting through. Sorry.

[skidder]

Re: "Opt Out"

No, you aren't crazy Pythonic Cow!. Absolutely spot on!!!! Most folks can not connect the dots. It's ******* insanity, IMO.

[tsetsefly]

Re: "Opt Out"

Don't know if anyone got to see the TSA hearing yesterday but boy are we f*cked!

Very timid criticism was the only thing the senate committee could muster and it was always followed by a "i know you have a tough job" or "it could be done in a better way". No one even mentioned how unconstitutional this is or how insane the policy.

THe only good thing that came of it was many senators said they received numerous calls and letter complaining about this...

here are some highlights: http://www.youtube.com/results?searc..._date_uploaded

[jiimbergin]

Re: "Opt Out"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/17/terrorists-hiding-in-hijabs/

EDITORIAL: Terrorists hiding in hijabs
Muslims seek special treatment to elude TSA groping
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-
The Washington Times
7:04 p.m., Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Note to terrorists: Next time, wear a hijab. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly is giving special exemptions to their "enhanced pat-down" policy to Muslim women wearing the hijab or other form-concealing garments.

Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a "travel advisory" noting that women who are patted down "should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down." It's unclear why CAIR believes TSA frisking must be Shariah-compliant. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to deny that such exemptions existed when CNS News asked her about them on Monday, saying instead that "adjustments will be made where they need to be made" and that "there will be more to come" on this issue.

A fatwa issued in February by Islamic scholars at the Fiqh Council of North America forbad observant Muslims from going through full-body scanners. The council stated, "It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes modesty and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts." The alternative to the highly revealing and intrusive body scanners is the similarly invasive pat-down, which is objectionable to everyone regardless of religion. Reports of TSA officers placing their hands inside peoples' pants and conducting full skin-to-skin frisks have only heightened the general sense of disgust at this unprecedented government intrusion.

Exemptions for Muslim women wearing traditional garb may be the brainchild of Mohamed Elibiary, who recently was made a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Mr. Elibiary is president and chief executive officer of the Texas-based Freedom and Justice Foundation and a self-styled "de-radicalization expert" whose star has risen during the Obama presidency. He previously was appointed to Homeland Security's Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and has testified before Congress as an expert on Muslim radicalism - a topic he seems to know well.

[WildspitzE]

Re: "Opt Out"

Ron Paul's take (video), passing new legislation (one paragraph long).

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibr...ppid=599164944

[tsetsefly]

Re: "Opt Out"

Ron Paul's take (video), passing new legislation (one paragraph long).

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibr...ppid=599164944

he hit all the points in 5 minutes. Even mentioning how the ex-homeland security chief is making money off of this, ill embed the video for easy viewing. I hope he runs for 2012. How many times must he be right for people to vote for him? (I remember other candidates laughing at him during the debates in 2008 when he talked about the coming economic collapse and the debt... they're not laughing anymore...)

[jk]

Re: "Opt Out"

i wish paul were as libertarian about social issues as he is on economic ones.

[vinoveri]

Re: "Opt Out"

i wish paul were as libertarian about social issues as he is on economic ones.

I think he is a politcal libertarian. He may have socially conservative viewpoints, but his view of how government should operate is the most libertarian I've seen.

He's a states' rights guy from what I can tell; leave it up to the local communities and people to decide the social questions of their community vs a one-size fits all top down policy.

Free exchange of ideas, debate, and rules and regs set by local majority vote all under the republic's Constitution is what I think he advocates. I'd prefer this over central-planning any day.

It's tough to have it both ways, e.g, .... "I want the Feds to guarantee me this or that but stay out of my affairs in that and this". Once you invite the nanny state in, she ain't going to move out ... and she's always going to want a bigger room.

[LorenS]

Re: "Opt Out"

I can't believe anyone hasn't called Pistole out on his "non metallic" explosive line yet.

Very very few explosives have metallic elements in them, including the old stalwarts. There is nothing even remotely new about these "non-metallic threats".

If security is such a high priority why was Senator Edward Kennedy on the no- fly list? He only killed one person and that was an accident, it hardly qualifies as terrorism.

If the no fly list is any good why aren't those people in jail? Do you really want a terrorist driving an 18 wheeler, loaded with gasoline, behind your kids school bus? If you don't trust these people to sit on an airplane why should you trust them in a car?

[WildspitzE]

Re: "Opt Out"

looks like the practical jokes started...

[will embed when i get home, can't embed from this computer]

"Porn Addict" calls the TSA about a job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr4rN...layer_embedded

[WildspitzE]

Re: "Opt Out"

I can't believe anyone hasn't called Pistole out on his "non metallic" explosive line yet.

Very very few explosives have metallic elements in them, including the old stalwarts. There is nothing even remotely new about these "non-metallic threats".

If security is such a high priority why was Senator Edward Kennedy on the no- fly list? He only killed one person and that was an accident, it hardly qualifies as terrorism.

If the no fly list is any good why aren't those people in jail? Do you really want a terrorist driving an 18 wheeler, loaded with gasoline, behind your kids school bus? If you don't trust these people to sit on an airplane why should you trust them in a car?

Because it's theater. Malls, schools, places of worship, hospitals, trains, buses, etc. are all super soft targets that get no "security" either.

[charliebrown]

Re: "Opt Out"

You know, it seems possible that a computer program could color anything on the person that is not on a typical person, and only display the non-human components. If something showed up, the reviewer could perform a deeper level of analysis.
We still have the radiation issue.

Can anyone express the radiation in milli-rems or whatever they measure it in, so I can decide for myself if this is too much,
instead of having an array of experts say too much or not to worry.

What about prosthetics? Does the scanner see inside of these things?

[Sharky]

Re: "Opt Out"

Can anyone express the radiation in milli-rems or whatever they measure it in, so I can decide for myself if this is too much, instead of having an array of experts say too much or not to worry.

Appx 0.005 to 0.009 mrems, according to Wikipedia.

In theory, that's as much additional radiation as you get from about 2 minutes in flight, or about 1 additional cancer death per 200M scans, or about 2.5 people per year in the US if everyone who flew was scanned.

However, that's assuming you believe the published dose numbers and their theoretical effects, and that the machines are in proper working order and are being operated correctly. I'm not sure I buy any of those suppositions.