Even establishment mouthpiece entertains notion of mass civil unrest as backlash to economic collapse.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
With protesters in France entering a seventh day of strikes and demonstrations against draconian austerity measures, many political observers in the U.S. are now wondering how long it will be before similar scenes unfold on American streets, with even Time Magazine now conceding that the prospect of a civil war in the States “doesn’t seem that far fetched”.
To be clear, Stephen Gandel’s article entitled Will the Federal Reserve Cause a Civil War? largely dismisses the possibility that the Fed’s upcoming November 3rd meeting, during which Ben Bernanke is expected to announce a fresh round of money printing, will prompt national uproar, but it doesn’t exactly debunk the notion of longer term social dislocation as a backlash to the crumbling economy, as many are now forecasting.
As we highlighted yesterday in a piece that was later picked up by the Drudge Report, it’s only a matter of time before Americans are hit with almost identical austerity measures to those that have caused the French to set up fuel blockades, stage running battles with riot police, halt air and rail travel, and virtually shut down some areas of the country.
The question remains – how will Americans react if the Obama administration pushes ahead with its plan to seize all private 401(k) pensions, which will be swallowed up by the Social Security Administration under the banner of mandatory Guaranteed Retirement Accounts? How will Americans react to the upcoming announcement that the Federal Reserve will further eviscerate the value of the dollar by purchasing junk assets from big banks at exorbitant prices with money printed out of thin air?
Time Magazine, which as a guardian of the establishment would normally be expected to disparage the potential of mass civil disobedience, actually lends the notion some spotlight by linking to a Zero Hedge story which paraphrased economic forecaster David Rosenberg, who warns that the Fed’s plan for more quantitative easing, “positions US society one step closer to civil war if not worse.”
The article also features a quote from a Washington’s Blog piece which warns that the Fed’s policies could lead to the very destruction of the republic.
“In a very real sense, Bernanke is throwing Granny and Grandpa down the stairs – on purpose. He is literally threatening those at the lower end of the economic strata, along with all who are retired, with starvation and death, and in a just nation where the rule of law controlled instead of being abused by the kleptocrats he would be facing charges of Seditious Conspiracy, as his policies will inevitably lead to the destruction of our republic.”
Lending the notion credence, Gandel writes, “With the Tea Party gaining followers, the idea of civil war over economic issues doesn’t seem that far-fetched these days.”
Yes, you read that correctly. Even Time Magazine is now conceding that the current economic course of the nation could lead to outright civil war and revolution.
Gandel finishes the article by leaving the prospect of widespread civil unrest as an open question.
“So it seems clear what the Fed is likely to do,” he writes. “How the economy, the militias and the rest of us react is up in the air. The count down is on. T minus 15 days to Fedamageddon. See you there, hopefully.”
Of course, people like Gerald Celente and a host of other economic forecasters have been predicting civil unrest, food riots and tax rebellions for the past two years, but to have Time Magazine seriously entertain the notion of civil war in the United States is a shocking reminder of just how close to the precipice we now stand.
Numerous forecasters, governments, spy agencies, and international bodies are predicting mass riots and unrest in response to a worsening economic picture.
In November 2008, right as the economic implosion was unraveling, the U.S. Army War College released a white paper called Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development. The report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” The “widespread civil violence,” the document said, “would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”
A British Ministry of Defence report struck a similar tone when it predicted that within 30 years, the growing gap between the super rich and the middle class, along with an urban underclass threatening social order would mean, “The world’s middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest,” and that, “The middle classes could become a revolutionary class.”
How Americans will react to what many see as a make or break moment for the US economy, the Fed’s announcement on November 3rd, largely depends on how well they understand the fact that their financial future and that of their children now hangs in the balance like never before.
As the Economic Collapse Blog points out, QE2 represents the biggest bank robbery in history, and is nothing less than another huge transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to big banks. The money Bernanke prints out of thin air, which will further devalue the greenback and every dollar earned or saved by American citizens, will be used to purchase large quantities of “troubled assets” from U.S. banks at well above market price. Small banks will be allowed to wither and die, whereas the huge megaliths will collect mountains of free money at the expense of hard working Americans.
The long term impact of the Fed buying these toxic junk assets with money printed out of thin air will be an inflationary holocaust that does nothing to rescue the US economy but everything to depreciate the very real assets of the American taxpayer.
We are already on the road to serious inflation and the Federal Reserve has not even fired up the money hoses yet. So what is going to happen after they pump trillions more into the economy?
Printing more money and giving it to the banks is not going to solve our economic problems. It is just going to make them worse.
But unfortunately, American voters get no say about any of this. Our national monetary policy is in the hands of an unelected central bank that does pretty much whatever it wants.
If as many Americans were aware of what the Federal Reserve is about to do with their financial future as are knowledgeable about the intricacies of Dancing with the Stars, then the “civil war” that even Time Magazine is now presenting as a justifiable response to the crisis would be a very plausible prospect.
As it stands, according to the majority of voters in our poll on Prison Planet.com, Americans will react to the situation not by organizing fuel blockades, marching in the streets and shutting down the country, but by scratching their butts and flipping the TV channel
Watch Matt Taibbi’s explanation of what the Fed is about to do with your money.
View Article With Links HERE
Related Article: Alex Jones: EU Dictators Plan Fresh Looting Of Tax Slaves HERE
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Bilderberg Group Depopulation Plans Exposed
You Tube
The Bilderberg group and their secret and not so secret meetings have all had one main objective - how to reduce the number of people on the planet. These New World Order elitists are dictating who has the right to live and who doesn't.
ELITIST QUOTES:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
~ Bill Gates
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
~ Ted Turner (Founder of CNN, United Nations Foundation Chairman)
"World population needs to be decreased by 50%"
~ Henry Kissinger (Former Secretary of State & NSA, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient)
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
~ Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh)
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
~ David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it."
~ J. Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier
"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
~ Mikhail Gorbachev
The Bilderberg group and their secret and not so secret meetings have all had one main objective - how to reduce the number of people on the planet. These New World Order elitists are dictating who has the right to live and who doesn't.
ELITIST QUOTES:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
~ Bill Gates
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
~ Ted Turner (Founder of CNN, United Nations Foundation Chairman)
"World population needs to be decreased by 50%"
~ Henry Kissinger (Former Secretary of State & NSA, Nobel Peace Prize Recipient)
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
~ Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh)
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
~ David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it."
~ J. Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier
"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
~ Mikhail Gorbachev
The Biggest Bank Robbery In History? More Quantitative Easing = Backdoor Bailouts For The Big Banks Without Having To Go Through Congress
theeconomiccollapseblog.com
The U.S. Federal Reserve is getting ready to conduct another gigantic bailout of the big banks, but this time virtually nobody in the mainstream media will use the term "bailout" and the American people are going to get a lot less upset about it. You see, one lesson that was learned during the last round of bank bailouts was that the American people really, really do not like it when the U.S. Congress votes to give money to the big banks. So this time, the financial "powers that be" have figured out a way around that. Instead of going through the massive headache of dealing with the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve is simply going to print money and give it directly to the banks. To be more precise, the Federal Reserve is going to use a procedure known as "quantitative easing" to print money out of thin air in order to purchase large quantities of "troubled assets" (such as mortgage-backed securities) from the biggest U.S. banks at well above market price. Some are already openly wondering if this next round of quantitative easing is going to be the biggest bank robbery in history. Most Americans won't understand these "backdoor bailouts" well enough to get upset about them, but that doesn't mean that they won't be just as bad (or even worse) than the last round of bailouts. In the end, all of the inflation that this new round of quantitative easing is going to cause is going to be a "hidden tax" on all of us.
These new backdoor bailouts are going to work something like this....
1) The big U.S. banks have massive quantities of junk mortgage-backed securities that are worth little to nothing that they desperately want to get rid of.
2) They convince the Federal Reserve (which the big banks are part-owners of) to buy up these "toxic assets" at way above market price.
3) The Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy up all of these troubled assets. The public is told that all of this "quantitative easing" is necessary to stimulate the U.S. economy.
4) The big banks are re-capitalized and have gotten massive amounts of bad mortgage securities off their hands, the Federal Reserve has found a way to pump hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars into the economy, and most of the American people are none the wiser.
During a recent appearance on MSNBC, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone did a great job of explaining how this all works....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhMVB0XzPU&feature=player_embedded
But this isn't the only way that the Federal Reserve forks over massive amounts of cash to the big U.S. banks. In a previous article, I described how the U.S. Federal Reserve lends huge quantities of nearly interest-free money to big U.S. banks which they turn around and invest in U.S. Treasuries which bring in a return of three percent or so. In essence, it is a legalized way for the big U.S. banks to make mountains and mountains of free money.
The truth is that the Federal Reserve does whatever it can to ensure that the big U.S. banks stay fat and happy.
So what about the small banks? What happens to them?
Well, the vast majority of the small banks are considered "not big enough for bailouts" and they are allowed to die like dogs.
Don't let anyone ever fool you into thinking that the U.S. banking system has a level playing field.
For weeks, Federal Reserve officials have been coming out and have been dropping hints about how important it is for them to take "action" and implement another round of quantitative easing in order to help stimulate the U.S. economy.
In fact, during his speech on Friday, you could almost hear Ben Bernanke salivating at the thought of printing more money.
But nobody ever really asks who is going to be the first to get their hands on all this money that the Fed is going to pump into the economy.
The answer, of course, is obvious.
It is going to be the big banks - the same banks that are part-owners of the Federal Reserve and that have tremendous influence over Fed policies.
But even though this is all more than a little shady, is it such a bad thing for the rest of us if the Federal Reserve bails out the big banks and brings some much needed stability back to the U.S. financial system?
After all, if "Foreclosure-Gate" could potentially cause a nightmarish financial meltdown, isn't it better for the Federal Reserve to step in and soak up large amounts of these toxic assets?
Those are legitimate questions.
Certainly the Federal Reserve has the power to step in and smooth over all sorts of short-term problems by papering them with money, but in the end printing more money will just make our long-term problems even worse.
Whenever a new dollar is introduced into the system, every other dollar in existence loses a little bit of value.
When trillions of new dollars get introduced into the system, it has the potential to create an inflationary nightmare.
Already, a number of top Fed officials are publicly saying that inflation is "too low" and that we need to purposely generate more inflation in order to "stimulate" the U.S. economy.
Yes, that is just as insane as it sounds, but that is what they are actually proposing.
Apparently many top Federal Reserve officials honestly believe that they can pump trillions into the economy, jack up inflation significantly, and little harm will be done.
But even before "QE2" has begun, we are already starting to see all kinds of little bubbles beginning to develop in the financial system. For example, commodity prices are skyrocketing right now, and that will soon be affecting the price we pay for food at the supermarket.
We are already on the road to serious inflation and the Federal Reserve has not even fired up the money hoses yet. So what is going to happen after they pump trillions more into the economy?
Printing more money and giving it to the banks is not going to solve our economic problems. It is just going to make them worse.
But unfortunately, American voters get no say about any of this. Our national monetary policy is in the hands of an unelected central bank that does pretty much whatever it wants.
An economic nightmare is coming, and you had better get ready.
View Article With Links HERE
The U.S. Federal Reserve is getting ready to conduct another gigantic bailout of the big banks, but this time virtually nobody in the mainstream media will use the term "bailout" and the American people are going to get a lot less upset about it. You see, one lesson that was learned during the last round of bank bailouts was that the American people really, really do not like it when the U.S. Congress votes to give money to the big banks. So this time, the financial "powers that be" have figured out a way around that. Instead of going through the massive headache of dealing with the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve is simply going to print money and give it directly to the banks. To be more precise, the Federal Reserve is going to use a procedure known as "quantitative easing" to print money out of thin air in order to purchase large quantities of "troubled assets" (such as mortgage-backed securities) from the biggest U.S. banks at well above market price. Some are already openly wondering if this next round of quantitative easing is going to be the biggest bank robbery in history. Most Americans won't understand these "backdoor bailouts" well enough to get upset about them, but that doesn't mean that they won't be just as bad (or even worse) than the last round of bailouts. In the end, all of the inflation that this new round of quantitative easing is going to cause is going to be a "hidden tax" on all of us.
These new backdoor bailouts are going to work something like this....
1) The big U.S. banks have massive quantities of junk mortgage-backed securities that are worth little to nothing that they desperately want to get rid of.
2) They convince the Federal Reserve (which the big banks are part-owners of) to buy up these "toxic assets" at way above market price.
3) The Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy up all of these troubled assets. The public is told that all of this "quantitative easing" is necessary to stimulate the U.S. economy.
4) The big banks are re-capitalized and have gotten massive amounts of bad mortgage securities off their hands, the Federal Reserve has found a way to pump hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars into the economy, and most of the American people are none the wiser.
During a recent appearance on MSNBC, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone did a great job of explaining how this all works....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhMVB0XzPU&feature=player_embedded
But this isn't the only way that the Federal Reserve forks over massive amounts of cash to the big U.S. banks. In a previous article, I described how the U.S. Federal Reserve lends huge quantities of nearly interest-free money to big U.S. banks which they turn around and invest in U.S. Treasuries which bring in a return of three percent or so. In essence, it is a legalized way for the big U.S. banks to make mountains and mountains of free money.
The truth is that the Federal Reserve does whatever it can to ensure that the big U.S. banks stay fat and happy.
So what about the small banks? What happens to them?
Well, the vast majority of the small banks are considered "not big enough for bailouts" and they are allowed to die like dogs.
Don't let anyone ever fool you into thinking that the U.S. banking system has a level playing field.
For weeks, Federal Reserve officials have been coming out and have been dropping hints about how important it is for them to take "action" and implement another round of quantitative easing in order to help stimulate the U.S. economy.
In fact, during his speech on Friday, you could almost hear Ben Bernanke salivating at the thought of printing more money.
But nobody ever really asks who is going to be the first to get their hands on all this money that the Fed is going to pump into the economy.
The answer, of course, is obvious.
It is going to be the big banks - the same banks that are part-owners of the Federal Reserve and that have tremendous influence over Fed policies.
But even though this is all more than a little shady, is it such a bad thing for the rest of us if the Federal Reserve bails out the big banks and brings some much needed stability back to the U.S. financial system?
After all, if "Foreclosure-Gate" could potentially cause a nightmarish financial meltdown, isn't it better for the Federal Reserve to step in and soak up large amounts of these toxic assets?
Those are legitimate questions.
Certainly the Federal Reserve has the power to step in and smooth over all sorts of short-term problems by papering them with money, but in the end printing more money will just make our long-term problems even worse.
Whenever a new dollar is introduced into the system, every other dollar in existence loses a little bit of value.
When trillions of new dollars get introduced into the system, it has the potential to create an inflationary nightmare.
Already, a number of top Fed officials are publicly saying that inflation is "too low" and that we need to purposely generate more inflation in order to "stimulate" the U.S. economy.
Yes, that is just as insane as it sounds, but that is what they are actually proposing.
Apparently many top Federal Reserve officials honestly believe that they can pump trillions into the economy, jack up inflation significantly, and little harm will be done.
But even before "QE2" has begun, we are already starting to see all kinds of little bubbles beginning to develop in the financial system. For example, commodity prices are skyrocketing right now, and that will soon be affecting the price we pay for food at the supermarket.
We are already on the road to serious inflation and the Federal Reserve has not even fired up the money hoses yet. So what is going to happen after they pump trillions more into the economy?
Printing more money and giving it to the banks is not going to solve our economic problems. It is just going to make them worse.
But unfortunately, American voters get no say about any of this. Our national monetary policy is in the hands of an unelected central bank that does pretty much whatever it wants.
An economic nightmare is coming, and you had better get ready.
View Article With Links HERE
Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants
By ANNE FLAHERTY and JULIE WATSON, Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO – The military is accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in the nation's history, even as it tries in the courts to slow the movement to abolish its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's Tuesday announcement.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in California who overturned the 17-year policy last week was likely to reject the government's latest effort to halt her order telling the military to stop enforcing the law.
The Justice Department will likely appeal if she does not suspend her order.
The Defense Department has said it would comply with U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' order and had frozen any discharge cases. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.
Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of the policy could be reversed at any time, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.
Gay rights groups were continuing to tell service members to avoid revealing that they are gay, fearing they could find themselves in trouble should the law be reinstated.
"What people aren't really getting is that the discretion and caution that gay troops are showing now is exactly the same standard of conduct that they will adhere to when the ban is lifted permanently," said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Yes, a few will try to become celebrities."
An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said financial considerations are playing a big role in gay service members staying quiet.
"The military has financially trapped us," he said, noting that he could owe the military about $200,000 if he were to be dismissed.
The officer, who asked not to be identified for fear of being discharged, said he's hearing increasingly about heterosexual service members approaching gay colleagues and telling them they can come out now.
He also said more gay service members are coming out to their peers who are friends, while keeping their orientation secret from leadership. He said he has come out to two peers in the last few days.
"People are coming out informally in their units," the officer said. "Discussions are happening right now."
An opponent of the judge's ruling said confusion that has come up is exactly what Pentagon officials feared and shows the need for her to immediately freeze her order while the government appeals.
"It's only logical that a stay should be granted to avoid the confusion that is already occurring with reports that the Pentagon is telling recruiters to begin accepting homosexual applicants," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington that supports the policy.
The uncertain status of the law has caused much confusion within an institution that has historically discriminated against gays.
Before the 1993 law, the military banned gays entirely and declared them incompatible with military service. There have been instances in which gays have served, with the knowledge of their colleagues.
Twenty-nine nations, including Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden, allow openly gay troops, according to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group and plaintiff in the lawsuit before Phillips.
The Pentagon guidance to recruiters comes after Dan Woods, the group's attorney, sent a letter last week warning the Justice Department that Army recruiters who turned away Omar Lopez in Austin, Texas may have caused the government to violate Phillips' injunction. Woods wrote that the government could be subject to a citation for contempt.
The White House has insisted their actions in court do not diminish President Barack Obama's efforts to repeal the ban.
In their stay request, government lawyers argue Phillips' order would be disruptive to troops serving at a time of war. They say the military needs time to prepare new regulations and train and educate service members about the change.
Phillips has said her order does not prohibit the Pentagon from implementing those measures.
Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command based at Fort Knox, Ky., said even before the ruling recruiters did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation. The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.
"If they were to self-admit that they are gay and want to enlist, we will process them for enlistment, but will tell them that the legal situation could change," Smith said.
He said the enlistment process takes time and recruiters have been told to inform those who are openly gay that they could be declared ineligible if the law is upheld on appeal.
"U.S. Army Recruiting Command is going to follow the law, whatever the law is," he said.
The message, however, had not reached some recruiting stations.
In Pensacola, Marine Sgt. Timothy Chandler said he had been given no direction. "As far as we are concerned everything is the same. The policy hasn't changed," he said, as others in the office nodded.
Chandler said no one had come to the small office questioning the policy or asking about being openly gay and serving.
Recruiters at the Navy office next door referred all media questions to the Pentagon. Air Force recruiters said they were not authorized to talk to the media. Army recruiters referred questions to another office in Mobile, Ala.
In New York's Times Square, Dan Choi, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran who was discharged for being gay, began the process to enlist in the Army. In San Diego, recruiters took an application from Will Rodriguez, a former Marine who was discharged under the policy in 2008.
Phillips said at a hearing Monday that she was learning toward denying the Obama administration's request to delay her order. That would send the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
After Phillips' ruling last week, Lopez — discharged from the Navy in 2006 after admitting his gay status to his military doctor — walked into an Army recruiting office in Austin and asked if he could re-enlist.
He said he was up front, even showing the recruiters his Navy discharge papers. But they told him he couldn't re-enlist because they had not gotten word from the Pentagon to allow openly gay recruits.
Smith was unable to confirm the account. She said guidance on gay applicants had been issued to recruiting commands on Oct. 15.
On Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes to recruiting, Lopez said, "Oh, my God! I've been waiting for this for four years."
Lopez said he'll try again Friday and will go to a Navy recruiting office in Austin to see if he can enroll in ROTC as an officer. He is currently studying hospitality services at Austin Community College.
"I'm hoping they'll let me in because I was able to switch over from an enlistment to an officer. I'm really hoping they can accept me," he said.
View Original Article HERE
SAN DIEGO – The military is accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in the nation's history, even as it tries in the courts to slow the movement to abolish its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's Tuesday announcement.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in California who overturned the 17-year policy last week was likely to reject the government's latest effort to halt her order telling the military to stop enforcing the law.
The Justice Department will likely appeal if she does not suspend her order.
The Defense Department has said it would comply with U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' order and had frozen any discharge cases. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.
Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of the policy could be reversed at any time, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.
Gay rights groups were continuing to tell service members to avoid revealing that they are gay, fearing they could find themselves in trouble should the law be reinstated.
"What people aren't really getting is that the discretion and caution that gay troops are showing now is exactly the same standard of conduct that they will adhere to when the ban is lifted permanently," said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Yes, a few will try to become celebrities."
An Air Force officer and co-founder of a gay service member support group called OutServe said financial considerations are playing a big role in gay service members staying quiet.
"The military has financially trapped us," he said, noting that he could owe the military about $200,000 if he were to be dismissed.
The officer, who asked not to be identified for fear of being discharged, said he's hearing increasingly about heterosexual service members approaching gay colleagues and telling them they can come out now.
He also said more gay service members are coming out to their peers who are friends, while keeping their orientation secret from leadership. He said he has come out to two peers in the last few days.
"People are coming out informally in their units," the officer said. "Discussions are happening right now."
An opponent of the judge's ruling said confusion that has come up is exactly what Pentagon officials feared and shows the need for her to immediately freeze her order while the government appeals.
"It's only logical that a stay should be granted to avoid the confusion that is already occurring with reports that the Pentagon is telling recruiters to begin accepting homosexual applicants," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group based in Washington that supports the policy.
The uncertain status of the law has caused much confusion within an institution that has historically discriminated against gays.
Before the 1993 law, the military banned gays entirely and declared them incompatible with military service. There have been instances in which gays have served, with the knowledge of their colleagues.
Twenty-nine nations, including Israel, Canada, Germany and Sweden, allow openly gay troops, according to the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group and plaintiff in the lawsuit before Phillips.
The Pentagon guidance to recruiters comes after Dan Woods, the group's attorney, sent a letter last week warning the Justice Department that Army recruiters who turned away Omar Lopez in Austin, Texas may have caused the government to violate Phillips' injunction. Woods wrote that the government could be subject to a citation for contempt.
The White House has insisted their actions in court do not diminish President Barack Obama's efforts to repeal the ban.
In their stay request, government lawyers argue Phillips' order would be disruptive to troops serving at a time of war. They say the military needs time to prepare new regulations and train and educate service members about the change.
Phillips has said her order does not prohibit the Pentagon from implementing those measures.
Douglas Smith, spokesman for U.S. Army Recruiting Command based at Fort Knox, Ky., said even before the ruling recruiters did not ask applicants about their sexual orientation. The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.
"If they were to self-admit that they are gay and want to enlist, we will process them for enlistment, but will tell them that the legal situation could change," Smith said.
He said the enlistment process takes time and recruiters have been told to inform those who are openly gay that they could be declared ineligible if the law is upheld on appeal.
"U.S. Army Recruiting Command is going to follow the law, whatever the law is," he said.
The message, however, had not reached some recruiting stations.
In Pensacola, Marine Sgt. Timothy Chandler said he had been given no direction. "As far as we are concerned everything is the same. The policy hasn't changed," he said, as others in the office nodded.
Chandler said no one had come to the small office questioning the policy or asking about being openly gay and serving.
Recruiters at the Navy office next door referred all media questions to the Pentagon. Air Force recruiters said they were not authorized to talk to the media. Army recruiters referred questions to another office in Mobile, Ala.
In New York's Times Square, Dan Choi, a 29-year-old Iraq War veteran who was discharged for being gay, began the process to enlist in the Army. In San Diego, recruiters took an application from Will Rodriguez, a former Marine who was discharged under the policy in 2008.
Phillips said at a hearing Monday that she was learning toward denying the Obama administration's request to delay her order. That would send the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
After Phillips' ruling last week, Lopez — discharged from the Navy in 2006 after admitting his gay status to his military doctor — walked into an Army recruiting office in Austin and asked if he could re-enlist.
He said he was up front, even showing the recruiters his Navy discharge papers. But they told him he couldn't re-enlist because they had not gotten word from the Pentagon to allow openly gay recruits.
Smith was unable to confirm the account. She said guidance on gay applicants had been issued to recruiting commands on Oct. 15.
On Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes to recruiting, Lopez said, "Oh, my God! I've been waiting for this for four years."
Lopez said he'll try again Friday and will go to a Navy recruiting office in Austin to see if he can enroll in ROTC as an officer. He is currently studying hospitality services at Austin Community College.
"I'm hoping they'll let me in because I was able to switch over from an enlistment to an officer. I'm really hoping they can accept me," he said.
View Original Article HERE
Obama Administration Uses Taxpayer Funding to Encourage ‘Sustainable Communities’
By Susan Jones
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. government is stepping in with millions of taxpayer dollars to create affordable places for Americans to work and live.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week announced nearly $100 million in new grants "to support more livable and sustainable communities across the country."
Forty-five regions will receive various amounts of the funding through the new initiative, which aims to connect housing with jobs, schools and transportation.
“Regions that embrace sustainable communities will have a built-in competitive edge in attracting jobs and private investment,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan in an Oct. 14 news release announcing the 45 grant recipients.
“Planning our communities smarter means parents will spend less time driving and more time with their children; more families will live in safe, stable communities near good schools and jobs; and more businesses will have access to the capital and talent they need to grow and prosper.”
Rather than dictate how communities can spend the grant money, HUD encouraged “creative, locally focused thinking,” Donovan added.
The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program -- funded for the first time this year -- is part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency collaboration that brings HUD, the Transportation Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency together to help communities across the country “create more housing choices, make transportation more efficient and reliable, reinforce existing investments, and support the kinds of neighborhoods that attract businesses.”
One category of grants will assist regional planning for sustainable development where such plans do not currently exist. A second category of funding will support the implementation of existing sustainability plans.
The 45 organizations that received grants (see list) were competitively selected from more than 1,000 applicants from across the country. The grants were judged by a team drawn from eight federal agencies and from partners in philanthropy.
Land-use choices
One of the largest grants, $5 million, is going to the Metropolitan Council of St. Paul, Minn., to support planning along the region's five “transit corridors.”"
The goal, said Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell, is to make transit more successful, promote housing and transportation affordability and availability, and make communities more vital.
“Increasingly we recognize that transit isn’t just about moving people from one place to another,” said Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough. “Transit and transit corridors pose unlimited opportunities to mold and shape our communities, our environment and our economic circumstances. Ultimately, the land use choices we make as we develop our network of transit corridors will shape our destiny as a region.”
When people can live in housing they can afford, near transportation they can afford and have community amenities available in the same area, "it’s a platform for success,” said Minnesota Housing Commissioner Dan Bartholomay.
Another $4.9 million is going to Washington State's Puget Sound Regional Council "to support regional planning for more livable, prosperous and sustainable communities in the Puget Sound area," a press release said.
"This funding is about creating economic opportunities for communities throughout the Puget Sound and Thurston County," said Sen. Pat Murray, chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee. Murray, a Democrat, is in a tight race for re-election.
"This funding will bring transit closer to commuters and commuters closer to their jobs and families. I funded this program because we need to think comprehensively about how we plan our communities. This funding will help Washington families have an affordable place to work and live."
“We’re very grateful to the Obama Administration for its leadership and its role in securing these grant funds,” said Ray Stephanson, President of the Puget Sound Regional Council and Mayor of Everett.
“Here in the Puget Sound region, we’re leading the way when it comes to growing our economy. This grant award will help shape the future of our region in ways that create a more livable and prosperous future for all of us. We’re taking a big picture approach to creating job opportunities closer to where people live, while promoting a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”
In the Fiscal 2010 budget, Congress provided a total of $150 million to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts involving housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning, HUD says on its Web site.
View Article With Links HERE
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. government is stepping in with millions of taxpayer dollars to create affordable places for Americans to work and live.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development last week announced nearly $100 million in new grants "to support more livable and sustainable communities across the country."
Forty-five regions will receive various amounts of the funding through the new initiative, which aims to connect housing with jobs, schools and transportation.
“Regions that embrace sustainable communities will have a built-in competitive edge in attracting jobs and private investment,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan in an Oct. 14 news release announcing the 45 grant recipients.
“Planning our communities smarter means parents will spend less time driving and more time with their children; more families will live in safe, stable communities near good schools and jobs; and more businesses will have access to the capital and talent they need to grow and prosper.”
Rather than dictate how communities can spend the grant money, HUD encouraged “creative, locally focused thinking,” Donovan added.
The Sustainable Communities Planning Grant Program -- funded for the first time this year -- is part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an interagency collaboration that brings HUD, the Transportation Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency together to help communities across the country “create more housing choices, make transportation more efficient and reliable, reinforce existing investments, and support the kinds of neighborhoods that attract businesses.”
One category of grants will assist regional planning for sustainable development where such plans do not currently exist. A second category of funding will support the implementation of existing sustainability plans.
The 45 organizations that received grants (see list) were competitively selected from more than 1,000 applicants from across the country. The grants were judged by a team drawn from eight federal agencies and from partners in philanthropy.
Land-use choices
One of the largest grants, $5 million, is going to the Metropolitan Council of St. Paul, Minn., to support planning along the region's five “transit corridors.”"
The goal, said Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell, is to make transit more successful, promote housing and transportation affordability and availability, and make communities more vital.
“Increasingly we recognize that transit isn’t just about moving people from one place to another,” said Ramsey County Commissioner Jim McDonough. “Transit and transit corridors pose unlimited opportunities to mold and shape our communities, our environment and our economic circumstances. Ultimately, the land use choices we make as we develop our network of transit corridors will shape our destiny as a region.”
When people can live in housing they can afford, near transportation they can afford and have community amenities available in the same area, "it’s a platform for success,” said Minnesota Housing Commissioner Dan Bartholomay.
Another $4.9 million is going to Washington State's Puget Sound Regional Council "to support regional planning for more livable, prosperous and sustainable communities in the Puget Sound area," a press release said.
"This funding is about creating economic opportunities for communities throughout the Puget Sound and Thurston County," said Sen. Pat Murray, chairman of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Committee. Murray, a Democrat, is in a tight race for re-election.
"This funding will bring transit closer to commuters and commuters closer to their jobs and families. I funded this program because we need to think comprehensively about how we plan our communities. This funding will help Washington families have an affordable place to work and live."
“We’re very grateful to the Obama Administration for its leadership and its role in securing these grant funds,” said Ray Stephanson, President of the Puget Sound Regional Council and Mayor of Everett.
“Here in the Puget Sound region, we’re leading the way when it comes to growing our economy. This grant award will help shape the future of our region in ways that create a more livable and prosperous future for all of us. We’re taking a big picture approach to creating job opportunities closer to where people live, while promoting a healthy environment and a healthy economy.”
In the Fiscal 2010 budget, Congress provided a total of $150 million to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts involving housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning, HUD says on its Web site.
View Article With Links HERE
Grand Isle Authorities Bury Dead Fish On Public Beach
You Tube
The consequences of the BP oil spill and the subsequent toxic Corexit used to disperse it are far more devastating than the Obama administration will admit. While this real environmental disaster unfolds, phony environmentalists are obsessed with global warming, carbon taxes, and polar bears.
View Daily Updated Articles HERE
The consequences of the BP oil spill and the subsequent toxic Corexit used to disperse it are far more devastating than the Obama administration will admit. While this real environmental disaster unfolds, phony environmentalists are obsessed with global warming, carbon taxes, and polar bears.
View Daily Updated Articles HERE
Monday, October 18, 2010
Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'
by Michael Roberts
LewRockwell.com
My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.
As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.
Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.
As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.
"Am I under arrest?" I asked.
"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."
"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"
"We just need to hold you here so he can…"
"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.
"Detain you while we…"
Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.
We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?
"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.
"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."
"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."
"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.
As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.
The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.
His reply: "That’s irrelevant."
It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.
"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.
"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."
"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"
"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."
"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.
"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"
"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."
"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."
Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.
As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.
It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.
Memphis, TN 38111
901.237.6308
FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com
View Original Article HERE
LewRockwell.com
My name is Michael Roberts, and I am a pilot for ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., based in Houston (that is, I still am for the time being). This morning as I attempted to pass through the security line for my commute to work I was denied access to the secured area of the terminal building at Memphis International Airport. I have passed through the same line roughly once per week for the past four and a half years without incident. Today, however, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at this checkpoint were using one of the new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) systems that are currently being deployed at airports across the nation. These are the controversial devices featured by the media in recent months, albeit sparingly, which enable screeners to see beneath people’s clothing to an extremely graphic and intrusive level of detail (virtual strip searching). Travelers refusing this indignity may instead be physically frisked by a government security agent until the agent is satisfied to release them on their way in what is being touted as an "alternative option" to AIT. The following is a somewhat hastily drafted account of my experience this morning.
As I loaded my bags onto the X-ray scanner belt, an agent told me to remove my shoes and send them through as well, which I’ve not normally been required to do when passing through the standard metal detectors in uniform. When I questioned her, she said it was necessary to remove my shoes for the AIT scanner. I explained that I did not wish to participate in the AIT program, so she told me I could keep my shoes and directed me through the metal detector that had been roped off. She then called somewhat urgently to the agents on the other side: "We got an opt-out!" and also reported the "opt-out" into her handheld radio. On the other side I was stopped by another agent and informed that because I had "opted out" of AIT screening, I would have to go through secondary screening. I asked for clarification to be sure he was talking about frisking me, which he confirmed, and I declined. At this point he and another agent explained the TSA’s latest decree, saying I would not be permitted to pass without showing them my naked body, and how my refusal to do so had now given them cause to put their hands on me as I evidently posed a threat to air transportation security (this, of course, is my nutshell synopsis of the exchange). I asked whether they did in fact suspect I was concealing something after I had passed through the metal detector, or whether they believed that I had made any threats or given other indications of malicious designs to warrant treating me, a law-abiding fellow citizen, so rudely. None of that was relevant, I was told. They were just doing their job.
Eventually the airport police were summoned. Several officers showed up and we essentially repeated the conversation above. When it became clear that we had reached an impasse, one of the more sensible officers and I agreed that any further conversation would be pointless at this time. I then asked whether I was free to go. I was not. Another officer wanted to see my driver’s license. When I asked why, he said they needed information for their report on this "incident" – my name, address, phone number, etc. I recited my information for him, until he asked for my supervisor’s name and number at the airline. Why did he need that, I asked. For the report, he answered. I had already given him the primary phone number at my company’s headquarters. When I asked him what the Chief Pilot in Houston had to do with any of this, he either refused or was simply unable to provide a meaningful explanation. I chose not to divulge my supervisor’s name as I preferred to be the first to inform him of the situation myself. In any event, after a brief huddle with several other officers, my interrogator told me I was free to go.
As I approached the airport exit, however, I was stopped again by a man whom I believe to be the airport police chief, though I can’t say for sure. He said I still needed to speak with an investigator who was on his way over. I asked what sort of investigator. A TSA investigator, he said. As I was by this time looking eagerly forward to leaving the airport, I had little patience for the additional vexation. I’d been denied access to my workplace and had no other business keeping me there.
"Am I under arrest?" I asked.
"No, he just needs to ask you some more questions."
"But I was told I’m free to go. So… am I being detained now, or what?"
"We just need to hold you here so he can…"
"Hold me in what capacity?" I insisted.
"Detain you while we…"
Okay, so now they were detaining me as I was leaving the airport facility.
We stood there awkwardly, waiting for the investigator while he kept an eye on me. Being chatty by nature, I asked his opinion of what new procedures might be implemented if someday someone were to smuggle an explosive device in his or her rectum or a similar orifice. Ever since would-be terrorist Richard Reid set his shoes on fire, travelers have been required to remove their footwear in the security line. And the TSA has repeatedly attempted to justify these latest measures by citing Northwest flight 253, on which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab scorched his genitalia. Where, then, would the evolution of these policies lead next?
"Do you want them to board your plane?" he asked.
"No, but I understand there are other, better ways to keep them off. Besides, at this point I’m more concerned with the greater threat to our rights and liberties as a free society."
"Yeah, I know," he said. And then, to my amazement, he continued, "But somebody’s already taken those away."
"Maybe they have," I conceded, watching the throng of passengers waiting their turn to get virtually naked for the federal security guards.
As a side note, I cannot refrain here from expressing my dismay and heartbreak over a civil servant’s personal resignation to the loss of civil liberty among the people by whom he is employed to protect and serve. If he no longer affirms the rights and freedom of his fellow citizens, one can only wonder exactly what he has in view as the purpose of his profession.
The TSA investigator arrived and asked for my account of the situation. I explained that the agents weren’t allowing me to pass through the checkpoint. He told me he had been advised that I was refusing security screening, to which I replied that I had willingly walked through the metal detector with no alarms, the same way I always do when commuting to work. He then briefed me on the recent screening policy changes and, apparently confused, asked whether they would be a problem for me. I stated that I did indeed have a problem with the infringement of my civil rights and liberty.
His reply: "That’s irrelevant."
It wasn’t irrelevant to me. We continued briefly in the conversation until I recognized that we were essentially repeating the same discussion I’d already had with the other officers and agents standing by. With that realization, I told him I did not wish to keep going around and around with them and asked whether he had anything else to say to me. Yes, he said he did, marching indignantly over to a table nearby with an air as though he were about to do something drastic.
"I need to get your information for my report," he demanded.
"The officer over there just took my information for his report. I’m sure you could just get it from him."
"No, I have to document everything separately and send it to TSOC. That’s the Transportation Security Operations Center where we report…"
"I’m familiar with TSOC," I assured him. "In fact, I’ve actually taught the TSA mandated security portion of our training program at the airline."
"Well, if you’re an instructor, then you should know better," he barked.
"Really? What do you mean I ‘should know better’? Are you scolding me? Have I done something wrong?"
"I’m not saying you’ve done something wrong. But you have to go through security screening if you want to enter the facility."
"Understood. I’ve been going through security screening right here in this line for five years and never blown up an airplane, broken any laws, made any threats, or had a government agent call my boss in Houston. And you guys have never tried to touch me or see me naked that whole time. But, if that’s what it’s come to now, I don’t want to enter the facility that badly."
Finishing up, he asked me to confirm that I had been offered secondary screening as an alternative "option" to ATS, and that I had refused it. I confirmed. Then he asked whether I’d "had words" with any of the agents. I asked what he meant by that and he said he wanted to know whether there had been "any exchange of words." I told him that yes, we spoke. He then turned to the crowd of officers and asked whether I had been abusive toward any of them when they wanted to create images of my naked body and touch me in an unwelcome manner. I didn’t hear what they said in reply, but he returned and finally told me I was free to leave the airport.
As it turned out, they did reach the chief pilot’s office in Houston before I was able to. Shortly after I got home, my boss called and said they had been contacted by the TSA. I suppose my employment status at this point can best be described as on hold.
It’s probably fairly obvious here that I am outraged. This took place today (now yesterday, when I wrote all this down), 15 October 2010. Anyone who reads this is welcome to contact me for confirmation of the details or any additional information I can provide. The dialog above is quoted according to my best recollection, without embellishment or significant alteration except for the sake of clarity. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations for legal counsel – preferably a firm with a libertarian bent and experience resisting this kind of tyrannical madness. This is not a left or right, red or blue state issue. The very bedrock of our way of life in this country is under attack from within. Please don’t let it be taken from us without a fight.
Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium
Michael S. Roberts
3794 Douglass Ave.
Memphis, TN 38111
901.237.6308
FedUpFlyers@nonpartisan.com
View Original Article HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)