Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: TSA COPS harass & strip search a 2nd old lady - I say enough is enough

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 4:55 p.m. EST by theaveng (602)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

She sounds Jewish..... a jewish lady being harassed by the SA Guards. Hmmm. (shades of 1930s germany)

This crap really needs to stop. The Supreme Law of the land states, "The People shall be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches" unless a warrant is issued or probable cause established. The People's State legislatures should start arresting and prosecuting these agents for sexual assault (for groping crotches and boobs).

CBS 2 VIDEO - http://youtu.be/xhYExZy_x2I



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

10 years from now, frequent fliers and people who worked the scanners will be riddled with cancer.

U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray Scanners

Europe Bans Airport scanners over fears they cause cancer

[-] -3 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

Yes. That's why if I was a frequent flyer I'd refuse the scanner. I don't think one a year will harm you, but anymore than that is too much radiation. PLUS these things are not monitored like medical X-ray machiness which require frequent certification to verify they are not defective.

That scanner could have developed a short circuit, or been maladjusted, and be spraying everyone with 100x more radiation than is safe, and nobody would even know.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Search without warrant is violation of the Fourth Amendment. Yet Americans allow their rights to be deprived at every twist and turn with nary a whimper of compliant like sheep being led to slaughter.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

Why were 2 points removed from my post? People disagree that the scanners are a potential radiation hazard?!?!?

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 12 years ago

I worked with the TSA indirectly when I worked for the FAA. I found these people to be nasty to say the least. Awful bunch of arrogant scary thugs.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

We can't afford this Big Government anymore.

We need to tell Grover Norquist and his Big Government buddies, that we can no longer afford their fascist slush funds like the TSA and Homeland Security .

How is it in all their talk about cutting social security and all the complaining about welfare queens, that they fail to mention that their new BIG GOVERNMENT programs, and their ILLEGAL WARS are what cost the majority of everyone's tax dollars.

Suck it up Grover and your fascist buddies, pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. We have had enough!

Time to end the TSA, we all figured out their 'job' is bullshit anyway when they don't even check the baggage.

Bush's Homeland Security is THE definition of Big Government and wasteful spending. What the hell are these Republicans even talking about?

THIS is why we need to take back our public airwaves. The idea that this bullshit is allowed to continue meanwhile Grover Norquist is on the liberal media complaining about the tiny percentage of money spent on social programs.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

Random questions and comments:

  • Who is Grover?

  • There's only one candidate who has pledged to End all the wars and bring home the soldiers from Germany, Japan, Korea, et cetera and produced a 2013 balanced budget with 1 trillion in cuts (mostly military). You should vote for him in the primary.

  • Cable channels are carried over privately-owned cable lines. The Congress has no more authority to regulate those private lines than to censor Huckleberry Finn or Metallica or your free speech on the private phoneline.

  • If you're talking about actual public airwaves, broadcast over the spectrum and received via antenna, then yes I agree. We need to take them back. (Although I don't really have a problem with any of the broadcast channels like ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, FOX, CW, or MyNetworkTV.)

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Grover Norquist is an immensely powerful lobbyist, who has protected the 1% from even the most modest tax increase by getting politicians of both parties to sign what he calls the taxpayer protection pledge. Oddly enough, he does not consider raising taxes on the middle class a problem. If anyone raises a penny on the super-rich, he organizes voters to go after them and defeat them in primaries. He has big money behind him.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

Ya know that's something I don't understand about Republicans. Why do they so strongly oppose raising taxes on the rich? Even if they think it could harm businesses (and job growth), they could leave the Corporate Tax Rate the same, but still raise the high-end individual tax rate to 90% in order to get ahold of the CEOs' wealth.

I also can't figure out why they are opposed to extending the Payroll Tax cut. Paying 3% in FICA helps the poor and middle incomes. Maybe I should call my representative and demand an explanation.


[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

They have Grover Norquist saying that if they raise those taxes at the top by a penny, he will kick them out of office. They believe him.

BTW, the personal income tax rates at the top have been slashed over recent years, far more than the corporate. That tells you which is more important to them.

The poor and middle income people are seen as more darn Democrats. They have had their total pay reduced gradually over decades, starting with the part of pay we call benefits. By shrinking pay for them, pay at the corporate top has skyrocketed. They get firing bonuses (called Golden Parachutes), so even if they do an obviously poor job they walk away with a bundle. They have SERP's, which are special, immensely costly pensions. That is not the whole picture of what they get, but my fingers get tired.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

he will kick them out of office. They believe him.

Hmmm. How would he do that?

Despite how these Republicans are currently acting, I don't think I could bring myself to vote Democrat. Their heavy-handed legislation interferes with my freedom. Such as their law to force me to buy health insurance I don't want.-- that violates my 9th and 10th amendment rights.

Once the precedent is set, there's no limit to what other products they could order me to buy (hybrid cars, solar roof, etc). The Democrats are also the ones responsible for the TARP bailout bill..... by 65% support. I can't believe they voted in favor of it.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Grover Norquist says he controls enough votes to defeat them in primaries. Since he is considered the most effective lobbyist in DC, he has tremendous money behind him as well as a huge following on the right. They take his pledge to get his backing, and the backing of his backers, and they don't cross him.

BTW, TARP passed under Bush, in October of 2008.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

I started off with his entire name Grover Norquist, amazing you have no idea who he is, yet you are watching corporate media and you like it. I honestly have no idea how you can NOT have a problem with our broadcast media. If you are not angry, you are not paying attention.

If you are talking about Ron Lawl, I hope he wins the primary but I don't vote in republican primaries. However, I watched his last campaign 2008, he raised the most money but did not appear to use it wisely, It seemed that some in the campaign were actually working against him so if you really support him I'd keep an eye out for that.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

I honestly have no idea how you can NOT have a problem with our broadcast media

Maybe if you gave me reasons why I should be angry at ABC, CBS, NBC, ..... then I would better understand. To me those broadcast channels are just a way to see my favorite shows (CSI, Simpsons, Supernatural, et cetera) for free. Is that wrong?

And yeah I was talking about Ron Paul. He's the only candidate that is anti-war, anti-private central bank, anti-corporatist (he accepts no donations), and pro-10th amendment (right to smoke marijuana; marry a same-sex partner, et cetera). So far I've not donated any cash to Paul, but if I see him win Iowa and Hampshire, then I will.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

"Maybe if you gave me reasons why I should be angry at ABC, CBS, NBC"

They have been lying to cover the crimes of our government for quite some time.

Just an example that is no longer debated....there were never any weapons in Iraq. There was never any evidence of a threat at all. We had inspectors in Iraq saying there was nothing there, we had forged laughable evidence of yellow cake from Nigeria given to the UN, we were spying on the UN....all of this was buried by the media.

There was absolutely no reason to attack Iraq, the Iraqi people didn't want it, we had the largest worldwide anti war marches in the history of the world...did you see that on the news?

At one point Bush said we had to go to war because 'we gave him a chance to let the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in'...well the fact is, the inspectors were in the country and Bush actually chased them out with the threat of bombing. They made it out just before the 'shock and awe' that was actually not a fourth of july light show as the media portrayed it, it was the violent murder and maiming of innocent men, women and children. What kind of sick 'liberal' media supports murder? What kind of sick murderers then use the fact that they wasted our money on wars, to lie that welfare recipients are the root of our deficit when everyone knows that is a tiny percentage of our spending, then attempts to promote the idea of further tax cuts while cutting social security?

Okay, here's another question. Is the media explaining that social security is separately funded by FICA taxes and NOT the cause of our deficit? Social Security is so well funded,(by Reagan increasing the payroll taxes actually) they have been borrowing from it and now they don't want to pay it back. Is the media explaining this, or are they pretending that we must cut social security payments, that it is the cause of our money problems?

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

So what's the solution? Revoke their ~2000 TV station licenses? Or something else.

According to Nielsen the use of TV is starting to drop (replaced with internet TV or DVD rentals), so this issue might not be an issue for twoo long.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

yes, revoke their licenses. They are not allowed to use the public airwaves for their personal gravy train.

The net is growing of course, and many of us have shut off our TVs, however it still difficult to discuss the truth with TV 'news' viewers because of all the misinformation they get.

Here's a crazy recent example....it comes out the Congress is insider trading. This does come out via 60 minutes, but they state that although they are doing it, it is perfectly legal. All of the media begins to repeat it from the fake left to the fake right(like Glenn Beck)....Congress is insider trading but it is perfectly legal so we have to pass a bill to stop them.

WE don't have to pass anything....Insider Trading is illegal for every American and that includes Congress(of course). There is absolutely nothing that exempts them from insider trading laws. In fact, THIS should be what OWS pursues, because we can throw almost all of Congress' asses in jail right now if we can get someone to bring up charges. Citizen arrest Congressional members anyone??

No, It Is NOT “Legal” For Congress To Insider-Trade — The SEC Should Launch Investigation Immediately http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-insider-trading-investigation-2011-11#ixzz1dnmcxjaG

also see: “The director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission makes it clear the commission has authority to prosecute such wrongful conduct declaring, and I quote, ‘Trading by congressional members or their staff is not exempt from the federal security laws including the insider trading prohibitions.’”

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 12 years ago

yes, revoke their licenses.

And thus ends my Free antenna-based TV. :-( Though I guess I could upgrade to Cable TV and watch all those private channels.

I don't really like your solution because my antenna gives me over 40 free channels filled with movies, music, retro 50s/60s shows, and even 24 hours news (France 24, and RT.com).

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 12 years ago

Someone more responsible and perhaps honest would then use our public airwaves to create better shows.