Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Controversy and Chaos: Sexual Molestation and Radiation: The TSA Has Gone...
Controversy and Chaos: Sexual Molestation and Radiation: The TSA Has Gone...: "3-year-olds have been subjected to physical pat-downs! Meanwhile, while average American citizens are being forced to choose between being ..."
Sexual Molestation and Radiation: The TSA Has Gone Too Far!
3-year-olds have been subjected to physical pat-downs!
Meanwhile, while average American citizens are being forced to choose between being seen naked or be groped by the TSA, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has recommended that Muslim women traveling in a hijab forgo the scanners, and only be searched around their neck and head. This is in accordance with their religion…and Janet Napolitano is considering the request!
The TSA and Napolitano have gone to far!
In the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attempts around the world, air travel passengers have grown accustomed to increasingly bizarre and invasive travel security procedures. Only the looks of terror on our children’s faces as they walk through security remind us of the cost of homeland security.
First, in 2001, there was the failed shoe bomb plot masterminded by deranged Richard Reid. End result: 10 years later, air travelers risk foot fungus and cold feet as they relinquish their shoes for security scans. Then, in 2006, there was the failed liquid explosives plot in England. End result: The banishing of liquids over 100 ml, with the exception of baby formula which no longer feels very safe to feed to infants after it’s gone through a strict security screening.
Travelers accepted these new security regulations as the terror alert levels changed and climbed the colors of the rainbow, but this Thanksgiving season, the TSA finally seems to have gone too far in infringing upon civil liberties in the name of the war on terror.
Both pilots and consumers are concerned about the invasion of privacy and health risks of repeated x-ray exposure in the new full body x-ray scanners recently implemented in many US airports and are calling for all consumers to request pat downs instead of being scanned on the day before Thanksgiving. Having to scan the majority of travelers on the biggest travel day of the year will be a crushing blow to TSA operations.
Yet pat downs hardly seem like the answer because of the invasive enhanced pat down procedure recently implemented by the TSA that includes buttocks, genitalia, and breasts. Erin Chase, author of the $5 Dinner Cookbook, went through the pat down procedure last Thursday at the Dayton, Ohio airport and felt sexually violated by the inspection. John Tyner refused to go through the enhanced pat down procedure over the weekend at the San Diego airport, and was escorted out by airport security.
Although we’ve put up with the inconvenience of security inspections for close to a decade since 9/11, with this new wave of changes, the TSA has gone too far, stripping travelers of too much dignity. When I fly home for Thanksgiving on Tuesday alone with my children, I’ll have to choose between exposing them to unnecessary radiation or having them see me be groped by a stranger in uniform. Travelers shouldn’t have to feel sexually molested in order to earn the right to fly.
By: Vanessa Druckman
http://controversyandchaos.com
Meanwhile, while average American citizens are being forced to choose between being seen naked or be groped by the TSA, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has recommended that Muslim women traveling in a hijab forgo the scanners, and only be searched around their neck and head. This is in accordance with their religion…and Janet Napolitano is considering the request!
The TSA and Napolitano have gone to far!
 |
| Let the airport screeners know how you feel! |
First, in 2001, there was the failed shoe bomb plot masterminded by deranged Richard Reid. End result: 10 years later, air travelers risk foot fungus and cold feet as they relinquish their shoes for security scans. Then, in 2006, there was the failed liquid explosives plot in England. End result: The banishing of liquids over 100 ml, with the exception of baby formula which no longer feels very safe to feed to infants after it’s gone through a strict security screening.
Travelers accepted these new security regulations as the terror alert levels changed and climbed the colors of the rainbow, but this Thanksgiving season, the TSA finally seems to have gone too far in infringing upon civil liberties in the name of the war on terror.
Both pilots and consumers are concerned about the invasion of privacy and health risks of repeated x-ray exposure in the new full body x-ray scanners recently implemented in many US airports and are calling for all consumers to request pat downs instead of being scanned on the day before Thanksgiving. Having to scan the majority of travelers on the biggest travel day of the year will be a crushing blow to TSA operations.
Yet pat downs hardly seem like the answer because of the invasive enhanced pat down procedure recently implemented by the TSA that includes buttocks, genitalia, and breasts. Erin Chase, author of the $5 Dinner Cookbook, went through the pat down procedure last Thursday at the Dayton, Ohio airport and felt sexually violated by the inspection. John Tyner refused to go through the enhanced pat down procedure over the weekend at the San Diego airport, and was escorted out by airport security.
Although we’ve put up with the inconvenience of security inspections for close to a decade since 9/11, with this new wave of changes, the TSA has gone too far, stripping travelers of too much dignity. When I fly home for Thanksgiving on Tuesday alone with my children, I’ll have to choose between exposing them to unnecessary radiation or having them see me be groped by a stranger in uniform. Travelers shouldn’t have to feel sexually molested in order to earn the right to fly.
 |
| Don't Touch My Junk! |
http://controversyandchaos.com
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Controversy and Chaos: BARNEY FRANK HAS GOT TO GO!
Controversy and Chaos: BARNEY FRANK HAS GOT TO GO!: "Frank’s fingerprints were all over the financial fiasco The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in t..."
BARNEY FRANK HAS GOT TO GO!
Frank’s fingerprints were all over the financial fiasco
The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector,” Frank said; the country is in dire straits today “thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best.” And that philosophy goes “back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, ‘Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.’ ”
In fact, that isn’t what Reagan said. His actual words were: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.
Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits — many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be — they weren’t the ones who “got us into this mess.” Barney Frank’s talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn’t wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so – or else.
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor,” the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as “valid income sources” to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn’t take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. “What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?” I asked in this space in 1995. “Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today’s self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?”
Frank doesn’t. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that “these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the “systemic risk” is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: “The private sector got us into this mess.” Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
By Jeff Jacoby
http://controversyandchaos.com/
The Wall Street meltdown was caused by “bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector,” Frank said; the country is in dire straits today “thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best.” And that philosophy goes “back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, ‘Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.’ ”
Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits — many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be — they weren’t the ones who “got us into this mess.” Barney Frank’s talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn’t wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so – or else.
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. “Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor,” the Fed’s guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as “valid income sources” to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn’t take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. “What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?” I asked in this space in 1995. “Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today’s self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?”
Frank doesn’t. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that “these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the “systemic risk” is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: “The private sector got us into this mess.” Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
By Jeff Jacoby
http://controversyandchaos.com/
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Controversy and Chaos: IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?
Controversy and Chaos: IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?: "IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM? Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Black Muslim) of Nyangoma-Koge..."
IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM?
IS BARACK OBAMA A MUSLIM? 
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Black Muslim) of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas. (White atheist).
When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro — a Muslim — moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language. Obama spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school” in Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also attended a Catholic school.
Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham-a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Obama, Sr. and Dunham divorced when Barack, Jr. was two.
Obama’s spin-meisters have made it appear that Obama’s introduction to Islam came from his father and that influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya immediately following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education.
Dunham married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro who educated his stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world.
Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.
MUSLIM or not Obama is deceitful, deceptive and will do and say anything to gain and keep power.
LET’S SEND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PACKING IN 2012!
http://controversyandchaos.com
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Black Muslim) of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas. (White atheist).
When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro — a Muslim — moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language. Obama spent “two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school” in Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also attended a Catholic school.
Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham-a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas-at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Obama, Sr. and Dunham divorced when Barack, Jr. was two.
Obama’s spin-meisters have made it appear that Obama’s introduction to Islam came from his father and that influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya immediately following the divorce and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education.
Dunham married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro who educated his stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling him in one of Jakarta’s Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad on the industrialized world.
Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.
MUSLIM or not Obama is deceitful, deceptive and will do and say anything to gain and keep power.
LET’S SEND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PACKING IN 2012!
http://controversyandchaos.com
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Controversy and Chaos: DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRAD...
Controversy and Chaos: DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRAD...: "DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF SCREW YOU: CAP AND TRADEEmbraced some years ago in Europe and a few other countries, cap and trade creates an art..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)