All American Conservative: January 2010

Saturday, January 30, 2010

No Mea Culpa

Obama's State of the Union Address

My fellow Americans.

It's Bush's fault.

It was always Bush's fault. It will always be Bush's fault. Bush, Bush, Bush. His fault, his fault, his fault. Maybe his daddy's fault too.

It's Bush's fault and it's Bush's fault. But, my friends, it's Bush's fault.

The economy? It's Bush's fault. Healthcare? It's Bush's fault. The wars?
It's Bush's fault!

Bush, Bush, Bush! (applause)

Why is it Bush's fault? Because it's Bush's fault! That's right! It's Bush's fault.

Lets remember where we were a year ago. It was Bush's fault. And today, it's still Bush's fault.

Let us not forget, it is Bush's fault! (applause)

George W. Bush. George W. Bush. Bush, Bush, Bush.

Let me elaborate. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault..

And I won! (applause)

Furthermore, it's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.

(applause)

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush.

(applause)

My administration will correct the errors and the policies of the previous administration? Why? It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.

(applause)

Finally, my friends, it's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault.

Let us never forget, it's Bush's fault.

Thank you.

(You did not hear him say a 'mea culpa'.)

Friday, January 29, 2010

Arizona HCR2014

Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification
26 June, 2009

by Michael Boldin

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.

Real ID as the Blueprint?

While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Well-over a dozen more states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice, and additional states got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

Nullification

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:

“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”

Resistance Left, Right and Center?

Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle – calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.

◦Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.
◦Bring the Guard Home is a campaign of mostly antiwar activists that are calling on governors to assert constitutional authority over their state’s guard – and refuse to deploy troops for any reason other than authorized by the constitution
◦Medical Marijuana Laws - have passed in multiple states around the country and are directly opposed to federal drug laws that see marijuana as illegal under all circumstances.
◦Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.
◦Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/26/arizona-hcr2014-national-health-care-nullification/

What is CCVSI?

1.What is CCSVI?
Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency... it’s a chronic (ongoing) problem where blood from the brain and spine has trouble getting back to the heart. It’s caused by stenosis (a narrowing) in the veins that drain the spine and brain. Blood takes longer to get back to the heart, and it can reflux back into the brain and spine or cause edema and leakage of red blood cells and fluids into the delicate tissue of the brain and spine. Blood that stays in the brain too long creates “slowed perfusion”...a delay in deoxyginated blood leaving the head. This can cause a lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in the brain. Plasma and iron from blood deposited in the brain tissue are also very damaging.
This is a link to a site about CCSVI. :
http://csvi-ms.net/en

Re: Why the US News Media Silence on CCSVI?

This link will take you to another blog which has some interesting information for a possible new treatment for Multiple Sclerosis. CCSVI stands for Chronic cerebro-spinal venous insufficiency, a new theraphy that looks at MS from a different point of view. It might be a vascular problem and much research is being done on it and has gone viral in the blogosphere but as yet hasn't been mentioned by the MSM. Why?

Please read this blog by Wheelchair Kamikaze. :

http://www.wheelchairkamikaze.com/2010/01/why-us-news-media-silence-on-ccsvi.html

Broken Hearted

President Obama has been slipping in the polls as his Marxist policies are becoming evident. He has been able to achieve the lowest approval ratings of any President in our Nation's history. He was advertised as the agent of Hope and Change, which many Americans were duped into believing. He was a blank slate since he had never done anything of any significance as a politician. People made Obama into their own vision.
Amber Lee Ettinger fell for this shill of the Democrat Party, hook, line and sinker. She went and made a You Tube video that went viral. She was so infatuated with him because she had made this blank slate into what she believed he should be, like many other Americans had.

This video helped to gain favorable popularity for a person who was skilled at making inspiring speeches which held no message. President Obama, with the help of his teleprompter, was able to speak eloquently about nothing. After a year of failed policies and Socialist nationalization of our banks, industries and homes, Americans are now starting to take note that this was not what they were voting for. Amber is a disillusioned Obama sycophant who is joining the ranks of many of his former supporters.

NOTE: All the pictures used in this blog are for political use only.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Pink Berets

In 1961, President Kennedy encouraged the United States Army to let the Special Forces wear the Green Beret as "mark of distinction in the trying times ahead". Green Berets are considered one of the most formidable elite fighting forces in the world and have lead the way in combating terrorism around the world, today.

Now fast forward to 2010, President Obama pledges to repeal the military's 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. This action follows many of his 'Political Correctness' policies which are guaranteeing the degradation of the military. This new policy will have an adverse effect on the morale of our military and will be the catalyst of starting new military abominations such as the 'Pink Berets'. They will form the core of the new Combat Fashionistas.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html

March 27 - April 15, 2010

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Snopes

I received this in an email. This might be worth looking into for those that use this to verify the validity of articles.

Snopes.com

Snopes.com is not giving the whole story!

I always suspected David and Barbara Mikkelson who were behind "Snopes" were Obama and liberal oriented --now we know!!

Go to Google!!

Who watches the watchers?

Please read it all to the bottom!

Guess we have to use "Truth or Fiction" now .

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email . But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding . Well, finally we know . It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers .
It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby .

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research .

After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?

The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong .

Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues .

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place .

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it .

He never called Bud . In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, snopes.com http://snopes.com/ issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal.

As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative . There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their web site findings .

Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts . . . proceed with caution . Take what it says at face value and nothing more . Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself .

Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do .

After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

I have found this to be true also!

Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False . . . . Then they gave their Liberal slant . . . . !!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths . If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

www.truthorfiction.com is a better source for verification, in my opinion .

I have recently discovered that Snopes . com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama . There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things . So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com . . . . ever for anything that remotely resembles the truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore .

A few conservatives told me about snopes.com a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true .

Well, I found out for myself that it is true .

Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes . com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well .

Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual .

We need to make sure everyone is aware: that Snopes is a hoax in itself .

Found Possible Stolen Police Dog

We were contacted a few days ago by a person that “found” the German Shepard shown below about 3 weeks ago. They are insistent that the dog has been stolen from it’s owner ABOUT 3 MONTHS AGO. This is a young dog that is highly trained in what appears to be Police training. They happened to find a scar on the dog’s back that they think is where someone dug out a microchip. They are also quite insistent that the dog was stolen out of state. We have forwarded this information to a local sheriff that has a Police dog, and we are asking that you send this information out far and wide in an attempt to find the dog’s owner. They are referring to the dog as “her”, and are reluctant to let us bring the dog here until an owner is found. We have assured them that if there is a reward, that we never accept a reward, and that we will be sure it goes to them. There has to be someone out there looking for this beautiful girl. Please have any prospects contact us at Daze of Camelot Animal Sanctuary 509-989-3032, or by email at Camelot@gemsi. com

Conservative

Conservative:

Pronounced - [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]

–adjective 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.

–noun 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1350–1400; <>

adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.

Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

n.
One favoring traditional views and values.

A supporter of political conservatism.

Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

Archaic A preservative agent or principle.

con·ser'va·tive·ly adv., con·ser'va·tive·ness n.

Cultural Dictionary

conservative

A descriptive term for persons, policies, and beliefs associated with conservatism.

Word Origin & History

conservative

as a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the Fr. Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his Fr. disciples, (e.g. Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). Conservative as the name of a British political faction it first appeared in an 1830 issue of the "Quarterly Review," in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies. Extended to similar spirits in other parties from 1845.
"Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical." [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

General Peter Pace, 2004

January 22, 1944

Jan. 22, 1944: Allied forces, including the U.S. VI Corps under the command of Maj. Gen. John P. Lucas (of Lt. Gen. Mark Clark’s Fifth Army), begin a series of landings along a stretch of western Italian coastline in the Anzio-Nettuno area. Codenamed Operation Shingle, the Allies achieve complete surprise against -- and encounter little initial resistance from -- the Germans. But the landings kick off what will become one of the most grueling campaigns of World War II.

It is during the subsequent fighting (which continues for several months) that a dead German officer’s diary is found, a portion of which reads:

“American parachutists -- devils in baggy pants -- are less than 100 meters from my outpost line. I can't sleep at night; they pop up from nowhere and we never know when or how they will strike next. Seems like the black-hearted devils are everywhere.”

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Spending Freeze

The Washington Post

Obama to propose freeze on government spending
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A01

Under mounting pressure to rein in mammoth budget deficits, President Obama will propose in his State of the Union address a three-year freeze on federal funding that is not related to national security, a concession to public concern about government spending that could dramatically curtail Obama's legislative ambitions.

The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama's first term, senior administration officials said Monday, imposing sharp limits on his ability to begin initiatives in education, the environment and other areas of domestic policy.

Although the freeze would shave no more than $15 billion off next year's budget -- barely denting a deficit projected to exceed $1 trillion for the third year in a row -- White House officials said it could save significantly more during the next decade. They described the freeze as a critical component of a broader deficit-reduction campaign intended to restore confidence in Obama's ability to control the excesses of Washington and the most lavish aspirations of his own administration.

"You can't afford to do everything that you might have always wanted to do. That's the decision-making process that the president and the economic team went through," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the speech the president will deliver on Wednesday night. "We're not here to tell you that we've solved the deficit. But you have to take steps to control spending."

The announcement comes less than a week after Massachusetts voters sent shock waves through the Democratic establishment by handing Republicans a crucial 41st seat in the Senate, endangering Obama's agenda and fueling GOP attacks on Obama's stewardship of the budget and the economy. After spending much of his first year in office pursuing expensive initiatives such as a far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system, Obama has pledged to devote much of the next year to reducing record budget deficits, which have forced the Treasury Department to increase borrowing, driving the accumulated national debt toward levels not seen since World War II.

The spending freeze would affect only about one-eighth of the nation's $3.5 trillion budget, the bulk of which is devoted to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are responsible for much of the future increase in spending. It would not restrain funding for the $787 billion economic stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress early last year, nor would it apply to a new bill aimed at creating jobs, which Democrats have identified as their top priority in the run-up to November's congressional elections.

The House has approved a $156 billion package intended to lower the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate, while the Senate is drafting an $80 billion package that includes tax cuts for businesses that hire new employees as well as aid for cash-strapped state governments and the unemployed.

It is also unlikely to affect the approximately $900 billion health-care bill, which has been on life-support since the Massachusetts vote. In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Obama vowed to press ahead with health care and other first-year agenda items, even it means jeopardizing his reelection chances in 2012.

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president," he said in the interview, according to an excerpt posted on ABC's Web site.

Obama also defended his top economic advisers in the interview, saying Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers have provided "sound, steady economic leadership" and are likely to stay with the administration despite rumors to the contrary.

Obama's commitment to cutting deficits will be an important theme of his address to Congress, administration officials said, and will be fully detailed in the budget he is due to submit to lawmakers early next week. Administration officials have declined to say specifically how the president plans to reduce deficits projected to add more than $9 trillion to the national debt during the next decade. But he has endorsed several measures aimed at meeting that goal, including the adoption of stringent pay-as-you-go budget rules that would bar lawmakers from passing programs that increase deficits and the creation of a bipartisan commission to work toward a balanced budget.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a plan to create a budget commission, though supporters say they lack the 60 votes needed for adoption. Obama has told lawmakers that if the measure fails, he will issue an executive order creating such a task force with broad power to change the tax code and spending on entitlement programs..

Late Monday, Republicans mocked the idea of a Democratic spending freeze. "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats, meanwhile, are likely to give the freeze a mixed response. Conservatives, including Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and members of the House Blue Dog Coalition, have been calling for a freeze backed by the threat of a presidential veto. But liberals have resisted freezing spending, particularly on social programs, and are likely to call on Obama to extend any freeze to military programs, aides said.

As a candidate, Obama criticized a spending freeze proposed by his GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, comparing it to "using a hatchet to cut the fed budget. I want to use a scalpel."

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a strong proponent of balanced budgets who would have to sell the notion of a freeze to his colleagues, said Obama's proposal is "entirely possible to do." The results of a freeze would be "relatively modest in terms of overall deficit reduction," Conrad said. "But it sends an important signal that everything is on the table."

Discretionary spending -- which unlike entitlement spending is approved annually by Congress -- has risen rapidly over the past decade, by about 7.5 percent a year, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The most recent spending bills, approved in December, authorized a 4.1 percent increase in total discretionary spending for the fiscal year that began in October and an 8.2 percent increase for federal agencies unrelated to defense.

It was not clear Monday which programs would be most affected by a freeze. Administration officials said Obama would not freeze spending across the board but would increase investments in some agencies while slashing others. For example, Democrats are eager to offer additional help to a struggling middle class.

Administration officials have said that goal would not conflict with deficit-reduction efforts. But the tension between them was on display Monday as Obama rolled out a list of relatively inexpensive initiatives to help middle-class families. Most of them were included in the budget he sent to Congress last year but were never funded, according to Democratic congressional aides.

They include nearly doubling the child- and dependent-care tax credit for families making less than $85,000 a year; limiting a student's federal loan payments to 10 percent of income above his basic living allowance; creating a system of automatic workplace retirement savings accounts; expanding tax credits to match retirement savings; and expanding elder-care help for the "sandwich generation" of baby boomers caring for parents as well as children.

"We're going to keep fighting to rebuild our economy so that hard work is once again rewarded, wages and incomes are once again rising, and the middle class is once again growing," Obama said in unveiling the list at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. "Above all, we're going to keep fighting to renew the American dream and keep it alive -- not just in our time, but for all time."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503549_pf.html

But wait....didn't POTUS say this during his campaign?

Saturday, January 23, 2010

37th Annual March for Life

The Washington Times

Thousands of pro-lifers storm D.C.

by Julia Duin

Hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers protested the 37th anniversary of legalized abortion Friday, buoyed by polls and a recent Republican victory in Massachusetts that they said show public opinion may be finally swinging in their favor.

"Do you realize you live in a majority pro-life country?" Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, shouted to a crowd that filled four blocks of the National Mall from Seventh to 12th Street Northwest. "We are going to win this fight."

Organizers estimated the crowd at the March for Life to number at least 200,000. A "virtual" march on Washington, hosted by Americans United for Life at www.virtualmarchforlife.com, attracted 74,925 "avatars" by late Friday afternoon. The March for Life marks the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

After two hours of speeches from a variety of political and religious leaders, the mostly college-aged crowd marched up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court under hazy skies in 45-degree weather.

Twenty-one members of Congress each took the podium to celebrate the current woes surrounding the Senate version of President Obama's health care bill, which opponents say would expand federally subsidized abortion. Due to the surprise election Tuesday of Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown to the late Edward M. Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat, Democrats are now one vote shy of the supermajority needed to overcome Republican filibusters.

"The health care bill is dead," said Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, an oncologist who last month switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party. "They may be able to break off a piece or two but it was fundamentally bad."

"There's been a huge turn in the country," said Rep. Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican. "Huge majorities are in our favor especially on funding of abortion. A lot of members of Congress have realized that the numbers have shifted."

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Spokane, Wash., spoke to the crowd with her 2-year-old son, Cole, draped across her shoulder. Saying the little boy has Down Syndrome, "We get to press the restart button and get the health bill we want," she said.

Listening to them was a large crowd of people with signs ranging from "Thank You Massachusetts" to "Abort This Administration." A line of women, each holding a black sign with the lettering "I Regret My Abortion" stood shoulder to shoulder on the stage during most of the two hours.

Catherine Rayder, a parishioner of St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Reston, Va., brought 14 children to the demonstration.

"We feel it's important to lead by example," she said. "And the kids love this. It's important to show them a peaceful protest for life."

No counter protesters were visible on the Mall and rows of Catholic and Orthodox bishops encouraged the crowd not to give up. Metropolitan Jonah, head of the Orthodox Church in America, said he ordered both OCA seminaries to allow their students to take part in the march and put out word to his bishops to come.

"I believe it's time for the Orthodox to step out in the public square," he said. "Until now, our participation has been very limited."

Three Orthodox Jewish rabbis came on stage to blow a shofar -- a ram's horn used to welcome in the Jewish New Year -- and encourage listeners to have more children.

"The selfish liberals are not reproducing," Brooklyn Rabbi Yehuda Levin said. "We Orthodox Jews are bringing in 7-14 children into a family. You too can have a holy baby."

Speaking of the nation's governors, "We have enough killing pharaohs in power," he said. "Who'll be the Moses to let our babies grow?"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/23/thousands-pro-lifers-march-dc/?feat=home_headlines

America Rising

That's nice. These sheeple can now come over and join us who have been fighting these Communists for a long time. We are called Conservatives and we base our way of life on a two hundred and thirty four year old document called, the Constitution.

Long before Obama came into power, we warned the apathetic American people what he was about and they refused to listen. People refused to listen in the past about Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and Chavez and they got tyranny.

The people that made this video are sheeple, they are easily manipulated. They don't understand what it means to be a free people. The only reason that they are all of a sudden 'patriotic' is that they see what their future is 'really' going to be.

You saw this coming also, because you are a free person. You can be a leader but what will you do? What are you doing in the fight to save this Republic?

The sheeple are starting to come around but they are easily persuaded and can become lemmings when another 'American Idol' cult figure comes along. They will jump off the cliff when that comes, I'm sure. They did the same with Obama's 'Hope and Change' routine. They were willing to trade what they had, the best standard of living for a population on the entire planet, to appease their apathetic lives. They now realize they that they are going to lose it.

Well, I'm glad it took them this long to realize what's going on. They are suffering from buyers remorse. I just don't like it that they are now all of a sudden wrapping themselves in Gladsden flags. If they want to be part of the Tea Party movement that's fine. They are just going to be disappointed when they find out that it is a movement conducted by individuals, who have educated themselves on the Conservative principles of this nation.

If you are truly a Conservative then you should understand all of our Conservative principles and what they are. You should understand what the Declaration of Independence is and that it gives us rights and freedoms bequeathed to us from God.

The Constitution is our guiding document which has a built in mechanism for self correction when they are applicable, the amendment process. We need to return to this system again because we have drifted away for far too long. The last amendment that was passed was on May 7, 1992, well over two hundred years since it was introduced by James Madison on 1789.

The sheeple can join our fight but I hope that they are prepared to shed their mantles of apathy. They have to understand that freedom is not free and it always exalts a heavy toll in blood for it to continue. I hope that they are ready to become free men and women.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Proft for Governor of Illinois 2010- Republican

Dan Proft(R)

Dan Proft, from Wheaton, Illinois, is a respected political commentator for WLS-AM 890 radio in Chicago, a contributor to Human Events, School Reform News, and other conservative publications, and a successful small business owner. Dan is a regular guest on local and national public affairs shows where he has tackled a wide range of local, national and international public policy issues.

Dan has built a reputation for standing up to political bullies in Illinois from both parties whose policies have punished small business owners and families who play by the rules.

Dan has run numerous political campaigns and served in various leadership capacities in state and municipal government since 1994. Dan’s breadth of experience in state and local government has given him a unique understanding of the way government operates at every level. Dan knows the system and has been a conservative thought leader and outspoken voice of reform for 15 years.

Dan founded a number of successful public affairs and strategic communications firms and publications. Beginning as a student at Northwestern University, Dan co-founded the Northwestern Chronicle, an independent campus newspaper still in existence today. In 2002, Dan and some fellow conservatives launched IllinoisLeader.com, an online publication that covered Illinois Politics and government with original news content and commentary. As a successful small business owner, Dan understands the hostile climate businesses face in Illinois, and he has been an outspoken advocate of business friendly policies in Illinois.

An Illinoisan all his life, Dan grew up in Wheaton, earned his B.A. from Northwestern University and his J.D. from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Among his civic pursuits, Dan serves as a Board member for the Illinois chapter of Operation Homefront, a non-profit whose mission is to provide assistance to active duty military families, particularly those with a spouse serving overseas.

Adoption and life issues are very close to Dan’s heart. Dan has served on the Associate Board of The Cradle, an Evanston-based adoption agency. He is also the volunteer spokesman for the Choose Life License Plate initiative, designed to fund adoption-service providers through the sale of specialty license plates in Illinois. Dan is a member of the Seguin Services’ 2008-2009 capital campaign to support adults and children with disabilities. Dan also coaches youth basketball in Cicero and Chicago’s Pilsen neighborhood.
http://www.proft2010.com/

The Power of the Badge

DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay , but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? " The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull......

With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....

" Your badge. Show him your BADGE ! "

Cafeteria Republicans

I am happy about this victory but with mixed feelings. Senator Scott Brown was the perfect candidate for Massachusetts but he isn't a Conservative. He is a Moderate Republican and they tend to worry me more then a Democrat. You will always know that a Democrat is somewhere on the Left, how far depends on the individual but you know that they are on the Left along with all these fun Lefties,ie. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Tito and Mao.

A Moderate Republican on the other hand is basically an unknown anomaly. This person believes that they can work with a Democrat and will often be found supporting them. They believe the myths that the Liberals are so enlightened and they also want to appear as such. They sometimes believe in one Conservative value or another. They like to pick and choose the ones they like. I like to call Moderates like this, Cafeteria Republicans.

They like to walk down the Cafeteria line and take which values that they want. They can basically choose to be a fiscal, limited government, and social, with a side of interventionist Conservative. They are usually an unknown factor in the Republican Party because you just never know where they stand.

Senator Scott Brown is joining the illustrious ranks of Moderate Republican Senators. The Top Ten are:

1. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
2. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
3. Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)
4. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
5. Sen. Mel Martinez (Florida)
6. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) who has since switched to the Democrat Party.
7. Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
8. Sen. Richard Lugar (Indiana)
9. Sen. Robert Bennett (Utah)
10. Sen. Thad Cochran (Mississippi)

The GOP has been referred to a 'Big Tent Party' by the RNC head, Michael Steele. I understand that he feels that he believes that this is the way to get more people involved but the party has always done much better even getting Democrats support when Conservative principles. They have historically worked for Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservate Principles are our core beliefs. We do better when they are practiced fully and actually have made our country the great place that it is.

I just hope that Senator Scott Brown will support our Conservative principles. There is a Conservative Ascendancy happening in this country and Moderate Republicans have to realize that our country doesn't want the type of Change that President Obama wants, Socialism. Americans have always liked our country the way it is. It's not perfect but there is no better place in the rest of the world. POTUS better get ready because here we come!!!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Nothing Good Can Come From This

This is another reason why we have to start taking our country back. The actions planned by the Obama Administration in regards to China, will only make it much more dangerous for us. Obviously, nothing good can come from this.

The Washington Times

Wednesday, January 20, 2010
China removed as top priority for spies

Bill Gertz

The White House National Security Council recently directed U.S. spy agencies to lower the priority placed on intelligence collection for China, amid opposition to the policy change from senior intelligence leaders who feared it would hamper efforts to obtain secrets about Beijing's military and its cyber-attacks.

The downgrading of intelligence gathering on China was challenged by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and CIA Director Leon E. Panetta after it was first proposed in interagency memorandums in October, current and former intelligence officials said.

The decision downgrades China from "Priority 1" status, alongside Iran and North Korea, to "Priority 2," which covers specific events such as the humanitarian crisis after the Haitian earthquake or tensions between India and Pakistan.

The National Security Council staff, in response, pressed ahead with the change and sought to assure Mr. Blair and other intelligence chiefs that the change would not affect the allocation of resources for spying on China or the urgency of focusing on Chinese spying targets, the officials told The Washington Times.

White House National Security Council officials declined to comment on the intelligence issue. Mike Birmingham, a spokesman for Mr. Blair, declined to comment. A CIA spokesman also declined to comment.

But administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the new policy is part of the Obama administration's larger effort to develop a more cooperative relationship with Beijing.

A U.S. official who defended the policy change said "everybody involved understood the absolute importance of China as an intelligence priority."

"This is a case in which the assignment of a relative number — one or two — wouldn't mean, or change, a damn thing. And it didn't." The official said the U.S. government "has to keep its eyes on a host of threats, challenges and opportunities overseas. That's how it works."

Critics within the government, however, said the change will mean that strategic intelligence on China — the gathering of data and analysis of information — will be reduced over time, undermining what officials said are urgently needed efforts to know more about China's political, economic, military and intelligence activities.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed concern about the change.

"For those who say changing from Priority 1 to Priority 2 doesn't make any difference — well then, why do it?" he asked. "China should be at the top of the priority list, not moving down."

Officials said the lower intelligence priority for China is a subtle but significant change that will affect an array of intelligence activities.

Although the effect is not expected to be immediate, a change in priority number generally means that projects regarding that country are scrutinized more skeptically on budgetary and other grounds. Agencies likely will reduce spending for intelligence operations on China, whether carried out by spies or by photographic and electronic-intercept satellites.

Critics of the decision also fear that the lower priority will cause CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency operatives to take fewer risks in the field when spying on Chinese targets.

One new area that has been given a higher intelligence priority under the Obama administration is intelligence collection on climate change, a nontraditional mission marginally linked to national security. The CIA recently announced that it had set up a center to study the impact of climate change.

One U.S. official said the NSC intelligence policy change followed protests from China's government about the publication in September of the National Intelligence Strategy, produced by Mr. Blair's DNI office. The strategy report identified China as one of four main threats to U.S. interests, along with Russia, Iran and North Korea.

At the time of its release, Mr. Blair was asked by reporters about the strategy report's harsh assessment of China and efforts to increase intelligence gathering on China.

"I would say that it is a muscular intelligence response to meet the nations responsibilities so that we can provide good advice to the policymakers and in the field," he said.

The Chinese government reacted harshly to the strategy report, both in public and in diplomatic channels, the official said.

A Chinese government spokesman in September stated that "we urge the United States to discard its Cold War mindset and prejudice, correct the mistakes in the [National Intelligence Strategy] report and stop publishing wrong opinions about China which may mislead the American people and undermine the mutual trust between China and the United States."

The NSC downgrading of China from so-called "Pri-1" to "Pri-2" was a political decision by the Obama administration that was designed to assuage Chinese concerns that intelligence agencies were exaggerating the threat from Beijing, the official said.

John Tkacik, a former State Department intelligence official, said the demotion of China to a second-tier priority reflects bias within the NSC staff.

"It means that the Obama administration doesn't understand the profound challenge that China has become or, even more disturbing, it cannot understand that China's challenges to America's policies are becoming even more threatening with each passing week," he said.

The intelligence downgrade was disclosed as civilian and military leaders were calling U.S. intelligence collection and analysis on China deficient.

Adm. Robert Willard, the new commander of U.S. Pacific Command, indirectly criticized U.S. intelligence estimates on China last fall, telling reporters in November that during the past decade "China has exceeded most of our intelligence estimates of their military capability and capacity every year. They've grown at an unprecedented rate in those capabilities."

Mr. Hoekstra said he had not been briefed in advance about the NSC's new policy on China intelligence gathering.

But the shift sends the wrong signal to the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community that China is not important, he said in an interview.

"That's a wrong analysis," Mr. Hoekstra said. "The current situation with China is that they are cheating on trade agreements, aggressively pursuing military capabilities and aggressively conducting cyber-attacks."

A military official also said recently that Army, Air Force and Navy intelligence components are just beginning to understand the growing need to focus more intelligence assets on the challenges posed by China's military buildup and aggressive intelligence activities.

Counterintelligence officials also were surprised at the decision to lower the intelligence priority on China, noting that China's espionage, technology theft and economic spying continue to dominate scarce resources, including people and funds.

Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive, also said the priority change was ill-advised and will hurt personnel, funding and intelligence assets devoted to Chinese targets.

"Chinese intelligence is going after us with a vengeance," she said, noting that the problem includes industrial espionage, technology diversion and stealing defense and other national security secrets, in addition to a global campaign of cyber-espionage.

"So why are they doing this?" she asked. "I am very troubled by how little U.S. intelligence really knows about the Chinese, in part because they have been so successful against us. Our national leadership should be pushing to close this intelligence gap, because if they dont, they will risk making serious miscalculations in dealing with China."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/20/china-removed-top-priority-spies/

Forty One

Congratulations Senator Scott Brown (R) Mass. !!! Forty One Republicans who can now filibuster any of these dreadful Socialists bills that the Democrats were trying to force down our throats.
This is a great victory for the Republican Party and hopefully we can start slowing down the Democrat behemoth which has been converting our country towards Socialism. This country finds itself with the problems that it has since it has been under the Democrat control of Congress since 2006.

This is an example of the garbage being put out in the MSM, Obama's Propaganda Wing.

chicagotribune.com
Hey tea partyers, wake up and smell the coffee
Garrison Keillor

8:09 AM CST, January 20, 2010

The tea partyers are enjoying their day in the sun, but coffee is the beverage preferred by most Americans, and we don't have time to gang up and holler and wave our arms — we prefer to sit quietly with coffee in hand and read a reliable newspaper and try to figure out what's going on in the world. Great heaps of dead bodies are moved by front-loaders and dumped, uncounted, unidentified, into open pits in a stricken country while people feast and walk treadmills on enormous cruise ships sailing a hundred miles off the coast en route to the Bahamas and Jamaica. That's the real world, not the paranoid hallucinations of the right.

The problem for Democrats right now is that nobody can explain health care reform in plain English, 50 words or less. It's all too murky. The price of constructing this intricate web of compromises for the benefit of Republican senators (who then decided to quit the game and sit on their thumbs) is a bill with strange hair and ill-fitting clothes that you hesitate to bring home to Mother. Like all murky stuff, it is liable to strike people as dangerous or unreliable. And demagogues thrive in dim light.

The basic question is simple: Should health care be a basic right or is it a privilege for those who can afford it? Rush Limbaugh says it's a privilege — pay or die — but most Americans agree that health care is basic, like education or decent roads or clean water. Holy Scripture would seem to point us in that direction. And yet the churches, so far as I can see, have chosen to stay aloof from this issue. Churches that feed the hungry and house the homeless dare not offend the conservatives in their midst by suggesting that we also tend the sick. And the opposition has beaten on garbage cans and whooped and yelled and alarmed the populace, which they're quite good at. These people look at a clear blue sky and see a conspiracy.

Arousing alarm is easy, teaching is tough. It takes patience and discipline to teach; any bozo can drop a book on the floor and make people jump. This is true even in Massachusetts. And in Nevada, where Sen. Harry Reid is facing a tough challenge in the fall.

Reid is the gentlest and most patient soul in the U.S. Senate and his presence there in a colony of bull walruses is a tribute to Nevada. He's a soft-spoken man from hardscrabble roots in the mining town of Searchlight who possesses Western honesty and openness and a degree of modesty startling for a senator, and if he goes down to defeat to some big bass drum, the Republic will be the poorer for it.

Sometimes you despair of common sense when you see an empty helmet like former Mayor Rudy Giuliani strutting up to the podium, or hear the Rev. Pat Robertson opine on the earthquake in Haiti, or the lunatic congressman from Michigan who intimated that the president is somehow responsible for the Fort Hood massacre — you just roll your eyes and hope these guys have friends who will take away the car keys.

Paranoia sells better in January than in November, however. And Sarah Palin was not elected vice president, and she is not in the West Wing advising President John McCain on foreign policy. It didn't happen. She is investing her windfall profits from the book about how the Eastern media beat up on her, but we the people decided she was not vice presidential material. We don't choose our family doctor based on his ability to yodel, and we don't elect a woman vice president because she's perky.

And your high school civics teacher would not have given you a high mark for saying, as the Rev. Robertson did, that the earthquake in Haiti was God's judgment on Vodou. God has tolerated Vodou in Washington for years and not seen fit to shake the city yet. Priests and mojo men dance around the Capitol every day, waving skulls on sticks, scattering their magic powders, trying to stop progress with a hex, and God is content to observe them. So do we coffee drinkers. Government is in the hands of realists and in the end we shall prevail.

Garrison Keillor is a radio host and author.

oldscout@prairiehome.us

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped0120keillor-20100119,0,5281956.column

My courteous reply:

Mr. Keillor, I'm afraid that you are the one who needs to actually drink the coffee, instead of the Obama kool-aid, and wake up and listen to the People. We don't want to have a bigger government that tries to make decisions for our future behind close doors. You don't have to be an elitist and explain to us what your version of Obamacare is, we know what Socialism is and we don't want it. The majority of Americans believe in what our 'founding fathers' created. We believe in American Exceptionalism. We are the beacon of the world because of who we are. If we let the liberal Left and you change our country, then we will never be able to come to the aid of poor nations who find themselves in peril.

Seriously Gary , why do you hate my country so much? Why do you want to destroy it? You and your ilk now exemplify why this newspaper has become only good enough to be a fish wrap. 2010 and 2012, our country will get the Constitution returned to the People. In case you have forgotten, the Government works for us.

Oh, btw, Happy One Year Anniversary Mr. President...can we start cleaning up the mess that you have left behind?

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Virtual Strip Search

Airport security bares all, or does it?

Story Highlights
Privacy advocates to launch campaign against 'whole-body imaging' machines

They say airport security device gives 'virtual strip search' and needs regulation

TSA: Technology saves time, improves safety and is welcomed 99 percent of time

One critic calls investment 'stupid,' part of 'cover your ass' politics in post-9/11 world

By Jessica Ravitz
CNN
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Privacy advocates plan to call on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to suspend use of "whole-body imaging," the airport security technology that critics say performs "a virtual strip search" and produces "naked" pictures of passengers, CNN has learned.

The national campaign, which will gather signatures from organizations and relevant professionals, is set to launch this week with the hope that it will go "viral," said Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which plans to lead the charge.

"People need to know what's happening, with no sugar-coating and no spinning," said Coney, who is also coordinator of the Privacy Coalition, a conglomerate of 42 member organizations. She expects other groups to sign on in the push for the technology's suspension until privacy safeguards are in place.

Right now, without regulations on what the Transportation Security Administration does with this technology, she said, "We don't have the policy to hold them to what they say. They're writing their own rule book at this point."

The machines "detect both metallic and nonmetallic threat items to keep passengers safe," said Kristin Lee, spokeswoman for TSA, in a written statement. "It is proven technology, and we are highly confident in its detection capability." Watch a video of the body-imaging scans »

Late last month, freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced legislation to ban these machines. Of concern to him, Coney and others is not just what TSA officials say, it's also what they see. iReport: Tell us what you think about these scanners

The sci-fi-looking whole-body imaging machine -- think "Beam me up, Scotty" -- was first introduced at an airport in Phoenix, Arizona, in November 2007. There are now 40 machines, which cost $170,000 each, being tested and used in 19 airports, said TSA's Lee.

Six of these airports are testing the machines as a primary security check option, instead of metal detectors followed by a pat-down, she said. The rest present them as a voluntary secondary security option in lieu of a pat-down, which is protocol for those who've repeatedly set off the metal detector or have been randomly selected for additional screening.

So far, the testing phase has been promising, said Lee. When given the choice, "over 99 percent of passengers choose this technology over other screening options," she said.

A big advantage of the technology is the speed, said Jon Allen, another TSA spokesperson, who's based in Atlanta, Georgia. A body scan takes between 15 and 30 seconds, while a full pat-down can take from two to four minutes. And for those who cringe at the idea of being touched by a security official, or are forever assigned to a pat-down because they had hip replacements, for example, the machine is a quick and easy way to avoid that contact and hassle, he said.

Using millimeter wave technology, which the TSA says emits 10,000 times less radio frequency than a cell phone, the machine scans a traveler and a robotic image is generated that allows security personnel to detect potential threats -- and, some fear, more -- beneath a person's clothes.

TSA officials say privacy concerns are addressed in a number of ways.

The system uses a pair of security officers. The one working the machine never sees the image, which appears on a computer screen behind closed doors elsewhere; and the remotely located officer who sees the image never sees the passenger.

As further protection, a passenger's face is blurred and the image as a whole "resembles a fuzzy negative," said TSA's Lee. The officers monitoring images aren't allowed to bring cameras, cell phones or any recording device into the room, and the computers have been programmed so they have "zero storage capability" and images are "automatically deleted," she added.

But this is of little comfort to Coney, the privacy advocate with EPIC, a public interest research group in Washington. She said she's seen whole-body images captured by similar technology dating back to 2004 that were much clearer than what's represented by the airport machines.

"What they're showing you now is a dumbed-down version of what this technology is capable of doing," she said. "Having blurry images shouldn't blur the issue."

Lee of TSA emphasized that the images Coney refers to do not represent millimeter wave technology but rather "backscatter" technology, which she said TSA is not using at this time.

Coney said she and other privacy advocates want more oversight, full disclosure for air travelers, and legal language to protect passengers and keep TSA from changing policy down the road.

For example, she wants to know what's to stop TSA from using clearer images or different technology later. The computers can't store images now, but what if that changes?

"TSA will always be committed to respecting passenger privacy, regardless of whether a regulation is in place or not," Lee said.

She added that the long-term goal is not to see more of people, but rather to advance the technology so that the human image is like a stick-figure and any anomalies are auto-detected and highlighted.

But Coney knows only about what's out there now, and she worries that as the equipment gets cheaper, it will become more pervasive and harder to regulate. Already it is used in a handful of U.S. courthouses and in airports in the United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, Australia, Mexico, Thailand and the Netherlands. She wonders whether the machines will someday show up in malls.

The option of walking through a whole-body scanner or taking a pat-down shouldn't be the final answer, said Chris Calabrese, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"A choice between being groped and being stripped, I don't think we should pretend those are the only choices," he said. "People shouldn't be humiliated by their government" in the name of security, nor should they trust that the images will always be kept private.

"Screeners at LAX [Los Angeles International Airport]," he speculated, "could make a fortune off naked virtual images of celebrities."

Bruce Schneier, an internationally recognized security technologist, said whole-body imaging technology "works pretty well," privacy rights aside. But he thinks the financial investment was a mistake. In a post-9/11 world, he said, he knows his position isn't "politically tenable," but he believes money would be better spent on intelligence-gathering and investigations.

"It's stupid to spend money so terrorists can change plans," he said by phone from Poland, where he was speaking at a conference. If terrorists are swayed from going through airports, they'll just target other locations, such as a hotel in Mumbai, India, he said.

"We'd be much better off going after bad guys ... and back to pre-9/11 levels of airport security," he said. "There's a huge 'cover your ass' factor in politics, but unfortunately, it doesn't make us safer."

Meantime, TSA's Lee says the whole-body imaging machines remain in the pilot phase. Given what the organization has gleaned so far, she said additional deployments are anticipated.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/

It seems that we have conveniently forgotten about a certain the document, the Constitution. There is one particular portion in the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment that needs to be revisited.

Fourth Amendment

"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."

All American Conservative