Skip to content

Woman Sobs at TSA Pat Down – Obama Administration Intimidating Witnesses in ATF Gun Probe – EU Exploits Norway Massacre to Stifle Dissent – Obama Losing the Debt War, So is Beohner – War on Cameras: Lawsuit

July 26, 2011

Woman Sobs at “Humiliating” TSA Pat Down

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Distressed woman filmed receiving full body grope down, cameraman told “do not talk to her”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
July 26, 2011

TSA Grope Down

A new video of a distressed woman receiving a full body pat-down after going through an AIT body scanner reminds Americans that they are the real targets of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security’s crackdown at airports and other public places across the country.

The woman was filmed at Chicago O’Hare International Airport by a bystander who was initially concerned by the fact that the TSO attending to her was pregnant and in close proximity to the radiation emitting body scanners.

“While waiting for my now chronically delayed flight from ORD, I noticed a pregnant TSO working around the AIT.” the man explains on the flyertalk forum.

“The TSO was performing pat-downs, but was constantly moving near the machines. I found it concerning that (1) a pregnant woman would willingly expose herself to a radiation-laden work environment with no protection and (2) that her employers would allow her to do so. At the very least, couldn’t they assign her duties that don’t have her working right next to the machines.”

The bystander then noticed that the woman the TSO was patting down was visibly upset and attempted to reassure her by saying he was filming the incident and would happily provide a copy of the video.

Another agent then marched up to the man and demanded that he stop communicating with the woman receiving the grope down.

Apparently the TSA now believes it has the authority to prevent people in public places from talking to each other. It is surprising that the agent did not attempt to prevent the man from filming the incident as has so often been the case in other similar scenarios.

After the woman was finally able to collect her personal belongings and move through the security line, she exchanged details with the bystander, sobbing, “That was absolutely humiliating, why did they have to do that?”

Watch the video:

In the same week as this incident, bladder cancer survivor Thomas Sawyer was left covered in his own urine by TSA agents for the second time in a year following an aggressive pat down.

It’s good to know the enemy is being kept at bay by the TSA.

——————————————————————————–

Issa: Obama admin intimidating witnesses in ATF gun probe

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Stephen Dinan and Chuck Neubauer
The Washington Times
July 26, 2011

The Obama administration sought to intimidate witnesses into not testifying to Congress on Tuesday about whether ATF knowingly allowed weapons, including assault rifles, to be “walked” into Mexico, the chairman of a House committee investigating the program said in an interview Monday.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said at least two scheduled witnesses expected to be asked about a controversial weapons investigation known as “Fast and Furious”received warning letters from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to limit their testimony.

Mr. Issa’s committee is set to hear testimony from six current or former ATF employees, including agents and attaches assigned to the bureau’s offices in Mexico, about the operation — in which, federal agents say, they were told to stand down and watch as guns flowed from U.S. dealers in Arizona to violent criminals and drug cartels in Mexico.

The six-term lawmaker aired his concerns about the program in a wide-ranging interview with reporters and editors at The Washington Times on Monday.

Full article here

——————————————————————————

EU Exploits Norway Massacre to Stifle Dissent

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

European Union to launch “extremist” early warning system, despite the fact that EU treats legitimate criticism of its own institution as “extremism”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, July 26, 2011

EU

Wasting little time in exploiting the freshly dead bodies of dozens of Norwegian teenagers to push its draconian agenda, the European Union has swiftly announced that it plans to set up an “early warning system” to combat “extremism,” the problem being that the EU treats legitimate criticism of its own corrupt institution as extremist.

“The European Commission is building a security system to issue early warnings on threats of extremism, xenophobia and other forms of radicalism, EC spokesman Michele Cercone said on Tuesday,” reports RIA Novosti.

EU officials also met on Monday in a bid to “curb sales of firearms” to law-abiding citizens, despite the fact that it was Norway’s policy on not allowing police instant access to firearms that contributed to the scale of last week’s attack.

Eurosceptisim is on the rise across the contintent, which is why the neo-liberal elite are busy implying that people who oppose being ruled by an unelected, unaccountable, Soviet-style buearacratic tyranny are in league with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.

As an example, the fact that Breivik e-mailed the True Finns party hours before him rampage has somehow been offered as proof that the conservative True Finns bear some of the responsibility for the massacre. This would be like blaming John Lennon and Paul McCartney for the Manson family murders.

In reality, the EU’s crass rush to exploit last week’s tragedy has little to do with stopping the next Breivik and a lot to do with stifling criticism of its own institution.

The EU habitually uses the “extremist” label to discredit legitimate political opposition to its agenda, particularly when it wants to silence those who speak out against the EU’s advocacy of mass immigration policies. In 2009, Dutch Freedom Party MP and prominent eurosceptic Geert Wilders was refused entry to Britain because his political opinions were deemed offensive under EU laws.

American talk radio host Michael Savage was banned from entering Britain under the same law in 2009 for making “extremist” comments that were never even specifically identified by the then Labour government. The ban was re-affirmed by the new Conservative-led government two months ago.

British MEP Nigel Farage was also reprimanded by EU Commission heads in 2009 simply for criticizing “important EU people”.

Indeed, under the 1999 ruling of the European Court Of Justice (case 274/99), it is illegal to criticize the EU, and the institution is on a mission to marginalize any national political parties that do not pander to the European federal superstate agenda, by smearing them as racist and xenophobic.

As the European Disunion blog notes, opposition to the expansion of a European federal superstate has been characterized as racism and xenophobia.

“It is a logical fallacy to suggest that all those who oppose Britain’s EU membership are ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic.’ How many times do we have to say it – getting along with other nations and peoples does not equate to being ruled by them. Opposing the EU is, by definition, not racist – for the EU is not a race. It is a political institution. Being racist against the EU is like being racist against NATO or the Scottish National Party – impossible.”

Since EU leaders treat anyone who criticizes the EU itself as racists or extremists, and routinely act to silence their free speech, they should be the last people trusted to oversee an “early warning system” that serves to identify extremist threats.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

———————————————————————————

Obama Is Losing the Debt War, and So Is Boehner

| Print |  E-mail
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem – New American
Tuesday, 26 July 2011 08:00

ObamaThe one unmistakable conclusion that can be drawn from Monday’s dueling press statements on the debt limit battle is that President Barack Obama is losing the argument for endless deficit spending. But a second conclusion is equally important. House Speaker John Boehner, whom Obama accused of trying to sell out the fiscally responsible Tea Party faction of his Republican party, is losing as well.

President Obama bemoaned in his July 25 address to the nation that “a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach — a cuts-only approach.” That was a clear reference to the Tea Party movement. And because the U.S. Constitution allows the House to stop any legislation, Obama’s only remaining strategy is to appeal to the American people. “So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know.  If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.”

Obama also hinted that Boehner was negotiating with the White House for much higher taxes, but that Boehner eventually backed out of the deal:

While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.”  And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

It’s interesting that House Speaker John Boehner backed out of a tax increase deal after agreeing to it in secret White House negotiations. Did Boehner ultimately back out because he didn’t think he could convince enough Republicans to sell out? Did he back out in order to avoid a backlash against his leadership of the House Republicans? Those questions remain unanswered.

Boehner did have the best line of the two press statements. President Obama used the phrase “balanced approach” seven times in his address to the nation to describe his plan to increase taxes, and Boehner explained what Obama meant by “balance”:

The President has often said we need a balanced approach, which in Washington means “We spend more and you pay more.”

The reality is that neither the White House nor the GOP leadership in Congress has a plan to balance the budget, though both sides claim that’s what they want. Boehner noted that “the solution to this crisis is not complicated. If you’re spending more money than you are taking in, you need to spend less of it.” He added that the President’s approach is simple: “the sad truth is that President Obama wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today.”

President Obama claimed that his approach would cost middle-class taxpayers nothing. “And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None.”

But Obama admitted that this wasn’t true in the same speech, explaining that the path of accumulating debt on an endless trajectory would hurt the middle class:

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand.

In fairness, Obama did claim in the same speech that his approach would bring the budget into balance. “Let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. … This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt.”

But the reality is, his own Office of Management and Budget says that Obama’s budget proposals — even with $4 trillion of the projected spending increases pared away from his 10-year plan — would still continue to ring up the national credit card forever. In short, Obama’s own hirelings admit that Obama’s claim that he would balance the budget is a lie. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the same thing.

Boehner claimed Monday that:

In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual. Well, I’ve got news for Washington. Those days are over. President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual, yet another routine increase in the national debt. But we in the House said, “Not so fast.” Here was the President asking for the largest debt increase in American history on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Obama may have done the Tea Party a favor by revealing that Boehner is part of the “business as usual” crowd in Washington. The Tea Party movement is starting to hold the line, and has won the day today. But there’s still plenty of time for a Washington-style sell-out, an all-too-familiar theme for those who have followed Capitol Hill for any length of time. Obama is trying to rally the nation behind the idea that our budget deficit is not a spending problem, even falsely claiming that spending is the lowest since Eisenhower. Actually, measured in any way, federal spending is at the highest level in American history with the possible exception of World War II.

The open question remains: How will the American people and the Tea Party movement respond to Obama’s false rallying cry?

Photo of President Obama addressing nation on debt-limit debate: AP Images

——————————————————————————–

ACLU on the Right Side of the War on Cameras

——————————————————————————-

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: