Skip to content

Kick the Can Down the Road: How They Voted – Obamacare Home Inspections – Obamacare Fines – Surgical Center Slashes Costs – Pro Assassination Lawyer to Head Homeland Security

October 18, 2013

Mixed Reactions to New Law Reopening Government

Apologist for Assassination of Americans to Be Named as New Homeland Security Chief

Low Healthcare Enrollment May Indicate ObamaCare in Trouble

Ex-Navy SEAL: Government provoking vets to bring on martial law





Internal TSA Documents: Body Scanners, Pat Downs Not For Terrorists

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

TSA’s ‘Administrative Record’ admits ineffective security theater

Adan Salazar
Oct. 17, 2013

The TSA has quietly admitted there is no actual “threat-addressing” basis for employing nude body scanners or invasive pat down procedures at airports, a notion many travelers who are weary of the federal agency’s borderline sexual molestation have long suspected but were hard-pressed to prove.

The TSA understands body scanners and pat downs are ineffective at addressing a threat for which they admit “there is no evidence.”

The TSA understands body scanners and pat downs are ineffective at addressing a threat for which they admit “there is no evidence.”

The evidence was found in sealed court documents, available through the website, regarding engineer and blogger Jon Corbett’s ongoing litigation over the constitutionality of the agency’s loathsome security practices.

In a redacted version of the appellant’s brief, filed by Corbett on October 7 with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, several portions of the Summary of Facts section were blacked out, raising questions as to the nature of the censored information.

But in a sealed version of the same documents obtained through (and available here), the redacted sections appear with incriminating clarity.

Through Redactions, TSA Admits Terror Threats are Slim to Nonexistent

Redaction shows TSA is aware explosives on airplanes "are extremely rare.' (click to enlarge)

Redaction shows TSA is aware explosives on airplanes “are extremely rare.’ (click to enlarge)

A section detailing how “The TSA Has Misled The Public As to the Likelihood of the Threat ‘Addressed’ By Nude Body Scanners and Pat Downs,” includes a blacked out portion concerning the TSA’s knowledge that “explosives on airplanes are extremely rare.”

“For example, the TSA analyzed hijackings in 2007 and found 7 hijacking incidents across the globe, but none of them involved actual explosive devices,” Corbett explains in the brief, adding that the last attempt to bring an explosive onboard an airplane through a U.S. airport occurred 35 years ago.

Another redacted section highlights the government’s concession that, “due to hardened cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to challenge hijackers,” it would be difficult to have a repeat of 9/11.

“The government also credits updated pre-flight security for that difficulty assessment,” the brief states, “but the assessment was written before the en masse deployment of body scanners and before the update to the pat down procedure. Further, the government admits that there have been no attempted domestic hijackings of any kind in the 12 years since 9/11.”

The TSA also had the following section completely censored:

This begs the question, then, of what evidence the government possesses to rationalize that we should be so afraid of non-metallic explosives being brought aboard flights departing from the U.S. that we must sacrifice our civil liberties. The answer: there is none. “As of mid-2011, terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports; instead, their focus is on fundraising, recruiting, and propagandizing.”

In the brief’s Summary of Argument, another redacted portion concerns the TSA’s understanding that body scanners and pat downs are ineffective at addressing a threat for which they admit “there is no evidence.”

By redacting certain parts of the brief, the TSA also inadvertently admits “it is aware of no one who is currently plotting a terror attack against our aviation system using explosives (non-metallic or otherwise),” and that, in addition to a cabin of empowered passengers who would make short work of a hijacker, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which arms pilots with firearms, makes targeting an airplane “to be the definition of insanity.”

Get the TSA Out of Our Pants

catascopeThe redactions in Corbett’s court documents are a damning indictment of the TSA’s procedures, and only serve to bolster his claims’ truthfulness.

The 28-year-old entrepreneur arrived at his conclusions after admittedly “pawing through several thousand pages of the TSA’s ‘administrative record,’” which he says the TSA uses as the “alleged rationale behind why they must photograph us naked and literally put their hands in our pants to search us.”

The information contained within the redacted portions support what Infowars and others have long suspected: that the sprawling agency – which is in the process of extending beyond the airport and onto highways, train stations and public buses – was never meant to thwart terrorists, but was instead set up to purposely obstruct, annoy, harass and train the American public.

In other words, the court documents go a long way in proving the TSA is pure contrived security theater custom-made solely to indoctrinate Americans, through prisoner training, into blindly accepting obedience to authority as a normal way of life, not to mention a huge waste of about $7.91 billion in taxpayer money a year.

RELATED: TSA Loudspeakers Threaten Travelers With Arrest For Joking About Security

TSA trying to make a monkey out of you.

TSA trying to make a monkey out of you.

Corbett has made quite the reputation of going after the agency.

Last year, he made headlines when he demonstrated how to thwart TSA body scanners simply by sewing an object onto clothing.

Corbett had also previously filed a lawsuit challenging the TSA after he was detained for an hour at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. He also regularly adds updates regarding his ongoing litigation on his activist blog TSA Out Of Our Pants!.

Updates to Jon’s case can be found on, case #12-15893.

Below are both the redacted and sealed versions of the Appellant’s brief in the case of Jonathan Corbett v. Transportation Security Administration.

REDACTED Appellant’s brief.

SEALED Appellant’s brief.

This article was posted: Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Tags: , , , , ,


Mixed Reactions to New Law Reopening Government

Written by 

Once the 11th-hour vote to avoid the potential default was passed by the Senate and the House and signed into law by President Obama, key players in the just-ended game of fiscal chicken began issuing their justifications and frustrations.

That game, variously called “political brinkmanship,” a “temporary fix,” “a temporary ceasefire,” and “a political achievement for Obama,” does everything the president wanted while giving almost nothing away to the Republicans. Government spending will continue into early next year, the debt ceiling debate has been postponed until early February, and as yet unnamed “negotiators” will have until December 15 to make recommendations on cutting government spending. The Republicans even lost a skirmish there, too, as “sequestration” is on the table for the negotiators’ discussion.

As David Espo, writing at Newsmax, expressed it: “The president outmaneuvered Republicans by holding firm in defense of Obamacare to win the agreement, with few strings attached.” In the House the defeat was resounding, with the Senate bill passing without modification, 285 to 144. Translation: 88 of the 232 House Republicans sided with all the House Democrats to pass the bill.

Justifications had to be made, especially since every member of the House is up for reelection next year. It was necessary that explanations be issued, and “clarifications” be spun. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who voted yes, was a prime example, although certainly not the only one. Sporting a dismal Freedom Index (FI) rating of just 45, Dent did the best he could: “This legislation must be supported, but it should not be celebrated. It’s not a win for anyone — not the Congress, nor the president.”

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa. with an FI of 69) explained his yes vote: “I’ve been calling for the political brinkmanship to end, and I’m encouraged [that] there is a measure that could get to the president’s desk. Washington cannot continue to operate in perpetual crisis mode.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio and an FI of just 54), who also voted “yea,” was all for forgetting the past and moving on:

Our negotiating team will pursue real reforms that address the drivers of our debt [and] get control of spending [and] put us on a path to a balanced budget … these negotiations are a big opportunity.

Those who voted “nay” in the House expressed disappointment and frustration. As Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga. and a FI of 72) put it: “There’s nothing historic about this agreement. It is the response to a crisis manufactured by the president and a Democratic Party [that is] content with the nation’s fiscal ruin.” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas and an FI of 67) explained his “nay” vote:

Not only as a congressman but as the father of an 11-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son I cannot, in good conscience, support an unconditional increase in the national debt ceiling without any plan or commitment to begin dealing with the debt.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn. and an FI of 63) voted “nay” as well, explaining,

I cannot support the Senate proposal in its current form. House Republicans have fought to provide the same relief to hard-working Americans that the Obama administration has generously provided to unions and big business.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga. and an FI of 90) said he voted no because “The Senate-negotiated deal does nothing to stop ObamaCare.… Anything less than a delay or a full defund is a letdown for the American people.”

Over in the Senate, Republicans were equally busy justifying their support of the bill that became law. Said Senator John Thune (R-S.D. and a FI rating of 56) who is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference: “This isn’t a perfect proposal but … it will force Congress to have a broad debate about Washington’s dangerous levels of spending and debt.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C. and an FI of 63), who is up for reelection in 2014, provided plenty of ammunition for his primary opponent:

To say we as Republicans left a lot on the table would be one of the biggest understatements in American political history. We could have done much, much better.

Unfortunately … this agreement was the best [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell could do. By the time we got to this point, we were playing poker only holding a pair of twos.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas and an FI of 90), who fulfilled his vow to vote no, was much more direct: “This is a terrible deal. This deal embodies everything about the Washington establishment that frustrates the American people.”

This deal kicks the can down the road. It allows yet more debt, more deficits, more spending, and it does absolutely nothing to provide relief for the millions of Americans who are hurting because of ObamaCare.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah also with an FI of 90) vented his frustration about the establishment as well:

On Wednesday the establishment did what it does best — maintain the status quo, avoid tough votes and kick the can of hard decisions further down the road — all at the expense of the American people.

Unfortunately, Obamacare has been funded, big business and those with influence have been exempted from it, the debt limit has been increased and, sadly, the faith of the American people in their elected officials has decreased.

In summarizing the sellout, writer Thomas Eddlem of The New American observed,

Only in America are [those] who want to balance the budget and make raising the national debt limit unnecessary labeled “terrorists” and those who want to raise the national credit card limit to infinity deemed “reasonable.”

Edward Klein, the author of The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, knows exactly where the “terrorist” label came from: someone whom the media failed to mention in the aftermath of the Republican surrender. Known as “The Night Stalker” because she is the only presidential aide allowed to spend much time in the family quarters, Valerie Jarrett, according to Klein,

convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014.

Valerie came [up] with the idea of using the words “hostage” and “ransom” and “terrorists” against the Republicans.

[She told the president] do not cooperate one iota on Obamacare. Don’t give an inch. Let the Republicans stew in their own juice.

The real problem revealed by the defeat of the Republicans in the faceoff over ObamaCare and out-of-control government spending is that there are too many establishment types and too few true Americanists in Congress who understand what’s at stake. As Senator Ted Cruz explained in an interview following the vote on Wednesday,

We saw the House of Representatives take a courageous stand, listening to the American people….

That was a remarkable victory, to see the House engage in a profile of courage.

Unfortunately the Senate chose not to follow the House.… That was unfortunate. [If] the Senate Republicans had united and supported House Republicans, the outcome of this, I believe, would have been very, very different.

One lesson to be drawn from the confrontation may be this: At the moment there just simply aren’t enough Americanists in Congress, such as Cruz and Lee, with the courage to confront the establishment. The strategy would have worked. All it would have taken is just a little more backbone in the Senate and the House.

 Photo of U.S. senators before vote to end shutdown: AP Images

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: