Old white guy is...



actually a 20ish year old Chinese man. That is not an old white man. This man was arrested upon arrival in Canada.

I am not a fan of the genital scanner, I am not a fan of a lot of things but while we ridicule TSA for searching old people the one thing to remember is if you provide an opening someone will take it.

source: CBC News - British Columbia - Masked man nabbed on flight to B.C. from Asia

Now, that was off the drudge report, look what is also on the drudge report right below it:

TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners

and

Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself - Yahoo! Finance
I'm going to repost the whole article below...

 

Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself

Share
retweet
EmailPrint..JOE SHARKEY, On Tuesday November 2, 2010, 1:40 am EDT
HAVING been taught by nuns in grade school and later going through military boot camp, I have always disliked uniformed authorities shouting at me. So I was unhappy last week when some security screeners at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago started yelling.

“Opt out! We got an opt out!” one bellowed about me in a tone that people in my desert neighborhood in Tucson usually reserve for declaring, “Rattlesnake!”

Other screeners took up the “Opt out!” shout. I was marched from the metal detector lane to one of those nearby whole-body imagers, ordered to take everything out of my pockets, remove my belt and hold my possessions up high. Then I was required to stand still while I received a rough pat-down by a man whose résumé, I suspected, included experience at a state prison.

“Hold your pants up!” he ordered me.

What did I do to deserve this? Well, as I approached the checkpoints, I had two choices. One was a familiar lane with the metal detector, so I put my bag on that. To my right was a separate lane dominated with what the Transportation Security Administration initially called “whole-body imagers” but has now labeled “advanced imaging technology” units. Critics, of course, call them strip-search machines.

I don’t like these things, and not just because of privacy concerns or because of what some critics have asserted are radiation safety issues with some of the machines that use X-ray technology.

No, I don’t like the fact that I have to remove every item from every pocket, including my wallet and things as trivial as a Kleenex. You then strike a pose inside with your hands submissively held above your head, like some desperado cornered by the sheriff in a Western movie, while the see-through-clothes machine makes an image of your body.

The T.S.A.’s position is that anyone can “opt out” of a body scan for reasons of privacy or whatever, but will then be subjected to a thorough physical pat-down and careful search of belongings.

In my case, I had been routinely using a normal metal detector checkpoint, when I was ordered to switch lanes and instead go to one of the new machines. I said I would prefer not to, given that my carry-on bag, laptop and shoes were already trundling along the regular machine’s conveyor belt, out of sight. That’s when the shouting started.

As of Monday afternoon, the agency had not responded to several requests for comment on this. Last week, the agency did tell me that there were 317 of the advanced imaging technology machines now in use at 65 airports around the country.

About 500 should be online by the end of the year, the agency said, and another 500 are expected to be installed next year. Ultimately, the agency plans to have the new machines replace metal detectors at all of the roughly 2,000 airport checkpoints.

Meanwhile, both passengers and security screeners are making accommodations, and I acknowledge, change is a challenge. But hey, security folks, could we please start communicating better about the procedures, preferably without shouting or insulting our intelligence?

Bruce Delahorne, a marketing executive who flies frequently, said he was also recently going through a standard metal detector at O’Hare — no body imager in sight — when the old rules abruptly changed.

Mr. Delahorne said: “They had one of the T.S.A. staff announcing loudly: ‘Take everything out of your pockets. If you have a wallet, take it out. A handkerchief, out.’ I asked the guy, ‘Can you explain the reason for the new process?’ He said there was nothing new. ‘We have always done this.’ ”

Well, no they haven’t, as you and I and Mr. Delahorne all know. Mr. Delahorne said he thought, “O.K., I get it. This guy is reading from the card, not talking to me.”

So, Mr. Delahorne said, “I did what they told me to. But on the other side of the metal detector, I said to another screener, ‘Could you explain to me why the procedure is now different at this airport, like having to remove a wallet that never set off the metal detector?’ And he said, ‘No, no. The process has always been the same, at every airport.’ ”

Mr. Delahorne said he was perfectly willing to comply with all procedures to ensure good security. He just wondered whether some of them were being made up on the spot. “For me,” he said, “the issue is, who’s in charge here and what are the rules?”


E-mail: [email protected]

Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself - Yahoo! Finance

 

source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyingless...ves/227473.asp

Pilots take their security complaint to the right folks

I won't claim credit, but I will praise pilot Dave Bates of American Airlines for taking pilot complaints about whole body scanning to the right place. He did not take on lowly TSA officers just trying to do their jobs like ExpressJet pilot Michael Roberts did at Memphis International Airport last month.


In a letter to the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, the president of the Allied Pilots Association, American's union, explains that pilots in uniform find the process of undergoing "pat down" security checks demeaning and he asks that some accommodation be made for a private pat-down for pilots who refuse the controversial full body scan.

Pilots often make the point that treating them as security risks is senseless, considering they are the ones about to take command of all these "protected" airliners. What's overlooked in this argument is that giving pilots a pass through the security check point opens the possibility that someone could scoot through masquerading as a pilot.


Don't discount the possibility without considering that on Tuesday, a pilot for AirTran reported that his bags went missing at Orlando International Airport. Whether he was packing a spare uniform is uncertain, but he was packing heat. The pilot was part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program and his weapon was stolen along with his luggage according to a story in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper.


Conscientious as they may be, pilots do occasionally get separated from their possessions. As part of a highly-controversial security program in Israel, the government issued individual identity cards to all pilots who will be flying into Israeli airspace. I reported some of the issues involved in this plan for The New York Times in July. Thousands of cards were issued and just as quickly, some of these cards went missing.


All of this is to say that as ridiculous as it looks, sometimes the belt and suspenders approach makes sense. In the safety world we call this redundancy. Does that mean pilots and flight attendants concerns should be ignored? Not at all.


I'm praising Capt. Bates for taking a measured, meaningful approach to finding satisfactory solutions. But I'm also apologizing to Michael Roberts the fed-up ExpressJet pilot. Some of the credit belongs to him for inciting a publicity storm by pushing back at the security gate in Memphis.

 

Actually they're not non-existent, they're just under assault. If you know your rights and plead them in the correct venue, you will win.

Carl

 

For now. But generations of progressivists (on both sides of the so called 2 party isle) hold the belief, and barf from top to bottom all through the educational system at all levels, that our "living document" is really a system that gives all rights to the government to dole out as it wishes, dependant only on the whims of an activist judiciary.

Some entire cities and states shred entire amendments, and higher powers outright ignore the existance of others. Yet it is not the ammendments or even the Constiution itself that "gives" us a single right. Our rights are inalienable. Birthrights. And those rights listed in the Bill of Rights are only a tiny sample of the absolute and permanant rights we own as human beings. Amendments 1-8 were merely illustrative examples of the type of rights we own, over and above any government edict (i.e. the myth of "martial law" or "suspending the Constitution" etc that some people actually believe is permitted under any circumstance.)

Amendments 9-10 taken in the context of the preamble, built on the foundation of the Declaration and backed up by volumes of writings from the federalist papers and numerous other sources from the framers themselves clearly busts the myth of progressivism and incrimental statism. That is why the usurpers of the Constitution in specific and the shredders of the raw concept of inalienable individual rights in general have focused so closely on installing an activist judiciary who can "interpret" anything to mean whatever they want.

Some even joke about lying to get into power and then wordsmithing pre-determined decisions regardless of the written law or especially the inalienable natural law, like a recent SCOTUS appointee did (and still got confirmed and lauded with "historical greatness").

Education at the individual level is the key and the true meaning of inalienable individual rights as it applies to our early history and existance as a nation is the door for it to open.

 

And that my friend is the objective. Mobility = freedom

 

Terrific post. Spot on.

Carl

 

Gloopy,

I'm fairly sure we are on the same side, but I KNOW I don't understand what you are saying. I love the topic, but help me. Dumb it down for an old guy like me.

 

Well since I'm not on the 9 and don't have to spend the vast majority of my day working on my scan and stuff, I can afford to under simplify basic concepts in an attempt to look smart.

In a nutshell, it goes back to the fierce debate our founders had regarding whether or not to include a bill of rights. The Declaration and the Constitution basically spells out that rights belong to man as individuals, not to government or "rulers" in any form.

The ones in favor of a BOR wanted some rights guaranteed and codified in writing. It makes sense that building an entire nation at great personal sacrifice warranted putting in writing some of the very tennents that were being fought for.

Yet others argued that there was supreme danger in that concept, because they knew that whatever rights were written down, people later on down the road would point to those rights as the "only" rights we are guaranteed. They also knew that the next step would be to say that those rights could be changed or removed by law, since they were "given" by law. The founders on all sides of otherwise contentions issues all knew and agreed that the danger in that all but guaranteed future predicent needed to be avoided.

So their great compromise was to include a BOR, but to include intentionally vague and general 9th and 10th amendments that, in conjunction with the impossible to ignore Declaration, the meaning of words as understood by and agreed to by everyone at the time and the volumes of writing and live rhetoric of the day spelling out the nature of individual rights born with the individual and not granted to them by the benevolance of the state, would assure our lasting liberty and posterity for the future.

The judicial "check and balance" they wrote into the Constitution was clearly meant to uphold natural rights as, according to the written law, as justified by the inalienable natural law it was all based on in the first place, would guarantee that the courts would be a perpetual stop gap that would derail any legislative or executive effort to remove our inalienable rights, which belong to us no matter what, by merely changing the written law.

As we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and struggles for power ebbed and flowed through the centuries as it does today. The courts by no means got everything right all the time, but they by in large let the other two branches make the written law and in many cases struck down attempts by them to take blank check ownership of the rights of man by co-opting the very source of rights in general. In other words, we were always born with our rights. Power would sometimes shift such that kings, empires, hostile nations, wars, etc would violate the inalienable rights of man, but that could never strip man of the rights he is entitled to because he is born with them.

Take the first Amendment for example. Does that written statement alone "give" us the right to worship freely? What if the Constitutional amendment process was followed to the letter, and that Amendment was changed to say only that you have the right to choose between Islam and death. Would you simply roll over and comply? Start taking your family to worship whatever government demanded? Of course not. If the written law said you must turn over your first born to sacrifice to a volcano god, would you? Of course not. Because you don't get your rights from the Constitution. You were born with them and any attempt to abbrogate your natural rights by the process of written law is invalid if that written law is in conflict with your inalienable rights. King George was the legal ruler of the Colonies at the time in terms of the written law. But his rule was unjust because it abrogated the natural rights of man.

Fortunately, our founding document lays out a pretty difficult process for changing itself, which is an overall good thing. Of course, the legislative and executive branches at times have tried and even succeeded to very large extents in doing things blatantly "unconstitutional" and infringing on our inalienable rights in addition to the very processes in the Constitition that the rule makers derive their limited authority from in the first place. It is to no suprise then that when they do so, it is nearly without exception for the purpose of transferring more and more power from you to them.

That is where the courts come into play so heavily. When there is a conflict, we are supposed to be able to go to the courts and protest that the political products of the other two branches are not only violating the written law they get their power from in the first place, but also in violation of our natural rights we were born with. Since the courts are supposed to be apolitical, they would have no reason to legislate form the bench and strike down just laws or to uphold unjust laws that conflict with our natural rights. And how could it be possible in the first place, since such cloak and dagger activists would have to get past the other two branches in the first place? Its as an ingenious of a system of government as any ever devised and it worked well, despite its imperfections, through the centuries.

But somewhere along the line in the last few generations, the power mongers who want to be the sole proprietors of your rights, and who were quite frustrated with the concept of natural law and anything remotely related to inalienable rights, because that infringed on their ambitions of power, increasingly focused on the courts as a back door way to first take control from the Constitution on paper and from you in effect, no matter what the rest of the goverment was doing and no matter if you liked it or not.

So now we are in a political era where Supreme Court appointees can be caught on tape saying that they intend to make the law from the bench, laugh about it, say that they know they shouldn't say that but we all know its true, laugh again, and still get appointed to the highest court in the land. In one of their first rulings ever, they can immediately reverse what they said they would vote for when they were asked under oath during the confirmation process regarding fundamental individual rights as guaranteed in previous Supreme Court predicent (and one that was actually included in the BOR...can we immagine how they intend to treat every conceptual right that wasn't covered in that limited eight?) and we're supposed to say "oh well, dems the breaks".

In a nutshell, its really about ownership of rights. Are they yours, or do they belong to the government and they give you whatever they say you are allowed? The progressivists think all rights, even the ones we all or most agree we have, belong to the government and it is the government that "allows" you to do XYZ, like worship as you please. The danger in that methodology, of course, is obvious. The founders knew this, and that's why they gave us a government with tremendous roadblocks to future progressivist power grabs. The limited, constrained and divided federal power was but one part of that protections. Republican (not the GOP but the true meaning of the word) protections were built in to protect us from the progressive erosion of a mobobracy (i.e. the "tyrrany of the majority) and its no suprise that those protections have been under agressive attack from the progressivists who want us to emulate a simply majority mobocracy whereby your rights can change with the winds of the next election, or if that doesn't work, someone in the courts can just say that it wasn't your right to begin with.

 

This latest round by the TSA is absurd, over-the-top and ridiculous. The TSA will not lift one finger to change anything unless we force them to. I am returning from furlough, and I can say that after all of that, I am definitely not in the mood to be seen naked or be groped by TSA agents.

If you decide to go through with the body scan or the enhanced pat-down and experience problems, here's a link to the ACLU survey that should eventually lead to termination of these outrageous behaviors:

Report Abuse During Passenger Screening in U.S. Airports