Saturday, January 30, 2010

I Agree with Obama: I’d Rather Him Be a One-Term President Too! (Part 1)

Obama State of the Union
I pledge a spirit of cooperation and bi-
partisanship, to reach across the aisle and
work with those despicable republicans who
are to blame for all the problems!
Prior to the State of the Union speech, Obama was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, (who had put her big girl panties on and was trying to sound like a tough reporter).

At one point Obama said, “The one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Are you kidding me? He thinks that pissing off the public to the extent that he ends up a one-term president equals success? Maybe he should talk to Jimmy Carter on how that feels in between their discussions on their respective Nobel Peace Prizes and how much they hate anyone named Bush. However, I do agree that I would prefer Obama be a one-term president!

When Sawyer asked if he would still be able to hold to his promise about not raising taxes on anyone making over $250K, he neatly sidestepped the question by saying, "I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak." Sawyer, of course, didn’t bother to challenge Obama about his non-answer.

It was the State of the Union address that was, “about as popular as a root canal.” Over seventy minutes long, Obama’s speech meandered through the blame Bush rhetoric to his plan to save taxpayer money by spending even more taxpayer monies.

Look, I know he’s not stupid, but he is arrogant. And arrogance can sometimes stand in for stupidity.

During the State of the Union, Obama demanded a spending freeze, but then said it wouldn’t take place until 2011. “That’s the way budgets work,” he ad-libbed after some rather loud laughter erupted from the gallery. (They weren’t laughing with him either.) But then he turned around and went through a laundry list of bills (and taxes) he wanted passed, including healthcare.

Only a week ago, most democrats were administering last rites to their health care bill after the election of Scott Brown as #41, giving republicans a crucial edge to stopping the Obama taxation express and striking true fear in the hearts of democrats up for election in November. After the Massachusetts election, most presidents would have stuck a conciliatory tone. Not this president—he continued to drive in the wedge and push his unpopular agenda. 

He was a cheerleader for “changing the tone in Washington.” The problem is the tone he changed it to was (still!) whining about the Bush administration!
“So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger.”
See, in the progressive mindset, spending our tax dollars helps not hurts (unless it’s being spent on the military or other conservative ideas.) It’s counter to what logic dictates: in a down economy, you STOP spending, not spend even more. That is because in their mind, government is the solver of problems, not the free market. We’re just imbeciles who would be sitting in a corner, sucking our thumb if the government wasn’t here to help. Meanwhile, we are hemorrhaging money in amounts that will keep generations in debt.

The first thing Obama suggested, was taxing banks.
“To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.”
Which they will pass on to us, the consumer, in the form of increased fees. I hated the Wall Street bonuses as much as anyone, but the banks shouldn’t have gotten our tax monies in the first place. It certainly didn’t stop a lot of smaller banks from going out of business (and the mega banks from snapping them up.) Now he wants to charge them a “fee” (read: tax). Businesses don’t pay tax. We pay the tax—when the cost of business goes up, they pass on the costs to all of us.

Inserts mine:
“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. [Which will cause banks to cut back on making student loans.] Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years—and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. [Who’ll be paying those loans back…why WE will.] Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.”
Well, let’s just give everyone FREE tuition and be done with it. Unfortunately, students (and their parents) sometimes make bad choices. It does not make sense to take out massive loans if you’re not going into a career where you can make enough to pay them back! If you’re going to become an English, journalist (heh), social worker or basket weaving major, go to a smaller, public university and work your way through or plan to get a major scholarship.

“And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.” No, you just snuck it into the withholding tables. Did you notice the take-home amount in your paycheck went down from last year? That’s because congress lowered the threshold, raising taxes on wages across the board. So we’re back to playing word games again—it depends on what the meaning of ‘raising income taxes’ is.

(Part 2 Tuesday: Energy, Heath Care (again!) and Why was Scott Brown elected? Hint: They know the reason better than the electorate!)

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Downtown Scotty Brown, 41, Future Presidential Candidate…what!?

Scott Brown in Cosmo
Republican candidate for President?
The state that held the original Boston Tea Party had another tea party of sorts. Although the White House is playing the election down, no one in the real world missed the significance of a Massachusetts win by a candidate who is not only a republican, but a conservative, to a post held by one of the most liberal senators ever. The last republican senator from Massachusetts left office in 1979.

He referred to Washington as “the machine,” described himself as a “Scott Brown Republican,” corrected pundits that the office was “the people’s seat,” drove a GM pickup truck with 200K miles on it and was a high school basketball star with the nickname “Downtown Scotty Brown.” The republican buzz around Scott Brown was similar to that of Governor Sarah Palin: An independent conservative who will fight his own party if necessary and a populist, outsider candidate.

It was the culmination of a long year of protests on Washington at a Congress who had turned a deaf ear to the populace and had a general, “we know better what’s good for you” attitude. The media, White House toadies and Obama made fun of the tea party protesters. Now, with Brown’s election, democrats have stopped laughing, realizing their re-election is not assured. The health care bill is in doubt as many are having second thoughts about losing their elected positions just to get it passed. The president has given the people “change,” but not the change they wanted and the “hope” now is about making Congress listen, one way or another. Voters are hungering for a positive message that’s not just political spin. We long to hear about the “shining city of the hill” again.
“Four years ago, we raised a banner of bold colors -- no pale pastels. We proclaimed a dream of an America that would be ‘a shining city on a hill.’ We came together in a national crusade to make America great again, and to make a new beginning. Well, now it's all coming together. With our beloved nation at peace, we're in the midst of a springtime of hope for America. Greatness lies ahead of us.” Ronald Reagan, 1984
How refreshing that was compared to a president who travels the globe, bowing to foreign leaders and apologizing. Obama is antithesis of Reagan—in his mind America is not a great country. Just the opposite. One of the first things he did was speaking to Europe, the middle east and the UN, apologizing for America’s behavior. Most Americans certainly don’t feel that way and felt Obama’s “Apology Tour” only weakened us to both our friends and our enemies.

Many in the conservative ‘verse were hoping Brown would deliver the rebuttal to Obama’s state of the union. (He’s not—another new face, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, will have that honor.) However, some are already talking a presidential run for the attractive, charismatic young senator. Let’s hold on for just a moment…
Scott Brown the candidate
Senator Scott Brown

It’s easy for people to latch onto and pour their hopes and dreams into a candidate. Remember Barack Hussein Obama? Even when he told cheering audiences exactly how he would wreck the country if elected, they only chose to hear, “Hope and Change.” When little is known about a candidate, voters tend to mold that person into their own ideal.

You might also recall a time when some in the republican party debated a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president. All this came about when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor. However, after his policies ran to the far left and his popularity tanked, you don’t hear anyone wistful that he could run for higher office.

So while we’re all excited about “41,” let’s wait and see what Brown does in office and hope he will live up to the hype of the campaign trail.

Monday, January 18, 2010

No Student Left Untraumatized: School Evacuated Over Science Project

 An 11-year-old San Diego middle school student was left “shaken” and his school evacuated after he brought a home-made science project to school. The student at Millennial Tech Magnet Middle School, whose web page touts a focus on studies in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, brought a motion detector device he had been building in his garage to show friends. At around 11:40 a.m. the vice principal saw the device, which was made of an “empty half-liter Gatorade bottle with some wires and other electrical components attached” he asked the student about it immediately called the police. He then took the suspect dangerous device into the principal’s office.

When police and Metro Arson Strike Team (MAST) responded, they also found (insert dramatic music) “electrical components in the student's backpack.” Imagine—electrical components at a tech school! The student was questioned (without his parents). We don’t know how long he was questioned (without his parents) but at 1 p.m., they decided to evacuate the school and the MAST robot was sent to take pictures and x-rays of the device. Then at 3 p.m., they decided the device was harmless.

Personnel (illegally) confiscated the device and gave the all clear. Describing the parents as doormats very cooperative, they searched their garage (without a warrant) to make sure there was nothing harmful or explosive. (Good thing they didn’t have a can of gasoline for the lawn mower in there!)

The spokesperson for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, said the student will not be prosecuted (over a harmless motion detector thingy), but said he violate school polices (regarding independent thinking, obviously.) Authorities then suggested the student and his parents get counseling. Perhaps this is because they were traumatized by law enforcement and idiot vice principals! The spokesperson added he (the student) and his parents were “extremely upset.” Duh!

Great, we probably have one more kid that will never show interest in science again. This administrator has a great future as an airport screener.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Clueless Cindy Sheehan Holds Protest Near Cheney Home

Someone buy Cindy Sheehan a clue. She apparently hasn’t realized that there’s been an election. Please do her the kindness of telling here there’s a democrat administration making the calls on the war on terror these days.

Clueless Cindy and her tiny group of losers were out protesting, of all things, the use of drones. The protest was held in front of CIA offices and later, near the home of former vice-president Dick Cheney (who has been out of the office for almost a year, Cindy). The mother of fallen soldier, 21-year-old Casey, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, protested the unmanned aerial vehicles that are used both to collect intelligence and for attacks. Because they’re unmanned and operated remotely, they save countless lives.

She called the use of drones as "cowardly" and "immoral." So is Sheehan telling us that she’d rather have other people’s children in harm's way than using an unmanned aircraft? Who knows, maybe her son would have lived had drones been used.

Cindy, you’re way past your 15 minutes and you’ve become a sad joke.

They’re Just Wild About Harry (Reid)

Turning on the TV or radio earlier this week, prior to the tragic earthquake in Haiti, only one topic took center stage. Not that a republican is poised to take a senate seat in a liberal democrat stronghold, or that Congress is trying to hurry up and finish shoving health care reform down our throats.

No…everyone only wanted to talk about Democrat darling, Sen. Harry Reid and his gaffe regarding Obama. Liberal democrats were trying to convince us that Reid was actually complimenting Obama. Even members of the alleged black leadership were tripping over themselves to accept Reid’s apology. On the other side, republicans complained that democrats were hypocrites for previously damning Trent Lott, while Reid gets a pass by democrats and the media. And that they were going to hold their breath until they turned blue! Okay I made the last up...but it got close to that!

My first thought was: So, what did you expect? My second thought was how it was republicans who ultimately gave the senate leader the heave-ho, not the democrats. Not that democrats didn't complain--oh, they complained loudly. The decried how Lott's toast to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, was a sign the Mississippi Senator was essentially sympathetic to the equivalent of American apartheid. They conveniently forgot that in the early days when Strom made a pro-segregationist presidential run, Strom was a democrat. Just as Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK. Democrats always conveniently forget which side their party was on when it came to slavery and later, "separate but equal" laws. After the 1948 election, Strom remained a democrat senator for 14 more years until switching to the Republican party in 1964.

But it was republicans who ousted Lott from his leadership position. They could have stood by him--just as democrats are supporting Reid, but they didn't. I have a strong hunch that most just didn't really care for Lott or had their own eyes on moving up the food chain to the speaker's seat.

Both Reid’s and Lotts’ statements were stupid and obviously not thought out. One could argue which statement was more damning: a toast made at a century-old senator's private birthday party or a comment made about then-candidate Obama on his electability based on his skin color and his dialect. Even worse Reid added he (Obama) could turn his dialect on and off to sound more or less black.

But my message to the republicans and conservatives is: Get over it. Let Reid's constituents decide in 2010. There are a LOT bigger fish to fry such as health care reform and cleaning both houses in 2010 and 2012. And don't forget we have cap and trade and immigration reform looming.

To the liberals and democrats who are trying to excuse Reid's remarks: Yeah, you're a bunch of hypocrites and you're not getting away with it as you have in the past. How any so-called member of the black leadership can say with a straight face that it's okay, because Reid was supporting Obama, or worse, that he was actually complimenting Obama--it's ludicrous. I suspect members of their respective communities are not quite so forgiving.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Following the Geithner Money Train: Paying Back Your Own Tax Dollars

Have you checked your credit cards’ interest rates recently? I hope you have been reading those changes in the TOS that Citibank, Chase and others have sent. You remember them…the companies that took your tax dollars as a bailout. Now that congress has passed so-called “credit card reform,” we get to reap the fruit of their labor: A huge jump in interest rates, fees, minimum payments and a reduction of credit limits in anticipation of new regulations that go into effect in February.

See, while congress told the public how they wanted to help consumers out, they gave the banks and agencies plenty of time to hike up interest rates and other fees in anticipation of other restrictions. All this while people are struggling to make ends meet and there’s double-digit unemployment. Most of what this bill has accomplished is making it harder for consumers to get out of debt.

While we’re at it, let’s quit the lie that republicans are for big business and democrats are for the little guy. Face it: Members of both parties are out for themselves. They both like to help banks and financial institutions because it benefits their campaign contributions. Look at either candidate in the 2008 presidential election. Both had significant campaign contributions from those in financial institutions.* Senator John McCain took money from donors in these institutions. His top five donors (just over 1.4 million) were financial institutions Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Goldman Sachs was President Obama’s largest private donor at almost one million. With the exception of Merrill Lynch, the same financial institutions donated to the Obama campaign at almost two million. (*Note: Donations don’t come technically from the organizations, but from the organization's PAC, its individual members, employees or owners and those individuals' immediate families.)

All of these institutions (Bank of America later purchased Merrill Lynch) took TARP money. All, except Citigroup, are reported as having paid the money back. But these banks, and others who spent the most money lobbying, were the ones who got the bailout money. And, although they claimed they needed these bailouts to make loans, lending declined after the bailout of these same institutions! Several paid back the loans only when it became evident that they wouldn’t be able to hand out huge annual bonuses.

You’d think all these money woes would mean income for the employees fell. Not so. In fact, Wall Street Journal reports Goldman Sachs’ projected compensation per employee for 2009 will average $743,112!

So Sachs is doing well, but that’s no surprise. Look who’s guarding the treasury hen house: Timmy “TurboTax” Geithner, former president of the Federal Reserve (who blamed TurboTax® for underpaying his own taxes). Later this month, Congress will question Geithner about emails involving deals between AIG and Goldman Sachs. Emails showing the New York Federal Reserve withholding information about AIG’s funneling taxpayer’s bailout money they had received over to Goldman Sachs and others. Initially, neither Geithner, previously accused of suspiciously close ties to Sachs, nor the Federal Reserve would name the banks benefiting, from “AIG's ‘backdoor bailouts.’”

At the same time, under the watch of the Federal Reserve, a competitor to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, was allowed to fail while AIG was proclaimed “too big to fail.” AIG’s $170 billion bailout allowed them to repay a 12.6 billion debt to Goldman Sachs. In fact, at the time of his nomination, Geithner was questioned about these ties. The questions are not going to be any friendlier this time around.
“Lawmakers reacted angrily Friday to revelations in e-mails sent in late 2008 and early 2009 between lawyers for the New York Fed and American International Group Inc. The exchanges show the New York Fed wanted AIG to withhold information about deals that sent billions from the taxpayer bailout of AIG to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Societe Generale and other major banks.”
Isn’t that the way criminals launder money? Or maybe it’s a case of Goldman Sachs wanting to make sure they got their investment back before AIG went tits up.

I anticipate in the next week or so and right around the time of these hearings, we’ll start hearing a crescendo of consumers who just opened their Christmas bills and found their interest rate jumped from the teens to the twenties or more. Citigroup claims it just costs more to do business. This is bull—this writer opted out (i.e., canceled) my card. I had that card for almost 20 years. Back then, the prime lending rate was three times what it is now and yet my interest rate was lower then, even though I have a better rating now.

Citigroup has also recently announced that it will raise the billions needed to pay back the taxpayer loans. And although their stock price jumped slightly at the announcement they would be selling stock, being that it’s worth less than $5 a share, the idea is absurd. Not to mention that to sell, you have to have someone who actually wants to buy it. It will be interesting to see if there are any takers and their identity. However, it means that you’ll likely be paying back loans of your tax dollars, with more of your own money.

But isn’t that what Ponzi schemes are all about?

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Pelosi: There were a NUMBER of Things (Obama) was for on the Campaign Trail!

Had Rep. Joe Wilson been at Nancy Pelosi's press conference, yesterday, he might have been tempted to again yell, “You LIE!” Pelosi first joyfully proclaims that the health care bill will crush the [evil] insurance companies. “We will have what we need to hold the insurance companies accountable. I contend that whatever we have coming out of this bill will hold them accountable and they’ll be crying out for a public option one of these days!” Laughs,

Then a reporter asks her about the letter from C-Span's CEO, requesting to film the remainder of the health care hearings, which are being withheld from the public behind closed doors. The he mentions Obama’s (repeated) promise to hold health care negotiations in the open on C-Span. Watch Pelosi’s reaction to that, as well as the reaction of her fellow democrats in back:

The audacity Pelosi displays is staggering even to those of us jaded to political babble. She looks around almost as if she expected to find Candid Camera playing a prank. “Well, (laughs) there were a NUMBER of things he (Obama) was for on the campaign trail.” And everyone laughs. Silly reporter, that was during the CAMPAIGN—surely you didn’t expect him to keep a campaign promise! Then she has the gall to claim they have been the MOST transparent congress there has ever been. The only thing the democrats have been transparent about is their contempt for the American people.

Watching the health care debate at this point is a bit too little, too late—the deal is all but done. But kudos to the C-Span marketing department for getting some beneficial press. It is something that the politically active members of the public would watch. Unlike the congress, the US public has been reading the bill—so the senate made sure to lock their version up until after their vote.

Pelosi’s contempt is a shot across the bow of the White House and a sign of a rift in the democratic party. She seems to be saying, ‘Yeah he said a number of things to us during the campaign, too!’ It’s hard to believe, but there are several in Congress who think Obama isn’t liberal enough! A number are ANGRY with Obama because he can’t socialize the U.S. fast enough! There were compromises made to the health care plan, Gitmo hasn’t been closed yet, more soldiers are being sent to fight in Afghanistan instead of withdrawn. And now, darn it, another terrorist has popped up, which puts a crimp in the plan to send Yemen’s Gitmo detainees home to fight another day while trying 911 criminals in US domestic courts.

The idea that politicians of either party are going to hold open hearings on anything seems a distant pipe dream. It’s as big a dream as democrats in Congress are going to sock it to health insurance companies by...forcing everyone to buy health insurance!

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

New Airport Scanners Breach UK Child Pornography Laws

The UK's Guardian reported late Monday that the full body scanners being tested in the UK and like those planned for the US, are being challenged on the grounds that they breached UK laws against child pornography and cannot be used on those under 18. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is "illegal to create an indecent image or a 'pseudo-image' of a child." I posed a question a few days ago: How many parents are going to want some stranger viewing virtually naked pictures of their child(ren) from these scanners? On the other hand, we know terrorist groups are more than willing to blow up their children as well as ours. And they quickly adapt their strategy...make them take of their shoes and they put the explosives down their pants....

While awaiting a ruling, "voluntary trials" started last month for those 18 and over. One wonders how many actual "volunteers" they could get unless they were offering a choice between a scan and a body cavity search. And the question of whether the machines would be used in a, "lawful and proportionate and sensitive manner based on rational criteria rather than racial or religious bias" has been broached,   thus setting up the protest which will certainly be used by any group or person attempting to smuggle such a weapon.

The expensive, doomed debacle that is the full body scanner slogs on. But there is a glimmer of hope...celebrities:
...concerns were echoed by Simon Davies of Privacy International who said he was sceptical of the privacy safeguards being used in the United States. Although the American system insists on the deletion of the images, he believed scans of celebrities or of people with unusual or freakish body profiles would prove an "irresistible pull" for some employees.
Maybe, just maybe...if those elite jet setters (and even better yet, some politicians) realize they and their families might be in for a little more publicity than they bargained, the idea will be quashed before too many tax dollars are paid out.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Elderly Dissidents Rounded Up at Pro-Kremlin Rally

Dozens of anti-Kremlin protesters were detained, including several elderly and one dressed as Father Frost (Russia's version of Santa Claus), at a rally held by pro-Kremlin activists. One elderly woman, 82 and dressed as Father Frost's assistant, Snegurochka, was led away by riot police along with 30-50 others. The group had been denied permission to hold a protest during the pro-government rally. The Pro-Kremlin celebrators, Young Russia, accused the opposition of Western funding. Young Russia issued a statement declaring, "Bad Santa arrived from abroad to steal our holiday."

The protesters named Putin as the cause of an ongoing clampdown on civil liberties in Russia. Putin was president from 2000-2008. Since 2008 elections he is the current Prime Minister of Russia, nominated to the post by the new President, Dmitry Medvedev. During his time in the KGB, Putin served as Fifth Directorate of the KGB, which combated political dissent in the Soviet Union.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

White House had October Briefing on Assassination Attempt Similar to Flight 253

Yesterday, I wrote how this administration seems to be more interested in trampling our last shred of dignity, by claiming scanners that show all our naughty bits would solve our security problems.

Now YID with LID publishes a report coming from Newsweek (hardly a conservative-leaning publication) that there was a White House briefing (no pun intended) in October on an attempted assassination. The target, Muhammad bin Nayef, Saudi's chief counterterrorism official, survived the attack. But it was believed this terrorist used the same underwear bombing technique as the attempt on Northwest Airlines flight 253.

What we have here is...failure to communicate:

In fact there were several briefings in those months, including a high-level briefing to Obama 3 days before the Christmas attempt. And, once again there was a breakdown in communication between the FBI and the CIA.
"When Abdulmutallab’s father visited the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, in November to report his concerns that his son might have been involved with Islamic extremists in Yemen, the FBI had no representative at the meeting; the FBI maintains an attaché only in Lagos on the southern coast, not in Abuja, the capital. But the CIA, which did have an officer present who wrote up a report on the meeting, never told the FBI about Abdulmutallab."
Of course the President immediately flew back to DC after the attempt.... No...wait...he stayed in Hawaii, although CBS news reporters fretted that the president was having to spend the vacation working rather than "recharging his batteries." (Hat tip to News Busters)  

Can you imagine the media brouhaha had Bush stayed on Christmas vacation?? I tweeted recently about the media complained on how long Bush stayed at the school after the September 11 attacks. Even though it clearly made more sense to both wait for further information and keep from panicking a roomful of children. No matter how he reacted he couldn't win with the media. Obama finally holds a press conference in an unbuttoned shirt, no tie, looking more tourist than presidential.

Read the full story: YID With LID: New Obama Security Oversight: White House Received October Briefing About Underwear Bombings

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Honestly…I was only kidding!

When news came out about the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253, I joked that since Richard Reid, the failed Shoe Bomber (aka, Hot Foot) caused us to have to remove our shoes before boarding a flight, I hoped that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka, Hot Pants) wouldn’t have us removing our pants too!

Honestly…it was only a joke! But this administration apparently thinks this is now a good idea. In true, “never allow a crisis to go to waste” format, they want to remove your pants, via scanners that will reveal your whoopsi-daisy to the scanner’s technician.

Oh, but don’t worry, they tell us, “Technicians view the images in a locked room.” Yeah I bet they do! Then the TSA tries to assure us that the images will not be stored. "Once they (the passengers) are cleared, they cannot be stored, they're gone forever," a TSA official said. “So there’s NO chance they’ll end up on YouTube.” Okay…I added that last part. And we can trust the TSA because they would never allow something confidential to be posted online....

What’s really scary is the number of people who think having sweaty technicians ogling everyone with superman vision is worth it for a chance of safety. The question is: “Who is going to have to go through it?” Are we going to start sending little old ladies through to be politically correct? What about children: Do you really want some unknown person seeing a scan of your virtually naked child? We’ve had a number of lawsuits over Muslim women not wanting to remove their headdress for a driver’s license. What do you think will happen when they’re told they have to go through one of these scanners? And will the TSA let them slide because they don’t want to appear to be profiling or violating (a now politically protected) religion?

Ridiculous! After all, it was already known that Hot Pants was a danger. He was on a watch list (which apparently means they just sit around and WATCH him attempt to blow up one of our planes!) But he was not put on the no-fly list. Cat Stevens is on a no-fly list, conservative talk show host Michael Savage is on a no-fly list (to the UK) but this guy is not? Even after his own father told authorities that he was planning to bring down a plane. Were they all listening to new Christmas iPods over at the CIA when he told them this? Or is it because everything must be typed up in triplicate, stamped, “Do Not Disseminate to the Internet or the FBI” and fed through the food chain from the janitor on up? Did it get lost between the Chief Assistant and the Assistant Chief?

But never mind. The government is on its way to make a show trial and kick out a few low level bureaucrats that no one really liked anyway. The sheeple are blindly being herded along to give up their last shred of dignity just to go on a business trip or holiday. Tearing down the bureaucratic wall is what needs to change—not parading us in our birthday suits! This is not what the people wanted when promised government transparency.