4/28/2010
How Mexico treats illegal aliens
Read this and then consider the loser protesters in Arizona crying about their rights being violated.
Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens
Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens
Liberal media associating tea party protests and racism
Maddow: Tea Party Conventioneers Are Racists In White Hoods
The above is one of the reports I have seen making this racist association with the tea party protests, while this video is the reality of things.
The above is one of the reports I have seen making this racist association with the tea party protests, while this video is the reality of things.
4/19/2010
The Tea Party: Populism of the privileged
This piece clearly proves that if you are a tea party supporter, you are inherently motivated due to being a racist.
The Tea Party: Populism of the privileged
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Tea Party is nothing new. It represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics, and it will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections.
This Story
In fact, both major parties stand to lose if they accept the laughable notion that this media-created protest movement is the voice of true populism. Democrats will spend their time chasing votes they will never win. Republicans will turn their party into an angry and narrow redoubt with no hope of building a durable majority.
The news media's incessant focus on the Tea Party is creating a badly distorted picture of what most Americans think and is warping our policy debates. The New York Times and CBS News thus performed a public service last week with a careful study of just who is in the Tea Party movement.
Their findings suggest that the Tea Party is essentially the reappearance of an old anti-government far right that has always been with us and accounts for about one-fifth of the country. The Times reported that Tea Party supporters "tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45." They are also more affluent and better educated than Americans as a whole. This is the populism of the privileged.
And the poll suggested something that white Americans are reluctant to discuss: Part of the anger at President Obama among Tea Partiers does appear to be driven by racial concerns.
ad_icon
Saying this invites immediate denunciations from defenders of those who bring guns to rallies, threaten violence to "take our country back," and mouth old slogans about states' rights and the Confederacy. So let's be clear: Opposition to the president is driven by many factors that have nothing to do with race. But race is definitely part of what's going on.
The poll asked: "In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing black people, too little has been made, or is it about right?" Twenty-eight percent of all Americans -- and just 19 percent of those who are not Tea Party loyalists -- answered "too much." But among Tea Party supporters, the figure is 52 percent, almost three times the proportion of the rest of the country. A quarter of Tea Partiers say that the Obama administration's policies favor blacks over whites, compared with only 11 percent in the country as a whole.
So race is part of this picture, as is a tendency of Tea Party enthusiasts to side with the better-off against the poor. This puts them at odds with most Americans. The poll found that while only 38 percent of all Americans said that "providing government benefits to poor people encourages them to remain poor," 73 percent of Tea Party partisans believed this. Among all Americans, 50 percent agreed that "the federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means increasing the budget deficit." Only 17 percent of Tea Party supporters took this view.
Asked about raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year to provide health care for the uninsured, 54 percent of Americans favored doing so vs. only 17 percent of Tea Party backers.
This must be the first "populist" movement driven by a television network: Sixty-three percent of the Tea Party folks say they most watch Fox News "for information about politics and current events," compared with 23 percent of the country as a whole.
The right-wing fifth of America deserves news coverage like everyone else, and Fox is perfectly free to pander to its viewers. What makes no sense is allowing a sliver of opinion to dominate the media and distort our political discourse.
Democrats face problems not from right-wingers who have never voted for them but from a lack of energy among their own supporters and from dispirited independents and moderates who look to government to solve problems but have little confidence in its ability to deliver.
A Pew Research Center study released Sunday is thus a better guide than the Tea Party's rants to the real nature of this nation's discontent. It found that only 22 percent of Americans say they can trust the government almost always or most of the time, "among the lowest measures in more than half a century." This mistrust extends beyond government to banks, financial institutions and large corporations.
So, yes, there is authentic populist anger out there. But you won't find much of it at the tea parties.
ejdionne@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802724.html?sub=AR
The Tea Party: Populism of the privileged
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Tea Party is nothing new. It represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics, and it will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections.
This Story
In fact, both major parties stand to lose if they accept the laughable notion that this media-created protest movement is the voice of true populism. Democrats will spend their time chasing votes they will never win. Republicans will turn their party into an angry and narrow redoubt with no hope of building a durable majority.
The news media's incessant focus on the Tea Party is creating a badly distorted picture of what most Americans think and is warping our policy debates. The New York Times and CBS News thus performed a public service last week with a careful study of just who is in the Tea Party movement.
Their findings suggest that the Tea Party is essentially the reappearance of an old anti-government far right that has always been with us and accounts for about one-fifth of the country. The Times reported that Tea Party supporters "tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45." They are also more affluent and better educated than Americans as a whole. This is the populism of the privileged.
And the poll suggested something that white Americans are reluctant to discuss: Part of the anger at President Obama among Tea Partiers does appear to be driven by racial concerns.
ad_icon
Saying this invites immediate denunciations from defenders of those who bring guns to rallies, threaten violence to "take our country back," and mouth old slogans about states' rights and the Confederacy. So let's be clear: Opposition to the president is driven by many factors that have nothing to do with race. But race is definitely part of what's going on.
The poll asked: "In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing black people, too little has been made, or is it about right?" Twenty-eight percent of all Americans -- and just 19 percent of those who are not Tea Party loyalists -- answered "too much." But among Tea Party supporters, the figure is 52 percent, almost three times the proportion of the rest of the country. A quarter of Tea Partiers say that the Obama administration's policies favor blacks over whites, compared with only 11 percent in the country as a whole.
So race is part of this picture, as is a tendency of Tea Party enthusiasts to side with the better-off against the poor. This puts them at odds with most Americans. The poll found that while only 38 percent of all Americans said that "providing government benefits to poor people encourages them to remain poor," 73 percent of Tea Party partisans believed this. Among all Americans, 50 percent agreed that "the federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means increasing the budget deficit." Only 17 percent of Tea Party supporters took this view.
Asked about raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 a year to provide health care for the uninsured, 54 percent of Americans favored doing so vs. only 17 percent of Tea Party backers.
This must be the first "populist" movement driven by a television network: Sixty-three percent of the Tea Party folks say they most watch Fox News "for information about politics and current events," compared with 23 percent of the country as a whole.
The right-wing fifth of America deserves news coverage like everyone else, and Fox is perfectly free to pander to its viewers. What makes no sense is allowing a sliver of opinion to dominate the media and distort our political discourse.
Democrats face problems not from right-wingers who have never voted for them but from a lack of energy among their own supporters and from dispirited independents and moderates who look to government to solve problems but have little confidence in its ability to deliver.
A Pew Research Center study released Sunday is thus a better guide than the Tea Party's rants to the real nature of this nation's discontent. It found that only 22 percent of Americans say they can trust the government almost always or most of the time, "among the lowest measures in more than half a century." This mistrust extends beyond government to banks, financial institutions and large corporations.
So, yes, there is authentic populist anger out there. But you won't find much of it at the tea parties.
ejdionne@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802724.html?sub=AR
4/13/2010
4/03/2010
Illinois Democrat on ObamaCare: “I don’t worry about the Constitution”
This SOB deserves nothing less than being voted out...what an idiot.
4/01/2010
Pat Sajak?! Yes, Wheel of Fortune Pat Sajak!
Very insightful piece from Pat Sajak.
Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist
Frank Rich spent many years as the theater critic for the New York Times, where, at worst, his venom could cause a Broadway production or two to close down.
Now, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. I’m not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysis—heck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show host—but the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate she’s bleeding money, that’s no small sacrifice.
Anyway, Mr. Rich has apparently been able to get to the bottom of the vocal opposition to the “healthcare reform” bill that was recently gently shepherded through Congress.
It turns out, according to his well-crafted analysis, that it’s not the bill that’s got people in an uproar; rather, what we’re facing is the death rattle of a dwindling cadre of white, racist, sexist, homophobic males terrified by the ascent of people of color, women and gays.
As the ever-tolerant Rich reasons: “The conjunction of a black President and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”
So that’s it. It’s just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.
Mr. Rich is shocked by the level of anger in the land, and he fears for the safety of our elected officials, much as I’m sure he did during the George W. Bush administration. He calls on Republican leaders to distance themselves from the more radical voices among them, echoing the demands I’m sure he made of the Democrats during the last campaign.
Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”. (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241
Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist
Frank Rich spent many years as the theater critic for the New York Times, where, at worst, his venom could cause a Broadway production or two to close down.
Now, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. I’m not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysis—heck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show host—but the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate she’s bleeding money, that’s no small sacrifice.
Anyway, Mr. Rich has apparently been able to get to the bottom of the vocal opposition to the “healthcare reform” bill that was recently gently shepherded through Congress.
It turns out, according to his well-crafted analysis, that it’s not the bill that’s got people in an uproar; rather, what we’re facing is the death rattle of a dwindling cadre of white, racist, sexist, homophobic males terrified by the ascent of people of color, women and gays.
As the ever-tolerant Rich reasons: “The conjunction of a black President and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”
So that’s it. It’s just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.
Mr. Rich is shocked by the level of anger in the land, and he fears for the safety of our elected officials, much as I’m sure he did during the George W. Bush administration. He calls on Republican leaders to distance themselves from the more radical voices among them, echoing the demands I’m sure he made of the Democrats during the last campaign.
Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”. (He liked it, by the way.) This was a particularly shameful column, and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology. Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36241
3/31/2010
Finally!
***Update 4/1*** Never mind...if it walks like a Democrat, talks like a Democrat, etc.
Something I can commend Obama for!
Obama clears way for oil drilling off US coasts
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska.
Speaking at Andrews air base outside Washington, Obama said, "This is not a decision that I've made lightly." He addressed the expected outcry from disappointed environmentalists by saying he had studied the issue for more than a year and concluded it was the right call given the nation's voracious thirst for energy and the need to produce jobs and keep American businesses competitive.
"We're announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America's natural resources," Obama said, according to his prepared remarks released in advance by the White House. "This announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term."
He added: "To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake."
Obama made no secret of the fact that one factor in his decision was securing Republican support for a sweeping climate change bill that has languished in Congress. But Obama has long stated his support in favor of the "tough decision" to expand offshore drilling
The plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. It allows new oil drilling off Virginia's shoreline and considers it for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard. At the same time, he's rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EPO6880&show_article=1
Something I can commend Obama for!
Obama clears way for oil drilling off US coasts
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska.
Speaking at Andrews air base outside Washington, Obama said, "This is not a decision that I've made lightly." He addressed the expected outcry from disappointed environmentalists by saying he had studied the issue for more than a year and concluded it was the right call given the nation's voracious thirst for energy and the need to produce jobs and keep American businesses competitive.
"We're announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America's natural resources," Obama said, according to his prepared remarks released in advance by the White House. "This announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term."
He added: "To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake."
Obama made no secret of the fact that one factor in his decision was securing Republican support for a sweeping climate change bill that has languished in Congress. But Obama has long stated his support in favor of the "tough decision" to expand offshore drilling
The plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. It allows new oil drilling off Virginia's shoreline and considers it for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard. At the same time, he's rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EPO6880&show_article=1
3/30/2010
We'll need a national sales tax to pay for health care
If there is one constant, if it is a Democrat policy, then taxes will go up accordingly.
We'll need a national sales tax to pay for health care
National sales tax coming to pay for Obamacare
Charles Krauthammer Predicts a National Sales Tax after the 2010 Elections to Pay for Health Care – Real Cost $2.5 Trillion
We'll need a national sales tax to pay for health care
National sales tax coming to pay for Obamacare
Charles Krauthammer Predicts a National Sales Tax after the 2010 Elections to Pay for Health Care – Real Cost $2.5 Trillion
Investing? Pay for healthcare while you are at it!
Health Care Bill Applies New Tax on Investments
"High-income families would be hit with a tax increase on wages and a new levy on investments under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul bill.
For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000."
"High-income families would be hit with a tax increase on wages and a new levy on investments under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul bill.
For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000."
3/27/2010
Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill
It's good to know that there is some support for Obama care!
Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill
AT&T Taking $1B Charge to Cover Costs of New Health-Care Legislation
Here is our Obama care. While the liberal idiots cry about corporate responsibility, you need to realize that AT&T will cover this expense by cutting services, jobs, and raising prices. The cost is just passed to the consumer. Thanks Obama!
This is a case of damning the provider and celebrating the recipient. That evil corporation creates jobs and produces. The government just consumes, and ineffectively and wastefully in doing so.
AT&T Taking $1B Charge to Cover Costs of New Health-Care Legislation
FOXBusiness
AT&T (T: 26.25, 0.09, 0.34%) said Friday that tax ramifications related to the newly passed health-care legislation will force it to take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter.
In papers filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T said the charge stems from changes in the tax laws regarding the Medicare Part D subsidy. AT&T will no longer be able to deduct tax-free subsidies it receives from the government for providing retirees prescription-drug benefits.
“AT&T Inc. intends to take a non-cash charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of this change,” the company said.
Furthermore, AT&T said in the filing that, as a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, “AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.”
President Barack Obama signed into law this week a sweeping health-care reform bill that requires companies of a certain size to provide coverage to their workers in an effort to provide coverage to some 30 million Americans without insurance.
Taxes on some companies are being raised to help defray the cost of the legislation.
Businesses organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have slammed the new law, arguing it will hurt companies by adding new costs and additional tax burdens.
In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co. (DE: 60.581, 0.371, 0.62%), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT: 62.38, 0.22, 0.35%) and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/index.html
Ben Nelson's Socialized HC Takeover to Cost AT&T, Customers, Retirees $1 Billion in Q1 Alone...
This is a case of damning the provider and celebrating the recipient. That evil corporation creates jobs and produces. The government just consumes, and ineffectively and wastefully in doing so.
AT&T Taking $1B Charge to Cover Costs of New Health-Care Legislation
FOXBusiness
AT&T (T: 26.25, 0.09, 0.34%) said Friday that tax ramifications related to the newly passed health-care legislation will force it to take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter.
In papers filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AT&T said the charge stems from changes in the tax laws regarding the Medicare Part D subsidy. AT&T will no longer be able to deduct tax-free subsidies it receives from the government for providing retirees prescription-drug benefits.
“AT&T Inc. intends to take a non-cash charge of approximately $1 billion in the first quarter of 2010 to reflect the impact of this change,” the company said.
Furthermore, AT&T said in the filing that, as a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, “AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company.”
President Barack Obama signed into law this week a sweeping health-care reform bill that requires companies of a certain size to provide coverage to their workers in an effort to provide coverage to some 30 million Americans without insurance.
Taxes on some companies are being raised to help defray the cost of the legislation.
Businesses organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have slammed the new law, arguing it will hurt companies by adding new costs and additional tax burdens.
In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co. (DE: 60.581, 0.371, 0.62%), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT: 62.38, 0.22, 0.35%) and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/index.html
Ben Nelson's Socialized HC Takeover to Cost AT&T, Customers, Retirees $1 Billion in Q1 Alone...
White men shun Democrats
White men shun Democrats
Ya, sure. Whatever you say. I think everyone is sick and tired of what the govt. is doing.
Ya, sure. Whatever you say. I think everyone is sick and tired of what the govt. is doing.
3/26/2010
E-Mail I got
The funny thing is, I support everything that this annoying weasel is crying about!
Dear Friends,
The health care vote was a historic one, but our work is nowhere near finished. We must continue to stand up against what will be an onslaught by Republicans and special interests, working to undo the bill and unseat its supporters.
I have proudly fought for health care reform - and I’m still fighting hard for a public option and additional enhancements. But I firmly believe that if we pause and congratulate ourselves, if we let up, we will find our progress watered down or even reversed. This was a critically important step, but millions of Americans will still struggle under exorbitant costs, and many may still die due to the profit motives of the insurance companies.
I've never been afraid to voice my beliefs - even when they're strong. But, as you might expect, being a visible, outspoken critic of Republican policies has made me a target. In fact, the Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee says that I am their #1 target in 2010.
Please help me stay in this seat, buy contributing today or on Saturday, during our latest money-bomb.
There are plenty of House districts that are so-called "safe seats." Their representatives have the luxury of not worrying too much about their choice of words.
My seat isn't a safe seat, but I speak my mind anyway.
If we're going to end the control that special interests have over our government... if we're going to reverse the Citizens United decision, for example, which gives corporations the ability to provide direct unlimited financial support for candidates... we can't play it safe.
We have to have guts.
My job is to stand up for what's right. As a supporter, we need you to help us stand up for you.
Please help me defend what’s right - and keep me fighting for you. Click here to contribute to the money-bomb.
On Saturday, everyone will hear us. If you help.
Thank you for helping me fight on.
Congressman Alan Grayson
Dear Friends,
The health care vote was a historic one, but our work is nowhere near finished. We must continue to stand up against what will be an onslaught by Republicans and special interests, working to undo the bill and unseat its supporters.
I have proudly fought for health care reform - and I’m still fighting hard for a public option and additional enhancements. But I firmly believe that if we pause and congratulate ourselves, if we let up, we will find our progress watered down or even reversed. This was a critically important step, but millions of Americans will still struggle under exorbitant costs, and many may still die due to the profit motives of the insurance companies.
I've never been afraid to voice my beliefs - even when they're strong. But, as you might expect, being a visible, outspoken critic of Republican policies has made me a target. In fact, the Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee says that I am their #1 target in 2010.
Please help me stay in this seat, buy contributing today or on Saturday, during our latest money-bomb.
There are plenty of House districts that are so-called "safe seats." Their representatives have the luxury of not worrying too much about their choice of words.
My seat isn't a safe seat, but I speak my mind anyway.
If we're going to end the control that special interests have over our government... if we're going to reverse the Citizens United decision, for example, which gives corporations the ability to provide direct unlimited financial support for candidates... we can't play it safe.
We have to have guts.
My job is to stand up for what's right. As a supporter, we need you to help us stand up for you.
Please help me defend what’s right - and keep me fighting for you. Click here to contribute to the money-bomb.
On Saturday, everyone will hear us. If you help.
Thank you for helping me fight on.
Congressman Alan Grayson
3/24/2010
Warning for man accused over airport breast X-ray
Police said Wednesday they have warned an airport worker who reportedly made a crude remark about a colleague's breasts as a newly-installed security scanner took a full body X-ray of her.
Jo Margetson, 29, walked into an X-ray machine at London's Heathrow Airport by mistake before the incident allegedly took place -- and told The Sun newspaper she is now "totally traumatised".
The reported incident, the first such complaint since the machines were introduced earlier this year, has highlighted privacy concerns about the use of full body scanners at British airports.
Heathrow and Manchester airports has been using them since an alleged bid to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was foiled, while the US and The Netherlands are among other countries where they are being installed.
When asked about the story, a spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10.
"A first instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."
Airports operator BAA, which runs Heathrow, added that it was investigating the allegations.
"If these claims are found to be substantiated, we will take appropriate action," a spokesman added.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned the government that the scanners could run counter to the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
"When privacy-invading machines like these are installed at our airports, abuses like this are inevitable," said Alex Deane of campaign group Big Brother Watch.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b0f36c0ffd611adfaeda03625a7be9d9.511&show_article=1
Jo Margetson, 29, walked into an X-ray machine at London's Heathrow Airport by mistake before the incident allegedly took place -- and told The Sun newspaper she is now "totally traumatised".
The reported incident, the first such complaint since the machines were introduced earlier this year, has highlighted privacy concerns about the use of full body scanners at British airports.
Heathrow and Manchester airports has been using them since an alleged bid to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was foiled, while the US and The Netherlands are among other countries where they are being installed.
When asked about the story, a spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10.
"A first instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."
Airports operator BAA, which runs Heathrow, added that it was investigating the allegations.
"If these claims are found to be substantiated, we will take appropriate action," a spokesman added.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned the government that the scanners could run counter to the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
"When privacy-invading machines like these are installed at our airports, abuses like this are inevitable," said Alex Deane of campaign group Big Brother Watch.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b0f36c0ffd611adfaeda03625a7be9d9.511&show_article=1
3/19/2010
Palin?!
I appreciate what Palin does to support conservatism, but when it's time to get serious Rep. Michele Bachmann kicks ass.
Rep Michele Bachmann's Kill the Bill Rally
Rep Michele Bachmann's Kill the Bill Rally
3/09/2010
Marvel Comics: Captain America Says Tea Parties Are Dangerous and Racist
I used to collect comics, glad I don't anymore.
Marvel Comics: Captain America Says Tea Parties Are Dangerous and Racist
Marvel Comics: Captain America Says Tea Parties Are Dangerous and Racist
3/05/2010
SEIU Andy Stern
Why is Obama always surrounding himself with socialists? Anita Dunn, Craig Becker, and Andy Stern...Andy Stern is now going to help oversee fiscal responsibility for the federal government.
This is Andy Stern, at a speech he gave the SEIU in Puerto Rico in 2008.
Unions, while somewhat irrelevant these days, still has a place to collectively bargain with employers for better wages and the assurance of safe working conditions. What Andy Stern is doing has nothing to do with that. His only function is to coerce people to join a union to amass pools of capital from dues and pension funds. The issue is what he does with that money pool, like running his campaign to turn the US into Canada with health care.
His emphasis on redistributive wealth implies government determining through its coercive power that it can enslave one group of people to support another group of people. In addition, his demonization of corporations vs the people and relation to global governance implies national sovereignty is not necessary.
His overall plan to lead by the government and not necessarily the private sector is pretty much as socialist as it gets. Global governance, a borderless planet, redistribution of wealth, or government controlled economy (social/state control of the means of production) you have the government stepping over its bounds to take control of the health and wealth...that is socialism.
So remember the people who surround this President like Carol Browner, Anita Dunn, Craig Becker, Andy Stern, Van Jones...all a bunch of socialists in their varying degrees of pushing their agendas, all leaning towards more government control overall.
This is Andy Stern, at a speech he gave the SEIU in Puerto Rico in 2008.
Unions, while somewhat irrelevant these days, still has a place to collectively bargain with employers for better wages and the assurance of safe working conditions. What Andy Stern is doing has nothing to do with that. His only function is to coerce people to join a union to amass pools of capital from dues and pension funds. The issue is what he does with that money pool, like running his campaign to turn the US into Canada with health care.
His emphasis on redistributive wealth implies government determining through its coercive power that it can enslave one group of people to support another group of people. In addition, his demonization of corporations vs the people and relation to global governance implies national sovereignty is not necessary.
His overall plan to lead by the government and not necessarily the private sector is pretty much as socialist as it gets. Global governance, a borderless planet, redistribution of wealth, or government controlled economy (social/state control of the means of production) you have the government stepping over its bounds to take control of the health and wealth...that is socialism.
So remember the people who surround this President like Carol Browner, Anita Dunn, Craig Becker, Andy Stern, Van Jones...all a bunch of socialists in their varying degrees of pushing their agendas, all leaning towards more government control overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)