Was That Presence or Presents?

The Torch Looks Dim

On the surface, it should have been a banner week for The Trump Administration. Despite unemployment being down, and Wal-Mart throwing around $1000 one-time checks to 20-year employees like Oprah (while simultaneously closing down a big pile of unprofitable Sams Clubs) -- Trump let his true colors fly at a meeting when he (allegedly) said, "Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?" 

I'm not totally sure why everyone is acting so surprised. I mean, other than the word SHIT being on every banner headline and on the local news. It's not the cursing that everyone's up in arms about. 

It's not that he lumped all of Africa as one single country. Although, he clearly failed geography.

Perhaps the bigger taboo is that you can bomb countries without wealth and have citizens with darker skin tones than those in Norway - and no one batts an eyelash. But you're not allowed to talk about those inequities.

Much has been written about The Donald's racist remarks. And let's all be clear, his remarks are clearly, and painfully racist. Yes, the torch dims for that reason, across the globe. But wait. There's more.

What's NOT getting any coverage, this week was The House of Representatives passed the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. The short version is that Congress makes it legal for the NSA to search communications that mention a given target but was not sent or received by the target.

So, in other words, gives them carte blanch to spy on Americans without a warrant. Another huge blow to the 4th Amendment and privacy.

It still has to pass the Senate and Trump... but, which headline are you busy reading?

Illinois AG: Make List of Gun Owners Public

In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information "must" be made public.

The dispute, which soon could come before a judge, has been building since last fall when a reporter for The Associated Press made a Freedom of Information Act request to the police for the names of cardholders as well as information about the weapons each permit holder is authorized to carry.

But the state police, who safeguard that information, resisted as lawmakers and others raised privacy concerns. Critics questioned what public interest it would serve to let neighbors look up each other's potential weapons cache -- further, they warned that publicizing the information could put both gun owners and those who don't own guns at risk.

If the state publishes a list of gun owners, Republican Rep. Ron Stephens said, "You are by design also publishing a list of everyone who doesn't" carry a firearm.
That could be comparable to publishing a list of everyone who has, or doesn't have, a car alarm or home-security system, at least in the eyes of those who want to keep the records private.

"My gun ownership is none of your business," Stephens, who is pushing a bill in the General Assembly to lock down that list, told FoxNews.com. "I don't know what Lisa Madigan doesn't understand about that, but obviously she's confused."
Madigan's office, though, issued a detailed legal opinion Tuesday explaining why the state police should release the registry to The Associated Press.

Assistant Public Access Counselor Matthew Rogina, citing federal court decisions as well as Illinois law, wrote in a letter to the state police attorney that disclosing the names "cannot be characterized as highly personal or objectionable." He wrote that there is a "public interest" in releasing the information, citing the example of an individual who may have become ineligible to carry.

"Therefore, even if disclosure of the names and expiration of the (Firearm Owner's Identification Card) card owners did constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this fact is outweighed by the public interest that exists in ensuring the integrity of the (police) database," he wrote.

The police had argued that they should not have to release the records because of an exemption for "information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person."

Madigan's office disagreed. It was the second time the office had rejected law enforcement's rationale for withholding the records.

In response, the police issued a brief statement saying the force "respectfully disagrees" with the opinion. It urged the public access counselor to issue a "binding opinion so that the issue may be resolved through the judicial process."

A spokeswoman in Madigan's office said the ball is still in the court of the state police, describing Rogina's opinion as a "detailed legal analysis" of the dispute.
But while the state police weigh their options, Stephens is trying to short-circuit the disagreement with legislation. Though he claims Illinois law already bars the police from making the gun permit registry public, he's pushing a bill that would clearly prohibit that information from being released except in connection with a criminal investigation.

Stephens' bill narrowly failed in committee on a 5-5 vote Wednesday, but under state law, the committee can reconsider it. Stephens said he'll bring it back for a do-over in the next couple weeks.

"This is an important issue about freedom. ... We will persist," Stephens said.
National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said his group would do "whatever we can" to stop the attorney general decision from being enforced.
"There's no reason for the names of law-abiding gun owners to be released to the general public," Arulanandam said.


Read more: Please comment.

I think today will be the day I get a lifetime membership in the NRA.

Dear TSA:

Sunday Comics: Week in Review

Somehow we made it through Thanksgiving. It wasn't easy. There were TSA agents greeting weary travelers... when they bothered to turn the scanners on. It's fairly easy to claim victory over opt-outers when you don't bother to follow your own rules.

We covered this a lot, but, well, it might be one of our last stands for the 4th Amendment.
There have been reports of a tad bit of a double standard going on. Apparently women in Burkas are exempt from screening. And mom always has good advice when it comes to your underwear.
Meantime, 9 years later, a conviction for something that happened before 9-11. And even as justice was finally being doled out - the media missed a couple points about the perp.
And here's a gem of a cartoon explaining why, today, there isn't peace in the Middle East. One of ten thousand reasons...
The Irish are now officially broke.
And speaking of broke, now we have a new poverty index - the Potter Index.
Between that and slaughtered turkeys and 20% off television sets that people camped out in freezing temperatures and slaughtered their neighbors for... not a terrible week. Hope to have the electricity to see you next week.

4th Amendment Underwear

4th AMENDMENT UNDERCLOTHES

Now there's a way to protest those intrusive TSA X-ray scanners without saying a word. 4th Amendment Metallic ink-printed undershirts and underwear.

Assert your rights without saying a word. [click to order yours].




It should also add, "This message brought to you by the First Amendment. See Rear."

Optional: Have 1st amendment printed on back.

Maybe the 2nd as well? Oh, wait, that's what they're looking for in the first place.

TSA Outrage - Follow The Money

TSA Scanner Outrage

Follow the money. Who's making it, now?

Michael Chertoff, while he was the Head of Homeland Security under Bush, advocated and pushed for installation and implementation of the full-body scanners.
Once he was out of "public service", Chertoff's consulting company (Read: Lobbying Company) landed as a client, Rapiscan, the company that makes the scanners. There are multiple links to info about Chertoff and the scanner company. [Read more]

Don't act surprised when you see these things pop up at court houses, jails, and then museums and sporting events. Think I'm kidding? I wish!

The next step in tightened security could be on U.S. public transportation, trains and boats. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.

“[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,” Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose."[Read]

TSA Scanner Outrage - Who's beating the war drum to piss people off and make a big deal about it? Incoming House Transportation chief Rep. John Mica (R-Fla. [Full Story and his letter to Airports] Why? He wants private companies to be running the functions of the TSA. Why would he want that? Most likely, if you followed the money trail - I'm going to go on a wild guess and suggest that maybe he knows someone who - just maybe - would get the contract if some high powered new Transportation Chief could make the case that private security firm goons are only slightly less scary than government goons. Why else would he tell folks not to stage their protests on the day before Turkey Day?

My solution: Fly naked.

TSA Gone Wild

Trying to figure out exactly when this whole TSA security thing took your 4th Amendment rights away? Here's a handy graphic chart for you to follow. Click the image to see the full graphic.

Source: Criminal Justice Degree

Me, not only am I not planning on flying - which seems to be what the government wants: It's a massive conspiracy to make Americans get back on the Amtrak rails - I'm refusing to go through security, and will be hunkered down in the bunker.

I also think that profiling needs to make a strong, racist, comeback... Instead, for some reason, Napolitano my actually exempt Muslim women from ANY security screening. And children ought to get a handheld wand... not get molested. And using a private contractor instead of a government agency is like choosing to eat at Taco Bell instead of Burger King to get a 'balanced' diet.

Instead TSA now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Ben Franklin.

Here's the bottom line - it's called Security Theater. The real and actual last line of defense is the passengers themselves. The game changed on 9-11, and the passengers of United 93 recognized their hijacking wasn't a run of the mill use the hostages as collateral. The passengers were just collateral damage. They knew they were going to die in a fireball - and fought back. They should be remembered as patriots.

The shoe bomber and the panty bomber were both thwarted, not by the security screeners, but by the passengers on their flights.

Let's ditch the scanners and the theater. We either fly naked, or take our chances with freedom.

Bad Touch

Enough is Enough

H.R. 6416 - The American Traveler Dignity Act

A BILL

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

You Morons

Yep, you're all idiots for lovin' the Facebook - telling everyone what you like, and where you are, how you're doin', what your kids look like...

At least he admits you're all Dumb Fux#, it's not like he's hiding what he's doing with all that personal data. He's making billions - and everyone just goes on postin' away on there.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Sotomayor is Wrong

Sotomayor is biased - and I for one am not going to bring up her 'wise latina' comment.

No, lets talk about guns, shall we?

Gun owners are scared silly over her obvious checker flag nomination and her obvious placement on the court. In the odd chance you're watching this silly Congressional hearing, Judge Sotomayor belted out perfectly scripted responses to the Democrat questions, and rehearsed, but no where near as polished answers to the Republicans. Of course, there was no answer on abortion. That issue was dodged. But she was also evasive on the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right. In fact, her previous decision in United States v. Sanchez-Villar held that it was not.

Worst, in Maloney v. Cuomo, which reviewed whether owning a weapon is freedom applies to all law-abiding Americans or only to residents of Washington, D.C. If it's incorporated, the Second Amendment prevents the states from disarming honest Americans. If it's not, the Second Amendment is meaningless outside of our nation's capital.

Judge Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit panel that decided the Maloney case in a short, unsigned, and clearly incorrect opinion. The fact that the Maloney panel misread precedent in order to avoid doing the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporation" analysis required by the Supreme Court is troubling to the gun owners of America, to say the least.

Equally troubling is the fact that Judge Sotomayor said she wasn't even familiar with the Supreme Court's modern incorporation cases. There are few issues more important for a judge to understand than whether the fundamental guarantees in the Bill of Rights apply to all Americans. And before you get all huffy, the First Amendment right to free speech applies to all Americans. Our Fourth Amendment protection from illegal search and seizure applies to all Americans. It's hard to believe that a potential Supreme Court justice wouldn't be familiar with those cases? Right? You can't pick and choose which rights given to the people are 'good' or 'bad' - only if the laws have infringed upon those rights.

Despite that judicial amnesia, Judge Sotomayor co-authored an opinion -- in January of this year -- holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. So that leaves two options: either she failed to follow the Supreme Court's direction in Heller that judges are required to analyze the modern incorporation cases; or she actually did review those cases, but came to an incorrect conclusion. Neither option gives gun owners much confidence in her view of the Second Amendment.

And gives me zero confidence that she's qualified for the job.

But she sure has a lot of empathy.

Bizzaro World: ACLU fights for the 2nd?

ACLU files suit over gun rights
Jay Vise Reporting

A New Orleans man is suing the city and its district attorney for refusing to give back a gun that police seized when he was arrested on drug and firearms charges.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday filed the federal suit on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested last year following a traffic stop.

The suit says the district attorney's office declined to prosecute Houston but has refused to return his .40 caliber firearm.

Houston claims Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has instituted a policy that firearms seized during arrests will not be returned to their owners.

The ACLU says that policy violates Houston's constitutional rights.

Cannizzaro says his office decides on a "case by case basis'' whether to return confiscated guns.

Ah, it's a FORTH Amendment issue - the policy of personal property not being returned and due process - Interdiction of unreasonable Searches and seizures; warrants - not a SECOND Amendment issue. Okay, whew. I thought I was going to have to stop hating the ACLU there for a minute.