Lord Bute is aiming a blunderbuss at colonial America; a member of Parliament, tells Bute “I give you that man’s money for my use”, the American responds, “I will not be robbed”. To the right, a blindfolded, Britannia is ready to stumble into “The pit prepared for others” behind her, “The English Protestant town of Boston” is in flames. On the left is a monk with a gibbet and a cross, behind him, a Frenchman with sword raised; on a cliff and forming the backdrop to Bute, is the city of Quebec.

Published: April 1. 1775

Most of us write Emails at our fastest typing speeds. We never assume our writing of little notes will be put under the microscope for the scrutiny of the world, including the halfwit name callers we see commenting on Liberal blogs. After this latest invasion of Sarah Palin’s emails, that idea of writing personal informal notes is a dangerous myth. Use your short cuts and cute abbreviations at your own peril, the Liberal Media now owns and controls everything you write.

They are having problems finding fault or corruption within Sarah Palin’s Emails, but they can subjectively condemn them as being the product of an eighth grader’s intellect.

I am the recipient of Emails from many educated people, some with doctorates. The notes all have at least one flaw. These cyber friends write their personal notes and make grammatical errors, misspellings, word omissions, and various other mistakes; how could these bright minds make these mistakes? It is very simple, they assume these are personal and private conversations with a friend and confidant; indeed, they are not meant to be examined like the Federalist Papers. They are considered confidential notes similar to a trusted conversation that may be whispered from the other side of the word, but now, we know the Liberal Progressives have demanded that such conversations can be made public and dissected at their whim.

Are we entitled to our privacy, can we expect to keep our personal communications from the scrutiny of this, want to be totalitarian regime, and those of the future. Should we now write every Email as if we were writing a formal letter to a college dean. Are we to assume that our personal correspondence can be used against us by totalitarian regimes of the future: letters can be burned and disappear forever, but a simple Email written at 60 words per minute will long survive your funeral.

Take care my friends, its possible the Thought Police may soon be evaluating your every message of the past and the future.

Obama and the Progressive Socialists have their own survival to consider and they are becoming desperate. Is it possible that they might want to investigate all Emails that are disdainful of their governance.

It’s true, most of us will never warrant an invasion of our privacy, but if you rise in the political world to achieve fame or fortune, rest assured you will come under scrutiny. However, this scrutiny is a double bitted ax. You can trust that many Democrat politicians are extremely worried that their previous personal communications can now be examined by the media and the public, virtually at will.

It is hilarious when unintended consequences bite you in the hind end. In case they think they can delete all the self-incriminating Emails, they might as well not waste the effort, they are preserved better than any historical document in the national archives, grammatical errors and all.

There are many who would relish digging into the personal lives of politicians to catch them taking bribes and cheating on their wives, but it is infinitely better to catch them in the act, than to destroy personal liberties. Of course giving alleged criminals like Rangel a pass because of his sanctimonious indignation at being accused of crimes that we lesser souls could expect to do prison time for and then slapping his hand is an indication we can no longer trust the House to pursue its own investigations. We are left wondering if he knew too much about the corruption among the other House members to be prosecuted with true justice. Maxine Waters is another case that arouses suspicion among the public.

Freedom is not a political issue, the pendulum should be a double edged sword. I probably detest corruption more than the average American and I don’t care from which side of the aisle a criminal or pervert sits on, corruption is corruption, but we must maintain our freedoms. To encroach on our freedom to find every criminal in government would be counter productive and destroy our government and its freedom. We will never catch all the criminals, but it is far better to have a few get away than to compromise our liberties.

The Congressman That Wouldn’t Quit

Sexual perverts are never really healed and never trustworthy. Would you trust them around your kids. Weiner is actively trying to preserve his House Seat: his first method was to deny allegations by lying to Congress and the nation, he then claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked, but neglected to call in the FBI who said they could prove the hack within minutes, he later tried to accuse Andrew Breitbart of setting him up in a conspiracy, a charge that could have meant criminal allegations against Breitbart. Now that all his previous attempts to deflect blame for his cyber perversions have failed and new charges involving an underage teenager are emerging, Weiner is now resorting to the Lindsay Lohan defense of counseling and rehab. When all else fails, there is always the last resort of the degenerate, but wait it might just be a ruse, could Weiner be clever enough to say he will get rehab, now that he has been caught, to secure his congressional seat in perpetuity.

In fairness to the Democrats, they realize Weiner will hurt their prospects in the coming elections and they are telling him to get out of Dodge. The election will be tough enough without the issue of protecting a pervert working against them. They are already dragging the effects of Obama with them when they go home to campaign, Weiner will just complicate the issues even more.

Wiener has made an ass of himself and the Democrats realize that they need to get rid of this dead weight if they are going to be a viable party after the next election. But since Wiener has no other job skills other than a crossing guard, and who would trust him to be a crossing guard, he is not going to give up.

“Congressman Weiner has the love of his family, the confidence of his constituents, and the recognition that he needs help. I urge Congressman Weiner to seek that help without the pressures of being a Member of Congress,” Pelosi said in a statement released this afternoon.

Wasserman Schultz called Weiner’s continued service in Congress “untenable,” and added that “this sordid affair has become an unacceptable distraction.”

Today’s statements were the first time party leaders called on Weiner to step down in the wake of the sexting scandal, and came only after the embattled representative admitted that he sent private Twitter messages to a Delaware teen.

Earlier this morning, Weiner denied he had any inappropriate online contact with the 17-year-old, but did not deny that he’s seeking counsel from Bill and Hillary Clinton about the scandal.

“Nothing explicit. Nothing indecent. Absolutely nothing inappropriate,” the embattled Congressman said as he left his Forest Hills apartment and went about routine morning errands, fetching his shirts at the Smile Often dry cleaner on nearby Austin Street.

Pelosi, Hillary, and Wasserman Schulz all know the best part about their asses is that they are behind them and they realize Weiener the ass should be behind them also.

He would have been happy to let the issue slide if Breitbart were in criminal court spending a fortune to defend himself against the criminal allegations of Weiner, yet now that he is seeking treatment he thinks America’s heart will melt for the lying pervert. America has selective memory and forgiveness; unfortunately, perverts and liars are rarely included in that group.

Weiner has found support from one House Member, Charley Rangel, who is no stranger to controversy:

Weiner did pick up support from U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who was censured by the House last year for ethics violations.
Rangel suggested that other members of Congress had done things more immoral than Weiner.
Rangel said Weiner “wasn’t going with prostitutes. He wasn’t going out with little boys.”

It’s reassuring that Democrats are reaffirming their ethics and morals through their representatives.

The longer that this tragedy of Democrat hypocrisy drags on the more we of the opposition are enjoying the spectacle. When Weiner goes before that great moralist and sexual philosopher Bill Clinton and his opportunist wife, who happened to marry president, for counseling, you may trust that the entire world is enjoying a good belly laugh at Democrat expense.

It is truly a great comedic tragedy with a surreal plot that couldn’t have been written with better timing. We have Weiner at the antagonist who is so sanctimonious with his spirited and dramatic outbursts accusing Republicans of gross malfeasance and the wife who works for Hillary who adopts the familiar oblivious attitude of the faithful and innocent wife who stands by her pervert. The Democrat leadership who proclaims Weiner’s innocence and indignation that anyone would even consider such despicable acts be attributed to their up and coming golden boy, a paragon of civic virtue.

The plot continues and the truth emerges; Weiner is a serial pervert and he even is preying upon teenage girls with his perversions. It is no longer an issue that would have blown away if had resigned; no not at all, now he may be arrested if he sent the underage teenager the same naked images that he sent the grown women. He swears it was all innocent, but who in their right mind believes Weiner.

Can a congressman keep his seat if he is doing time in a federal penitentiary? Apparently Wiener is willing to test this possibility, if his texting proves to be just a little bit on the wild side, because he doesn’t want to lose the only job he can ever get.

We have all enjoyed watching the Wieners sizzle and puff up on the grill, this one is even more fun to watch. The election is coming up and the longer this story is on the front page with the Lying Democrat Pervert refusing to quit, the dumber and more unscrupulous the Democrats are looking to the voters. Go Weiner!

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nothing_explicit_weiner_denies_rated_wMW8sl5M1w8ie0mwldmzdJ#ixzz1P0O2Nmko

Anthony Weiner has himself in a pickle. He maintains the Weiner twitter account was hacked and he is really hacked off about the situation. One of his close followers, a twenty one year old college student is unimpressed, the Weiner photo was for her, but it was shared with the world. The new wife Huma Abedin, a beautiful exotic beauty, is undoubtably confused as well; she thought Weiner was her’s alone.

Without a doubt, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner is having a tough week. There was an erotic photo of protruding underpants sent to a Seattle co-ed’s Twitter account from Weiner’s Twitter Account. The young woman, once referred to Weiner as her “boyfriend”, follows Weiner on her Twitter Account. The offending photo appeared immediately after Weiner had tweeted about his TV appearance airing in Seattle.

Weiner maintains that he was hacked, as a congressman, the son of a lawyer, he knows it is time to call the FBI. but instead of calling the FBI, Weiner has hired a lawyer, for himself!

Weiner is saying it is “time to move on” and there is no doubt that he desperately wants to move on, but when you are the victim of a crime, you and the public want justice. Weiner claims there are bigger more important issues: health care, the deficit, the supreme court. However, the more you try to hide a crime, the more it appears centered on you. When there is a crime, you should expect a criminal investigation; unless, you meant to send a manly picture of yourself in your boxers to a young college girl you’ve been flirting with and you punched the wrong button. That’s not a crime, just the innocent actions of a pervert.

Weiner is maintaining his innocence, besides all 49 year old men send secret messages to 21 year old college students; why would anyone think Weiner was not Kosher. Weiner is known for dramatic tirades on the floor; unfortunately, no one really took the diminutive Weiner seriously.

Click here to view the embedded video.

That has all changed, Weiner has finally made an impression and headlines around the world. Weiner is shy about the publicity, he had no idea about it being blown out of proportion, he’d like it all to just disappear and it would if we relied on the MSM. Only Republicans who make fools of themselves are kept on the front pages for three or four weeks with their shirts off, but the web is fascinated with Congressman Weiner. Right or wrong, up or down, this Weiner issue isn’t going away. Thanks to the Web and the Weiner man who wanted to make a name for himself as a hard line Progressive.

He “can’t say with certitude”, as he invents new words to describe his unique predicament, if the picture is the real Weiner himself and his wife isn’t talking. Some think she might be upset or maybe doesn’t really care, it’s hard to say.

Abedin, a former politico for the Clintons, is known for being closed mouthed about delicate issues and she isn’t making an exception for Weiner. The only publication that has succeeded in getting Abedin to speak out is Vogue. She was profiled in 2007 and she gave details of her wedding dress in 2010.

She tied the knot with Wiener in September 2010; now, the question is will she split the sheets with Weiner because of the Weiner scandal.

Bill Clinton, the old horn dog was infatuated with Abedin. He officiated the ceremony and chatted up the big day more than she did. Only Bill would try to pick up a new bride, saying she looked “like a Dior model” and it is hard to marry a politician because it is, “easy to distrust them, whatever their religion”. Bill’s logic and definition of “is” didn’t always make sense; especially, when he was around good looking women and he needed his ashes hauled.

Fox has reported that the FBI has told them that if Weiner files a complaint, they could do all the tracing they need in “about five minutes,” and because true hacking is a federal crime, could put the perp behind bars “for years.” But Weiner just doesn’t want to waste the taxpayers’ dollars on an investigation. He would prefer, it seems, to waste the taxpayers’ time by lying to them through the media.

Now if you ask a cop who interrogates criminals or a martial artist who sizes up his opponent, they will tell you that Weiner is lying according to his evasions and inability to look the reporters in the eye. Sorry Weiner, your evasive answers and unwillingness to call in the FBI is self-incriminating; now, you are getting deeper and deeper in your lies and you are fooling no one.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, who served as Weiner’s political mentor, gave his protege a vote of confidence in the court of public opinion.

“I don’t know the details. But I know him to be a person of integrity and I am virtually certain he had nothing to do with this.

Anthony Weiner is no winner, he will probably end up resigning before he brings more disgrace upon himself and concentrate on keeping his wife, it looks like he is ready to bring the house of cards down on himself.

Just a friendly warning from Oregon’s DOJ. Beware where you surf, and be careful opening “banned” videos of the UBL raid. I received an alert from the OR DOJ’s office that the creation of fake photos and videos of the raid on UBL’s compound in Pakistan has been exploited by cybercriminals, dumping malware onto unsuspecting visitors attempting to view videos or photos.

So, in the midst of this news frenzy, beware where you cyber tread, please.

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S SCAM ALERT – FAKE OSAMA BIN LADEN FOOTAGE

The death of Osama bin Laden is undeniably one of the biggest stories of the last decade. Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, however, cautions Oregonians to be careful when searching the internet for footage or news about bin Laden’s death. As seen with the Japan earthquake and tsunami, cybercriminals exploit top stories by creating fake videos, photos, Google ads, and news reports that contain malware and viruses.

Already some highly trafficked blogs have been infiltrated by cybercriminals. For instance, a man who lived near bin Laden’s compound inadvertently “tweeted” the raid. People flocked to his website to read his account of events. Unfortunately, so did cyberthieves and his blog was compromised. Those who visited his site are likely to have unknowingly downloaded viruses or malware onto their computers.

On Facebook there is fake video footage of bin Laden’s death. When opened, the link exposes the user’s personal information to the cybercriminal and downloads malware onto the user’s computer.

Attorney General Kroger offers the following advice to avoid falling victim to cyber-scams:

Be cautious of links from emails, social networking sites, or Google searches. If the URL and the search topic don’t relate in some obvious way it’s best to avoid it.

Pop-up ads related to popular internet searches commonly carry malware. Do not be enticed by fake offers of “free” stuff, surveys or contests. Never provide personal information through pop-up ads.

If a website redirects you to download software or “codec” in order to view a video, stop. These are signs of a scam.

Make sure your computer has up to date anti-virus software. Perform a virus scan on a regular basis.

Scammers and identity thieves pose a significant threat to Oregon consumers. Last year Oregonians reported losing nearly $2 million to scams. The Oregon Department of Justice is committed to protecting Oregon consumers. Anyone who thinks they may have been contacted by a scammer should call the Oregon Consumer Protection Hotline at 1-877-877-9392 or go to www.oregonattorneygeneral.gov.

Looking older and more haggard than his sexual victims will remember him, Assange worries over his safety in the US prison system.

He feels he is being set up for a “Jack Ruby style assassination”. Tells the British people, espionage is a classic political crime and that Britain has the option not to extradite for political crimes and it will politically impossible for Britain to extradite him if the people speak up for him.

“Legally the UK has the right to not extradite for political crimes. Espionage is the classic case of political crimes. It is at the discretion of the UK government as to whether to apply to that exception.”

Mr Assange said that he believed that it would be “politically impossible” for the British to hand him over to the Americans if there was strong public support for him in the UK.
“It’s all a matter of politics. We can presume there will be an attempt to influence UK political opinion, and to influence the perception of our standing as a moral actor,” he said.

There is an old proverb among those who live life on the edge of the law:

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.

Julian Assange should have read that one on the internet before he tweaked the nose of Obama with his hacking kills.

In a previous post I noted what can happen to a country when a weak man is President. It’s getting worse daily. We’ll look at a number of issues here which might at first appear unrelated but I believe to be interwoven.

The man who has nationalized the banking industry, the auto industry, the financial industry and the health insurance industry is out to turn our nuclear umbrella inside out and render totally unable to defend ourselves.

Curt has a post up about Obama getting us off to a bad START and it’s deadly accurate. This treaty does nothing for the US. Obama promised to unilaterally disarm the United States and what he has done with this new treaty basically is to beg Putin and Medvedev for how much Obama can compromise the United States. According to Frank Gaffney the treaty is unverifiable and grants Russia a say over our missile defenses:

A number of senators have expressed concern that the Kremlin is correct when it asserts that the new accord’s preamble and other provisions will effectively hobble America’s ability to protect its people and allies, even from threats emerging from North Korea and Iran – and that Russia will withdraw from the treaty if that proves not to be the case.

But as always, Obama desperately wanted the symbolism over the substance.

And this treaty does not begin to address the issue of Iranian missiles being planted in Venezuela. Missiles which can reach the US.

Now we can’t defend ourselves from those missiles without Russia’s approval. Obama has swept the issue under the rug so he could beat feet to the Aloha state for the umpteenth time:

Does Obama have within him even one brain cell worthy of JFK, or even one weak patriotic twitch for the good ol’ USA, and not for his ancestral homeland of Kenya or his fondly-remembered Indonesia? That’s a stretch, and I for one can’t stretch that far. Fifty years ago any honest-to-goodness president would have held a press conference about this, jaw clenched in-between giving prudent, good-faith answers to good-faith questions from real reporters in porkpies about the shenanigans of such plotting, dancing devils. And he would have already made a phone call.

Whussup today? Hussein Obama — the Alfred E. Newman* “what, me worry?” president — is going to ignore it, of course. Ditto that bad-hair gargoyle figurehead of a Secretary of State. It can’t be a “missile crisis” if he couldn’t care less. After all, we’ve got to deal with DADT. Perhaps the most we can ask for is that when Barry meets Hugo again at the next hemispheric summit, that he grab him in a playful headlock with one arm and gives him some playful noogies with the other, while murmuring, “Hugo, you sly dog, you.” Playfully, of course. That’ll teach him.

(* Note the Afred E. Newman reference)

Vice Admiral Gerald Miller:

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action – so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

Meanwhile, down South…

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was recently killed in a gunfight at the Mexican border. He was shot in the back with an AK 47.

Terry’s family was critical of President Obama’s lackadaisical attitude toward border security:

Not so typical was what Brian’s family had to say to KGUN9 the night before he was brought to his final resting place at Michigan Memorial Park. “I understand that Janet Napolitano called (Tuesday night). What did you say to her?” 9 On Your Side reporter Joel Waldman asked Brian Terry’s father, Kent.
“‘I said you gotta wake your man up in the White House,’” Kent responded. “And she said, ‘He’s done more in the last two years than any other president.’”

But the Terrys told Waldman that they don’t buy it. Kent, step mom Carolyn, mom Josie, older brother Kent Jr., sisters Kelly and Michelle are all angry that their son and brother, Brian, died the way he did. They’re not shy about blaming President Obama’s administration for not doing enough, taking aim directly at Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

“She spoke with us and they were empty words today when she spoke,” said step mom Carolyn Terry.

And Napolitano’s gripe with that was the bad publicity surrounding herself.

And over at the airport…

An airline pilot posted a Youtube video showing numerous flaws in the security system

The YouTube videos, posted Nov. 28, show what the pilot calls the irony of flight crews being forced to go through TSA screening while ground crew who service the aircraft are able to access secure areas simply by swiping a card.

“As you can see, airport security is kind of a farce. It’s only smoke and mirrors so you people believe there is actually something going on here,” the pilot narrates.

Video shot in the cockpit shows a medieval-looking rescue ax available on the flight deck after the pilots have gone through the metal detectors. “I would say a two-foot crash ax looks a lot more formidable than a box cutter,” the pilot remarked.

Can you imagine someone being concerned about the ground staff not having to pass through security?

And what was Bis Sis’s reaction to this?

The Fed’s invaded and searched the pilot’s home and seized his handgun and took his concealed weapons permit. This man was a helicopter test pilot and flew UN relief missions for the UN. He had been authorized by the TSA to carry a handgun in the cockpit.

And their response was to make him less able to defend himself, his passengers and his aircraft.

It doesn’t get much more f**king stupid than that. The guy has done nothing wrong.

And Napolitano has more on her table. Just you might have thought Cap and Trade was dead, climate change (aka global warming) is now a national security issue.

(CNSNews.com) — At an all-day White House conference on “environmental justice,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.

Not satisified with her incompetence at border security, Napolitano becomes part of the Obama promise to bypass Congress and the Constitution to bring this country to its knees economically. It is Obama’s wish for the people of the United States to make all the sacrifices for little to no effect on global warming as we enter a new mini ice age.

Napolitano explained that the task force was charged with “identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security.”

The solitary Muslim in Congress wants our borders eliminated:

No word on who will pay for all the welfare for the hundreds of millions of immigrants but “kuffar” comes to mind.

Finally, the Idiot of the Day Award goes to Clinton appointee Judge Stefan Underhill who ruled that illegals can sue Border Patrol for allegedly abusive treatment.

A Clinton-appointed judge has given a group of illegal immigrants the green light to sue the U.S. government for violating their constitutional rights during the operation that led to their apprehension.

Ruling that immigration agents and their supervisors can be sued for civil damages, Connecticut federal Judge Stefan Underhill cited the illegal aliens’ story that “defendant officers targeted a primarily Latino neighborhood, arrested people who appeared Latino, detained one plaintiff solely because he spoke Spanish and appeared Latino, and taunted one plaintiff’s girlfriend by saying the plaintiffs were being taken to see Mexican singer Juan Gabriel.”

This will be at our expense, of course. I’d like to see an illegal in Mexico try this.

How many times did we listen to “Bush is taking away our rights” from the looneybin left?

Obama is making Bush look like a veritable libertarian.

Govt ‘creating vast domestic snooping machine’

The government is creating a vast domestic spying network to collect information about Americans in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent terror plots, The Washington Post reported Monday. The government is using for this purpose the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators, the daily added.

The system collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of US citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing, the report noted.

The government’s goal is to have every state and local law enforcement agency in the country feed information to Washington to buttress the work of the FBI, noted the paper, which has conducted its own investigation of the matter.

Gitmo is still open for business under Obama and there’s even more!

The ACLU said Obama Administration Will Not Seek Indefinite Detention Legislation

Today? Guantanamo: U.S. seeks indefinite detention

Ironically, while Obama took a “victory lap” to brag about his legislative accomplishments (One might argue that Timothy McVeigh could also claim to having been productive) Der Spiegel branded Barack Obama “The Biggest Loser of 2010.” I have to disagree.

America was the biggest loser of 2010.

Merry Christmas!

In Aghanistan the selling of young boys for sexual purposes is a sign of prestige among Afghan men; however, the practice is so disgusting to American troops that some are refusing to work with Police and military officials who engage in the practice.

A document released by WikiLeaks described efforts by high-ranking Afghan officials to quash reports of police officers and other Afghans arrested for “purchasing a service from a child.”
The leaked diplomatic cable quoted former Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar’s concern that publicity about the arrests, which involved the hiring of “dancing boys,” would “endanger lives.”

The author of the diplomatic cable fretted that the case would be “blown out of proportion, an outcome that would not be good for either the U.S. or Afghanistan.”

The vast gulf between U.S. and Afghan attitudes about homosexuality and pedophilia has generated concern among U.S. advisers in Afghanistan since the American presence there began to expand.

In late 2009, U.S. and British forces ordered a study of Pashtun male sexuality. They were worried that homosexuality and pedophilia among Afghan security forces and tribes could create cultural misunderstanding with allied troops.

The study was carried out by the Defense Department’s Human Terrain Teams and authored by team member Anna Maria Cardinalli, who stated the purpose was to learn how to advise service members to deal with Afghans who are displaying homosexual tendencies. Apparently the troops are confused and bewildered by this behavior, especially when our troops feel they are being propositioned by Afghans. The pedophilia practiced by Afghan soldiers and police tends to outrage American troops.

“I know Marines and soldiers who have refused to work with Afghan military or police,” said one U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s not about homosexuality as much as it is about the young boys. Some of them like to show pictures on their cell phone — that should be illegal. Some of the Afghans have their own young boys they use for sexual purposes and we can’t do anything about it.”

An American military official who works closely with Afghan security forces called the discomfort among U.S. and British troops “the elephant in the closet that no one’s talking about, but needs to.”

It is not hard to imagine American troops being uncomfortable with the prospect of working with perverts and rapists. Is it possible that the Administration has decided that placing American homosexuals in the ranks will make this cultural disconnect with Afghans and their pedophilia more acceptable.

While the Afghan views the prepubescent boy as possessing physical beauty, such views are merely viewed as a perversion to the heterosexual American male. Surely an infusion of homosexuality within the ranks will soften the views of our troops in this area of pedophilia and make our men more sensitive and understanding to the sexual needs and perversions of the Afghan male.

In April of 2004, Elizabeth ( a fictitious name) a 19 year old female approached Julian Assange in a Melbourne bar. Assange was a 33 year old student studying mathematics and physics at the university.

“I started talking to him and he just seemed kind of quiet and nerdy. I didn’t think he was sexy or anything. Just strangely alluring for a 19-year-old girl.”

Assange flirted with her by flexing his mathematics skills and kidding her about being ignorant of mathematics and science. This is typical procedure for lecherous types who want to impress and establish superiority over their prey or victims.

They talked until closing time and Assange walked Elizabeth home to a small village in the country. Along the way he kissed her, she was not impressed with his behavior, but neither was she turned off.

“It was like, fine, whatever,” Elizabeth said. “He wasn’t creepy about it, and he didn’t try anything weird.”

Before saying goodnight, they exchanged emails and Assange gave her his card with the image of a lighthouse and he rode the train back to town. No doubt he envisages himself as a guiding light for the rest of the world.

She soon received this email requesting a date:

She doesn’t remember how she replied but she didn’t encourage him:

“I wasn’t into him,” she said.

However, she was shocked when she received a phone call from him at her parents’ house; since, she had not given him her phone number.

The call was understandably strained when he refused to explain how he had obtained her phone number.

“I was really cold because he somehow found out information about me and I didn’t know how and it scared me,” she said.

Undaunted in his quest for conquest, Assange promptly sent an email to chastise her for her phone etiquette; however, the real purpose is to discipline her as a parent would an adolescent and to establish a position of dominance and control.

She says she replied with a coldness to his entreaties; yet his technique is a continual assault of stages and progression, he has already instilled an element of self-doubt and the question of worthiness within his victim, a process that she will never admit to herself.

Assange tried another approach by recalling the romantic aspects of the night they met.

Assange called again and Elizabeth, who was becoming wary of Assange’s persistence, countered by pretending to be someone else, a gambit that Assange assumed to be flirtation and an opportunity.

Assange formulated a puzzle to get his phone number to Elizabeth, so she could call him with the satisfaction of having figured out a simple math problem and redeem herself of the ignoble distinction of being a lesser creature who is deficient in math skills. To accomplish this he gave her an equation with her license plate number as part of the known factors. Thankfully, she didn’t fall for his cheap and obvious gambit that was designed to establish Assange’s dominance and omnipotence as well as his willingness to excuse her poor math skills. Elizabeth said she couldn’t call him, so he sent an email asking the best time to call her.

She was left with the cold and bewildering question of how and why did he obtain her license plate number.

At this point, Elizabeth told Assange to quit calling her. And with the dogged persistence that is characteristic of the predator, he told her she might get lucky and be able to contact him through his web site.

Assange finally gave up, but tried to humiliate her with a series of emails meant to hurt her self-image.

Assange’s relationships with women haven’t improved much in the six years since his creepy attempt at wooing Elizabeth. His online dating profile and blogging reveal an insufferable self-styled Don Juan, and he currently stands accused of raping and sexual molesting two Swedish women.

For the record, Elizabeth says she never felt threatened by Assange’s behavior; she viewed it as misguided attempts at courtship by a socially awkward nerd.

“I don’t think he’s a bad person,” she said. “He’s just a funny bugger.”

Although Elizabeth resisted the predatory seduction of Assange, her comment, “I don’t think he’s a bad person, he’s just a funny bugger”, indicates she was susceptible to his miserable game and is still under his spell to a degree; because she still doesn’t recognize the deception and evil inherent in this deviant behavior. Although Assange’s pathetic attempts at romantic writing only mean his poetic license should be revoked, his hacking into another person’s private life is despicable. He definitely has a problem with women and will probably be in more trouble with women if he doesn’t end up in prison. Assange maintains that his hacking is for purely altruistic motives, he also employs his hacking skills to be a sexual predator.

Epilogue: The author has no training in psychology or deviant sexual behavior, but in the horse business, 90% of your customers are women and after listening to tens of thousands of women talk about life and their experiences while I worked on their horses, I have a vast anecdotal background on the nature of these incidents. Thus I have a fairly good idea how these incidents transpire and of the psyche of the predator.

Despite President Obama’s efforts not to antagonize our enemy by naming them, the Radical Fundamentalist Muslims now intend to surgically implant bombs in homicidal suicide maniacs. The gel or liquid bomb implanted within the body cavity is nearly impossible to detect. Women with breast implants are a perfect example of the technology required and it has been done for decades.

Recently a surgeon volunteered his services to surgically implant bombs on an Al Qaeda website forum:

“What is your opinion about surgeries through which I can implant the bomb …inside the operative’s body?”

He called on bombmakers and doctors to cook up the perfect solution to murder “larger numbers of unbelievers and apostates.”

“I am waiting for the interaction of the experienced brothers to connect the two sciences together and produce a new kind of terrorism, Allah willing,” he wrote, according to a translation by terror experts at the SITE Intelligence Group.

The scheming comes amid controversy over body scanners and pat-downs in airports that some Americans complain are too invasive. The ideas for a “surgically booby-trapped martyrdom seeker” were chillingly concise for the doctor of death monitored by SITE.

Stitching a bomb into the abdominal cavity made of plastic or liquid explosives – such as semtex or PETN – was judged the best method.

A terrorist offered the advice that the bomb must be near the surface because the human body is shock absorbing and if the bomb is implanted too deep it will lose effectiveness.

In the mean time, Napolitano has unleashed her gropers at T&A to check for a repeat performance of lingerie bomber want to be Farouk Abdulmutallab, while refusing to consider the proven method of profiling used by El Al, Napolitano is now concentrating on American genitals with the utmost dedication.

In November, John Pistole, Transportation Security Administration chief, in a characteristic declaration of brilliance, declared that his agency didn’t think it was necessary to do cavity checks because secondary screening procedures can find fuses and detonators, which are always outside the body.

“You have to have some external device to cause that initiation,” he said. “That’s what the advanced imaging technology machine will pick up: any anomaly outside of the body.”

Have they ever considered internal timers with internal detonation all embedded within the body.

Muslim Doctors have shown a willingness to participate in the murder and mayhem among the Muslim Terrorists. In 2010, a Jordanian doctor, Abu Dujana al-Khorsani, killed seven CIA officers in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. Al Qeada’s #2 man is Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian born doctor. The same one who called President Obama the “House Negro”.

Cocaine smugglers have been using people, termed ‘mules’, to travel on airliners after ingesting condoms filled with contraband for decades: it is only a matter of time before America realizes it actually need professionals in charge of security and not political hacks.

Thrust to the forefront of late are incidents of TSA pat downs, verging on the brink of sexual harassment, amidst the cries that any such search of those purchasing airline tickets are having their 4th Amendment rights violated.

Again, hyperbole reels out of control, with issues made more tawdry, using headlines such as “A 12 year old girl forced to submit to being naked in a scanner”…. a bizarre interpretation at best considering a girl, traveling with her girlfriend and her parents, was picked to walk thru the scanner at Tampa Int’l Airport. Fully dressed, of course. Oh my… the trauma. No intrustive pat downs, no threats. Just a walk thru a scanner.

Considering the scanners differ only slightly in appearance that the current common detectors, one would have to wonder just what it was that supposedly made the girl so “scared”… all the media hype ratcheting up perhaps? Do you think the average 12 year old girl, dreaming about boyfriends, dances and other youthful fantasies, has been focusing on news and talk shows talking about scanners and intrusive body searches? Searches, I might add, that are random incidents when you consider the amount of people that fly daily in this nation. Truly folks, it’s one thing to be thoroughly annoyed and offended, but have we gotten to the point with this nonsense that the goal is now to strike fear into 12 year old girls’ hearts, merely to walk thru either a detector or scanner at an airport?

While I’m not one to volunteer for the “love pats” – as a few weird Congress types like to call them – and I don’t fly often enough to panic about absorbing an inordinate amount of radiation from what may uncalibrated scanners, there comes a time when we need to separate all this emotional hype about TSA from the legal realities. Just because so many wish it to be a violation of the 4th Amendment, doesn’t make it so.

Here’s the ugly truth… we’re a little late to the party to complain about the appetizers being cold. Airport security has been an ever-evolving issue for decades. Airport security is a federal mandate for all airport owners/operators that service commercial flights as a result of the Aviation and Transportation Act of 2001… a Nov 2001 bill that federalized airport security. Looking for a party to blame? Too bad… Altho the bill was sponsored by SC’s Dem Sen. Ernest Hollings, and co-sponsored by 30 other Senators… seven of them Republican… it passed by a unanimous Senate vote, and in the House 410-9, (with 14 not voting).

Prior to that, screenings were in place for both passengers and baggage, provided by private security corporations. Even today, as the small airport in Sanford, FL opts out of TSA screening and employs a TSA approved private contract firm to do the same, that alternative screener must follow the TSA guidelines.

In other words, the players have changed, but the game has not in Sanford, FL.

Since that time, Congress has used the same Act to pile on, affect both aviation fuels excise taxes, as well as sundry airport (and other) “improvement” projects. The Act, like so many others, has proven to be the springboard for further spending and appropriations, and further expansion of powers in the name of national security.

The foundation of S-1447 created the TSA, and putting them in charge of the implementation and training for airport security programs. As per any legislation, the devil comes in the details, and Title 49, Chapter XII, SUBCHAPTER A–ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL RULES were created… Voila, the mandated security of passenger screening at airport gates, TSA style, was born.

Airlines, forced by federal mandate to comply, accommodated the security mandate by adding a security fee to all airline tickets, and have been doing so since 2003. In short, purchase an airline ticket, with the security fees, and you have just “agreed” and been served notice that your “expectation of privacy” now includes mandatory TSA screening at the gates and, therefore, is reduced “expectations” any US citizen can have when opting to fly as transportation.

In other words, you have just voluntarily waived your 4th Amendment rights, as you understand them.

In a recent move, some airlines are extending foregiveness to passengers who didn’t read the “fine print” of their terms of agreement to fly, and issuing refunds or vouchers to those opposed to the scanning or pat down security options.

What may be helpful is to see where we’ve been, when assessing where we are today. Fact is commercial flight hasn’t been around all that long in the scheme of things. The first commercial flight was back in Florida, over the bay from Tampa to St. Pete at an altitude of 15 ft back in 1914. This especially gives me a grin since the Pinellas peninsula of Florida is my childhood and early adult home. The cost of that flight was $175 and, when adjusted to inflation, would cost $3600 today.

Flying picked up in the 1930s, but was mostly limited to the wealthy upper class with a good reason to fly, since train travel was more cost effective. But it wasn’t until the late 50s and early 60s that some of we “common folk” could actually splurge on a prop flight with the domestic US. I remember my first flight with my grandmother, from FL to OH… dressed in my Easter best, walking the tarmac to the plane, ascending the stairs, and fighting with the siblings during the flight to press our noses against the window to watch in fascination.

My how times have changed, yes? Thoughts of hijackings and terrorist attacks never crossed our minds then. But all that changed with the infamous D.B. Cooper, and his heist and parachute escape in 1971. (here’s the Wiki history version of Cooper’s $200K hijacking sky theft…) When considering liberty over security, it all went downhill from there.

Annie Wu, from MN’s public radio, interviewed David Leach, one of the nation’s first sky marshals under Nixon. It was then the conundrum of keeping innocent passengers safe to fly, and the entry of the criminal element began. Enter… the metal detectors, originally rigged from similar devices used by loggers.

But even then the spectre of the 4th Amendment and privacy infringements were on the mind at many. As Leach said then:

“The courts, very fortunately for us and for the traveling public, made the determination that yes, it was a violation of the fourth amendment, but it was acceptable to the courts with two provisos. One, that it be applied universally so there’s no chance of any discrimination, and two, that the search be limited to looking for weapons and explosives.”

“Applied universally” to avoid discrimination, and confined to “looking for weapons and explosives”. So much for help from the Supreme robed ones today, save in incidents of obvious out of the norm harassment. They have sanctioned non-discriminatory searches for decades with limitations based on the object of the search…. Weaponry to take over an airline. Note, this does not give any specific TSA agent a blanket approval to “grope”, and certainly skin on skin type searches have some legal avenue for recourse. But again, when you purchase an airline ticket, and pay for security fees, you have agreed to subject yourself to the search methods currently employed by the TSA at the gate entry. Voluntary submittal to a search waives a certain portion of your rights to be searched at all… leaving only abuses of those searches left to potential litigation.

Prior to 2001, most security measures had been implemented via private entities for the FAA for more common criminal intent… hijackings for theft, and even incorporated for the War on Drugs. But, in 1988, the Pan Am Lockerbie bomber killed over 270 people… and airport security entered yet another new era of preventative measures. Again, from the linked above “Savvy Traveler” public radio link on the history of airport security.

In response, the FAA began to screen portable computers and radios more carefully on flights from Europe and the Middle East. It also required that only bags accompanied by a passenger may board a plane. Still, it’s not easy to protect a thin aluminum aircraft flying at 30,000 feet, says Irish Flynn with the FAA.

Flynn: “And into those aircraft go hundreds of millions of people every year. And billions of objects go into those aircraft. And our challenge is to ensure that things that are dangerous, lethally dangerous, don’t go aboard those aircraft.”

Until recently, the FAA has usually taken steps to improve air safety as a reaction to a hijacking or a bombing. Today, the government says it’s planning ahead, for example, developing ways for airlines to deal with hijackers armed with chemical or biological weapons.

Post 911 and the Aviation and Transportation Act, subtle security measures via regulations and bills have passed, with nary a glance of the American public. For example, following Richard Reid’s 2001 shoe bombing attempt, removing shoes prior to entering the gates’ area was incorporated… again with little resistance from the American public.

When a British attempt at an airline bombing in 2006 involved liquid explosives, the max limit of liquids… plus their display in a single quart ziplock/plastic bag – became a new regulation. And most recently, when the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to smuggle a poorly designed bomb in his crotch, the US feds responded with the quest to install the backscatter x-ray scanners.

Welcome to today… a history of slowly encroaching search techniques that every American agrees to abide by when purchasing an airline ticket.

A bit… and I do qualify this with “a bit”… of SCOTUS rulings on the 4th Amendment rulings. The most pertinent is Katz vs the United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). This case, despite it’s controversial history of held/reversed opinion changes, forms the cornerstone of what constitutes an illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. While the Petitioner’s own counsel was the one who raised the issue of whether there was an expectation of privacy in a phone booth to conduct what was, unquestionably, illegal activities, Justice Harlan is creditied for the dual test of privacy expectations, as considered by the High Court.

There are two types of expectations of privacy:

* A subjective expectation of privacy is an opinion of a person that a certain location or situation is private. These obviously vary greatly from person to person.

* An objective, legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy is an expectation of privacy generally recognized by society.

Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person’s residence and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[1] or a phone booth.[2][3]

In general, one cannot have an expectation of privacy in public places, with the exceptions mentioned above. A well-known example is denial of privacy for garbage left for collection in a public place.[1]

While a person may have a subjective expectation of privacy in his car, it is not always an objective one, unlike a person’s home.[4]

The privacy laws of the United States include the notion of a person’s “open fields”; that is, places where a person’s possessions do not have an objective expectation of privacy.[5]

An example of subjective expectation of privacy may be found in the SCOTUS opinion on Kyllo v. US in 2001. Danny Lee Kyllo was convicted of growing marijuana in a triplex after law enforcement used thermal imaging to scan the building. The Ninth Circuit upheld Kyllo’s conviction, saying Kyllo had no expectation of privacy since he had done nothing to conceal the emanating heat from the grow lamp operation.

But the High Court, with opinion delivered by Scalia, reversed the decision:

While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

When considering this base rule of “privacy”, per SCOTUS, can anyone “subjectively” anticipate privacy when purchasing an airline ticket that charges a fee for mandated federal screening to enter the very public and secured gate area?

In a long shot, possibly… that is if you hope your case will fly using the intent to “conceal” exactly what the screeners are actually looking for. Using that approach, not having a bomb, plainly visible in plastic ziplocks, may actually make the 4th Amendment work in the favor of a terrorist. But highly unlikely (as you’ll see that didn’t work out so well for David Lee Moore below).

In the case of airport security, no subjective assumption of privacy can be had when you know, full well, that federal law requires screeners and scanners await you prior to the gate for a flight, and you’ve paid a fee to the airlines to cover the costs of this same screening. Such an avenue would be difficult to argue for innocent travelers who oppose the latest TSA screening methods.

Also on the “expectation of privacy” trail has been the cyber world, as exhibited by a Wired op-ed back in March of 2009. While not addressing airport security as the foundation, they do diss the Katz “expectation” test of privacy as a ruling that “…will rapidly leave us with no privacy at all.” Despite the disparity in subject matter, it’s a hard conclusion to argue.

The second “expectation” test – an “objective” expectation that is considered “reasonable” by society – is another hurdle. Certainly “society” – at large – expects the federal government to hunt for the bad guys, and expects to fly without fear of terrorists aboard. And, in fact, were stringent screening bypassed, and a terrorist incident did take place, what would society say to their elected officials? We’ve already seen the outrage when it was citizens, not the government, who stopped the Times Square bomber.

Others will be arguing that the pat downs are beyond what travelers agree to. Certainly, in the cases of obvious abuse (which you can litigate, as is our system), this is unquestionably true. But when you assume that TSA agents are merely doing the task they are appointed to do, and under their guidelines of operations, the legal avenues may be more limited.

Since SCOTUS precedents are never apples to apples, what about a few other specifics? Like, for example, the body search? So many erroneously separate their luggage and belongings from their person when it comes to 4th Amendment searches. Yet what is needed for law enforcment agents to conduct a search? According to the SCOTUS certiorari INRE VA vs David Lee Moore in 2008, enough probable cause.

David Moore, a suspected drug dealer, was arrested on driving with a suspended license. A body search turned up 16 grams of crack cocaine, and over $500 cash at the time. Since states can relax 4th Amendment search rights, but not make them more stringent, Moore should have been issued a citation under VA law.

Moore was charged with intent to distribute, but challenged the search as legal under the 4th Amendment. A bench court found him guilty. It was subsequently reversed and reinstated by sundry intermediate courts post in the appellate process, finally reaching the VA Supreme Court… who ruled that since the arresting officers should have issued Moore a citation under state law, and the Fourth Amendment does not permit search incidents to citation, the arrest search violated the Fourth Amendment. However the request for certiorari was sent to the High Court who, after some dissent (and with some justices sitting out the consideration), did review the case.

While the High Court had reversed prior decisions for searches/4th Amendment violations as they related to state law, they did disagree with the VA Supremes INRE Moore, stating:

We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for more than half a century. When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Is setting off a scanner enough to provoke “probable cause” for a search? Likely. Is refusal to be searched or scanned, combined with the demand for entry to the secure (or adjacent to secure tarmac areas) gate areas also enough to raise eyebrows?

Another case took a very similar path when two officers discovered cocaine when they searched a suitcase belonging to Terrance Bostick on a bus. After examining his ticket and ID, they asked for consent to search after a cursory “grab” at his canvas bag… advising him he had the right to refuse. He didn’t.

As even the liberal justice O’Connor notes in in the SCOTUS opinion on Florida v. Bostick,….“…the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to approach individuals at random in airport lobbies and other public places to ask them questions and to request consent to search their luggage, so long as a reasonable person would understand that he or she could refuse to cooperate.“

Refusing, as any traveler knows, remains the right of any citizen attempting to enter the airport gate area. You are given the choice of detectors, scanning (in airports where they are installed), or a physical search.

However refusing does not mean you are allowed to bypass the security without screening. With refusal come repercussions.

This leaves us where? Probably exactly the place where the terrorists wanted us to land… busy being proactive to their efforts and implementing politically correct measures that dance on the fringe of our beliefs, all in the name of national defense. It’s one rock and hard place to be… and somewhere out there, a jihadist is dancing in delight at our conundrum and hysteria.