Barack Obama: “After My Election I have More Flexibility”

During a speech that took place with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Barack Obama said that incoming President Vladimir Putin needed to give him “space” until “after my election I have more flexibility.”

The exchange between the two was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for the two leaders remarks.

What follows is what was said:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what Barack Obama meant by what he said, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes said, “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue – there always is – in both countries.”

On top of this a senior administration official said: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

Well that is all fine and dandy. We see just how concerned politicians are with themselves and their re-election versus actually doing their job. Of course I know there will be some who think that when Barack Obama says this will be his last election that he will somehow seek to do away with elections if he wins. He may attempt to do that. In fact, he may rig this election. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him.

However, I am concerned about the fact that we want to talk about missile reduction and a missile defense shield with an enemy like Russia. Make no mistake about it, Russia is not on our side. What we should have been doing all along is following the plan of Ronald Reagan and that was to basically make any missile attack obsolete and that was Reagan’s vision for what came to be termed “Star Wars”. It was to say to our enemies, “If you get a nuclear warhead and fire it at us, we’ll simply destroy it.”

As a close friend of mine said, “If you don’t make your product obsolete, your competition will”. Reagan sought to do that. He sought to make nuclear weapons obsolete as a threat by creating a strategic defense.

Barack Obama though wants to deplete America of her nuclear defenses without providing anything close to Reagan’s vision. I’ll guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected in November, then we are in for a very serious decline in our nation. There will be absolutely nothing for the man to lose and he won’t just be taking out our national defense, but he’ll be coming for our guns as well. Mark my words.

Barack Obama: “After My Election I have More Flexibility”

During a speech that took place with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Barack Obama said that incoming President Vladimir Putin needed to give him “space” until “after my election I have more flexibility.”

The exchange between the two was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for the two leaders remarks.

What follows is what was said:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what Barack Obama meant by what he said, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes said, “there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue – there always is – in both countries.”

On top of this a senior administration official said: “this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we’re about to have a presidential and congressional elections — this is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there’s an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.”

Well that is all fine and dandy. We see just how concerned politicians are with themselves and their re-election versus actually doing their job. Of course I know there will be some who think that when Barack Obama says this will be his last election that he will somehow seek to do away with elections if he wins. He may attempt to do that. In fact, he may rig this election. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him.

However, I am concerned about the fact that we want to talk about missile reduction and a missile defense shield with an enemy like Russia. Make no mistake about it, Russia is not on our side. What we should have been doing all along is following the plan of Ronald Reagan and that was to basically make any missile attack obsolete and that was Reagan’s vision for what came to be termed “Star Wars”. It was to say to our enemies, “If you get a nuclear warhead and fire it at us, we’ll simply destroy it.”

As a close friend of mine said, “If you don’t make your product obsolete, your competition will.” Reagan sought to do that. He sought to make nuclear weapons obsolete as a threat by creating a strategic defense.

Barack Obama though wants to deplete America of her nuclear defenses without providing anything close to Reagan’s vision. I’ll guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected in November, then we are in for a very serious decline in our nation. There will be absolutely nothing for the man to lose and he won’t just be taking out our national defense, but he’ll be coming for our guns as well. Mark my words.

Welfare Recipients Trading Food Stamps For Guns And Drugs

The US Welfare program has been a problem since its inception. It’s been reported that many federal welfare recipients are receiving food stamps and then trading them for cash to purchase weapons and drugs.

The USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong reported this information to Congress this month. She said, in her prepared remarks:

“In terms of fraud, we have seen many types of trafficking in SNAP benefits. By giving a recipient $50 in cash for $100 in benefits, an unscrupulous retailer can make a significant profit; recipients, of course, are then able to spend the cash however they like….In some cases, recipients have exchanged benefits for drugs, weapons, and other contraband. When trafficking occurs unchecked, families do not receive the intended nutritional assistance, and unscrupulous retailers profit at the expense of the American public.”

Ms. Fong continued, “[The Office of Inspector General] also has been looking at recipients who misrepresent themselves to receive benefits…Recently, OIG has conducted a series of audits of 10 States to assess how they used participant databases to identify potentially fraudulent recipients, and we have completed work in 5 States. Our analysis of the databases that States check as part of their role in ensuring recipient eligibility revealed that a total of 8,594 recipients in the 5 States were receiving potential improper payments. Some of these recipients were using the Social Security numbers of deceased individuals, or otherwise invalid Social Security numbers, while others were receiving benefits in more than one State. In total, we estimate that these recipients could be receiving about $1.1 million a month.”

What we were not told by Ms. Fong is were any arrests made. We were not told of any means of recouping the millions of dollars in fraud by these people. We were not told of the confiscation of their property in order to repay what they had stolen from taxpayers. Do you think we will see such enforcement of the law? I think not.

What makes all this worse is the staggering figure that is a part of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the USDA’s largest welfare program. There is a total of $75 billion annually spent on this program alone. The fiscal year of October 2011-September 2012 estimates that about 46.3 million people are receiving food stamps from the government which is significantly higher than the previous year of 30.8 million.

What are we to do? I believe in a “safety net”, but the safety net I’m thinking of has nothing to do with government. It has to do with family. It has to do with friends. It has to do with the Church of Jesus Christ and other organizations of charity. They must be willing to hold these people accountable and not provide for them if they are unwilling to work. As the Scriptures teach, ” If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Let government deal with these people who have defrauded the taxpayers and let them earn a living and pay back what they took.

Lindsey Graham: Shut Up! You Don’t Get A Lawyer!

The following short video was captured in Chester, SC at a GOP fish fry. The interviewer gave me permission to use this recording of Senator Lindsey Graham defending his statement on the Senate floor, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!” in reference to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Instead of clearing things up and actually doing what is right and saying, “You know, that was a stupid thing to say and on top of it unconstitutional just like the bill we passed,” Senator Lindsey Graham simply went on to defend his statement to the American people. We’ll note his explanation of what he meant by his statement.

First, Lindsey Graham said,

“When someone is captured and involved in an Al Qaeda attack on the country, they can be held as an enemy combatant, not a common criminal (emphasis mine). So if a guy went to Pakistan…..trained….came back….went to a mall and started shooting people, when you grab the guy, we should hold him as an enemy combatant, under the law of war.”

OK Senator Graham, first you are not even addressing the main issue. You are talking as if as soon as there is a mall shooting that it would be known that the guy has been trained to be an enemy combatant. Are you saying that our government would have that information on the fly as soon as it happened? If that is the case, then wouldn’t that make our government complicit in such an attack? If our government is stupid enough to track a man leaving the US to Pakistan, know who he is dealing with and training with and then allow him back in the States I think those who allow such are in fact part of the terrorist problem and they should be arrested and tried.

In either case, they are both criminal acts. You can call it enemy combatants but the reality is it is a crime. What if the person was not even affiliated with Al Qaeda? What if they were a white supremacist group that hid up in the mountains and came and did the same thing? Seems like you want to make Al Qaeda out to be the boogeyman, instead of realizing they are a monster created by the CIA. Also, just so you know, you guys are having a bit of trouble actually declaring war, so the use of the term enemy combatant

Only a full time politician would levy the phraseology “the law of war.” He has no concept of warfare and so I am not going to address that in this post.

Graham continues,

“and if he says, ‘I want my lawyer,’ no this is not a crime, this is an act of war we are investigating, but everybody captured under that circumstance will get to go to a judge, with habeas hearing and the judge would have to agree that the guy is an enemy combatant…”

You can be held under the Patriot Act without seeing a federal judge. You will be held simply because you are perceived as a threat and have committed a crime, oh I’m sorry, you are an enemy combatant, which technically if you do that on US soil is a crime against the citizens of the country, sort of like those in the House who passed the NDAA and the guy who signed it.

What is the most frightening part of any of this is Lindsey Graham seems to be oblivious as to how government actually works. He may think that it will keep a check on its power, but the natural tendency of government is to abuse its power. It is just its nature to do so.

I wonder if Lindsey Graham understands that American citizens can and will be targeted under the NDAA and claimed to be terrorists, not given due process and sent to prison or worse, all because they have been deemed to be a terrorist. Even by Graham’s own words, he is stating that the hypothetical person caught would already be known to have affiliations with terrorists. Again, would government be complicit in the terrorist’s actions? I think so.

Lindsey Graham said he didn’t want people who had just committed a terrorist attack to be told they could have a lawyer or be read Miranda rights. He said that everyone captured like this “could not be held without going before a federal judge.”

Yes they can Lindsey. It’s part of the Patriot Act which has morphed into NDAA. Hello? Under the Patriot Act a person can be detained for seven days and during that time the Attorney General must initiate removal (deportation) proceedings or charge the person with a crime. NDAA simply becomes more of the same extending the long arm of the law to it’s own citizens in a manner that this country has never seen before.

Senator Lindsey Graham and those like him who represent the people of their states should be standing for the Constitution and the rights of the people. Instead, they seek to remove the liberty and rights the Constitution is to provide. You may say, “Yes, Tim, but they are doing this only to the terrorists.” Really? You know this for sure? What if the federal government considered your political views a threat? What if then they took it a step further and said that they considered those views to be the views of new terrorists? They have said this about groups other than Al Qaeda including Christians, Constitutionalists, Ron Paul Supporters, those who talk too much about the Constitution and those who promote the Second Amendment. My fellow Americans, be on your guard against a tyrannical government.

Here’s Graham’s statement from the floor of the US Senate:

Obama Uses Osama Bin Laden In Re-election Film

A new “documentary” coming out tomorrow at the Obama website will feature the mythical story of how Osama Bin Laden was found, how the President made a very torturous decision about whether to go in and take him or not, and how in the end it was his decision and his alone that brought Bin Laden down.

This 17 minute Hollywood production is narrated by Tom Hanks. The teaser seen below has clips of Vice President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton.

Also interesting about the video production is its director, Davis Guggenheim. Guggenheim was the man behind Al Gore’s infamous tall tale “An Inconvenient Truth” and also helped in the 2008 Obama campaign.

In the clip, Clinton says, ““He took the harder and more honorable path,…When I saw what had happened I thought to myself, I hope that’s the call I would’ve made”.

Vice President Biden continues, “The entire national security apparatus was in that room and the President turns to every principal in the room ‘what do you recommend I do?’ and they say ‘It’s a close call, Mr president’. As he walked out of the room it dawned on me: he’s all alone. This is his decision.” The shot is dramatic and well frankly it plays on the emotions of the viewer, but the well informed citizen knows better than all of any of this and knows the government lied to us about Osama Bin Laden.

We’re not sure just how deep the rabbit hole goes, but we do know from recently leaked emails that Osama Bin Laden was not buried at sea, but was in fact flown back to Dover, DE where he is said to have been cremated. It has been long said that Bin Laden has been dead for years.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steve R. Pieczenik, the man Tom Clancy based his famous Jack Ryan character on, claims to have seen Bin Laden in 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai and as a medical doctor stated,

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,”

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

Pieczenik also worked with Bin Laden, who was a CIA operative, in the 1980’s during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

The entire “documentary” that will be shown beginning tomorrow is completely Hollywood. It is not based in reality. It is based in the land known as propaganda and has one goal, the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.

Congressional Resolution: Impeachment of Barack Obama

The impeachment of President Barack Hussein Obama has begun. The new Congressional resolution filed Wednesday states that using offensive military force, without prior consent violates Congress’ express Constitutional power to declare war. This is exactly what President Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta was promoting the other day in the Appropriations Committee.

The Library of Congress has on file, as of March 7,2012 H. Con. Res. 107 which says,

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

After the Appropriations Committee session I wrote on just days ago, this was introduced.

Mr. Walter B. Jones (Rep. NC) put forth this resolution in preparation for a war in Iran. Why this is not being taken further in regards to the issue of Libya, one can only guess that the administration didn’t call it a “war”. It is possible however, that this will be used to bring charges against the President for the war in Libya and maybe even in Syria as well.


The Concurrent Resolution goes on to state:

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

This is nothing more than the first stepping stone of impeachment proceedings. The Obama administration is proud and will thoroughly disregard this and launch its war campaign anyway against Iran and is so arrogant that he won’t approach them for authorization, just like he didn’t do in Libya and just like it is doing in Syria.

When this happens, citizens need to be prepared. This administration cannot be trusted. There is no telling what will happen. In fact, I have said for several months that we are probably closer to something catastrophic happening on our own soil as a result of government, not terrorists, than anything Iran would do, but it’s quite possible, even likely it would be blamed on Iran.

Fellow Patriots keep your eyes open and be alert!

First Amendment Right To Protest Government Deemed Illegal

So you were thinking of exercising your First Amendment right to protest your government in the nation’s capitol? Well think again. It quite possibly could be considered illegal and you would be charged with a federal crime according to the new law signed this week.

I wrote previously on how the House and Senate had passed HR 347, which is a simply written (only two pages) bill that, in essence, would stop any protest that was deemed to:

“impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;”

Furthermore, the bill states,

“knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;”

So this bill has been signed into law by President Obama this past Thursday, just days after it’s passing in the Congress.

Because of the vagueness of the law, it is quite possible that it can apply not only in the capital but also anywhere in the country where official government business is going on and we can all see how the politicians who don’t want to deal with protesters could claim government business is being conducted anywhere that they are at.

The utter ambiguity of the law and the flippant means by which we have seen the D.C. Police handle protest matters in the past leads to some serious considerations as to anyone feeling safe to protest their government over grievances.

This is exactly what the politicians want. They want the people scared. They want them to fear the government. My friends, as Judge Andrew Napolitano said,

“When people fear the government, that’s tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that is freedom.”

They fear what we are able to do, which is call them out and demand that they stop interfering in our lives. They don’t want to hear that, and even if we gather with signs and protest quietly on the White House lawn or the steps of the Supreme Court, they will use every twisted line of this new law, which is a violation of the First Amendment, to infringe upon our rights.

You could be charged with a federal crime for entering a building you didn’t know was restricted! You could face federal charges for showing up and protesting quietly outside the White House or Congress simply because they deemed that you were somehow disrupting or impeding government business.

Our founding fathers knew of such tyranny. The Bill of Rights they laid out were things the federal government was not at liberty to remove by conflicting laws just because they wanted to. This law, as well as those who supported it, is a violation of the Constitution. It, along with many others like it that have been signed into law are taking from the American people more and more liberty.

America has been in the slow heated water for several decades now. It is beginning to boil and most don’t even know it, nor do they care.

One commenter on HR 347, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund said, “[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn’t supported by the facts,…This has always been a bad law.” She tries to lay to rest the claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

The problem is that when a person says, “It won’t hurt the Constitution or violate your rights,” and then there is a “BUT,” you know it is doing exactly what they just said it wouldn’t do. It is an unnecessary law. Verheyden-Hilliard says it is to make prosecution easier by removing the word “willingly” from the previous law and simply going with knowingly. See? It’s all about keeping things in the favor of government.

Bottom line, while the law is not “new” it does give more authority to authorities. In fact, under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars. The thing is since it’s “secret service” one doesn’t always know where they are or what area is theirs. Thus the dilemma for a law abiding citizen simply wanting to peacefully protest their government, which technically was what the First Amendment was about in the first place: political speech.

But don’t worry, this is the least of concerns as the President can now arrest you if you get to close to his front yard, have you assassinated on American soil if they deem you a threat or indefinitely detain you if the government says you are a terrorist. After all we can trust government can’t we?

In case you want to contact those who voted for the bill, you can find your representative from the House here and the Senate here.

Leon Panetta: International Coalition Trumps Constitution

As I write this I am furious, furious at the audacity of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. First the sickening statements the man made on 60 minutes in regards to assassinating US citizens and now the video that comes out with him before the Armed Services committee.

Let me set it up. Senator Jeff Sessions was questioning General Dempsey at first and asked him point blank about what law the military serves under. The General replied with three things.

1) At the consent of a foreign government (by invitation).

2) National Self Defense which is a “clear criteria”.

3) International Legal Basis.

Uh oh!

There is no other authority appealed to in the US Constitution. This General has forgotten his place and Sessions calls him on it. He pointed out that the legal basis is not NATO or the UN.

He then turns to Panetta, who quite honestly I loathe to even look at after the 60 minutes interview. It is a sickening thing when in America those in leadership positions would advocate a complete disdain for the Constitution and decide behind closed doors which Americans to kill and which ones not to because they “think” they are terrorists, without due process and without evidence.

Panetta’s answer, though sad, was almost laughable as he stated that the United States should seek International legal basis for war, like we did in Libya. Now I’m with Sessions in all of this and Sessions made it quite clear that Congress was not and has never been approached on the issue of the military being used in Libya.

Furthermore, I would point out that we were in league with Al Qaeda. Now, that alone should tell us something. Those in government who passed the NDAA and the President who signed it clearly stated that those involved with Al Qaeda were considered terrorists. Can we not safely assume that the President and Leon Panetta and anyone involved in the Libyan fiasco were working with terrorists? Again, where is the outrage among the American people over this? Where are the calls for impeachment and the rightful punishment under OUR law for traitors? Where is it?

Sessions tries again. I think he is just astonished to the point that he cannot believe his ears of what is being said. He asks Panetta if the DOD can set up a “no fly zone” in Syria without Congressional approval and Panetta just will not answer the question but sidesteps it to say he would seek international approval and then decide if he “wants” to get permission from Congress.

My fellow Americans, Panetta and Obama do not have that privilege under our law to do that. They are to expressed get permission from Congress. That is the point Mr. Sessions is making. Panetta is showing his disdain for the Constitution and quite frankly we all know Obama despises it, though he will give lip service to it.

When asked what legal basis there would be for such an operation, Panetta said that NATO and UN resolutions were a legal basis. Those are not legal basis. We’ve been going down this road a while with Bush 2 and now we are seeing it full force with the current occupant of the Oval Office. International law DOES NOT trump the Constitution. It just doesn’t and anyone who thinks differently who has taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution is thinking in a manner that is contrary to their oath. Those who actually act on it, such as Mr. Panetta and Mr. Obama are in clear violation of the Constitution and should be called on it and dealt with as traitors by those who have the authority to do so.

They have spat upon the Constitution. They willfully and knowingly reject the law of our land in favor of something else. They try and do this as Panetta stated near the end by saying that the Constitution only applied to National Defense, not to International coalitions.

Now it’s out in the open and even Sessions, though stunned and astonished, isn’t calling it what it is: Treason against the Constitution and treason against the American people. If they are willing to do that and we allow it, then I ask what will keep an “international authority” from bringing war crime charges against our leaders and soldiers just like they did at Nuremberg? Our representatives need to get some backbone and deal with these people and reign them in before it is too late, but it seems many have been content to merge at least 2 branches of government into one and give up the balance of power. God help us!

TSA Blog Indirectly Admits Scanners $1 Billion Fraud

A video that has gone viral on the web where engineer Jon Corbett, of the popular blog TSA out of our pants, demonstrates just how easy it is to defeat the TSA scanners at the airport, is being met with ridicule by the TSA. The blog can only come out and attack Mr. Corbett rather than actually deal with the information presented. In doing so, they are admitting the flaw, and in essence admitting to the American public that they just wasted $1 Billion of YOUR money to “keep you safe” from the supposed boogeymen terrorists.

The blogger, one Bob Burns, says that Mr. Corbett is just “some guy” and that the video is a “crude attempt to allegedly show how to circumvent TSA screening procedures.” It was not an attempt to allegedly show anything. It was an ACTUAL demonstration of how to defeat,very simply I might add, the TSA screening process. Hey Bob! your pants are down!

Bob then goes on to say, “For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology’s detection capability in detail.” Of course Bob. This sounds like the infamous “can’t disclose information due to national security” that always comes up when people demand answers from their government. The fact that the TSA would announce “obvious security reasons” is enough to make one fall from their chair hysterically laughing because it is obvious to anyone who watched the video that there is no security at all. There are perverts and theifs within the TSA. That is your security!

Bob does want to try and reassure everyone though, “however TSA conducts extensive testing of all screening technologies in the laboratory and at airports prior to rolling them out to the entire field.” OK, so you guys did “extensive testing” and either you are incompetent regarding the very easy method that Mr. Corbett used to blow by your scanners, not once, but twice, or you knew it and let it go. Either way it demonstrates the TSA doesn’t know the first thing about security. They are simply a power grab, a jack booted organization that should be dismantled and the people of America given their liberties back while flying.

Blogger Bob writes, “Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs.” Oh Bob let’s not forget, it’s good for checking out hot chicks too! And those drugs you are finding, who is getting those? What about the cash being confiscated from citizens? Let’s go beyond that to the sexual assaults on people, the humiliation of nursing mothers and elderly women. Yeah, yeah keep trying to justify the perversion that is the TSA. We see right through it, unlike your scanners.

Bob ends his blog stating, “With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all.” Then he immediately says, “However, our nation’s aviation system is much safer now with the deployment of 600 imaging technology units at 140 airports.” OK Bob? You just contradicted yourself. You claimed that you have never claimed it’s the end all be all and then right on top of that you said the airports are “much safer” with the deployment of the imaging technology. You can’t have it both ways. The real danger in all of this is the TSA criminally violating the American people’s 4th Amendment rights. BTW, Bob this is what that says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Every TSA agent, because they are part of the federal government is knowingly violating this Constitutional right and those that employee them are violating this Constitutional right. Back in the 18th and 19th century this would be called treason against the people. Today it is called “keeping us safe”. When will Americans wake up from the fluoridated stupor and demand that the TSA be disbanded and vote out the same bureaucrats that continue to install such things? Furthermore when are we going to hold these people criminally responsible?

Bob and the TSA want us to think the machines are safe even though their radiation levels are extremely high, but they also want you to know that if the scanners don’t solve the problem, then there is always the latex glove inspection, hopefully sanitized for their pleasure. I mean for your protection.

In essence blogger Bob did nothing to refute Mr. Corbett’s demonstration of their asinine system. By replying the way he did, he demonstrated nothing of what the TSA affirms and gave a great amount of credit to Mr. Corbett’s video.