Naked Body Scanners - Monumental Coverup
Resistnwo.com-news14
HOME
Naked Body Scanners: Monumental Cover Up Exposed
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, Aug 5th, 2010
Feds admit they lied over storing images, why trust them over safety, functionality and efficiency of radiation-firing machines?
At the height of the furor over airport body scanners earlier this year, the TSA publicly stated that it was not possible to store, record, transmit or print out the images that show in detail the naked bodies of men, women and children that have passed through them. At the time we presented evidence to the contrary. Now it has been conclusively proven that the TSA and other federal agencies using the scanners flat out lied to an unwitting public.
Declan McCullagh of CNET reports that “The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.”
The proof comes in the form of a letter (PDF), obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.
EPIC says it has also obtained more than 100 images of electronically stripped individuals from the scanning devices used at federal courthouses. The disclosures come as part of a settlement of an EPIC Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Marshals Service.
Brijot, the manufacturer of the body scanning equipment in question, also admits that its machine can store up to 40,000 images and records.
EPIC, has filed two further lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security over the scanners, claiming that the DHS has refused to release at least 2,000 images it has stored from scanners currently in use in U.S. airports.
EPIC’s lawsuit argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches, as well as the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, referencing religious laws about modesty.
The group points to a further document (PDF) it has obtained from DHS showing that the machines used by the department’s TSA are not only able to record and store naked body images, but that they are mandated to do so.
The TSA has now admitted that this is the case, but claims that it is for training and testing purposes only, maintaining that the body scanners used at airports cannot “store, print or transmit images”.
“In complying with our Freedom of Information Act request, the Marshals Service has helped the public more fully understand the capabilities of these devices,” EPIC President Marc Rotenberg said in a statement. “But the DHS continues to conceal the truth from American air travelers who could be subject to similar intrusive recorded searches in U.S. airports.”
The TSA and the DHS have consistently lied about all aspects of the body scanners, from their very inception.
As we have previously documented, the plan to implement the scanners on a mass scale was in the works well before the Christmas day attempted bombing incident. In October last year the TSA announced plans to expand the passenger electronic strip search program. In November, EPIC filed its first FOIA lawsuit challenging the DHS’s failure to make public details about the agency’s Whole Body Imaging program. On December 17, just one week before the failed bombing, EPIC filed its second lawsuit against the Department of Justice concerning the use of the screening devices.
In an effort to downplay the intrusion of privacy they
really represent, the TSA has routinely claimed that
the images produced by the scanners are “ghostly”
or “skeletal”.
The passenger’s face is blurred and the image as a
whole “resembles a fuzz y negative ,” the TSA
spokeswoman Kristin Lee told the media laar, pri
or to the underwear bombing attempt.
“It covers up the dirty bits,” James Carafano, a
homeland security expert at the conservativ
e Heritage Foundation told the Washington Post i
n January.
Former Department of Homeland Security official
Stewart Verdery also dismissed the notion that
the machines produce detailed naked images,
describing them as not “the type of image that is going to make a thirteen year old boy very excited”.
Manchester Airport in the UK has also rejected claims that the scanners invade privacy, claiming that because they use X-rays “they do not make an image”.
These consistent claims are clearly contradicted by readily available examples of the body scanning images that show high quality detail of naked male and female bodies.
Furthermore, if there is no capability for the devices to save, distribute and print images, then how on earth have news organizations obtained print outs of such images like the one above?
Journalists who researched trials of the technology reported that the images made genitals “eerily visible”.
German Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau, a representative for a company that sells the scanners, admits that the machines, “show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises”.
Images on the TSA’s own website produced by backscatter devices also show that genitals are visible.
The claims that sensitive body parts will be blurred out is also bunkem. When they were first being installed, Australian authorities admitted that the machines don’t work properly if sensitive areas of the body are blurred out – a fact that the British government later also admitted:
Cheryl Johnson, general manager of the Office of Transport Security, said:’ It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities. ‘
The level of intimate detail captured by the scanners prompted the passage in the House last year of an amendment brought by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to ban “strip-search” imaging at airports, a proposal he has reiterated his support for since the failed bombing attempt.
“You don’t have to look at my wife and 8-year-old daughter naked to secure an airplane,” Chaffetz said at the time.
“You can actually see the sweat on somebody’s back. You can tell the difference between a dime and a nickel. If they can do that, they can see things that quite frankly I don’t think they should be looking at in order to secure a plane,” Chaffetz told the House.
Across the pond in Great Britain, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) wrote a letter to the UK government recently warning that the use of the scanners constitutes a breach of privacy laws.
Multiple incidents over the past months have proven that the TSA and other airport security authorities worldwide have been engaging in a monumental public relations cover-up by suggesting the machine do not show crisp images of naked bodies.
In May it was reported that a TSA worker in Miami attacked a colleague who had made fun of his small penis after he passed through a scanner device. A similar controversy unfolded in March when an airport worker at Heathrow was caught ogling a a female colleague’s breasts after she passed through one of the devices, commenting, “I love those gigantic tits”.
Perhaps the most significant factor here, the smoking gun that proves the authorities have lied about the degree to which the scanners invade personal privacy, is their contradictory stated need for new “privacy sensitive” machines.
“With full body searches becoming the norm at airports amid terror threats, a Canadian engineer has invented a three-dimensional scanner that doesn’t violate passengers’ privacy.” reported IBN Live in Toronto back in February.
“The new 3D scanner developed by Montreal-based William Awad highlights metal or organic material on a human body without showing the body outline under clothing, according to reports.” the article continues.
“But the current scanners at airports produce a three-dimensional outline of the human body, raising a hue and cry over privacy violations.”
The Canadian inventor of the new machine, currently seeking certification from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the US, expects sales to balloon. But if we are to believe our governments’ statements on the original scanning machines, there should be no need for any new privacy sensitive machine at all.
An article in yesterday’s Boston Globe again highlights this point:
The TSA is working with technology companies to develop software that would show a generic paper-doll-like figure instead of an actual image of a passenger’s body — and transmit images only when a threat is detected.
The TSA plans to keep the current scanners in place until less invasive software is available.
This serves as an admission that, despite previous
claims to the contrary, the scanners currently in
place do indeed reveal detailed images of genitalia,
they are in breach of child pornography laws and the
images produced by them are tantamount to criminal
evidence.
It highlights the fact that the public was once again
grossly misled over the capabilities of the scanners
now in place in airports the world over.
Furthermore, any “privacy sensitive” versions of
the technology will not change a thing, as M
arc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC notes:
“This will not solve the privacy issues,” Rotenberg
said “because the images of travelers’ naked bod
ies are still being captured by the machine.”
Despite the fact that the machines would not have
prevented the Christmas Day bomber from boarding
Flight 253, according to their designers, and other
security experts who have dismissed the devices as “useless”, the mainstream media for the most part has lauded their introduction.
In an editorial in February, titled “There’s nothing to fear from the use of full-body scanners at airports”, The Washington Post poo-pooed privacy concerns and stated that the images produced by the scanners are fuzzy and blurred.
The Post joined scores of other corporate media sources in it’s unreserved praise of the body scanners. In a Globe and Mail article, University of Ottawa professor Mark Salter gushed over the virtual strip searches, concocting a bizarre twist of logic argument that the machines actually increase privacy. This viewpoint flies in the face of that of surveillance experts who note that the scanners will do nothing to make air travel safer.
Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised given that the vast majority of the corporate media is owned wholesale by the very military industrial complex defense contractors set to land huge profits from the sale of thousands of the naked imaging scanners.
Another area where the government has consistently misled the public over the scanners is regarding their questionable safety.
The TSA has stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath.
The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image.
The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively “unzips” DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted.
The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck.
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research.
Despite these fears, and the blatant violation of privacy laws, and the consistent lies that the authorities have engaged in over the machines, Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, recently announced plans to expand the full-body scanner program even further.
Currently, 157 full-body scanners are in use at 43 airports in the United States; by the end of the year nearly 500 are planned to be in place. Next year, 500 more machines are scheduled to be installed.
In the U.S., people can refuse the body scanner and opt for an aggressive and intrusive hand-search, but people traveling out of the UK and other areas of Europe don’t even get the choice – they are forced to go through the scanner if asked and cannot refuse or they are banned from traveling. This policy seems to be slowly extending into the U.S., however, given recent reports from airport workers in El Paso, Texas who say that everyone is now being put through the machines.
Despite all the spin that the expansion of the naked body scanner program is being meekly accepted by a compliant public, more documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that there have been more than 600 formal complaints about the devices in the last year.
Furthermore, the documents reveal anger at TSA officials for refusing to offer passengers a pat-down alternative, as well as forcing children to go through the machines.
More people in the United States need to follow this example and lobby for states to pass laws nullifying use of the body scanners as a threat to privacy, health, and a total violation of human dignity, a virtual strip search.
The will of the people is being systematically eroded and incrementally broken down. Airports are serving as reservations where the fundamental right to privacy must be left at the door.
A culture of extreme fear has been engendered where the only way to stay safe is to cozy up to big brother, a psychological response akin to that of Stockholm syndrome.
This is where the technological control grid plays such a key role. Imagine if TSA agents were made to take women and children and physically strip search them while they held their hands aloft, the public would balk at such an abuse. However, with the body scanning machines there is a divide that clouds the process in futuristic technology.
If the public willingly accepts naked imaging x-ray machines in the name of security, what comes next?
The former EU justice Commissioner says that scanning inside people’s bodies is an acceptable proposal. The TSA is considering taser bracelets that can deliver electric shocks to anyone who steps out of line inside an airport or on a plane.
Passport control officers at airports are to be phased out as new biometric face scanning cameras are set to replace them under UK border control measures that came into force last year. A global biometric facial scan database is the end goal of security authorities the world over.
Other proposals include placing the cameras
in every seat on aircraft and installing
software to try and automatically det
ect terrorists or other dangers caused
by passengers.
Passive brain scanners that pick up brain
waves in order to sense the behaviour
of travelers have already been trialed in
airports. The technology known as “MALINTtN
T” has been developed by the Department
of Homeland Security under a project
lovingly called “Project Hostile Intent”
. The following image is a DHS Impression
of the mindreader technology in action.
We are also being incrementally taught
that what goes on in the airports will b
e transferred to the streets, schools, shopping malls, rail stations and bus terminals.
The very body scanners we see being implemented within airports now have already been extensively trialed in railway stations in major cities.
The same technology is being considered by governments for general use in cameras on the street. Once accepted as part of everyday life in airports, it becomes much easier to sell for use in all public places.
X-ray specs were once considered a pervert’s fantasy science fiction invention, now they have become a reality.
The development of all of this nightmare technology only emphasizes the need for immediate outright rejection of the mass implementation of body screeners. If we continue to allow such gross attacks on our liberties to succeed the onslaught will never end.
'I don't know whether Obama's a U.S. citizen'
Growing list of lawmakers, talkers questioning eligibility of president
Posted: February 04, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern
Tennessee state Senate speaker and Lt. Gov Ron Ramsey
Tennessee state Senate speaker and gubernatorial candidate
Ron Ramsey has joined the growing ranks of officials and
prominent commentators who say they are unsure of whether
President Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen.
Ramsey was asked Feb. 2 about the issue by Maclin Davis, a
former state lawmaker and attorney for the state GOP, the
Associated Press reported.
"I don't know whether President Obama is a citizen of the
United States or not," Ramsey responded. "I don't know
what the whole deal is there."
However, Ramsey added that he doesn't believe citizens
are concerned about Obama's citizenship status.
"But I'm going to tell you something," he said. "When you walk out on the street down here, people don't really care about this issue."
Help push the petition asking President Obama to reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to the 500,000 mark!
He said dwelling on the issue of whether Obama is eligible to hold office distracts from the Republican message on jobs, education and fiscal conservatism.
"When we get off on sidelines like that, that's when people say 'aw,' they close their ears and don't listen," Ramsey said. "I'm not saying you're not right, Mac, I'm not saying you're not right – but that's not how you win elections."
According to the report, Ramsey acknowledged that he might be causing some apprehension among his political staff for even addressing the eligibility issue.
"I've got a table full of advisers sitting over there, and they'll probably start cringing right about now when I start talking about some of this stuff," he said.
Ramsey is just the latest addition to a long line of lawmakers and prominent personalities who have questioned Obama's citizenship status or asked why he hasn't released a birth certificate.
As WND reported, Democrats plan to raise the issue of Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office during this year's U.S. Senate races.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chief Robert Menendez has distributed a memo to U.S. Senate campaign offices stating Democrats need to demand that their opponents answer a series of questions, including, "Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?"
WND has also reported efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at the state and national levels. Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. Among the states where election qualification or eligibility requirements are being considered or developed include Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, New York and others.
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero
Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that legislation could be adopted to release Obama's birth records and satisfy critics.
While Espero said he believes Obama was born in Hawaii, he explained, "My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama's birth records and the lingering questions," Espero said.
Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze
Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze sponsored a proposal to demand eligibility documentation from candidates for political office, including the president. Ritze, who says he regularly gets questions from his constituents about Obama's eligibility, said an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" on the issues of candidate qualifications and eligibility.
U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., proposed H.R. 1503, known as the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas.
The measure seeks to "amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate … to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen
Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
"It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen," she told the Arizona Capitol Times.
Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges
Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she has been getting questions from other states about H2442, a proposal she sponsored to require future presidential candidates to reveal show they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural born citizen." The bill is co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers who also want state officials to independently verify the accuracy of documentation.
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.
Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a Dec. 10 letter to the White House formally requesting that President Obama address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president. Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would ask Obama to prove his eligibility.
"I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available, and it leaves many things to be desired," Deal said in November.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
Even Sarah Palin, former vice-presidential candidate and best-selling author, affirmed that questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for office are legitimate.
"I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records – all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay
In October, former House majority leader Tom DeLay offered his views on Obama's birth, saying, "Why wouldn't the president of the United States show the American people his birth certificate? You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball. It's a question that should be answered. It's in the Constitution that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president."
U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
Asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, "What I don't know is why the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don't know anyone else who can't produce one. I think that's a legitimate question."
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he believes Obama was born in the U.S., but he also said he thinks the president is trying to hide something:
"I believe he's a natural born citizen of the United States. Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against American interests, he's still an American-born citizen," he said. "All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing ... his long form birth certificate."
Because that isn't happening, "There's some other issue there."
"I don't know what it is that he doesn't want people to see the birth certificate. I don't think it has to do with his natural-born citizenship," Franks continued. "He's spent an awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth certificate. ... I think it has to do with something else."
Feminist icon Camille Paglia
Even feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point. "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling," she wrote.
New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport
In September, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents that he's not sure of Obama's eligibility to serve as president. He met with New Hampshire's secretary of state, William Gardner, who oversees the state's elections, to demand answers.
"Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution? I don't know the answer to that," Rappaport said. "My understanding is that … a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American parents. If that's true, his father was a Kenyan and therefore a British subject at the time. Then there's the issue: If he was born out of the country, was his mother old enough at the time to confer citizenship?
"I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to this," Rappaport told WND, "and so far that hasn't happened."
Prominent commentators
A prominent array of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs, Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone have all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy.
Longtime New York radio talker Lynn Samuels did the same. "We don't even know where he was born," she said. "I absolutely believe he was not born in this country."
WND has reported on multiple legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – and payments to one of his eligibility lawyers at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of numerous lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. That's in addition to the work done by U.S. attorneys defending Obama's eligibility, as in this case.
While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate question unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural-born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
At a Ramadan dinner at the White House, the president breaks his silence on the issue, framing it as one of religious freedom.
President Obama addresses guests at an iftar dinner, the
meal that breaks the dawn-to-dusk fast for Muslims during
the holy month of Ramadan, at the White House.
By Peter Nicholas and Julia Love, Tribune Washington Bureau
August 14, 2010
Reporting from Washington —
President Obama on Friday took a strong stand in favor
of building a mosque near the site where Muslim terrorists
flew airplanes into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001,
breaking his silence on a political tempest that has left the
country divided.
Speaking at a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan, Obama framed the issue as one of religious freedom.
Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama said, according to a White House transcript. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."
The uproar over the proposed mosque has rekindled a debate over religious tolerance in a post-Sept. 11 society. Some relatives of Sept. 11 victims have come out against the mosque, as have prominent politicians.
Republican Rep. Peter T. King of New York said Friday that Obama was wrong.
"It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," King said in a statement. "While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much.…Unfortunately the president caved into political correctness."
A majority doesn't want to see the mosque built, national surveys show. A CNN/Opinion Research poll earlier this month showed 68% opposed plans to build the mosque, with 29% in favor. Count as part of the minority New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently gave a speech defending the planned Islamic center.
In a statement released Friday night, Bloomberg said: "As I said last week, this proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama's clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight."
As the debate raged, Obama stayed out of it. As recently as last week, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, described the matter as one "for New York City and the local community to decide."
But the White House's Ramadan celebration, held in the State Dining Room with about 90 guests, presented a unique moment for Obama to make his position known.
"Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan," he said, according to the White House transcript. "The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders."
That said, he added: "This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."
Supporting the mosque is a dicey proposition for Obama. Polls have shown a certain percentage of Americans mistakenly view him as a Muslim. He is Christian. Defending the mosque invites suspicion that he is overly sympathetic to the Muslim faith. At the same time, Obama has taken pains to reach out to the Muslim world. He gave a major speech in Cairo last year calling for "a new beginning" between the U.S. and Muslims.
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Friday, August 13, 2010
Establishments Latest Desperate Rand Paul
Hoax Explodes In Their Face
The latest media hoax targeting Kentucky primary winner
Rand Paul has exploded in the establishment’s face after
a claim that Paul “kidnapped” a woman during a college
prank was revealed to be completely mischaracterized,
showing once again how desperate the system is to
discredit Paul and prevent him from leading a populist
revolt against the status quo.
The corporate media has now launched no less than three
hyped or outright manufactured “controversies” in an
effort to tear down Paul’s popularity in the less than three
months since he won the Kentucky primary. The system
is scared stiff of what Paul represents because he is a true
constitutionalist with a real chance of winning in October
after having brushed aside establishment Republican
candidate Trey Grayson back in May.
On the very night of his primary success, the media kicked into high gear and instantly tried to characterize Paul as a hypocrite and a racist elitist simply because he held his victory celebration at a country club.
When this attempt to smear Paul fell flat on its face, the Civil Rights sideshow was ramped up, with MSNBC airing eight different segments totaling 37 minutes with every single guest attacking Rand Paul as a closet racist who wanted to repeal the Civil Rights Act, something which he never said. Indeed, although Paul expressed a nuanced view on the Civil Rights Act, he made it clear that he would not vote to repeal it. This didn’t stop Rachel Maddow and MSNBC from publishing an out of context script in a crass stunt to make it appear as if Paul had answered “yes” to Maddow’s question about whether businesses should have the right not to serve black people.
But with Paul still maintaining a healthy lead over his Democratic rival Jack Conway, the establishment was forced to launch its third absurd smear attack in as many months, by manufacturing a national controversy out of the claims of an anonymous woman who talked to GQ Magazine about a college prank Paul was involved in 30 years ago, alleging that Paul had “kidnapped” the woman and forced her to take drugs.
The hoax was unraveled when the woman later admitted to the Washington Post that she was not kidnapped, she was not forced drugged, and that “the whole thing has been blown out of proportion” because she willingly went along with the prank, which on the face of it is mild tomfoolery when measured against similar college hazing pranks performed today.
“That characterization of events supports Paul’s claim that, as he told Fox News yesterday, “No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people,” concedes the Post.
“It is satisfying to see the libelous and grossly irresponsible charges of kidnapping completely shot down,” Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Post. “It remains puzzling to us why the drive-by media continues to focus on an alleged 30 year old teenage prank when our nation faces high unemployment, a thirteen trillion dollar debt and are threatened with a Cap and Trade national energy tax.”
But that’s not good enough for the Washington Post, who, with the “kidnap” hoax now firmly distinguished, still insist that Paul jokingly telling a college friend 30 years ago to “worship the Aqua Buddha,” is an issue of national importance, even as America enters a third great depression.
Perhaps if rather than engaging in such an apparently horrendous prank as asking someone to smoke pot, Paul had instead lied naked in a coffin masterbating while kissing skulls and screaming as people like George W. Bush and John Kerry did at Yale for their Skull and Bones initiation, then the mainstream media wouldn’t have made such a big deal out of it.
Barely a week goes by within which Tea Party candidates, their supporters, or conservative media outlets are not the target of a manufactured smear, an attempted set-up, or another fabricated hoax, enthusiastically peddled by the corporate media ad infinitum.
This latest Rand Paul hoax arrives on the back of Obama campaign volunteer and long term Democratic operative Tyler Collins attempting to portray Paul’s supporters as racists by dressing up in a tin-foil hat and adopting a slack-jawed accent while carrying signs opposing illegal immigration.
The provocateur was caught out by an attendee at the Fancy Farm political celebration in Kentucky who claimed he saw the man speaking with supporters and campaign officials of Paul’s opponent for the Kentucky Senate, Jack Conway, shortly before making his way into the crowds. Collins was later seen marching with fellow Conway supporters.
The Louisville Courier Journal even used footage of the man, portraying him as a legitimate Rand Paul supporter, in a video report about the event.
Another hoax revolved around what is one of the biggest platforms for anti-establishment candidates, the Drudge Report website, which back in March was falsely accused by Senate Democrats of serving malware viruses to its visitors, which in fact were coming from third party ad scripts. The New York Times and many other websites have inadvertently infected visitors with Malware viruses, but Democrats in the Senate seemed only interested in linking the viruses to Drudge in an effort to prevent people from visiting the website.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.), dismissed the flap as an overhyped ploy to stop Senate staff from reading Drudge, “Because Drudge comes out with really good stuff and we want them to access the Drudge Report. We’re on the Drudge Report about half the time.”
Given the establishment left’s ceaseless attempts to frame Tea Party activists, and particularly Rand Paul, who is seen by many as the true voice of the Tea Party, expect to see many more dirty tricks and brazen hoaxes pulled before the midterm elections.
The corporate media has proven itself to be morally bankrupt in vigorously peddling hoax after hoax in an attempt to shoot down Ron Paul’s campaign. They are doing so not because any of the manufactured controversies hold any merit or importance, but because Paul’s grass roots candidacy represents a fundamental threat to the status quo in Washington.
Paul needs to file libel and slander lawsuits to send a message that more hoaxes, stunts, and set-ups will not be tolerated.
In the interests of time-saving, we’ve gone to the trouble of offering a selection of controversies which we made up out of thin air that the establishment can select from next time they attempt to smear Rand Paul.
- Rand Paul was the gunman behind the grassy knoll who shot JFK.
- Rand Paul convinced LeBron James to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers.
- Rand Paul was responsible for blowing up the BP oil well.
- Rand Paul, and not Yoko Ono, caused the Beatles to break up.
- Rand Paul is an 18 million year old space reptoid from the planet pop tart.
Although some of the above facts may sound a little far fetched, we were assured that they were true by an “anonymous source,” so we are now going to seriously debate how this will affect Paul’s Senatorial campaign for a good week or two, before quietly admitting that it’s all nonsense – but only after the mud has stuck of course.
Iran Attack This Week?
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 15, 2010
Former interim U.N. ambassador and leading neocon John Bolton went on Fox News on Friday and sounded the alarm bells over Russia’s pending delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr reactor. If Israel plans to attack Bushehr, Bolton said, it must act now because allowing the Russians to load nuclear fuel rods at the site will make Iran “essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf.”
“The fuel will be loaded on Aug 21. This is the start of the physical launch” of the reactor, said Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, the Russian Energy State Nuclear Corp. “From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation.” Russia is currently operating under a $1 billion contract with Iran and has worked for over a decade on the reactor.
As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to build nuclear reactors for its civil energy needs. Iran has long claimed that its nuclear program is for peaceful power-generation purposes and would help free up oil and gas resources for export, thus generating additional hard-currency revenues.
Bolton and the neocons refuse to accept that the facility will produce nuclear energy and insist it will be used to create nuclear weapons. According to Bolton, once the reactor is operational, it is only a matter of time before it begins producing plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon. “And in the normal operation of this reactor, in just a fairly short period of time, you could get substantial amounts of plutonium to use as nuclear weapons,” Bolton told Fox.
As usual, Bolton and the neocons — with the helping hand of Fox News — are only telling part of the story. As Russia notes, the project is under close supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, Iran has signed a pledge to ship all the spent uranium fuel from Bushehr back to Russia for reprocessing, thus ruling out the possibility that the uranium could used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Bolton did not mention this during his Fox News interview.
Fox News, which claims to be “fair and balanced,” made it sound like Iran will control the spent uranium from the plant, not Russia, thus providing yet another bogus argument that allows the neocons to push for an attack.
It should be noted that John Bolton does not believe Israel or the Obama administration will move to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the Russians begin to load fuel into the reactor on July 21.
