Category Archives: Police Abuse

TSA Forces Woman Through Scanner Three Times To See Her “Cute” Figure

Gee, who’d have thought.


A married mother was subjected to repeated body scanning at an airport after being told by one employee that she had a ‘cute’ figure.

Ellen Terrell was travelling with her husband Charlie when she was stopped by airport security and told she had been ‘randomly selected’ for screening by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Mrs Terrell, from Dallas, Texas, believes that she was exploited and felt ‘totally exposed’ for the benefit of male employees viewing the scanned images, which give a detail image of the naked body, in a back room.

After being made to stand in the machine, which uses radiaton, for a third time, Mrs Terrell heard the female employee say into her microphone: ‘Guys, it is not blurry, I’m letting her go.’

You were warned about this machine’s potential for abuse.  New machines don’t use nude images.  It uses a generic cartoon.

Daily Show Prep: Monday, January, 30

NBC wants Romney to stop using their material to attack Newt


Herman Cain endorses Newt


Romney leads Florida primary polls


Indiana human trafficking bill passes


The Super Bowl festivities come to Indianapolis


Man sues because ex-girlfriends slandered him online, Gloria Allred still hates men


Domestic violence advocates not happy about new legislation allowing you to resist police from entering home


Obama still mad about his judicial appointments


Photos for Soldiers


Your chance to buy Super Bowl tickets, and help a great cause


Indiana welfare drug testing proposal


Obama singing increases song sales




Enhanced by Zemanta

Supreme Court Sticks Up For Citizens, Bans Warrantless GPS Tracking!

Listeners have heard me discuss this issue for too long.

Previously, courts ruled that your driveway was not private property, and law enforcement could install a GPS tracking device on your car because you had no expectation of privacy in your driveway.

The Supreme Court disagrees.  This is a major victory for constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the government must obtain a warrant before secretly affixing a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car. The case stemmed from an incident in which the FBI placed a tracker on a DC drug dealer’s car, with the Obama administration arguing that Americans don’t have a right to privacy while moving in public, Wired explains. The administration told the justices that it could track their cars as well if it wanted.

Finally, something to celebrate when it comes to American law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Newt vs Paul On The Patriot Act

H/t: Verum Serum

They both are right, and wrong.  I disagree with Verum Serum in giving the nod to Newt on this one.

The Patriot Act has wonderful tools that prevent terrorism without violating the Constitution.  It also has police state tools that clearly violate the Constitution.  Newt basically advocated a Minority Report society where we do everything possible to determine if you’ll ever commit an act of terrorism.  That’s damn dangerous.  Paul advocated a purely reactionary society which does not attempt to prevent acts of terrorism.  Also, damn dangerous. Newt’s assertion that the Patriot Act needs no changes is absurd.  As is Paul’s assertion that it needs to be repealed as a whole.

One of my biggest complaints about the Patriot Act is that it’s rarely used for terrorism.  Since it was first passed, the Patriot Act has been used over 1,600 times for drug offenses, and only 15 or so for terrorism.  That effectively erases the myth that the Patriot Act is primarily a counter-terrorism tool.  It is, in fact, a whole change in US law enforcement policy.

How can Newt defend ‘sneek and peek’ warrants?  Or the Patriot Act being used to dismiss US Attorneys?  Which effectively takes away the President’s constitutional authority to appoint them, and gives it to the Attorney General.

Newt, like Paul, has a questionable past in his interpretations of the US Constitution.  At the very least, the Patriot Act should be altered to be narrowly focused on terrorism.

UC Davis Protesters Agreed To Be Pepper Sprayed

Here’s the original video people saw on the news that caused the outrage.

This caused a lot of outrage, though the pepper spray usage was perfectly legal. Many questioned why the police didn’t just physically remove the protesters.

Then I shared this video with my listeners on the show the other day. It shows all of the events leading up to, during, and after the pepper spray incident.

That changed many people’s minds about the use of the pepper spray being justified. Especially since police attempted other non-aggressive means of removing the students.

Now … the smoking gun.

That’s right, at the beginning of the video, the officer leans over and reconfirms with protesters that they really want to be sprayed rather than move. The protesters respond by saying that it’s “fine” to spray them directly.

Protesters were given every opportunity to save themselves the hassle and pain by simply adhering to the rules. They chose not to. This incident is squarely on them.

H/t: Gateway Pundit