San Diego TSA Airport Screeners Out of Control … Passenger Arrested For Refusing TSA Screening, Parade Him Thru Airport in Underwear

November 21, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

TSA, the Audacity of Grope, San Diego Edition Part Deux:

The TSA is nothing more than a microcosm of Barack Obama and his Administration … a bunch of unqualified screw ups given power and abusing it. WTF AMERICA … THIS IS STILL AMERICA, ISN’T IT? The TSA and this government have totally lost focus on what airport security is supposed to do. IDIOTS, YOU FOOLS ARE TO CATCH TERRORISTS, NOT ARREST INNOCENT AMERICANS!!!

This time the TSA has overreacted and arrested  Sam Wolanyk, a San Diego resident, this weekend after he refused to complete the TSA screening process. Wolanyk then suffered the indignity at the hands of the TSA by being paraded through the airport in his underwear. Is this how the Obama/Napolitano TSA saves face for their screw up in letting the “underwear” bomber on a place last Christmas?

The TSA is out of control and some thing must be done before the Thanksgiving Day travel rush. If this continues, there is going to be mayhem this week. As stated at the Left Coast Rebel, from the airport that brought us, “Don’t Touch my Junk” comes the sequel … “Don’t Show us, We’d Rather Feel For Ourselves”.

In what can only be described as TSA handlers gone wild, the San Diego Harbor Police arrested an area resident for refusal to complete the screening/security process yesterday. This is the same airport that created the TSA security catch phrase“don’t touch my junk.” John Tyner of San Diego started the airport screening firestorm last week as Americans head into the busiest travel week of the year in the United States.

This time the defendant, Sam Wolanyk says he was asked to pass through the 3-D x-ray machine. When Wolanyk refused, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel told him he would have to be patted down before he could pass through and board his airplane.

Wolanyk said he knew what was coming and took off his pants and shirt, leaving him in Calvin Klein bike undergarments.

Was this really necessary for the TSA would look to further humiliate air passenger by parading him through two separate airport terminals in his underwear.

Once Harbor Police arrested Wolanyk, he was handcuffed and paraded through two separate airport terminals in his underwear to the Harbor Police office located inside a different terminal at the airport than Wolanyk had originally gone through during his TSA security process.

It gets even worse from the Banana Republican created by Barack Obama … the TSA confiscated the camera of the woman who filmed fiasco and arrested her.

Share This

Scared Monkeys

The Audacity of TSA Grope: Airport Passengers Face $11,000 Fines For Refusing to be Groped

November 20, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

Welcome to America, the “home of the free” and the … well it used to be.

As reported in the Sun Sentinel, airport travel passengers that if you do not submit to having naked scans or a sexual groping that you will be fined $ 11,000 and face possible arrest. yes, that is what it has come to. Your rights of privacy have been taken from you. Sounds like Obamacare.

A note to the TSA, Napolitano and Obama … if this is your answer to security, the terrorists have won.

If you don’t want to pass through an airport scanner that allows security agents to see an image of your naked body or to undergo the alternative, a thorough manual search, you may have to find another way to travel this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $ 11,000 and possible arrest.

The ACLU has finally decided to support a cause that does not have a political agenda. As stated by the Gateway Pundit, get feeled up or fined … what options, eh?

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union was urging Americans to petition the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, to change the new policies.

“All of us have a right to travel without such crude invasions of our privacy,” the ACLU said in a statement. “Tell DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to put in place security measures that respect passengers’ privacy rights. You shouldn’t have to check your rights when you check your luggage.”

Share This

Scared Monkeys

Refusing To Be Shamed

November 13, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 


Jenna Sauers explains why Courtney Love matters, in light of a highly entertaining profile in last week's NYT:

What other woman in recent memory, having been given (hell, earned) the media's Bad Girl label, has snarled at the designation — and then continued on her own, misguided but apparently basically contented, way? (Angelina Jolie wriggled out of her "reputation" with supermotherhood and charity photo-ops; Juliette Lewis found God, or at least Scientology.) …

So even though she is a bad singer (the point of Courtney Love is kind of that she's a bad singer, just like it's kind of the point of Dylan) and (probably) a bad mother, and even though her Twitter was like a harrowing download from her Id, and even though I do not really understand what she was doing wandering a hotel naked with Anselm Kiefer and I do not believe that "a combination of Zoloft and a cocktail" really explains it, I love Courtney Love.

Because she's not a role model — and, even more, because she has never aspired to be. Because she's not passive. Because she's a woman who takes issue with the view that she ought to be defined by who she used to fuck in the early 90s and who she gave birth to as a result. Because she auditioned for the bloody Mickey Mouse Club at age 12 by reciting Sylvia Plath's "Daddy." Because she is subjected (and subjects herself) to industrial-strength moral and legal scrutiny at every turn and still gets up in the afternoon, applies lipstick in the vicinity of her mouth, and faces the world. Are these achievements too small to cheer? In a world that still orders up sacrificial pop virgins — Britney, Lindsay, Demi — to swallow down whole, I'd argue they're anything but.

(Photo: Actress Courtney Love arrives at the amfAR's Inspiration Gala Los Angeles to benefit the Foundation's AIDS research programs at the Chateau Marmont in Hollywood, California, on October 27, 2010. By Gabriel Buoys/Getty.)

Email this Article
Add to digg
Add to Reddit
Add to Twitter
Add to
Add to StumbleUpon
Add to Facebook

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Olbermann Was Suspended For Refusing To Apologize On Camera … A MSM Game of MSNBC Chicken

November 7, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

Keith “Worst Person in the World”Olbermann was suspended indefinately because he refused to apologize on air for his donation indiscretions. According to reports. Olbermann is stating that he did not know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly, let alone an apology. So where does that leave Olbermann … still suspended.

Politico’s Mike Allen added another layer of speculation to Keith Olbermann’s sudden and indefinite suspension on Friday: Olbermann was suspended for refusing to apologize on air. From Playbook:

Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn’t know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $ 7 million a year and MSNBC’s prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, who make considerably less.

More of Keith Olbermann’s media brilliance


One has to wonder where Olbermann is going with this game of liberal, moonbat chicken. Just how many media outlets does Olbermann think are out there that is going to allow the nonsense that takes place at MSNBC? Who gets paid $ 7 million for the sparse ratings Olbermannreceives? Olbermann was been a PITA to employers dating back to his days at ESPN. Has Olbermann finally worn out his welcome at MSNBC?

Allen goes on to point out that Olbermann mightn’t be as much in the driver’s seat at MSNBC as he used to be.

At $ 7 million a year, his salary is quite lofty given his ratings, especially as Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell who both make far less are drawing roughly the same number of eyeballs in their respective time slots.

I would have to agree with News Busters, when will MSNBC apologize to the public for subjecting their viewer’s to Olbermann’s drivel?

Share This

Scared Monkeys

Olbermann Suspended For Refusing To Apologize, But Will He Return?

November 7, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

Mike Allen reports that Keith Olbermann’s suspension from MSNBC was ultimately due to the fact that he refused to make an on-air apology for donating to three Democratic candidates:

Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn’t know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $ 7 million a year and MSNBC’s prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, who make considerably less.

Not only do they make less, but Maddow gets better ratings than Keith among key demographic groups (which is important to advertisers), and Lawrence O’Donnell isn’t far behind Olbermann in that category even though he’s only been on the air a month and a half.

The question is whether Olbermann returns or not. In it’s initial report on Friday, The New York Times reported that sources said that a firing was unlikely. However, Media Bistro says that its sources say that Olbermann will not be returning to the air, the only question remaining being whether he is let out of his contract or not.

Then there is the other theory, which notes that Olbermann’s suspension plays very nicely alongside the network’s efforts to distinguish itself from Fox News Channel:

One executive said the network decided it was imperative to take this kind of strong action as a way of underscoring that MSNBC, while featuring prime-time shows that overtly support Democratic policy, remains a channel that adheres to fundamental journalistic values.

An executive with another television news organization, who asked not to be identified in offering analysis of competitors, said NBC may even see the disciplining of Mr. Olbermann as an opportunity to distinguish itself from Fox News, which has been increasingly criticized for taking Republican positions

That’s essentially what Rachel Maddow said in her commentary on the matter at the end of her show on Friday:

Maddow’s “we’re better than Fox, and Olbermann’s suspension proves it” strikes me as a little weak. Regardless of what MSNBC’s policy about campaign donations might be, the fact of the matter is that their entire block of programming from 5pm to 11pm Monday through Friday is little more than an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party (just as Fox’s programming in that period is pretty much GOP TV). For Maddow to claim that MSNBC is ethically superior to Fox News in this regard is simply absurd.

Finally, as Tommy Christopher notes at Mediaite, there’s still the unanswered question of who gave Politico the tip to go type Keith Olbermann’s name into the FEC database, and while there are many possibilities (including someone from one of the campaigns bragging to a reporter that their candidate got a contribution from the Keith Olbermann), the whole scenario does lend itself well to those inclined to see conspiracies and ulterior motives in otherwise innocent coincidences.

In the end, this is hardly the most important story in the world, but if MSNBC is using the Keith Olbermann “scandal” to try to convince the public that it’s hosts aren’t politically biased, then that’s a lie worth calling them out on.

Outside the Beltway

Philadelphia: Muslim sues trucking company after being fired for refusing to transport alcohol

October 26, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

Another lawsuit proceeds according to the principle that American businesses must change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslims, rather than that Muslims must adapt to American society, laws, and mores. Not too long ago in America, a suit like this would have been laughed out of court, and Vasant Reddy would have been told to find a job that didn’t involve his violating his religious principles. No more. Now it is up to the unlucky business where Vasant Reddy chooses to work to change the way it does business in order to suit him.

Stealth Jihad Update: “Civil-rights suit alleges Muslim was fired for refusing to haul beer, though company had agreed to accommodate his religion,” by Stephanie Farr for the Philadelphia Daily News, October 22 (thanks to Benedict):

A Muslim man claims he was fired by a trucking company after refusing to transport a load of alcohol, according to a civil-rights lawsuit filed recently in federal court.

Vasant Reddy, 35, of Northeast Philadelphia, said it’s against his religious beliefs to “consume, possess or transport alcohol or tobacco,” according to the suit.

He claims he told this to his supervisors at the Philadelphia branch of Schneider National Inc. when he was hired in May 2009. They told him they could accommodate his beliefs, but the next month he was assigned to transport a delivery of Miller Lite, said Reddy’s attorney, Justin Swidler.

When he complained, Reddy’s supervisor told him that his refusal to transport the beer was an “operational violation” and that he would be fired, the suit said.

Reddy said he was assigned another nonalcoholic load that he transported successfully and that another driver moved the Miller Lite shipment, according to court documents.

Two days later, though, Reddy was given a choice: Resign or be fired, Swidler said.

“There is no dispute that he was fired for denying to transport alcohol,” Swidler said. “They fired him because they felt like it was an insubordination for him to request such a thing.”…

Swidler claims that fewer than 5 percent of Schneider’s transports contain alcohol and, therefore, accommodating Reddy’s religious beliefs wouldn’t have been difficult for the company.

“The law is clear that if it creates an undue hardship, you don’t have to accommodate someone,” Swidler said. “Clearly, a bar doesn’t have to hire someone who is Muslim, but it’s different if it’s only 1, 3 or 5 percent of your business.”

Jihad Watch

Lawyer Jailed For Refusing To Say The Pledge of Allegiance

October 8, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

A lawyer in Tupelo, Miss., was thrown in jail Wednesday for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance in court.

When the judge asked the court to rise and say the Pledge, the lawyer, Danny Lampley, stood but did not say the words. According to local reports, Lampley, known for taking on First Amendment cases, has done so before.

This time, the judge, Talmadge Littlejohn, held him in contempt and sent him to county jail. Lampley was released five hours later.

“I just wish somebody else had handled this before I came along,” Lampley told the Northeast Mississippi News Journal.

Constitutional lawyers say the judge has no authority to force someone to say the Pledge, after the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that students couldn’t be made to recite it in school.

But Littlejohn is reportedly still asking his court to recite the Pledge.


Judge Jails Attorney For Refusing To Recite Pledge Of Allegiance

October 7, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

This qualifies as the most astounding display of judicial arrogance I’ve ever seen:

TUPELO - Danny Lampley’s clients usually are the ones ordered to the Lee County Jail.

Wednesday, Chancellor Talmadge Littlejohn sent the 49-year-old Oxford attorney there for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in court.

Littlejohn urged Lampley to reconsider repeating the Pledge, as every other person in the judge’s courtroom did as the day’s proceedings began.

“This morning, that was the last thing on my mind,” Lampley said late in the day after a child-support hearing.

At 10 a.m., Lampley was in jail garb. By 2:30 p.m., Littlejohn ordered his release and return to the Lee County Justice Center to continue their business.

After the hearing, Littlejohn’s assistant said the judge had no comment on the matter.

Lampley said he was worried the judge would send him back to jail.

Simply put, the attorney said he and the judge have a “different point of view” about things, like loyalty oaths and the pledge.

“I have a lot of respect for him,” Lampley said, “I’m just not going to back off on this.

“It’s a problem, but it’s for the judge and me to work out.”

Say what you might about Lampley, I don’t know anything about him obviously, but for Judge Littlejohn to turn what is obviously some kind of personal political dispute between the two into an excuse to exercise his powers to hold someone in Contempt of Court is inexcusable.

Outside the Beltway

U.K.: Non-practicing Muslim woman fired for refusing to wear hijab

October 3, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

If wearing the hijab is truly to be a Muslim woman’s choice, Muslim advocacy groups based in Britain should be on the front lines defending her right to refuse to wear it.

“Muslim woman sacked from estate agency for REFUSING to wear a headscarf,” from the Daily Mail, October 3 (thanks to Zulu):

A Muslim woman has been awarded more than £13,500 after she was sacked for refusing to wear a headscarf at the estate agency where she worked.

Ghazala Khan - a 31-year-old non-practising Muslim - was fired less than two weeks into her job at a company run by traditional Muslim businessman Masood Ghafoor simply because she refused to cover her hair.

Mr Ghafoor told Miss Khan, who had nine years experience in the trade, that his wife and female relatives all wore full veils or burkas, telling her that her parents had given her ‘far too much freedom’.

A tribunal heard that Miss Khan had been employed to run Mr Ghafoor’s Go Go Real Estate office in Leeds, West Yorkshire, in June 2009.

However, within days of working there she was left feeling ‘very uncomfortable and intimidated’ when Mr Ghafoor put it to her that she had not been brought up as a ‘good Muslim’ and that if she had been his daughter she would not be allowed to work and would have been long since ‘married off’.

He asked her to wear a headscarf at work - even though white non-Muslim women he employed in the same office were never asked to and never did.

On the day she was due to start her third week in the job, Mr Ghafoor told her not to bother coming in.

When she eventually caught up with him later that evening he told her that members of the Muslim community had been ‘gossiping’ and suggested that she was not ‘respectable’ and that there might be ‘something going on’ between her and members of staff.

Mr Ghafoor added that his cousin Shakeel, who was also employed in the office, was unhappy working with a female especially as she did not wear a headscarf, was not religious and was Westernised. [...]

The tribunal heard that at her job interview Miss Khan had worn a grey pinstripe trouser suit, described as ‘conventional modern professional dress’. [...]

Changing his story:

The tribunal heard that Mr Ghafoor had originally told Miss Khan there was no problem with the way she dressed.

‘He was happy that she was fully covered up by the black trousers and long sleeved blouses and tops that she wore to work,’ the tribunal heard.

‘By the time of the hearing, he was saying that she had chosen to wear clothing of a very revealing nature.’…

Jihad Watch

DeMint rips Senate GOP in e-mail to supporters for refusing to strip Murkowski of Energy seniority

September 23, 2010 · Posted in The Capitol · Comment 

Oh yes.

Richly, richly deserved. And the fact that they did it by secret ballot — without even announcing the tally — is a complete disgrace. “It was bad enough to watch my colleagues work to support her in the primary after she had built a record of betraying conservatives principles,” writes DeMint. “But watching them back [...]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

Next Page »

  • Laptop ac adapters, keyboards, batteries, inverters, LCD screens at
  • National Business Furniture, Inc
  • Toshiba -
  • Save 10% for Orders Over $129 at