Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Think of the atrocities that our own (?) Gov't has imposed on humans worldwide since WW 2. Our own (?) intelligence agencies under the directions of the US Gov't leaders have committed terrible acts against humanity. Bush & Cheney and their collaborators, appointed as well as elected officials, have allowed, caused and directed inhumane acts worldwide and it continues under the Obama & Biden administrations to the present time. We have become a nation of hypocrites, liars, murderers and torturers by funding these atrocious activities. Washington needs to be thoroughly sanitized and the criminal elements eliminated by whatever means necessary! Let justice be served and freedom reign.
Gary C.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Red Light Cameras: Safety Devices or One More Step Toward a Surveillance State?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Mr. Whitehead,
Your commentary in the holiday issue of the River City Reader is well written and timely. Maybe it will alter the course and cause some positive actions.
During 2005-2008 I was living in UK and experienced the 24/7 surveillance in Britian. I had penned a letter in response to an IEEE article on the London Ring-Of-Steel that tries to debunk some of the propaganda associated with this type of money making scheme. I submit it for your information. It was considered by the IEEE staff, and I was contacted, but it was eventually not published.
Respectfully,
Kenneth K
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your well-researched and well-reasoned piece in today’s daily progress. I was a bit of a fence-sitter on this issue until I read your column today. Now, I’m steamed, and will contact our officials, referencing your article.
Appreciatively,
Malcolm H.
While I agree that more round the clock surveillance on all aspects of our life is a common goal...After having dealt with the bureaucracy in Irving, TX (large suburb of Dallas) and reading the information on the red light cameras in Austin I am thoroughly convinced that the all might dollar is the number one motivating factor in these cities. My personal experience was spending lots of time and money defending against two of these tickets I received months after I had sold the car that they were received in....They wanted money....They were not overly concerned with who, what or where I was. And the fact that most of these are privatized in Phoenix, AZ makes it even worse. You can't deal with local officials....Instead you get some faceless voice in a call center that is only interested in soaking you for every dime they can get. That is what happens when you make public services a for profit business enterprise. The cost goes up and the service goes down. Austin even projected the amount they were going to make and then almost panicked when people stopped running those red lights and revenue was about a third what they projected.....Money was the first and foremost consideration for having the cameras.
And I am sure you probably don't want to hear it but because of the movement to pay no taxes and privatize everything then cities are doing anything and everything they can to pay the added costs of privatization and keep our infrastructure at a level that is conducive to people and commerce.
Larry P.
Mr. Whitehead:
I really enjoyed your column today at the LewRockwell.com site: "Red Light Cameras: Safety Devices or One More Step Toward a Surveillance State?" I think one way to fight this dangerous, tyrannical money-grab by the municipal governments is for personal injury lawyers to start sending copies of those studies you mentioned conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Texas Transportation Institute, and others, to the municipalities to put them on actual notice of the dangers involved and the safer alternative (lengthening the time of the yellow lights). This way, when auto accidents occur as a result of the red light cameras and unlengthened yellow lights, personal injury attorneys can circumvent governmental immunity laws (given the wanton, willful, gross negligence) and begin suing the municipalities—in effect, disgorging the wrongfully extracted “profits” from the municipalities for the benefit of those injured. Your column should be published in the American Trial Lawyers Association magazine or others frequently read by the plaintiffs’ bar!
Thanks again for the great column!
Sincerely,
Steve A.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Although I agree with you on most issues of individual liberty, I am not sure about red light cameras. I live part of the year in Germany where there are cameras and the fine is large for running a red light. I feel so much safer knowing that lights will not be run! You can almost always count on that. When I am in the US or Canada, I literally look both ways when the light turns green to make sure no one is running a red light the other way.
So I see a safety benefit when drivers believe it is inadvisable to run a red light. Maybe some jurisdictions use cameras as a money making machine, but I still feel much safer in a country where people do not normally run red lights.
Joan H.
Hello,
I recently got a traffic camera ticket and I am so angry that I immediately called all my council members and told them that it is unconsitutional.
$532 plus lost wages to go to court, plus higher long term insurance premiums for many years thereafter plus the cost of traffic school is OUTRAGEOUS cruel and unusual punishment for stopping and turning right which my pictures show I did, but not the video. Plus, it doesn't even look remotely like me driving the car. To be very direct, the traffic
cameras make me get into a state of extreme anxiety that something will go wrong in the intersection (like someone stopping and making me stuck in the middle) that I speed through them and darn near hit the back of the car in front of me. Of course this hasn't happened, but this is my fear. I hate the cameras now. Who can afford such tickets?
I would like to have the CEO of the camera company put to death along with all the elite who think that this is an appropriate fine for a middle class or poor person. I don't even care if people think I'm going insane....I am getting tired of it. Our Constitution is being trampled on. Do they have a right to even videotape me? I thought movie stars get PAID!
How would they a child to have their arm cut off for running and not walking to recess? Consequences should be appropriate for the situation. The situation is that politicians need money, but they shouldn't take it out on the citizens they serve. I could see a scale of $100 for the first, $200 for the 2nd ticket and so on...that would be more appropriate. Having such SEVERE fees in an economy where most citizens except the politicians and the elite (whose companies are making billions having their traffic cams installed around the globe) is a CLEAR form of discrimination against the middle and poor classes whose lives are seriously impacted long term by what is a minor infraction.
It angers me even more when I think of the criminal company who I paid $5,000 to install cabinets in my home who walked away with the money. I sued. I won. ....but I never got a dime from them and the court doesn't punish these people! NO JUST NICE PEOPLE LIKE ME THEY WISH TO PUNISH.
I am going to organize a campaign to vote out all my council members who say, "the state determines the fees" as a response to my argument. I say, did you ask the public whether or not we WANT traffic cameras? Also, if the STATE mandates such unconstituational fees, then just say no to the state and tell them that you will
install cameras when the fees are appropriate for the American people.
Anyhow, I appreciate you fighting this fight. It is nice to know that there is at least ONE caring person left in the USA WHO ISN"T A WHORE TO THE CORPORATIONS.
I am looking forward to the day when the bankers get their AUSTERITY payback and I hope the gangsters and violent people take out as many as possible. Looking forward to the coming collapse and Amercian Revolution against the banking criminals who caused our city governments to start raping the public for every last dime they have.
Have a great day!
Erin
Mr. Whitehead,
Your commentary in the holiday issue of the River City Reader is well written and timely. Maybe it will alter the course and cause some positive actions.
During 2005-2008 I was living in UK and experienced the 24/7 surveillance in Britian. I had penned a letter in response to an IEEE article on the London Ring-Of-Steel that tries to debunk some of the propaganda associated with this type of money making scheme. I submit it for your information. It was considered by the IEEE staff, and I was contacted, but it was eventually not published.
Respectfully,
Kenneth K
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your well-researched and well-reasoned piece in today’s daily progress. I was a bit of a fence-sitter on this issue until I read your column today. Now, I’m steamed, and will contact our officials, referencing your article.
Appreciatively,
Malcolm H.
While I agree that more round the clock surveillance on all aspects of our life is a common goal...After having dealt with the bureaucracy in Irving, TX (large suburb of Dallas) and reading the information on the red light cameras in Austin I am thoroughly convinced that the all might dollar is the number one motivating factor in these cities. My personal experience was spending lots of time and money defending against two of these tickets I received months after I had sold the car that they were received in....They wanted money....They were not overly concerned with who, what or where I was. And the fact that most of these are privatized in Phoenix, AZ makes it even worse. You can't deal with local officials....Instead you get some faceless voice in a call center that is only interested in soaking you for every dime they can get. That is what happens when you make public services a for profit business enterprise. The cost goes up and the service goes down. Austin even projected the amount they were going to make and then almost panicked when people stopped running those red lights and revenue was about a third what they projected.....Money was the first and foremost consideration for having the cameras.
And I am sure you probably don't want to hear it but because of the movement to pay no taxes and privatize everything then cities are doing anything and everything they can to pay the added costs of privatization and keep our infrastructure at a level that is conducive to people and commerce.
Larry P.
Mr. Whitehead:
I really enjoyed your column today at the LewRockwell.com site: "Red Light Cameras: Safety Devices or One More Step Toward a Surveillance State?" I think one way to fight this dangerous, tyrannical money-grab by the municipal governments is for personal injury lawyers to start sending copies of those studies you mentioned conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Texas Transportation Institute, and others, to the municipalities to put them on actual notice of the dangers involved and the safer alternative (lengthening the time of the yellow lights). This way, when auto accidents occur as a result of the red light cameras and unlengthened yellow lights, personal injury attorneys can circumvent governmental immunity laws (given the wanton, willful, gross negligence) and begin suing the municipalities—in effect, disgorging the wrongfully extracted “profits” from the municipalities for the benefit of those injured. Your column should be published in the American Trial Lawyers Association magazine or others frequently read by the plaintiffs’ bar!
Thanks again for the great column!
Sincerely,
Steve A.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Although I agree with you on most issues of individual liberty, I am not sure about red light cameras. I live part of the year in Germany where there are cameras and the fine is large for running a red light. I feel so much safer knowing that lights will not be run! You can almost always count on that. When I am in the US or Canada, I literally look both ways when the light turns green to make sure no one is running a red light the other way.
So I see a safety benefit when drivers believe it is inadvisable to run a red light. Maybe some jurisdictions use cameras as a money making machine, but I still feel much safer in a country where people do not normally run red lights.
Joan H.
Hello,
I recently got a traffic camera ticket and I am so angry that I immediately called all my council members and told them that it is unconsitutional.
$532 plus lost wages to go to court, plus higher long term insurance premiums for many years thereafter plus the cost of traffic school is OUTRAGEOUS cruel and unusual punishment for stopping and turning right which my pictures show I did, but not the video. Plus, it doesn't even look remotely like me driving the car. To be very direct, the traffic
cameras make me get into a state of extreme anxiety that something will go wrong in the intersection (like someone stopping and making me stuck in the middle) that I speed through them and darn near hit the back of the car in front of me. Of course this hasn't happened, but this is my fear. I hate the cameras now. Who can afford such tickets?
I would like to have the CEO of the camera company put to death along with all the elite who think that this is an appropriate fine for a middle class or poor person. I don't even care if people think I'm going insane....I am getting tired of it. Our Constitution is being trampled on. Do they have a right to even videotape me? I thought movie stars get PAID!
How would they a child to have their arm cut off for running and not walking to recess? Consequences should be appropriate for the situation. The situation is that politicians need money, but they shouldn't take it out on the citizens they serve. I could see a scale of $100 for the first, $200 for the 2nd ticket and so on...that would be more appropriate. Having such SEVERE fees in an economy where most citizens except the politicians and the elite (whose companies are making billions having their traffic cams installed around the globe) is a CLEAR form of discrimination against the middle and poor classes whose lives are seriously impacted long term by what is a minor infraction.
It angers me even more when I think of the criminal company who I paid $5,000 to install cabinets in my home who walked away with the money. I sued. I won. ....but I never got a dime from them and the court doesn't punish these people! NO JUST NICE PEOPLE LIKE ME THEY WISH TO PUNISH.
I am going to organize a campaign to vote out all my council members who say, "the state determines the fees" as a response to my argument. I say, did you ask the public whether or not we WANT traffic cameras? Also, if the STATE mandates such unconstituational fees, then just say no to the state and tell them that you will
install cameras when the fees are appropriate for the American people.
Anyhow, I appreciate you fighting this fight. It is nice to know that there is at least ONE caring person left in the USA WHO ISN"T A WHORE TO THE CORPORATIONS.
I am looking forward to the day when the bankers get their AUSTERITY payback and I hope the gangsters and violent people take out as many as possible. Looking forward to the coming collapse and Amercian Revolution against the banking criminals who caused our city governments to start raping the public for every last dime they have.
Have a great day!
Erin
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
John Lennon and the Cult of Celebrity: “They’re Gonna Crucify Me”
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
i think if you research further - you may find that Mark Chapman was mind controlled - a CIA op. this entire operation - his flying to NYC from Hawaii - the whole deal was so orchestrated - how could one really believe that he was acting alone? and after shooting Lennon - he goes back to reading his book! no - this speaks of mind control, more than just Chapman being a delusional person. delusional....by way of mind control. there is much more to this MKUltra and other CIA operations than most of us have any idea about....
Gisella
thank you for this, Mr. Whitehead.
it has been suggested by many that Mark David Chapman had been mind-controlled,
by way of MKUltra or other CIA operation. those familiar with mind-control techniques point out how Chapman did not run after murdering Lennon - but continued to read his book until he was apprehended. this does speak of a mind-control operation. had he been in any "rational" mindset, he would have attempted to run from the scene of the crime.
your article suggests a more rational explanation of Chapman's behavior, in terms of his being "let down" by Lennon's removing himself from his public image - but i do believe that the mind-control possibility is the more likely scenario in this despicable tragedy. Lennon was always a threat to the government - and the CIA has so many ways to "out" anyone threatening to them - especially today. i'm sure you would agree with that. there are a few MKUltra mind controlled persons who, thru a twist of fate of deprogramming, have described their early training as assassins. i am not sure if i am remembering his name correctly - but i think of Dennis O'Finnighan (i am sure i have this spelling wrong), who has been on the public speaking circuit for several years now - relative to his early assassin training, and naming people he was mind-controlled to kill. he explains that there are very few trainees, from his age group, still alive.
most people are not aware of these mind-control operations, which reportedly continue to this day.
although i agree with the premise you present in terms of celebrity falsehoods perpetuated by the media - i intuitively believe that Lennon's was a political assassination.
-valerie g.
i think if you research further - you may find that Mark Chapman was mind controlled - a CIA op. this entire operation - his flying to NYC from Hawaii - the whole deal was so orchestrated - how could one really believe that he was acting alone? and after shooting Lennon - he goes back to reading his book! no - this speaks of mind control, more than just Chapman being a delusional person. delusional....by way of mind control. there is much more to this MKUltra and other CIA operations than most of us have any idea about....
Gisella
thank you for this, Mr. Whitehead.
it has been suggested by many that Mark David Chapman had been mind-controlled,
by way of MKUltra or other CIA operation. those familiar with mind-control techniques point out how Chapman did not run after murdering Lennon - but continued to read his book until he was apprehended. this does speak of a mind-control operation. had he been in any "rational" mindset, he would have attempted to run from the scene of the crime.
your article suggests a more rational explanation of Chapman's behavior, in terms of his being "let down" by Lennon's removing himself from his public image - but i do believe that the mind-control possibility is the more likely scenario in this despicable tragedy. Lennon was always a threat to the government - and the CIA has so many ways to "out" anyone threatening to them - especially today. i'm sure you would agree with that. there are a few MKUltra mind controlled persons who, thru a twist of fate of deprogramming, have described their early training as assassins. i am not sure if i am remembering his name correctly - but i think of Dennis O'Finnighan (i am sure i have this spelling wrong), who has been on the public speaking circuit for several years now - relative to his early assassin training, and naming people he was mind-controlled to kill. he explains that there are very few trainees, from his age group, still alive.
most people are not aware of these mind-control operations, which reportedly continue to this day.
although i agree with the premise you present in terms of celebrity falsehoods perpetuated by the media - i intuitively believe that Lennon's was a political assassination.
-valerie g.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Are Body Scanners Dangerous to Your Health?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Dear Rutherford Institute,
Thank you very much for taking an active stance and helping us helpless citizen masses who oppose TSA's UnConstitutional Procedures. As a citizen I feel so helpless. I don't feel that my elected government representatives are responding at all, while those appointed at the TSA and Homeland are exceeding their power. As an American citizen, this is the first time I ever felt government oppression personally.
Also, I do not see any mentioned anywhere how these horrendous procedures are affecting someone like me. I see discussions and articles about how the TSA pat-downs can be traumatic for sexual assault victims. The truth is, the scanners and the pat downs are traumatic for any victim of physical abuse. I was not a sexual assault victim, but was a victim of child abuse and violence. While it is my own personal matter to overcome any related issues as an adult now, the idea that another person can randomly exercise authority over my body, whether by the scanner or pat down, without being justified by probable cause, is personally threatening beyond words. Just the thought of it makes me feel ill and sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine that I'm the only victim of violence who feels this way. Just the knowledge and thought of what the TSA would do to me if I pass through airport security, brings back memories and familiar feelings of being subject to physical abuse; the feeling is that another person doesn't treat you as anything with worth, that you are nothing but a piece of garbage, and they can lay a hand on you anytime or expose you as something less than human by taking away your basic human dignity (such as making you stand with your arms up like a monkey in the scanner, while someone can view every part of your body).
I am an expat living overseas. I had originally planned to return to the US to spend X'mas and New Year with friends and family back home. I have since changed my travel plans after the TSA adopted these new rules. Janet Napolitano says there are other transportation options. But for international travel, there is no real option other than to fly into Canada and drive in to the US, and drive back to Canada to fly out. With the current situation, I do not think I can return to the US at all until I repatriate when I don't need to board a plane in the US. (Right now I will need to return to my job and family in my foreign country of residence.) I feel exiled by the TSA.
I travel globally and have been through many airports. Travelling is a big part of an expat's life. I am not an un-concerned or ignorant person when it comes to airport or flight security. I do not see how the scanners or the enhanced pat down will do anything. A terrorist can just as well blow himself up inside the scanner or at the pat down. There are other more effective measures than these.
So thank you for taking a stand on behalf of us.
Sincerely,
Alexa C.
Your article in the Monroe Evening News this Sunday (11-28) was great. I never use to read the paper or care much to hear about the news but I've been getting into it and noticing how horrible our government has become. Your absolutely right when you say "we have to recognize that we are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American".. Our government could careless about our health or maybe even our safety at that..the only thing they care about is being powerful over us, the people.. You should talk about the government in future articles in the newspaper... Maybe people will start to wake up and actually start to worry about what's going on in our country and stop worrying about the wrong things such as what's going on, on the Jesey Shore or what the new fashion trend is this month...
Good work keep it up
Sincerely,
Missy
Don’t forget that we are not only being irradiated at the airports. These mutation machines are mobile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAIJVk1028
http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/z_backscatter.asp
Alex Z.
Sir
Good points, well made; especially the parts about the ruling elite being exempt. But where's the problem?
Is it the scanners themselves, the mindset that creates the 'need' for them, the sheep-like passive acceptance of them, or the reliable tolerance of your huddling masses towards ever-increasing impositions?
What happens if we project trends? (Brrr, let's not go there ... )
Is there an answer?
Yes. But it isn't in democracy American style, it's in Democracy. Huge difference, and yes, we in New Zealand are no more democratic than you in "the Land of the Free".
Think about it, in a democracy* how long would you have to put up with this stuff? And if you feel like this about the TSA, was the survey quoted recently in Casey stating to the effect that 'eighty percent of Americans think the Aviation Security measures are a great idea' in error, or a falsehood? Why should you object when so many think it's wonderful?
I offer that some people may gripe a bit about it but in the end they will accept it. If their choice is take all their clothes off in public and cavort across a stage before entering the aircraft in the nude — or not fly — most will strip off and cavort. It may even come to that ...
I don't have any answers. None beyond getting rid of your systems as they are now and bringing in Democracy—which until people can think qua Think wouldn't be a good thing.
In New Zealand I'm putting together some thoughts on a revolutionary idea which would involve the banning of ALL political parties in the first instance and having democratically elected representatives; who can only implement decisions made by their electorates via democratic processes.
Sir, I perceive your nation as a truly noble social experiment gone horribly wrong, hijacked and perverted by the self-serving and very clever. I wish you the best of luck.
Regards
John H. (New Zealand)
* a la Lincoln: the old "Government of, by, and for, the people" (v. the ubiquitous "Government of the people, by the party, for the party").
How would anyone know if they "turned up" the scanners during an alert? They do that quite often with the metal detectors, but everyone can tell. Possibly the scanners are designed to also see internally to detect implanted explosives as well if they feel it is "necessary".
Dave
Good going John!
But now that they have backed down on screening pilots, how about broadening your lawsuit into a class action to defend all citizens whose dignity and constitutional rights have been violated. Actually, I don't know if a class could be certified against the US government. But if we don't stop these unreasonable searches and violations now, they will be indiscriminately checking body cavities next.
Perry T.
Sir:
I have instituted my own “opt-out” policy regarding airport security. I won’t be flying at all until this lunacy is halted.
It is interesting however, that this was started just before the heavy travel holiday season. John Pistole and Janet Napolitano will continue to push this madness until the traveling public pushes back. I hope that we push back very hard.
Charles B.
Here’s what the American College of Radiology says. Would appreciate your comment. Thanks.
Rich B.
ACR Statement on Airport Full-body Scanners and Radiation
(Originally Posted January 2010) - Amid concerns regarding terrorists targeting airliners using weapons less detectable by traditional means, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is ramping up deployment of whole body scanners at security checkpoints in U.S. airports. These systems produce anatomically accurate images of the body and can detect objects and substances concealed by clothing.
To date, TSA has deployed two types of scanning systems:
Millimeter wave technology uses low-level radio waves in the millimeter wave spectrum. Two rotating antennae cover the passenger from head to toe with low-level RF energy.
Backscatter technology uses extremely weak X-rays delivering less than 10 microRem of radiation per scan ─ the radiation equivalent one receives inside an aircraft flying for two minutes at 30,000 feet.
An airline passenger flying cross-country is exposed to more radiation from the flight than from screening by one of these devices. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) has reported that a traveler would need to experience 100 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a Negligible Individual Dose. The American College of Radiology (ACR) agrees with this conclusion. By these measurements, a traveler would require more than 1,000 such scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal to one standard chest x-ray.
The ACR is not aware of any evidence that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering would present significant biological effects for passengers screened.
The ACR encourages those interested in learning more regarding radiation associated with imaging and radiation oncology procedures as well as radiation naturally occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere to visit www.radiologyinfo.org.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your editorial in today's LewRockwell.com- a wonderful site, is it not.
I think the word you meant in your last paragraph was "timidity," not "temerity."
Temerity means boldness, and certainly Americans have not been bold in
containing the state.
It seems to me that the body scanners have nothing whatsoever to do with
security. Their aim is simply and solely to humiliate and terrify the public.
I do not believe the government should be granted the dignity of being
taken seriously any longer.
Kind regards,
Caryl J.
You are so correct in your evaluation. The solution can be one simple word......PROFILE. We need to get over being politically correct, and see that the Israeli solution of profiling passengers at Ben Gurion airport is the most viable answer.
The day we stop worrying about being politically correct, we will have made a step in the right direction.
Respectfully,
Vladimir C.
Dear Rutherford Institute,
Thank you very much for taking an active stance and helping us helpless citizen masses who oppose TSA's UnConstitutional Procedures. As a citizen I feel so helpless. I don't feel that my elected government representatives are responding at all, while those appointed at the TSA and Homeland are exceeding their power. As an American citizen, this is the first time I ever felt government oppression personally.
Also, I do not see any mentioned anywhere how these horrendous procedures are affecting someone like me. I see discussions and articles about how the TSA pat-downs can be traumatic for sexual assault victims. The truth is, the scanners and the pat downs are traumatic for any victim of physical abuse. I was not a sexual assault victim, but was a victim of child abuse and violence. While it is my own personal matter to overcome any related issues as an adult now, the idea that another person can randomly exercise authority over my body, whether by the scanner or pat down, without being justified by probable cause, is personally threatening beyond words. Just the thought of it makes me feel ill and sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine that I'm the only victim of violence who feels this way. Just the knowledge and thought of what the TSA would do to me if I pass through airport security, brings back memories and familiar feelings of being subject to physical abuse; the feeling is that another person doesn't treat you as anything with worth, that you are nothing but a piece of garbage, and they can lay a hand on you anytime or expose you as something less than human by taking away your basic human dignity (such as making you stand with your arms up like a monkey in the scanner, while someone can view every part of your body).
I am an expat living overseas. I had originally planned to return to the US to spend X'mas and New Year with friends and family back home. I have since changed my travel plans after the TSA adopted these new rules. Janet Napolitano says there are other transportation options. But for international travel, there is no real option other than to fly into Canada and drive in to the US, and drive back to Canada to fly out. With the current situation, I do not think I can return to the US at all until I repatriate when I don't need to board a plane in the US. (Right now I will need to return to my job and family in my foreign country of residence.) I feel exiled by the TSA.
I travel globally and have been through many airports. Travelling is a big part of an expat's life. I am not an un-concerned or ignorant person when it comes to airport or flight security. I do not see how the scanners or the enhanced pat down will do anything. A terrorist can just as well blow himself up inside the scanner or at the pat down. There are other more effective measures than these.
So thank you for taking a stand on behalf of us.
Sincerely,
Alexa C.
Your article in the Monroe Evening News this Sunday (11-28) was great. I never use to read the paper or care much to hear about the news but I've been getting into it and noticing how horrible our government has become. Your absolutely right when you say "we have to recognize that we are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American".. Our government could careless about our health or maybe even our safety at that..the only thing they care about is being powerful over us, the people.. You should talk about the government in future articles in the newspaper... Maybe people will start to wake up and actually start to worry about what's going on in our country and stop worrying about the wrong things such as what's going on, on the Jesey Shore or what the new fashion trend is this month...
Good work keep it up
Sincerely,
Missy
Don’t forget that we are not only being irradiated at the airports. These mutation machines are mobile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAIJVk1028
http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/z_backscatter.asp
Alex Z.
Sir
Good points, well made; especially the parts about the ruling elite being exempt. But where's the problem?
Is it the scanners themselves, the mindset that creates the 'need' for them, the sheep-like passive acceptance of them, or the reliable tolerance of your huddling masses towards ever-increasing impositions?
What happens if we project trends? (Brrr, let's not go there ... )
Is there an answer?
Yes. But it isn't in democracy American style, it's in Democracy. Huge difference, and yes, we in New Zealand are no more democratic than you in "the Land of the Free".
Think about it, in a democracy* how long would you have to put up with this stuff? And if you feel like this about the TSA, was the survey quoted recently in Casey stating to the effect that 'eighty percent of Americans think the Aviation Security measures are a great idea' in error, or a falsehood? Why should you object when so many think it's wonderful?
I offer that some people may gripe a bit about it but in the end they will accept it. If their choice is take all their clothes off in public and cavort across a stage before entering the aircraft in the nude — or not fly — most will strip off and cavort. It may even come to that ...
I don't have any answers. None beyond getting rid of your systems as they are now and bringing in Democracy—which until people can think qua Think wouldn't be a good thing.
In New Zealand I'm putting together some thoughts on a revolutionary idea which would involve the banning of ALL political parties in the first instance and having democratically elected representatives; who can only implement decisions made by their electorates via democratic processes.
Sir, I perceive your nation as a truly noble social experiment gone horribly wrong, hijacked and perverted by the self-serving and very clever. I wish you the best of luck.
Regards
John H. (New Zealand)
* a la Lincoln: the old "Government of, by, and for, the people" (v. the ubiquitous "Government of the people, by the party, for the party").
How would anyone know if they "turned up" the scanners during an alert? They do that quite often with the metal detectors, but everyone can tell. Possibly the scanners are designed to also see internally to detect implanted explosives as well if they feel it is "necessary".
Dave
Good going John!
But now that they have backed down on screening pilots, how about broadening your lawsuit into a class action to defend all citizens whose dignity and constitutional rights have been violated. Actually, I don't know if a class could be certified against the US government. But if we don't stop these unreasonable searches and violations now, they will be indiscriminately checking body cavities next.
Perry T.
Sir:
I have instituted my own “opt-out” policy regarding airport security. I won’t be flying at all until this lunacy is halted.
It is interesting however, that this was started just before the heavy travel holiday season. John Pistole and Janet Napolitano will continue to push this madness until the traveling public pushes back. I hope that we push back very hard.
Charles B.
Here’s what the American College of Radiology says. Would appreciate your comment. Thanks.
Rich B.
ACR Statement on Airport Full-body Scanners and Radiation
(Originally Posted January 2010) - Amid concerns regarding terrorists targeting airliners using weapons less detectable by traditional means, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is ramping up deployment of whole body scanners at security checkpoints in U.S. airports. These systems produce anatomically accurate images of the body and can detect objects and substances concealed by clothing.
To date, TSA has deployed two types of scanning systems:
Millimeter wave technology uses low-level radio waves in the millimeter wave spectrum. Two rotating antennae cover the passenger from head to toe with low-level RF energy.
Backscatter technology uses extremely weak X-rays delivering less than 10 microRem of radiation per scan ─ the radiation equivalent one receives inside an aircraft flying for two minutes at 30,000 feet.
An airline passenger flying cross-country is exposed to more radiation from the flight than from screening by one of these devices. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) has reported that a traveler would need to experience 100 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a Negligible Individual Dose. The American College of Radiology (ACR) agrees with this conclusion. By these measurements, a traveler would require more than 1,000 such scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal to one standard chest x-ray.
The ACR is not aware of any evidence that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering would present significant biological effects for passengers screened.
The ACR encourages those interested in learning more regarding radiation associated with imaging and radiation oncology procedures as well as radiation naturally occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere to visit www.radiologyinfo.org.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your editorial in today's LewRockwell.com- a wonderful site, is it not.
I think the word you meant in your last paragraph was "timidity," not "temerity."
Temerity means boldness, and certainly Americans have not been bold in
containing the state.
It seems to me that the body scanners have nothing whatsoever to do with
security. Their aim is simply and solely to humiliate and terrify the public.
I do not believe the government should be granted the dignity of being
taken seriously any longer.
Kind regards,
Caryl J.
You are so correct in your evaluation. The solution can be one simple word......PROFILE. We need to get over being politically correct, and see that the Israeli solution of profiling passengers at Ben Gurion airport is the most viable answer.
The day we stop worrying about being politically correct, we will have made a step in the right direction.
Respectfully,
Vladimir C.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Total Control Society Is Here: Iris Scanners
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Mr. Whitehead,
I read your article and found it very interesting. In response, all I can say is this: I am a Christian. I believe in the doctrine known as "the rapture." I have been praying for it to occur for a long, long time. Now I intend to redouble my prayers.
God bless you and yours, sir.
Henry C.
Scary stuff! They think they’re going to eradicate fraud? Yeah-Right! Didn’t they ever watch the move DEMOLITION MAN? Do they really think the Mexican drug cartels would hesitate for one moment to follow Wesley Snipes example in that move?
Technology isn't the problem its man can not handle the technology. In the same way that we need a well regulated banking system, a well regulated legal system, a well regulated rail system, a well regulated economic system, a well regulated population, we also need technology to be well regulated. It seems mankind can not handle regulation either and has cast regulation to the discard.
We have technology expanding exponentially, human morality diminishing exponentially, coupled to absolute power corrupting absolutely and idiots running around saying that in a hundred years we are all going to be cooked, mankind is screwed.
Regards,
John
we shall see....
body scanners is the benchmark and cause celebre. much could happen on that front. so i'm not particularly nervous about the scanners. other things are/will be happening before all that (or concurrent), like the crash of the economy, insurrection, tax revolts, who knows. in other words, many changes on many fronts. thanks for writing!
all the best,
JB
Hi John,
Some food for thought - I've long considered that easy identification of people is a good thing; the problem is that it's restricted to government.
For example, why is it only police, or their cronies, can determine whom a license plate belongs to?
If someone wants to date my daughter or sell me a car, why CAN'T I do a background check?
Freely (as in easily) available information about the people and entities we deal with could and should be a good thing, heck a great thing. My concern is that only "they" can access such information, thus forcing us into "needing" them for "security".
If people knew that anyone, not just police officers, could identify them by license plate, would driving behavior stay the same, get worse - or get better?
Why shouldn't shops be able to identify shop-lifters?
(and yes, at the tender age of 12 I got cautioned for shoplifting... )
I believe databases in themselves are not dangerous, indeed I believe they would be massively helpful in any libertarian society. The danger is that only our Lords and Masters can access them, leaving the rest of us stumbling around blindly.
What do you think?
Alan
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
Maybe the economic collapse and dismantling of the federal monster is a good thing - I pray for that every day. As a Christian I don't believe God will allow us to establish another Tower of Babel in the world.
God bless your efforts.
Jim H.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your recent article, “Total Control..” I will be quoting your last few paragraphs referencing Orwell, along with Cronkite’s quote, as I wind up my own informational piece to conservative members in our mountain County here in Colorado. I intend to take a hiatus, but will leave people some educational material before I go, mostly on our Central Banking system.
I think this young man with his business degree from Harvard nails the big-picture view of our current state of affairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6HuzhMUHGM&feature=related
I will be traveling through the Denver airport in a week or so. The now routine requirements that we remove shoes, travel with tiny bags filled with tiny bottles lest they be confiscated, etc is almost more than I can bear. I can assure you that I will refuse both Chertoff’s new naked scanner, and their “enhanced” pat down which involves frank touching/inspection of our private parts through our clothing. This goes well beyond a breach in the 4th amendment----illegal search.
Thank you,
Elena C.
John, what about it?
"it’s Congress that bears the brunt of the blame.." The citizens put them there, 95 percent incumbents returned, anti-citizen Biden, 6 terms, war monger Pelosi, forever. It is a democracy. Too stupid to do otherwise? Then it is here to stay, intrinsic.
The advantage of a "democracy" to the power, is that it is such a good control system. People claim it is TV control. Would it work on you?
Ken A
Mr. Whitehead,
I read your article and found it very interesting. In response, all I can say is this: I am a Christian. I believe in the doctrine known as "the rapture." I have been praying for it to occur for a long, long time. Now I intend to redouble my prayers.
God bless you and yours, sir.
Henry C.
Scary stuff! They think they’re going to eradicate fraud? Yeah-Right! Didn’t they ever watch the move DEMOLITION MAN? Do they really think the Mexican drug cartels would hesitate for one moment to follow Wesley Snipes example in that move?
Technology isn't the problem its man can not handle the technology. In the same way that we need a well regulated banking system, a well regulated legal system, a well regulated rail system, a well regulated economic system, a well regulated population, we also need technology to be well regulated. It seems mankind can not handle regulation either and has cast regulation to the discard.
We have technology expanding exponentially, human morality diminishing exponentially, coupled to absolute power corrupting absolutely and idiots running around saying that in a hundred years we are all going to be cooked, mankind is screwed.
Regards,
John
we shall see....
body scanners is the benchmark and cause celebre. much could happen on that front. so i'm not particularly nervous about the scanners. other things are/will be happening before all that (or concurrent), like the crash of the economy, insurrection, tax revolts, who knows. in other words, many changes on many fronts. thanks for writing!
all the best,
JB
Hi John,
Some food for thought - I've long considered that easy identification of people is a good thing; the problem is that it's restricted to government.
For example, why is it only police, or their cronies, can determine whom a license plate belongs to?
If someone wants to date my daughter or sell me a car, why CAN'T I do a background check?
Freely (as in easily) available information about the people and entities we deal with could and should be a good thing, heck a great thing. My concern is that only "they" can access such information, thus forcing us into "needing" them for "security".
If people knew that anyone, not just police officers, could identify them by license plate, would driving behavior stay the same, get worse - or get better?
Why shouldn't shops be able to identify shop-lifters?
(and yes, at the tender age of 12 I got cautioned for shoplifting... )
I believe databases in themselves are not dangerous, indeed I believe they would be massively helpful in any libertarian society. The danger is that only our Lords and Masters can access them, leaving the rest of us stumbling around blindly.
What do you think?
Alan
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
Maybe the economic collapse and dismantling of the federal monster is a good thing - I pray for that every day. As a Christian I don't believe God will allow us to establish another Tower of Babel in the world.
God bless your efforts.
Jim H.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Thank you for your recent article, “Total Control..” I will be quoting your last few paragraphs referencing Orwell, along with Cronkite’s quote, as I wind up my own informational piece to conservative members in our mountain County here in Colorado. I intend to take a hiatus, but will leave people some educational material before I go, mostly on our Central Banking system.
I think this young man with his business degree from Harvard nails the big-picture view of our current state of affairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6HuzhMUHGM&feature=related
I will be traveling through the Denver airport in a week or so. The now routine requirements that we remove shoes, travel with tiny bags filled with tiny bottles lest they be confiscated, etc is almost more than I can bear. I can assure you that I will refuse both Chertoff’s new naked scanner, and their “enhanced” pat down which involves frank touching/inspection of our private parts through our clothing. This goes well beyond a breach in the 4th amendment----illegal search.
Thank you,
Elena C.
John, what about it?
"it’s Congress that bears the brunt of the blame.." The citizens put them there, 95 percent incumbents returned, anti-citizen Biden, 6 terms, war monger Pelosi, forever. It is a democracy. Too stupid to do otherwise? Then it is here to stay, intrinsic.
The advantage of a "democracy" to the power, is that it is such a good control system. People claim it is TV control. Would it work on you?
Ken A
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Invasion of the Body Scanners: More Tales of Terror from the Unfriendly Skies
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
As to the airport security we should use the Israeli system. Stop the politically correct balony. A terrorist before entering security check could have a large bomb in the carry on board luggage, take it to where the security checkpoint is located where a large gathering of people are waiting to go thru security (probably equivalent to 3 planes of passengers), blow it up. The whole airport would be shut down including airports all over the country. That is why intelligence and profiling are the best defence.
Jim H.
The government? Yes, but so is Costco!
Don't believe me?
Just try walking out without submitting to the search, and watch what happens. I *know*, because I DID.
By the time I was released I was almost in shock, I had no idea they could do that. But that was only the start. Even though I refused to ID myself, (and they eventually dropped the threat to call the polce, and finally allowed me to leave,) they somehow managed to ID me and called me at home the next day and interrogated me.
Yes, Costco.
Amazing, but true.
BTW, great website!
Dan S.
Good article. Keep writing about this subject. Freedom from das homeland security is critical. We have to loudly boycott these travesties of liberty. Stop flying to start, don't go into a court building, then don't allow them to start putting these abuses in train stations, bus stations, etc.
John E.
First, just so you know. I don't fly. My family is all within 3 days driving distance and anyway I hate to travel. In the current atmosphere, I would hesitate to fly anywhere, as I have a somewhat volatile temper, and 40 years training in martial arts. I fear I would clock some TSA pervert and end up in jail forever as a terrorist suspect. So, I'm as guilty of cowardice as the everyone else. Still.
I seem to remember that Nelson Mandela spent umteen years in jail for his opposition to apartheid; that our founders risked, quite literally their lives and fortunes in a similar disagreement with the powers that were. My greatest hero right now is the Amish guy who sells me raw dairy and who also risks, quite literally his freedom, his property and maybe even his life in so doing.
But on the TSA issue, I see all these articles on LR about the outrageous TSA transgressions. But I see no one, not one who is willing to do what I, female, age 64 with limited testosterone hesitate to do: Bring a knee to the groin of one of these goons, and take the consequence, which will, indeed be very unpleasant. Or perhaps start shouting at his fellow inmates to just overrun their assholenesses? Or maybe, for those who follow Ghandi (who I do admire), get a bunch of folks together with signs to picket the humiliation lines? Or start a complete boycott on flying.
There is none of the above!!!! Nada. Nicht. Nichevo. With the exception of that wonderful pilot who said FU to TSA and to his job, no one is standing up to these people.
My God, what have we become?
Keep writing. Maybe some kid will get inspired (revolutionaries are always young) and start unraveling this awful system we have spawned.
Best wishes,
Vilma O.
I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has worked with abused men and women for years. The use of the pat down and full body scanners is traumatic not only for people who have been previously sexually victimized but for all persons. We have spent years teaching people about personal space and how to say no to unsolicited sexual advances and now our government is saying that we have to give consent for ourselves and our children to be physically and sexually molested in order to fly? This makes no sense and is a terrible violation to the emotional health of every person in our country. It is even detrimental to the people who say they are fine with it because it gives them the opportunity to be fondled; it is encouraging their sexual fantasies and acting out.
I have children and there is no way that I will subject them to doses of radiation or to the physical and sexual molestation of the TSA perverts. When my youngest daughter was 10 a TSA agent in the PHX airport ordered her behind a screen where HE was going to do a physical patdown. When I protested he became threatening and I raised my voice telling him there was no way he was taking my daughter behind a screen without my being present. His female supervisor then came over and demanded of ME as to what was going on. When I told her, she became angry at him and said "you know better than that!" It could just as easily gone the other way with my daughter violated and me in handcuffs. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Please help to get these searches eliminated.
Clair H.
Mr. Rutherford,
Thank you for publishing the letters from women who were abused by TSA agents at lewrockwell.com. It is important that these stories get out, and that these machines be removed and the patdowns cease.
You may be interested on what I've written on my blog on the matter here:
http://samablog.robsama.com/?tag=tsa
Keep up the good fight.
All the best,
-Rob S.
The bible says do not pass by evil hide from it. 36 years ago; to fly back home I was required to tear off the gift wrapping of a music coffee grinder to my son. I have never entered an airport since. I would not enter one now at the end of a gun
M.
Dear JohnW,
Thank you for your article on the TSA measures. Thank you for naming names of bad government officials. And, thank you for telling people's stories.
There is an excellent youtube with a woman saying that she had a panic attack thinking about the search.
http://www.youtube.com/user/snowbigdeal08#p/u/6/7Ra3ov1mEZE
(She is asking Jet Blue for help. The important thing to me is what she expressed.)
-Kimberly W.
Hi John
you need a live web site where people can report anyone who works for the TSA and were they live so their neighbours can find out about them.
If I had a child porn freak living next door I would want to do something about it.
get people to report everything.
shine the light on them.
Kevin D.
HAHAHAHAHA! These people are getting what they deserve for being asleep their entire lives. Now they are pissed off but still do not know what the real problem is or what to do about it. The real problem is a government they let get too big. In this particular instance it's an aviation biz that's been sucking on the government tit for as long as it could get something. Airline companies and the public at large sold their souls for government airports, air traffic controllers and all that goes with it a long time ago. Now they are getting the jackboot that always goes with anything federal. Serves 'em right! It is unfortuante that they are so goddam dumb they won't learn a thing from this.
I would like to protest this invasion of privacy, but how?
I have fallen and I can't get up.
What are my rights? Do I even have any?
No! Gone a long time ago because you and your ilk weren't paying attention. It took someone with his hand in your crotch to finally wake your sorry ass up and now you're so stupid you don't know what to do.
W.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Bruce Schneier, a genuine security expert, has written several times about the war on terrorism morphing into a war on different.
There's a new front in that war - naked body scanners. The TSA trains their screeners to look for "anomalies." Not weapons, or bomb parts, but anything different. So now you can be questioned, groped, assaulted, harassed, even arrested, not because you did anything different, but because under your clothes you look different.
See
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2010/11/05/tsa-porno-scanners-what-theyre-really-looking-for/
Best regards,
Steve
Dear Sir,
I would like to know why people continue to fly? If they would just refuse to fly, wouldn't the airlines then be forced to make some changes? There are a couple of trips my wife and I have quietly decided not to take because of the invasive, ridiculous scans or pat downs, but apparently I am in the minute minority. Your thoughts?
Gary H.
John: It would be interesting to do a little research on TSA hiring procedures. From watching videos of people being molested by TSA employees, it seems that most of them are uneducated, fat, black, white, Hispanic men and women. Give a person with limited education and in the lower class of the working group and you will have a group of people that will do anything that you want because they do not want to lose their jobs. I’s work for the TSA an u gonna do as I sae or I’s gonna arrest u. The TSA employees are NOT middle class Americans. They are the lower class of the working group that do not want to lose their jobs, so they will abuse their power and make life miserable for the rest of us.
tom
Mr. Whitehead, I would bet the farm that somewhere within the hollowed hall of America's security state there is an ever enlarging collection of images of notable people and celebrities as well as that of the underachieving masses who possess interesting physical attributes. And of course for the TSA foot soldiers who are so inclined, there would be images of the underaged. America's decent is proving to be rapid, the impact will be very unpleasant.
Regards,
Dennis C.
Hi,
I would like to share the following comments with you (and others who may visit your web site), but please share the following ANONYMOUSLY if you elect to post it on your website or otherwise reshare my remarks.
Enhanced Screening and How We Finally Lost the War on Terror
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement can only succeed with the help of the public, whether we're talking about arresting violent street criminals or preventing terrorism. Law enforcement just can't do it on their own, and I am *highly* supportive of law enforcement. However, given what I'm hearing reported about the new "enhanced" screening at airports, I think we've finally LOST the war on terror.
What Bin Laden couldn't do to us, we're now doing to ourselves.
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, but what many may not know is that most terror actually has specific objectives: terrorist acts are meant to challenge the perception that the authorities are in control, and to _provoke_official_overreaction_. Terrorists actions, in almost every case, really aren't very significant from a big picture point of view, even if they can be terribly tragic if they happen to directly involve you or to a loved one.
For terrorists to really succeed, they need the amplification and pressure that the media provides, AND they need to convince the authorities to impose increasingly draconian and ultimately unconscienable "countermeasures" in an effort to "control" or respond to the attacks that may be taking place.
Once terrorists succeed in getting the authorities to completely overreact, the terrorists have won.
You've leveraged the virtually limitless power of the state to oppress and intimidate its own population, destroying what you are theoretically striving to protect.
I think we've passed that point when it comes to screenings at our airports.
If you're like many and regularly read the NY Times, don't miss:
"Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02road.html
However, I'd suggest instead that you see the video "TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners" at http://www.infowars.com/tsa-fondles-women-and-children-refusing-airport-naked-body-scanners/
Truly, I urge you, take a minute to view the video linked from that site.
Five key points:
1) ENHANCED SCREENING SHOULD ALWAYS BE DONE BY A PERSON OF THE SAME GENDER, IN PRIVATE, WITH THE TRAVELER HAVING THE OPTION OF HAVING A SUPERVISOR OF THE SAME GENDER PRESENT OR A VIDEO RECORD OF THE SCREENING THEY'VE RECEIVED.
There should NEVER be TSA agents of the opposite gender doing hands-on physical screenings -- what idiot decided to allow male screeners to grab the breasts and genitals of females and children? I see a sudden uptick in sex offenders all competing for these jobs ("Hey Charlie, guess what? Now they PAY ME to grope women and children all day long. Is this sweet or what, huh?")
These screenings should be done in private, and the person being screened should have the option to request that a TSA supervisor be present, or the option of having a private video record of the screening that they received so that if a screener *does* engage in inappropriate contact there will be a documented record of that fact.
2) CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OPT-OUT IS MISSING.
Travellers should be notified that they have the right to opt-out of being irradiated. Currently that right is not clearly explained to travellers. I know we're being told that this irradiation is safe, but do you remember when we were also told that fluoroscopic foot shoe measuring devices were also "safe"? In truth, we really just don't know, and empirically won't know for years. We do know that highly respected university professors have expressed serious concerns about the safety and health consequeneces of the "enhanced screening" devices -- see, for example:
http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf
It is unconscienable that TSA is not providing clear and conspicuous notice of flyers right to opt out.
If we can be given painstaking instructions on how to load our tiny travel size bottles of shampoo and mouthwash into zip lock bags, surely TSA can also let us know something as fundamental as "you have a right to request alternative screening procedures."
3) EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO OPT-OUT IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR HUMILATING OR INTIMIDATING A TRAVELER.
If a traveller does ask to opt out of being irradiated, he or she still deserves to be treated with respect. At a minimum, that means NOT screaming "WE'VE GOT AN OPT-OUT" as if exercising that option is kin to asking to be publicly humiliated. (I believe that sort of shouted announcement is being done in an effort to discourage others from also opting out)
4) WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT ULTIMATELY THIS NEW MEASURE WILL BE INEFFECTIVE.
What's the plan when terrorists go from what they've already tried to secreting explosives in their body cavities? What's the plan then, eh?
Will TSA then whip out vaginal speculums and anal probes? Or what if a terrorist opts to have explosives implanted below their skin? (Imagine terrorist liposuction: suck a kilo of fat from a tubby terrorist, and replace that mising fat with a kilo of plastic explosive instead).
Or let's reason about this just a little more. If someone's a terrorist, they can *tell* what airports have the "enhanced scanners" and which ones don't. These things are NOT small.
They're readily visible.
So assuming the terrorist has at least the IQ of a turnip, and they wanted to avoid having a concealed IED detected, don't you think that they just *might* go to one of the OTHER airports that DOESN'T have these scanners deployed?
5) THERE ARE LESS INTRUSIVE AND MORE EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES WHICH COULD BE USED INSTEAD.
If the worry is that people will conceal explosives on their person, there is non-invasive technology to detect
that: air "puffer" machines that can sample air from the person being screened, using that non-invasive method to detect traces of explosives. This is a well proven and accepted method that's been around for a long time. THAT'S what SHOULD be getting deployed if the worry is that people will smuggle on "underwear bombs," not the use of radiation devices or intrusive/punitive searches.
Heck, if it comes right down to it, let people opt to strip naked for visual inspection by a screener of the same gender, rather than having the Hobson's choice of being irradiated or physically molested.
6) TSA SHOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR FLIERS TO FILE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ENHANCED SCREENING, AND THEY SHOULD POST PUBLIC QUARTERLY SUMMARIES OF THOSE COMPLAINTS BROKEN DOWN BY AIRPORT AND GENDER
The public deserves to know if there are problems with the enhanced screening procedures, particularly at particular airports, or for particular genders. Requiring quarterly reporting would accomplish that goal.
Let me also mention that I believe that this new policy disproportionately impacts three particularly vulnerable groups:
1) Children
For those of you who are parents, I look forward to hearing how you plan to explain to your children, including pre-kindergarten age children, why its okay for random strangers to grab their genitals
*sometimes,* but not the rest of the time. Anywhere except at our airports, this sort of conduct would be grounds for arresting the perpetrator for criminal sexual molestation. (And the alternative, allowing unseen parties to take naked pictures of your children via the radiation screening devices, would amount to tolerating the creation of child pornography in any other
circumstance)
Some things are objectively wrong regardless of who's doing them, or why they're being done. This is an example of that.
2) Victims of prior sexual abuse
I would also ask you for just one small moment to put yourself in the shoes of travellers who are victims of previous sexual assaults. The process that's now being rolled out amounts to revictimizing those who have already suffered tremendously, and this is going to accomplish *nothing* except to discourage Americans from flying (and boy, now THERE'S something that will help our already struggling transportation industry).
3) Those who've had disfiguring surgery
I would also suggest that people consider those who may have had radical mastectomies or other disfiguring surgeries. In many cases that sort of thing leaves long term emotional scars. You're now asking those victims to set aside their right to privacy, their basic right to human dignity, to be intrusively screened. I can just imagine how breast cancer survivor gel implants will end up getting scrutinized, for example.
Bottom line:
I think that law enforcement risks destroying the popular support that they rely on by rolling out measures that go way too far. The "Total Information Awareness"
program was one example of that
sort of thing, and it is clear to me that this is another.
The time has come for ALL of us to say, "You know what? Enough is enough." We've entered a very dark period for our country, and this is the sort of thing that's going to end up CREATING new domestic radicals rather than preventing international terrorism. I think that's a very perilous course for our country to steer, and I urge the administration to rescind this policy or to deploy non-invasive "puffer" machines if they have an ongoing concern about passenger safety as a result of new emerging threats.
Thank you for considering these thoughts, and best of luck working to roll back this unconscienable abuse of our constitutional rights.
As to the airport security we should use the Israeli system. Stop the politically correct balony. A terrorist before entering security check could have a large bomb in the carry on board luggage, take it to where the security checkpoint is located where a large gathering of people are waiting to go thru security (probably equivalent to 3 planes of passengers), blow it up. The whole airport would be shut down including airports all over the country. That is why intelligence and profiling are the best defence.
Jim H.
The government? Yes, but so is Costco!
Don't believe me?
Just try walking out without submitting to the search, and watch what happens. I *know*, because I DID.
By the time I was released I was almost in shock, I had no idea they could do that. But that was only the start. Even though I refused to ID myself, (and they eventually dropped the threat to call the polce, and finally allowed me to leave,) they somehow managed to ID me and called me at home the next day and interrogated me.
Yes, Costco.
Amazing, but true.
BTW, great website!
Dan S.
Good article. Keep writing about this subject. Freedom from das homeland security is critical. We have to loudly boycott these travesties of liberty. Stop flying to start, don't go into a court building, then don't allow them to start putting these abuses in train stations, bus stations, etc.
John E.
First, just so you know. I don't fly. My family is all within 3 days driving distance and anyway I hate to travel. In the current atmosphere, I would hesitate to fly anywhere, as I have a somewhat volatile temper, and 40 years training in martial arts. I fear I would clock some TSA pervert and end up in jail forever as a terrorist suspect. So, I'm as guilty of cowardice as the everyone else. Still.
I seem to remember that Nelson Mandela spent umteen years in jail for his opposition to apartheid; that our founders risked, quite literally their lives and fortunes in a similar disagreement with the powers that were. My greatest hero right now is the Amish guy who sells me raw dairy and who also risks, quite literally his freedom, his property and maybe even his life in so doing.
But on the TSA issue, I see all these articles on LR about the outrageous TSA transgressions. But I see no one, not one who is willing to do what I, female, age 64 with limited testosterone hesitate to do: Bring a knee to the groin of one of these goons, and take the consequence, which will, indeed be very unpleasant. Or perhaps start shouting at his fellow inmates to just overrun their assholenesses? Or maybe, for those who follow Ghandi (who I do admire), get a bunch of folks together with signs to picket the humiliation lines? Or start a complete boycott on flying.
There is none of the above!!!! Nada. Nicht. Nichevo. With the exception of that wonderful pilot who said FU to TSA and to his job, no one is standing up to these people.
My God, what have we become?
Keep writing. Maybe some kid will get inspired (revolutionaries are always young) and start unraveling this awful system we have spawned.
Best wishes,
Vilma O.
I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has worked with abused men and women for years. The use of the pat down and full body scanners is traumatic not only for people who have been previously sexually victimized but for all persons. We have spent years teaching people about personal space and how to say no to unsolicited sexual advances and now our government is saying that we have to give consent for ourselves and our children to be physically and sexually molested in order to fly? This makes no sense and is a terrible violation to the emotional health of every person in our country. It is even detrimental to the people who say they are fine with it because it gives them the opportunity to be fondled; it is encouraging their sexual fantasies and acting out.
I have children and there is no way that I will subject them to doses of radiation or to the physical and sexual molestation of the TSA perverts. When my youngest daughter was 10 a TSA agent in the PHX airport ordered her behind a screen where HE was going to do a physical patdown. When I protested he became threatening and I raised my voice telling him there was no way he was taking my daughter behind a screen without my being present. His female supervisor then came over and demanded of ME as to what was going on. When I told her, she became angry at him and said "you know better than that!" It could just as easily gone the other way with my daughter violated and me in handcuffs. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Please help to get these searches eliminated.
Clair H.
Mr. Rutherford,
Thank you for publishing the letters from women who were abused by TSA agents at lewrockwell.com. It is important that these stories get out, and that these machines be removed and the patdowns cease.
You may be interested on what I've written on my blog on the matter here:
http://samablog.robsama.com/?tag=tsa
Keep up the good fight.
All the best,
-Rob S.
The bible says do not pass by evil hide from it. 36 years ago; to fly back home I was required to tear off the gift wrapping of a music coffee grinder to my son. I have never entered an airport since. I would not enter one now at the end of a gun
M.
Dear JohnW,
Thank you for your article on the TSA measures. Thank you for naming names of bad government officials. And, thank you for telling people's stories.
There is an excellent youtube with a woman saying that she had a panic attack thinking about the search.
http://www.youtube.com/user/snowbigdeal08#p/u/6/7Ra3ov1mEZE
(She is asking Jet Blue for help. The important thing to me is what she expressed.)
-Kimberly W.
Hi John
you need a live web site where people can report anyone who works for the TSA and were they live so their neighbours can find out about them.
If I had a child porn freak living next door I would want to do something about it.
get people to report everything.
shine the light on them.
Kevin D.
HAHAHAHAHA! These people are getting what they deserve for being asleep their entire lives. Now they are pissed off but still do not know what the real problem is or what to do about it. The real problem is a government they let get too big. In this particular instance it's an aviation biz that's been sucking on the government tit for as long as it could get something. Airline companies and the public at large sold their souls for government airports, air traffic controllers and all that goes with it a long time ago. Now they are getting the jackboot that always goes with anything federal. Serves 'em right! It is unfortuante that they are so goddam dumb they won't learn a thing from this.
I would like to protest this invasion of privacy, but how?
I have fallen and I can't get up.
What are my rights? Do I even have any?
No! Gone a long time ago because you and your ilk weren't paying attention. It took someone with his hand in your crotch to finally wake your sorry ass up and now you're so stupid you don't know what to do.
W.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Bruce Schneier, a genuine security expert, has written several times about the war on terrorism morphing into a war on different.
There's a new front in that war - naked body scanners. The TSA trains their screeners to look for "anomalies." Not weapons, or bomb parts, but anything different. So now you can be questioned, groped, assaulted, harassed, even arrested, not because you did anything different, but because under your clothes you look different.
See
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2010/11/05/tsa-porno-scanners-what-theyre-really-looking-for/
Best regards,
Steve
Dear Sir,
I would like to know why people continue to fly? If they would just refuse to fly, wouldn't the airlines then be forced to make some changes? There are a couple of trips my wife and I have quietly decided not to take because of the invasive, ridiculous scans or pat downs, but apparently I am in the minute minority. Your thoughts?
Gary H.
John: It would be interesting to do a little research on TSA hiring procedures. From watching videos of people being molested by TSA employees, it seems that most of them are uneducated, fat, black, white, Hispanic men and women. Give a person with limited education and in the lower class of the working group and you will have a group of people that will do anything that you want because they do not want to lose their jobs. I’s work for the TSA an u gonna do as I sae or I’s gonna arrest u. The TSA employees are NOT middle class Americans. They are the lower class of the working group that do not want to lose their jobs, so they will abuse their power and make life miserable for the rest of us.
tom
Mr. Whitehead, I would bet the farm that somewhere within the hollowed hall of America's security state there is an ever enlarging collection of images of notable people and celebrities as well as that of the underachieving masses who possess interesting physical attributes. And of course for the TSA foot soldiers who are so inclined, there would be images of the underaged. America's decent is proving to be rapid, the impact will be very unpleasant.
Regards,
Dennis C.
Hi,
I would like to share the following comments with you (and others who may visit your web site), but please share the following ANONYMOUSLY if you elect to post it on your website or otherwise reshare my remarks.
Enhanced Screening and How We Finally Lost the War on Terror
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement can only succeed with the help of the public, whether we're talking about arresting violent street criminals or preventing terrorism. Law enforcement just can't do it on their own, and I am *highly* supportive of law enforcement. However, given what I'm hearing reported about the new "enhanced" screening at airports, I think we've finally LOST the war on terror.
What Bin Laden couldn't do to us, we're now doing to ourselves.
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, but what many may not know is that most terror actually has specific objectives: terrorist acts are meant to challenge the perception that the authorities are in control, and to _provoke_official_overreaction_. Terrorists actions, in almost every case, really aren't very significant from a big picture point of view, even if they can be terribly tragic if they happen to directly involve you or to a loved one.
For terrorists to really succeed, they need the amplification and pressure that the media provides, AND they need to convince the authorities to impose increasingly draconian and ultimately unconscienable "countermeasures" in an effort to "control" or respond to the attacks that may be taking place.
Once terrorists succeed in getting the authorities to completely overreact, the terrorists have won.
You've leveraged the virtually limitless power of the state to oppress and intimidate its own population, destroying what you are theoretically striving to protect.
I think we've passed that point when it comes to screenings at our airports.
If you're like many and regularly read the NY Times, don't miss:
"Opt Out of a Body Scan? Then Brace Yourself,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/02road.html
However, I'd suggest instead that you see the video "TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners" at http://www.infowars.com/tsa-fondles-women-and-children-refusing-airport-naked-body-scanners/
Truly, I urge you, take a minute to view the video linked from that site.
Five key points:
1) ENHANCED SCREENING SHOULD ALWAYS BE DONE BY A PERSON OF THE SAME GENDER, IN PRIVATE, WITH THE TRAVELER HAVING THE OPTION OF HAVING A SUPERVISOR OF THE SAME GENDER PRESENT OR A VIDEO RECORD OF THE SCREENING THEY'VE RECEIVED.
There should NEVER be TSA agents of the opposite gender doing hands-on physical screenings -- what idiot decided to allow male screeners to grab the breasts and genitals of females and children? I see a sudden uptick in sex offenders all competing for these jobs ("Hey Charlie, guess what? Now they PAY ME to grope women and children all day long. Is this sweet or what, huh?")
These screenings should be done in private, and the person being screened should have the option to request that a TSA supervisor be present, or the option of having a private video record of the screening that they received so that if a screener *does* engage in inappropriate contact there will be a documented record of that fact.
2) CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OPT-OUT IS MISSING.
Travellers should be notified that they have the right to opt-out of being irradiated. Currently that right is not clearly explained to travellers. I know we're being told that this irradiation is safe, but do you remember when we were also told that fluoroscopic foot shoe measuring devices were also "safe"? In truth, we really just don't know, and empirically won't know for years. We do know that highly respected university professors have expressed serious concerns about the safety and health consequeneces of the "enhanced screening" devices -- see, for example:
http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf
It is unconscienable that TSA is not providing clear and conspicuous notice of flyers right to opt out.
If we can be given painstaking instructions on how to load our tiny travel size bottles of shampoo and mouthwash into zip lock bags, surely TSA can also let us know something as fundamental as "you have a right to request alternative screening procedures."
3) EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO OPT-OUT IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR HUMILATING OR INTIMIDATING A TRAVELER.
If a traveller does ask to opt out of being irradiated, he or she still deserves to be treated with respect. At a minimum, that means NOT screaming "WE'VE GOT AN OPT-OUT" as if exercising that option is kin to asking to be publicly humiliated. (I believe that sort of shouted announcement is being done in an effort to discourage others from also opting out)
4) WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT ULTIMATELY THIS NEW MEASURE WILL BE INEFFECTIVE.
What's the plan when terrorists go from what they've already tried to secreting explosives in their body cavities? What's the plan then, eh?
Will TSA then whip out vaginal speculums and anal probes? Or what if a terrorist opts to have explosives implanted below their skin? (Imagine terrorist liposuction: suck a kilo of fat from a tubby terrorist, and replace that mising fat with a kilo of plastic explosive instead).
Or let's reason about this just a little more. If someone's a terrorist, they can *tell* what airports have the "enhanced scanners" and which ones don't. These things are NOT small.
They're readily visible.
So assuming the terrorist has at least the IQ of a turnip, and they wanted to avoid having a concealed IED detected, don't you think that they just *might* go to one of the OTHER airports that DOESN'T have these scanners deployed?
5) THERE ARE LESS INTRUSIVE AND MORE EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES WHICH COULD BE USED INSTEAD.
If the worry is that people will conceal explosives on their person, there is non-invasive technology to detect
that: air "puffer" machines that can sample air from the person being screened, using that non-invasive method to detect traces of explosives. This is a well proven and accepted method that's been around for a long time. THAT'S what SHOULD be getting deployed if the worry is that people will smuggle on "underwear bombs," not the use of radiation devices or intrusive/punitive searches.
Heck, if it comes right down to it, let people opt to strip naked for visual inspection by a screener of the same gender, rather than having the Hobson's choice of being irradiated or physically molested.
6) TSA SHOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR FLIERS TO FILE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE ENHANCED SCREENING, AND THEY SHOULD POST PUBLIC QUARTERLY SUMMARIES OF THOSE COMPLAINTS BROKEN DOWN BY AIRPORT AND GENDER
The public deserves to know if there are problems with the enhanced screening procedures, particularly at particular airports, or for particular genders. Requiring quarterly reporting would accomplish that goal.
Let me also mention that I believe that this new policy disproportionately impacts three particularly vulnerable groups:
1) Children
For those of you who are parents, I look forward to hearing how you plan to explain to your children, including pre-kindergarten age children, why its okay for random strangers to grab their genitals
*sometimes,* but not the rest of the time. Anywhere except at our airports, this sort of conduct would be grounds for arresting the perpetrator for criminal sexual molestation. (And the alternative, allowing unseen parties to take naked pictures of your children via the radiation screening devices, would amount to tolerating the creation of child pornography in any other
circumstance)
Some things are objectively wrong regardless of who's doing them, or why they're being done. This is an example of that.
2) Victims of prior sexual abuse
I would also ask you for just one small moment to put yourself in the shoes of travellers who are victims of previous sexual assaults. The process that's now being rolled out amounts to revictimizing those who have already suffered tremendously, and this is going to accomplish *nothing* except to discourage Americans from flying (and boy, now THERE'S something that will help our already struggling transportation industry).
3) Those who've had disfiguring surgery
I would also suggest that people consider those who may have had radical mastectomies or other disfiguring surgeries. In many cases that sort of thing leaves long term emotional scars. You're now asking those victims to set aside their right to privacy, their basic right to human dignity, to be intrusively screened. I can just imagine how breast cancer survivor gel implants will end up getting scrutinized, for example.
Bottom line:
I think that law enforcement risks destroying the popular support that they rely on by rolling out measures that go way too far. The "Total Information Awareness"
program was one example of that
sort of thing, and it is clear to me that this is another.
The time has come for ALL of us to say, "You know what? Enough is enough." We've entered a very dark period for our country, and this is the sort of thing that's going to end up CREATING new domestic radicals rather than preventing international terrorism. I think that's a very perilous course for our country to steer, and I urge the administration to rescind this policy or to deploy non-invasive "puffer" machines if they have an ongoing concern about passenger safety as a result of new emerging threats.
Thank you for considering these thoughts, and best of luck working to roll back this unconscienable abuse of our constitutional rights.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The 2010 Elections: Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Great article. I am reminded of one of Schaeffers books on Western Civ. He wrote of the two supreme values of personal peace and affluence. And how the left and right would simply be roads to the same end. This outburst today is generated from fear of losing our two supreme values. We are much like Eli sons in the Bible...we have all the symbols and conontation-words that point to our original values. But our hearts are not spurred on by those values. We let the original system slip away from us. Fight a 10 year war without feel ing the impact? The government doesn't have to consult us on the matter as long as they cut our taxes and cut us some checks? (bread and circuses). Whether the wars are right or wrong...the process is clearly wrong. Then the constitution...they all trample it. Why not? The values that once supported it have all but crumbled. How to get through? How, when every other guy is busy showing his buddy 'the new awesome app' he just downloaded to his iphone. I used to listen to the old guys when I was a kid. They were cranky old men comparing us to Rome all the time. They had NO IDEA how close they were to seeing it. I am 43 and now made prematurily cranky.
Mark G.
Mr Whitehead,
I think you are so right--however, I am refusing to quit hoping for God's merciful spiritual awakening of our nation. It is true that without apathy and seeking after the things of the world to the point of being ignorant of freedoms being lost, our nation would not be in this state. Though I've been as involved as possible (and more than ever) in politics (though the tea party movement), I've done relatively little. I've only so much energy and time. My husband tells me that had I spent the time praying that I spent working with tea party etc that I would have accomplished more. Could be, but only prayer could be a cop out, too. Hard to find the balance. I've learned more about govt than I think I've ever known. I'll continue to work with our local tea party to work for changes at the state and national level. The tea party is not going away--though many will leave most of the work to a few. Had I been in charge it would have died before it started!! The hours invested! But if the Lord fails to send a revival to the church all the work in the world will not save our nation. Indeed, only Our God can save us. Thanks for your thoughts. But pray and continue to help us win back our nation. We must not give up 'till Jesus comes.
Blessings
Lynne S.
Thanks for allowing me to learn so much about what's going on in Washington. However, I would like to offer some constructive criticism.
While your newsletters are extremely informing, I find that (as a friend I forwarded the newsletter to said) that "it's good, but everything is doom and gloom". Please continue to inform, but remember that God is really in charge, not us. We should be praying for our country and our leaders every day and I sometimes fail to remember this.
I realize that being so involved in the political scene would bring most anyone down; but while I wish to be informed, I do not wish to be left with such a negative outlook. Please remember (and remind us) that there is always hope. Help us see positive changes which have taken place. Our vote can and does make some difference.
Sincerely,
Charlotte B.
I often feel to old and unimpowered to do anything about the theft of our country but Mr. Whitehead's column in the Pearland journal give me hope that someone out there is listening.
I donate to the Heritage Society, Ron Paul, and Hillman.
I am solicited by CAWG and others but feel that what little I can give does nothing.
We mus end the welfare state somehow but it looks hopeless. The ACLU has taken God out of our government. I cry for my grandchildren and greatgrand children, try to instill our Constitution as written by our founding fathers.
But we are hung with a congress that is power mad and have no interest in restoring our constitutional laws and will not challange the President. I had hopes for Newt Gingrich in '94 but that congress out spent the Democrats.
I will follow your website for awhile and see if you have anything going.
Robert B.
Great article. I am reminded of one of Schaeffers books on Western Civ. He wrote of the two supreme values of personal peace and affluence. And how the left and right would simply be roads to the same end. This outburst today is generated from fear of losing our two supreme values. We are much like Eli sons in the Bible...we have all the symbols and conontation-words that point to our original values. But our hearts are not spurred on by those values. We let the original system slip away from us. Fight a 10 year war without feel ing the impact? The government doesn't have to consult us on the matter as long as they cut our taxes and cut us some checks? (bread and circuses). Whether the wars are right or wrong...the process is clearly wrong. Then the constitution...they all trample it. Why not? The values that once supported it have all but crumbled. How to get through? How, when every other guy is busy showing his buddy 'the new awesome app' he just downloaded to his iphone. I used to listen to the old guys when I was a kid. They were cranky old men comparing us to Rome all the time. They had NO IDEA how close they were to seeing it. I am 43 and now made prematurily cranky.
Mark G.
Mr Whitehead,
I think you are so right--however, I am refusing to quit hoping for God's merciful spiritual awakening of our nation. It is true that without apathy and seeking after the things of the world to the point of being ignorant of freedoms being lost, our nation would not be in this state. Though I've been as involved as possible (and more than ever) in politics (though the tea party movement), I've done relatively little. I've only so much energy and time. My husband tells me that had I spent the time praying that I spent working with tea party etc that I would have accomplished more. Could be, but only prayer could be a cop out, too. Hard to find the balance. I've learned more about govt than I think I've ever known. I'll continue to work with our local tea party to work for changes at the state and national level. The tea party is not going away--though many will leave most of the work to a few. Had I been in charge it would have died before it started!! The hours invested! But if the Lord fails to send a revival to the church all the work in the world will not save our nation. Indeed, only Our God can save us. Thanks for your thoughts. But pray and continue to help us win back our nation. We must not give up 'till Jesus comes.
Blessings
Lynne S.
Thanks for allowing me to learn so much about what's going on in Washington. However, I would like to offer some constructive criticism.
While your newsletters are extremely informing, I find that (as a friend I forwarded the newsletter to said) that "it's good, but everything is doom and gloom". Please continue to inform, but remember that God is really in charge, not us. We should be praying for our country and our leaders every day and I sometimes fail to remember this.
I realize that being so involved in the political scene would bring most anyone down; but while I wish to be informed, I do not wish to be left with such a negative outlook. Please remember (and remind us) that there is always hope. Help us see positive changes which have taken place. Our vote can and does make some difference.
Sincerely,
Charlotte B.
I often feel to old and unimpowered to do anything about the theft of our country but Mr. Whitehead's column in the Pearland journal give me hope that someone out there is listening.
I donate to the Heritage Society, Ron Paul, and Hillman.
I am solicited by CAWG and others but feel that what little I can give does nothing.
We mus end the welfare state somehow but it looks hopeless. The ACLU has taken God out of our government. I cry for my grandchildren and greatgrand children, try to instill our Constitution as written by our founding fathers.
But we are hung with a congress that is power mad and have no interest in restoring our constitutional laws and will not challange the President. I had hopes for Newt Gingrich in '94 but that congress out spent the Democrats.
I will follow your website for awhile and see if you have anything going.
Robert B.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Shadows of Our Subconscious: Ten Frightening Movies
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
i agree with most of your choices about scary movies, but THE SHINING, please, FATAL ATTRACTION was much more frightening.
chris p.
i agree with most of your choices about scary movies, but THE SHINING, please, FATAL ATTRACTION was much more frightening.
chris p.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Michael Roberts: One Man Against the Surveillance State
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
I just wanted to say that your piece "One man against the surveillance state" is amazing. I am glad that someone has decided to stand up against this treatment and has contacted you to do something about it. I think both the machine and the new "rub down" are completely horrible and violate our rights as citizens. I wish more people understood this. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Amber
Good Morning:
I read, with great interest, the account of John Whitehead, whose experience at Memphis Airport, earlier this month, prevented him from arriving at work.
I also am a pilot for a major airline. It is easy to envision a scenario, in which, I could be delayed, or denied access to my aircraft, while clearing security and ON DUTY, somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe This may well lead to disciplinary action, by my employer, even resulting in termination efforts, by my employer.
As you may know, the "code of conduct" expected by pilots of major airlines, since the events of Sept. 11, is "full cooperation and compliance with TSA."
However, the developments have outpaced reasonableness.
The F.B.I. has already conducted a complete background check on each pilot who enters the cockpit of any (Part 121 Carrier) operating in this country.
Hence, they have "passed" on each individual pilot already.
Each pilot routinely undergoes random, unannounced drug testing.
Further, we undergo bi-annual medical examinations, including an EKG.
Please keep me informed of the developments with this important civil liberty issue, and advise me if you have a sign-up list of professionals, who are united in opposition to this encroaching menace within our society.
Thank you,
Joe P.
Sir:
The scanners exist only because the flying public knuckles under like a flock of cowards. A general strike on the part of the passengers would bring the airlines to their financial knees. If the strike was long enough, the scanners would be removed.
Charles B.
I read your piece in the Lew Rockwell site.
I cannot agree more with your views. I have for many years had a dream of touring the US on a Harley from one side to the other, and for even longer I felt a gratitude towards the British and the Americans for liberating Europe from the Germans.
Today I feel only contempt for America. I feel anger for the overbearing and brutish attitude of your government, deep seated anger for you arrogant and brash behaviour and increasingly contempt for you technological killing going on all over the globe.
What I can't fathom, for the life of me, is why the rest of the world is so hell bent on following your lead.
My suspicions are that the world is not keen, the elite is, wherever they are.
I am just waiting for the revolt to start, for surely, if we want to live as free people on this globe, revolt we must.
I increasingly have to remind myself that my thoughts should not extend to the American on the street, for in deed, he would be a victim as are all of us.
However, resistance must start at home, and your population have lost all but a faint trace of the qualities which made America strong. You guys have to wake up, or your dream becomes a nightmare!
Alas, my trip across the US will come to naught.
Kind regards
G. K.
Good Morning Mr. Whitehead,
…well…I think it is time to burn the whore house down to the ground…and hang the whores.
Regards,
Steven S.
Hello John...
Thank you, again, for your patriotic and selfless righteousness.
Like you said, "If we allow the government to reverse the burden of proof so that we have to prove our innocence, then we might as well give up on the Constitution altogether."
I believe that our government thinks we are ALL guilty until proven innocent.
And, I also believe that if we are truly innocent now (as the vast majority of us are), it doesn't really matter to the government because they believe any individual WILL commit a crime in the future, so why not monitor every individual NOW!
A few years ago, when I was at the DMV in Chico, California to get my California driver's license, they refused to give me a driver's license until I submitted to being FINGERPRINTED!
Can you believe that? I never owed any child support or alimony, there was no warrant out for my arrest, I wasn't in any type of trouble, I'm no sex offender, my record was clean, my record is clean, etc.
John, I'm still pissed off about that!
And like a fingerprint, those body scans taken at airports are on file FOREVER!
Respectfully Yours...
RON
Mr. Whitehead:
I pray you can defend Mr. Roberts against the growing tyranny in Washington. I live in Memphis and will never fly commercial again and hope millions of others make this choice, and if the airlines and tourist industry goes under, too bad. The sooner we rise up and have a tax revolt and stop sending our wealth to Washington, the better. The only terrorists we should be concerned with are the parasites in government and their cronies in business.
Jim H.
The solution to this unconstitutional search at airports is simple.
1. Quit flying immediately.
2. Single out the financially weakest air carrier, publicly target THEM for a boycott, explaining it will continue until the TSA is disbanded.
End of problem.
Mark M.
They are known as Beltway Bandits (District of Columbia) and their corrupt power makes the Kremlin in its heyday pathetically meek by comparison.
If I were very rich, I would spend my fortune exposing the corporate-business relationship. The Patriot Act's linking to insiders of the Pentagon, FBI and CIA et al.
HPTi in Reston Va.... I was hired for my technical expertise .. What makes this gang scary is their total disregard for the purpose of business. Their purpose was to amass a personal fortune at all costs. It has never been linked to a higher calling in service to your fellow man in submission to Christ. They never set out to do the "right thing".
They are selling their grandmothers soul for lucre.
When law and order crumbles.... I know where to look for assets.
Thank you for all you do.
Best Regards,
Jon W.
At any other time or place a full body pat down and viewing of naked children would be considered a "sex crime". What is it that we can do to fight back? I've chosen to drive on the next long trip with the kids, it's 20 hours and I have a week off. If we have to drive from Texas to Connecticut I don't think I can get that done and still enjoy any part of a vacation. I don't want my kids to grow up in a police state and think that it's ok to be assaulted by the state.
Tim F.
I to agree to the pilots objections to the illegal searches and pat downs. For some reason I have been subjected to these actions for a number of years , BEFORE 9/11. I have not flown, but once since the early 1990's because of the SO CALLED security. I just refuse to allow these people to do this to me. I WILL NOT FLY. TO HELL with it. IF more people refused to fly they might get the picture.
WFG
John,
This is exactly why I have not flown since they started this crap. I am not a criminal. I spent over 12 years in the military protecting my country and I didn’t do it to be treated like a criminal every time I decide to fly on a plane. Therefore, I will never fly on a plane again. The TSA and the rest of these monkeys can just damn well bite be.
I still remember the time a friend and I who both worked for the same company were flying to Denver. They had one of these machines that supposedly could tell by ‘sniffing’, if you had some time of explosive on you. ‘After’ completely going through his computer bag, dismantling it to the point where there was nothing left to hide, he was asked the question, “Have you had explosives of any kind EVER in this bag before?” I told my friend David to ‘not answer’ the question and then asked the lady ‘what right do you have to ask my friend about anything that he has HAD in the bag before. I instructed her that her only concern was what was presently IN the bag. She told me that she would call security if I interfered again. I told her to ‘go for it’ as she was demanding answers to questions that were NONE OF HER BUSINESS!
Of course, my friend David and I had never had anything remotely like explosives in our bags. But she insisted that he answer and I kept telling her that it was none of her business what he had or hadn’t done in the past before walking into the airport. I told her that her only concern was the HERE and NOW; not yesterday, early this morning, or tomorrow. She kept threating to call security and I kept egging her on telling her to knock herself out and call them, that I would tell them the same flippin’ thing I was telling her and that her tactics didn’t scare me one little bit.
Talk about invasion of flippin’ privacy! Now you have to answer about what you have done BEFORE you ever stepped foot into the airport! Remember, this was before 9/11!
So I agree with you 100%! And I’m still not going to fly the ‘friendly’ frickin’ skies!
Regards,
Scott W. Swigart
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Besides the obvious Constitutional arguments, and the health warnings against these invasive porno machines, why isn't anyone stressing the danger these airline employees are facing with their having to go through these things multiple times a week/day?
Shouldn't that AT LEAST be screamed about?
Even the least amount of X-ray bombardment has a lethal cumulative effect over time.
These people are being slowly killed outright in the name of keeping the rest of us "safe." Why isn't anyone screaming about this?!
Anyway, no criticism of your articles; I enjoy them very much, and certainly did this one. I agree with you 100%. Just concerned for these employees who are being forced to sacrifice their lives for their jobs and the government.
Shame.
Sincerely,
Cathy
Dear John,
Thank you for what you are doing. A lawyer friend of mine who served in Vietnam stated it best when he said, "3,000 Americans died for us to lose the freedoms that half a million of us died fighting to gain".
I believe no truer words were spoken and wish you luck in your quest to get our freedoms back.
Having grown up in Africa on the front lines of the cold war I lived through real terror my entire childhood. Yet we never did any of the stupid things I witness happening in the US as we realised those kinds of things just empowered the "terrs".
Here are some of my observations.
1) We hire Muslims from the same region as Al Qaeda operate in North Africa to perform security screening at the Phoenix International airport. (madness if there is a real threat, sane if there isn't)
2) Denver International airport has a perfect ambush kill zone for a terror attack where the TSA has crowded over 1,000 people tightly packed together below a balcony with easy access from a closed underground parking lot, up an elevator and to the balcony edge. Perfect for Molotov cocktail bombs that can be sourced at the fuel station a mile away, or if creative hand grenades could be used with nowhere to escape to. (the red army did this in a coffee shop in Paris) As a PTSD suffering disabled veteran I feel I am well placed to comment on security issues.
3) Since 9/11 I have flown to Africa and the Middle East on business 5 times and have been armed on all my trips getting through all security checks including the full body searches. My knives have never been found and I have experimented with different locations on my body to hide them so know that the scans are just meaningless harassment. (Knives are so I can protect myself if there is another attack as I don't trust the State to protect me)
4) My last flight was a real joke I had 2 laptop computers one the battery works in the other it doesn't, they made me open them both and show them, turn them on etc. when I said one does not work they said ok and told me to put it back. If that was not one of the biggest real warning signs that should have had a more intense look at then nothing was. That search was by RCMP in Canada.
The entire TSA should be scrapped and the security should be scrapped it is a very expensive joke. All airlines have billions of dollars invested in their aircrafts. Let them make sure their aircraft are not blown up or crashed they have a financial incentive for ensuring they fly safe and will take measures to make sure they do stay safe. Pirates throughout history have been overpowered by the crews of the attacked craft that same principle will apply to aircraft.
All the best, not sure I can be of help but if I can let me know how.
Cheers
Rodger S.
Excellent article with great facts and stories.
I would add that there is one more impetus for this behavior. These scanners, with their danger to our health from radiation, also have a societal aspect to it.
They are another way to start culling people so illuminate elite can have their 80 percent population reduction. They're doing it with gm foods, chemtrails, atmosphere and earth manipulation (haarp), pesticides and herbicides (corporate farms), aspartame, sucrolose, hfcs, endless other food additives, vaccines, tooth amalgams. And this is just a small sample. Don't believe it? Ever see so many people with diseases nobody ever had? I know, I work in the healthcare industry for 50 plus years.
Best of all, they keep us asleep and compliant by providing desensitizing tv, movies, music and corporately controlled media.
Skip J.
I just wanted to say that your piece "One man against the surveillance state" is amazing. I am glad that someone has decided to stand up against this treatment and has contacted you to do something about it. I think both the machine and the new "rub down" are completely horrible and violate our rights as citizens. I wish more people understood this. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Amber
Good Morning:
I read, with great interest, the account of John Whitehead, whose experience at Memphis Airport, earlier this month, prevented him from arriving at work.
I also am a pilot for a major airline. It is easy to envision a scenario, in which, I could be delayed, or denied access to my aircraft, while clearing security and ON DUTY, somewhere in the U.S. or in Europe This may well lead to disciplinary action, by my employer, even resulting in termination efforts, by my employer.
As you may know, the "code of conduct" expected by pilots of major airlines, since the events of Sept. 11, is "full cooperation and compliance with TSA."
However, the developments have outpaced reasonableness.
The F.B.I. has already conducted a complete background check on each pilot who enters the cockpit of any (Part 121 Carrier) operating in this country.
Hence, they have "passed" on each individual pilot already.
Each pilot routinely undergoes random, unannounced drug testing.
Further, we undergo bi-annual medical examinations, including an EKG.
Please keep me informed of the developments with this important civil liberty issue, and advise me if you have a sign-up list of professionals, who are united in opposition to this encroaching menace within our society.
Thank you,
Joe P.
Sir:
The scanners exist only because the flying public knuckles under like a flock of cowards. A general strike on the part of the passengers would bring the airlines to their financial knees. If the strike was long enough, the scanners would be removed.
Charles B.
I read your piece in the Lew Rockwell site.
I cannot agree more with your views. I have for many years had a dream of touring the US on a Harley from one side to the other, and for even longer I felt a gratitude towards the British and the Americans for liberating Europe from the Germans.
Today I feel only contempt for America. I feel anger for the overbearing and brutish attitude of your government, deep seated anger for you arrogant and brash behaviour and increasingly contempt for you technological killing going on all over the globe.
What I can't fathom, for the life of me, is why the rest of the world is so hell bent on following your lead.
My suspicions are that the world is not keen, the elite is, wherever they are.
I am just waiting for the revolt to start, for surely, if we want to live as free people on this globe, revolt we must.
I increasingly have to remind myself that my thoughts should not extend to the American on the street, for in deed, he would be a victim as are all of us.
However, resistance must start at home, and your population have lost all but a faint trace of the qualities which made America strong. You guys have to wake up, or your dream becomes a nightmare!
Alas, my trip across the US will come to naught.
Kind regards
G. K.
Good Morning Mr. Whitehead,
…well…I think it is time to burn the whore house down to the ground…and hang the whores.
Regards,
Steven S.
Hello John...
Thank you, again, for your patriotic and selfless righteousness.
Like you said, "If we allow the government to reverse the burden of proof so that we have to prove our innocence, then we might as well give up on the Constitution altogether."
I believe that our government thinks we are ALL guilty until proven innocent.
And, I also believe that if we are truly innocent now (as the vast majority of us are), it doesn't really matter to the government because they believe any individual WILL commit a crime in the future, so why not monitor every individual NOW!
A few years ago, when I was at the DMV in Chico, California to get my California driver's license, they refused to give me a driver's license until I submitted to being FINGERPRINTED!
Can you believe that? I never owed any child support or alimony, there was no warrant out for my arrest, I wasn't in any type of trouble, I'm no sex offender, my record was clean, my record is clean, etc.
John, I'm still pissed off about that!
And like a fingerprint, those body scans taken at airports are on file FOREVER!
Respectfully Yours...
RON
Mr. Whitehead:
I pray you can defend Mr. Roberts against the growing tyranny in Washington. I live in Memphis and will never fly commercial again and hope millions of others make this choice, and if the airlines and tourist industry goes under, too bad. The sooner we rise up and have a tax revolt and stop sending our wealth to Washington, the better. The only terrorists we should be concerned with are the parasites in government and their cronies in business.
Jim H.
The solution to this unconstitutional search at airports is simple.
1. Quit flying immediately.
2. Single out the financially weakest air carrier, publicly target THEM for a boycott, explaining it will continue until the TSA is disbanded.
End of problem.
Mark M.
They are known as Beltway Bandits (District of Columbia) and their corrupt power makes the Kremlin in its heyday pathetically meek by comparison.
If I were very rich, I would spend my fortune exposing the corporate-business relationship. The Patriot Act's linking to insiders of the Pentagon, FBI and CIA et al.
HPTi in Reston Va.... I was hired for my technical expertise .. What makes this gang scary is their total disregard for the purpose of business. Their purpose was to amass a personal fortune at all costs. It has never been linked to a higher calling in service to your fellow man in submission to Christ. They never set out to do the "right thing".
They are selling their grandmothers soul for lucre.
When law and order crumbles.... I know where to look for assets.
Thank you for all you do.
Best Regards,
Jon W.
At any other time or place a full body pat down and viewing of naked children would be considered a "sex crime". What is it that we can do to fight back? I've chosen to drive on the next long trip with the kids, it's 20 hours and I have a week off. If we have to drive from Texas to Connecticut I don't think I can get that done and still enjoy any part of a vacation. I don't want my kids to grow up in a police state and think that it's ok to be assaulted by the state.
Tim F.
I to agree to the pilots objections to the illegal searches and pat downs. For some reason I have been subjected to these actions for a number of years , BEFORE 9/11. I have not flown, but once since the early 1990's because of the SO CALLED security. I just refuse to allow these people to do this to me. I WILL NOT FLY. TO HELL with it. IF more people refused to fly they might get the picture.
WFG
John,
This is exactly why I have not flown since they started this crap. I am not a criminal. I spent over 12 years in the military protecting my country and I didn’t do it to be treated like a criminal every time I decide to fly on a plane. Therefore, I will never fly on a plane again. The TSA and the rest of these monkeys can just damn well bite be.
I still remember the time a friend and I who both worked for the same company were flying to Denver. They had one of these machines that supposedly could tell by ‘sniffing’, if you had some time of explosive on you. ‘After’ completely going through his computer bag, dismantling it to the point where there was nothing left to hide, he was asked the question, “Have you had explosives of any kind EVER in this bag before?” I told my friend David to ‘not answer’ the question and then asked the lady ‘what right do you have to ask my friend about anything that he has HAD in the bag before. I instructed her that her only concern was what was presently IN the bag. She told me that she would call security if I interfered again. I told her to ‘go for it’ as she was demanding answers to questions that were NONE OF HER BUSINESS!
Of course, my friend David and I had never had anything remotely like explosives in our bags. But she insisted that he answer and I kept telling her that it was none of her business what he had or hadn’t done in the past before walking into the airport. I told her that her only concern was the HERE and NOW; not yesterday, early this morning, or tomorrow. She kept threating to call security and I kept egging her on telling her to knock herself out and call them, that I would tell them the same flippin’ thing I was telling her and that her tactics didn’t scare me one little bit.
Talk about invasion of flippin’ privacy! Now you have to answer about what you have done BEFORE you ever stepped foot into the airport! Remember, this was before 9/11!
So I agree with you 100%! And I’m still not going to fly the ‘friendly’ frickin’ skies!
Regards,
Scott W. Swigart
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
Besides the obvious Constitutional arguments, and the health warnings against these invasive porno machines, why isn't anyone stressing the danger these airline employees are facing with their having to go through these things multiple times a week/day?
Shouldn't that AT LEAST be screamed about?
Even the least amount of X-ray bombardment has a lethal cumulative effect over time.
These people are being slowly killed outright in the name of keeping the rest of us "safe." Why isn't anyone screaming about this?!
Anyway, no criticism of your articles; I enjoy them very much, and certainly did this one. I agree with you 100%. Just concerned for these employees who are being forced to sacrifice their lives for their jobs and the government.
Shame.
Sincerely,
Cathy
Dear John,
Thank you for what you are doing. A lawyer friend of mine who served in Vietnam stated it best when he said, "3,000 Americans died for us to lose the freedoms that half a million of us died fighting to gain".
I believe no truer words were spoken and wish you luck in your quest to get our freedoms back.
Having grown up in Africa on the front lines of the cold war I lived through real terror my entire childhood. Yet we never did any of the stupid things I witness happening in the US as we realised those kinds of things just empowered the "terrs".
Here are some of my observations.
1) We hire Muslims from the same region as Al Qaeda operate in North Africa to perform security screening at the Phoenix International airport. (madness if there is a real threat, sane if there isn't)
2) Denver International airport has a perfect ambush kill zone for a terror attack where the TSA has crowded over 1,000 people tightly packed together below a balcony with easy access from a closed underground parking lot, up an elevator and to the balcony edge. Perfect for Molotov cocktail bombs that can be sourced at the fuel station a mile away, or if creative hand grenades could be used with nowhere to escape to. (the red army did this in a coffee shop in Paris) As a PTSD suffering disabled veteran I feel I am well placed to comment on security issues.
3) Since 9/11 I have flown to Africa and the Middle East on business 5 times and have been armed on all my trips getting through all security checks including the full body searches. My knives have never been found and I have experimented with different locations on my body to hide them so know that the scans are just meaningless harassment. (Knives are so I can protect myself if there is another attack as I don't trust the State to protect me)
4) My last flight was a real joke I had 2 laptop computers one the battery works in the other it doesn't, they made me open them both and show them, turn them on etc. when I said one does not work they said ok and told me to put it back. If that was not one of the biggest real warning signs that should have had a more intense look at then nothing was. That search was by RCMP in Canada.
The entire TSA should be scrapped and the security should be scrapped it is a very expensive joke. All airlines have billions of dollars invested in their aircrafts. Let them make sure their aircraft are not blown up or crashed they have a financial incentive for ensuring they fly safe and will take measures to make sure they do stay safe. Pirates throughout history have been overpowered by the crews of the attacked craft that same principle will apply to aircraft.
All the best, not sure I can be of help but if I can let me know how.
Cheers
Rodger S.
Excellent article with great facts and stories.
I would add that there is one more impetus for this behavior. These scanners, with their danger to our health from radiation, also have a societal aspect to it.
They are another way to start culling people so illuminate elite can have their 80 percent population reduction. They're doing it with gm foods, chemtrails, atmosphere and earth manipulation (haarp), pesticides and herbicides (corporate farms), aspartame, sucrolose, hfcs, endless other food additives, vaccines, tooth amalgams. And this is just a small sample. Don't believe it? Ever see so many people with diseases nobody ever had? I know, I work in the healthcare industry for 50 plus years.
Best of all, they keep us asleep and compliant by providing desensitizing tv, movies, music and corporately controlled media.
Skip J.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Raising Up an Orwellian Generation
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
The parents should exercise the US Constitutional given to us by God for their children, born or unborn. Be it privacy, life, liberty or happiness.
Raymond O.
The parents should exercise the US Constitutional given to us by God for their children, born or unborn. Be it privacy, life, liberty or happiness.
Raymond O.
Monday, October 4, 2010
John Lennon’s Dream: His 10 Best Songs
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
My vote is for Working Class Hero. Richie Havens has a wonderful version.
Yours is probably the only Lennon Top Ten list without In My Life, although I generally concur with your selections, especially Walrus and Strawberry Fields. McCartney gets half the credit for A Day in the Life.
Your list draws almost exclusively from the psychedelic Beatles. Earlier Lennon works that merit honorable mention would include The Word, You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away, and perhaps the popular Norwegian Wood.
Don M.
John,
Rain is also my favorite Beatle song. The bass line and guitar weave together along different meandering paths to great effect. Paul's bass plays a prominent role, rather than just providing background assistance. And Ringo's drumming is the best he ever performed, completely confident, original, and necessarily providing complimentary propulsion. The slap at the end of the final verse, contrasted with the snare roll ending the prior verses, tells us where we're at in the music's message. Lennon's lazy-eyed delivery of "I don't mind" and the bell-like resonance of the G7th chord (I seem to recall when I played guitar and this song in particular in my youth) are exceptional. I just love this song for its crisp and unified arrangement and instrumentation. I'm amazed no one has tried to cover it on a grander scale. It's flip side, Paperback Writer, was just another light pop single devised along a simple guitar riff (preceded by Day Tripper) and had its moments, but Rain was heavy metal for the time.
As for Lennon, his canonization is not something I agree with. These encomiums are better suited for those who make great sacrifices on behalf of God, family, country and their neighbor. As I drive past one pot shop after another, I credit him with tearing at society's moral fabric, not mending it.
Sincerely,
Bill B.
Excellent list of Lennon songs. Everyone disagrees about the “top 10” but I mostly agree with yours – particularly having “Rain” high on the list. But, I think overlooking “Tomorrow Never Knows” was a mistake – that song is so far ahead of its time, we still haven’t caught up, and probably never will. Then, of course, there’s “She said she said”, “Norwegian Wood”, “#9 Dream”, etc. etc. etc. Thanks for the great list!
Steve H.
I was a senior in high school when I first heard "She Loves You".
I was an instant, and forever, Beatlemaniac.
My best friend said "but they will never be as big as Chuck".
Thank you for the article and memories.
Bruce H.
John,
I have a rock n roll band and play Revolution with much of the understanding of John Lennon. I don't know that John was as secular in Imagine as you think. While being a Christian I also imagine a world without religion. I view religion as just a sub political party of the left or right; a creature of people protecting what they shouldn't or the gain of something by nothing. Jesus Christ was not political nor did he claim a kingdom before Pilate. He didn't care for the "religious" as is practice then and today. It does take people though to make crap out of perfection.
Same thing with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Too many believe those documents grant or give people freedom. It's not what the words say, but if people can make crap out of perfection, these imperfect documents don't stand a chance and in the end may only resemble toilet paper.
John Lennon also wrote these words, "Last night the wife said, 'Oh Boy when your dead, You won't take nothing with you but your soul. Think.' " Interesting secular words. He's dead right or perhaps "Biblical" where he says, "You'd better free your mind instead." I love, "Expert, textpert, choking smoker don't you think the joker laughs at you..." Now didn't doctors profess smoking as healthy at one time?
BTW I thought that Paul encourage Lennon to do a more rock version of Revolution which is the second version different from the White Album? Maybe you wrote that.
Anyway, I enjoyed your article.
Mike P.
I Am the Walrus. In my opinion, this song is John Lennon’s masterpiece. Lennon, a voracious reader, was inspired by the writings of Lewis Carroll, in particular the tale of woe from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, in which a band of young oysters are lured by the charms of the Walrus, who then begins to devour them. Obvious is the "goo goo g’joob" refrain which is the last line that Humpty Dumpty speaks when he falls to his doom in Alice’s Adventures..
The poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter", and the character of Humpty Dumpty, are both from Lewis Carroll's second novel, "Through the Looking-Glass, and what Alice found there".
Humpty Dumpty's last words were "Wait till you've tried."
Ed P.
A nice list of songs. You've written a fine article. It's a good thing Normal Mailer isn't here to read it.
About 15 years years ago I went to a display of John's and others drawing and paintings. Looking at his simple lines, tears began to run down my face. I don't cry much. I slipped out a side door and lets the tears come. I still miss him. I often wonder what he'd think about the world. Such a waste.
RESIST MUCH, OBEY LITTLE, MF
Michael F.
My vote is for Working Class Hero. Richie Havens has a wonderful version.
Yours is probably the only Lennon Top Ten list without In My Life, although I generally concur with your selections, especially Walrus and Strawberry Fields. McCartney gets half the credit for A Day in the Life.
Your list draws almost exclusively from the psychedelic Beatles. Earlier Lennon works that merit honorable mention would include The Word, You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away, and perhaps the popular Norwegian Wood.
Don M.
John,
Rain is also my favorite Beatle song. The bass line and guitar weave together along different meandering paths to great effect. Paul's bass plays a prominent role, rather than just providing background assistance. And Ringo's drumming is the best he ever performed, completely confident, original, and necessarily providing complimentary propulsion. The slap at the end of the final verse, contrasted with the snare roll ending the prior verses, tells us where we're at in the music's message. Lennon's lazy-eyed delivery of "I don't mind" and the bell-like resonance of the G7th chord (I seem to recall when I played guitar and this song in particular in my youth) are exceptional. I just love this song for its crisp and unified arrangement and instrumentation. I'm amazed no one has tried to cover it on a grander scale. It's flip side, Paperback Writer, was just another light pop single devised along a simple guitar riff (preceded by Day Tripper) and had its moments, but Rain was heavy metal for the time.
As for Lennon, his canonization is not something I agree with. These encomiums are better suited for those who make great sacrifices on behalf of God, family, country and their neighbor. As I drive past one pot shop after another, I credit him with tearing at society's moral fabric, not mending it.
Sincerely,
Bill B.
Excellent list of Lennon songs. Everyone disagrees about the “top 10” but I mostly agree with yours – particularly having “Rain” high on the list. But, I think overlooking “Tomorrow Never Knows” was a mistake – that song is so far ahead of its time, we still haven’t caught up, and probably never will. Then, of course, there’s “She said she said”, “Norwegian Wood”, “#9 Dream”, etc. etc. etc. Thanks for the great list!
Steve H.
I was a senior in high school when I first heard "She Loves You".
I was an instant, and forever, Beatlemaniac.
My best friend said "but they will never be as big as Chuck".
Thank you for the article and memories.
Bruce H.
John,
I have a rock n roll band and play Revolution with much of the understanding of John Lennon. I don't know that John was as secular in Imagine as you think. While being a Christian I also imagine a world without religion. I view religion as just a sub political party of the left or right; a creature of people protecting what they shouldn't or the gain of something by nothing. Jesus Christ was not political nor did he claim a kingdom before Pilate. He didn't care for the "religious" as is practice then and today. It does take people though to make crap out of perfection.
Same thing with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Too many believe those documents grant or give people freedom. It's not what the words say, but if people can make crap out of perfection, these imperfect documents don't stand a chance and in the end may only resemble toilet paper.
John Lennon also wrote these words, "Last night the wife said, 'Oh Boy when your dead, You won't take nothing with you but your soul. Think.' " Interesting secular words. He's dead right or perhaps "Biblical" where he says, "You'd better free your mind instead." I love, "Expert, textpert, choking smoker don't you think the joker laughs at you..." Now didn't doctors profess smoking as healthy at one time?
BTW I thought that Paul encourage Lennon to do a more rock version of Revolution which is the second version different from the White Album? Maybe you wrote that.
Anyway, I enjoyed your article.
Mike P.
I Am the Walrus. In my opinion, this song is John Lennon’s masterpiece. Lennon, a voracious reader, was inspired by the writings of Lewis Carroll, in particular the tale of woe from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, in which a band of young oysters are lured by the charms of the Walrus, who then begins to devour them. Obvious is the "goo goo g’joob" refrain which is the last line that Humpty Dumpty speaks when he falls to his doom in Alice’s Adventures..
The poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter", and the character of Humpty Dumpty, are both from Lewis Carroll's second novel, "Through the Looking-Glass, and what Alice found there".
Humpty Dumpty's last words were "Wait till you've tried."
Ed P.
A nice list of songs. You've written a fine article. It's a good thing Normal Mailer isn't here to read it.
About 15 years years ago I went to a display of John's and others drawing and paintings. Looking at his simple lines, tears began to run down my face. I don't cry much. I slipped out a side door and lets the tears come. I still miss him. I often wonder what he'd think about the world. Such a waste.
RESIST MUCH, OBEY LITTLE, MF
Michael F.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Big Brother Wants to Know All About You: The American Community Survey
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
So what you are saying, in essence, is that we are really REQUIRED to answer the very instrusive questions in this survey, or risk losing our home and our freedom if we don't? To me, this is not freedom, as you have indicated, if only certain people face this risk, and not the population as a whole. Somehow, also, I don't believe for a minute that people are randomly picked. This year, once again, our oldest daughter (49) and her fifteen year old multi-racial daughter moved in with us. We also have a small trailer in Florida, which we are trying to sell, but have spent part of every winter for the past couple of years out of the state in which we live. So all of a sudden, a daughter who receives state benefits, with a non-white child, and we who have worked part-time until this spring, are being asked these very intrusive questions.
I also, contacted our state representatives, of course to no avail. I had never heard of these surveys until this year, as has no one else I have talked to--so why do they keep this quiet, if it is so legal and necessary? We have had many stressors in our lives in the past few years, and now I am losing sleep over this--it definitely is Big Brother watching, especially when you hear that laptops from census takers have gone missing, etc. If I sound angry, I am angry beyond belief--this sounds like a conspiracy of some kind, and I am usually not a conspiracy theorist.
In the on-line research I have done, apparently 45% of the people who receive these do not respond--what happens to these people? Sounds like we could be subjected to harassment of various kinds--also the threat that hangs over us sounds very, very 1984ish to me.
B. Meyers
So what you are saying, in essence, is that we are really REQUIRED to answer the very instrusive questions in this survey, or risk losing our home and our freedom if we don't? To me, this is not freedom, as you have indicated, if only certain people face this risk, and not the population as a whole. Somehow, also, I don't believe for a minute that people are randomly picked. This year, once again, our oldest daughter (49) and her fifteen year old multi-racial daughter moved in with us. We also have a small trailer in Florida, which we are trying to sell, but have spent part of every winter for the past couple of years out of the state in which we live. So all of a sudden, a daughter who receives state benefits, with a non-white child, and we who have worked part-time until this spring, are being asked these very intrusive questions.
I also, contacted our state representatives, of course to no avail. I had never heard of these surveys until this year, as has no one else I have talked to--so why do they keep this quiet, if it is so legal and necessary? We have had many stressors in our lives in the past few years, and now I am losing sleep over this--it definitely is Big Brother watching, especially when you hear that laptops from census takers have gone missing, etc. If I sound angry, I am angry beyond belief--this sounds like a conspiracy of some kind, and I am usually not a conspiracy theorist.
In the on-line research I have done, apparently 45% of the people who receive these do not respond--what happens to these people? Sounds like we could be subjected to harassment of various kinds--also the threat that hangs over us sounds very, very 1984ish to me.
B. Meyers
Monday, September 27, 2010
GPS and the Police State We Inhabit: Living in Oceania
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Very interesting and thorough. You might add "Facebook", but I don't know much about that.
J. McVickar
Great article as usual John.
Yup, big brother is watching (inevitably), pity the government is not a big brother.
Rather we are suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
What better way to control the masses other than make them feel vaguely guilty of something (real or imagined) all the time.
I've now been living in the USA for 10 years (legally), working hard, paying tax, jumping through every hoop presented before me.
Yet, this is the way I am slowly, incrementally learning to think and feel - I am a suspect.
Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
America has definitely seen better days.
J. Grounds
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
The two most disturbing aspects of what you write are: 1. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, and republicans are all on board with the government having this power, and 2. The mainstream media will cheerleader this with the most annoying cliche --- well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.
Let's face it Mr. Whirehead, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in reality, have been reduced to documents under glass. They are to be seen, and admired, but totally ignored by what passes for justice (sic) in early 21st century America.
And, as I tell my friends and associates, most of whom are rabid Faux News enthusiasts, if one is waiting for political salvation from the GOP, or the dems for that matter, they will be sorely disappointed.
Best regards,
B. Gentile
Sir:
Your article describes perfectly one of the reasons that I refuse to get a cell phone. Another reason is that cell phones can be turned on remotely to enable the police and others to monitor your conversations, even when you are not using the phone. The only way to stop this is to remove the battery.
C. Browne
It is much worse than just tracking your location via GPS.
Cell phones can be used as bugging devices to monitor your (non-telephone) conversations, and the U.S. government routinely does this.
There was a court case brought by a known mafioso to try to stop the government from listening in on people's conversations.
The government prevailed (no surprise).
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/your-cell-phone-can-be-used-to-eavesdrop-on-you-even-when-turned-off/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G1fNjK9SXg
H.
John,
While I agree with the Oceania allusions, you are way off in blaming technology. Technology is a tool. The criminals are those who (mis)use it. What you're doing is tantamount to blaming guns for shootings.
You will never stop the thought police by stripping them of some of their tools. The tools do not matter. There were no cell phones and GPS in 1984's Oceania.
M. Turner
Hi John,
Just read your recent essay at LRC. I can assure you, we already live in Oceania, our rights are violated on a daily basis for prolonged periods of time. Government is out of control, they are creating problems where no problems should exist. I don't think this will end well.
The intrusions are far more insidious than you suggest and somehow we have to fight back and halt this monster.
Sincerely,
M. Porter
Hi
In the words of the late Harry Browne. He said " there may a camera in every room but it won't work".
It seems to me that we have arrived at that point. The morons in charge may have access to data but they can't make it work. Too much, the cameras break, the lenses show unclear images, bureaucrats and bureaucracies are systemically lazy on top of that.
Our only real defense is the ineptitude of those behind the cameras.
Despite all of the satellites and radios and heavy artillery and airplanes and helicoptors and high powered weapons we are unable to defeat a bunch of Afghani's and Iraqi's with AK47's and RPG's. My explanation for this is that they are not incompetent and we are.
Funny stuff.
All the best.
J. Harrison
Very interesting and thorough. You might add "Facebook", but I don't know much about that.
J. McVickar
Great article as usual John.
Yup, big brother is watching (inevitably), pity the government is not a big brother.
Rather we are suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
What better way to control the masses other than make them feel vaguely guilty of something (real or imagined) all the time.
I've now been living in the USA for 10 years (legally), working hard, paying tax, jumping through every hoop presented before me.
Yet, this is the way I am slowly, incrementally learning to think and feel - I am a suspect.
Welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave.
America has definitely seen better days.
J. Grounds
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
The two most disturbing aspects of what you write are: 1. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, and republicans are all on board with the government having this power, and 2. The mainstream media will cheerleader this with the most annoying cliche --- well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.
Let's face it Mr. Whirehead, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in reality, have been reduced to documents under glass. They are to be seen, and admired, but totally ignored by what passes for justice (sic) in early 21st century America.
And, as I tell my friends and associates, most of whom are rabid Faux News enthusiasts, if one is waiting for political salvation from the GOP, or the dems for that matter, they will be sorely disappointed.
Best regards,
B. Gentile
Sir:
Your article describes perfectly one of the reasons that I refuse to get a cell phone. Another reason is that cell phones can be turned on remotely to enable the police and others to monitor your conversations, even when you are not using the phone. The only way to stop this is to remove the battery.
C. Browne
It is much worse than just tracking your location via GPS.
Cell phones can be used as bugging devices to monitor your (non-telephone) conversations, and the U.S. government routinely does this.
There was a court case brought by a known mafioso to try to stop the government from listening in on people's conversations.
The government prevailed (no surprise).
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/your-cell-phone-can-be-used-to-eavesdrop-on-you-even-when-turned-off/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G1fNjK9SXg
H.
John,
While I agree with the Oceania allusions, you are way off in blaming technology. Technology is a tool. The criminals are those who (mis)use it. What you're doing is tantamount to blaming guns for shootings.
You will never stop the thought police by stripping them of some of their tools. The tools do not matter. There were no cell phones and GPS in 1984's Oceania.
M. Turner
Hi John,
Just read your recent essay at LRC. I can assure you, we already live in Oceania, our rights are violated on a daily basis for prolonged periods of time. Government is out of control, they are creating problems where no problems should exist. I don't think this will end well.
The intrusions are far more insidious than you suggest and somehow we have to fight back and halt this monster.
Sincerely,
M. Porter
Hi
In the words of the late Harry Browne. He said " there may a camera in every room but it won't work".
It seems to me that we have arrived at that point. The morons in charge may have access to data but they can't make it work. Too much, the cameras break, the lenses show unclear images, bureaucrats and bureaucracies are systemically lazy on top of that.
Our only real defense is the ineptitude of those behind the cameras.
Despite all of the satellites and radios and heavy artillery and airplanes and helicoptors and high powered weapons we are unable to defeat a bunch of Afghani's and Iraqi's with AK47's and RPG's. My explanation for this is that they are not incompetent and we are.
Funny stuff.
All the best.
J. Harrison
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Marriage Meltdown: Gay Unions, Divorce and the Dysfunctional Family
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
The destruction of marriage is no accident. The traditional family stood as the last bastion of freedom against a tyrannical government so that had to go. Through Title IV-D the states profit from the destruction of the family through divorce. They do this by offering incentive to women to leave their husbands; they get the kids and the money that comes with it. This is why 80% of all divorces are initiated by women.
There have been attempts in almost every state to put some semblance of fairness into the family court system by mandating assumed equal custody unless one parent is actually proven guilty of some real detriment to the children. These types of measures are viciously opposed by politicians, lawyers who profit from custody disputes, and the NOW.
True, many men leave their families. However, it is equally true that many men are driven from their homes, their children, and into poverty by the combined efforts of their former wives and the Casanova state.
It would be great to see a report from John on the so-called Family Court System in America and how it undermines the traditional family.
Sincerely,
S. Hopkins
The destruction of marriage is no accident. The traditional family stood as the last bastion of freedom against a tyrannical government so that had to go. Through Title IV-D the states profit from the destruction of the family through divorce. They do this by offering incentive to women to leave their husbands; they get the kids and the money that comes with it. This is why 80% of all divorces are initiated by women.
There have been attempts in almost every state to put some semblance of fairness into the family court system by mandating assumed equal custody unless one parent is actually proven guilty of some real detriment to the children. These types of measures are viciously opposed by politicians, lawyers who profit from custody disputes, and the NOW.
True, many men leave their families. However, it is equally true that many men are driven from their homes, their children, and into poverty by the combined efforts of their former wives and the Casanova state.
It would be great to see a report from John on the so-called Family Court System in America and how it undermines the traditional family.
Sincerely,
S. Hopkins
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Obama and War: What Would Jesus Do?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I want to commend you on your recent articles regarding Christianity and War. I wholeheartedly agree!
It is amazing that so many “Christians” are willing to endorse, support and even go to war, when it is very clear in scripture that doing so is a violation of the teachings of Jesus. While there will be wars in this world, they are not for Christians to be involved with. It is also a shame that so few Christian leaders (regardless of denomination) are willing to speak up about the subject. Instead they seem to prefer violence over non-violence. The only group of Christians that I’ve come across that have faithfully been opposed to war are the Anabaptists, particularly the Mennonites.
As you have said, the Early Church Fathers were opposed believers being in the military and causing violence. Too bad more Christians don’t read what the early Christians believed and practiced. When I started reading the Early Church Fathers, that was one of the main teachings and practices that stood out to me.
For those Christians that are in the military or are thinking about joining, I would suggest they read a book called “Change of Allegiance” by Dean Taylor. Both Dean and his wife were in the Army when they came to the realization that being a Christian is incompatible with the military and war.
Again, thank you for your recent articles and speaking the truth.
In Christ,
C. Prang
These bastards in Washington are controlled by the New World Order which make money with war and crime .
D. Ecker
Congrats on the Jesus and War article ,now if we could just find the Chrisians who practice it and join in, what a world we would have. Let me know if you have found a Church who not only teach it but are not ashamed to proclaim this truth and pratcie it aswell and Ill move.
Agian I enjoy reading things like that it shows Im not alone at least in my understanding of what Jesus was saying.
Tony S.
Dear Mr. Whitehead,
I want to commend you on your recent articles regarding Christianity and War. I wholeheartedly agree!
It is amazing that so many “Christians” are willing to endorse, support and even go to war, when it is very clear in scripture that doing so is a violation of the teachings of Jesus. While there will be wars in this world, they are not for Christians to be involved with. It is also a shame that so few Christian leaders (regardless of denomination) are willing to speak up about the subject. Instead they seem to prefer violence over non-violence. The only group of Christians that I’ve come across that have faithfully been opposed to war are the Anabaptists, particularly the Mennonites.
As you have said, the Early Church Fathers were opposed believers being in the military and causing violence. Too bad more Christians don’t read what the early Christians believed and practiced. When I started reading the Early Church Fathers, that was one of the main teachings and practices that stood out to me.
For those Christians that are in the military or are thinking about joining, I would suggest they read a book called “Change of Allegiance” by Dean Taylor. Both Dean and his wife were in the Army when they came to the realization that being a Christian is incompatible with the military and war.
Again, thank you for your recent articles and speaking the truth.
In Christ,
C. Prang
These bastards in Washington are controlled by the New World Order which make money with war and crime .
D. Ecker
Congrats on the Jesus and War article ,now if we could just find the Chrisians who practice it and join in, what a world we would have. Let me know if you have found a Church who not only teach it but are not ashamed to proclaim this truth and pratcie it aswell and Ill move.
Agian I enjoy reading things like that it shows Im not alone at least in my understanding of what Jesus was saying.
Tony S.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: They're After All of Us and You're Next
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
"The only resistance to the perceived repression, Body Snatchers tells us, is an embattled individualism."
Mr. Whitehead, you're an attorney. Have you assisted anyone who was attempting to fight (in court) the theft of his property via eminent domain? How about someone attempting to defend his personal liberty by fighting a ticket for refusing to wear a seatbelt.
It's easy to write about what is wrong with society. Getting chewed up and spit out of a corrupt corporate court system is another matter entirely.
D. Paape
I saw body snatchers when I was 6 years old and it scared the living daylights out of me. But your article has shed new light on a movie I was unable to understand as a child. Your article came at a very relevant time for me as we have been receiving "visits" and "calls" from the census bureau that irritate and bother us. Your statement, "There is hope in the defiant individual" is another moment of encouragement for us to continue resisting the invasive questioning.
Thank you for your well thought out article,
B. Stump
"The only resistance to the perceived repression, Body Snatchers tells us, is an embattled individualism."
Mr. Whitehead, you're an attorney. Have you assisted anyone who was attempting to fight (in court) the theft of his property via eminent domain? How about someone attempting to defend his personal liberty by fighting a ticket for refusing to wear a seatbelt.
It's easy to write about what is wrong with society. Getting chewed up and spit out of a corrupt corporate court system is another matter entirely.
D. Paape
I saw body snatchers when I was 6 years old and it scared the living daylights out of me. But your article has shed new light on a movie I was unable to understand as a child. Your article came at a very relevant time for me as we have been receiving "visits" and "calls" from the census bureau that irritate and bother us. Your statement, "There is hope in the defiant individual" is another moment of encouragement for us to continue resisting the invasive questioning.
Thank you for your well thought out article,
B. Stump
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Snyder v. Phelps: Will Misguided Patriotism Destroy Free Speech?
Click Here to Read John Whitehead's Commentary
Mr. Whitehead;
I read with interest your Sunday article in our local newspaper, the York (PA) Sunday news. You were concerned enough to share your opinion with me. I wish to reciprocate.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Army, a registered Democrat, and a staunch advocate of free speech. My position applies especially to the Westboro Baptist Church, radical though their position may be. You might conclude that his places me squarely astride the Snyder vs. Phelps issue. But you would be wrong.
It is clear to me that the issue before the Supreme court is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a decency and due consideration issue as it applies to the family of a fallen U.S. Soldier. It is irrational to posit that the issue would apply to a dead soldier. It does not. I believe that Snyder should prevail on that basis.
Compare my point of view (roughly) to the example of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Crying "FIRE" is not necessarily wrong. But where and when the cry is given can be harmful. Families of dead American heroes, in their private hour of personal sorrow, should be protected from vile and obscene protests by inconsiderate lunatics. But those lunatics should have the right to express any politically obscene view they wish, in any neutral and public location.
Your position is wrong, Mr. Whitehead. I sincerely hope that you never have to abide a disgusting political protest while burying your son. Until you do, I will consider your opinion irrelevant.
C. Runk
While I agree in principle with your article regarding Mr. Phelps, I don't agree that he has the right to completely disrupt a family's grief. Mr. Phelps, lunatic that he is, has literally thousands of ways to make his "ideas" known. I wonder if it was your loved one's funeral if you would feel the same. Please walk for a moment in Mr. Snyder's shoes. How sad that he can't respect his son's life and service with honor. --Alice
I want to say thank you for your wonderful articles. I read them in the Crossville Chronicle. I look forward to each one. They always are thought provoking. I like to say that they wake up my brain cells and start me thinking again. And no, I don’t always agree with you, but you always make me think. Thank you. I would wish that everyone would read your articles. My fear is that we are a nation that is becoming very complacent and that is a dangerous place to be. This particular article I am copying and sending to my grandchildren, who are of college age and are pretty sure they know it all. I like to discuss things like your article with them. It keeps us involved. Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
J. Wilt
Your commentary in the Daily Progress on Snyder Vs. Phelps disgusted me. What is at issue with the Westboro Baptist Church is not the content of their speech but the venue in which they insist on spewing that speech. In our "free society" there are many ways in which we relegate our "freedom" for either the common good, or for the basic functioning of the society. For example, rules of the road, stop lights, one-way signs, etc. There are restrictions on hate speech and there are restrictions on vulgarity in print, television, and such. These protestors are free to choose another venue. These are funerals which deserve privacy and protection. These grieving families, while burying their loved ones, should be protected from this "hate speech" directed at the militray.
It is also clear by the tone of your article that you expect the Supreme Court to rule with the Snyder family and thus you go on to state that such a ruling illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. You are wrong. Such a ruling will demostrate that as a free society we are careful, and recognize that freedom is a huge responsibily that does not justify freedoms at the expense of others under all situations. We are a caring society. We will defend peoples right to say what they want even when it is distasteful. Do not try to portray this as an attempt to squash distasteful speech.
This is about protecting the rights of grieving families and rising up as a society to protect them from something that is just as harmful and hurtful as vulgar hate speech. --
R. Emery
Dear John Whitehead,
I always take pleasure in reading your opinions and have tremendous respect for you, although our political views may sometimes be at odds. I am a long-time liberal who emigrated from Apartheid South Africa to the United States in 1969. I believe strongly in the right to free speech, but surely there must be ethical and moral limits?
I worry that the level of discourse in America at the moment is disturbingly ugly, mean-spirited and hate-filled. I have been particularly disturbed by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the fact that children hold signs saying God Hates You. I disagree with your statement about war values seeping into American culture. These people have picketed at a Quaker School and obviously are also anti-Semitic. I think that the actions of that church show something warped and ugly and rather frightening emerging in America, and I fear for our children.
Sincerely,
V. Matthews
I am writing to take issue with your July 25 editor "Snyder v. Phelps". While I am a free speech zealot and come down on the same side as you, I find your argument flawed; filled with both factual and historical error. You argument ignores the fact that the regulation in question is about the place where free speech is exercised and instead you misrepresent it as an issue of regulation of content. To restrict the time and place of public protest is not the same as restricting free speech itself, as long as the restrictions do not make exercise of such speech impractical. The right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to express their views does not imply an unlimited right to interrupt private activities. To protect grieving families from disruptive protest is not the same as a militarization of American iife. Rather, it recognizes that all is not political; that individuals have rights to exercise their religious observances without intrusion from the political realm.
I find ludicrous your invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a paragon of Free Speech and your suggestion of a former golden age where Free Speech was more widely respected. The same Holmes was the author of the infamous Schenck v. US decision that allowed imprisonment for advocating resistance to the draft -- something that hope would not be allowed today. His equating of such behavior to crying fire in a crowded theater was worse than the shameful excesses of the "Patriot Act." More generally, Holmes' judicial legacy was as a "realist" who opposed argument from principle and thus undermined the entire natural law foundation upon which our political rights are based.
Sincerely,
K. Lehmann
Dear Mr. Rutherford,
You give me hope that conservatism hasn't simply morphed into militaristic statism with your column on Snyder vs. Phelps. You recognize the "emerging war empire." I left conservatism as a result of the Bush years, having recognized that the GOP and all the right-wing talking heads had become shills for the US empire. I am glad to know that not all conservatives have drunk from that insidious and poisonous well of tyranny.
I loathe, detest, and repudiate Fred Phelps. He is a hateful, odious, gasbag bottom feeder. But if the government silences him, it will eventually silence you and me. Thanks for your wisdom.
J. Hershberger
What I think makes this case even more interesting is that I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is in truth, merely performance art. In the 1950 and 1960s, Mr. Phelps was a nationally reknowned civil rights attorney. There are many explanation of his evolution from an arbiter of social justice to a reviled religious bigot, but after doing some research and observing some of their protests (including their online music videos), I am convinced that the WBC is merely a parody intended to show hypocricy within the Christian religion. After all, one of his last cases before he was disbarred was to sue the federal government for violation of the separation of church and state after Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
M. Kaney
Mr. Whitehead;
I read with interest your Sunday article in our local newspaper, the York (PA) Sunday news. You were concerned enough to share your opinion with me. I wish to reciprocate.
I am a veteran of the U.S. Army, a registered Democrat, and a staunch advocate of free speech. My position applies especially to the Westboro Baptist Church, radical though their position may be. You might conclude that his places me squarely astride the Snyder vs. Phelps issue. But you would be wrong.
It is clear to me that the issue before the Supreme court is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a decency and due consideration issue as it applies to the family of a fallen U.S. Soldier. It is irrational to posit that the issue would apply to a dead soldier. It does not. I believe that Snyder should prevail on that basis.
Compare my point of view (roughly) to the example of crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Crying "FIRE" is not necessarily wrong. But where and when the cry is given can be harmful. Families of dead American heroes, in their private hour of personal sorrow, should be protected from vile and obscene protests by inconsiderate lunatics. But those lunatics should have the right to express any politically obscene view they wish, in any neutral and public location.
Your position is wrong, Mr. Whitehead. I sincerely hope that you never have to abide a disgusting political protest while burying your son. Until you do, I will consider your opinion irrelevant.
C. Runk
While I agree in principle with your article regarding Mr. Phelps, I don't agree that he has the right to completely disrupt a family's grief. Mr. Phelps, lunatic that he is, has literally thousands of ways to make his "ideas" known. I wonder if it was your loved one's funeral if you would feel the same. Please walk for a moment in Mr. Snyder's shoes. How sad that he can't respect his son's life and service with honor. --Alice
I want to say thank you for your wonderful articles. I read them in the Crossville Chronicle. I look forward to each one. They always are thought provoking. I like to say that they wake up my brain cells and start me thinking again. And no, I don’t always agree with you, but you always make me think. Thank you. I would wish that everyone would read your articles. My fear is that we are a nation that is becoming very complacent and that is a dangerous place to be. This particular article I am copying and sending to my grandchildren, who are of college age and are pretty sure they know it all. I like to discuss things like your article with them. It keeps us involved. Again, I thank you. Keep up the good work.
J. Wilt
Your commentary in the Daily Progress on Snyder Vs. Phelps disgusted me. What is at issue with the Westboro Baptist Church is not the content of their speech but the venue in which they insist on spewing that speech. In our "free society" there are many ways in which we relegate our "freedom" for either the common good, or for the basic functioning of the society. For example, rules of the road, stop lights, one-way signs, etc. There are restrictions on hate speech and there are restrictions on vulgarity in print, television, and such. These protestors are free to choose another venue. These are funerals which deserve privacy and protection. These grieving families, while burying their loved ones, should be protected from this "hate speech" directed at the militray.
It is also clear by the tone of your article that you expect the Supreme Court to rule with the Snyder family and thus you go on to state that such a ruling illustrates how far we've fallen as a free society. You are wrong. Such a ruling will demostrate that as a free society we are careful, and recognize that freedom is a huge responsibily that does not justify freedoms at the expense of others under all situations. We are a caring society. We will defend peoples right to say what they want even when it is distasteful. Do not try to portray this as an attempt to squash distasteful speech.
This is about protecting the rights of grieving families and rising up as a society to protect them from something that is just as harmful and hurtful as vulgar hate speech. --
R. Emery
Dear John Whitehead,
I always take pleasure in reading your opinions and have tremendous respect for you, although our political views may sometimes be at odds. I am a long-time liberal who emigrated from Apartheid South Africa to the United States in 1969. I believe strongly in the right to free speech, but surely there must be ethical and moral limits?
I worry that the level of discourse in America at the moment is disturbingly ugly, mean-spirited and hate-filled. I have been particularly disturbed by the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, and the fact that children hold signs saying God Hates You. I disagree with your statement about war values seeping into American culture. These people have picketed at a Quaker School and obviously are also anti-Semitic. I think that the actions of that church show something warped and ugly and rather frightening emerging in America, and I fear for our children.
Sincerely,
V. Matthews
I am writing to take issue with your July 25 editor "Snyder v. Phelps". While I am a free speech zealot and come down on the same side as you, I find your argument flawed; filled with both factual and historical error. You argument ignores the fact that the regulation in question is about the place where free speech is exercised and instead you misrepresent it as an issue of regulation of content. To restrict the time and place of public protest is not the same as restricting free speech itself, as long as the restrictions do not make exercise of such speech impractical. The right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to express their views does not imply an unlimited right to interrupt private activities. To protect grieving families from disruptive protest is not the same as a militarization of American iife. Rather, it recognizes that all is not political; that individuals have rights to exercise their religious observances without intrusion from the political realm.
I find ludicrous your invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. as a paragon of Free Speech and your suggestion of a former golden age where Free Speech was more widely respected. The same Holmes was the author of the infamous Schenck v. US decision that allowed imprisonment for advocating resistance to the draft -- something that hope would not be allowed today. His equating of such behavior to crying fire in a crowded theater was worse than the shameful excesses of the "Patriot Act." More generally, Holmes' judicial legacy was as a "realist" who opposed argument from principle and thus undermined the entire natural law foundation upon which our political rights are based.
Sincerely,
K. Lehmann
Mr Whitehead: Regarding the Westboro Baptist Church case on which you have recently written, I have some concerns of a different nature relative to cases of that sort (what sort I mean I will make clear below).
To me freedom of speech means the freedom not to be constrained in spoken or written expression of opinions, beliefs, etc., because of content, so long as such content does not explicitly incite others to actions that would threaten public safety. This freedom also includes absence of purposeful constraint on access to said expression by those who wish such access.
Currently, there seems to be an implicit assumption that the freedom of speech of an individual or group of individuals is being "abridged" if they are prevented from seeking out a captive audience and forcing their speech (or expression) on that audience. This is the case with the Westboro Baptist matter as with the American Nazis in Skokie who were successfully defended by the ACLU.
In my own view, my right to freely express myself is no more worthy of protection than your right to get out of earshot when I do so if you so desire. But I realize that others may differ. As for funerals, although I wouldn't distinguish that of a soldier from that of any other departed, those present certainly have a right to mourn without disruption. Laws of public nuisance, disturbance of the peace and trespass certainly should provide legitimate grounds for preventing such disruption.
And I would think that such limitations as denial of the right to force speech on an unwilling audience should not significantly diminish the effectiveness of a "free marketplace of ideas" so long as speech remains free to the extent indicated in my second paragraph above.
It is perhaps unfortunate that Justice Holmes did not consider other proper reasons for preventing an interloper from interrupting a theater performance than just his threatening public safety.
C. Coffman
Mr. Whitehead,
I wanted to thank you for your article linked on LewRockwell.com about Westboro Baptist Church and the implications of their pending lawsuits. I am a 6-year veteran of the North Carolina Air National Guard, and I have a long family history of military service. I’ve actually had my own run-ins with the Westboro church when I lived in Kansas, and have been the personal target of their protests several times.
But regardless of how offensive their speech is, and regardless of how sick it might make me to see them protest at the funeral of 18-year old kids killed because of their naïve belief that freedom can be gained through force of arms, I agree with you that attempts to silence such speech is a far greater threat to our liberties. As you quote by Holmes suggested, our freedom of speech is meaningless unless it protests the speech of those with which we disagree.
My biggest problem with Westboro is not their terribly bigoted views, but more of their attempts to goad people into violence through their protests. They abuse our broken legal system by doing their best to get people to react physically or by stopping the protest so that they can sue the parties involved for huge payouts through their own law firm. While speech and assembly definitely should be protected, massive lawsuits beyond just compensation should not be.
I also wanted to thank you for pointing out America’s culture of soldier worship. While that culture tends to benefit many in uniform, I have come to realize over my years in the military that the soldier culture is probably the best example of American socialism available and represents a model that is started to show the classic signs of socialist failure (e.g. military healthcare and soldier benefits now make up most of the DOD total budget and is continuing to skyrocket). I could give you example after example of massive waste and bureaucracy in just my little part of the military.
There are those of us working to reduce that waste and reduce the size of the military and military intervention from within though, but that seems more and more like a never ending fight with our multiple wars and continuing contingencies overseas. Please continue writing, and I’ll continue reading.
A. Smith
Dear Mr. Rutherford,
You give me hope that conservatism hasn't simply morphed into militaristic statism with your column on Snyder vs. Phelps. You recognize the "emerging war empire." I left conservatism as a result of the Bush years, having recognized that the GOP and all the right-wing talking heads had become shills for the US empire. I am glad to know that not all conservatives have drunk from that insidious and poisonous well of tyranny.
I loathe, detest, and repudiate Fred Phelps. He is a hateful, odious, gasbag bottom feeder. But if the government silences him, it will eventually silence you and me. Thanks for your wisdom.
J. Hershberger
What I think makes this case even more interesting is that I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church is in truth, merely performance art. In the 1950 and 1960s, Mr. Phelps was a nationally reknowned civil rights attorney. There are many explanation of his evolution from an arbiter of social justice to a reviled religious bigot, but after doing some research and observing some of their protests (including their online music videos), I am convinced that the WBC is merely a parody intended to show hypocricy within the Christian religion. After all, one of his last cases before he was disbarred was to sue the federal government for violation of the separation of church and state after Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican.
M. Kaney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)