We have just finished our second year of presenting you with information and opinions on issues relating to attacks by our government on our rights, freedoms and way of life as intended and established by our Founding Fathers. These past 27 months under the ideologically radical, intellectually dishonest, corrupt, arrogant, racist and abjectly incompetent Obama Administration have been among the worst (excluding the Civil War) in our nation's history.
Even worse than the Carter's years.
We have a "president" who shows an unmistakable and perpetual disdain for our country and a majority of its citizens (which has been on display internationally). His actions have consistently been geared to weakening us economically and militarily and to reducing us to a non-exceptional and middling nation in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Domestically, he has relentlessly sought to abrogate our rights, freedoms and choices often by resorting to unconstitutional or fringe means and regulations that frequently make use of his hand-picked radical, anti-American and often Marxist czars and far-left infested government agencies. These are imposed against the will of the people - US!
These are the signs and manifestations of tyranny and MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.
Obama, as well as those in his Administration, in Congress and elsewhere who seek to negate our rights like that which occurred in the old Soviet Union through the Politburo, must be vehemently and vociferously opposed and either neutralized or removed from office or government positions.
Information is power and we must use it to Save Our Rights!
Thank you for your continued support ... and spread the word.
Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
Local, state and federal governments are becoming increasingly intrusive in our private lives in accord with the liberal philosophy that "the government knows better".
Guess what (there is no need for guessing here)?
The government doesn't know better and it has no right dictating our choices (as long they are "legal").
In a Chicago school, children are not allowed to bring in their own lunch anymore because the administration feels that the parents are incapable of feeding their children properly. The school forces the children to eat there ... and what it deems that they should eat. California and N.Y. are the most well known for their restrictive, intrusive and punitive culinary restrictions for restaurants.
Soon, governments may decide what kind of toilet paper we must use and the number of sheets that can be used before being subjected to a fine.
These intrusive actions, signs of large and powerful governments and unrestrained politicians, must be abrogated!
Obama’s little more than 2 years in office as President has revealed a multitude of noxious traits, actions and ideologies, a high proportion of which serve to abet his agenda to the detriment of the American public. Many even openly flout the Constitution and other legalities.
Probably the most vile and dangerous of these to the American public are his concerted attempts to consolidate power and control while concurrently thwarting the opposition. Obama acts much like a dictator though an inept one at that. He also has sought to implement ideologies which abrogate many of our rights and freedoms through the use of myriad regulations and Presidential edicts rather than through democratic channels like Congress. This even includes attacks on the right to free speech – including political speech and contributions.
Through Presidential edict, Obama is now seeking to legislate away the rights of supporters of his opponents while at the same time, allowing groups supportive of him and the Democratic machine (such as unions) to keep making their massive political contributions unscathed.
Obama's Executive Order coming to cut off funding to his political opponents?
Ed Lasky April 20, 2011
From the man who said he would bring a gun to a knife fight, the latest ploy to cut his opponents off at their knees. This one is not based on arguments or facts, but on sheer abuse of the powers he has as President.
Kenneth Vogel writes in Politico that President Obama is "considering a number of measures to compel disclosure of the kind of anonymous campaign contributions that helped finance millions of dollars of attack ads against Democrats during the 2010 elections."
These measures appear broad in scope:
The White House last week began circulating a draft executive order that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose contributions -- including those that otherwise would have been secret -- to groups that air political ads attacking or supporting candidates.
The proposed order follows several actions by regulatory agencies that have a similar intent of making corporate and individual donations more transparent.
Last month the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a decree that could result in shareholders having more say in corporate election spending. Democratic appointees to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission are pushing measures that could make public currently anonymous contributions to outside groups.
Administration critics, including the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are seizing on the White House's draft executive order, in particular, as evidence of an attempt to use executive power to punish or silence political adversaries, while rewarding supporters.
Calling the draft executive order "an affront to the separation of powers ... (and) to free speech," chamber spokeswoman Blair Latoff said it "lays the groundwork for a political litmus test for companies that wish to do business with the federal government" and is "less about disclosure than intimidation."
One White House ally, Craig Holman, applauds these plans since the 2010 election brought too many Republicans into Congress to hold out hope that these "reforms" could happen through legislation. So President Obama intends to use brute force to take these measures that would chill free speech and the campaign efforts of his critics. Apparently, a great deal can be achieved administratively through a regulatory approach and by executive order. A draft of the executive order requires disclosures of contributions made by companies' executives and board members to support candidates and third-party groups (such as the very effective American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity groups).
Tellingly, the draft order would not apply to Democratic-allied groups that receive grants from the federal government (such as Planned Parenthood) or to unions, which bankroll so many Democratic campaigns and which have trumpeted that their spending power helped elect Barack Obama and makes them the king of the (Capitol) hill. Unions are among the biggest campaign spenders in America and they give their money to Democrats. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
Similar efforts to compel disclosure are being made through the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FCC and through the Federal Election Commission.
While the nation reels from a faltering economy with the lowest labor force participation rate in decades, with a deficit and debt crisis that may merit a S & P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, with a geopolitical earthquake in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds time to figure out ways to hurt his political opponents (or his "enemies" as he would characterize them).
Public disclosure of campaign contributions can lead to boycotts of companies whose executives give to political campaigns (as happened when Target came under fire for its campaign contributions, when boycotts targeted campaign contributors to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker; similar efforts to punish people for their political views litter the political landscape).
Barack Obama wants to chill political speech to further his chances to win reelection. He made clear his views towards the law as decided by the Supreme Court when he crassly lambasted them last year during the State of the Union address for supporting the First Amendment in their Citizens United decision (a law he basically wants to undercut by using the powers of the Presidency in a particularly underhanded way).
Barack Obama , when he ran his campaign for state senator, had his opponents thrown off the ballots by challenging the signatures on their petitions to run. He cleared the ballot of all opponents.
He does not play fair -- and never has. That is his modus operandi. He learned everything he needed to know about politics in Cook County and he has brought its mores to Washington.
Change, yes, change; but in a wrong direction and in a way that the media would scorn had a Republican tried to derail opposition by these tactics.
In the following speech in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul, he rails against a large, omnipotent central government, the "Collective", and instead exhorts Senators to consider the protection and expansion of the rights, freedoms and choices of the individual. He cites Ayn Rand and her prescient novel, "Anthem", in his discussion.
If we want to protect our rights and freedoms and even recoup much of what has been lost, the relentlessly expanding federal Leviathan needs to be tamed and substantially reduced in size. Its immensity is a perpetual threat to the individual and not what our Founding Fathers desired or envisioned. They presciently knew the threats of a larger, more invasive and powerful central government and warned against this happening.
We need to support and elect individuals like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who declared in his response to Obama’s State of the Union address that: “We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.” Of its small role, he also opined that: “We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.”
None of these conditions are being met today.
We must make them a reality!
Choice, Not Compromise
Terry Paulson 2/14/2011
Rep. Paul Ryan’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union provides a clue to the political battle that is coming: “The principles that guide us; they are anchored in the wisdom of the founders in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government and with the blessing of self-government. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.”
There is no compromise on opposite principles; it’s either empowered individuals or an all-powerful government. Thankfully the recent overreach by President Obama on healthcare reform, the Republican gains in November, and recent court decisions are moving things closer to a showdown in the Supreme Court and in the coming budget battle.
Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact the Affordable Care Act that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance. Judge Vinson argues that to allow the law to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power and narrow the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson's words, "the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would,…allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I." A Supreme Court decision looms on the horizon.
As President Obama delivers his 2012 Budget this week, the battle will accelerate. With Republicans looking to cut the size and spending of government by cutting the funding for implementing the Affordable Care Act, additional stimulus investments, and relief for debt-ridden states, the battle of all battles will begin. Glenn Beck, in his well-documented book Broke, challenges conservatives to focus the fight on the Constitution and core principles. Our founding fathers fought for equal rights, not rights to benefit some at the expense of others.
Beck points to Ayn Rand for an easy way to distinguish whether a right is in accordance with the Constitution. After any right is proposed, simply ask the question “at whose expense?” Is there a universal right to a college education or healthcare? At whose expense? Your right to life and liberty was not to come at expense of anyone else. As Ayn Rand wrote, “The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.” Individual rights were to supersede any government power.
Could it be that government “help” has just escalated the cost of healthcare and education? While published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, the median family income rose only 147 percent and healthcare cost rose only 250%. Are those increases a result of true costs to improve education or are they a result of the fact that they can get away with such charges because government provides more loans and grants? Parents, students and taxpayers are left with more debt because government tries to “help” by throwing your money at the “problem!”
How can citizens afford the cost of college and healthcare? By keeping most of the money they now give to government.
John Stossel, in Give Me a Break, shows Federal spending from 1789 to 2003. The line is all but flat until World War II. When America began, government cost the average citizen $20 in today’s money. That’s $20 a year! Taxes rose during wars, but for most of the history of America spending never exceeded a few hundred dollars per citizen. During World War II, government got much bigger. It was supposed to shrink again after the war. It never did; it just kept expanding. In 2010, federal spending ($6.3 trillion) cost every man, woman and child in this country just under $20,000 a year! If you aren’t paying that, you’re making your neighbor pay your share!
It’s not too late. Support politicians who are fighting to take back America to what it was formed to be—a beacon for liberty and opportunity not an invitation to dependence on big government!
During his two year tenure as “president”, Obama has unmasked his true intentions and character: an unrelenting arrogant, contemptuous, narcissistic, racist, elitist Progressive who intends to transform the American political, economic and social system in direct opposition to the wishes of an overwhelming majority of citizens in order to realize his ideological goals. His agenda is authoritarian control or, in essence, tyranny and has been accomplishing much of this through his czars and fellow Progressives with regulations and rules that often bypass Congress.
In isolation, Obama would have little success. Unfortunately, he and a cadre of Progressives in high places have worked to advance the far left causes which have been immensely aided by the fifth column press which is complicit in this revolution. We all know the names of some of these noxious Progressive politicians who are bent on undermining and destroying our country: Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Pete Stark. (See yesterday’s post : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Outrageous Statements Made In An Arab Country Regarding the Tucson Shooter for just one example of the outrageous, destructive and irresponsible actions of Hillary Clinton)
We must vanquish this revolution being perpetrated by liberal Democrats and Progressives from within the government, doing whatever it takes to neutralize these individuals and their destructive actions. The November massacre of Democratic politicians at the voting booth is a start but we must continue on relentlessly. It is imperative that we fervently support the conservatives and Republicans in Congress in order to help regain our stolen rights and freedoms as well as reestablish sane fiscal policies.
Arrogant and Authoritarian: Barack Obama and the New Progressives
Chuck Rogér January 12, 2011
Blindness to physical reality, denial of human nature, and a consuming desire to use government force to impose fantasies on fellow human beings. Welcome to the mind of today's American "progressive."
Progressives veil sophomoric schemes in eloquent verbiage. Barack Obama's mastery of the technique got him elected president. Sixty-nine and a half million Americans would not have voted for Obama had he failed to conceal the differences between his campaign spiel and the contents of his heart.
Convinced of the goodness of their intentions, ideologues like Obama mistake tyranny for noble action. And to achieve their noble objectives, today's progressives bend the truth far more than did predecessors like John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. Yet Obama has increasingly adopted a more direct modus operandi since becoming president. The "centrist" disguise has disintegrated.
Progressivism initially appeared on the American scene in response to problems that cried for solutions. Peter Berkowitz describes the movement's birth.
The original progressivism arose in the 1880s and 1890s and flourished during the first two decades of the 20th century. It is associated with, among others, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, scholars Fredrick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard, reformer Jane Addams, theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, philosopher and educator John Dewey, and journalist and New Republic founder Herbert Croly.
At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wronged. They fought political corruption and sought to make political institutions more responsive to the will of the people. And they advanced programs and policies that, in a changing world, brought liberal democracy in America more in line with the Declaration of Independence's and the Constitution's original promise of freedom and equality for all.
So some original progressives had a positive influence on the country. But history shows that the ideas of zealots like Wilson, Croly, Dewey, and FDR had devastating effects. Government size and intrusion into business and private life have mushroomed. America's education system has decayed into a vehicle for infecting young people with pie-in-the-sky misconceptions of human nature and twisted versions of the American story.
Decades since the progressive movement began, a clear picture has developed of rabid ideologues like Margaret Sanger, whose racism incited her to conceive the eugenic "Negro Project" to reduce the "inferior" black population. Progressive minds like Sanger's, capable of spawning the depravity of Planned Parenthood, are dark places.
Today, the truth stares Americans in the face. While progressivism was born of an earnest desire to advance personal freedom, the ideology devolved into a collection of approaches that would lock people in the chains of a centrally planned society, with progressive elites withholding the keys to the locks. The elitists truly believe that legislative and regulatory shackles can remold human nature to conform to an impossibly perfect vision.
We need look no farther than our progressive-in-chief for the embodiment of the stubborn pseudo-intellectual who views himself as society's infallible guiding hand. Barack Obama wants government to "spread the wealth" by taking wealth from high earners who spread it more broadly and deeply than government ever could. Our president thinks that Americans who are concerned about decaying values and explosive federal spending are too "scared" to trust cherry-picked "facts and science." Obama believes that people are wasting valuable time "pushing away challenges, looking backwards" -- presumably focusing on really dreadful stuff like wholesome values, common sense, and facts evidenced by history. Barack the magic driver says that Republicans critical of his magic bus "can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
A hundred years ago, Herbert Croly foretold the Obama mindset, declaring that "the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to a serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat1." Peter Berkowitz suggests that today's progressives probably find Croly's declaration "mortifying." I think Berkowitz misses the mark. Hillary Clinton, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Time's Joe Klein, U.C. Berkley linguist George Lakoff, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, and countless other progressives routinely make an exhibition of their insufferably arrogant elitism. Obama's superior manner and California Representative Pete Stark's outrageous impudence typify the demeanor of today's enlightened ones.
With a smugness celebrated by soul mates in the media, Barack Obama inspires American progressives to flaunt their haughtiness. Describing the posturing that accompanies the haughtiness, Berkowitz observes that Obama's techniques constitute an "effort to push dramatic transformation under the cover of moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship."
My characterization is more straightforward. The media actively sell Obama's phony "moderation, pragmatism, and post-partisanship" to "cover" actions that are immoderate, impractical, and entirely partisan. Obama purveys doublespeak to convince people of one thing while the illusionist-in-chief does another. Millions of Americans voted for a package of illusions in 2008.
Obamaesque deceit and conceit are easily summarized: progressives sanctify pretty theory as obviously true and condemn ugly reality as necessarily false. Progressives see themselves as incapable of error and believe that rejection of their high-mindedness could be undertaken only by commoners too dim to comprehend what's best.
During the two years after Barack Obama moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Democrats increased their stranglehold on Congress, something became crystal-clear. A hideous infestation called progressivism has uglified the White House and the Democrat Party. The tyrannous legislative and regulatory rampages that Obama and the Democrats undertook made something else clear. Until progressivism is flushed from the party, Democrats must never again be entrusted with substantial influence in government.
A writer, physicist, and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér invites you to visit his website, www.chuckroger.com. E-mail Chuck at email@example.com.
The article below details the outrage and humiliation that a Hollywood celebrity experienced when selected by TSA agents to have a body scan performed on her. The actress, who was a “Baywatch” beauty traveling with her 17 year old son, clearly had no other reasons to have been solely picked out other than for non-security reasons such as prurient or power related ones.
This is an unwarranted abuse of government power and, unfortunately, individuals have little immediate recourse. There have also been other egregious abuses perpetrated by TSA agents, some which have been reported in the news media.
The total body scanners are an unnecessary and inexcusable invasion of the privacy of the average American citizen who is a low risk for being a terrorist. This issue is further compounded by the fine details that are seen on the images, the ability to save and disseminate these pictures (even though it is against regulations! Wink wink.) and the potential health risks to this radiation exposure including facilitating cancer.
Of course, the alternative is the intimate “pat down” examination which may constitute a legalized form of sexual assault that should be followed by the mutual consumption of two cigarettes afterwards.
Neither of these approaches is appropriate in the present form and should not be accepted by the traveling public.
What must be done is the implementation of sensible PROFILING and safer and more discreet means of detecting weaponry and explosives. There is no need for radiologically undressing someone nor should they be forcibly irradiated pseudo-raped just to travel by plane.
If Obama, Michelle Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder were scanned and fondled each time they flew, we suspect that this situation would be resolved expeditiously. (Hillary Clinton, though, may actually increase her travel schedule in order to keep coming back for more as she is not getting it from Bill at home!)
'Baywatch' Beauty Feels Overexposed After TSA Scan A former "Baywatch" beauty is feeling overexposed after going through what she says was a humiliating body scan by Transportation Security Administration agents at Los Angeles International Airport.
Donna D'Errico, who was the Playboy Playmate in September 1995, says she got a few leers along with the scan and isn't happy about it.
D'Errico, 42, says the encounter occurred at LAX while trying to catch a flight to Pittsburgh with her son, Rhyan, 17.
"We were on our way to see Rhyan's aunt, who had just been put on life support in the ICU," D'Errico told AOL News in an exclusive interview. "My boyfriend and his business partner happened to be flying the same airline [American] on their way to New York for business. We got checked in and headed to security."
After waiting in a long line of holiday travelers, D'Errico and her son finally made it to the moving carrier where all the carry-on bags are placed. That's when a TSA agent took her by the elbow and told her she needed to "come this way."
Donna D'Errico says she felt overexposed at LAX airport after being forced to go through a body scan that she suspects was ordered because she was pretty and not because she was a terrorist suspect.
"I said I was traveling with my son, motioning to him, and the agent said he was to come along with me as well," D'Errico said. "I immediately asked why we were having to go through an extra search, and no one else was being made to do so, indicating the long line of other passengers in front of and behind where we had been in line. In a very sarcastic tone, and still holding me by the elbow, the agent responded, 'Because you caught my eye, and they' -- pointing to the other passengers -- 'didn't.'"
D'Errico is still wondering how she caught his eye while others didn't.
"My boyfriend and his partner sailed through with no problems, which is rather ironic in that my boyfriend fits the stereotypical 'look' of a terrorist when his beard has grown in a bit, which it was that evening," she said.
Although D'Errico was a regular on "Baywatch" from 1996 to 1998, a period when it was one of the most popular shows worldwide, she doesn't know whether she was singled out because of her fame.
Donna D'Errico is seen in this 1996 photo on the set of "Baywatch."
"I'm not sure whether they had recognized me or not," she admitted. "If they did, they didn't say anything. However, it is my personal belief that they pulled me aside because they thought I was attractive. My boyfriend, as I mentioned before, looks much more like a terrorist than either I or my son do, and he went through security with no problems."
The TSA rules regarding scans and searches dictate that passengers can select a scan or a search. D'Errico says that was never an option.
"They never even told me what they were doing at all, or that I had any choice," she said. "It was just, 'Stand here. Raise your arms above your head like this.' They never told me that they were going to be conducting a full-body scan, or that I had the option of being searched instead. Had they explained what they were doing, I would have opted for the search. As a matter of fact, my son was made to not only go through the full-body scan, but they also conducted a pat-down search on him as well.
"After the search, I noticed that the male TSA agent who had pulled me out of line was smiling and whispering with two other TSA agents and glancing at me. I was outraged."
So was her boyfriend, Roy J. Bank, the president of Merv Griffin Entertainment, who says he was in disbelief at what had just occurred.
"Anything that upsets Donna upsets me," he said. "I hated her being humiliated like that. I was genuinely shocked by both Donna and Rhyan being pulled aside for the extensive scanning.
"I'm all for measures to make us safer when traveling, but when it is so incredibly arbitrary, I don't feel any safer ... and I can promise you that her getting additional screening and the line full of people I saw around us not getting additional screening is not making us any safer!"
Although some might wonder why a woman who appeared nude in Playboy and wore a red bathing suit for three seasons of "Baywatch" is bothered about having one or two TSA agents see a computer scanned image of her naked body, but D'Errico says they are two separate issues.
"I must have overlooked the clause in both my Playboy and 'Baywatch' contracts stating that once appearing in that magazine, or on that show, I would forever be subject to being seen naked live and in person by anyone, at anytime, under any conditions, whether I agree to it or not, and for free," she said sarcastically.
"I posed for Playboy 15 years ago. I was on 'Baywatch' 13 years ago. Both of those were controlled environments, with proper lighting, makeup, etc., and were jobs. I contractually agreed to do both of those jobs. I could have stopped or changed my mind at any time. None of those conditions are present when TSA decides for you that you will consent to being scanned or felt up, or you simply won't be allowed your constitutional right to travel from one place to another freely."
David McNew, AFP / Getty Images
A picture taken on April 17, 2008 shows the image from a TSA body scanner.
"If you see the images, you'll know it's not a naked picture," he said. "The passengers are selected at random and not because they're celebrities. I do think it's funny that she's famous and complaining about being looked at."
D'Errico also says that even though she has a higher profile than other people, she fears other women may be victims of this invasion of privacy.
"This could, and I'm sure does, happen to other women," she said. "It isn't right to hide behind the veil of security and safety in order to take advantage of women, or even men for that matter, so that you can see them naked. It's a misuse of power and authority, and as much a personal violation as a Peeping Tom. The difference is that Peeping Toms can have charges pressed against them."
Melendez says that the agents who are looking at the scan are in a closed room and have no communication with anyone other than the person handling the machine.
"It could be a woman or a man," he said.
D'Errico doesn't know of any other actresses or models who've had the same experience, but she believes other more effective and less invasive security measures should be implemented.
"One of my best friends was flying to New York for business, and at some point during the flight, she stood up to retrieve something from her bag in the overhead compartment," she said. "When she reached into her bag, something cut her hand. She looked into her bag and discovered a pair of 6-inch gardening shears which she had forgotten to remove prior to packing her bag.
"The bag, and my friend, had passed through security with no issues. How is this full-body scan supposed to be making us safer if 6-inch gardening shears can still make it aboard domestic flights undetected?"
The following video is somewhat chilling and haunting as a shrewd and insightful Ronald Reagan expounded upon the evils of a large and powerful government, one that deceives the public by using "comfortable" words. The end result is that the individual American has far fewer rights and freedoms and corporations are thwarted.
The ideological radicalism and arrogance of and abuse of power by Obama and myriad Congressional Democrats is typified by one of its premier practitioners, Democrat Pete Stark of California. A poster child elitism and what the Founding Fathers feared, he stated recently in a town hall meeting that "the federal government can do most anything in this country." Furthermore he noted that "there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life."
Representatives like these are cancers to our Democracy and must be eradicated or our nation as we know it will succumb, our freedoms and liberties largely destroyed.
These evil, arrogant, power-hungry, self-serving, elitist malignancies must be permanently removed from office and replaced by individuals who respect individual freedoms, rights, equality and a non-intrusive government.
Vote them all out in November!
Investor’s Business Daily 08/02/2010
Democrat Rep. Pete Stark of California
Power: The federal government, according to Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, can do anything it wants. If there are indeed no checks on the state's power, as the congressman claims, then the state is a tyrant.
Stark, who represents San Francisco's East Bay area, let the left's secret slip when he told constituents at a July 24 town-hall meeting in Hayward that he believes "there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life."
His response came in reply to a constituent's thoughtful question about the federal health care overhaul. She merely wanted to know how Washington gave itself the authority to declare health care a right if implementing that right "necessarily infringes the unalienable rights of other people."
"How can this law be constitutional?" she asked. "But more importantly than that, if they can do this, what can't they?"
Stark, as arrogant, dismissive and evasive as always to the people he's "served" for 37 years, said that "the federal government can do most anything in this country."
His opinion on government power is shocking enough.
But even more surprising is that the congressman would be so forthcoming in a public forum. The political left, which is grounded in progressive ideology, has long worked to hide from the public its agenda to use the government to impose its will on the country.
This thinking is not forward-looking. Progressivism is a regressive framework of ideas based on some of man's worst urges. It seeks to control others through an administrative system of central planners who, backed by lawmaking and executive bodies that believe their authority is unlimited, can do most anything they want.
In their core, progressives believe they have the answers to society's problems and are eager to force them on the state's subjects, even if doing so violates the natural rights that the Constitution guaranteed would be protected by a republican style of government.
Stark is right: Washington has the power to do whatever it wants. But it doesn't have the moral authority, either in constitutional law or in the realm of human decency. When it crosses into the dark region where it does most anything it wishes, it's become a tyrant.