Airport Security Simply an Inconvenience

I saw this video taken on Jan 7th on Fox News and thought it perfectly depicted how bad Airport Security is. In the video it shows a security guard at a checkpoint. At first it's a little hard to understand but the mass of people who are moving on the right side are all getting off of a plane and leaving. A little into the video the security guard gets up and walks out of frame for some unknown reason. At this point a man walks right by where the security guard should be and meets up with a women then also leaves the cameras view. Check out the link below, Fox does a good job of describing what is going on.

Security Breach Caught on Tape

This is a common scene in an Airport. Hundreds of people moving through a doorway (Metal Detectors) with only a few security guards around. The way in which everyone gets bottle necked makes it a lot easier to keep track of everyone but at the same time those guards have other responsibilities. For instance the guard at the metal detector is very occupied with waving his magic wand over your crotch several times. He isn't capable of watching someone else's post to make sure they are doing their job right.

In this case the guard who was at the podium had to get up for some reason. I don't know what it was for but I am sure it wasn't to grab a donut. Apparently, he had already told the man that would soon sneak through to leave the area. Just because you have someone hanging around though doesn't mean you can totally ignore other problems should they arise.

I really have no problem with what the security guard did. Granted he did leave his post which he shouldn't have. I hope he at least had a good reason such as addressing another threat. The problem I see is with the overall layout or setup of the security checkpoint itself. Whether or not that guard is there should play little role in the overall function of the checkpoint.

The checkpoint should be able to operate efficiently on its own with the security guard providing a human presence to oversee operations. What I mean by this is, when the man entered the area he was unobstructed. He had nothing substantial in his way, not even a rotary device like at amusement parks or subways which could have been a valid deterrent.

The other real problem is that this guard was by himself. The concept of a partner or working in pairs didn't exist. With two men working the podium one would be free to move about freely while one ensured the checkpoint wasn't compromised. It seems that the Airports have the minimalist attitude. They want to have the least amount of security to get the job done. We have seen that it clearly doesn't do anything except slow innocent people down. If the system is set up with a properly staffed and equipped security team who is trained, then people who pose no danger would be the ones moving freely through while those who pose a threat are held up. It seems to me like the security is more for show at this point then anything else.

White House Holds No One Accountable

I can't say this is a surprise. In fact, I believe I specifically wrote that nothing would come of an investigation on this matter and that there would be no findings. It's hard to understand Obama sometimes because he stated during a press conference that actions would be taken and people would be held accountable. While I know he is prone to making promises he has no intention on keeping, shouldn't he simply state he will investigate the matter?

In a meeting recently when Obama was questioned about firings over this latest Terrorist incident he took the blame upon himself stating, "ultimately the buck stops with me". Quite simply that means that he doesn't want to hold anyone accountable because we obviously can't fire the President. There are plenty of people that should be held accountable. Clearly my favorite to dislike is Janet Napolitano. I can't understand how she still has a job. She went on TV the day before and stated our procedures are working. Then the next day a terrorist walks through our security. Napolitano, you are clearly not in touch.

Another notable person who I feel is worthy enough to be mentioned by name on my blog is Michael Leiter, who is the Director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center. Leiter didn't fail in the same way as Napolitano, he brought it to a completely new level. One can safely assume that working as the Director of the NCTC would mean you have some sort of a brain or at least common sense. Wouldn't common sense tell you that a terrorist is most likely to attack on or close to days of significance. Then that same common sense should be telling you that it might not be a great idea to go on vacation during those high risk days.

What got to me was that the Deputy Director of this NCTC stated that Leiter, "Deserved" the vacation and that he had a good group of people to deal with it while he was away. I have Breaking News for you Leiter: If a terrorist almost succeeds at exploding a plane you don't deserve anything except a permanent vacation. As usual however there are people that will try and defend Leiter and his vacation. They say that it was his seven year-old sons birthday and that he was spending it with him. They (Liberals) push that anyone who has a problem with his vacation obviously doesn't like kids.

This type of lowly defense is such a joke. If you are torn about spending time with your family or doing your job properly then maybe that position isn't for you. The Directors position is a 24/7 job. If you can't do that then get out and make room for someone that can. I don't even care if you are the best qualified for the job. If you aren't around when shit hits the fan then you are useless.

I heard this put very well last night. In essence Obama just gave everyone a Mulligan. All the mistakes are forgiven and no one is getting in trouble. It must be really great to work for him because of the amount of slack he cuts you. I mean his staff didn't even wake him up from his slumber for three hours until after the attack happened. It's funny to think that I knew of this terrorist plot prior to the President because I get news updates emailed directly to my phone. Maybe that is what the President needs to get for himself and for his National Security team. At least they would be able to stay current with whats going on.

Health Care Debate Not Over, Constitutionality Questioned.

With the Health Care Bill moving from the Senate to the House for approval, some Republican Senators are using this time to ask if the Bill is even constitutional. The two main problems of the bill are: whether the deal Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson received for his state is constitutional, and is the overall premise of mandating Americans to purchase legal?

The deal dubbed "The Nebraska Compromise" exempts the state from paying medicare costs for life. This in return costs the government 100 million dollars over 10 years, so in essence taxpayers from other states pay the medicare costs of Nebraska. First off, how does this even sound fair to Democrats? I am pretty sure even a room of 6th graders could figure out that this isn't right. Unless those six graders are from Detroit but that's a completely different topic.


Now, under the constitution, which this Health Care Bill must follow, there is a clause in the Fourteenth Amendment known as Equal Protection. In a nut shell the clause basically says that a state shall not deny anyone equal protection under the laws. It reinforces that all men are created equal. Typically its used to reference discrimination according to color, race, sex or anything you basically can think of. In this Health Care case its being questioned weather people from 49 states aren't being granted the same protection and rights as Nebraska. In essence the answer is simple. If you don't live in Nebraska you are being discriminated against.

If you are reading this, please don't be the person that says you cant be discriminated against because of what state you live in, or even that's not what discrimination is. Discrimination isn't contained by color, race, or sex. By definition, it is the simple treatment in favor or against a person based on any group, class or category they may fall in. Now that we have that out of the way it should be plenty clear why this entire provision for Nebraska is wrong. The simple fact that I live outside of Nebraska shouldn't mean that I should have to cover their taxes.

The second part of the Health Care bill that is being questioned is if the Federal Government can force you to buy something which in this case is Health Care. Many people out there don't realize that there is in fact a penalty for not purchasing Health Care which ranges from a fine to a short bout in jail. Ask yourself if this seems right. I understand many peoples argument that "Health Care is supposed to help people" so everyone should get it. The problem however is that argument can be made in a lot of cases depending on how perverted your logic is.


For instance, "We all want to protect the Earth. Carbon emissions are bad. Incandescent light bulbs are bad for the environment. Energy star light bulbs will be better for everyone to have." Now the government proposes a bill mandating all homes to have Energy Star or florescent lights by the end of the year. Is this likely to happen? Maybe not, but it could be possible. The idea of the government telling everyone in the country they MUST buy something isn't really American.

Earlier someone made the argument to me that the government already forces you in some states to get car insurance. The simple fact is that driving is a privilege not a right you have under the Constitution so that's perfectly acceptable. Contrary, you have a Right To Live, its not a privilege.

I think that soon you will see this Nebraska provision removed from the Health Care Bill altogether. The concept of reform in the industry is a good one. However, in this situation the Bill has gotten too big and ridiculous. If it is passed, I think it will only be the beginning to what will be a long ride down a slippery slope.

Time for Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano to step down?

For those of you who do read this site and past articles you would remember my criticism of Janet Napolitano the Homeland Security Director. I for one do not have much faith in her ability to run what is this countries Umbrella security agency. She is by far the most interviewed Agency Director. I can recall only a handful of times in the past year that the FBI or CIA directors have been on TV to give an interview. Yet Napolitano is on every other week it seems. For this reason I think she has done a majority of the work to degrade the public’s trust in her.

Well, in what seems to have been foreshadowed by “yours truly”, Democrats and others are asking the question “Should Napolitano step down?” My answer is yes, she really should and I will tell you why. Amazingly it really has nothing to do with the fact that this recent terrorist plot happened or failed. It does have to do with the fact that after it did, she was posing questions in a media interview that she should already know considering she is the HOMELAND SECURITY SECRITARY. She made herself sound like she was completely out of the loop, as though she was in some entry level position with absolutely no clue as to what is going on. I don’t know about all of you out there, but I for one like my boss to know what is going on.

A real director of an agency should be commanding and demand respect because they know EVERYTHING that is going on with their organization. I know some of you are saying, “But there is so much going on how could she?” Well that’s the truth isn’t it? There really is a lot going on. So much so that she really couldn’t know everything. Public image is everything though. It is what makes people confident in your ability to do your job. When you lose your image it can be disastrous. Even if she had no clue what went on in this terrorist plot I personally believe she went about publicizing it totally wrong. Her choice of words were that of someone who is clueless. She really should have come out and instead of commenting about the faults. She should try and reassure that measures are being taken and procedures are being put in place.

In the end though, it really is a tossup as to whether she will leave or step down. Ideas like this can be tossed around when in reality they will lead to nothing. I do hope that for the sake of this country’s security she either gets her act together or ships out.