« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The U.S. Police State Outrages Continue: Why is the TSA strip searching little boys?

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  November 21st, 2010 at 12:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…

______________________

You may have heard about Janet Napolitano’s blue shirts forcing a cancer-surviving flight attendant to remove her prosthetic breast, or the woman whose pants the TSA’s hand went down:

“I was shaking and crying when I left that room” Moroney says.  “Under any other circumstance, if a person touched me like that without my permission, it would be considered criminal sexual assault.”

You may have also heard about the woman who was singled out because she was wearing a skirt:

“The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels,” she says. “I think I yelped. I was in pain for about an hour afterwards. It just felt excessive and unnecessary.”

You may have also heard about the cancer survivor who, due to an “enhanced” TSA pat-down breaking the seal on his urastomy bag, was left humiliated, in tears, and covered in his own urine.

Now, meet a little boy who was randomly selected for an “enhanced” screening by The Sexual Assaulters the TSA.

According to the person who posted this video, the child apparently was uncomfortable with having strangers pat him down. [Who could blame him?]

Lets get the facts straight first. Before the video started the boy went through a metal detector and didn’t set it off but was selected for a pat down. The boy was shy so the TSA couldn’t complete the full pat on the young boy. The father tried several times to just hold the boys arms out for the TSA agent but i guess it didn’t end up being enough for the guy. I was about 30 ft away so i couldn’t hear their conversation if there was any. The enraged father pulled his son shirt off and gave it to the TSA agent to search, thats when this video begins.

So, sexual assault, humiliation, and pedophilia are preferable to Janet Napolitano, John Pistole, and Barack Obama, than having the courage to profile actual would-be terrorists?

Is this just one more way they’re “transforming” America?

Once again…

  • Number of TSA Agents: 67,000
  • TSA’s FY 2010 budget: $7.8 billion
  • Number of terrorists caught by TSA: ZERO.

[h/t The Right Scoop]

__________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”  Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • texasgalt

    can it?

    http://bit.ly/dczpNX

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      than the unreasonable searches at airports.

      • fpete13527
        • fpete13527
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            conservative advocate with a military demeanor and who explodes the liberal ethnic ethos much as Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott. His mere presence changes the dynamics of Congressional debate. His strong personality and TV presence give the cause a man of true leadership ability that could really help this country heal and grow more mature culturally as well as policy-wise on the issues for which he will vote with other Republicans and scared Democrats up in 2012.

      • texasgalt

        that this new “attitude” and methods began. What is it that now suddenly makes these new methods so critical? How hard would it be to go back to where we were? Or do we just have to use the new scanners because the govt spent $100,000,000 on them?

        I wonder how much of this is driven by the almost unlimited power given to the TSA. Let’s be honest, they are not hiring the best and brightest, in most cases. Some of them are hired right off the overnight shift at McDonalds and suddenly they have more authority than the average cop. These are not the type of people who can do threat assessment.

        • http://www.prepaidlegal.com/hub/lgartin wdgf

          …kind of invasive violation so it can then be justified anywhere else they choose.
          Maybe next it’s at the mall… highway checkpoints… at the polling place? Sounds ridiculous until you look at the “authority” they wrongly claimed to get obamacare passed.

          All the counter arguments seem to be along the lines of ‘submit or die by a terrorist bomb.’ Show me where this has stopped one.

          As for me, I will not comply. I’m not advocating an air travel boycott, but neither will I buy a ticket to be put through this. If the airlines want to survive, they’d better get off their buttocks and put an end to this. This has gone far enough.

          • ihateliberals

            to take control of the public. I agree that the searches are just a prelude to coming attractions. Under Obamacare they will have the authority to dictate what foods you can eat and even when, where and how you will be allowed to travel and what types of cars you can have. All of this in the name of being healthy. People think this is silly to speculate on but i guess the people in Germany probably felt the same way when Hitler started his Reign of Terror.

        • debrarae

          “What is it that suddenly makes these new methods so critical?”

          A) The fact that since Janet Napolitano and CAIR are asking for exemptions for ‘people’ in HAJIBS while sexually assualting three year old babies, and little boys via the search.

          B) The fact that the TSA agents are targeting people and CHILDREN who have gone through the metal detector without setting it off, then being pulled for the search ANYWAY.

          C) the fact that instead of going after the ISLAMISTS doing this and instead targeting women with children, little WHITE children, mostly WHITE WOMEN (white male frequent flyers), and OLD RETIRING NUNS are being targeted for searches.

          D) Add to that the fact the PERVERT AGENTS of TSA are going out of their way to HUMILATE the flyers who are in fact paying THEIR SALARY!

          I say the TSA ……..HOMELAND SECURITY ……….And OBAMA THE THUG IN CHIEF should all be forced to register as SEX OFFENDERS!

          And WHY does Obama support this even as Homeland security is trying to find a way to EXEMPT people in HAJIBS from the same searches that LITTLE CHILDREN are having to go through? WHY does HE support a search that was so invasive as the TSA AGENT pumped UP on the vagina of the POOR LITTLE THREE YEAR OLD BABY ……she SCREAMED out in PAIN TWICE during the search? Because the COMMIE IN CHIEF wants to BANKRUPT the AIRLINES so HE can take THOSE over too!

          Never forget that TSA, Homeland security under Janet (the SKUNK) Napolitano, and Obama are Islamist loving ……..commie radicals to the core! THEY do not CARE about the constitution, they only care about DESTROYING IT at ALL COSTS!

  • EagleWatcher

    The Punditocracy is dropping the ball on the TSA story. It’s a smoke screen for something else: DREAM ACT, Farm Bill maybe??

    • Bobcat51

      Another assault on the Constitution by this administration I have to agree EW, something fishy about the whole sorry TSA affair. What’s going on behind the the curtain?

      After the whipping they got on November 2nd these jokers are hurting bad and not going to walk away quietly. Soros has invested far too much,so watch the other hand , the puppet master is very angry.t

      • EagleWatcher

        Could just be a coincidence or it could be a nice smoke screen for lame duck Congress to ram through a bunch of nasty bills.

        DREAM Act??
        FCC Regulation of the Internet?

        The sad thing is that almost the entire Pundit Class has taken the bait except for Powerline, Glenn Beck and a handful of others.

        • acat

          is the holiday that inspires the most travel in Americans?

          Mew

          *even Bill Clinton knows that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar….

          • rwlungren

            ‘violent incident’ at an airport that will ‘require’ HIM to take over all air traffic in the United States.

            rich

          • acat

            Perhaps they want to do profiling.

            Perhaps they want to profile “domestic terrorists” right along with “international terrorists”, but know Conservatives wouldn’t let that happen…

            Mew

  • powertothepeople

    We want to be safe, flying is not a right so getting searched to the extreme is not a violation of our rights, but at the same time, this has gone so far past extreme, we are left with few choices.

    For them to search a little boy like that speaks volumes about the training the employees are getting. I was sort of on their side as I assumed they were only following orders, but watching that film you provided goes way past following orders. The father beside the boy should have planted his foot right square on the agents jaw the moments they lifted his boys shirt.

    Really do not know what to do with this. The idiot child we call president asked about the searches and was basically blown off. They told him there was no other option so he tucked tail and ran. We will get no help there. Since it is a choice to fly, most legal minds are saying there is no option to sue here unless it goes past what they now say they will do with the pats or scan, so that option is not available to everyone. The only option I see as a frequent flier, is to boycott the airlines until this is stopped. But it will have to be a mass effort or that will not work either.

    I have been lucky so far to not have been subjected to the scan or pat, but I am sure it is coming. I will boycott the airlines the first time it happens and on the few occasions my son flies with me, let them do to him what they did to that young boy and the patter will not be able to pat for quite some time.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      Nor is driving. However, if the police pull you over, you still have your Constitutional rights.

      The TSA is a branch of the federal government and, therefore, the Fourth Amendment should apply.

      • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

        …not a ‘branch’…

      • powertothepeople

        the two types of searches. One is voluntary the other is not. I chose to fly and go through the search, but I have no choice when a cop pulls me over. But going on that same example, a cop has every right when approaching a person to demand ID and even do a hands on search which is just as invasive. They can even detain you for no reason up to a certain amount of hours.

        That being said, I do not like this. The video you provided concerning the kid makes me sick. This has gone way past just keeping us safe.

        After 9-11, we gave up a lot to stay safe. We gave up things to make sure the plane we were on was not flown into a building. But this in my opinion, goes way past everything else. But I do not know what to do.

        I fly out of Greenville SC to Detroit MI on Tuesday and am not looking forward to my first experience with this whole thing. If someone would tell me it is illegal who is an attorney experienced in that area, I would suffer though it with a smile so that I could sue to end it. Being safe is one thing, this is another. But every show with every attorney I have seen on this matter have stated they do not think it breaks rules. Even if they are wrong, how do we stop it? I am on board to help stop it as I fly an average of once a week but so far no one has stated how to end it. Really do not feel like having my junk touched three or four times a week due to round trips and plane switches.

        I am afraid the only way to stop it will be through a boycott. But we will have to have one hell of a drive to get a mass boycott arranged for it to work. If we hit the pocketbooks of the airlines, they will be forced to step in and stop it. For those of us who fly for our company, got to get the big bosses to fly with us so they get pissed and bring the companies weight behind the whole thing. Outside of pressure from Obama which will not happen, pressure from Congress which may happen to some degree, only thing I see working to end this is a boycott.

        • mbs235

          The difference is a cop cannot pull you over while you are driving and search you without probable cause. The probable cause to search must be stronger than the probable cause to pull you over. They cannot detain you with no reason, they can without charging, but only upon reasonable suspicion. None of these 4th Amendment protections are being applied in these airport searches. I don’t see how it can’t be a constitutional violation. The TSA is a government agent, they should be bound by 4th Amendment standards. The whole thing is just crazy.

          • powertothepeople

            since when driving it is impossible to not break some rule on the book. All it takes is not signaling a certain amount of feet prior to a turn and they have their cause.

            Lets even go a little further, you are walking down the sidewalk. Cop pulls up and stops you. He/she can ask for ID and even pat you down for “their safety and yours.” No cause, just the way it is. Or again you are driving, run into a check point. All the cop has to claim is so called suspicion and you are out of the car and being searched.

            Not saying I like it, just that lets not fool ourselves into thinking what is going on in the Airports has not been happening every day across this country for years and years. Only reason we are upset about it is we are now the ones being searched like this. Criminal or suspected criminals have endured these type searches for ever. the cop search is just as invasive as this one if not more.

            No one has ever been able to stop the cops and I am not even sure many or any have tried. I do not see this stopping unless we hit the airports in their pocketbook. The government was putting up to 6 marshals on flights and they were able to demand first class fare all on the pocketbook of the airlines. They fought back, refused to accommodate so many seats, and a compromise was reached. Now imagine 100,000 or more people refusing to fly due to this. The airlines lose a lot more than a few first class tickets and they stop the nonsense.

            I just do not see any other way. Had their been a legal tactic that might work, we would have seen someone trying it by now. We have to boycott or nothing will change and the next thing they roll out will be even worse and more invasive.

          • powertothepeople

            always do the their there switch at least once.

          • Menlo

            The government doesn’t care what happens to commercial airlines, and they really don’t have to.

            Even if it did, not enough people care. There are enough Democrats, uninformed, and apolitical flyers who would never make such a sacrifice merely to avoid x-rated x-rays and all the rest of it. They either support it or do not care; and they are enough to support at least one airline. That changes very little given the airline industry has been “merging” itself in that direction since the 90′s.

          • Doc Holliday

            I bet the airlines and TSA bucklei in a few weeks. If everyone boycotted SouthWest for example, there WOULD be a reckoning. The fact is I have travelled around the wold man times. Yet I will not fly again until this is worked out. Don’t tell me what we can do, all you are telling us is what YOU can’t do.

          • Menlo

            I stopped flying in 1996. Airlines have gone way downhill since the 90′s (and actually since the 70′s deregulation). I believe the American-based airlines are today among the world’s worst.

            Anyway, the numbers are not there. People who are willing to be proactive regarding government today represent probably between 5 and 10 percent of the population at best.

            You seem to forget that a good 80 percent of the population support x-rated x-rays.

          • aesthete

            Worse, the number that would travel *less* (not that would stop altogether) is significantly greater than 10%, IMO.

          • acat

            in one of his posts (http://www.redstate.com/vassar/2010/07/16/riff-raff-runways/) …

            I think that Obama and the TSA have a number of victories, and Conservatives have only one or two.

            If this continues, more people will stop flying. (I’m in the “don’t unless necessary” class, won’t take much to push me into “don’t unless someone’s died”) The airlines are already in rough shape, this will push a few more into bankruptcy.. and possible GM-style “bailout”… and we’ll see those Riff-Raff Runways.

            If this ends after the new congress is sworn in *and there’s another attack* Conservatives end up with blood on their hands for “reducing security”, even though the TSA pat-downs and porno-scanners are just security theater and wouldn’t prevent it….

            If this continues, and there’s a violent altercation, that’s justification for hiring even more “screeners” to give ‘em “safety in numbers” .. oh, and a larger pool to vote to unionize.

            If this continues, and we switch over to profiling, how long do you trust the current DoJ to avoid looking into our lives? Imagine if Joe the Plumber had tried to fly right during his 15 minutes of “fame”?

            What can conservatives do? Not “just take it”… but object with alternatives. Don’t demand profiling, demand accountability, and our civil rights.

            Screeners should have to justify who they’re putting through porno-scanners – and if a statistically unusual number of attractive females go through, someone should be prosecuted for harassment.

            Screeners should have to justify pat-downs. In writing. “Random” doesn’t cut it… but profiling alone isn’t a panacea… and while I know it works for Israel, I am also aware of their interview process. It’s .. extreme… and very labor-intensive.

            Mew

          • grandma

            We’ve reached retirement and have more time now to travel. Will no longer fly because of this. I have a built in reflex, and would probably land in jail because of my great knee to groin move. I really couldn’t trust that I wouldn’t use it on even a female agent.

          • amren

            I really do!
            But I would hate to see what they would “be forced to do to you for the safety of the other travellers”. Personally, I would love to see something like that happen because I would want to jump into the fray. However, I have a wife that would divorce me in a hot second if I were to get arrested.
            What is most frustrating is that it “seems” our hands are tied. There aren’t many of us that wouldn’t be willing to risk arrest for this. However, then they try to hit us in our wallets. That’s where it really hurts, especially in this economy. I would do a month in jail to get a piece of one of these P.O.S.’s, but I have a house payment to make. So far I’ve been able to keep the house and would like to continue to live indoors.
            Boycotting the airlines would work, but it would also put a lot of people that are like minded out of work. The trick is to somehow either get rid of the TSA or get rid of some of the ridiculous “security” measures.
            And those of you who are going to tell me in your whiny voices that we need these measures to be safe, save your time and energy. I, for one, am not willing to give up my LIBERTY for thier idea of “safety”.
            If America still had a spine we would have done what was neccesary to keep us safe on 9/12/01. But we don’t, so we didn’t.

          • grandma

            Amren, TY. It’s comforting to know there are others as ticked (mild word substituted here :-) ) as I am. DH again this morning reiterated that WE will not fly. Guess he doesn’t want his senior citizen wife in jail. Besides, he’d land in jail also defending me.

            My older sister lives 2K miles away and will not fly under this situation. She’s afraid she’d do same with self defense moves. She is smaller than me, but could do serious damage. She pumps iron also.

            Irate grandmas don’t need PMS to instill fear!

          • debrarae

            You’re right you can’t ‘BOYCOTT’ the Government. But you can SUE them for violating your civil rights, and your constitutional rights under the 4th amendment regarding illegal search and seizure!!!!!!!

            You can contact your reps and demand that they hold TSA, Obama, and Homeland security accountable for their unwarranted attacks on WHITE BABIES……(you notice not many black kids are being ‘singled out’ here?)

            You can even cajole them about how with (people wearing Hajibs being exempted) these searches are not about security at all … but about fulfilling the sexual fetishes of the SEX OFFENDER AGENTS who are attacking the little children (who have done NOTHING to deserver what the TSA MONSTERS have put them through)!

          • rwlungren

            I don’t believe that refusing BOTH the Body Scan AND the Grope (er, Pat Down) will work. TSA has the implied authority to take what ever steps ‘THEY’ feel is necessary to ‘MAINTAIN ORDER’. I think boycotting them both could get out of hand which puts the ball in TSA’s court.

            However, a ‘Peaceful’ demonstration of TSA’s policy would be to REFUSE the Body Scan and opt for the Grope (oops, Pat Down). It take much longer to Grope (uh. Pat Down) a Citizen than to Scan them. That should bring air traffic to a crawl. I think Dr King & Mahatma Ghandi would approve.

            rich

          • streiff

            in fact it is just grossly inaccurate.

            A cop cannot pat you down in conjunction with a traffic stop that has not resulted in your arrest. He just can’t do that. That is settled case law.

          • acat

            The cop “can” (is capable of) doing just that.

            The cop will have to face the results of his actions, but .. that doesn’t change that he can do it.

            Mew

          • streiff

            other than an exercise in semantics. That’s sort of like me saying “you can’t just shoot people on the street” and you saying “oh yes you can but then it’s murder.” True but meaningless in the context of the discussion.

          • acat

            …and go to the station and file a complaint with the cop’s boss?

            And follow that up with letters to the editor, letters to city hall, perhaps retaining a lawyer, certainly buying a digital camera* or two to prove harassment – because unless it’s a very unusual department, cops protect fellow cops even when they pock up – and there’s going to be harassment.

            My point is .. yes, the cop “can”, and most people will just take it and walk away. …

            Mew

            * What has to be the easiest way I ever heard someone prove harassment was by putting a camera that would automatically take a picture every couple minutes and that prints the time on each picture in the back window of their car and driving around for several hours… a cop on their back bumper the whole time. Didn’t end the harassment, but it got the cop following added to the complaint.

          • debrarae

            When I was accosted by a police officer who endangered my life, along with the lives of his children …….I took the next step.

            As he was not stupid enough to try to put his hands on me, and he didn’t touch me ……..I only went for a permanent reprimand on his file.

            When the police were reluctant to prosecute him (when I refused to say he was black), I found his address myself ……and took the initiative to see that JUSTICE (the reprimand) was done.

            The easiest way to STOP Harassment, is to report it; and stand by your statement no matter what! And that’s what I did!

          • powertothepeople

            “The Terry v. Ohio case created the “weapons search”, “terry search”, or “terry pat” exception to the 4th Amendment ‘probable cause requirement’ for searches. The court ruled that if a police officer “[has] reasonable cause to believe that [someone] might be armed” they can require they submit to a quick pat down. What this has meant is that it is now standard practice to pat down anyone that a LEO wants to, without the need for arrest, probable cause, or even suspicion of a crime.”

            Now we could get into semantics and play the they have no reasonable cause game, but the reality is, they do not have to prove much in a court of law in order to excuse a pat down. They would simply use key words such as bulge in pocket, suspect was acting in a nervous way, suspect was reaching, etc and they have the cause to search. Under the terry ruling, cops were given wide latitude in what could be considered reasonable cause to do a hands on search.

            The reality is cops can search just about anyone they feel like searching. The law limits how far the search can go such as putting their hands in a pocket, but it does not limit the area of the pat down. Cops can do a complete body pat down without arrest and without much provable cause.

            A person could refuse, may even win in court, but the reality is you refuse a pat down, cops takes you to jail where the search becomes even more invasive with a full strip down, lift the balls, crouch and cough, and then you will be lucky to walk away with only a conviction for refusing to follow a lawful order.

            So while you are usually right, it is not settled case law and you are wrong here.

          • morstar150

            The legal terminaolgy that was court created in Terry v Ohio was “reasonable suspicion.” It was that level of concern that a police officer must have before he can engage in a pat down search. It is less than the “probable cause” required to make an arrest.

            The idea that a police officer can just pull someone over then subject them to a search is not true. You can cry as much as you like but that is not the law. Police are always violating the search laws created through the judicial system. The law that prohibits illegal searches is not the constitution but the “exclusionary rule” established in the SCOTUS Warren Burger court in Mapp v. Ohio. It basically says that the court can exclude evidence that has been obtained through an illegal search.

            Of course the courts have also carved out exclusions to the exclusionary rule. The most widely used of the exceptions is consent. That is how a police office gets around the terry stop.

            “Do you have any weapons or drugs on you” “Of course not” “Do you mind if I look for myself?”

            YES I MIND!!! (the right answer) YOU MAY NOT SEARCH ME!!!

            Answering that little catch phrase incorrently allows unlimited search of a vehicle or your person and even your home. The answer is not “no go ahead.”

            Sorry, but I don’t buy the discussion that powertothepeople is pushing with an insistance that ‘he knows best.’ There are laws that say no to a search on a traffic stop and there are laws that make exception to the prohibition of a search. The most common exception is that people give up the right against illegal search by consenting to the search.

          • morstar150

            Wren v United States stands for the proposition that as long as a police office has established that a violation of the traffic laws has occurred then he may pull a car over and engage in a consent search of the vehicle.

            This case points to the proposition that there is no such thing as a pretextural stop if the cop can show that a traffic violation has occurred.

          • Read Chesterton

            “I just do not see any other way ….. We have to boycott “

            You seem to have a hard spot for law enforcement and a keen ignorance of your rights under the law whether as pedestrian or a motorist – so your thoughts on federal flying rights are even more warped. Many of your posts since your debut here on RS seem to be more agitprop “The government holds all the cards! The citizens must take action” than honest commentary or opinion.

            I’m not prone to picking on others’ comments to diaries, but yours seem to fit into the mold of a “concern troll.” That and your being a short timer sends up a little flag for me.

          • powertothepeople

            yet you show no where that I am wrong. Classic laziness.

            Let me help you out on that:

            You state:

            “You seem to have a hard spot for law enforcement and a keen ignorance of your rights under the law whether as pedestrian or a motorist”

            In what ways? Please state where anything I have stated shows a bent towards law enforcement. Also please show where anything I stated was wrong concerning our rights. I really hope you look up pat down laws prior to stating I was wrong. If you have not, please refer to a post of mine below the one you responded to that demonstrates how cops do have a right to pat downs. It would save my from having to type it again and save you from being wrong. And since the post you responded to deals with cops patting us down and their right to do so, please take the time to look up case law as I have. You would also be well served to notice the part where I clearly state I do not like either, no one stepped up when people were getting patted by cops, now want to step up because it is them being searched, and boycotting is the only option I see to end it all. You must have missed that part in your haste to be a blow hard.

            You stated

            “Many of your posts since your debut here on RS seem to be more agitprop

          • walter

            and growing and growing. It will NOT shrink unless the every day average Joe decides to run against his local councelmen or woman, expose the facts… federal money pays for a great many local cops when their job is first created then they lower speed limits, increase DUI checkpoints, increase seat belt check points and make THEIR money. Every notice how a cop can be incredibly belittling? They don’t care about safety, security, your health, or even the safety of your children or grandmother. It’s MONEY and they need to do these things to MAKE THEIR MONEY. Next time a president comes down the pike (southern accent or NOT) and says, “We’re going to put 100,000 new police on the streets” think twice! The local councelmen and women are the bosses of the police and their police cheif… they have the power t eliminate policmen, their burdensome check points, and their extremely high pay checks and benefits plans!

            So go ahead, RUN FOR OFFICE!

          • johnhandel

            they cannot legally pat you down for no reason. To perform a pat down still requires probably cause. As with vehicle searches, that cause must be higher than the cause for the stop. (And unless they are going to cuff you and drag you to jail, unless they have very good reason, once they have seen your ID, they cannot detain you further.)

            Understand that. A police officer can pull over next to you or walk up to you and ask for your ID. For them to do ANYTHING else, requires a cause that a reasonable person would say probably indicates the you are violating, have just violated, or are intending to violate the law. (Remember that this will be tried before a judge and jury, and if the cause is lacking, the case will be thrown out even if it is conclusively proved that you WERE breaking the law.) For the officer to lay hands on you for any reason OTHER than a considered, reasonable cause (‘probable cause’) is a violation of the law.

            He/she asks for your ID, you calmly, quietly hand it over. You stand there calmly, and wait, maybe asking if there is a reason for being stopped. The officer sees that you are the person in the ID, maybe asks you a few questions about it (or if you have witnessed something relating to a recent crime, etc), then releases you WITHOUT touching you. I know the police do not always follow this line, but pretty much anything else is a violation of the law…UNLESS

            1. You fit the description of the supsect in a recent crime and cannot account for your whereabouts when the crime was taking place.
            2. You are asking suspiciously (such as making self-adjustments that could be interpreted as trying to reach for or conceal something that is contraband or a threat to the officer.
            3. The officer witnessed you in the commission of a crime.

            There may be a few other things, but the point is that they cannot just pat you down on a whim. If they do, they have violated the law, and even if they find contraband, it cannot be used against you if the pat down was not triggered by a solid, reasonable cause. Even if they find a concealed handgun, that fact can only be used against you if the search revealing it was triggered by a factor that would cause a reasonable person to believe that you were carrying a gun.. However, valid, licensed, concealed handguns must be declared immediately on any police stop. While they may generally (state laws might vary) request the weapon and hold it for the duration of the stop, they may not frisk you for it unless they have other legitimate reason to believe that you are carrying in spite of not having declared that you are carrying. Even having a concealed pistol license is not probable cause if you have told them that you are not carrying. (They cannot frisk just you for having a concealed pistol license.) An unusual bulge at normal carry locations may be cause, if they can demonstrate that the bulge would not be reasonably explained by something else. Also, wearing baggy clothing is not probable cause.

            Again, for a police officer to lay hands on you in anything short of an actual “I am taking you in for booking” arrest is pretty much illegal. From the criminal side, that officer must present a reason that will stand up to thirteen individuals (judge and jury) that there was probable cause to proceed. From a civil side (you suing officer/police department/city/state/etc), he must convince 6-7 people that there was probable cause to proceed.

            Yes, he can stop you. Yes, he can ask for (and insist on seeing) your ID. He cannot touch/frisk/grab/hold/etc you, however, without some other reason to believe (that others will also believe) that you are violating the law.

            P.S. Not having ID, in itself, is also not necessarily probable cause for frisking, or else there would be some police officers staking out beaches and common jogging paths detaining and frisking every attractive woman in a bikini or spandex jogging outfit just to get their hands on them. That, as with this TSA rubbish, would be a sexual assault.

          • powertothepeople

            people keep stating things that are not facts.

            Look, I do not like the dog gone law concerning these TSA intrusions, I do not like how most cops treat people criminal or otherwise, but you are wrong on what it takes to do a pat down.

            Please go read the Terry vs Ohio law which resulted in what is called the terry pat, then come back and lets talk. You do not know what you are talking about, cops can pat down for very little reason even if you are not a suspect, not under arrest, they did not see you commit a crime, etc.

            Just because your type a long reply or think you know facts does not make you right. And on this you and others are wrong.

            The ironic thing about this whole matter is where has the outrage been over searches when it has been happening for many years to criminals or suspected criminals at the hands of cops for years. When a person is arrested, not convicted just arrested, they then go to a jail and are subjected to strip searches, ball lifting, vagina cavity searches, and squat and cough even before they have been found guilty and this is all done for the “safety” of the jail and staff. No one jumped up in arms about it but the moment it happens to us law abiding folks or we hear it is happening to law abiding folks at an airport, we are ready to take up arms over it. Ironic.,,,,,

            But please, look up case law, one being Terry vs Ohio (terry pat), before you go out on a limb again.

          • debrarae

            NO one has the authority to perform searches on little babies, and under aged children with NO CAUSE!

            Getting BACK on topic here. That little boy did not set off the metal detector, yet the TSA AGENT ran to him to give him his ‘pat down’.

            What was his CAUSE? What crime did that UNDERAGED BOY commit?

            IN the REAL WORLD for doing that, the AGENT/SEX OFFENDER would have been thrown in JAIL (hopefully in GENERAL POPULATION)!

            IN the REAL WORLD, if a COP had hurt someone so badly they were in pain for HOURS; they would have been charged with Police brutality!

            And THOSE are the facts!

          • powertothepeople

            Did you get it out of your system? No one said anything about babies, children, hurting anyone etc. Try reading before trapping your jaw. It helps to know what you are responding to before you go into a tirade.

          • powertothepeople

            Please do not split hairs on probable cause either. We all know that a cop simply has to state he felt their could be a gun, knife, bulge, uneasy movements, movement toward a concealed area, movement towards the cop, etc and his actions are justified under the terry pat law in any court in any land. The terry pat decision gave cops a very very wide latitude on what is needed to conduct a pat down for the “safety” of all involved.

          • debrarae

            Sorry to burst your ‘bubble’ ………but in my brief stint as a clerk, with a defending lawyer’s office …….I have many, many cases DISMISSED and declared a MISTRIAL all because the officers FORGOT to get a warrant in the heat of the moment.

            In short the Constitution takes precedent.

          • powertothepeople

            or just slather at the mouth while you typed? Who said anything about not getting a warrant.

            If you did work at a layers office, they must have fired you for incompetence. If you wrote replies at the office as you do on here, they must have lost every case you clerked.

            Now go back and read the entire conversation, then come back and state an informed opinion. As for the stuff you wrote above, pure nonsense!

        • Menlo

          Since this is the policy crafted by Obama appointees, we’ll have to insist that any future candidate appoint people to end the policy. Though I could be mistaken on where this came about, I haven’t seen such a suggestion anywhere.

          The US judicial system has long proven itself totally incapable of anything resembling fairness, justice or integrity. It cannot be counted on for anything.

        • debrarae

          Obama is a COMMUNIST to the core. He said during his campaign that he wanted to bankrupt the COAL Industry, he also said he wanted to redistribute “ole Joe’s” wealth.

          What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Everything, since a boycott against the Airlines could Bankrupt them. And who would come to the rescue but Obama (the THUG in CHIEF)?

          And do you honestly ‘think’ that the intrusive searches will end with a ‘boycott’? Do you?

          If anything Obama and ‘company’ will expand the searches to BUSSES, Trains, and STORES!

          Barack Obama is a FATHER, he must know by now of the sexual abuse of the three year old baby ……..and the boy in the video (who was singles out in spite of the fact he didn’t set off the detectors)!

          And yet Barack Obama says these searches (as is) must continue!

          I say instead of punishing the AIRLINES, we need to bring the battle to the government and SUE for violation of our 4th amendment rights.

          And I also say that in light of the fact that Janet Napolitano refused to rule out ‘exemptions’ for people in HAJIBS, we should sue for violation of our CIVIL RIGHTS too!

          We need to go straight for the TSA, Homeland security, and the White house (and who ever else is stupid enough to stand in our way)!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • walter

        are a thing of the past. You no longer have a 5th amendment when it comes to driving. If you refuse to indict yourself, you lose your driving privilege. Free travel is awarded in the constitution but not driving.

        You first must realize, all this that is happeneing is under the golden fringed united states flag, not the original flag our forefathers had imagined would never be defeated.

        We are destined for complete and chaotic control of every facet in our lives. Very few people were wary of all the “free stuff” they were getting when politicians try to get elected. A cup full of free coffee costs a sack full of burden. It all sounds sweet until we wake up and find ourselves a communist state.

    • avgjo

      why, precisely, is driving or flying not a right? I know it is said to be a privilege, granted by the government. I wonder though, on what grounds exactly (and by grounds, I mean things like the rights we have as endowed by our Creator) does the government receive the privilege to give out permission to fly, drive, etc., in other words, to give us the privilege to move about in a free fashion?

      • aesthete

        It is high time that we challenge the fraudulent assertion that flying/driving are not rights covered under the broader right of freedom of movement. If anything, it is those who demand that the TSA do everything short of full cavity searches seeking to illegitimately make absolute security a right: something which is both a category error from a negative rights perspective, and impractical, at any rate. The TSA as it stands is useless, and the money funding the lachrymose bureaucracy can go somewhere else that will actually keep us safer. Airlines are more vested in the security of their planes and passengers than a government bureaucracy, and I would trust them to more effectively secure their airlines in a humane fashion than I would the thugs in the TSA. At the very least, the Stalinist notion that the government is the legitimate arbiter of your mobility is disturbing and in need of pushback.

        • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

          Driving or flying are both rights because we did not delegate control of them to the state or the federal government in their respective constitutions.

          (Maybe some states but not aware of any)

          The question is how to dig out of the whole “licensing” notion when too many on our side support licensing.

          The idea that government built roads gives it the right to require licenses is specious since it was private money confiscated by government that built the roads.

          For the other side, you only have to understand, the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean you can do anything and everything with them. Irresponsible use can be punished for bad driving or bad bearing of arms without abdicating all liberty to the state. Thus, this is not an argument against traffic laws, just against licensing of rights and calling them privileges.

          TSA is an extension of the right to drive becoming a privilege. Now flying is a privilege. Now living in the US is a privilege that requires ObamaCare. Tomorrow buying a sub sandwich will be a privilege subject to government issued carbon credits.

          The slippery slope started 100+ years ago.

          When Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death, this is what he was talking about.

          A licensed society is not a free society.

          • JSobieski

            Stop signs. Red lights.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            Some I agree with, some I don’t. Each would be required to stand on its own merit. If juries wouldn

          • aesthete

            nt

          • JSobieski

            on what basis do traffic laws exist? Or more importantly, on what basis can one exclude someone from driving due to a past refusal to comply with basic traffic laws.

            Traffic laws are regulatory/administrative made laws based on the 1956 Uniform Traffic Code. If one presumably has an obligation to comply with traffic laws and would otherwise lose their right to drive, I am not sure how that is different than a license.

            My right to free speech continues to exist even if I commit the torts of slander and defamation. Free speech is a right, not a license.

            The ability to drive on the interstate or in any densely populated area is contigent upon my compliance with traffic laws. Its a license

            Or you are twisting the word “right” so that it can essentially mean “license” which is bad for reasons relating to truly fundamental rights, i.e. speech, assembly, religious belief.

          • aesthete

            Traffic laws are, in theory, meant to delineate the terms of use of a government-provided public good (roads). They are not applicable in areas where one is not driving on a public road (i.e., any off-road travel; private roads). While the legitimacy of government-provided public goods is open to debate, laws regarding the use of these roads are more analogous to, say, a means-test for SS or stipulating drug tests for welfare recipients. To use your example of the right to free speech, there are several venues owned by the government which do not, in fact, allow all citizens to speak freely (our national apparatus being one of them). Does that mean that we have no free speech? No, it simply means that being allowed access to some public goods comes with terms and conditions. The TSA, in contrast, is not providing a “public good”, as that would require it producing a good of note. It asserts the power to make decisions regarding the appropriate trade-off between security and comfort without so much as a by-your-leave on the part of those who make the good possible (namely, yourself and the airline responsible). Predictably, it errs towards the side of the trade-off that gives it more power, funds, and personnel and thus “security”, perceived or genuine, always trumps comfort and other concerns. This is, quite clearly, a restriction on my right to barter with the airline and on the airline’s right to find an appropriate trade-off between security and other concerns (including privacy and basic human decency). The following can be simplified in the vernacular as a “right to fly”.

            The reason that we have traffic laws is that, without them, no one would regulate safety (given that “no one” owns and is responsible for the good). Since private roads and off-road environs are owned by others, they don’t come under the purview of traffic laws, and can regulate themselves. Airlines, likewise, are private goods whose security would be regulated by their owners were the TSA to disappear tomorrow. (Hopefully this makes sense, as I’m absolutely exhausted.)

          • johnhandel

            benefits when applied to things like driving, flying, etc. Actually, it is very common practice, these days, to license most forms of activity that have a high level of potential harm to others for incompetence or negligence.

            Licensing almost always goes beyond a

          • JSobieski

            Planes fly overhead without being charged rent or a license fee.

            It think flying a commercial airline isn’t so different from boarding a commercial bus. The airlines/airport have the right to place conditions on your use, and you have the right to either say yes or no.

          • Ausonius

            In Medieval (Common) Law, which (with difficulty) has been used in American courts, there is this precept:

            “Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos”

            “Whoever owns the soil owns all the way up to the sky and to the underworld.” :)

            This idea is found with neighbors’ trees which overhang your property: the branches have intruded into the sky of your soil.

          • aesthete

            and I agree that terms placed on passengers by airlines/airports should be followed (assuming that they were made clear prior to the exchange taking place). The TSA’s interloping, however, is not related to the issue of air-space as a common good; the goods that they are regulating are private (their jurisdiction is over “Transportation systems inside, and connecting to the United States of America”). Put another way, traffic laws are there because they regulate the terms of use of a government-provided public good. Government could not, however, establish a law requiring that people limit their conversations while in cars to certain subjects, because those cars are not the good in question being regulated (the public road is). The TSA’s regulations do not encompass the proper use of air-space; that is the purview of the FAA. Rather, they are concerned with the proper use of a private good: access to the airplane, airline, or airport in question.

          • JSobieski

            The challenge I think is to put all of this in the larger legal context which is quite the mozaic.

            Would you agree that private airlines are free to request that passengers submit to idiotic policies as a condition for bording?

            if so, the fact that private enterprises through one means or another use the government (TSA) to institute stupid policies still seems to me that we are stuck, short of a political solution to the stupid policy,

            I guess what I am saying is, so long as the government doesn;’t require a private person getting into their own plane to go through the TSA process, I don’t think there is strictly speaking a legal right being violated. This is clearly true if the TSA was another private entity. The TSA is a government entity, which opens up some type of “substantive due process” or “privacy” right under the Constitution (noting that Scalia has repeatedly denied that either exists). However the bottom line is that while repugnant and stupid, I don’t believe that the TSA policy is strictly speaking illegal.

            That statement is not to be interpretted as an endorsement of the policy, just a legal conclusion that I believe a Scalia or Bork would agree with if they were acting as a judge in this context. I.e. a legal positivist would say that there is no “right” being infringed here, although the policy is nonetheless contrary to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, not to mention really stupid.

          • aesthete

            that, again, where government is involved there is no true free market. The reasons that the TSA is currently favored is because 1) airlines don’t have to pay for it, whereas they would have to pay for a private solution, 2) the federal government doesn’t play nice with groups that don’t kowtow to its demands, and has ways of punishing airlines that don’t comply (government contracts and the like), and 3) the Aviation and Transportation Security Act highly regulated private airline security, and brought it under the purview of the TSA (and you can guess how many dollars and airports the TSA wants to lose to private sector security).

            I would agree with you on the Constitutionality of the TSA, but as you note, what is Constitutional is not necessarily wise or in keeping with the spirit of the document.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            A cursory search shows traffic laws have been around longer than licensing schemes. So it is impossible to say proper traffic law requires licensing schemes. They worked before, they can still work now.

            Second, all rights can be taken away when abused. Or more properly, all public exhibition of rights can be taken away since a few like thought and religion may be beyond the reach of society.

            Life is clearly a right yet under particular circumstances the state can remove it as well.

            So how do rights get removed is the proper question. Not concern for mixing up “important” rights with “lesser” rights. When someone violates any of your rights, they are stealing your property. As Adams said, “just as we have a right in our property, so we have a property in our rights.” Take away my rights and you are stealing my property.

            Rights are removed using due process, according to law and in the US with a jury trial. The constitution is our highest law so all others must comply with it or they aren’t really law and anybody exercising or enforcing such a law is an usurper.

            A conviction for breaking legitimate law may theaten any of our rights.

            In light of the fact that all rights can be thus removed, recognizing driving as a right does threaten any other right, it merely moves it from a category where an administrative law judge or bureaucratic snafu can threaten your exercie of the right to a place where a jury must hear and judge the evidence against you.

            The burden is on you to retain a privilege. You must jump through whatever hoops the state erects just to get a privilege. It can be removed by one man having a bad hair day.
            The burden is on the state to “take” a right. Rights imbue at the age of majority if not sooner automatically. They are much harder to remove.

            When you use the exmples of free speech, assembly, religion, you are forgetting the right to free speech isn’t so we can sit around and talk all day. The right to assemble likewise. Political rights like these in particular are recognized as the “how” we get the state to let us live our lives without excessive interference.
            We assemble to pressure government, we speak to pressure government. We don’t do these for their sake alone. We use these rights to protect our more fundamental rights to carry on our daily lives. Eat, sleep, work, play.

            Eat, sleep, work, play today without driving. A few do but we must recognize must do not, driving today is a fundamental part of living. When 95% would find it difficult to live comfortably without driving then driving is part of living. Simply living cannot be subject to license.

            This licensing argument is the slippery slope that CCW represents. Folks submitting to a licensing process (a privilege) for something that is clearly a right and even specifically identified as such in the constitution.

          • JSobieski

            particularly when you factor in cities.

            A drivers license is by definition a license. It is a license with specific standards that are applied equally to everyone. Of course, the same can be said about the TSA rules (which I am NOT defending). My point is that whether you call it conditional right or license, getting hung up on the label doesn’t much matter in the real world.

            The better analogy to boarding a commercial airline is boarding a commercial bus, not driving your own car. We can’t compel a particular service to be offered a particular way, we can merely accept or reject offers freely given. However, airline pilots just like automobile drivers are subject to license requirements. We may disagree with the specific requirements, but most people believe that I should not be allowed to fly my own plane if I don’t know how to fly.

          • David123

            It is illegal to walk across the bridge from northern Michigan to southern Michigan. So if you want to get from northern Michigan to southern Michigan you have to drive. So if driving is a privilege you don’t have a right to travel from northern Michigan to southern Michigan.

          • JSobieski

            You have the right to pay someone else to drive you. You could also purchase a plane or boat ticket. You could also ask someone to drive you for no charge.

            You can also take a boat. No license is required for a boat under a certain horsepower and below a certain size.

            However, if you have no license and no money, you are often stuck.

            if you have no money, you can’t publish a newspaper, open a church, buy a gun, or exercise all sorts of other rights.

            Rights are negative–government can’t interfere, but they aren’t obligated to facilitate either.

            Are you implying I have the legal right to fly a plane even if I am not a licensed pilot?

            And people call me libertarian . . .

          • David123

            - failure to do so does limit people’s right to travel as a practical matter, if we agree that driving is to some extent a priviledge.

            A person has the right to walk from northern Michigan to southern Michigan by going through Chicago – but that is a very long walk.

          • JSobieski

            There are numerous reasons why a sidewalk wasn’t included.

            Your definition of “rights” is far beyond anything that could legally be implemented. Maybe that was the basis for the road to nowhere?

            Frankly, in Alaska you are lucky if there are roads to where you want to go. Is the US government obligated to build more?

            I would suggest a paddle boat. Or being a good swimmer.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            The fact that goverment has introduced that scheme doesn’t make it legitimate anymore than driver licensing.

            You’re right both are currently the legal reality.

            The government does lots of things it has no business doing.

            In the cities you may be correct that more than 5% get by without driving. Depends on the city. LA probably has as many drivers per capita as smalltown USA. NYC probably approaches 50/50.

            If 95% is the wrong number nationally it isn’t far below it.

            If it were as low as 75% it is still wrong to license an activity 75% of the population depends on and engages in.

            There are no practical standards related to a drivers license. Or pilots license for that matter.

            Virtual everybody who wants one gets one.

            We could back and forth some more but I see this as simply a liberty vs tyranny issue combined with an utter lack of constitutional authority.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics
          • JSobieski

            Did your state legislature vote so that we go when the light is green and stop when the light is red? Have you actually looked at state traffic laws?

            Of course, traffic laws are not intrusive like body searches, but the concept of license is undeniably true in terms of driving on a busy road.

            The concept of license is unavoidable when it comes to traffic in a high density area. Anything less is just paralysis, property damage, and death.

            So in my opinion, its not the issue of license per se that is the problem.

          • JSobieski

            http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kpsfbw45hl42pp45tyzdinyj))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-Act-62-of-1956&query=on&highlight=traffic

      • Adjoran

        Airlines and airports aren’t federal authorities; it is they who have agreed to these screenings by engaging TSA. They could opt out and go with private security if they wished – perhaps public pressure will force them to, after this.

        Go ahead and assert your “right” to free speech at the airport, while you’re at it. Make a few bomb jokes, I hear the marshals love those.

        ~~~~~~~~

        Seriously, we need to do prescreening of most passengers to expedite the process anyway, and concentrate on threat assessment like the Israelis do for the rest, instead of this politically correct nonsense of pretending Grandma and 5 year-old Chip are equal threats to Mohammed and Abdul who bought their one-way tickets with cash and were in Yemen last month.

        • aesthete

          I suppose that you also believe that the BP shakedown, Albright’s attempt to get banks to loan to low-income households to pay for housing, and GM’s internal reorganization were completely voluntary,as well (and, for that matter, that the Fed and Fannie/Freddie are independent institutions). Any action undertaken by the government is done with the implicit backing of force, and often utilizes several carrots and sticks facilitated by the threat of coercion (government contracts and the like). Regardless, your statement is inaccurate: post-TSA creation, private airline security is highly regulated and at the purview of the TSA. It is rather akin to the situation that private schools in this nation face, in that public schools are both implicitly and explicitly favored and funded by government in a variety of ways. The TSA is an interloper in an exchange between myself and the airline I am booking a flight with, and it is just as much of an unwanted albatross for airlines as it is for customers.

        • avgjo

          I was not referring to whether one private party can or cannot deny access to their property by another, but whether the government should regulate an activity that is essential to life.

          Your bomb example, nothing personal, reinforces my assertion that you missed my point. I didn’t say government couldn’t regulate activities which are the manifestation of a right; I asked whether they should be allowed to. I do have a problem with someone being under threat of action by TSA if they make a bomb joke; it’s stupid. What good will that do? The terrorists know that TSA are anal retentive about such things, and will not do it. It is hard to conceive that even if the TSA ignored such jokes, that a terrorist would make any kind of a comment that would bring suspicion on him. I worked at an airline for some years, pre and post 9/11; the only people who ever made such jokes were the demographics which don’t blow up planes, like old ladies and middle aged white guys.

    • chipbennett

      The unproven assumption here seems to be that these TSA enhanced-screening tactics will do anything whatsoever to find/catch/stop a terrorist.

      They won’t. Have have never done so, and will never done so. Thus, these tactics serve no legitimate purpose, and therefore do not come anywhere close to meeting the standard of “reasonable”.

      And even if these tactics could catch/find/stop a terrorist, they are still not the only or even the best way to do so. They are horribly ineffective, inefficient, and incur horrible unintended consequences. Thus, they still don’t come anywhere close to meeting the standard of “reasonable”.

    • dajeeps

      I’m not going to teach my child how to be one of the sheep and obey the government no matter how intrusive and out of control it becomes after teaching him every thing I can about what the consitution says and what it means. I couldn’t live with having held him down while he’s being traumatized and physically violated when it just does not have to happen.

      Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      • SoFiMil

        And TSA can go ahead and try to fine me $10,000/$11,000. I’ll walk out, take the fine, and worry about the payment later.

    • romeyers

      PROFILE!!!!!

    • debrarae

      You support a search so violent that a women is in pain HOURS after it happened, while a person in a HAJIB will be made EXEMPT from having the same search?

      You think by simply BOYCOTTING these searches will end?

      Are you completely CLUELESS as to the true AIMS of this COMMIE THUG Administration?

      Do you not realize that these types of searches if Barack (kevin jennings lover) Obama has his way, that these searches will spread from Trains …….to busses………..to STORES?

      So are YOU going to BOYCOTT those too? Are you going to STOP going GROCERY SHOPPING Because YOU and your UNDERAGED KIDS ….will be PATTED DOWN while the MUSLIMS stand there and LAUGH AT YOU?

      Are you that CLUELESS? Really?

  • ocleverone

    As parents, we teach our children that no one has the right to touch them like this. I cannot imagine how helpless and angry the parent(s) were feeling.

    It’s gotten out of hand.

    • Brian Darling

      I was also sickened by this video. That boy could be emotionally harmed for life by this incident. Clearly the kid is not a threat.
      The TSA has gone too far and this will be a test case to see if the Obama Administration is willing to listen to the American people. If they choose to continue strip searching kids, use invasive scanners for grandma and touch peoples junk, then they are not listening.
      The end result is that Obama will alienate yet another voting block (people who fly), show that he is completely out of touch and establish a new screening standard that is unconstitutional and a violation of peoples’ natural right not to be touched as a condition of flying.
      The federal government seems incapable of using reasonable means to protect our skies from bad guys. They are good at over reacting to every threat.

  • ladyimpactohio

    to make people stop flying, bring the airlines down so he can nationalize them. This I firmly believe.

    • Scope

      If people stop flying, in order to avoid the assaults, the airlines go broke, and I would guess the airports would then lack fees to operate.

      Biden’s baby has always been Amtrack, which is federally subsidized since it’s creation. I wonder if they are trying to force people to ride trains rather than fly. I don’t know but, do trains use less fuel than each individual aircraft? I know they have been pushing for railways.

      I remember Obama saying something llike- “The Constitution is a document of negativities, it says what the government cannot do to you, but, does not say what the government must do for you.” In other words, the government cannot do unlawful search and seizures, but, they can do what they will falsely label as keeping everyone safe.

    • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

      This comes straight from the top ; poke the lion as hard as possible ; get away with whatever they can – incite the rest ‘to do something’ ; Constitutionality doesn’t matter when they’re the ones attempting to generate another crisis too good to waste.

      • texasgalt

        http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130243-analyst-new-tsa-procedures-will-kill-more-americans-on-the-highway

        I’ll be one of those people driving more and flying less.

      • marshmom

        I think you’ve brought up a point that needs to be discussed more. I am starting to believe that this is EXACTLY what they want……to incite the peaceful, law abiding citizens into a frenzied mob so that they can use that “crisis” to bring about their idea of a “perfect” America with citizens having no free speech, no 2nd amendment rights, and on and on and on.

        We MUST keep a cool head and find another way to get rid of this atrocity. More cell phone footage, more horror stories, more calls and letters (calm, rational, but firm! ones) until Congress HAS to do something about it. We have to beat these guys at their own game. They WANT us desperately to get out of control so they can smack us down.

        I prefer to believe that we have better sense than they do and we can beat this AND them if we put our minds to it.

      • Read Chesterton

        That’s what we have here.

        An effective boycott? Simple. Just nationalize the bankrupt airlines.

        An outbreak of mass civil disobedience at a TSA checkpoint? Just double the number of agents and, OBTW, let’s finally organize them under the SEIU already.

        A legislative remedy backing off on the invasive molesting procedures? Well, let’s see the new GOP congress get the egg off its face after we ignore our own “no fly” list again and let through the next Fruit of the Boom bomber.

        The problem calls for a Ronald Reagan size solution. Fire the TSA. Privatize air travel security. Take the handcuffs off the cops and border security LEOs and put them back on the criminals.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      I think Big Ears and Big Sis also want to be able to say that did everything they could to prevent another underwear bomber should one actually lose his Fruits of the Loom on a 747. But since Obama already expressed a cavalier attitude on our ability to “absorb an attack” like we “absorbed” (his callous word), his main motive is not to prevent further loss of life. After all, you see, “we” (the living) can absorb that. His main motive is to not be blamed. Obama and his men are cold.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        and folks from certain countries with profile-able characteristics that aid threat assessments for particularized time-consuming scrutiny. Nor are they doing enough when they bow and scrape before sultans and appease mullahs.

        more later in a blog that also addresses Ben Franklin’s admonitions re security and surrenders of liberty born of poor risk vs casualty assessments…

    • doncorleone

      Restricting peoples’ movement controls their freedom of movement, especially out, not too many people were flooding international and U.S. airports to fly over the “iron curtain” and into the soviet union, plus this is another “porkchop” to the eco-wackjobs. Plus “ladyimpactohio”, you have to admit, “obamaflot” rolls right off of the tongue.

  • Adjoran

    which I find incredible. Is there no one in his inner circle with the sense to say, “Look, this is hated by the people, don’t do it, you are losing support in a wave!”

    Or maybe they already did, in the health care fiasco after Scott Brown was elected, and saw it does no good on the Narcissist-in-Chief?

    These people need years of remedial work to improve enough to get stuck on stupid. Really brings the alleged value of an Ivy League education into question, doesn’t it?

  • spinoneone

    The clear answer to the first question is the flying public. The equally clear answer to the second question is still the flying public, but it should be the 15 to 45 year old Muslim who attends a mosque run by a radical Imam. Of course, we CAN’T profile those folks. After all, they are “religious” and theirs is a “Religion of Peace” by order of the President of the United States. For an excellent piece of satire, go here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/calling-a-swede-a-swede/

    • Scope

      where so many are once again calling out the muslims, just as they did right after 9/11. It hasn’t been lost on many that this is being done because only the muslims have been terrorists, but, every flying citizen is paying for their actions.

  • JadedByPolitics

    there are PERVERTS in the TSA also, they are in the CIA, FBI, EVERYWHERE! and this ability for them to yank little children out of line and feel them up is unacceptable. WE MUST protest this as vigerously as we did Obamacare and McCain-Feindgold. WE MUST make them back off this inhumane treatment of United States Citizens!

  • mbs235

    How many perverts do you think are on their way to apply to the TSA? If they are not there already. Hopefully the ones with convictions on record won’t be hired, but how many don’t have records? If I had young children, I would not fly with them until this is over (surely it won’t continue?). I won’t fly unless it’s required of my job. The airlines are likely going to suffer a drop in business. Is the goal to drive them out of business, require a new bailout, government take-over of air travel?

    • eastbaylarry
  • marshmom

    been the ones carrying bombs/weapons on a plane? This is just one of the many outrages I feel about this government overstepping its authority.
    How far will this go before we do something about it? Better yet, what CAN we do about it? This just makes me absolutely sick!
    I have a little boy who is almost 5 and I can guarantee you that I couldn’t stand by and watch this happen to my child.
    What an absolute joke this is.

    • JadedByPolitics

      to NOT let strangers touch you there and here we stand letting strangers touch them there….it is most definitely a positive for the progressive movement to take away another dignity from Americans!

    • debrarae

      According to the ‘new reg’ that under aged boy should have been exempted from the search. Especially since according to witnesses he didn’t set off the metal detectors.

      I am even more livid as Janet Napolitano is trying to find a way to exempt people in Hajibs from the same search that a three year old baby had to endure (and unlike that little boy ……she had the full search during which she screamed out in pain twice), and the under aged boy.

      According to what the TSA/Janet Napolitano’s exemptions after they successfully traumatized the little girl …….every child from age 12 through 0 was supposed to be exempt from that search.

      The TSA PERVERT needs to be fired for targeting the boy for no reason.

      The answer isn’t a boycott, the answer is to SUE!

  • http://www.moccasincreekminutemen.com VizBiz

    You can almost feel the anxiety of the people standing in line and moving closer to the agents … “oh crap, it’s almost my turn, what are they going to do to me? What will they find? Will they take me into a back room?”

    I think as long as these videos and stories continue to surface, the less tolerant US citizens will become. I also think that the more the TSA agents become comfortable and bold at their searches, the worse these stories will become.

    What will be that straw that breaks the camels back?

    • izoneguy

      The airlines will start failing as only the the people who have to fly will.

      With technology – most air travel can be eliminated.

      People who wanted to fly to a vacation spot will now drive or not go at all.

      The sirlines are probably feeling the pain and these TSA patdowns will restrict travel during the busy holiday season. Of course Obama is loving it. Anyway to impead the constitutional rights of citizens is his goal. Repeal the TSA.

      • acat
  • woodbridgeva

    I just sent the following questions to my elected officials. Unfortunately, they happen to be Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Gerry Connelly so I am not expecting a positive reply. Perhaps others will do better.

    1. Will you support Ron Paul’s legislation to restrict TSA pat downs?

    2. Will you set the example for your constituents by submitting to a public, on camera pat down by a TSA agent?

    3. Will you call on all other federal elected or politically appointed officials to do the same?

    4. Will you introduce legislation establishing an external panel including average citizens to review and certify federal law enforcement policies and procedures for contact with the general public?

    • woodbridgeva

      WASHINGTON

      • davesinsanantonio

        same rules as the rest of us. The “Elites” in Washington have for decades exempted themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us. It is not Clinton who should be asked this question, but Pelosi–who will soon lose her Air Force supplied private jet. Is Queen Nancy willing to be “patted down” in public???
        It is obvious to me that, since only Muslim men have been the plane bombers in the past, why does the government continue to refuse to “profile” Muslim men for the excessively intrusive searches. Do they want to humiliate and infuriate regular citizens all while hoping that some Muslim fanatic will succeed in another airplane disaster??? And, when it happens will Napolitano then say, “the system worked”???
        What is the government’s ulterior motive in all this??? They must have one, otherwise they would not be so insistent in enraging ordinary voters as they are doing now!!!

    • debrarae

      I’ve been calling the reps from A to Z ……non stop on this.

      The title of the act by the way is American Traveler Dignity Act.

      But when Palosi kills this bill, as she has on many of the bills that Republicans have introduced; I will consider SUING every agency from the WH on down that supports these outrageous searches!

  • izoneguy

    Hmmm, even the MSM is hopping aboard this train.

    TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news#

    A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    puts me in mind of some old Gulag art from the USSR:

    Photobucket

    This was a book search, Speake for itself

    • penguin2

      people for the election outcome Nov. 2nd. Strange how all of a sudden it has escalated….Instill fear, uncertainty, anxiety in the people, and you have power over them. They humiliate a person, march him through the airport in their underwear, frighten the children and their parents, see, not hard to gain compliance.

      If any resistance is to take place anywhere, this is certainly one that should be front and center for everyone to take note. If we don’t stop this now, they’ll continue to exercise police state powers….

      • texasgalt

        http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/11/omg-tsa-forces-woman-to-cut-off-her-nipple-rings-with-plyers-video/

        You are right. We better get over our shock and raise old billy-heck over the TSA and a government gone wild- right in our faces.

        • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

          …time to push back

          • texasgalt

            but not so soon and not in this way. I admit to being taken by surprise on this one.

      • davesinsanantonio

        will increase them!!! It is the usual result of gaining power. But, in this case, with the anger generated by their use, that those wielding the power must have some other motive in mind. They just cannot be this stupid, there is something very sinister behind all this. Otherwise, they would not cling to is as tenaciously as they are.

  • Mark Malcolm
  • LAUS DEO

    There is no longer a defense for the searches being done. Terrorists have gained a win when we, the American people allow our rights to be continuously eroded by our own government in the name of ‘anti-terrorism”. I’m angirly tired of statements such as, “Flying is not a right”! Our government does not have any constitutional rights for the excessive physical and xray scanning taking place. It is obvious that the orders coming down from the Feds have to do with using ‘terror’ tactics to persuade people to obey them. Once, again the terrorists gain a win. We are “The People”, the government serves us; why would you want to submit to shamefully useless anti-terror tactics which now have become acts of subjective terror? What is the end game? Subjects instead of citizens!
    Let’s discuss political correctness which allows a Muslim to not be subject to such searches yet forces a small boy, a breast cancer surviror, a short skirted woman, an elderly woman in a wheel chair, and so many other innocent American citizens to be subject to terror tactics.
    Two final questions: is living as an enslaved subject better than dying free? If Yes, then how would the signers of the American Declaration of Independence answer?
    Our Freedom is greater an offense to our enemies than increasing the difficulty for them to physically harm us.

  • paramedichess

    Should promise to get rid of this stupid, invasive program and replace it with an Israel-like program of behavioral profiling that actually keeps people safe and catches terrorists without molesting children. This needs to be a big issue in the republican debates.

    • chamberD

      . . . are you, paramedichess?

      You expect the American people to put up with this outrage for two years?

      It has to end NOW. You expect us to submit to becoming conditioned to molestation, scan-hazards, and the further erosion of our dignity, let alone our RIGHTS?

      Not bloody likely. It ends today — or else. There will be consequences, boycotts, demonstrations, national-stay-home-from-work-day.

      Whatever the hell it takes. This is tyranny. Don’t stand for it one minute or you give them the right to do even worse, and by golly, they will.

      Man up, for heaven’s sake. If ever there was a hill to die on this is it.

  • Wubbies World

    .. and sexual assaults are our only defense at this point. This is sick and it is insane for us to put with it. “We The People ” will take only so much and this is waaaaayyyyy over the line!!!!

    We may need to rise up in the streets pretty soon if the government doesn’t listen, or better yet, some people who are victims may take a page from the left and may start picketing the perverts homes to let their neighbors know.

    I apologize for venting. This issue makes my blood boil. The only thing worse to me is abortion. I was upset and angry about all the other usurpation the government has taken under the left, but this one is out of control.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      before this stops, to a great degree.

    • johnhandel

      catch you with any kind of recording device. It is getting to the point where having a recording device near a TSA checkpoint would make them angrier than if you were carrying an actual bomb in a low-security area of the airport. They do NOT want to be recorded doing such evil things.

      • SoFiMil

        Someone behind me can film me, and so-on.

  • Scope

    he isn’t sure that the protests about the scans and searches aren’t just being hyped up in the media??? That pretty much was the entire gist from most on Wallace’s show this morning. I expect that from Juan Williams, but, not from Kristol. It sounded like the panel was trying to give a pass to the TSA, and Napolitano.

    According to Beck this week, he talked with Jason Chafetz, who was directly involved with the scanners, stood in front of them, and, saw the images portrayed by them. He said the images are much more graphic and detailed than the pictures that are are shown at Drudge and elsewhere. Someone else said that you can actually tell if a male is circumcized (sp) or not. That’s pretty graphic to me.

    Isn’t it a fact that when you give up freedoms in exchange for a little safety, you get neither? The methods are not making us any safer, and, they sure aren’t making us any more free.

    • texasgalt

      who was outraged by Bush’s warrantless wiretaps is just fine with being felt-up to get on an airplane. There is something in the DNA of liberals that allows for such inconsistency.

      • Scope

        Is that about the same percentage that voted for Obama? It must go back to that same blue gene thing I read about not long ago.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          washed dems and indies as well as some republicans that voted to assuage and purge white guilt and the race card.

          Kristol is simply out of touch and will come around after more data on how this is over the line surrenders of liberty for supposed security on the past of We the People, of the kind that Ben Franklin warned of..even if Obama’s motives are not actually preventing attacks but more about being able to SAY he did all he could while taking a cavalier or more venal motive on the Privacy right abominations…more later

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      return to understanding what are ordered liberty and reasonable searches!

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    San Diego Harbor Police confiscated the traveler’s iPhone and charged him with a misdemeanor.

    The incident was confirmed by Harbor Police Sergeant Rakos who said Wolanyk was arrested on two misdemeanors,

    • chamberD

      . . . with every effort citizens make to demonstrate their displeasure and opposition to these new harassments that one new law after another quickly follows to shut it off. I read Tyner’s report of his encounter/experience, and it was clear that the agents were making things up as they went along; especially in the fact that even after he had had his ticket refunded — and therefore not logically subject to security procedures — they decided he should be fined nevertheless.

      In essence, once you purchase a ticket, you no longer have rights.

      Tyranny in the name of safety. It’s always about our safety, isn’t it? SB510, regulating small farmers and food producers out of business ‘for our safety.’

      Destroying the entrepeneurial spirit and herding us all into reliance on only a few chosen multinational food producers — “he who controls the food supply controls the people.”

      Things are getting desperately wicked here, all in the name of safety.

    • johnhandel

      but it might. As these incidents are public/fairly public, nobody has any right or expectation to privacy from recording, least of all law enforcement. In any state, it is perfectly legal to record interactions with law enforcement in public areas. (I personally consider it mandatory to record all interactions with the police for security reasons.)

      I don’t know what specific cities in California have decided to do, but in California, it is legal to record a police interaction, even without consent. It seems to me that one might try fighting the idea of outlawing the recording of interactions with law enforcement. (The solution to the excesses in dealing with Rodney King is prohibiting the recording of whatever the police are doing?)

  • johnt

    hanging from your pocket if a man, or wear a burqa also, Who’s to know?
    Either that or claim you’re a member of the First Church of Universal Oddity and it’s against your religion to be searched. God commands it.
    Also, grow beards, women exempted, and cease bathing, give yourself over to fits of hysteria, claim to have home delivery to the NY Times. curse George Bush, etc.

  • Mike Ferguson

    As far as I know there has never been an incident of a domestic, i.e. american terrorist, coming anywhere near an airport. Arguably the worst 2 McVay and the Fort Hood Terrorist didn’t. So how is this keeping us safer? In my opinion this is just a way for Obama and his crew to prove to us that they have all the power. Janet N. has never done anything but screw up. I mean we are paying for watch lists that are ignored. Oh I forgot Logic doesn’t mean much to a lib. I could go on but it would just be kicking a dead *Napalitano (sp?)

    *nothing about this woman is worth my energy not even looking up her name to spell it correctly.

    P.S. On the scanner issue, I am a nurse and for YEARS we have heard how we should avoid X-rays and CT scans. As a matter of fact recently there has been a push to reduce the number of CT scans a patient has because of radiation. So no scans for medical reasons, but its ok to get scanned to get on a plane……wait there I am using that logic thing again…got stop that.

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

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

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

    He was also charged with recording law enforcement officers using his cell phone camera,

    • audax
      • davesinsanantonio

        hate to be shown up, especially in public. So, they decided to “just get back at him”, but the means of public humiliation. They will also say to the video media that he “deserved it”. Why else would there be a law against citizens filming the police in the performance of their duties???
        I hope he sues and wins a huge settlement. Maybe hitting these power grabbing nuts in their wallets will have some effect. Maybe not, since the judgement will be paid with tax dollars. But, if it is a big enough judgement to anger the taxpayers the city council will change this stupid law, and maybe some others.
        “Don’t trust and videotape” everything!!! That will soon be our only defense against this out of control government. We have to convince them that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are in charge. We are their employers, not their serfs!!!

  • pamela1631

    Farm Act, Dream Act, Net Neutrality, EPA what-nots and any other assorted bits and pieces of lame duck session chains being connected to encircle us.

    Pulling the chains tighter and tighter while keeping the American people distracted with the TSA , expiring tax cuts and additional unemployment benefits.

    Is this what an observer of a BDSM/Fetish convention might see when watching the denizens and appointees of the current administration? Joyfully inflicted pain for profit by those in power on an unwilling populace which refuses to submit to the perversions.

    This holiday season is dangerous. Sneaking and scullduggery will be the order of business until the new Congress is sworn in.

    Who will be keeping watch, have the ability to put an immediate halt to the agency games and implement needed erosion control of American freedom?

  • audax

    The guy they arrested at San Diego airport won a settlement against the SDPD for false arrest re California’s Open carry law. This one should be fun to watch. Don’t think he will be backing down.

  • renny

    based on behavioral and psychological testing plus reasonable racial profiling because strip searching grade-school kids is a waste of time and money and personnel. Did you see the half dozen TSA agents gathered around the boy? I am sure they realized people were loathing them and wanted comfort in numbers.
    Just say NO. We said NO to O’care and need to keep saying No.

  • chamberD

    . . . after being treated like a criminal and being subjected to molestation by agents of our government. It’s not worth it.

    If this is what our government has come to, it is no longer a legitimate government and does not deserve the respect of the people.

    The next thing ‘they’ will tell us is that being safe in our own homes is not a right, nor is shopping, nor is walking down the street, going to the movies, attending a sporting event.

    This cannot end well. We will have liberty or we will suffer death, as our war dead of all past conflicts have done before us. We dishonor their sacrifice if we are not willing to exert our strength — with every means at our disposal — to end this tyranny.

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm.

  • Scope

    Yemen, Sudan, Libya (where the Lockerbie Bomber is now living his days out free), Iran, and several others. They have been given Napolitanos blessing to do racial profiling, rather than scanning or pat-downs on all.

    This world has turned upside down. You would think that the US was top heavy with Progressives/Liberals, but, the fact is they are in smaller numbers, but, are reaking (sp) havoc on the entire country.

  • shermantank

    DEMAND THAT TSA USE A NEW SET OF GLOVES PER EACH SEARCH.

    Why do search victims have to be touched with USED GLOVES?

    TSA admit, and there is evidence to prove, that TSA do not remove their gloves after invasive searches. However, even if the searches are not invasive, the GLOVES ARE STILL CONTAMINATED. WHY do victims of these searches have to endure CONTAMINATION by TSA because they are not using CLEAN GLOVES?

    If a TSA EMPLOYEE USES THE LAVATORY, we have watched, they DO NOT REMOVE THEIR GLOVES, they come right back to the search line and go into our pants.

    DEMAND THAT TSA USE A NEW SET OF GLOVES PER EACH SEARCH.

    This post was made by SHERMAN TANK

  • earlgrey

    Do you suppose the heavy handed tactics of TSA will win more people to see the Obama/liberalism rule to be the evil that it is?

  • Tbone

    This is their way of humiliating us. But not much longer.

  • http://theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com/ reelman


    If anyone doubted the national democrats are arrogant dimwits, the TSA mess should remind you they have absolutely no common sense. By nature, national democrats fawn before thugs, terrorists and minorities, its how they roll (and feel good about themselves). What thinking leadership in any free country pats down their own preschoolers and great grandmothers? The democrats’ natural lack of common sense even leads them to “random” pat downs.
    Why should any pat down be random? This is as dumb as sitting in a pew for 20 years without hearing a sermon.

    The entire world knows the highest level exams always should be done first to ALL foreign born male moslems.
    Oh, we can’t even say that or write that in the demo dumbo world now without upsetting the OzLanders..
    Does that scream “common sense” to you?

    Naturally the rules NEVER apply to congress. What does that scream to you about the elected royalty?

    This is the same political party that maxed your VISA, kept borrowing from China and now wants you to get a night job to pay the higher taxes “the devil” will make them take from your paycheck soon because (get this), “America is broke”.
    As Gump said, “stupid is as stupid does”.

    The most dangerous thing is the media drones and millions of socialist sheep actually believe these baloney salesmen.
    What will it take?

    http://theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com

  • 1689

    Secretary Napolitano, your policy of allowing the sexual harassment of 4 year olds, indeed all travelers – for the politically correct lie that all groups, cultures, & religions are an equal threat to air travelers – is a vile, gross abuse of power. And to think, you could actually be making planes safer focusing on young and middle aged muslim men from the middle east and parts of Asia & Africa. Here’s a news flash: your misguided liberal ideology does not make you or the President a ruler or dictator who imposes his will on us Americans. The Constitution forbids it. We the People are sovereign and demand that this policy cease immediately! If you don’t, you, the President, A.G. Holder, should all be impeached and short of that removed from office in the next election, 2012.

  • aesthete

    for your continued opposition and coverage of this latest incident of TSA abuse: I’m proud to see that RS is so resolutely opposed to the eleutherophobes and state-fellators dedicated to making our lives more unfree. I can’t think of a time in recent history where a general freedom been so completely stripped for so groundless a rationale, at least in the US.

  • author43

    The TSA has grown to 65,000 agents in one year.
    Anyone wonder how much safer America would be if those 65,000 agents were sent to the Mexican border?

    • pamela1631

      The current set of TSA agents at the border?

      There wouldn’t be a captive audience being threatened with arrest and an $11,000.00 fine.

      The drug cartels would have a field day with that lot.
      Plus the vultures would have a fine time with the results.

  • tex41lb

    If a degree of resistance is in order and we do not want to create the crisis desired by Obama for him to save the day, why not put out a list of passive aggressive behaviors travelers can use to disrupt the system.

    One idea from life, love your enemy to death. Let us support the TSA by:
    as has already been suggested, insisting on a pat down,
    insist on clean gloves, very slowly move forward, take 5 minutes to put on your shoes, belt, coat , drop a coin trying to reload your items back into a pocket or purse, have a coughing fit, need a tissue, ask for sanitary wipes to clean your hands, strike up a friendly conversation with each TSA to slow movement in the line, look lost and ask what you are to do now, be confused by the answer, let your child be a brat for a few minutes, get into an argument with the person next to you as to whom was first, insist they go ahead of you, critical comments to your spouse about how dumb her favorite relative is, or what a waste of money his baby the mustang is, which he loves more than he does me the wife, and so on until the system comes to a peaceful if disorderly stop.

  • gspurlock

    Since the November 2 election, I have tried several times to fax the Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Republican members of the Texas House of Representatives. I took the time last year to enter all of their fax numbers into my fax address book. Since November 3, every fax line has been busy every time I send out faxes to the groups.

    During the height of the opposition to Health Care, only 50% of the faxes encountered busy lines. What is up with this?

    Best regards,
    Gail S
    http://www.backayrdfence.wordpress.com

  • 4deuce

    I see a certain cable TV show advertized often – the Undercover Boss program. We need some of this undercover work undertaken badly right now.

    Perhaps it might be time for all of our 535 members of Congress and our 9 Supreme Court justices to either fly to a US destination or at least go to their local airports (along with a local TV film crew) and observe an hour or two of TSA security actions. How about if our Secretary of Transportation shows up at an airport on a multi-city fact finding excursion – dressed in khakis, a golf shirt and loafers…. Just let The Secretary see (and feel) firsthand what American air travelers are experiencing… Then too, let has the Presidents, CEOs and Legal Affairs Director of each air carrier operating in the USA get in line (undercover) so they can see and feel TSA at work and determine if this is what they want for those using their carrier services. And lastly, lets ask the head person in each state ACLU organization to spend a few hours observing TSA’s screening action or flying on air carriers themselves and traveling with all those noteworthy 60 Minutes TV show on air personalities.

    Yes, we need some meaningful Undercover Bosses learning what American air travelers have to endure a the hands of TSA – and it would make for one Hell of a TV Special broadcast.

  • kaptkane

    the “conditioning” of the “hooples” (if you don’t know what that word represents I suggest you rent a copy of the HBO Series “Deadwood”. You’ll hear (chief protagonist) Al Swearingen define “hoople”)
    That young child (as all young children) will (if we let it) grow up in a world where “pat downs” and photo ID and metal detectors are the norm.
    Get em when they’re young, right?
    Remember…if we let em.

  • dwscho

    The TSA is but one example of a government out of control and intent on stomping out all of our rights. The terriorists are pretty intent prople and they will come up with ways around the new TSA screening. I wonder when they start injesting the explosive devisces or stuffing them in cavities whether the TSA will impose internal exams as a condition to fly. I can hear it now, bend over and let me have a look in there! This is all very disgusting. I would say the terriorists are probably very happy to be disrupting our way of life.

  • jlsankot

    I definitely do not agree with this policy. I think we need to be profiling those who possess any resemblance to a terriorist.

    That being said, too much time is spent on this. Research the Senate Bill 510–a so called “food safety” bill that has nothing to do with safety, but has everything to do about controlling our food. This includes the type, the amount, who can raise it, probably who can eat it, etc.

    Think about it–once they control our food, we are doomed. Even Glenn Beck admitted he knew nothing about this because he was so absorbed with the TSA. And, today, he’s still on the TSA! Makes me wonder if he is our friend, or not. As he always says: Do your research!!

  • gunsrus

    the toodee show Obama spin doctors were showing that the TSA’s own audits were able to get drugs past their screen so it had to be stepped up.

    This got me thinking that
    - Drugs are outside the scope of their charter
    - I would feel more secure sitting next to a guy with 10K of coke in his briefcase
    - If this keeps Nancy Pelosi from showing up in Washington it may have an unintentional side benefits

    OMG ;^) Obama Must Go

    • blooch

      but dropped the suit last week:

      “TSA says it issued a management directive in 2007 telling screeners that any evidence of criminal activity discovered during searches

  • izoneguy

    Body Scanner Operator Caught Masturbating at Colorado Airport

    http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=124&a=2389

    Airport officials at Denver International airport were on high alert yesterday when a full body scanner operator was caught masturbating in his booth as a team of High School netball players went through the scanner.

    “The young ladies were going through the scanner one by one, and every time one went through, this guys face was getting redder and redder. His hand was moving and then he started sweating. He was then seen doing his ‘O’ face. That’s when the security dragged him out of his booth and cuffed him. He had his pants round his ankles and everybody was really disgusted,” Jeb Rather, a passenger on a flight to New York told CBS news.

    I don’t think I will produce a video about this…..

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      we’ll see a lawsuit by a TSA employee against TSA claiming he was turned into a porn addict because he was forced to work the viewing booth and forced to do the junk-groping.

      Thank you.

      ColdWarrior

      • blooch

        thye were desensitized to regular porn, and were unable to achieve release without the benefit of backscatter.

        TSA will also have to reinforce the booth’s doorway, to withstand the strain of Archie and Meathead trying to get in at the same time when the Swedish Bikini Team enters the checkpoint.

    • Jim Tomasik
    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
  • romeyers

    I’ve been expecting this for years and now that the midterms are over and all our “lawmakers” feel safe again it’s going to be business as usual and just going to get worse.
    Let me give you a little senario about what I think may happen. After they have all the sheep (read Americans) properly conditioned, somewhere around the middle of 2011, there is going to be a “Terrorist Attack” for which President O’Bama is going to declare a state of “National Emergency”. Because of this emergency he will go to the Congress and request that all elections be delayed for the duration of the emergency as it would be a “bad thing” to change leadership in the middle of said emergency. Just like our current security setting has never gone below orange, this “Emergency” would never end and viola you have Barrack the First, Dictator for Life just like his hero down in South America. And all the little sheep (Americans) will go “Thank you Oh Lord O’Bama for saving us!”

  • tlhanger

    When Clinton put in the profiling law we hadn’t had 911. All this stupid nonsense like this young boy and the others and the hub bub is it raising, well, repeal of the profiling law should be the first thing we address after the lame duck session. Would be a huge success and Obama would be shooting himself in the foot if he vetoed it.

  • romeyers

    that most people haven’t thought of. You all say that you will stop flying and drive where your going. If this BS stands how long do you think it will be befor checkpoints appear at the state borders where you’ll be asked where your going, your names, what your carrying, and randomly selected for searches. You think this is silly? They allready do it to big trucks and it can take 10 to 15 minutes to get through, think what will happen when everyone has to go through. Of course the next thing is you will have to fill out an itinerary, submit it to your local National Security office and get it approved before you can travel interstate. And if that flies you will have to get the permission of your local commisar befor you can travel within the state.

  • izoneguy

    Gov. Perry: Send TSA Agents to the Border

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/11/22/gov-perry-send-tsa-agents-border#ixzz162pU3rvy

    The incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association recently proposed transferring over-eager TSA agents to the Mexican border.

    “How about we take all those TSA agents and put them on the border with Mexico where they can do some security there?” Texas Gov. Rick Perry asked rhetorically in a statement quoted by The Hill.

    “That’s where we need security substantially more than in our airports and what we’re seeing out of this bunch.”

  • 1stsgt

    I believe that John Polte, Janet Napolitano and the agents in the airports should be subjected to the scanners and pat downs at least three times daily. The people who want the muslims exempted from this and the obamacare should be tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail. If one group is going to have to abide by this crap, then all groups should be forced to comply.

  • tex41lb

    When congress, their wives and children are sent through the scanner and face the prospect of a pat down, I will yield too.

    Until then I make the choice to not fly.

    But more significantly here I draw a line in the sand beyond which my response will become more aggressively non-violent.

    As a nation of citizens, we cannot allow the road to serfdom be extended beyond this point. Next, as one comment above noted is the slippery slope of further encroachment into our liberties with searches at rail and road points, the inclusion of limits on travel and eventual control of interstate and intrastate movement.

    No mas.

  • ihateliberals

    from are the ones that are getting exemption for the pat downs. maybe a good business would be to rent Muslim garb at the entrance to the Airport to get people through security faster. Wearing of that garb they would be exempt for the scans and the Pat downs for religious reasons. How are they going to prove you aren’t a Muslim? Profiling? Oops there’s that word again that TSA isn’t allowed to use!!!!

    • acat

      http://xkcd.com/779/

      Just sayin’

      Mew

  • ihateliberals

    to be with family this year would be for them to not fly. this would be a great gesture to your family in standing up for the rights of American citizens. After all if this encroachment continues the day may come when you would have to get a permit to go to see your family anytime. People the support this movement by the Government don’t realize what a slippery slope they are on. they have never been where people have to fear for their lives if they travel to the wrong place in their country. TSA has to stop before it gets too far gone. Make no mistake though if the government has to back off now they will come back with a lesser approach and start to sucker us in again until eventually they have control over us. This Obama progressive liberal socialist government has to be stopped.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    on behalf of a government client.

    Usually, I fly.

    Not this time.

    I will drive. It may cost that client more.

    Sorry.

    I’d rather fly. But I will not submit to potentially dangerous radiation. Or despicable junk-groping. Or the threat thereof. On behalf of a government client. When the government has no right to subject me to what, if I did the same to my neighbor, would get me arrested for assault and battery or worse.

    On the other hand, maybe I’ll change my mind at the last minute and come up with a “strip down with a Speedo with rubber weiner inside it” strategy. But that might be “cruel and unusual punishment” for the onlookers.

    People, “we the people” cannot bestow upon our government rights or powers that would, if we exercised them as individuals, violate our fellow citizens’ rights.

    I have no right under the Constitution to grope a stranger’s junk as a prerequisite for that stranger to travel.

    And, therefore, I can’t bestow a right I don’t have, to grope a stranger’s junk as a prerequisite for that stranger to travel, upon the government.

    TSA has no right to touch my junk. Period.

    If I let them, it’s my own fault.

    And if you let them touch yours, it’s your own fault.

    Where can I buy a rubber weiner? Maybe a stuffed sock will do. Or a cucumber wrapped in tin foil (remember this scene from Spinal Tap?):

    Already have the Speedo. It’s about 25 years old. My children tell me it scares very young children. I think they’re right.

    Maybe I will fly after all.

    Thank you.

    For Liberty,
    ColdWarrior