I agree with most of what he says but he is wrong about, (and I'm paraphrasing), "if private persons can't do it to you then the gov't (TSA) can't do it to you". That isn't true. A private citizen can't wand me but I sure hope airport security does. We DO need security checks at the airport, just ones done in a more professional manner without any PC nonsense.

Hear Hear Congressman Paul!

Another TSA Outrage

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Thursday, November 18th at 6:28PM EST

89 Comments

UPDATE: I’m getting a lot of emails asking if this is actually true and is this person actually someone I know. (1) Yes it is true — it is too absurd to be made up. (2) Yes, I know the person.

——–

A friend of mine sent me this about his TSA experience. He, unlike most of us, was coming back into the country from Afghanistan on a military charter.

——–

As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:

When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.

Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.

First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.

It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.

This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your dam_n nail clippers so we can get the <deleted> out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

Now that is a good post, Mr. Flying.

Both believable and funny. :jap:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#40281392

Also....While I dont care for K.O I did find the video interesting..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40278427/ns/travel-news/

Thought that idea of guys going in kilts with no underwear for the grope check pretty funny

Lastly not all suffer....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/us/politics/20boehner.html?_r=3&src=tptw

Turn your head & cough old man.....

Mini Me Terrorist

Dee's Political Satire

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

As the U.S. government retaliates against an American for refusing to allow airport security to grope his genitals, the nation’s Homeland Security secretary considers waving the intrusive “pat-downs” for Muslim women who consider them offensive.

The demand came last week from the politically-connected Muslim rights organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Calling the searches “invasive” and “humiliating,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advises Muslim women wearing religious head covers known as hijabs to reject full-body checks before boarding planes.

Those who are selected for the secondary screenings should remind Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers that they are only supposed to pat down the head and neck and that they should not subject Muslim women to a full-body or partial body pat-down, according to CAIR’s advisory. It further says that, instead of a body search, Muslim women can request to check their own hijab and have officers perform a chemical swipe of their hands.

While Americans are forced to deal with the degrading searches, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR’s demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

In the meantime her agency is targeting a San Diego man who received worldwide media coverage for refusing to let a TSA agent conduct a thorough body search that he felt amounted to a “sexual assault.” Referring to his genitals, the man told the TSA officer; “you touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.”

The head of TSA in San Diego called a press conference this week to announce that the agency has launched an investigation into the 31-year-old software programmer who was not allowed to board the plane. The feds plan to prosecute and fine him thousands of dollars for making them look bad. Actually, the official charge is leaving the airport’s security area without permission, which is prohibited to prevent terrorism.

Speaking of, TSA’s lapses over the years have certainly left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The agency in charge of securing the nation’s transportation system has approved background checks for illegal immigrants working in sensitive areas of a busy U.S. airport and has failed miserably to ensure the security of tens of thousands of cargo packages transported daily in the bellies of passenger planes.

Just last week a Massachusetts news station revealed that TSA cleared dozens of illegal immigrants to train as pilots in the U.S., despite “strict security controls” implemented after 9/11. Some of the illegal immigrants provided the station with official TSA documents approving pilot lessons through the agency’s alien flight student program. After the story broke, Homeland Security officials promised to “review the process” for clearing foreign nationals to become licensed pilots.

Link at top shows a few links in article not included in this quote.

(Does not copy & paste with article I manually did the one called "adjustments")If interested see original link for full article.

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

I thought the reason was because we left cockpit doors unlocked?

You know if 10 years ago we left our house door unlocked & it was robbed ....

and later it is found to have been robbed by a Chinese guy...

Do we 10 years later ...

A) search every Chinese guy that goes down our street?

B ) search everyone who goes down our street?

C) Lock our house doors?

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

I thought the reason was because we left cockpit doors unlocked?

You know if 10 years ago we left our house door unlocked & it was robbed ....

and later it is found to have been robbed by a Chinese guy...

Do we 10 years later ...

A) search every Chinese guy that goes down our street?

B ) search everyone who goes down our street?

C) Lock our house doors?

Very poor analogy. Unless Chinese have been robbing houses at an incredible rate around the world for decades.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcnamara-airport-screening-20101121,0,3755067.story

To find the needles, reduce the haystack

We need to take a hard look at airport security measures. There are better ways to screen for terrorists.

If we continue to simply react to the last breach of airport security, we will always lag behind terrorists' innovations. This will be costly and wasteful in lives, resources and security. A serious strategic review should examine all options, select the best strategy, then monitor, analyze and reassess it regularly. There should also be a quadrennial Homeland Security Department review.

In haystack searches, the first crucial step is to reduce the size of the haystack, so that we are searching all the hay that might contain needles without having to search the whole stack at the airport. In this case, the haystack is all the passengers traveling by air. The needles are terrorists and their weapons. Haystack reduction depends critically on identifying where we should look for the needles. We are not doing that. But there are ways of accomplishing that end while at the same time increasing security and reducing cost. Here are two ideas.

The first is to recognize that the vast majority of passengers are not terrorists. We need to deal with as many of the non-terrorists as possible before they arrive at airport checkpoints. A national, voluntary "trusted passenger" program would do that by advance background checks and biometric identity documents, which could be reviewed, renewed or revoked at any time. Privacy and civil liberties could be protected by strong privacy legislation and oversight by an independent board. Costs could be shared by passengers, airports, airlines and governments.

Although there are a couple of local, commercial programs already in place, they include only a tiny number of passengers. In a truly national program, "trusted" passengers at all airports could move through simplified, expedited check-ins with only occasional random searches.

If, eventually, half of each day's passengers were to qualify as trusted on domestic flights and a third on international flights, that would be a huge reduction in the size of the haystack. Frequent flyers and airline crews, for example, collectively go through the security routine hundreds of millions of times each year. To what purpose? Imagine what taking even them out of the stack would mean in terms of saving time, money and human resources that could then be focused on the "non-trusted" travelers.

The second idea focuses strategically on identifying the needles, the potential terrorists. Immediately after 9/11, we applied, and then abandoned, special controls on people of certain nationalities. We reacted with similar restrictions after the Christmas bombing attempt. There is no analysis showing that nationality measures are effective, and relaxing them has had no negative effects. Yet, without proof of effectiveness, we repeatedly turn to them. Race, ethnicity and nationality controls are ineffective, knee-jerk reactions. They cost millions and provide no increased security.

Instead of focusing on these factors, we need to develop a much broader profiling program that gives primacy to patterns of activities and behaviors. This profiling would not key primarily on race, ethnicity or nationality, but it would not totally ignore them either. Rather, it would rely primarily on intelligence and law enforcement and on consular, airline and other information related to an individual's recent and long-term behavior. Only after those factors were examined would others be considered. We have enough data on threatening activities and behaviors to spot "needles" more effectively. We should put more resources into behavioral profiling.

Very poor analogy. Unless Chinese have been robbing houses at an incredible rate around the world for decades.

But you said......

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them.

So by your new Unless Chinese have been robbing for decades explanation are you now saying...We are being groped because of what Muslims have done to us at an incredible rate for decades?

Did I miss the news on those occasions?

Very poor analogy. Unless Chinese have been robbing houses at an incredible rate around the world for decades.

But you said......

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them.

So by your new Unless Chinese have been robbing for decades explanation are you now saying...We are being groped because of what Muslims have done to us at an incredible rate for decades?

Did I miss the news on those occasions?

Apparently so. Probably because you spend all of your time watching Ron Paul videos.

Apparently so. Probably because you spend all of your time watching Ron Paul videos.

Hey was that your best shot?

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

Actually it's f'ing perfect. If this sort of incompetence / favoritism / hypocrasy doesn't stir the masses, then absolutely nothing will.

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

Yes, it is funny...but the reason for the patdowns is terrorists (of any race, creed or religion), albeit Muslim terrorists can be blamed for bringing the measure to the fore.

You showed your bias there.

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

Yes, it is funny...but the reason for the patdowns is terrorists (of any race, creed or religion), albeit Muslim terrorists can be blamed for bringing the measure to the fore.

You showed your bias there.

And you consistently show your bias for the terrorists. Don't forget to report back after you attempt to board a plane next.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-crotch-groped-by-tsa-calls-for-boycott-of-airlines/

Congressman Paul said in the course of his work representing the people of Texas he has to endure TSA abuse, including the latest “enhanced pat down” that verges on sexual molestation. “I have to go through that all the time because I have metal in my knees,” he explained. “I get prodded all the time and it is disgusting and I tell them so.”

When asked by Alex Jones if the TSA had subjected him to an “enhanced” screening, Ron Paul answered yes.

“Specifically,” Alex asked, “have you had the enhanced pat down, sir? Have they touched your crotch?”

“Yes. Absolutely, and like I said, absolutely disgusting,” Paul responded.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-crotch-groped-by-tsa-calls-for-boycott-of-airlines/

bottom line

“If we tolerate this,” Paul said, “there’s something wrong with us.” He added that the American people deserve to be humiliated and demeaned by the government if they refuse to stand up and resist.

http://www.infowars....tt-of-airlines/

bottom line

"If we tolerate this," Paul said, "there's something wrong with us." He added that the American people deserve to be humiliated and demeaned by the government if they refuse to stand up and resist.

I don't trust Congressmen/women but I really don't think they need to be crotch-grabbed by security. Everyone knows these people will do anything to get re-elected and blowing themself up in a plane would remove them from the ballot - in most states.

Napolitano May Exempt Muslims From Airport Pat-Downs

It would be beyond hilarious if the reason we have the pat-downs in the first place (Mulsims) become exempt from them. The person ultimately responsible for making that decision or approving it should be fired (or impeached).

Yes, it is funny...but the reason for the patdowns is terrorists (of any race, creed or religion), albeit Muslim terrorists can be blamed for bringing the measure to the fore.

You showed your bias there.

And you consistently show your bias for the terrorists. Don't forget to report back after you attempt to board a plane next.

I don't have a bias for terrorists, I have a bias against over-bearing, bullying, empire-aspiring, murderous, religious-based "crusaders".

"Murderous, religious-based "crusaders" that are not Iran, the PLO, Hezbollah. Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hamas - they get a pass.

Type in your name

jokes aside....... 81,882 not allowed to fly?

http://www.no-fly-list.com/

Actual TSA footage...I hope she sues their a$$ off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8&feature=player_embedded

On the positive side, the screw...guard... officer that searched her, did an excellent job of watching her belongings.

http://flywithdignity.org/

Actual TSA footage...I hope she sues their a$$ off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8&feature=player_embedded

One question keeps popping into my head - that big, blond TSA agent - is that Pat from Saturday Night Live with a dye job?

Good thing no one ever groped my granny. They'd have been clobbered with the biggest handbag you've ever seen.

One look at the TSA officers and it looks like the gov't went with the lowest bidder again.