A Date With The TSA *UPDATED: TSA’s Own Rules

While leaving the Providence, Rhode Island gathering for the Franklin Center where the first annual Breitbart Awards were held, we were detained by the TSA and my husband was subjected to intrusive screenings based on the claim that he was covered in “nitrates.”

We fly frequently and when told to walk through the hotly debate Backscatter machines, we opt out for patdowns. I walked through the metal detector but Chris was directed to the bodyscanner, at which point he opted out.

He was subjected to the standard pat-down: back of the hands, check your waistband, run hands up and down the inside of the leg stopping at the groin. When the agent went to check his gloves he claimed that something on his gloves “set off the alarm” at which point informed us that Chris would be subjected to another pat-down and his luggage searched.

They directed us over to the side of the security area and searched his luggage; they also swabbed everything in it. It was at this point they began talking about “nitrates,” a reason often in the news because of the propensity for false-positive results in such tests. They asked him if he fired a gun or handled gas today. We explained to them that we had not been to a range in a few weeks and did not go in the clothes he was wearing or take with us our carry-on luggage. They zipped up his luggage and directed us to a private room.

He was not given the choice as to whether or not he wanted a private or public screening for the second, more invasive pat-down.

At this point we were becoming annoyed as we’d been detained for around 25 minutes minutes already (the entire screening process took about 45 minutes) and were concerned that we would miss our flight. I flipped on my camera after we had been escorted into the private room and kept it vertical, rather than horizontal, to look less confrontational.

The TSA agent informed us, as he snapped on his blue latex gloves, that he would be performing another pat-down, this time using the front of his hands, and he would be touching Chris’s “groin.” It was at this point I began asking questions. He became aggravated and asked for me to turn off my camera. I asked once more about photos and video for clarification, and he stated that the reason I could not film them touching my husband’s genitals through his shorts was due to “security reasons.” The other agent in the room spoke into his shoulder walkie about security. I complied and turned off my phone. When I asked for the agent’s name a second time, he informed me that if I would like, he would call security. The agent demanded that I put my phone away entirely and get it out of my hands and would not start the intrusive screening procedure until I had done so.

He performed the pat-down which began as routine, except that he used the front of his hands. He then bent down and specifically targeted Chris’s crotch. Using the front of his hands, he pressed against his genitals and swept his hands across the crotch three times across, and then pressed at the top of his genitals and wiped his hands down three times.

Make no mistake: outside of the airport this would be considered molestation.

They claimed that the alarm went off again after this second intrusive pat-down and that it was, again, due to “nitrates.” They were going to have to hold us further and were not sure whether we would make our flight. I informed them that I planned to speak out publicly about it, which aggravated them, but I wanted them to know that this process was unacceptable.

They called over a supervisor and huddled together to discuss the situation. They were considering not allowing him to board, from the muted discussion I heard. It was at this point, per the supervisor from my understanding, that they agreed to release him, having found nothing on his person and no reason to suspect him. As mentioned before, the entire screening process took around 45 minutes.

We ran to our gate and fortunately made it as the last group boarded.

One of the agents suggested that perhaps he got whatever tipped off the alarm from the cab — but I was also in the cab, I reminded them. For the sake of the argument, had we been terrorists, their screening would have failed as their metal detectors would not have detected any explosive materials on me, and their bodyscanners do not detect such materials; if either of us had ill intent one of us would have been allowed on the flight. The TSA’s policy of nonsensical random screenings, which look for items rather than behavior, can be easily exploited, which is why our country has a bloodier history with sky-terror than, say, Israel, which focuses on behavior in their security protocol.

The citizenry should not have to put up with such a violation of their civil rights, airline customers should not suffer the harassment of being felt up or molested to fly the skies, and the government should not forces private airline companies to subject their customers such intrusions. Airlines should have the right to privatize their security and the federal government needs more intelligent means of thwarting sky-terrorism than fondling citizens.

More from Twitchy here.

*UPDATE: Jimi971 notes this:

TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might.

 

Taking photographs may also prompt airport police or a TSA official to ask what your purpose is. It is recommended that you use the Talk To TSA program on tsa.gov to contact the Customer Support Manager at the airport to determine its specific policy. Or, if you are a member of the press, you should contact the TSA Office of Public Affairs.

I’m curious to know what Rhode Island’s regulations are concerning the taping of TSA agents performing intrusive screenings.

Obama: “We Can Absorb a Terrorist Attack”

Whiskey tango foxtrot? From Bob Woodward’s new book:

Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

For the sake of argument I’ll play devil’s advocate for a moment. I get what he’s saying: he’s saying essentially “let me be clear, we’ll do whatever we can to prevent another 9/11 but worst case scenario, if another one were to happen, we would recover, just as we recovered from 9/11. Whatever kills you doesn’t make you stronger!” And then Kayne would come out singing his bastardized Daft Punk track and boo-yah, another party at the White House.

This isn’t the biggest capslock OMG moment for me, from advance excerpts of the book, it seems as though Obama is committing the same faux-pas liberals allege that Bush committed in not listening to his generals. That is a bigger problem, especially coupled with the admin‘s inability to acknowledge radical Islam as the fuel for terrorism. Are we doing everything to keep America safe? We can’t even acknowledge the enemy’s motivation.

In Remembrance of 9/11

Nine years ago today I was a brand new, very young mother. I stood in my living room in my pajamas and watched the horror unfurl on live television, watching the fire, watching the first and then the second tower collapse, watching the Pentagon burn, seeing that a giant rut had been dug into the earth in Pennsylvania. Members of a theocracy had murdered over 3,000 Americans.

They didn’t just bring their war to American soil, they brought it into American living rooms.

In my living room, my five-month-old son played happily upon a blanket on the floor. It was a bizarre dichotomy: here was my innocent son, oblivious to what was happening to the country and his future. Standing over him was his young mother who thought that her biggest concern at this moment of his life would be the pain he felt from immunizations.

I have been political most of my life, only I campaigned for Democrat candidates. I had campaigned for Clinton his second term. At that moment I regretted it all. I had begun a transformation 14 months ago when I became pregnant, a transformation that was completed the moment that I realized, the moment that we all as a country realized what was happening on the morning of 9/11.

I became a conservative.

I saw that there existed in this world a threat bigger than ear infections, a threat bigger than outgrowing clothes so quickly, a threat bigger than anything for which I could have prepared. We can all only speak from our own perspectives this day, and I can say that mine was fundamentally changed, my path in life changed, everything changed.

I have more than one child now. My trajectory has changed. My living room extends beyond the walls of my home. It extends to both coasts, to both the Canadian and Mexican border.

Every year we mark this somber day by remembering the men, women, and children who were murdered by an ideology that abhors freedom, that hates us with a passion greater than we can comprehend simply because we are free men. We remember the men, women, and children who did not ask for war when they simply showed up for work, for appointments, for day care that day. Their lives were politicized by an ideology who sought to burn a mark on our soil. It is our responsibility as a nation to not fall back into a false sense of safety, into apathy, romanticize the past and forget what happened.

That’s the first step to ensuring that it never happens again, in our homes, in this country.

Our prayers are with the families who lost loved ones nine years ago today and also with our country.

Who Burned the Koran That Resulted in These Muslims Firing RPGs into Church?

In 2007, no less. Who did it?

Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza’s Latin church,told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip’s small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.

[…]

Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

Who burned the Koran that resulted in the murder of ten Christian missionaries last month?

Or the murder of CIA agents earlier this year?

Or the USS Cole?

Or the countless airplane hijackings, discotheque bombings, etc., etc., etc.

No, instead, the focus is on some Yosemite Sam-looking pastor from Florida. No, he wasn’t being what the Scripture tells us is a good ambassador of faith, which is probably why only 50 people comprise his congregation. However, this is America, and in America you can burn whatever you want because free speech wasn’t designed to protect only the speech and expressions with which we are comfortable. It’s easy to claim tolerance and acceptance of the things with which you agree; the true test comes when you’re faced with speech (no defamation, not libel, but SPEECH) that you don’t like. Denying such is wholly inconsistent. And it’s no place for any member of government to butt in and instruct private citizens on how they can conduct their private activities. If you want to not put a target on our soldiers’ backs (which countless veterans who’ve called into my show tell me is already there) maybe stop the Wikileaks crap, stop broadcasting to terrorists when we’re leaving Afghanistan, stop getting in front of the cameras and drumming up attention to what one dude in Florida wants to do. And these people run our government? Facepalm.

Obama says that “As Americans, we will not or ever be at war with Islam.”

How many thousands of people must be murdered by Islam before he stops saying such?

Where did this nation’s balls go?

Sheriff: “Gov’t Working Against Us”

Bad, heinous strategy to attack the force multiplier. Sheriffs are speaking out:

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

[…]

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ridiculous. Especially when you consider that a Hezbollah leader is living just across the border.

Local law enforcement are the ones who routinely come into contact with illegal aliens due to routine traffic stops and other issues. ICE agents, federal immigration agents do not possess the same numbers and are unable to cover as much territory as our local law enforcement.

It’s irresponsible to not note that had local law enforcement access to immigration statuses in the National Crime and Information Center database (the database that law enforcement are able to access via the computers in their squad cars) and check on the immigration statuses of the four 9/11 terrorists, those men would have been detained for being in violation of the Immigration and Nationalization Act – especially Mohammed Atta, who, during a previous visit to the U.S., had stayed on an expired visa. Nineteen of the hijackers had contact with law enforcement upon entry into the United States. Atta was stopped in Broward County, Florida on a traffic violation. If the United States actually did something supportive towards the inherent right of local law enforcement to uphold the law and for states to act to protect citizens, Atta might have been detained.

Those protesting against the law via a bastardization of the supremacy clause misunderstand the inherent rights of local law enforcement in the issue of immigration; they are advocating diminishing the force multiplier and adding to a federal bureaucracy which is already unable to carry out the necessary tasks to enforce INA.

I’ll be delving into this more this week.

BP Exonerated, White House Implicated in Lockerbie Bomber Release

Remember when Senators Gillibrand and Schumer alleged that BP had a role in the Lockerbie Bomber release and they called for an investigation?

The four senators from New York and New Jersey are calling for an investigation into BP‘s alleged involvement in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber and for a moratorium on Libyan oil drilling.

[…]

In light of the news that Megrahi, reportedly living comfortably in Libya, may live that much longer, Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, with their New Jersey counterparts Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, called for the U.K. to reexamine Megrahi’s release to see whether BP was involved.

Now that we know BP had nothing to do with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi’s release and that it was the White House that actually worked with Scottish officials to broker the deal, will Gillibrand, Schumer & co. call for an investigation into the administration, too? They wanted to enact a moratorium based upon these allegations:

The senators are also calling for a moratorium on drilling off the Libyan coast.  “We do not think that BP should be allowed to drill until we have resolution on this issue,” Gillibrand said.  Although the U.S. doesn’t have the authority to call such a moratorium, “we are calling the UK to assist us in this,” she said.

Oh, the White House feigns surprise almost as good as Bill Clinton:

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.

[…]

The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future “frank and open communications” with other governments.

Sketchy, indeed.