Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?
lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

Posted on 12/21/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Libertarian Billy Graham

 

Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

by Nicholas Monahan

This morning I’ll be escorting my wife to the hospital, where the doctors will perform a caesarean section to remove our first child. She didn’t want to do it this way – neither of us did – but sometimes the Fates decide otherwise. The Fates or, in our case, government employees.

On the morning of October 26th Mary and I entered Portland International Airport, en route to the Las Vegas wedding of one of my best friends. Although we live in Los Angeles, we’d been in Oregon working on a film, and up to that point had had nothing but praise to shower on the city of Portland, a refreshing change of pace from our own suffocating metropolis.

At the security checkpoint I was led aside for the "inspection" that’s all the rage at airports these days. My shoes were removed. I was told to take off my sweater, then to fold over the waistband of my pants. My baseball hat, hastily jammed on my head at 5 AM, was removed and assiduously examined ("Anything could be in here, sir," I was told, after I asked what I could hide in a baseball hat. Yeah. Anything.) Soon I was standing on one foot, my arms stretched out, the other leg sticking out in front of me àla a DUI test. I began to get pissed off, as most normal people would. My anger increased when I realized that the newly knighted federal employees weren’t just examining me, but my 7½ months pregnant wife as well. I’d originally thought that I’d simply been randomly selected for the more excessive than normal search. You know, Number 50 or whatever. Apparently not though – it was both of us. These are your new threats, America: pregnant accountants and their sleepy husbands flying to weddings.

After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard. I marched up to the woman who’d been examining her and shouted, "What did you do to her?" Later I found out that in addition to touching her swollen breasts – to protect the American citizenry – the employee had asked that she lift up her shirt. Not behind a screen, not off to the side – no, right there, directly in front of the hundred or so passengers standing in line. And for you women who’ve been pregnant and worn maternity pants, you know how ridiculous those things look. "I felt like a clown," my wife told me later. "On display for all these people, with the cotton panel on my pants and my stomach sticking out. When I sat down I just lost my composure and began to cry. That’s when you walked up."

Of course when I say she "told me later," it’s because she wasn’t able to tell me at the time, because as soon as I demanded to know what the federal employee had done to make her cry, I was swarmed by Portland police officers. Instantly. Three of them, cinching my arms, locking me in handcuffs, and telling me I was under arrest. Now my wife really began to cry. As they led me away and she ran alongside, I implored her to calm down, to think of the baby, promising her that everything would turn out all right. She faded into the distance and I was shoved into an elevator, a cop holding each arm. After making me face the corner, the head honcho told that I was under arrest and that I wouldn’t be flying that day – that I was in fact a "menace."

It took me a while to regain my composure. I felt like I was one of those guys in The Gulag Archipelago who, because the proceedings all seem so unreal, doesn’t fully realize that he is in fact being arrested in a public place in front of crowds of people for...for what? I didn’t know what the crime was. Didn’t matter. Once upstairs, the officers made me remove my shoes and my hat and tossed me into a cell. Yes, your airports have prison cells, just like your amusement parks, train stations, universities, and national forests. Let freedom reign.

After a short time I received a visit from the arresting officer. "Mr. Monahan," he started, "Are you on drugs?"

Was this even real? "No, I’m not on drugs."

"Should you be?"

"What do you mean?"

"Should you be on any type of medication?"

"No."

"Then why’d you react that way back there?"

You see the thinking? You see what passes for reasoning among your domestic shock troops these days? Only "whackos" get angry over seeing the woman they’ve been with for ten years in tears because someone has touched her breasts. That kind of reaction – love, protection – it’s mind-boggling! "Mr. Monahan, are you on drugs?" His snide words rang inside my head. This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife who’d been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...and my anger is simply unfathomable to the guy standing in front of me, the guy who earns a living thanks to my taxes, the guy whose family I feed through my labor. What I did wasn’t normal. No, I reacted like a drug addict would’ve. I was so disgusted I felt like vomiting. But that was just the beginning.

An hour later, after I’d been gallantly assured by the officer that I wouldn’t be attending my friend’s wedding that day, I heard Mary’s voice outside my cell. The officer was speaking loudly, letting her know that he was planning on doing me a favor... which everyone knows is never a real favor. He wasn’t going to come over and help me work on my car or move some furniture. No, his "favor" was this: He’d decided not to charge me with a felony.

Think about that for a second. Rapes, car-jackings, murders, arsons – those are felonies. So is yelling in an airport now, apparently. I hadn’t realized, though I should have. Luckily, I was getting a favor, though. I was merely going to be slapped with a misdemeanor.

"Here’s your court date," he said as I was released from my cell. In addition, I was banned from Portland International for 90 days, and just in case I was thinking of coming over and hanging out around its perimeter, the officer gave me a map with the boundaries highlighted, sternly warning me against trespassing. Then he and a second officer escorted us off the grounds. Mary and I hurriedly drove two and a half hours in the rain to Seattle, where we eventually caught a flight to Vegas. But the officer was true to his word – we missed my friend’s wedding. The fact that he’d been in my own wedding party, the fact that a once in a lifetime event was stolen from us – well, who cares, right?

Upon our return to Portland (I’d had to fly into Seattle and drive back down), we immediately began contacting attorneys. We aren’t litigious people – we wanted no money. I’m not even sure what we fully wanted. An apology? A reprimand? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter though, because we couldn’t afford a lawyer, it turned out. $4,000 was the average figure bandied about as a retaining fee. Sorry, but I’ve got a new baby on the way. So we called the ACLU, figuring they existed for just such incidents as these. And they do apparently...but only if we were minorities. That’s what they told us.

In the meantime, I’d appealed my suspension from PDX. A week or so later I got a response from the Director of Aviation. After telling me how, in the aftermath of 9/11, most passengers not only accept additional airport screening but welcome it, he cut to the chase:

"After a review of the police report and my discussions with police staff, as well as a review of the TSA’s report on this incident, I concur with the officer’s decision to take you into custody and to issue a citation to you for disorderly conduct. That being said, because I also understand that you were upset and acted on your emotions, I am willing to lift the Airport Exclusion Order...."

Attached to this letter was the report the officer had filled out. I’d like to say I couldn’t believe it, but in a way, I could. It’s seemingly becoming the norm in America – lies and deliberate distortions on the part of those in power, no matter how much or how little power they actually wield.

The gist of his report was this: From the get go I wasn’t following the screener’s directions. I was "squinting my eyes" and talking to my wife in a "low, forced voice" while "excitedly swinging my arms." Twice I began to walk away from the screener, inhaling and exhaling forcefully. When I’d completed the physical exam, I walked to the luggage screening area, where a second screener took a pair of scissors from my suitcase. At this point I yelled, "What the %*&$% is going on? This is &*#&$%!" The officer, who’d already been called over by one of the screeners, became afraid for the TSA staff and the many travelers. He required the assistance of a second officer as he "struggled" to get me into handcuffs, then for "cover" called over a third as well. It was only at this point that my wife began to cry hysterically.

There was nothing poetic in my reaction to the arrest report. I didn’t crumple it in my fist and swear that justice would be served, promising to sacrifice my resources and time to see that it would. I simply stared. Clearly the officer didn’t have the guts to write down what had really happened. It might not look too good to see that stuff about the pregnant woman in tears because she’d been humiliated. Instead this was the official scenario being presented for the permanent record. It doesn’t even matter that it’s the most implausible sounding situation you can think of. "Hey, what the...godammit, they’re taking our scissors, honey!" Why didn’t he write in anything about a monkey wearing a fez?

True, the TSA staff had expropriated a pair of scissors from our toiletries kit – the story wasn’t entirely made up. Except that I’d been locked in airport jail at the time. I didn’t know anything about any scissors until Mary told me on our drive up to Seattle. They’d questioned her about them while I was in the bowels of the airport sitting in my cell.

So I wrote back, indignation and disgust flooding my brain.

"[W]hile I’m not sure, I’d guess that the entire incident is captured on video. Memory is imperfect on everyone’s part, but the footage won’t lie. I realize it might be procedurally difficult for you to view this, but if you could, I’d appreciate it. There’s no willful disregard of screening directions. No explosion over the discovery of a pair of scissors in a suitcase. No struggle to put handcuffs on. There’s a tired man, early in the morning, unhappily going through a rigorous procedure and then reacting to the tears of his pregnant wife."

Eventually we heard back from a different person, the guy in charge of the TSA airport screeners. One of his employees had made the damning statement about me exploding over her scissor discovery, and the officer had deftly incorporated that statement into his report. We asked the guy if he could find out why she’d said this – couldn’t she possibly be mistaken? "Oh, can’t do that, my hands are tied. It’s kind of like leading a witness – I could get in trouble, heh heh." Then what about the videotape? Why not watch that? That would exonerate me. "Oh, we destroy all video after three days."

Sure you do.

A few days later we heard from him again. He just wanted to inform us that he’d received corroboration of the officer’s report from the officer’s superior, a name we didn’t recognize. "But...he wasn’t even there," my wife said.

"Yeah, well, uh, he’s corroborated it though."

That’s how it works.

"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."

But I thought it was destroyed?

On and on it went. Due to the tenacity of my wife in making phone calls and speaking with relevant persons, the "crime" was eventually lowered to a mere citation. Only she could have done that. I would’ve simply accepted what was being thrown at me, trumped up charges and all, simply because I’m wholly inadequate at performing the kowtow. There’s no way I could have contacted all the people Mary did and somehow pretend to be contrite. Besides, I speak in a low, forced voice, which doesn’t elicit sympathy. Just police suspicion.

Weeks later at the courthouse I listened to a young DA awkwardly read the charges against me – "Mr. Monahan...umm...shouted obscenities at the airport staff...umm... umm...oh, they took some scissors from his suitcase and he became...umm...abusive at this point." If I was reading about it in Kafka I might have found something vaguely amusing in all of it. But I wasn’t. I was there. Living it.

I entered a plea of nolo contendere, explaining to the judge that if I’d been a resident of Oregon, I would have definitely pled "Not Guilty." However, when that happens, your case automatically goes to a jury trial, and since I lived a thousand miles away, and was slated to return home in seven days, with a newborn due in a matter of weeks...you get the picture. "No Contest" it was. Judgment: $250 fine.

Did I feel happy? Only $250, right? No, I wasn’t happy. I don’t care if it’s twelve cents, that’s money pulled right out of my baby’s mouth and fed to a disgusting legal system that will use it to propagate more incidents like this. But at the very least it was over, right? Wrong.

When we returned to Los Angeles there was an envelope waiting for me from the court. Inside wasn’t a receipt for the money we’d paid. No, it was a letter telling me that what I actually owed was $309 – state assessed court costs, you know. Wouldn’t you think your taxes pay for that – the state putting you on trial? No, taxes are used to hire more cops like the officer, because with our rising criminal population – people like me – hey, your average citizen demands more and more "security."

Finally I reach the piece de resistance. The week before we’d gone to the airport my wife had had her regular pre-natal checkup. The child had settled into the proper head down position for birth, continuing the remarkable pregnancy she’d been having. We returned to Portland on Sunday. On Mary’s Monday appointment she was suddenly told, "Looks like your baby’s gone breech." When she later spoke with her midwives in Los Angeles, they wanted to know if she’d experienced any type of trauma recently, as this often makes a child flip. "As a matter of fact..." she began, recounting the story, explaining how the child inside of her was going absolutely crazy when she was crying as the police were leading me away through the crowd.

My wife had been planning a natural childbirth. She’d read dozens of books, meticulously researched everything, and had finally decided that this was the way for her. No drugs, no numbing of sensations – just that ultimate combination of brute pain and sheer joy that belongs exclusively to mothers. But my wife is also a first-time mother, so she has what is called an "untested" pelvis. Essentially this means that a breech birth is too dangerous to attempt, for both mother and child. Therefore, she’s now relegated to a c-section – hospital stay, epidural, catheter, fetal monitoring, stitches – everything she didn’t want. Her natural birth has become a surgery.

We’ve tried everything to turn that baby. Acupuncture, chiropractic techniques, underwater handstands, elephant walking, moxibustion, bending backwards over pillows, herbs, external manipulation – all to no avail. When I walked into the living room the other night and saw her plaintively cooing with a flashlight turned onto her stomach, yet another suggested technique, my heart almost broke. It’s breaking now as I write these words.

I can never prove that my child went breech because of what happened to us at the airport. But I’ll always believe it. Wrongly or rightly, I’ll forever think of how this man, the personification of this system, has affected the lives of my family and me. When my wife is sliced open, I’ll be thinking of him. When they remove her uterus from her abdomen and lay it on her stomach, I’ll be thinking of him. When I visit her and my child in the hospital instead of having them with me here in our home, I’ll be thinking of him. When I assist her to the bathroom while the incision heals internally, I’ll be thinking of him.

There are plenty of stories like this these days. I don’t know how many I’ve read where the writer describes some breach of civil liberties by employees of the state, then wraps it all up with a dire warning about what we as a nation are becoming, and how if we don’t put an end to it now, then we’re in for heaps of trouble. Well you know what? Nothing’s going to stop the inevitable. There’s no policy change that’s going to save us. There’s no election that’s going to put a halt to the onslaught of tyranny. It’s here already – this country has changed for the worse and will continue to change for the worse. There is now a division between the citizenry and the state. When that state is used as a tool against me, there is no longer any reason why I should owe any allegiance to that state.

And that’s the first thing that child of ours is going to learn.

December 21, 2002

Nick Monahan works in the film industry. He writes out of Los Angeles where he lives with his wife and as of December 18th, his beautiful new son.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com

     

 

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,061-1,0801,081-1,1001,101-1,120 ... 1,141-1,147 next last
To: general_re
You are so full of it, your eyes must be brown (or maybe green if it's started to turn rancid). A RIGHT can only be what you yourself can do BY yourself. I, for example, have a RIGHT to offer my services to whomever wants to pay me for them. I do not have a "right" to a job or a right to FORCE someone to hire me. I have a RIGHT to life. I have a RIGHT to do what ever I must (justly) to support and protect my life. This does NOT grant me the "right" to forcibly live at someone else's expense. I have a RIGHT to hang out with whomever I please that will welcome my company. I do not have a "right" to force my company on an unwilling individual or group of individuals. The Ninth Amendment is not dead. It is ignored by simpletons like you and by gooberment power-grabbers. Perhaps ALSO like you.
1,081 posted on 12/23/2002 6:22:44 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I will hold off on addressing the second part of your argument. However, the travel-by-air option argument holds water ONLY if it is a condition made by the carrier and you have other choices. It being made by FedGov means that it MUST COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENTS, PERIOD. Further, the rule about not carrying weapons is ALSO FedGov-mandated and a violation of the SECOND amendment. Sorry, you're way out of line here, Constitutionally.
1,082 posted on 12/23/2002 6:32:45 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1077 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
The FedGov mandated searches are because national security demands it, so it is tied to the second argument. It doesn't change the fact that you are not forced to travel by air, it is a choice, and a contract.

The Fed gov has a national security issue, and two ways to go here. Let everyone be armed, which is probably what you prefer, or disarm everyone when on a plane. They do have that authority where national security is concerned. And they chose the latter. Your right to be armed doesn't include a lot of places... courthouses, some other government buildings, airports, airplanes. You can wish they chose the other route, and even argue for that, but you are bound by their decision, and I do not believe you have a bona fide constitutionality concern. Searches have been in place for years now, I am sure not un-noticed by constitutional scholars.
1,083 posted on 12/23/2002 6:43:38 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1082 | View Replies]

Comment #1,084 Removed by Moderator

To: TaZ
Wow,what an elitist you are.Just cuz you are some no count reporter in some court room with a degree in journalism you think you know more than some guy with a high school diploma that has worked in the real world all his life.Let me tell you bub,there are many blue collar workers that have been self educated and have not had to depend on liberal professors to dictate to them what is the right way to think. People like you realy are pathetic.
1,085 posted on 12/23/2002 7:02:15 PM PST by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1084 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Why go easier on weapons in general? While I think the premises and conclusions are rather questionable, you can at least make an argument that armed passengers could prevent a takeover of the airplane. But that presumes that this is necessarily the goal of the suspect - if Richard Reid had his s*** together, instead of trying to light his shoes with a pack of matches, it's difficult to see how his fellow passengers could have prevented him from blowing up the plane, armed or no. In that case, the best solution would seem to be to prevent him from boarding in the first place.

I don't believe I said that an armed passengery (yes, I just made that word up) would provide absolute safety against terrorists. I said it would provide additional safety. I agree that it would be best to keep him from boarding in the first place. But two things should be kept in mind: 1. Our "professional, federalized" airport security service failed to catch him - maybe because they were focusing their efforts in all the wrong places? and 2. It was the passengers who stopped him. So my overall strategy I think would be to further empower the latter, and to reform the former. It may not provide perfect protection, but then I don't think anything realistically can. It will, I think, provide better protection, as well as less hassle all around, even for the people who are profiled.

1,086 posted on 12/23/2002 7:03:01 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1062 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
Actually, I don't have a degree in journalism as you espouse (take a look at the grammatical mistakes in my last post...lol).

This is my second career; my first was as an Engineer in the Aerospace community from 1980 until 1996.

I do have a Masters of Science in Engineering if that is any consolation.

For the record, I moved to NY back in 1996 with my wife, who wanted to attend NYU to finish her Masters in Psychology...

The career in Journalism all came about because of a business opportunity that was presented to me by a friend in California, who wanted me to become his partner on the East Coast.

Specifically, I publish a daily newsletter to a closed loop of subscribers (most large to middle size law firms in Manhattan, as well as several major publications), in which I summarize civil and white-collar criminal litigation complaints for that day.

I also sell breaking-news stories to local television/radio news entities and a few miscellaneous periodicals.

Additionally, I have also been a guest on some patriot short-wave programs concerning Class action securities litigation and 9-11...so you see I'm really not the "elitist" you make me out to be.

I'm just another concerned American patriot.
1,087 posted on 12/23/2002 7:21:10 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1085 | View Replies]

To: inquest
It was "essentially" a pro-3rd party argument. Now I'm sure the many libertarians on this forum would be flattered to know that you consider the Libertarian Party the only third party that could ever be worthy of consideration, but it really isn't.

I think it went beyond that to bear a striking resemblance to a libertarian argument, but I am willing to drop the point ;)

I don't think anyone on this thread believes that the Almighty Constitution (perhaps in conjunction with Univ*) will rise up and smite down any heathen government officials that don't abide by its Commandments. What I'm interested in knowing is if it matters to you whether their actions violate the Constitution.

It matters to me, but that's almost irrelevant. If the rest of the nation feels that some official action or program doesn't violate the Constitution, I have little choice but to abide by that while working to change their minds, or to vote with my feet and leave. It's not enough for you and I to want change, if we're the only ones.

Recent events have conspired to put conservatives in the driver's seat momentarily, although some here are clearly unsatisfied with the caliber of conservatives that are gipping the wheel. Even so, that's merely a temporary correction, and one subject to being destroyed as soon as the wheels of government start turning in the opposite direction. The Constitution can't end searches in airports, or abortions, or drug seizures, or government listening to your phone calls. Only we can do that. And the only way we can do that is to change the culture; else, we're simply imposing solutions on a people that don't really believe in them. And even if you ram through some change, ending some thing or starting another because you believe it is unconstitutional or constitutional, it will last precisely as long as it takes the left to regain the levers of power, because the people don't believe in what you are doing.

Congress and the courts and the President can implement every single piece of a conservative agenda now - they have the power. But unless the people believe those changes are the right thing to do, it will never last, and they will strike back tenfold in revenge. Government cannot lead the people anywhere they don't already want to go, whether it's to good things or bad. It's up to the people to lead government to where we want them to go.

You cannot change the state, and expect to change the culture by so doing. You must change the culture, and thereby change the state. The left understands this - this is precisely why they control the schools and the media. Perhaps someday we'll fully understand that too...

1,088 posted on 12/23/2002 7:25:40 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1080 | View Replies]

Comment #1,089 Removed by Moderator

To: TaZ
Then do not demonize hard working blue collar workers that keep your ass in gas at the local refinery fixin the $hit you engineers devised in the first place.I bet you have no idea what a dutchman,two hole,hand hold or what a Victor wrench is or what it implies.My point,knock of dissin the blue collar worker.
1,090 posted on 12/23/2002 7:27:43 PM PST by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1087 | View Replies]

To: inquest
1. Our "professional, federalized" airport security service failed to catch him - maybe because they were focusing their efforts in all the wrong places?

Perhaps. Since federal jurisdiction so far fails to extend to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, where Reid boarded his flight, I think this point is not quite as strong as you might think at first blush ;)

2. It was the passengers who stopped him.

It was. But that was, let's face it, in large part because he was incompetent. Pan Am 103 was brought down by a slightly modified clock-radio - unless attention is paid to preventing weapons on board airplanes, profiling alone is too coarse a sieve to be effective. It seems to me that the best course is a combination of all available methods - screening for weapons and suspicious passengers.

As for an armed passengery - I like that word ;) - I merely suggest that the Wild West days of shootouts in saloons and on sidewalks came to an end for one simple reason - most folks simply won't stand for it. It's easy to romanticize that kind of thing from a distance, but whether you're right or wrong about the efficacy of armed passengers, I really doubt that there is a realistic chance of persuading people that it's a good idea. But you can certainly try ;)

1,091 posted on 12/23/2002 7:43:18 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1086 | View Replies]

To: eastforker
Actually, my point was directed towards a veteran who is getting a little hot under the collar about the toadies, sycophants and lackeys that find it their political mission to defend the unconstitutional actions of the current regime.

I'm personally not willing to surrender my rights for an illusion of security...I'm also unwilling to support the two-party system that has brought our country to the brink of social, fiscal, economic and moral collapse.

It's time to return to the Republic that was established by the founding fathers, but before that can happen we have a lot of housecleaning to do...
1,092 posted on 12/23/2002 7:48:13 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1090 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
...before that can happen we have a lot of housecleaning to do...

Do tell.

1,093 posted on 12/23/2002 8:44:05 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1092 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Do tell.

Donald Matthews tried to do some of that cleaning but ended up getting dusted himself.

1,094 posted on 12/23/2002 9:34:20 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
"Housecleaning" always has rather ominous overtones in this kind of context. It would be rather regrettable if the forces of "freedom" turned out to be more hazardous to my health and safety than the federales ever have been.

I dislike having to defend the current system for no other reason than because the alternatives I am presented with are so much worse. Whoops, wait a minute - that would imply that I have rationally weighed the alternatives and found one to be deficient when compared to the others. And everyone knows that's plainly impossible - I must be a government-loving statist. That's the ticket....

1,095 posted on 12/23/2002 9:48:01 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1094 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"Do tell."

Well, we could start by securing our borders and respecting the rights of American citizens...such as being gracious towards 64 year old grandmothers or women in their 8th month of pregnancy when they appear at airport security checkpoints.

We could also require American citizens to be responsible for their behavior, so that we all don't have to forfeit our rights because of those who have chosen to be criminal in their behavior...
1,096 posted on 12/23/2002 10:03:43 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
Thank you for the clarification. As I said above, "housecleaning" sometimes has ominous overtones, intentionally or unintentionally.
1,097 posted on 12/23/2002 10:06:52 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1096 | View Replies]

To: TaZ
You have a more workable concept of "housecleaning" than some. I regret having made my wisea$$ comment.
1,098 posted on 12/23/2002 10:13:17 PM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1096 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
"You have a more workable concept of "housecleaning" than some. I regret having made my wisea$$ comment."

No offense taken. It appears the moderator assumed the same thing and deleted one of my posts.

Maybe I need to elaborate upon my core beliefs...

I believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution and an absolute respect for the rights of every responsible American citizen.

I also believe that law creation, enforcement and adjudication is best left in the hands of the "People" and not crafty careerists, who have no vested interest in keeping the size, scope and power of gov't. at a minimum.

We need to return to the spirit of the citizen militia...ready to defend, in a minute, each other's homes, family and the country at large, as it was in the beginning.
1,099 posted on 12/23/2002 10:29:11 PM PST by TaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1098 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
"OK, you're a macho guy. Now tell us all what level of security you think we need at airports and how it would be carried out. "

When the illegal aliens are no longer allowed to be employed at airports and can simply walk on every aircraft out there, maybe, just maybe, screening American passengers might actually accomplish something.

You are the ultimate sheep if you think frisking passengers is actually a security measure.
1,100 posted on 12/24/2002 12:41:50 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,061-1,0801,081-1,1001,101-1,120 ... 1,141-1,147 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson