Awake

-Are you a God?
- they asked the Buddha.
- No.
- Are you an angel, then?
- No.
- A saint?
- No.
- Then what are you?
-
I am AWAKE.



Einstein

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure of
the universe"-Albert Einstein-


Om Mani Padme Hum

Matthew 25:40

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 7 1-6


1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Edgar Cayce Predicts the End of the World - In 2012?

I've been reading Cayce since I was a teenager. My aunt used to talk about him and never having a curiousity about the occult, or psychics or anything of that nature, I was curious. In those days I spent a lot of time at the public library, for fun I read English mysteries like the Saint, or Edgar Allen Poe. One day I noticed a book about Cayce, I think it was The Sleeping Prophet.  I took it out and read it and was hooked. Since then I've probably read every book written about him.  Here is a link to the A.R.E. an organization dedicated to Cayce'e work, they have his complete readings which are available to members of which I'm one.

Link to Association for Research and Enlightenment                     

He primarily did readings for people needing medical assessments.  Specifically holistic health and the treatments for the particular illness suffered by the person requesting the reading. He only needed to know where the person was, it wasn't necessary to meet or know who the person was. Nearly 70% of his readings were for health issues.

A future map of the world after the end of the world or 2012, was suggested by Cayce in words. Many people search for a future map of the world illustrating where to go that's safe. Some people have devised a map.  You'll find them if you google for a future map showing Cayce's predictions and prophecies.

Cayce says that some of the East Coast of the United States, and the West Coast will literally disappear. Coastal and sea level land all over the world will be under water. The Rocky Mountains will be the new coastal mountains in the United States. Nevada will be under water. The Rockies runs through Colorado but it's elevation in general isn't high enough to be above water entirely when new land masses come up out of the oceans.

Edgar Cayce prophecied that Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and would disappear, so would Japan,  Europe would be changed "in the twinkling of an eye." The Mississippi would become wider as the Great Lakes drain down into the Gulf. The Carolinas and Georgia disappear. Illinois Ohio, Montana, and Canada have areas  undisturbed. In the west of Canada Cayce also predicted that there would be volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. The same in the southern hemisphere. Land masses will rise to become islands and continents in the seas.

Cayce doesn't say much about the rest of the world, probably because he's from the United States and travel overseas wasn't as easy then as it is now. He also probably didn't know much about the rest of the world. He does say though that there will be problems in the Middle East, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. He also said there'd would be activity in the Davis Strait between Greenland and Canada.  Cayce also predicted a global pole shift.

Lee Murray

Saturday, November 27, 2010

It's Not For Me To Judge - I'm Just Doing My Job -

Watching CSI Crime Scene Investigation, a new one with Lawrence FIshburne. Now he's a cop, but he was one of the street punk muggers that got Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) started again as a vigilante in Death Wish II.  I haven't watched CSI much, since they let Grissom (William Peterson) get away.  When he was there it was a little special, now it's just another cop show. Another quick aside before I get started on the real point, do CSI's in real life act like detectives getting out kicking in doors, questioning suspects, making arrests, blah, blah, or do they work in the lab and on the crime scene getting evidence and letting the real detectives do the police work?  I get so sick of seeing what I believe is an error in reality perpetrated to generate interest from viewers because the reality is probably so boring. At least when Grissom was there CSI was a little bit more real, than the others, now all three are the same with interchangable characters.
Government Murderers assemble at Ruby Ridge
Now to the point... Watching the show and Fishburne's character, (what is his name anyway?), says to a suspect as she's led away "It's not for me to judge."  We hear that, or "I'm only (or just) doing my job," or "if I don't somebody will," or "I need the money, it's only a job." There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of ways of saying the same thing, i.e. "I'm a good German, just following orders, doing what I'm told, etc.
We're becoming a nation of "Good Germans."  If you asked anyone working for the TSA in the airports, they'd probably say that these people were going to destroy our country, so anything we had to do was just self-defense, or  I live in a civilized, democratic country, certainly the most civilized and democratic that has ever been, and my country wouldn't do evil things, or people in positions of high authority convinced me that whatever they were doing was for the best.
Good Germans all, not sending people to the ovens, true, just subjecting them, babies, old people, normal average people, their neighbors and friends, even themselves, to pornographic body scans and physical, sexual assault it the form of pat downs, where TSA goons, the new Brown Shirts of Bush/Obama and the government, reach under their clothes and grab your balls and penis, or shove their hands into your wife or daughters, or mothers, or grandmothers crotch fingering their vagina or ass.
Kent State 1970 aftermath
Ask people if it's right and many are outraged, some say they'll never fly again, but others, many others, are convinced by the perverts and facists in their government that it's needed to ensure safety, a mythological safety.
Saying something like I live in a civilized, democratic country, certainly the most civilized and democratic that has ever been, and my country wouldn't do evil things, (yeah, right) doesn't make it true.  Too many people say It's not for me to judge. They said it when slaves were bought and sold, they said it when brother was killing brother in the Civil War, (the Rebellion, or the War for the Southern Confederacy depending on your point of view),  they said it when Negros were lynched, and the KKK (nation wide not just in the South) acted up, they said it when a few Germans were locked up in WW I (Article on German Intenment WW I and WW II), they said it when US citizens of Japanese heritage, WHO WERE BORN HERE, were locked up in CONCENTRATION CAMPS during WW II, (Article on Japanese Internment WW II), they said it when US soldiers committed murder and attempted murder by killing and wounding STUDENTS when firing live rounds into a crowd at Kent State in 1970 (Article on Kent State Murders and Attempted Murders),  they said it when the US Government in the persons of FBI agents and others murdered innocents and framed others at Ruby Ridge and Waco (Article on the Weavers and the Ruby Ridge Massacre), (Article on the Government Murder of Branch Davidian Women and Children at Waco), now they say it as Government Brown Shirts molest, and degrade honest US citizens whose only crime is the desire to board an airliner and fly somewhere.

Government Attact on the Branch Davidians in Waco

Lee Murray






















Friday, November 26, 2010

Opt Out Day - A Big Bust

Wednesday was supposed to be the day that America's airline passengers showed the TSA and the government what they thought of the radioactive and pornographic strip search xray scanners and sexual assault "pat down" physical searches by TSA goons, both male and female. They were going to opt out of the scanners, forcing the TSA thugs to pat them down in an effort to bring things to a standstill. Well I've been watching the news and...nothing. Apparently they didn't drop the ball, they never picked it up. It's another example of people thinking safety, even false safety, even an outright lie is worth putting up with any amount of humiliation and degradation.  Apparently they actually believe that Napolitano and Pistole and the rest care if they're safe and it's not just a case of using their power to line their pockets. Apparently they actually believe that there really is danger some sort of danger that the TSA goons are able to protect them from by forcing them to submit to a public virtual strip tease or making them endure a TSA pervert feeling them up probing and prodding their bodies, groping, grasping and twisting the womens tits, pushing fingers into their pussies and asses, grabbing guys cocks and balls, all in an effort, so they say, to prevent non-existent terrorists from committing imaginary acts.  The truth is, in my opinion that yes there is the occasional "terrorist," but not to the degree that Napolitano, Pistole, and the government would have us believe. What else, of course, would you expect them to say? They need the public to believe that there are terrorists, hundreds, thousands of them behind every bush, trying to board every plane, they need us to believe it desperately to justify their positions, to justify the Homeland Security nonsense, to justify the ever increasing brutality and degradation they claim is necessary to protect ourselves, from this non-existent threat.
It's just like the cold war of years past, the government convinced us that "Commies" were a threat like no other. That we needed to spend billions and trillions and trillions of trillions of dollars to protect ourselves from Commies.  The truth was, as we know now,  Commies were never a threat to us. Yes, I'll grant that they probably thought they were, and our "leaders had us convinced they were, but as it turned out they never were. I'm sure the Commie government had done the same thing to their people, convinced thenm that we were a threat like no other.
If you look back it's easy to see that at least for the last century possibly longer, our government has to have an enemy, has to have a war, it's the only thing they know. I recently did a post on Will Rogers and he said,  "America has never lost a war, nor never won the peace," (taken from  America Is on the March TYRANNY WILL BE ON THE RUN, By JOHN W. McCORMACK, of Massachusetts, Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, Delivered before the Boston Chamber of Commerce, Retail Trade Board, Maritime Association, and Advertising Club of Boston on December 31, 1941). Of course, that quote comes before Vienam, so it's no longer true. What is true though is that we never have won a peace. Our government has created, or found an excuse to keep us at war, with someone, almost constantly, since at least WWI. We had a peace between WWI and WWII, and of course it went all to hell, the biggest depression, world wide in the history of this country. Until now, maybe.  Then we had the Cold War, because our leaders convinced us that Commies were, as I said, the biggest threat that existed, and of course that led to the Korean War, my fathers war, we won, sort of. Then there was Vietnam, we lost on many fronts, including the actual war, but more important we lost on the home front where everybody and their brother thought the war was wrong, evil, and demonstrated against it. It was interesting that the demonstrators were against sending our young men to a foreign backwater to be killed, but when those same young men came back to their world it wasn't unknown for the same demonstrators to spit on them and call them babykillers. Talk about skitzoid...  Then we had a couple small ones, just enough to keep the war machine making money, George the first started a war in the middle east to save his buddies and their oil. Of course not finishing the job, led to the destruction of the twin towers, and George the second starting an illegal war to avenge that, allegedly. To avenge the fact that Sadam supposedly put out a contract on his father George the first, and oil is probably more accurate. Now thanks to George the first and his replacement Obama we are still in the illegal war, further in debt than ever in our history, in the middle of the worst recession or depression since the last one in the 30's, if it isn't worse than that one, our government is committing horrendous and illegal attacks on our civil liberties and the Constitution in the name of safety for us, what a laugh that is.
But they need us to believe they're protcting us, that we're constantly in danger from Huns, from Nazi's, from Commies, from Terrorists, from whoever is next, for the simple reason that it justifies their position, with the secondary benifit that it makes them a ton of money. It seems that the only thing needed for a broke man to become a rich man is for him to get elected, ideally as President, Bill Clinton is a good example.

Lee Murray

Monday, November 22, 2010

TSA body-searches a three-year-old girl

Video: TSA body-searches a three-year-old girl      November 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey


I fly on a fairly regular basis, and usually have no trouble at all going through security at the airports. Even when I’ve been flagged for closer inspection occasionally, TSA agents have always been professional and even friendly about it. That’s probably because I’m old enough to understand the issues involved, and I deliberately get to the airport early enough not to stress about delays at security. But what happens when a three-year-old girl gets upset at having to give up her teddy bear and TSA then flags her for closer inspection? This (h/t Katy W):

Note: This video originally aired in January 2009. No longer avalable

I’m sure TSA must be really happy to have discovered that Daddy works as a television reporter.

We can’t know for certain that terrorists wouldn’t use a child as a mule to get explosives or other weapons through airport security, of course. In fact, we’ve seen al-Qaeda use children and the mentally impaired as “suicide” bombers in Iraq, so we know they have no scruples in doing so. Allahpundit noted three days ago that those who complain about those procedures now would have a very different take on the matter if a plane suddenly exploded in mid-air. However, wouldn’t that require the parents of the child (or those posing as parents) to be the actual terrorists? Shouldn’t TSA have taken the whole family aside and questioned Mom and Dad first to see if they got a hint of some ulterior motive?

This points out yet again how the American approach to flight security misses the point, thanks to an “everyone must suffer equally” approach. The Israelis have not had an incident in decades, thanks to a much more comprehensive but subtle approach that looks for actual clues to danger, rather than using a random-sample method. The Wall Street Journal reported on this almost a year ago, shortly after the Christmas Day terrorist attack attempt on a Northwest flight from Amsterdam:

If we’re mugging random three-year-olds to provide security to air travel, I’d say we need to rethink our approach. And if we continue along this path, is it unreasonable to ask that TSA provide some training on how to conduct a body search on a three-year-old without terrifying children in this manner?

Finally, Minnesota Majority presents a montage of images and video from TSA inspections, along with a heavy dose of Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano, set to The Who’s “See Me, Feel Me” from their rock opera Tommy. This problem actually predates the Obama administration, but they’ve been in charge for almost two years and they seem to be reinforcing the problem rather than solving it.




TSA Takes Naked Body Scan That Reveals ALL of 12 Yr Old Girl Without Parents Present - Since When Is This Legal?

WTF!!! So taking revealing pics of 12 year olds is OK without parental consent? That’s correct, let’s pick the 12 year old girl out of the line and subject her to a full body scan but let the 22 year old male from Yemen to pass through unscathed.

So we are supposed to trust the TSA, huh?
Since when is taking revealing, naked pics of 12 year old girls legal? In most every other venue and instance such an act would be considered child porn. However, not with the TSA. So it’s ok for the TSA to do wht is in essence strip searches of 12 year old girls without their parents present? That is exactly what happened to a Baltimore, MD family and their 12 year old daughter.
There’s been lots of talk lately about body scanners — the new airport security tool that allows screeners to see through clothes. People are concerned about privacy, delayed flights, health effects.
Now there’s another concern. What about kids? Do they have to go through this, too? And what are parents’ rights?
A Baltimore family is raising the issue after their 12-year-old daughter was pulled out of line in Tampa and subjected to what they say was an embarrassing and unhealthy scan. The girl was traveling with an adult friend of the family, not her parents.
Question, how does the TSA random pick a 12 year old girl and single her out to be a potential terrorist? Seriously, a 12 year old? Anyone can be picked? Sorry, but how many terrorists who took part in 911 or failed bombings like the underwear bomber were 12 year old little girls? PC will kill us and this BS must end now.
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, said anyone can be selected from the line and given a body scan, even children, as long as they can hold their arms over their heads for five or more seconds.
But parents may opt out of the body scan for themselves or their children and receive a patdown by an officer instead. Koshetz said there are signs saying everyone has the option to reject the screening, though at TIA there is one sign per machine.
The 12 year old tells her story.
Okay, I was coming home to Baltimore, Md., from Siesta Key, Fla., and I was with my friend and her parents and I was going to this airport security check.
I put my bag through, and they pulled me aside and told me to go over here. I thought it was some high-tech scan and I walked right through it and this lady said ‘”Hold on, you can’t just walk through this thing. Put your feet on the yellow footsteps and make a triangle above your head.” I guess it was so they could see my whole body.
I heard a beep and she said, “Okay you can leave.”










TSA Scared by Public Outrage at Being Forced to Endure Pornograghic Body Scans and Perverts Fondling the Breasts and Genitals of Themselves, the Elderly and Their Children in the Name of False Security

Of course the idiot is going to say that. What else would he say? Stop the scans and get rid of the perverts and it won't be necessary. Hillary Clinton say's she wouldn't like it either on public tv, but of course with government or chartered airplanes to use she was speaking theoretically, as she'll never have to face a strange man ripping off her blouse and exposing her breasts in public as has happened to some women in airports, or a stranger putting his hand in her crotch fonding her cunt and ass. Yes, I know it's a shock, she does have them. Well...in theory at least,  maybe not.  But not having to face the things we all have to is the advantage of being one of the "leaders" and not one of the led.
Boycott not just the scanners... Boycott the airlines. Don't fly at all, except for emergencies, until the scanners and TSA thugs and perverts, both male and female, are removed permanently. This "security" is a joke, it never has and probably never will find an actual terrorist, because if they exist except in the minds of the government they don't want to go through the scanners or be probed and prodded either, and "searching" children, and little old ladies probably gets a laugh in terrorist circles every time they think of it.

Lee Murray


TSA chief: Body scan boycott would be mistake



AP – FILE - In this Nov. 17, 2010, file photo Transportation
 Security Administration (TSA) Administrator John Pistole 
 By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Jim Abrams, Associated Press – 1 hr 13 mins ago


WASHINGTON – With one of the year's busiest traveling days fast approaching, the Obama administration's top transportation security official on Monday urged passengers angry over safety procedures not to boycott airport body scans.
John Pistole said in nationally broadcast interviews he understands public concerns about privacy in the wake of the Transportation Security Administration's tough new airline boarding security checks.
But at the same time, he said a relatively small proportion of the 34 million people who have flown since the new procedures went into effect have had the body pat downs that have come under withering criticism in recent days.
With the Thanksgiving travel rush less than 48 hours away, Pistole implored passengers Monday not to take delaying actions or engage in boycotts of body scans, actions he said would only serve to "tie up people who want to go home and see their loved ones."
Pistole had pledged Sunday to review security procedures in the wake of a public outcry. But he also said the TSA must balance people's demand for privacy with the need to protect passengers from those who would try to set off bombs on planes.
A loosely-organized Internet boycott of body scans is under way, and Pistole said he hoped people would exercise sound judgment over the busy Thanksgiving holiday. A National Opt-Out Day is scheduled for Wednesday to coincide with the busiest travel day of the year.
"Just one or two recalcitrant passengers at an airport is all it takes to cause huge delays," said Paul Ruden, a spokesman for the American Society of Travel Agents, which has warned its more than 8,000 members about delays resulting from the body-scanner boycott. "It doesn't take much to mess things up anyway — especially if someone purposely tries to mess it up."
Body scans take as little as 10 seconds, but people who decline the process must submit to a full pat-down, which takes much longer. That could cause a cascade of delays at dozens of major airports, including those in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta. nationwide security programs, "there is a continual process of refinement and adjustment to ensure that best practices are applied."
Pistole on Sunday noted the alleged attempt by a Nigerian with explosives in his underwear to try to bring down an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight last Christmas. "We all wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary," he said, "but that just isn't the case."
The statement came just hours after Pistole, in a TV interview, said that while the full-body scans and pat-downs could be intrusive and uncomfortable, the high threat level required their use.
In the TV appearance, Pistole appeared to shrug off statements by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the TSA would look for ways to alter screening techniques that some passengers say are invasions of privacy.
Obama said in Lisbon on Saturday that he had asked TSA officials whether there's a less intrusive way to ensure travel safety. "I understand people's frustrations," he said, adding that he had told the TSA that "you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety."
Clinton, appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," said she thought "everyone, including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public" and that "striking the right balance is what this is about."
She, for one, wouldn't like to submit to a security pat-down.
"Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?" Clinton told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"Clearly it's invasive, it's not comfortable," Pistole said of the scans and pat-downs during the interview on CNN's "State of the Union." But, he added, "if we are to detect terrorists, who have again proven innovative and creative in their design and implementation of bombs that are going to blow up airplanes and kill people, then we have to do something that prevents that."
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., who is set to become Transportation Committee chairman when Republicans take over the House in January, differed with the approach.
"I don't think the rollout was good and the application is even worse. This does need to be refined. But he's saying it's the only tool and I believe that's wrong," Mica, a longtime critic of the TSA, said on CNN.
With the peak traveling season nearing, air travelers are protesting new requirements at some U.S. airports that they must pass through full-body scanners that produce a virtually naked image. The screener, who sits in a different location, does not see the face of the person being screened and does not know the traveler's identity.
Those who refuse to go through the scanners are subject to thorough pat-downs that include agency officials touching the clothed genital areas of passengers.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., appearing on CBS, said Congress would hold hearings on the "very controversial" issue of how to strike the right balance. Asked how he would feel about submitting to a pat-down, Hoyer said, "I don't think any of us feel that the discomfort and the delay is something that we like, but most people understand that we've got to keep airplanes safe."
Pistole was interviewed Monday morning on ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS's "The Early Show," NBC's "Today" show and MSNBC.

Follow Yahoo! News

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Stealing an Idea for a Post from Morongobill

A friend and fellow blogger Morongobill, aka Bill of Morongobill's Back Porch, has posted several music videos of artists he admires and I have to admit great guitar players. I was very surprised when I watched the latest of Prince, who I didn't even know played guitar, considering him just an efete performer based on I guess news or  whatever, never having watched or wanted to watch him perform. The man is a good guitar player.
Anyway, in stealing the idea, I'm going to post videos of guitar players I admire, and for the first I'm going back to the beginning of rock, when it was still rock n roll or rockabilly. Hope you like it, and, for any younger readers, learn how good what came before was...

Elvis Scotty and Bill and on the right at Sun with Sam Phillips
 Scotty Moore was one of the original trio of Elvis, Scotty and Bill. That is Elvis Presley, Scotty Moore, and Bill Black, who got together at Sun Studios in Memphis in 1954 or 1955.

Unfortunately there was no such thing as a video, at least the way we know it now in the fifties or sixties or seventies and eighties for that matter. But I did find a couple videos of early TV appearences that show Scotty performing with Elvis and Bill Black slapping the heck out of his bass.


This one is Elvis, Scotty and Bill doing Heartbreak Hotel
Here Elvis, Scotty and Bill do Tutti Frutti


Moving to now, Scotty is older but still playing, playing up a storm, and there are videos of him with other artists.


Scotty Moore with Eric Clapton doing Mystery Train

Scotty Moore and Eric Clapton doing That's Alright Mama

I hope you enjoy listening to one of the first Rock n Roll lead guitar players.

Lee Murray

The Movie San Francisco Almost a Time Machine

Actual San Francisco Earthquake Aftermath 1906
Watching the movie San Francisco made in 1936 with Clark Gable, Jeanette McDonald, Spencer Tracy, and a cast of thousands, or at least it seemed that way.  The movie is a drama, typical of 99.9% of dramas made in the movies or on tv for that matter, boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy acts stupid, boy loses girl. Let me say right here that I don't care for female operatic singing, those high screeching voices make my hair stand up, so I didn't watch it for that, and although I tolerated Ms McDonalds voice I didn't completely hate it.  Anyway, you can ignore most of the movie up through the Chicken Ball. As regards the time machine yes it shows how people looked, dressed and lived in 1906. I don't remember seeing one car, lots of horses and wagon's of various types, but not one car. The movie was made just 30 years after  so it would be kind of like a movie depicting life in 1980 for us, lots of people that knew exactly how it would have been, what it looked like, even clothes in their closets from that time. I still have clothes from the 70's and 80's, I don't wear but I could and I figure these people back then watching the movie and making it probably did too, the point being that because there were so many around that would know, it would have been pretty close authentically. It wasn't really that different in the 30's than 30 years before, just like it's really not that much different in 2010 than it was in 1980, some of course, but not that much.
Where the time machine comes into play is the end of the movie when the earthquake hits. The first thing we see is in a club, after the Chicken Ball, the quake hits, people get this look on their faces, we look up and the ceiling cracks and a big chandelier drops. The people start running and the building comes down on them. We see Clark Gable dive under a table just as a brick wall collapses on him. Ouside buildings are collapsing the ground is splitting, water mains are gushing, fires are burning. It probably is as close to seeing the real San Francisco earthquake really happen as we now will come. For all we know, people that made this movie may have been there, who knows?    I'm from California, and going back, so I've been through relatively minor quakes, But this was interesting and as close to being in a real earthquake as I want to get.

 

This is a video of part of the earthquake scenes from the movie San Francisco. Below are two contemporary movies, silent of course  of the actual 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the aftermath.




Lee Murray

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Will Rogers The Original Political Commentator

Will Rogers
Will Rogers was part Cherokee Indian, who worked as a real cowboy, before performing in everything from rodeos, circus's and vaudeville, along the way becoming a national figure renowned for his jokes and political observations. Because of that, together with his outlook on life, rare intelligence, and being loved by millions around the world he became a legend, that endured beyound his time. Unfortunately now 80 years or so in the future, most people have forgotten who he was and what he said, but the truth is modern performers like Jon Stewart, Dennis Miller, and others of that ilk, on to Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh are modern versions. Of course Mr. Rogers never felt the need to resort to the obscene language, sarcasm and satire of these moderns. He considered himself a comic, was embarrassed by the acclaim he received, and never purported to consider himself a leader, of either party like Mr. Limbaugh.

He was born in 1879 on a ranch in the Cherokee Nation in Oologah, Oklahoma although it was still a territory at the time. He learned how to use a rope as a tool to work cattle on the family ranch.  Mr.  Rogers' roping skills developed to the point that he was listed in the Guinness Book of Records for the ability of throwing three lassos at once. One rope caught the running horse's neck, the other would hoop around the rider and the third swooped up under the horse to loop all four legs.


Young Will Rogers
 His skills with a rope kept him working at jobs doing trick roping in wild west shows and on the vaudeville stage. Later though he found that telling small jokes got laughs and appreciation making him even more popular. Soon his wise cracks, jokes, and folksy observations became more prized by audiences than his roping. He was recognized as being a very informed, and smart, philosopher telling the truth in very simple words so that everyone could understand.

Will Rogers dropped out of school in the 10th grade to become a cowboy in a cattle drive. Regretting that he didn't finish school, he made sure  he never stopped learning, reading, thinking and talking to smart people. Yet at the same time he was a  star on Broadway and  in the movies during  the 1920s and 1930s, a popular radio star, the first big radio commentator, and he wrote more than 4,000 syndicated newspaper columns, also writing six books. He was the trusted friend and confidante of many people from ordinary peope to Presidents, Senators and Kings.  During his life, he traveled around the world at least three times-- meeting all kinds of people, covering wars, talking about peace, and learning everything possible, he was a guest at the White House several times, and his opinions were sought by the leaders of the world.

But everything else aside he was a simple Oklahoma cowboy. "I never met a man I didn't like," was his credo of genuine love and respect for humanity and  people everywhere. He gave much of his own money to victims of disaster, also raising thousands of dollars for the Red Cross and Salvation Army.

Throughout his life he enjoyed riding horseback, roping steers or playing polo. He'd scratch his head, grin, saying that there must be something wrong with anybody that didn't like a horse. He always thought of himself first as a member of the human race, then an American, then as a Cherokee Indian; then as a faithful husband and a father. He was a family man,very close to his wife, Betty, and their four children.

He also loved flying. On a flight to Alaska in 1935 with Wiley Post, their plane crashed killing both men.

In mourning, the world reflected on Will Rogers' words:

"Live your life so that whenever you lose, you're ahead."

"If you live life right, death is a joke as far as fear is concerned."

"A fool and his money are soon elected."

"A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth."

"Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need."




"Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even."

"An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's."

"Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do."




"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"


"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."




"Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock."




"Diplomats are just as essential to starting a war as soldiers are for finishing it... You take diplomacy out of war, and the thing would fall flat in a week."

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."




"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

"The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other."




"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."

"Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it."




"We don't seem to be able to check crime, so why not legalize it and then tax it out of business?"




"We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."

Will Rogers Memorial Museums

It's facinating to me how little has changed in the last 75 years since he was killed in the airplane crash. The things that Will Rogers said then are as current today as they were then. People haven't changed, neither have politicians or the government. Politicians were crooked and incompetant as was the government in his day, and that's still true today. Yes it's true that there are good things too, as he recognized, but....

Lee Murray

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Sent Email to both NY Senators Schumer and Gillibrand and Representatives Arcuri and Owens

Arcuri

These indecent, immoral, humiliating xray machines and behavior by the TSA thugs, must be stopped. The machines removed from airports and not installed anywhere else. As a politician I understand that your motivation is generating as much wealth for yourself as possible while in office and the airlines together with the makers of the xray machines pay. But I for example will no longer fly, I tell friends not to fly and am not shy about letting everybody I meet know about this problem and that you chose to allow it to continue, if in fact that is your answer. A lot of voters are upset by this illegal and unconstitutional behavior by the TSA, if you support it, I will personally get out and work to make sure you're voted out of office.


I included a news story below.

L. Murray

Gillibrand



In one shocking incident, TSA goons pulled down woman’s blouse, exposing her breasts, and laughed about it








Schumer

Owens

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The TSA has been hit with a number of lawsuits as the revolt against Big Sis, naked body scanners, and invasive groping measures explodes, with one case involving a woman who had her blouse pulled down in full public view by TSA goons who then proceeded to laugh and joke about her exposed breasts.
Nationwide outrage against the TSA is not only bringing to light new cases of airport abuse, it’s throwing fresh attention on previous incidents that have been going on for years.
One of the most disturbing, which is subject to an ongoing lawsuit, involved a 21-year-old college student from Amarillo Texas. The woman was passing through security at Corpus Christi airport on May 29 2008 when she was subjected to “extended search procedures” by the TSA.
“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area,” the lawsuit said. “As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”
TSA workers continued to laugh and joke about the incident “for an extended period of time,” leaving the woman distraught and needing to be consoled. After the woman re-entered the boarding area, TSA workers continued to humiliate her over the incident.
“One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ‘he would just have to watch the video,’” the suit said.
The woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA but was forced to launch a full lawsuit after the agency failed to respond.
The incident bears similarities to a 2002 case involving a pregnant woman who had her breasts exposed by TSA agents in public. Her husband was thrown in the airport jail for complaining about the treatment of his wife.
Another lawsuit against the TSA involves Ron Corbett, a businessman and frequent traveler who is so infuriated by the plethora of cases where TSA workers have sexually groped passengers, squeezing breasts and genitals, that he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami requesting an injunction against the TSA to prevent them from touching private areas without reasonable suspicion.
Corbett writes about his lawsuit on a blog entitled TSA Out Of Our Pants.
“Having grown up in New York and personally seeing the smoke rise from the towers that morning in 2001, I know the threat of terrorism is real, and I know we must defend ourselves. This does not mean that the Constitution should be ignored, and indeed, the TSA has plenty of alternative screening procedures that are less invasive. Besides the privacy issue, there have been health issues raised as to the radiation produced by the imaging devices, as well as efficacy issues, with no good studies having been done to show that this imagery makes us any safer,” writes Corbett.
Yet another lawsuit involves The Rutherford Institute, which is suing the feds on behalf of two pilots over the use of full body scanners.
“Those pilots recently refused to go through a controversial whole body imaging scanner, and also refused the alternative, the TSA’s new, more invasive pat downs,” reports CBS 6.
The lawsuit, which personally names both TSA chief John Pistole and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, argues that the scanners violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment.
The TSA could also be hit with a fourth lawsuit if they pursue an $11,000 claim against John Tyner, otherwise known as “don’t touch my junk guy”. Speaking on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Tyner insisted he would file a counter lawsuit if the TSA continued to pursue him over his refusal to submit to an airport groping.
Another victim, radio host Owen JJ Stone, who had a TSA agent put his hand inside his pants and touch his backside and genitalia, has not indicated he will pursue charges, but has vowed instead to use his treatment as an example of why the TSA needs to be stopped in its tracks or abolished altogether.
Pistole faces another grilling from lawmakers today on Capitol Hill at a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.


Napolitano and Pistole


Airport Xray Image


Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Scanners and Invasive PERVERTED Pat-Downs Upset Airline Workers and Passengers

Here is an issue that I find very disturbing. Primarily for the invasion of privacy  more than the danger of radiation, although that is a concern too.  Is the TSA run by perverts and gays, or do they just employ them?  Who in their right mind would lewdly fondle a stranger just because he or she was ordered to. They're just glorified security guards for God's sake, are they that desperate for a job?  Although as you'll see from the pay chart below they are overpaid for what they do. I took the pay chart from the TSA website and the job description from an actual TSA opening, editing out the specifics of location and what else I thought was irrelevent. I am very concerned and as I said in an earlier post I refuse to fly unless there's no other way. I haven't flown since 2003 and seeing how we're treated, after paying an arm and leg for the privedge, have no interest in being treated like a probable terrorist too.
Let's talk about that for a second.  What terrorist, real terrorist, is going to get caught by these idiots? None? Based on what I'm reading they're like a bunch of power mad Barney Fife's. They have the POWER and by God they're going to use it come hell or high water.  Seeing naked bodies, or grabbing some womans crotch and sticking your fingers in, or fondling her tits, or grabbing some guy's prick are perks of the job.  I can only imagine that every good looking woman is directed to these Xray machines, hoping that she'll refuse so they can get their hands on her.
If Janet Napolitano is so sure they're harmless, just innocent security then let's see a video of her going through it and the TSA can post her pictures on the website to show how harmless they are. If she see's no problem with her perverts fondling a female passengers cunt or tits, then lets see Ms Napolitano submit to it on video so we can all see how harmless it really is. If she thinks strip searches are just good security lets put a video of Ms Napolitano being strip searched and cavity searched, with security's large male hands inside her up to the elbows, so that we all can see just how harmless it really is, and that it really shouldn't cause trauma after all. Of course the reality is that she's never going to subject herself to the reality of flying on a public airline because she doesn't have to. She'll take government or chartered planes where it's not necessary to deal with the TSA.
 A USA Today article quotes Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as saying "if people want to travel by some other means," they have that right.

The Secretary basically repeated the talking points that she made in Monday's USA Today article, including the claim that the scanners don't violate privacy ho ho ho, and that scanners "cannot store, export, print or transmit images." No word on how images were discovered a couple of months ago to have been stored, transmitted, and exported.
If John Pistole a TSA Administrator is so sure we're all wrong to object to a virtual strip search, or a perverted fondling of our genitals, that it's just good security not invasion of privacy. A TSA Administrator, John Pistole, is quoted as saying "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al-Qaeda's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that may prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." Then let's see him naked in pictures on the web, lets see a video of him being "patted down," by his paid perverts.  Problem is he'd, like Ms Napolitano, probably enjoy it too much, except in her case it'd probably be the first time in a long time, if ever that a man touched her privates. She is NOT a good looking woman so if she were flying she probably never has to worry much. 
The Chicago Tribune reports that there is "no guarantee that either of the new procedures would have detected" the undy-bomber's device.

(the quotes in red are from an article by Kennth Hayes on Examiner.Com Chicago)  Mr. Hayes Article
From here on read the articles and check out the TSA job info, they say it better than I can. I find the whole thing so far beyond outrageous that...well I just don't know. I do know as I've said before this is not the USA I was born into. The government is afraid of the citizens. It started in the sixties when crossdresser Hoover and the FBI felt it was necessary to harrass and even kill students and others who were against the war in Vietnam or working for Civil Rights and every year it gets a little worse, we lose another of our rights. One reason that I'm a life member of the NRA for that matter.  What really upsets me are the morons that think it's ok to give up our rights, to submit to invasive and humiliating searches at the airport if they'll "keep them safe." The problem is they don't add to your safety and once the right is gone you never get it back. The airlines and government have been in a tizzy about security ever since the first hijacking to Cuba, or wherever, and they never solved the problem. Then 911 came along and gave them the long awaited opportunity to start whittling away our rights. Homeland Security, really why not call it what it really is the Gestapo. George Bush doesn't look much like Hitler, (who I admit I admired as a kid before I knew who and what he was, I read Mein Kampf in the 7th grade, and still have a copy, know your enemy), but he sure thought like him. Obama is more a Stalin, I think. But really there's not a lot of difference and neither bodes well for the USA I was born in. What's next a National Security Police? Well isn't that what the FBI is? Apparently Obama is thinking about a national police force, an American Gestapo.

From EAWorldView     Link to Article
Today's Vigilant Citizen Award has to go to Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia.

That's because Broun has uncovered Obama's plot to impose an American Gestapo upon us. He tipped off the Associated Press on Monday, "It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force."
In July Obama gave a speech in which he called for an expanded civilian service corps. In addition to expanding the US foreign and diplomatic service and doubliing the Peace Corps, he proposed a civilian national security force to support the US military. Now to you and me, that might sound a homeland security measure alongside the police and National Guard, but Broun has the real story.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
In addition to the historical breakthrough of establishing that 1930s Germany National Socialists were exactly the same as 1930s Soviet Communists (that later war between them must have been a fluke), Broun has called the President-elect to account: "We may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
And, in an essential update of the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" rule, Broun can reveal that, as the civilian security corps hauls us in for enhanced interrogation, Obama's gun control laws will take our weapons away from us.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun warned. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Congressman Broun, I thank you. And to you, Enduring America readers, I say: Be vigilant. Be very vigilant.

It's truely amazing what you can find on the internet.

Lee Murray

Job Title: Transportation Security Officer (TSO)

Department: Department Of Homeland Security
Agency: Transportation Security Administration
Sub Agency: DHS - Transportation Security Administration
Job Announcement Number:

SALARY RANGE: $29,131.00 - $43,697.00 /year
SERIES & GRADE: SV-1802-D/D
POSITION INFORMATION: Part-Time Permanent
PROMOTION POTENTIAL: E
DUTY LOCATIONS: many vacancies - Fort Leonard Wood, MO
WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED: Open to All U.S. Citizens and U.S. Nationals.
JOB SUMMARY:
The salary range listed includes locality pay of 14.16%.
The salary range listed is for a full-time position. If you are
applying to a part-time position, your salary will be pro-rated
based upon the actual number of hours worked.
Securing Travel, Protecting People: At the Transportation Security
Administration, we serve in a high-stakes
environment to safeguard the American way of life. In cities across
the country, we secure airports, seaports, railroads, highways, and
public transit systems. We protect our transportation infrastructure
from terrorist attack and ensure freedom of movement for people and
commerce.
At TSA, we act swiftly and with integrity to:
Discover and stop emerging transportation security threats,
utilizing state of the art technology
Educate and provide friendly customer service to travelers
Screen passengers and gather intelligence
Coordinate security involving aviation, rail, and other surface
and maritime transportation
Oversee most transportation-related responsibilities of the
federal government during a national emergency
Per TSA Management Directive 1100.61-1, Transportation Security
Officer (TSO) positions have been designated as emergency/essential.
This means that in the event of an emergency, including adverse
weather conditions, individuals occupying emergency/essential
positions may be required to continue working. These individuals
will not be dismissed or excused from any responsibilities due to the
need to continue TSA operations during emergency situations. This
also means that emergency/essential employees could be ordered to
report for duty based on operational needs.

US Department of Homeland Security
Transportation Security Administration

KEY REQUIREMENTS:

Must be a US Citizen or US National; be 18 years old at time of application

Be proficient in English; have customer service skills

Dependable & operate with integrity; repeatedly lift/carry up to 70 pounds

Maintain focus & awareness within a stressful environment

Meet job-related medical standards and pass background investigation

See Qualifications and Evaluations for additional requirements.
You will perform a variety of duties related to providing security
and protection of air travelers, airports and aircraft. As a TSO,
you may be required to perform passenger screening, baggage
screening or both. You are expected to perform all of these duties
in a courteous and professional manner. The principal duties and
responsibilities include the following:
Perform security screening:
Of persons, including tasks such as: hand-wanding (which
includes the requirement to reach and wand the individual from the
floor to over head), pat-down searches, and monitoring walk-through
metal detector screening equipment
Of property, including the operation of x-ray machines to
identify dangerous objects in baggage, cargo and on passengers; and
preventing those objects from being transported onto aircraft
Control entry and exit points
Continuously improve security screening processes and personal
performance through training and development
TSOs MUST be willing and able to:
Repeatedly lift and carry up to 70 pounds;
Continuously stand between one (1) to four (4) hours without a
break to carry out screening functions;
Walk up to two (2) miles during a shift;
Communicate with the public, giving directions and responding to
inquiries in a professional and courteous manner;
Maintain focus and awareness and work within a stressful
environment which includes noise from alarms, machinery, and people,
distractions, time pressure, disruptive and angry passengers, and
the requirement to identify and locate potentially life threatening
devices and devices intended on creating massive destruction;
and, make effective decisions in both crisis and routine
situations.
QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED:
Have reached his/her 18th birthday at the time of application submission;
Be proficient in English (e.g., reading, writing,
speaking, and listening);
Have a high school diploma, GED or equivalent; OR
Have at least one year of full-time work experience in security
work, aviation screener work, or X-ray technician work.
Applicants must also possess the following job-related knowledge,
skills, and abilities (selective factors):
PHYSICAL ABILITY: This position requires employees to be
willing and able to: repeatedly lift and carry baggage weighing up
to 70 pounds; bend, reach, stoop, squat, stand, and walk;
continuously stand between one and four hours without a break to
carry out screening functions; and walk up to two miles during a
shift.
COMMUNICATION SKILLS & PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS: TSOs
are required to communicate with the public, giving directions and
responding to inquiries in a professional and courteous manner.
Applicants must possess customer service skills, be dependable and
operate with integrity.
FOCUS & MENTAL ABILITY: TSOs must be able to maintain focus
and awareness and work within a stressful environment. The position
requires employees to make effective decisions in both crisis and
routine situations. Necessary skills include visual observation and
x-ray interpretation. The work environment includes noise from
alarms, machinery, and people, distractions, time pressure,
disruptive and angry passengers, and the requirement to identify and
locate potentially life threatening devices and devices intended on
creating massive destruction.
MEDICAL STANDARDS: All TSOs must meet job-related medical
standards that will be assessed in a pre-employment medical
evaluation that considers relevant aspects of all body systems
(e.g., cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, auditory,
etc.). These medical standards include but are not limited to:
Visual ability including two functioning eyes with: a)
distance vision correctable to 20/30 or better in the best eye and
20/100 or better in the worse eye, b) near vision correctable to
20/40 or better binocular, and c) color perception (e.g., red,
green, blue, yellow, orange, purple, brown, black, white,
gray). Color filters (e.g., contact lenses) for enhancing color
discrimination are prohibited;
Hearing ability (corrected or uncorrected) as measured by
audiometry cannot exceed: a) an average hearing loss of 25 decibels
(ANSI) at 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000Hz in each ear, and b) single
reading of 45 decibels at 4000 and 6000 Hz in each ear;
Adequate joint mobility, dexterity and range of motion,
strength, and stability to repeatedly lift and carry up to 70
pounds; and
Blood pressure not to exceed 140 / 90.
These requirements comply with the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA Public Law 107-71 (PDF* 174KB), and are required
for safe and effective job performance. For more information and what
it means to you, please visit:
http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Aviation_and_Transportation_Security_Act_ATSA_Public_Law_107_1771.pdf.
Conditions of Employment:
To be considered for initial employment, you must also pass a
pre-employment drug screening test and a background investigation,
including a criminal check and a credit check.
This is a non-critical sensitive National Security position that
requires you to be fingerprinted, photographed, and complete
appropriate security paperwork, including a SF-86 Questionnaire for
National Security Positions. The pre-employment background
investigation must be COMPLETED with favorable results prior
to a final offer of employment and cannot be initiated until
submission of a completed questionnaire.
If your credit check reveals any of the following, YOU WILL NOT
BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS POSITION:
Defaulted on $7,500 or more in debt (excluding certain
circumstances of bankruptcy).
Owe any delinquent Federal or State taxes.
Owe any past due child support payments.
You must pass all initial training requirements including 56-72
hours of classroom training, 112-128 hours of on-the-job training,
and all initial certification testing.
NOTE: Initial training may require you to travel for up to two weeks
on a full-time schedule.
To maintain employment, you must continue to meet all
qualification requirements described above and agree to:
Participate in and pass random drug screening tests; and pass
all recurrent background investigations, including a criminal check
and credit check.
Participate in and pass all recurrent and specialized training
and recertification tests on a periodic basis.
Demonstrate daily a fitness for duty without impairment due to
illegal drugs, sleep deprivation, medication, or alcohol.
Failure to meet these requirements mandates removal from security
screening and may result in termination of employment.
HOW YOU WILL BE EVALUATED:
Applicants who meet the minimum qualifications may be invited to
take the computerized Screener Assessment Battery. These tests
evaluate English proficiency, and the aptitude for x-ray
interpretation.
If you pass the computerized Screener Assessment Battery, you will
be eligible to be scheduled for additional assessments. Additional
assessments include: (1) a color vision test; (2) a job-related
medical evaluation; (3) a drug test; and (4) a structured interview.
In addition you may undergo a personal interview. If you
successfully pass each of the above assessments, you will be
considered further for employment. Preference will also be afforded
to veterans (under Title V and ATSA) when candidates are referred
for consideration and in the selection process.
Referral and Consideration:
Note: TSA has a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)
requirement for gender requiring a certain percentage of male and
female passenger screeners for gender-based pat downs. In airports
where there is a BFOQ, the needed gender will be provided preference
in the referral and scheduling process. It is to your advantage to
apply early.
Veterans' Preference: TSA will provide preference at the
point of selection to eligible veterans by applying veterans'
preference as defined in the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (PL 107-71) and to those individuals eligible under the
provisions of title 5, United States Code (USC), Section 2108.
To be eligible for veterans' preference under Public Law 107-71
you must be a member or former member of the U.S. Armed Forces, and
entitled under statute to retired, retirement, or retainer pay.
Management's Web site at http://www.opm.gov/
You must identify your claim of veterans' preference on your
application. As part of the application process, you will be
required to provide proof of entitlement by submitting a copy of
your DD-214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty
(Member 4 copy) or other proof of entitlement.
SELECTIVE SERVICE: TSA policy requires verification of
Selective Service registration for male applicants born after
12/31/59. Generally, male applicants who knowingly fail to register
will be ineligible for employment with TSA.
BENEFITS:
Benefits of Working for the TSA Transportation Security Officer
Service:
The Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program has many
plans to choose from all at very reasonable rates, which can be paid
from pre-tax income. In addition, to further promote employee
wellness and affordable health coverage, part-time TSA TSOs are able
to take advantage of reduced FEHB premiums. TSA will pay the maximum
government contribution allowed for health benefits under the TSA
Health Benefit Incentive for Part-Time TSOs. All part-time TSOs will
pay the same lower cost for federal health benefits as full-time
employees. This means that TSA pays a greater portion of FEHB
premium costs for part-time TSOs.
The Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) is one of the
premier retirement programs in the Nation. The program features
three components: a retirement pension; the Thrift Savings Plan (an
employee controlled investment program); and social security.
Federal Employee Group Life Insurance offers numerous life
insurance policy options covering employees and dependents.
The leave program offers exceptional time off benefits including
annual leave, sick leave, family medical leave, and 10 paid holidays
per year.
You may be eligible for career development and enrichment
training; family friendly policies; and Employee Assistance
Programs.
If you commute using public transportation, you may be eligible
for a transit subsidy.

Pay Scales at TSA (2010)

TSA Careers
We are unique among our fellow Federal employees because we do not use the standard GS grading system you may be familiar with. We use an "SV" grading system, which is a system of discrete grades with pay ranges that differ from GS pay ranges. These discrete grades, which are identified by letters rather than numbers, have minimum and maximum rates.
In the table below, we show the ranges for each pay band.
Pay Band Minimum Maximum


A $17,083 $24,977


B $19,570 $28,546


C $22,167 $33,303


D $25,518 $38,277


E $29,302 $44,007


F $33,627 $50,494


G $39,358 $60,982


H $48,007 $74,390


I $58,495 $90,717


J $71,364 $110,612


K $85,311 $132,237


L $101,962 $155,500


M $120,236 $155,500


New TSA Screenings Too Invasive?
AP –  By JOAN LOWY and ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press Joan Lowy And Adam Goldman, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Nearly a week before the Thanksgiving travel crush, federal air security officials were struggling to reassure rising numbers of fliers and airline workers outraged by new anti-terrorism screening procedures they consider invasive and harmful.
Across the country, passengers simmered over being forced to choose scans by full-body image detectors or probing pat-downs. Top federal security officials said Monday that the procedures were safe and necessary sacrifices to ward off terror attacks.
"It's all about security," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. "It's all about everybody recognizing their role."
Despite officials' insistence that they had taken care to prepare the American flying public, the flurry of criticism from private citizens to airline pilots' groups suggested that Napolitano and other federal officials had been caught off guard.
At the San Diego airport, a software engineer posted an Internet blog item saying he had been ejected after being threatened with a fine and lawsuit for refusing a groin check after turning down a full-body scan. The passenger, John Tyner, said he told a federal Transportation Security Administration worker, "If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."
Tyner's individual protest quickly became a web sensation, but questions also came from travel business groups, civil liberties activists and pilots, raising concerns both about the procedures themselves and about the possibility of delays caused by passengers reluctant to accept the new procedures.
"Almost to a person, travel managers are concerned that TSA is going too far and without proper procedures and sufficient oversight," said Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, an advocacy group representing corporate travel departments. "Travel managers are hearing from their travelers about this virtually on a daily basis."
Jeffrey Price, an aviation professor at Metropolitan State College of Denver, said two trends are converging: the regular holiday security increases and the addition of body scanners and new heightened measures stemming from the recent attempted cargo bombings. Also, several airports are short-staffed, which will add to delays, Price said.
Homeland Security and the TSA have moved forcefully to shift airport screening from familiar scanners to full-body detection machines. The new machines show the body's contours on a computer stationed in a private room removed from the security checkpoints. A person's face is never shown and the person's identity is supposedly not known to the screener reviewing the computer images.
Concerns about privacy and low-level radiation emitted by the machines have led some passengers to refuse screening. Under TSA rules, those who decline must submit to rigorous pat-down inspections that include checks of the inside of travelers' thighs and buttocks. The American Civil Liberties Union has denounced the machines as a "virtual strip search."
Concerns about both procedures are not limited to the U.S. In Germany over the weekend, organized protesters stripped off their clothes in airports to voice their opposition to full-body scans.
Douglas R. Laird, a former security director for Northwest Airlines, said it's the resistance to these measures that will cause the most delays. The new enhanced pat-downs, an alternative to body scanners, take more time — about 2 minutes compared with a 30-second scan. Delays could multiply if many travelers opt for a pat-down or contest certain new procedures.
Beyond the scanning process, passengers will also be subject to greater scrutiny of their luggage and personal identification and stricter enforcement of long-standing rules like the ban on carry-on liquids over 3 ounces.
On Monday, top security officials were out in force to defend the new policies. Napolitano wrote an op-ed piece in USA Today insisting that the body scanners used at many airports were safe and any images were viewed by federal airport workers in private settings.
Napolitano later said in a news conference at Ronald Reagan National Airport that she regretted the growing opposition to moves by the federal government to make flying safer. But she said the changes were necessary to deal with emerging terrorist threats such as a Nigerian man's alleged attempt to blow up a jetliner bound from Amsterdam to Detroit last Christmas Day using hard-to-detect explosives. Authorities allege that the explosives were hidden in the suspect's underwear.
There are some 300 full-body scanners now operational in 60 U.S. airports. TSA is on track to deploy approximately 500 units by the end of 2010.
Officials for the Airports Council International-North America, which represents U.S. and Canadian airports, said their members haven't complained about the scanner and pat-down policy or reported any special problems. But airports have been urging the government to engage in an aggressive public education campaign regarding the new screening, said Debby McElroy, the council's executive vice president.
"TSA is trying to address a real, credible threat, both through the advanced imaging technology and through the pat-downs," McElroy said. "We think it's important that they continue to address it with passengers and the media because there continues to be a significant misunderstanding about both the safety and the privacy concerns."
A spokeswoman for American Airlines issued a carefully worded statement that stopped short of welcoming the government's security moves. "We are working with the unions and the TSA and continue to evaluate and discuss screening options," American spokeswoman Missy Latham said.
Some airline pilots have pushed back against the new rules screening them. Many pilots are already part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, which trains pilots in the use of firearms and defensive tactics. They are permitted to carry weapons on board.
Pilots enrolled in the program don't have to go through scanners and pat-downs. But only a small share of the total number of U.S. pilots are enrolled in the program.
Capt. John Prater, head of the Air Line Pilots Association, said based on discussions with TSA officials on Monday that he's optimistic the agency will soon approve a "crew pass" system that allows flight attendants and pilots to undergo less-stringent screenings.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, pilot unions were shown an off-the-shelf biometric identification system that was ready to go by government officials, said Sam Mayer, a Boeing 767 captain and a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American Airlines. The system would have made screening pilots unnecessary, he said.
Nine years later, pilots still don't have biometric identification cards because the government and airlines have been quarreling over who should pay for the machines that can read biometric information like fingerprints and iris scans, Mayer said.
"At the end of the day we're not the threat, and we want the TSA to concentrate on getting bads guys," he said.
Pilots are also concerned about the cumulative effects of radiation, Mayer said. Depending upon their schedules, pilots can go through a scanner several times a day and several days a week, he said.
"We're already at the top of the radiation (exposure) charts to begin with because we're flying at high altitudes for long distances," Mayer said. "The cumulative effects of this are more than most pilots are willing to subject themselves to. We're right up there with nuclear power plant workers in terms of exposure."

Associated Press writers Samantha L. Bonkamp in New York, Sam Hananel in Washington, D.C., and Robert Jablon and Daisy Ngyuen in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

From the Christian Science Monitor  by Jonathan Adams       Link to CSM Article
Body scanners, pat downs prompt traveler backlash  New airport security measures, particularly full-body scanners, are angering many passengers. One man's refusal of the scan has galvanized others
across the US.
(excerpt)
Tyner was irate about having to either undergo a full-body scan or endure security officials' new pat-down methods, which the Associated Press said now include running hands up the inside of passengers' legs. The New York Times said the more aggressive pat-downs – "in which women's breasts and all passengers' genital areas are patted firmly" – began Nov. 1.

Tyner refused to go through the scanning machine, and so was offered a pat-down as an alternative, which he also declined. He then exchanged words with airport security staff, while recording the showdown.

"I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying," Tyner said at one point.
"This is not considered a sexual assault," responded an unidentified airport security official.
"It would be if you weren't the government," Tyner snapped back.
One Internet campaign organized by fed-up fliers is calling for a nationwide opt-out day on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving, the New York Times reported. (See the campaign's website.) Participants plan to refuse to undergo a full-body scan that day and take the pat-down instead, which could seriously snarl airport security if enough passengers participate.   Link to Opt Out Day Campaign Website

From the New York Times
Screening Protests Grow as Holiday Crunch Looms

By JOE SHARKEY
Published: November 15, 2010                    Link to NYT Article

WHO knows how these things gain momentum on the Internet, but there have been enough online protests against the new body imaging machines at airport checkpoints that the Transportation Security Administration’s new boss, John S. Pistole, called me on Monday to talk.

Mr. Pistole was specifically worried about the Internet-based campaign encouraging fliers who opposed the new machines to observe a “national opt-out day” on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving. Any passenger can opt out of a scan that creates an image of the naked body and choose a full-body pat down instead. Only a tiny percentage of passengers now do, the T.S.A. says. But if enough people choose to do so on one of the busiest travel days of the year, checkpoints could become crowded and disorderly.
As any security expert knows, a chaotic checkpoint is a security problem. “If terrorists can anticipate that, it gives them an opportunity” to try to evade various layers of security by creating an incident for diversion, Mr. Pistole said. “And what would this do for travel plans for Thanksgiving? Are people going to miss flights because there are long backups, because other people are protesting?”
As if that were not trouble enough, some airline pilots are engaged in their own protests against the body imagers, which the T.S.A. is now calling advanced imaging technology. Pilots have long bristled at being subjected to intensive security when, as they point out, a pilot in control of an airplane does not need a Swiss Army knife to bring it down. Last week, the union representing 11,500 pilots at American Airlines called on members to “politely decline” screening by the “backscatter” models of the machines, the models that use X-ray technology.
The union’s main concern is the potential cumulative effects of repeated exposures to radiation. The T.S.A. cites studies showing that the effects are harmless, but other studies have challenged that conclusion. The other model of the body imagers uses millimeter-wave technology, which doesn’t raise radiation issues. There are now about 385 body imagers in place at 68 airports — 211 of them backscatters and the rest millimeter wave units. A total of 1,000 are planned by the end of 2011.
The pilots are being heard. Mr. Pistole said that the agency would meet Tuesday with pilots’ representatives and airline security officers to discuss new procedures that could allow pilots to avoid the intensive screening that passengers receive. Doing that would require a pilot to have a foolproof form of identification like cards encoded with their fingerprints and iris scan.
Judging from the intense reader reaction I’ve had on this subject, questions abound about what to expect at the checkpoint, especially as more people are now routinely being directed by screeners to use the new machines, even when an old-fashioned metal detector is available. The scanners detect anything on the body, including a slip of paper in a pocket. An alarm necessitates a pat down.
On Nov. 1, screeners began using a far more invasive form of procedure for all pat-downs — in which women’s breasts and all passengers’ genital areas are patted firmly. Since that change happened to coincide with the accelerated introduction of the body scanning machines, many fliers began expressing their dismay on blogs, fanning anti-T.S.A. reactions.
A traveler named John Tyner, for example, posted a detailed account of being detained at the San Diego airport when he tried to leave after declining a body scan. Mr. Tyner recorded the encounter, in which person who appeared to be a T.S.A. screener insisted that he undergo a “groin check.” That account, and that indelicate term, quickly went viral.
I’m getting a lot of questions about the new security regime, including some pointed ones from women. Do the imagers, for example, detect sanitary napkins? Yes. Does that then necessitate a pat-down? The T.S.A. couldn’t say. Screeners, the T.S.A. has said, are expected to exercise some discretion.
Meanwhile, as the holiday crunch looms, Mr. Pistole said, “What we’re telling our security officers is remain calm, remain professional, just provide clear instruction.”
Did the T.S.A. anticipate this kind of reaction to the new measures? “We knew it would be controversial, in terms of some people not liking that combination,” he said. But, he added, “When somebody gets on a plane, they want to know that everybody else — O.K., maybe not themselves but everyone else — has been thoroughly screened.”

Mr Tyner's Story in His Own Words

14 November 2010Motivation of my filming of my TSA encounter


A lot of commenters are saying that they agree with my position on the whole issue of TSA overreach, but many of them (and also those who disagree) are asking why I filmed the entire incident. Many are suggesting that my starting the recorder is evidence of an intention to pick a fight with the TSA. As I've stated repeatedly, I checked to see if SAN had AIT machines before flying. I tried to avoid the machine once I arrived at the airport. I did everything I could to avoid a confrontation with the TSA. I'll admit that "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" was not the most artful response, but I was trying to add some levity to a situation that I knew could escalate very quickly. The reason I started the recorder before placing it in the bin, though, is because of stories like this:

Detained by TSA
ACLU Sues TSA
In praise of Michael Roberts

After reading stories about what the TSA had been doing, I wanted to avoid them, but I also wanted to be prepared should I be unable avoid them. That recording was to protect my rights and theirs. At no point have I bashed the TSA agents or their handling of the situation. They were all professional, if a bit standoffish, but the standoffishness is not to be unexpected. I'm sure they deal with people far more unruly than me every day. The only time I lost my cool was at the very end when the TSA representative tried to force me back into the screening area instead of simply allowing me to be on my way. The entire incident should be judged on its merits (as demonstrated by the recording), not by whether I tried to bait them (which I did not).
So, the next question is obviously, "what do I expect to get out of this?" I don't want to be a hero; I simply want to draw attention to what is going on and give people a sense that they're not alone in the fight against the ever expanding erosion of liberty. I had this to say in response to another commenter about what had transpired:
Every attempt to blow up a plane since 9/11 has been stopped by passengers after the government failed to provide protection for them. Every incident, however, has been met by throwing more money and less sensibility at the problem. Aside from securing the cockpit doors and the realization by passengers that they must fend for themselves because they're more likely to be killed by a hijacker than flown safely to their destination where the hijacker's demands can be met, security is largely the same as it was before 9/11.
The only thing changing is the amount of money being spent on the problem and the constant erosion of liberty, and all I did was draw attention to this. If you want to argue that the airlines are private, you're preaching to the choir. I refused the x-ray machine, and then I refused a groping by a government official. I mildly protested, and when they told me that I could submit to the screening or leave the airport, I left peacefully. The only time I got angry during the entire encounter was when I was unlawfully detained and threatened with a lawsuit and a fine.
If you think the government is protecting you, ask yourself this: If the official at the end of the video thought I had an incendiary device, why would he want me to go *back* into a small area crowded with hundreds of people instead of leaving the airport as quickly as possible?
Obviously the issue of the private airline industry mingling with the government handling of security is more complex than that. For example, with private handling of security, the screener may choose to overlook victimless crimes like drug possession or possession of sexually explicit (but otherwise legal) materials or paraphernalia during a search for dangerous items (i.e. those that could be used to commit acts of terrorism). The government, on the other hand, has, does, and will use the search for dangerous items as a pretext to arrest you for anything else they may find.

13 November 2010More about my TSA encounter at SAN

I've been keeping up with all of the comments, but today has been kind of hectic as you can imagine, and I don't have time to reply to them. Thank you all so much for the encouraging words and offers to help in my legal defense (should it become necessary). I'm starting to see people ask questions about my motives and some of the particulars if the incident. My original post was meant only to serve as an account of what happened should I eventually be sued. Here are some more of the particulars:
Ticket Purchase
I mentioned in my blog post that my father-in-law had purchased my ticket for travel. One commenter called me a spoiled brat for costing him so much money. If you listen to the video, you'll hear that I offered a number of times to "eat the cost" of the ticket and pay him back. In the end, American Airlines stepped up to the plate and made things right on this front.
Treatment of TSA
Some have criticized my treatment of the TSA officer who was going to be performing the pat down. I admit that the language used was not exactly what most would consider "highbrow"; however, it was not intended to be insulting to the officer. I used the word "junk" partly because I was uncomfortable using a more technical term and also as an attempt to introduce some levity to what I knew was about to become a fairly tense situation. I was actually trying to smile almost the entire time, trying to keep the situation from escalating.
"Professional courtesy"
One commenter called out my father-in-law for asking for some professional courtesy from the TSA agents. My father-in-law is one of the most stand-up guys I know. I realize that some (including myself) find it disgusting when LEO's "abuse" their power in this way, and I don't want to excuse it here. But I want to stand up for my father-in-law and say that he is a good, honest man. (I truly considered not posting this video at all because I didn't want him to be viewed in a negative light.) His goal was to get us out of there and off to visit the family and do some hunting. Once he arrived at the final destination, he called to tell me that he was proud that I stood up for what I believed to be right.
Was this a set up?
Some people have questioned whether I entered into this situation intending to set up the TSA. Let me state unequivocally that it was not my intention to set up the TSA. Remember that I checked the TSA's website prior to my departure and confirmed that SAN was not using AIT machines. When I arrived at the screening area and saw that they were using those machines, I recalled various news articles and blog posts advocating that people record these situations so that they are not taken advantage of or have their rights (further) abused. As I stated, I tried to avoid the AIT scanner machine by getting in the metal detector line. I was actually relieved when the person in front of me was pulled out of line. I would have been just fine to walk through the metal detector, delete the video, and be on my way.
Finally, local news has been alerted. I had one interview already, and another one is scheduled shortly. One local news outlet refused to cover the story. I got the impression from talking to the man on the phone that he thought I was some kind of right-wing or tea party nut job. He sounded a bit apologetic, but I told him, no big deal. Do the story; don't do the story. My feelings aren't hurt either way. I just want the message to get out.
Thank you all again for ALL of the support! I'll keep you posted.

TSA encounter at SAN

[These events took place roughly between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, November 13th in Terminal 2 of the San Diego International Airport. I'm writing this approximately 2 1/2 hours after the events transpired, and they are correct to the best of my recollection. I will admit to being particularly fuzzy on the exact order of events when dealing with the agents after getting my ticket refunded; however, all of the events described did occur.
I had my phone recording audio and video of much of these events. It can be viewed below.
Please spread this story as far and wide as possible. I will make no claims to copyright or otherwise.]
This morning, I tried to fly out of San Diego International Airport but was refused by the TSA. I had been somewhat prepared for this eventuality. I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and the possible harm to health as well as the vivid pictures they create of people's naked bodies. Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if SAN had them. From all indications, they did not. When I arrived at the security line, I found that the TSA's website was out of date. SAN does in fact utilize backscatter x-ray machines.
I made my way through the line toward the first line of "defense": the TSA ID checker. This agent looked over my boarding pass, looked over my ID, looked at me and then back at my ID. After that, he waved me through. SAN is still operating metal detectors, so I walked over to one of the lines for them. After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector, the person in front of me in line was pulled out to go through the backscatter machine. After asking what it was and being told, he opted out. This left the machine free, and before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so." At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent.
A male agent (it was a female who had directed me to the backscatter machine in the first place), came and waited for me to get my bags and then directed me over to the far corner of the area for screening. After setting my things on a table, he turned to me and began to explain that he was going to do a "standard" pat down. (I thought to myself, "great, not one of those gropings like I've been reading about".) After he described, the pat down, I realized that he intended to touch my groin. After he finished his description but before he started the pat down, I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He, a bit taken aback, informed me that he would have to involve his supervisor because of my comment.
We both stood there for no more than probably two minutes before a female TSA agent (apparently, the supervisor) arrived. She described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. The supervisor informed me that it was a standard administrative security check and that they were authorized to do it. I repeated that I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal. I believe that I was then informed that if I did not submit to the inspection, I would not be getting on my flight. I again stated that I thought the search was illegal. I told her that I would be willing to submit to a walk through the metal detector as over 80% of the rest of the people were doing, but I would not be groped. The supervisor, then offered to go get her supervisor.
I took a seat in a tiny metal chair next to the table with my belongings and waited. While waiting, I asked the original agent (who was supposed to do the pat down) if he had many people opt out to which he replied, none (or almost none, I don't remember exactly). He said that I gave up a lot of rights when I bought my ticket. I replied that the government took them away after September 11th. There was silence until the next supervisor arrived. A few minutes later, the female agent/supervisor arrived with a man in a suit (not a uniform). He gave me a business card identifying him as David Silva, Transportation Security Manager, San Diego International Airport. At this point, more TSA agents as well as what I assume was a local police officer arrived on the scene and surrounded the area where I was being detained. The female supervisor explained the situation to Mr. Silva. After some quick back and forth (that I didn't understand/hear), I could overhear Mr. Silva say something to the effect of, "then escort him from the airport." I again offered to submit to the metal detector, and my father-in-law, who was near by also tried to plead for some reasonableness on the TSA's part.
The female supervisor took my ID at this point and began taking some kind of report with which I cooperated. Once she had finished, I asked if I could put my shoes back on. I was allowed to put my shoes back on and gather my belongs. I asked, "are we done here" (it was clear at this point that I was going to be escorted out), and the local police officer said, "follow me". I followed him around the side of the screening area and back out to the ticketing area. I said apologized to him for the hassle, to which he replied that it was not a problem.
I made my way over to the American Airlines counter, explained the situation, and asked if my ticket could be refunded. The woman behind the counter furiously typed away for about 30 seconds before letting me know that she would need a supervisor. She went to the other end of the counter. When she returned, she informed me that the ticket was non-refundable, but that she was still trying to find a supervisor. After a few more minutes, she was able to refund my ticket. I told her that I had previously had a bad experience with American Airlines and had sworn never to fly with them again (I rationalized this trip since my father-in-law had paid for the ticket), but that after her helpfulness, I would once again be willing to use their carrier again.
At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSA's website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSA's website if he didn't know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area.
The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited. I couldn't over hear anything, but I got the impression that the police officer was recounting his version of the events that had transpired in the screening area (my initial refusal to be patted down). After a few minutes, I asked loudly across the distance if I was free to leave. The man dismissively held up a finger and said, "hold on". I waited. After another minute or so, he returned and asked for my name. I asked why he needed it, and reminded him that the female supervisor/agent had already taken a report. He said that he was trying to be friendly and help me out. I asked to what end. He reminded me that I could be sued civilly and face a $10,000 fine and that my cooperation could help mitigate the penalties I was facing. I replied that he already had my information in the report that was taken and I asked if I was free to leave. I reminded him that he was now illegally detaining me and that I would not be subject to screening as a condition of leaving the airport. He told me that he was only trying to help (I should note that his demeanor never suggested that he was trying to help. I was clearly being interrogated.), and that no one was forcing me to stay. I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, "then I'm leaving". He replied, "then we'll bring a civil suit against you", to which I said, "you bring that suit" and walked out of the airport.

Link to Original Blog WITH Videos