Saturday, July 17, 2010



Growing up in earthquake-prone Southern California, my Ma made sure we always had a plan in place should a big shaker hit in the middle of the night. We were all to meet under a certain doorway in the front foyer. (“Foyer” makes it sound like I grew up in an upper level income home doesn’t it? Ha! Far from it.) The extra supports around an entranceway supposedly make the area safest from falling debris.

If you grew up in tornado country, chances are you were all told in advance to get to the basement or storm cellar at the first sign of intensely darkening skies.

Maybe you’ve taken a family trip to a big amusement park and upon arriving, made it clear that should anyone become separated from the group everyone would meet to regather at the wishing well near the entrance to Sleeping Beauty's Castle. Or something along those lines.

It’s always good to be prepared; it’s advisable to have a plan in place BEFORE disaster or misfortune strikes.

Well, is it even possible to use the word “disaster” in a sentence and not immediately think of the United States government?

You know, after you’ve already been surrendering your lunch money to the schoolyard bully for a week or more, it makes it harder to suddenly refuse. The bully has now come to accept that your money belongs to him - he has come to believe that he has a "right" to it - and if you no longer wish to cave in to his intimidation, chances are you will now have to fight your way out of the one-sided deal.

Rather than attempting to reclaim your previously surrendered rights, it is better to already have a plan in place - to have previously made up your mind that you can be pushed only just so far and no further. It’s important to know in advance PRECISELY where you draw the line. This is especially true when it comes to government, because it is the nature of government to take every single inch of ground that the citizen is not willing to fight for. You need to know beforehand where you have drawn the line which says to your tyrannical government (run by egotistical, bullying bureaucrats), “This far and not beyond.”

Well, years ago, I gave some thought to this. “Just how much will I personally take from Uncle Sam before I go on the lam or kick him upside his top-hatted head?”

For me - a serious student of The Holy Bible - the answer was easily arrived at. The Word Of God makes it clear that a time will come when a person who personifies the anti-Christ spirit will compel every person on the planet to receive something underneath his or her skin which will grant them the “privilege” to buy and sell in the global economy. In other words, the anti-Christ will alter your physical makeup in some way.

Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, Uncle Sam’s authority over me ends where my body begins. He might tax me excessively, he might confiscate my property, he might regulate me into claustrophobia, but the moment he tries to claim authority over my body in a physically interactive way, he’s going to have to fight me. And I will fight to the end. (Not that my demise would disturb Uncle Sam in the least.)

So in mid-June, when I learned from a talk radio station that I listen to a little bit that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has now installed and begun operating their controversial full body scanning devices in one of the terminals at my local airport, I said to myself, “Uh-uh. Not me."

As the talk radio host said, he was not going to allow some fat, sweaty guy with the TSA to ogle his young son’s body with some “see-through-the-clothing” device every time they took a vacation together. He then asked the listeners to think about their own teenage daughters and ask themselves, “Am I going to permit some unknown government employee to get an eyeful of my daughter’s seemingly naked body?”

Well, I have no sons nor daughters, but I do have possession of the body that God gave to me. Forget what the government bureaucrats claim, how do I KNOW that a photo of my body won’t be snapped and stored for someone's future pornographic enjoyment? How do I KNOW that my body’s health won’t be adversely affected later by this government-approved machine? How do I KNOW I can believe ANYTHING the government tells me? Has it never lied before? Does it have a glowingly positive track record?

Does it not strike you odd that no one has yet released an authentic photograph with equivalent optical resolution of just what these TSA bureaucrats see when viewing you behind your garments? Why have We The People not been shown just how much detail is actually revealed?

No, sorry, Uncle Sam, but this far and no further. I will not have some TSA homo or even some TSA bimbo gawking at my (might-as-well-be) naked body – Greek-godly sculpted though it is. [*Cough!-Cough!*]

Below are copies of selected Emails I have sent (and a couple of predictable replies I have received) concerning this matter. It’s all self-explanatory.

STMcC To Southwest Airlines:

June 18, 2010
To Whom It May Concern,

Here in Phoenix, Arizona, at Sky Harbor Airport, the TSA has now installed full body scanners at Terminal 4, where Southwest Airlines is located.

This is to inform you that as long as your airline is permitting the TSA to employ the use of full body scanners on people flying with you, I will not patronize your company.

It's true that this is currently a voluntary action, but anyone older than 20 knows that what is voluntary today becomes mandatory tomorrow, and so I am starting my boycott NOW. There's no time like the present.

I will be planning a Summer vacation trip within the next few weeks, but I will not even consider booking a flight with Southwest. And if full body scanners should become mandatory at every airport and with every airline at some future time, I will simply refuse to fly again for the remainder of my life.

The United States of America is being transformed into a virtual police state, and at some point, good Americans must draw the line and say to government intrusion, "Enough is enough."

I have already called the TSA to complain, and now I'm letting you know as well, "Enough". You have just lost my business until full body scanners are no longer being employed in conjunction with your airline.

Stephen T. McCarthy

Southwest Airlines To STMcC:

Dear Stephen,
Thank you for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns regarding the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
It's important to explain that the implementation of imaging technology is solely determined by the TSA and not by the airline. The TSA has a responsibility to ensure the security of the traveling public. However, they also recognize that there is a delicate balance between privacy and security; therefore, as you know, imaging technology is optional for all passengers.
Please visit the TSA’s web site for more information (including locations where imaging technology is currently being used) regarding this screening method.
Again, we appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. Should your future plans require air travel, we hope we will merit your consideration.
E----, Southwest Airlines

Dear E----:

I thank you for replying to my letter.

Yes, I understand that the TSA is an independent organization ...

I also know that corporations carry a lot of clout in determining government policy. Therefore, I am holding the airlines responsible for doing their part in protesting to the government this unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of the people. Yes, I've been around long enough to know how things work and to recognize how government and corporate bodies are intertwined.

So, what I said stands. Until such time as the TSA is no longer using full body scanning on the individuals flying with Southwest Airlines - whether that scanning is mandatory OR voluntary - I will refuse to ever book a flight with Southwest Airlines, and I will encourage other potential Southwest customers to do the same.

It is the airlines' job to put pressure on the TSA to discontinue this unacceptable practice. I hold you and all of the other airlines responsible because government will not alter its policies unless it is pressured to do so by those who have some leverage.

Again I thank you for your reply.

Still Boycotting,
WestJet Replying To STMcC:

Dear Stephen,
Thank you for taking the time to write to us.
I can definitely understand your frustrations regarding these new security measures which are continually being introduced.
I would just like to stress that these decisions are made by government agencies and like you said mandated by TSA and/or CATSA. Airlines can only at most advise our guests of these changes and comply to these rules and regulations.
It is a shame to think that we may be losing a guest because of something completely outside of our control.
I hope to welcome you aboard a future WestJet flight.
WestJet Guest Relations

STMcC To The TSA’s Blog:

[*After attempting numerous times to Email the following to TSA and encountering nothing but system failures and a TSA personnel runaround, I've decided to just post my Email below.*]

To Whom It May Concern At The TSA:

Here in Phoenix, Arizona, at Sky Harbor Airport, the TSA has now installed full body scanners at Terminal 4.

I have taken the time to inform all of the airlines that operate out of Terminal 4 that I will no longer consider flying with them until TSA's scanners have been removed from their Terminal.

Yes, I understand that the full body scans are currently optional and are not involuntarily forced upon any customers. But at fifty years of age and having been around the block a few times, I am also fully aware that unless We The People oppose this invasion of our privacy, the full body scanning will become a requirement for flying in the not too distant future. Government, under the guise of promoting security and convenience, will always attempt to gather as much power over the people as possible, and only a "push back" from the citizens will clue the government in that it has finally gone too far. The most effective "push back" is usually one that hurts another's pocketbook - that's the sort of reaction that really gets one's attention.

For this reason, I am now boycotting all airlines that permit the TSA to utilize this new (and soon to be involuntary) form of personal invasion. The United States of America is being transformed into a virtual prison camp and I, for one, am voicing my disapproval.

With each passing year "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is becoming increasingly more cowardly and less free. If a protest of TSA's over-the-top (and through-the-clothing) invasion of privacy and assault on individual rights must begin with my own personal boycott, then so be it.

I will be encouraging everyone I know to join me in my boycott until the TSA has removed its full body scanners from every airport in this country and some sense of reason and restraint has been restored in our quest to find a balance between security and privacy.

Stephen T. McCarthy

Americonned People, listen to me! If you will not turn off your #$%&@#! television sets and get off your fat, lazy
#$%&! and ACT to put the brakes on this out-of-control U.S. government, a totalitarian global government will rule your life sooner than later.

And once it has arrived, I will be easy to spot. I’ll be the guy in the red, white and blue T-shirt that reads:

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
D-FensDogg of the ‘Loyal American Underground’
YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.


  1. Stephen - I'm with you 100%

    Airport searches must still be “reasonable.” The 4th Amendment bar is lower at airports, and warrants are not generally required, but there are and must be limits.

    A similar analogy would be the fact that a police officer can pull over a car on a public road on the suspicion that a drug-related crime (say trafficking) is in progress (and the 4th Amendment might not per se prevent a search) does not imply that the police may set up a road block and stop ALL cars, searching them for drugs even if it is probable that at least one of the thousand or so searched cars is carrying drugs.

    I don’t think that virtual strip searches for all passengers are “reasonable.”

  2. Stephen-

    Well, I for one, have no fear that anyone will be leering at my naked image. Most people have a hard time holding onto their lunch seeing me in clothes! Heck ,if you press my face in dough, you get gorilla cookies!

    Interestingly enough, you could not get a response from our friends at the TSA. Go figure. Our government, believing it is above the people it is sworn to serve.

    For the record, Stephen, I do not believe it is politically correct anymore to refer to them as "TSA homo" or even "TSA bimbo."

    Better to use the new, PC description of, "KGB."

    You have no idea how refreshing it is to me to come into contact with someone who not only respects our Constitution but even UNDERSTANDS it!

    Your analogy is a good one. I get a little hot under the collar every time I read of another one of those roadblocks that the cops periodically set up at night in an effort to snag drunken drivers. As you rightly point out, that is entirely un-Constitutional!

    I have never encountered one of those en masse stops myself, but the night I do, I'll probably get arrested. NOT for drunken driving, certainly, as I have no use for those who do that. But I'll get arrested for getting madd (pun) and giving the cops an earful about their disregard for the law. The police have traditionally shown that they have no more understanding of nor respect for "the supreme law of the land" than does the average American citizen.

    Thanks for your comment, and feel free to visit here anytime! :o)

    Of course I know that you understand the importance of this matter, regardless of whether or not you personally would feel offended or had your privacy invaded by this procedure. This needs to be placed in its proper context and evaluated according to the effects it has on the population as a whole, not one person here or there.

    >> For the record, Stephen, I do not believe it is politically correct anymore to refer to them as "TSA homo" or even "TSA bimbo."

    Yeah, I know.
    And that's EXACTLY WHY I used those terms. ;o)

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  4. Dogg and Anonymous-

    Sadly, the Americonned Peeps are not going to see this as a Fourth Amendment violation.

    Just as "for the children" becomes the catch phrase for passing every new tax increase, "to fight terrorism" becomes the phrase that allows them to further strip us of rights.

    The day is going to come where they'll just do a colonoscopy on every passenger right there while your bag is being scanned. Because you might be hiding some bomb fixings up there where the sun don't shine.

    And the people will do it.

    To fight terrorism.

    For the children.

    Ha! Right on.

    If the "Americonned Peeps" were TRULY concerned about "the children", they would DO something about this indebted, tyrannical nation that they are leaving for their children to inhabit.

    Rather than just bitching about it...

    From the couch...

    With the TV on...

    'Duff' beer in hand.

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  6. All this is being done under the propagandist lie of "Security." If the government was truly interested in security than they would REALLY do something about the southern border (estimated 7,000 middle eastern illegals across that border each year according to their own government records). Oh, but thats not the point. The point is slavery. To turn this nation into a nation of surfs. All it takes is one good lie after another.

    The funny thing is even some Hollywood movies have gotten this right from a supposed "fictional" stand point. Of course they have to supply propaganda into that as well.

    As far as your stance with the government can't do anything with your body as a standard. I think its a good one, and a biblicaly based. However, I think the real war is for our hearts and minds. My line in the sand is the government can't have my mind, the minds of my family, or our beliefs. I also will not tolerate a tyranically imposed physical standard (either by injection or by TSA nude stills). Anyone paying attention to the news over the last year can see the swine flu was but a test. Can we make people get injected with our vaccine? Nevermind that a friend of mine lost his loved one over this same injection. These same injections that were too late in the season anyway, didn't save anyone, and killed some with weakened immune systems.

    As you know my situation differs from yours. Where the days ahead will be tough for all. It will be very challenging for those with young uns, and spouses who buy into the propaganda machine.

    Brer Marc

    P.S. Sorry to not come around as much. Busy. I have a lot going on, and even getting my hands on Gods Word has been neglected on my part.

  7. BR'ER MARC ~
    Yeah, the border situation is enough to clue in anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Uncle Sam's great concern about terrorist acts being perpetrated on U.S. soil is all a sham meant to keep the masses fearful and ready to accept whatever individual rights-removing methods are offered as a security measure to "protect" us.

    Heck, as we both know, even 9/11 wouldn't have happened without assistance from our own government. (Which, by the way, will be partially the subject of my next blog bit here at F-FFF.)

    As far as my "heart and mind" are concerned, well, it goes without saying that I would not willingly allow Uncle Sam to mess with me in that area.

    I am speaking of strictly how far I can be pushed in a physical sense. My heart and mind belong to God and I don't believe Uncle Sam could steal them from Him no matter how much Uncle Sam might try.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  8. I really don't think those scanners are much more invasive than the metal detectors, baggage xrays, and other previously used methods, and might actually speed up the screening process.

    Do you think there should be a screening process considering the threats of possible terrorism? Do you think the threats are real? If they are, what kind of screening processes should be in place?

    Personally, talking about political incorrectness, I think the government should be cracking down on Islam and Muslims in general. It's not going to bother me if we round them up and kick them out of the country and not let any of them past our borders. It's time for a modern version of the Crusades. Although it would be argued that you do it to Muslims then Christians might be next. Well, Hmmm, I don't know.

    Where I am somewhat in agreement with your feelings about the scanning devices is the deconditioning of our resistance to government and corporate control. I'll start really becoming concerned when they start wanting to implant chips to identify and track us or tattoo barcodes on our foreheads or palms. Then we are truly getting Biblical. It's all starting to look very close to that time.

    I'm with you about not wanting to fly, but for me to visit my family I almost have to. I need to get them all to move to a compound in some remote area so none of us has to fly anywhere and we won't be in any urban areas when things really start getting bad.

    Sorry for my rambling, but you got me thinking.

    Tossing It Out

  9. >> I really don't think those scanners are much more invasive than the metal detectors, baggage xrays, and other previously used methods, and might actually speed up the screening process.

    The operative words in your sentence, Lee, are "I...think". The only two words in the English language worse than "I think" are "I feel".

    "I KNOW" - now THOSE are the words I want to hear from a person. Those are the words that indicate diligent research and awareness.

    The problem, Lee, as I clearly stated in my blog bit, is that the TSA has not shown the public exactly what the TSA sees when viewing a person through their scanners. For some odd reason [*Cough!-Cough*] they apparently don't want to make the public aware of just how much detail of a person's body is shown to the TSA agent doing the viewing. Can you think of any reason why that might be? Just take a wild guess.

    You say that you really don't think the scanners are any more invasive than other types of examination devices and methods. Exactly what "facts" are you basing your belief upon? Seeing as how you are just as much in the dark about what is being displayed as the rest of us, what is the source of your confidence? What are you basing your opinion on, other than wishful thinking?

    Furthermore, this sort of technology being used on human beings is quite new. How do we know yet that there will be no longterm health risks?

    And you seem to be more concerned about “speed(ing) up the screening process" than you are about a citizen's right to privacy and fourth amendment rights.

    Big Brother loves ya, Lee,
    you get in line so easily.

    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

    >> Do you think there should be a screening process considering the threats of possible terrorism? Do you think the threats are real?

    Aww, you don’t REALLY want to get me started do you?

    Just ask yourself this one question:
    “If the threats were so real, wouldn’t Uncle Sam have sealed our borders up tight on September 12, 2001?”

    >> I'll start really becoming concerned when they start wanting to implant chips to identify and track us

    It’ll be a little late to “start really becoming concerned” at that point, my friend.

    As far as the rest of your comment is concerned, I don’t share your opinion. But you might want to consider making that a topic for “Debate Day Thursday”. That ought to really heat things up over at ‘Tossing It Out’.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

  10. Lee-

    I just wonder how much safer all of this nonsense really makes us.

    We take off our shoes, take off out belts, take off our coats, pull iPods and DVD players and computers out of their cases, throw away our oversized shaving cream...

    We've had no incidents since 9/11, except for the botched Times Square thing (which had nothing to do with air travel).

    Doesn't London have two a year?

    I don't believe that there really are that many Islamic fundamentalists really willing to die for the cause, and we could go back to pre-2001 airport security and we'd be fine.

    But heck, I live in Arizona, where all we want to do after we get off work is racially profile Latinos and deport them (if you belive the President).


  11. Lee,
    Everybody in America wants things fast, cheap, and at someone elses expense. Your a good guy, but I have too agree with Stephen here. Lets start with what we know. 1. They are doing full body scans that can see through clothes, and 2) They say its for safety.

    The medical industry used to say CT scans were no less safe than getting an x-ray. Well, a few cancer patients later they now know thats not true. In fact getting a CT scan is like, "Getting a thousand x-rays at once" according to a few physicans I work with. Thats a lot of radiation. So to make a long story short they used to do CT scans when they could have just done an x-ray. No longer. CT scans have their place but they shouldn't be handed out like candy. They really haven't done enough research.

    All that aside why put in more controls when THEY WON'T CLOSE THE BORDER???? No logic.

    Plus the radical muslims are fed by our own system.

  12. r-LEE-b ~
    My Brother, I wish to apologize for the tone of yesterday's response to you.

    This is not really a good excuse, but let me just say that yesterday I was operating on two consecutive nights of really poor sleep. Add to that, I had a plumber working in my house who was charging me the equivalent of $200 an hour. And therefore, I was feeling even more cranky than usual (and that's REALLY saying something).

    So, although I stand by the basic substance of my comment, I'd like to disown the unnecessary tone it was delivered in.

    Lee, my McBuddy, I'm afraid I just seem to be getting curmudgeonlier and curmudgeonlier (I'm also afraid I just concocted a new, awful word), which is just more evidence that I really ought to, for the most part, wrap up my blogging and move on to a new hobby.

    Anyway, Lee, in that fine, old Christ-like tradition relating to forgiveness, I sincerely apologize to you and ask if you will grant the forgiveness I genuinely seek.

    Will you overlook my ill-tempered personality? Can we smoke the peace pipe, share 750 ml. of Grand Marnier, and retain our friendship? Please?

    "O, Lord, please help me to become the kind of person my dog thinks I am."

    ~ 'Sorry' Stephen

  13. I just sent a response, but I'm not sure it went thru. Anyway I'll be responding more later today.

    Tossing It Out

  14. Stephen --- Earlier I typed a lengthy no problemo response to your apology, but it apparently got lost in cyberspace. Anyway I'm okay and we're all having fun and I'm ready for the Grand Marnier and whatever good stuff is in that peace pipe.

    Not to get too lengthy, I'm gonna play the Glenn Beck role and reverse my thoughts about my previous answer. I still maintain it's not that big of a deal to me, but it is an annoyance. I liked the good old days when you could go to the gate and meet your friends or family when they got off the plane or wait with them till it was time to board. The old ways were preferable.

    I read an article yesterday in the L.A. paper that said research indicated that the surveillance machines were unproven and that they probably couldn't find everything, especially thing inserted into body cavities. There was also the question about safety of the machines. The kicker for me is that each machine costs something like $160,000 and billions more to furnish personnel to operate and maintain the machines. Yikes!

    I'm still a big fan of infringing upon certain people's rights. In other words if they have publicly announced that they are muslim jihadists and plan to destroy the U.S., then you grab them, extract information in every way possible, sieze assets, and kick them, their family, and all sympathetic cohorts out of the country. Screw rights. If they are avowed and proven seditionists they have relinguished their rights. I say revive Crusade ideals and make sure our country does not fall victim to sharia (sp?) law.

    Just got this email from Jet Blue:

    Hello ROBERT,

    In order to make commercial air travel safer, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has launched a new program called Secure Flight. This program requires JetBlue to submit customer information to the TSA for vetting before customers will be permitted to fly.

    What This Means for You
    Because your booking information is automatically populated with the information from your TrueBlue member profile, it’s very important to make sure that your TrueBlue profile matches the information on the government-issued ID that you use to travel. This information includes:
    • Full name (first, middle, last)
    • Date of birth
    • Gender

    If the information does not match exactly, you will be prohibited from checking in online or at a kiosk, which means you’ll likely be delayed at the airport. JetBlue protects the privacy and security of the information collected online on See JetBlue’s Privacy Policy.

    I'm sure other airlines will also be doing this. More collecting of data on us to turn over to the government.

    Like I said before, I wish I never had to fly, but if I am going to see certain family members--like my mother, my siblings, and my kids--I almost have to fly to see them in a reasonable time frame.

    Whether I like it or not sometimes I just have to hold my nose and deal with the s**t.

    LeeTossing It Out

  15. Stephen,
    I don't think anything you or anyone else said was all that bad. Plus, we all get a little grumpy at times. But heck honest conversations on such a subject matter are bound to bring strong opinions to the table. It's all just a difference of opinions, and I respect yours, Lees, Disconnected, and anyone else who isn't playing the idiot card. Doesn't mean we always have to agree. Having read Lees blogs from time to time myself I don't believe he took it for more than what it was. Your a man with strong opinions and logic. Lee strikes me the same way. I don't think he's losing sleep over it.


  16. r-LEE-b ~
    It'z good to know that it'z all good! Thanks, Bro. (Let's pop the cork on that Grand Marnier and get stupid together!)

    I have a tendency sometimes to state my position in a tone that is perhaps a bit more strong than necessary, particularly for friends.

    >> Not to get too lengthy, I'm gonna play the Glenn Beck role and reverse my thoughts about my previous answer.

    Ha! :o) Well, somebody's got to play the part of Glenn Beck if Beck ain't here to do it himself.

    >> I'm still a big fan of infringing upon certain people's rights. In other words if they have publicly announced that they are muslim jihadists and plan to destroy the U.S., then you grab them...

    Oh, heck, Brother, if that's what you're talking about, then sure, I'm with you. I don't know which American wouldn't be.

    In your original comment, you said, "I think the government should be cracking down on Islam and Muslims in general", and I took that to mean you thought that all Muslims ought to be booted out of the country, whether of the "jihadist" variety or not. As a big fan of First Amendment rights, I couldn't possibly have agreed with THAT.

    I've studied Islam enough to have arrived at the conclusion that it is a false religion. Furthermore, there's reason to suspect that it was not just a "man-made" religion, but that Muhammad was actually being demonically influenced. That tells you plenty about what I personally think of Islam.

    But if a person wants to follow a teaching sans an objective and logical examination of that teaching, that's his/her business. We should all be free to be as dumb as we wanna be. Provided we aren't infringing on another person's rights in the process.

    I happen to work with a Muslim fellow, and I can tell you that he is the furthest thing from a terrorist that I could imagine. In fact, although he's a nice guy and I have nothing against him, if he were a terrorist, this country would still be perfectly safe because he could never create a bomb without blowing himself up in the attempt. Hell, he can't drive a manual transmission automobile!

    So, it would be an act of shame if the U.S. were to kick this particular Muslim (and all those like him) out of the country solely because of his professed religious belief. A) He wouldn't hurt anyone even if he could, and B) by the time he figured out how to make a bomb, we would all be living on Mars anyway.

    Brother, thanks for accepting my apology, and I'll try not to post anything anymore while I'm in a "more-than-usual" cranky mood. :o)

    BR'ER MARC ~
    Thanks for your vote of confidence. Yer a good man, Charlie Brown! (And it was great yakking with ya last night. It'd been a looooong time, Brotherman.)

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  17. Lee-

    Don't let all of the "nice" talk fool ya-I'd hold Stephen to the Grand Marnier!

    Stephen and I were discussing the idea of "grabbing them" if they announce that they are Jihadists.

    My only concern would be, if the speech is protected free speech, as distateful as I may find it, it is protected.

    For example, I find nothing more offensive than a bunch of idiotic white men who dress up in sheets and chant hate towards blacks and Jews.

    In the 70's, this still happened, and I never understood why it was allowed. Free speech.

    If the jihadists do not break a law, I still think we need to give them that same right, otherwise we again cede a right to the Feds. And let's face it-our Federal government is on its own jihad against our Republic.

    Of course if their speech crosses the line, bag 'em, tag 'em, and dump them down in Nogales with a hitch-hiker sign that reads "Afghanistan."


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.