The frequent flyers of Capitol Hill seemed to have made a very large mess of the security program at airports. Only overpaid politicians can think this stuff up -- and keep a straight face while admitting it. The liberty of every traveler is abused, but is security any better? Not hardly.

According to the USA Today a few weeks ago: "Checkpoint screeners at 32 of the nation's largest airports failed to detect fake weapons -- guns, dynamite or bombs -- in almost a quarter of undercover tests by the Transportation Security Administration last month."

In another article, USA Today reported: "Even at airports where the TSA has already appointed federal security directors -- essentially the police chiefs of airport security -- problems persist. Among the test results from the 32 airports that USA Today reviewed, 10 have federal security directors. Screeners at those airports failed to detect potentially dangerous items 23% of the time -- a rate consistent with screeners at airports without security directors."

What we find by interviewing commercial airline pilots is even worse. For instance:

Guns and knives are still getting on aircraft. One man admitted (after the fact) that he had two little 22 pistols on a flight. The reason pilots know was because he was asking how to get them sent back home. Rightly so, he feared taking them on his return flight.

At the Cincinnati airport, a commercial airline pilot was out on the tarmac looking at something when he spotted a very drunk man wandering around. No one knows exactly how he got out there. But, there he was, wandering between the commercial aircraft -- the aircraft parked at a busy terminal full of passengers.

A commercial airline pilot flew into Dullas. He had some sort of business with security. It took 15 minutes before he could find someone in security who spoke English. Apparently, Hispanics and Orientals run security there and few speak English well enough to hold a conversation. His logical question was: "How can they even talk with each other in the workplace?"

According to at least three commercial airline pilots, security is different at most airports throughout the country and they really do not know what to expect day to day. All sorts of very strange things happen. The list of "stupid security tricks" is getting quite long and at least two professional flyboy wags are considering compiling what could be a very humorous book on the topic.

Now we learn that these security companies are padding their bills. After all, government is paying now; so there isn't much accountability.

Airport screeners seem to be amusing themselves by doing more complete searches on just about anyone except those from the groups with established terrorists. Eighty year old grandparents get targeted for special searches. Even little children. And, of course these airhead screeners target flight attendants and even pilots -- because they know the aircraft crews are not allowed to complain, lest they lose their jobs.

Last month, AP reported that some female travelers have complained that security screening at Raleigh-Durham International Airport has amounted to deliberate groping and sexual harassment.

Airport Screeners even ordered a mother to drink her own bottled breast milk to prove it was not poison or a bomb in the bottles.

Before boarding a recent flight out of the Traverse City, Michigan airport, a professor of philosophy from the University of Alabama grumbled mildly about the violation of his person and property when his family was subjected to a "random" search for no apparent reason. The bright lights in the screening department there threatened him with arrest, detention, and being permanently banned from air travel within the United States. Apparently, it is now against the law to say anything whatsoever to these jerks.

Last week there was a report that two armed marshals, with guns drawn, detained a man because he was acting a little strange and seemed to be looking through other people's luggage while on a flight. The Transportation Security Administration said that one of the marshals held his gun on all other passengers in the cabin because some passengers ignored their orders to stay seated.

Apparently that's all it takes nowadays: One person acts a little strange and air marshals threaten everyone on board at gunpoint. "If people would have stayed in their seats and heeded those warnings, that would not have happened," said TSA spokesman Robert Johnson in Washington. "It's our opinion that it was done by the book."

There's the problem in a nutshell. First, no one broke any laws or was a danger to the aircraft or the flight crew. Second, even if there was a perceived element of danger, police do not get to threaten or arrest everyone in sight.

Besides, the Captain of the ship is supposed to be the one in charge. But, for some silly reason the administration refuses to arm pilots. Which means, the Bush administration is now to the left of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on arming airline pilots. Even that very liberal, gun grabbing Democrat co-sponsored a bill by conservative Bob Smith (R-NH) that lets qualified pilots carry firearms to stop airborne terrorists. "I think this is the first time I have ever stood with Sen. Smith on an issue that has involved guns," Boxer said at a news conference. "I believe that pilots who are carefully trained and want to carry a gun in the cockpit should be allowed to do so."

The House voted 310 to 113 on July 10 to let pilots voluntarily fly while armed. The Senate did not bother to approve the issue this time around until last Thursday. When the Democrats finally let the matter come up for a vote, it won 87-6.

It gets worse, though: The Associated Press reported in an Aug. 12 story that, previously, only President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may give an order to shoot down a civilian aircraft. Two Air Force generals, Maj. Gen. Larry K. Arnold at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., and Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, were also given the authority after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sure. Don't allow the pilots "captaining" the ship the ability to be able shoot an active terrorist. Instead, have the military kill all aboard if there is a suspected terrorist. . . . . That's comforting.

Last week, the administration leaked that it may permit arming a token 2% of commercial pilots. Again, that's silly! Anyone who can be trusted to fly an aircraft full of people can also be trusted to carry a concealed weapon while in uniform. Any pilot who wishes to carry concealed should. Let the uniform be the permit. When out of uniform, on layover, pilots can leave their sidearm in the hotel safe.

It appears that something went a little haywire with this airport security thing. Based on the published accounts, it looks like Keystone Cops with a bad attitude are running the show. And, it's getting worse, not better.

Last week the Associated Press published an interesting bit of information: "Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, says a poll released Thursday. The sentiment that the First Amendment goes too far was already on the rise before the terrorist attacks a year ago, doubling to four in 10 between 2000 and 2001. " The poll found that 49 percent now think the First Amendment goes too far, a total of about 10 points higher than in 2001.

For many reasons, that information did not seem very reliable.

So, limiting the question to known Democrats -- of which we have an overabundance -- I notified a few people that a foundation called the Freedom Forum reports that half of Americans now believe the First Amendment's protection of free speech goes too far. Then, I simply asked what they thought.

Initially, no one believed the report. So, I produced a copy of the article.

There seemed to be a common consensus: "These people are crazy!" Many also asked who this Freedom Forum (1) group was, and that is really the story here. Because, indeed, "this is crazy."

"Many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism," said Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, based in Arlington, Va., which commissioned the survey. "Almost half also said the media has been too aggressive in asking the government questions about the war on terrorism."

They say they polled 1,000 adults and the poll was taken between June 12 and July 5. It has a reported error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The report states that Republican respondents were more likely than Democrats or Independents to see the news media as too aggressive in seeking war information from government officials. But, we find that statement more humor than fact. Closer to the truth would be that a huge majority of Republicans are totally fed up with just about anything the liberal media does. Confining that opinion to just the way the corporate media questions politicians about the military belies the whole problem.

According to the header on their web site: "The Freedom Forum is a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to free press, free speech and free spirit for all people. The foundation focuses on three main priorities: the Newseum, First Amendment freedoms and newsroom diversity."

Snooping around their site, we see that the First Amendment means to them that nude and other strictly adult entertainment is protected speech and should be allowed in any residential area. But, of course, children must not be allowed to bow their heads in the schools.

That was enough to know where they were coming from: Staunch liberals.

Still, that information does not really explain why they would want to publicize such an obviously biased poll. There had to be a better reason. And, there seems to be.

As it turns out, they apparently have a vested interest in controlling and manipulating freedom of speech. Most of the leaders of the Freedom Forum are either in media now or are retired from corporate positions in the media.

Fancy that, eh . . . an ulterior motive. Could they be supportive of freedom of speech for the media, but not for the common people? Hint: Did the media support that draconian -- unconstitutional -- campaign finance bill that limits the freedom of speech of the people but not the media? The past corporate leaders of Gannett Co. Inc. are strongly represented in the leadership of the Freedom Forum. We also find the names of current left wing broadcasters prominently displayed.

Judy Woodruff (Mrs. Al Hunt) of CNN is on the board. Robert MacNeil of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions is there. So is Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief for NBC News, and the host of "Meet the Press." The retired socialist Senator, Paul Simon, is listed, too.

Interestingly enough, we did not see one name of a known Republican, Libertarian or conservative listed.

Perhaps a lot of us should ask friends and neighbors how they feel on this issue. The article is still available to anyone wishing to make a copy.(2) That way, we could inform the Freedom Forum what Americans really feel about freedom.

1. http://www.freedomforum.org

2. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020829_1634.html

Nothing was done about all the election and campaign fraud in the 2000 election, so the same thing is starting all over again.

The federation of 65 unions known as the AFL-CIO will again be a major player in the Congressional elections. They plan to spend $33 million this cycle. That's what gets reported, anyway. The unions always also kick in a few million dollars of "walking around" money to Democratic campaign workers that is not reported because most of it is illegal.

The unions say they will focus on paid media, voter education and mobilizing the labor vote at the grass roots. Which also means, setting up illegal phone banks for campaign committees, buying votes and bussing voters around to various polling places.

Labor leaders are hoping that perceived economic worries and corporate scandals will help them in their drive to mobilize voters behind Democratic candidates. It doesn't seem to matter one bit to them that the Clinton administration created this economy. They support Democrats.

"Things have changed dramatically for working people," said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO. "There's a reversal in attitudes about the economy and about job security."

Sweeney piles it on thick, no matter if he knows what he is talking about or not: "President Bush's administration's record has been the worst for working families in decades. They have refused to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Instead they drained off the surplus that had been built through working people's productivity to give a trillion-dollar tax cut to the wealthiest Americans."

The problem with that silliness is that many of today's union workers are much better educated than those in past decades and know stupid rhetoric when they hear it.

As Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer responded: "There's a real split in the labor community, with an increasing number of rank-and-file workers proud to support the president and leaders of some labor groups also showing signs of support for the president and neutrality toward the Democrats. . . . The ground is shifting and the president is proud to have as much labor support as he has."

The Sierra Club plans to focus on Senate races in North Carolina, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon and South Dakota and a few House races. They will focus mostly on mail, phone calls and political ads aimed at informing voters of candidates' positions on the environment. It will be interesting to see how the greenies can justify their programs after these very same programs were most responsible for the 6.2-million acres (9,688 square miles) of good timber that burned already this year in forest fires.

Emily's List, a Washington-based group that raises money for pro-choice, female Democratic candidates, has already caused a lot of hard feelings on the far left side of politics. This primary election cycle, they targeted Democratic men candidates with all sorts of negative ads and personal accusations. That campaigning style is nothing new with the Democrats, of course. They enjoy playing fast and loose with the truth. Still, it is always interesting to watch when they use nasty campaign tactics against each other in the primary elections.

Emily's List President Ellen Malcolm said the criticism is a sign that a double standard exists for groups supporting women instead of men. "Everyone picks their favorite and we do that, just like the guys do," she said.

Even the ever-rabid Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) denounced Emily's List last month for attacking Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) and former Gov. James Blanchard (D-MI) in mailings -- both of whom ran for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination against Attorney General Jennifer Granholm, an Emily's List's endorsee.

"I am absolutely disappointed that Emily's List would use the money it collects from women across the country to distort the record of David Bonior in the interest of electing a woman," said Waters, who supported Bonior.

Waters has been supported by Emily's List since she was first elected in 1990. Maybe not anymore, though. If Waters is not supported again by Emily's List, her vitriol should be quite entertaining.

Many similar complaints were lodged against Emily's List activities in Chicago, West Virginia, and Massachusetts. In every instance, the group sent out campaign material against male Democratic candidates that far exceeded being just inaccurate. They intentionally lied.

In Michigan, Emily's List targeted long term Michigan Rep. John Dingell when he and Rep. Lynn Rivers were thrown together by redistricting. Dingell represented a basically middle class district and was always a bit left of center. Rivers, however, is from the very far-left Ann Arbor area where communism and socialism are celebrated publicly. Dingell received 58% of the vote and, as in 6 out of 10 Congressional races so far this year, Emily's List lost yet another socialist candidate.

And so goes the noise from the left. Situation normal: voter fraud, campaign finance violations, out and out lies about issues and candidates, and a whole lot of free and easy money floating around.

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron.htm. Revised 9-8-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.