Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Rand Paul: End The TSA

May 7, 2012 by  

Rand Paul: End The TSA
Rand Paul is circulating a petition calling for the end of the Transportation Security Administration.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of Presidential candidate Ron Paul, has in recent weeks doubled down on his campaign to do away with the Transportation Security Administration.

The younger Paul’s contempt for the agency is no secret. He was detained by the TSA earlier this year after refusing to allow agents to sexually molest him before boarding a flight, an incident that caused him to miss a speaking engagement that he was scheduled to attend.

Last week, Paul began circulating a petition, setting the wheels in motion to completely do away with the TSA. He is urging all Americans to sign the petition.

An email from the Senator sent to supporters of The Campaign for Liberty says:

Sometimes our liberty slips away silently, and it is almost hard to notice what went wrong and where. The one fortunate thing about the TSA is that they certainly don’t fit that definition.

The American people shouldn’t be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane. As you may have heard, I have some personal experience with this, and I’ve vowed to lead the charge to fight back.

The petition can be signed here.

Paul is also reportedly currently drafting “multiple” TSA bills, including one to privatize the airport security as well as a passenger bill of rights.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Rand Paul: End The TSA”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • GALT

    Coming soon: The Chronicles of the Willfully Ignorant; Episode One: The Case of the
    Trimmed Tree Trimmer.

    • GALT

      The Chronicles of the Willfully Ignorant

      Episode One: The Case of the TRIMMED “tree trimmer”!

      Our story begins with the following introduction by “cawmun……….” posted on 5/4 and a response by me to it on 5/6…..which also received two responses which are useful and will be included at the end of this episode.

      Fade in: A church, somewhere in the federal district of CA.
      Present Day

      “Last sunday at my church I ran into my tree trimmer,and the guy tells me that he can no longer afford to run his business because of environ(mental) regulations.Apparently he is but one of many parishoners who’s businesses have run afoul of the federal,state,and local ordinances designed to”protect”folks from themselves.”

      Fade to black: As in really, really dark.

      “All episodes of the Chronicles of the Willfully Ignorant are brought to you by The Constitution of the United States ( pre 1939 ), The Bill of Rights, ( common ) Law and Equity Jurisdictions, 26 CFR 31.3402 (p), UCC 1-207, and relevant court decisions ( pre 1939 ).”

      Fade in: Narrator
      Our story tonight begins as noted above, unfortunately no further useful information was provided…..although it was sufficient inspiration for the author to produce volumes of rhetoric bemoaning the EFFECTS and assigning the CAUSE and the INTENT. ( which provoked responses from others, and further responses, none of which provided any further clarification as to the claims. )

      The use of rhetoric is quite common by both the abusers of power and the willfully ignorant. For the first it is essentially intended as a distraction for the purposes of maintaining advantage and to deflect any reasoned inquiry as to the veracity or substance of what has been said, and for the victims ( the willfully ignorant ) it acts primarily as an emotional outlet, by citing something the audience (choir) knows to be TRUE, ( but which is in fact a logical fallacy ) thereby inciting both empathic commiseration and confirmation as to the elements of cause, effect and intent, whose final result is shared victimhood and a guarantee that it will continue…….because this energy wasted on rhetorical complaint ( us vs. them ) acts as excuse for both the “ignorance” and the “inaction” that will result.

      My response to this was to question WHY no further inquiry was made into the claims of our TRIMMED “tree trimmer”, because the actual effect here…….for our victim, specifically is either untrimmed trees, self trimmed trees, or finding another “tree trimmer” who has managed not to be TRIMMED, by these very same
      “federal,state,and local ordinances designed to”protect”folks from themselves.”

      I also suggested that based on:

      “Apparently he is but one of many parishoners who’s businesses have run afoul……….. ”
      There is a “community” of victims, all gathered in a common place with apparently a “common problem”, and yet………nothing will be done, except the wasted energy of “rhetorical complaint” which apparently was insufficient for our “story teller” who had enough left over outrage to come and share it with you…….”because everybody here KNOWS that it’s TRUE.” and if you are HERE and you don’t know THAT IT”S TRUE, then you are one of THEM and DON”T BELONG HERE! ( in these times, complaint is the new “patriotism” because the call to “eternal vigilance” was ignored, history has been rewritten by the victor’s, and the victims who are easily overwhelmed by complexity of any kind, are paralyzed and can only share the despair, and defend the “ignorance” that caused the PROBLEM they are NOW overwhelmed by. )

      ” To conquer, first DIVIDE!”
      Fade to black: as in really, really, really dark!
      A brief but slightly different word from our sponsor:

      The “supreme law of the land” now operates under the “jurisdictions” of “admiralty and maritime” ( Article 3 ) and was extended to the “several states”, by the creation of 50 federal districts ( 1935 ) designated by two letter upper case abbreviations, without punctuation, the issuance of SS# which identifies “individual” by NAME… all upper case letters, and the adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code adopted by these federal districts, effectively removing ( common ) law and equity courts ( jurisdiction ) from the FEDERAL COURTS ( in 1939 ) and everywhere else by the end of the 1950′s.
      This did not require an ammendment to do because “admiralty and maritime” are “constitutional jurisdictions” and were in effect in the District of Columbia, DC…..also in the “constitution”, so the above actions effectively transformed the “states”, into DC’s and YOU into a FEDERAL CITIZEN………subject to “admiralty and maritime” jurisdictions………by “implied consent”………. ( t.b.c )

      Fade in: Narrator

      Having ” run afoul of the federal,state,and local ordinances ” is PROBABLY TRUE, but is so generally vague as to be “essentially worthless” if our victims are seeking a SOLUTION…….and it certainly doesn’t seem particularly PATRIOTIC or REVOLUTIONARY, to let it lay there…… a church “full of victims” who are already gathered together, meet on a weekly basis…have among them, a lot of specific information ( actual FACTS ) and can be effectively organized, with “God helps those, who help themselves.”
      For our TRIMMED “tree trimmer” we are left with the assumption that, the cost of meeting these regulations are the CAUSE of his GOING OUT OF BUSINESS…….and clearly the COST OF DOING BUSINESS has had the EFFECT of his choosing NOT TO CONTINUE.

      Unfortunately, this information is insufficient to determine in what proportions this effect is caused by the “cited cause” and what may be due to “other factors”…………after all, if there are “other tree trimmers” available……..someone is managing to operate under these conditions and make a profit doing so?

      Clearly, action can change “legislation”, and “local ordinances” can be changed “locally” most effectively, then state, then federal….but you have to KNOW what they are, what effect they actually have, and what is the claimed purpose or benefit of the fact that they exist in the first place? For this particular “parish” we have a group of victims in place……..and we can assume that, there are other local parish’s with the same “constituencies”………and the same problems…… “if true”, that’s a lot of “real US’s”, and the THEM’s would seem to be withering to a “nebulous minority”….unless Joel Olsteen has a church there………..?

      None of this can be accomplished in “ignorance” or with out “effort”……………..
      Fade to black: REALLY,REALLY DARK and HOPELESS.
      Another brief but slightly different word from our sponsor:

      You are subject to the jurisdiction of admiralty and maritime courts by your “implied consent” under the effects of UCC 1-207, which requires a “reservation of rights” to be in place, prior to your actually needing it………..and since you are “ignorant” of the fact that you need it to be in place, it will not be.
      You can not then avail yourself of UCC 1-103 which states that the code cannot be read to preclude the common law. ( and it is in common law and equity, where your rights and the constitution that you “seemingly understand” actually exists.)
      In admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, you have privileges, immunities and benefits……..instead of rights. ( and these are subject to change, re-interpretation or removal at any time.)
      Common Law and Equity imposes a different standard for criminal and contractual disputes, whereby a victim must actually be produced for criminal cases and actual harm or damage demonstrated in equity cases. You have access to all your rights and more importantly, in cases of trial by jury, you can legally challenge both the facts and the law directly, because the jury ( Georgia v. Brailsford ) has the power to judge both “fact and law”. This is the ultimate form of “nullification” and a check on any “legislature”, local, state or federal……who can pass all the laws they want……if juries refuse to convict, prosecution and enforcement become expensive and a waste of time.

      Fade in: Epilog

      My previous attempt to respond to “this story” received two responses…….the first was from:
      George E says:
      May 6, 2012 at 11:15 am
      Galt, I’m curious. What describes your political philosophy best? Communism? Anarchy? Socialism? Progressivism? Liberalism? Democratic Party? Other?
      You obviously have some very strong political differences with most participants on this site. Why do you continue coming back? Is someone paying you to disrupt this site and spread your political ideologies here? Just curious.

      Well George, since I do not know what you mean by any of those “labels” ( and I don’t think you do either ) I can not help you. ( see DavidH below ) I am glad you claim to be “curious”, and assigning a “label” would be useful for you to convince yourself, that you can continue to ignore, that which have already been ignoring?
      Why not just assign me a “label”, since that is what passes for intellectually reasoned argument here………and if there is an actual DIFFERENCE……..” with the choir ” HERE…….then THAT would be it.

      I know what I am saying: but I’m curious as to what you are HEARING? Unfortunately, your response doesn’t help me determine what that might be…..can you help?
      The second response was from:
      DaveH says:
      May 6, 2012 at 11:41 am
      He’s a Progressive, George. And as such, don’t expect an honest answer to your
      question.And that’s an awful lot of verbiage, Galt, to say almost nothing.

      Well Dave, you ought to have a field day with this……..because there is a lot more “almost nothing” for you to “complain about”…….it is sort of a re-cap of all the other “nothings” in one place………so be sure to stay tuned for Episode Two of: The Chronicles of the Willfully Ignorant…….or for US’s here…..This is YOUR Life………voluntarily chosen by implied consent!

      • cawmun cents

        Actually,Igave explaination thusly(paraphrasing)
        Too much regulation=FUBAR
        Too much defending that regulation=SNAFU
        Anyone with any sense at all,knows that too many regulations bog down anything to which they are applied.
        My friend happened to tell me that he cannot afford to keep up with all the new regulations,one I am certain being the healthcare mandate.
        He is a simple businessman therefore he did not go into his real conditional issues at length.So I had to fill in the blanks for myself.
        Arguing semantics is a fools errand.
        Since you can get information from all most any source anywhere and not know the integrity of the authors,I submit that if you spend endless hours searching for information regarding the regulation of California businesses,you are probably apt to find some.
        However that does not refute my questioning that if someone is no longer contributing tax monies to feed the regulators,then how can they hope to continue to regulate?
        They will still be shooting themselves in the yoo hoo.
        It just doesnt make sense.
        You can argue semantics here until there is little left but hate,but you cant squeeze blood form a turnip,so what is the outcome of regulating someone into obscurity
        It has to be a form of madness.
        it was the reason our nation was formed to begin with.
        I dont need pertinent arguments over this and that to see that as being fact.
        If you do,then more power to you,but I really think you need a vacation.
        I try to speak for the simple man without burdening others with too much pertinent information for which the source can be debated.I am my own source.
        I dont need a rocket scientist to explain what bullscat is to me.
        I can see it a mile away.
        If you are one of those who needs to pick it(the piece of defecation) up,smell it,taste it in order to identify it,then exclaim how glad that you are that you didnt step in it……oh well.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little…..

      • cawmun cents

        I submit that after reading your post,that I am obviously the willfully ignorant of whom you speak,so I will merely say thank you GALT for your insulting attitude,for me,for Dave for everyone who is obviously inferior to your arrogantly superior intelligence.
        You seem to be one who has transcended mere mortal thought,and must be a well learned traveler who considers himself important.
        To you sir,
        I raise a toast!
        Its an olde favorite of mine,though I mean no bad intent in my delivery.
        A man like me knows when he’s whupped…….(wink)

        “May the Devil make a ladder of yer backbone,whilst he picks apples in the garden of hell”-Unknown

      • GALT

        Clearly cawmun cents you do know very little and you INSIST on knowing even less, and talking about it a GREAT DEAL………and SHARING IT on a DAILY BASIS. ( to excuse the fact that you will do NOTHING. ) You see, you can NOT get blood from a turnip, but you can get juice… while you do make the point, that if you stop feeding the regulator’s, they would starve…… have just failed to recognize, that what you have just read, is the means by which this can be accomplished………I know your plan is Ron Paul in 2012,
        End the FED, and the block of the ole chip Rands ( after this one fails ) End the TSA…..
        but these men have taken an oath to the Constitution, that has been just described…and they had a choice, to tell the TRUTH and free you, or either deceive you to get elected or more likely are equally oblivious, to all of this, which is not very promising.

        If you wish to deprive government of revenue then 26 CFR 31.3402 (p) is the most effective and legal means to do so, available to both employer and employee’s. After that
        using UCC to 1-207 restore the Constitution in it’s entirety to you, especially with regard to
        “lawful money” and Article One, section ten……because now that you are subject to
        common law and equity jurisdiction……you can not possible pay any fee’s, fines, duties or imposts, or taxes, direct or indirect, because the means to do so are not available, and you can not be compelled to violate “the supreme law of the land” by anyone.

        Of course I understand that this message, that you gave up your constitutional rights in ignorance and have voluntarily subjected yourself to “admiralty and maritime” is hard to deal with ( you should not feel too bad, it was fraudulently induced ) but since this rests
        on your “implied consent”……..and you have a means to remove that consent, why you are so resistant to this simple and direct remedy? You will not be taken out and shot at dawn, nor will you be interred…….you will be free……and then you can teach other’s, and pretty soon you will have your Constitution back, although I’m not sure what you will do with it…….because there will still be US and THEM…….?

      • Buster the Anatolian

        ” and talking about it a GREAT DEAL”

        You have the ba!ls to be critical of cawman for talking a great deal after your two very lenghty posts that are, as usual, a bunch of giberish strung together so it appears as a coherent thought.

      • cawmun cents

        I am thinking that you havent been around for long enough to remember my rants about implied consent.So I’ll just keep on keeping on.
        Maybe somweday you’ll come to realize that it is easier to share with others when you dont hold what you know to be more than it is.

      • GALT

        I suppose it is POSSIBLE, that some day you will wake up and realize that you have spent a significant amount of time coming to this place, to confirm that which you already KNOW to be TRUE…… spite of the fact that there is little to no evidence to support what you KNOW, and ( if you were interested in looking ) a great deal of evidence that is available that would CHALLENGE what you believe to be TRUE.

        You are incited each day, by phrases and slogans designed to do just that and you are blind to the fact that it contains nothing of value and offers no viable solution, since it had no understanding of the actual “problem” in the first place……and then, you gleefully add to this orchestra of noise and become threatened by anything that would seem to suggest

        Where are the ( common ) law and equity courts?

        Now who would have thought that such a simple question would be considered a threat
        to such “constitutional scholars” and patriots as those gathered here, and being led by a
        Representative, a Judge, and a Senator, who like you, seemed to have missed it……?

      • cawmun cents

        Look here GALT,Mike,whatever your name is….
        I have been incited since my teenage angst years and I come on this post to rant about it.
        You can put all of your insights along with your troubles in your ol’ kit bag…..and fly.
        I am one of those folks who doesnt need a preponderence of evidence to tell what bullscat is.
        I just read your posts.
        I dont and wont see the progressive life as being pertinent to my survival.
        To me it mirrors the Bolshevik revolution a bit too much.
        Maybe you dont see things that way,maybe right up until you and me are shot for voicing our opine,you will be lacking evidence to the contrary.
        You see evidence in what you see,I see evidence in what I dont see.
        Its the age old struggle to be free of the burden of responsiblity.You attribute the wreckage of our nation to capitalism.
        I attribute it to the attempted control of capitalism,by socialists who dont have a clue what free trade consists of,basically because they are too busy trying to steal a piece of pie for themselves.
        You have your evidence,I have mine.
        You choose to publish your evidence to back your claims,I dont feel that is necessary in my view.Not because I cannot produce the evidence in some form or another,but because you will never know that the fact,because you insist on providing evidence,and considering if you were to look things objectively,you could not avoid seeing what I see.
        You base your contentions on what you can discover as truth,but you cannot discover what remains hidden by searching for it in a place where it should be found.
        You have to see beyond statistics and polls.
        You offer proof of information that you can find.
        But what of that which you lack?
        To find the forrest you have counted the trees.
        I saw a forrest from day one.
        Who is right and who is wrong?
        Hard tellin’ not knowin’,right?
        Here is what I can tell you.

  • Sirian

    Hopefully this bill, as others, will make it through. Although it is quite apparent that as long as Reid is in power in the Senate we might as well forget it. He’s notorious to table bills that he doesn’t like.

  • LAB

    The whole pile of dummycrats ought to be tossed out like the trash it is! Paul/Paul 2012

    • eddie47d

      Lab doesn’t have a very good batting average and I would say it stinks. Blame the Democrats Blame the Democrats!! Squawk Squawk!! Who signed the Homeland Security Act? Who signed the Patriot Act? Who brought you TSA? Hmmm! Do we have to explain that to you again? The Republicans brought you the Police State and you can’t seem to get a grip on that. Now it was for your “own good” and you swallowed all the pious patriotic baloney without reading the detailed. Their slogan was we will save you by taking away your rights now sit back and enjoy the presents that they dropped into your lap. Now if you want to stick to cute name calling then how about those trashy Republirats who birthed that bundle of joy called TSA. Now I wish Rand Paul good luck in taking on the overreach of the TSA although it isn’t going to disappear. The world has forever changed and even the Democrats will keep that agency going. Shame on them too for not fighting against the pat downs and grouping.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Who signed the Homeland Security Act? Who signed the Patriot Act? Who brought you TSA? Hmmm!”

        Yeah Hmmmmm. While they may have originated under Bush The Democrats could have stopped the bills at any time because the Republicans did not have the kind of majority to prevent it. Obama has done absolutely NOTHING to repeal them and has in fact signed renewals of them. Obama had two years of absolute control that he could have used to repeal or modify them and did NOTHING.

      • Thinking About

        Buster, the actual vote was AYES 206-R, 88-D, 1-I, NAYS 10-R, 120-D, 2-I in the House in November 2002. You can try to rewrite history but records are kept on this. The fact is you do not have to travel on airlines bt in purchasing a ticket you consent to the rules. Ran Paul did not display the temperament to hold office with his actions.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Thinking About The actual vote has nothing to do with it. As I stated the Republicans did not have a large enough majority to prevent the democrats from stalling or filibustering the bills. The democrats who could have easily stopped the bills from passing did NOTHING to stop them. Also as I said obama, when he has total control of both houses, did NOTHING to get the bills repealed.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Democrats-Republicans: same thing! Throw them ALL out!!!

      • Kenneth Black

        I believe that America would be much better off, if a number of the people running for relection and some that are running for a new Office, that if they ALL WOULD MEET there WATERLOO. American NEED’s some new Blood in there, not the same old Garage, NEW People that will work for America’s good and not volting so they will get a Kickback. KICK them OUT, Two terms in Office and there out, but some of the people are on the dumb side and keep volting them back in, cut the Fat and NOT the Muscie ( the working people ) Wake up people.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        And do you know who will replace the ones we throw out? Can you guarantee that the newly elected ones will follow the Consitution and control their urges for power grab or the urge to feather their own nests?
        Can you be certain that the voters will not repeat the laziness and greed that elected the old crowd in the first place?

  • Pete0097

    Since the TSA employees are government employees, they can’t be fired, they will just move into another department. No net reduction of outgo for the American taxpayer.

    • w.Morgan

      federal government employees have been fired before. Departments have been closed before. The employees are called displaced employees. If there’s an opening somewhere else they can apply and get priority because of their displacement, but there’s no guarantee of a job. They still have to apply and be found qualified. If the federal government is reduced in size, then there’s less jobs for them to apply for. I’d like to see a lot of agencies closed. People can find jobs. Sometimes you have to move and even look at a new career field. I’m a former Marine and former federal employee. I found a job with a private company because the federal jobs were in locations I didn’t want to move to. A job is a job. I’m also anti-union. I believe in the constitution and no person or organization has the right to tell me I have to pay them to get a job. I’ll stop with that though. lol The thing is, government agencies can be closed. The TSA agents that do the groping should be in trouble, but it’s the people above them that should be fired right along with them. Management sets the rules. Follow the trail up hill.

  • DavidL

    Once he eliminates the TSA, what is Rand’s answer to airline security? Anyone have an idea?

    • Ladyhawke

      If you would actually read the whole, very short article, you would see that he would privatize airport security.

      • DavidL

        So privatizing the harassment and loss of liberty is okay? Who pays the private company to secure airline flights, the individual passenger or the government?

      • bsg

        The airport pays, just like they used to before our fear brought us the TSA

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Who pays the private company to secure airline flights, the individual passenger or the government?”

        The people who use the service (air travel) are the ones who should bear the full cost of security for their convience of flight. Those who do not fly for whatever reason should not have to subsidise the questionable security of those who do.

    • eddie47d

      In other words nothing may change Ladyhawke except the cost of a ticket which would go through the roof to pay for private security. The good thing would be it would be easier to fire some private “cop” who steals or misbehaves..

      • DavidL

        I agree with you, eddie47d. I am also more confident that a public agency will be more responsive and accountable to public scrutiny and supervision than a private corporation.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “except the cost of a ticket which would go through the roof to pay for private security. ”

        Then the airlines would be paying for the security. That means the people who actualy use the airlines would pay for the security instead of all us who do not fly for whatever reason.

      • TML

        Good answer Buster

        DavidL says, “I am also more confident that a public agency will be more responsive and accountable to public scrutiny and supervision than a private corporation.”

        I don’t see how that would be the case. Private security would be more accountable for violations to be prosecuted than the federal agency, and responsiveness would be greater to protect their investment… which is not only their cusomers, but also their airplanes.

    • duane

      Do what the Israelis have been doing for years with 100% success. Profiling. It works for them so why wouldn’t it work for us. Oh silly me profiling is sooo Unamerican.

      • Ell

        You suggest something that requires intelligence and an actual willingness to attempt to solve a problem. With government involvement, that will never happen.

  • mcauthor

    I recently went thru a TSA check at Hartsfield Jackson, the young female officer warned me if I did not go thru the xray she would do a thorough at down including my “privates”. She said it twice, as far as I am concerned I was threatened with sexual assault. She obviously emjoyed bullying this old white woman, and how many old white women have threatened air safety? When will they do threat profiling? I am often pulled out for “special” treatment, I think I fill their quote of “not Arab looking” shakedowns.

  • FreedomFighter

    TSA is the private army of Obama, end it now, like a cancer it will grow.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Deerinwater

      All government grows! It’s much like the church, always attempting to encroach and offer dominion requiring selective pruning

  • Deerinwater

    “The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that exercises authority over the security of the traveling public in the United States.[1]
    The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representatives[2] and Ernest Hollings in the Senate,[3] passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally part of the United States Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security on March 25, 2003.”

    I’m for moving it back to the dept of transportation and the position held prior to 2003.

    Home Land Security need to be slowly disassembled. It just too much power for one office.

  • RichE

    How do you get a terrorist not to be a terrorist? Otherwise TSA is here to stay.

  • sabulaman

    The roadblock checks will be next, and then the knock on the door. Come up with a better solution. Privatisation is a good start.

    • RichE

      That’s disheartening; you’ve succumbed to the fear and not confronted the threat.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        No RichE blindly accepting the governments word that TSA and DHS are necessary and are the only thing that prevents hijackings or other security problems is succuming to the fear.

        • RichE

          Your statement about roadblocks and acceptance of Privatisation says you’ve succumbed otherwise why make them?

      • independant thinker

        RichE, Buster has the right idea not you. Blindly accepting the governments actions through TSA, DHS, and any other alaphabet agency whether aiport security, security at bus stations, security at Amtrak stations or even roadblocks as THE solution to any security concerns is sucumbing to fear. Anticipating the freedom reducing actions of a government growing ever larger and more intrusive and fighting them is a part of being responsible for your own security.

        • RichE

          “…and fighting them…” Why are you frightened?

      • TML

        Rich E. says, “…and fighting them…” Why are you frightened?

        It isn’t fear; it’s a knowledge of history, and applying reason and logic.

        “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson

        • RichE

          Sounds like you’re hiding in a book.

      • TML

        I don’t see how reading books would be considered hiding. You should try it sometime.

        • RichE

          Life is not in a book.

      • TML

        True, but those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, and unless you can live forever, books are the only way we know of the past.

        The idea is that people (including you) let their fear drive their reason to support federal government ‘taking care of them’ or ‘provide them with safety’, regardless of natural rights. In defense, you try to reverse it to say that we succumb to fear of government to reason a removal safety… but this doesn’t constitute fear in the same way terrorism makes you fear… it’s just not being stupid, and not being fearful of what we are told to be afraid of.

        “The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear s if they belong to one category” – Adolf Hitler

        “Terrorism is the best political weapon, fore nothing drives people harder than the fear of sudden death. What luck for the rulers that men do not think” – Adolf Hitler

        I believe the Nazi’s didn’t like books much either. I wonder why.

        • RichE

          How many history books do you need to read?

      • TML

        Are you going to engage, or continue with the ‘book’ Red Herring?

        • RichE

          The idiom, ‘Red Herring’ comes from training hounds.

      • Opal the Gem

        TML, RichE is either Flushy in disguize or he has studied Flushy’s methods.

      • TML

        LoL… are you new here?

      • TML

        Red herring is a debate fallacy that means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

        FYI… read more.

      • Deerinwater

        “Life is not in a book”

        actually ~ it is. And some are much better then others.

      • Deerinwater

        ” Red herring is a debate fallacy that means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.”

        More of a “strategy” really,an attempt to be befuddle with fodder pontificating some sense of relevance. For it to work, the seller is expecting you to take the quantum leap and share his bias. The all powerful “Glenn Beck ” mind meld! Like Fritz Von Eric’s ‘Iron Claw”, resistance is futile! you will be assimilated, follow me now.

        It’s that ~ or there is a sense of relevance that has yet to be developed. The seller would claim your short sighted vision restricts your view, that you are found lacking in some way. That you should deffer and surrender to the brighter mind.

        Bobbing for french frys is fun! Do it , do it now!

      • TML

        “It’s that ~ or there is a sense of relevance that has yet to be developed. The seller would claim your short sighted vision restricts your view, that you are found lacking in some way. That you should deffer and surrender to the brighter mind.”

        Which is why I attempted to address his bait while staying on point.

        PS what on earth do you mean by bobbing for french fries? lol

        • Deerinwater

          Totally absurd nonsensical act,= “Bobbing for French Frys”

      • Deerinwater

        Just my own response to his bait and going as far off course as possible with a ‘command”

      • TML

        Understood, hah ;)

      • RichE

        TML, Sorry I lost the thread link
        Re: Red Herring/book. The extrapolation to book is that you’re hiding in history books and not confronting your fears (the subject of the thread) or confronting life, and that would be real life Deerinwater.

  • chuckb

    are you seriously considering doing away with the tsa? there’s no way i would get near a passenger plane. the sky would rain down bombed out planes, do you think for a minute the goat herders wouldn’t have a field day. not me, i’ll drive.

    • dcjdavis

      In the rain?

    • TML

      LoL… fire and brimestone would rain from the sky eh? If security was privatived maybe the pilots would carry a firarm in the cockpit for the next time someone tries to highjack a plane with a box cutter.

      You post is a prime example of sacrificing liberty for flase sense of security.

  • chuckb

    what good would the armed pilot do if a raghead blows the plane up, do you think he will ask the pilot first? but, that’s all right we will have our liberty, right?

    • TML

      Why should we believe that privatizing airport security would be less effective? Are we to assume that the airline is less concerned about the safety of their customers and investments (airplanes)? I seriously doubt it takes federal agent molestation, taking naked images, etc to catch someone trying to carry a bomb onto an aircraft. There have always been luggage scanners, and metal detectors. Bombs always require some kind of metal… and you will notice that private security didn’t allow them to board with a gun, but instead only box cutters, and I think I gave a remedy to that one. All you offer is irrational fear mongering as your defense. Can you logically engage or no?

    • Opal the Gem

      “what good would the armed pilot do if a raghead blows the plane up, do you think he will ask the pilot first? but, that’s all right we will have our liberty, right?”

      Explosive sniffing dogs. If you fly you get sniffed. Refuse to be sniffed, you do not fly. No exceptions for ANYONE. Everyone who has contact with the plane gets sniffed crew, maintaince, passengers, VIP passengers, politicians, etc.

  • chuckb

    we are dealing with muslims that have no fear of death, they are probing our defense constantly looking for a weakness. they are trying to find someway to slip explosives past our screeners.
    i don’t really care if it’s government or private just so we have a thorough screening of boarding passengers. i would prefer private over government just so the airlines themselves are watched so their security doesn’t go slack, sometimes companies cut corners to save a penny.
    if we profiled these animals would be a start.

    • Deerinwater

      I could agree with you and feel good about it but my thoughts also weigh the fact that I don’t know that many.

  • TML

    “…i would prefer private over government…”

    I concur

    • Deerinwater

      I don’t trust either one of them! There’s not that much difference really. Government is made up of people, good people and not so good people.

      Some people can’t even trust their own families.

      Trust only when there is no other way around it or make it a point to not matter,I do that a lot.

      Sometimes you must trust but keep it down to a few.

      • TML

        True, but anytime you get on an aircraft, you inherently trust the competence of the pilot, the engineers, manufacturers, maintenance, and indeed… security personnel. All I can say to that is, you have choice or airlines, or to stick to the ground. The alternative is allowing that all individuals can carry a firearm (wouldn’t that stifle a terrorist trying to take over an aircraft? lol)… but the detrimental effects of a firefight at 30,00 ft is self refuting to the same principle on the ground, in Texas (lol). Armed pilots behind bullet proof doors, and security privatized security measures as mentioned (even bomb sniffing dogs – good pint Opal) should be sufficient. If your still afraid, for Christs sake, drive, or go by sea, lol. But in respect to who I would trust more… government or private security… I prefer private.

        Ultimately chuckb’s stance went from, “are you seriously considering doing away with the tsa?”… to… “…i would prefer private over government…”, and so I rest my case.

      • TML

        Oh.. wanted to throw in the statistic that flying is safer than driving too… lol…

        Aight, I’m out. Good night all


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.