0 votes

Trevor Lyman: Did Rand Paul just argue for a TSA citizen database?

"When speaking about potential alternative solutions to TSA “strip searching” and 4th amendment violations for the very young and old Rand Paul suggests a frequent flyer government database as a means of helping along the screening process. No way Rand Paul!"


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No, I didn't hear it but I'm sure he meant what Ron talks about

Ron has said the airlines should handle it, and that while he'd never want the GOVERNMENT to demand info, the airline might get voluntary info in return for expedited processing for example, for frequent flyers they might get background info and clear them quasi permanently so they don't have to be recleared each time. Different airlines might handle it differently. But that is one way he mentioned might work for some airlines. Hannity specifically asked if he meant he was ok with profile information, and he said 'not if the GOVERNMENT does it....' The idea was that people would have different options of airlines.

So, I'm assuming that is what Rand meant, although I did not see it.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

I'm afraid it's 1994 all over again.

Once you get there, you become part of the problem. Trying to solve problems that should not even exist in the first place.
All they become is re-enforcers to the original ideas that are unconstitutional. They become tweekers. What's a little tweeking amoung friends?
The big gains have already been won. The socialist laugh with glee.

i would think 84% of americans like what the TSA does

They feel "safer". The 16% show up in the polls supporting Ron Paul. Maybe I exaggerated but it is probably 80%. For Rand to make a dent at all he might be looking for less intrusive options. Otherwise it might take another 30 years to change public sentiment.

I talk to them all the time

They don't mind being groped at airports, they feel safer. They don't mind their emails being read as they have nothing to hide. They don't mind being stopped at checkpoints as they have their papers. They don't mind swat teams breaking down doors and terrorizing people because it couldn't happen to them. Land of the free, home of the brave. WHAT A JOKE!

Jim Rogers

I don't know ANYONE who likes the TSA. People go to satellite

airports to avoid as much of their process as possible. I never go through LAX if I can fly through Burbank, for example.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul


I would wager that the 'pressure' in the Senate is a bit more intense than in the House imo.


Rand, though he should know better,

is like his Tea Party brothers and sisters, in that he distrusts the government about almost everything...EXCEPT terrorism. He gives the impression that we have always been told the truth about terrorism- that's probably why he wants lists like this, and why he wants Gitmo to stay open.

Funny how, just when it comes to war issues and torture, which are the most drastic actions a government can take, the Tea Partiers all the sudden start TRUSTING the government, and rooting for them against their victims.

?? WTF ??

I don't believe this. That little girl from Bowling Green being

pawed drew a VERY heated speech on the Senate floor from him agianst TSA and for personal privacy.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

How about all the productive,

How about all the productive, educated working people grab their passports and leave the US to starve and rot?

I have to admit...

I am not a big fan of Rand Paul. I have a feeling that he's more along the establishment line than what Ron is talking about and I am worried that establishment republicans will capitalize on this and put Rand up for president in 2016 (if we don't win) or 2020 counting on our vote.

So far I haven't found a single thing that he said that didn't sound like a typical political speech - say it in a way that can be interpreted whichever way you wish. There's also some "vibe" missing - like the feeling of integrity and honesty that his old man shows at all times - something that I respect about him very much. I don't get that from Rand at all.

Yeah, he's been ok talking about EPA, Dept. of Education, etc, things we agree on, but so do most of neocons. When it comes to foreign policy or civil liberties he seems much more convoluted and seems to answer more along the lines of a typical politician.

I hope I m wrong and would appreciate it if someone can prove that I am.

I think Rand knows exactly whats going on

and wants the same goals as his father. He is trying his best to not completely alienate the neocons and still push liberty forward. Tough job. Rand is not as pure in his philosophy as his dad. How much of it is real, and how much is just to promote the cause in his own way is up to guess. Got to be careful, though, cause when you first start to "dance with the devil" it gets rough to find another partner.

Jim Rogers

I would agree that he isn't

I would agree that he isn't as confrontational towards the mainstream of the party (maybe he's trying to work inside-out rather than outside-in like Ron does) as his dad is, but he has voted against the Patriot Act and the Libya War, so I don't think you can call him a typical neocon.

Patriot act

To my understanding his only issue with patriot act was something about gun checks, the part largely opposed by NRA as well. Don't get me wrong - I am NRA life member myself and obviously pro-self-defense-rights so I think that's good. But my point is that his opposition to the act was mainly because of this piece, something that most of gun rights advocates oppose (many of which are not necessarily on-board with the whole liberty thing)

I really truly hope that I am wrong but so far he hasn't been very impressive to me at all. He has pretty much pulled to the opposite side of everything that elder Paul is talking about. From property rights in that mosque discussion, over foreign policy (he's much more wishy-washy on it, goes more along the lines of "we need to cut military spending like $200 wrenches and such", but not as much about gallivanting around the world and causing trouble), and now to T.S.A it seems. Also he's MUCH less timid about FDA, DEA and other alphabet agencies designed to control choices.

"Et tu, Brutus" ? Hope not...

Rand had to negotiate down to two amendments and kept

the gun one strategically, in part I expect because it kept the gun lobby active in the fight -- except that the NRA said they were fine without it and sold him out. He was against the whole thing. This is disingenuous. Rand still has stuff to prove, sure, but he has proven himself on this issue, and it is one of my hot point issues.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

I think he's against it in

I think he's against it in general. He hits on all the main points on his campaign site and I know I've seen him speak out on more than the gun issue.

As for the mosque, I know he said he thought they should build it elsewhere, but I don't think he ever said the government had a right to stop them. That would seem very hypocritical of him, after his stand on the civil rights act. That's kind of my position on the issue as well. They should have built it elsewhere in my opinion (whatever came of that btw? I lost track of that whole story) but the government had/has no right to stop them. I hope that's Rand's position as well.

Rand is not as good as Ron and is not as confrontational towards the establishment, but I do think his heart is in the right place. Maybe I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt cause he's Ron's son, but I think he's trying to infiltrate the establishment and change it from within, rather than Ron's outside in approach. We'll see.

I also did not like this TSA

I also did not like this TSA comment, Trevor..and he caved on the debt ceiling, did he not?

I don't think he did. I'm

I don't think he did. I'm 100% sure he voted against Boehner's bill and the eventual compromise. He might have voted for another bill that raised the debt ceiling, but I know that he was explicit in that he was not going to vote for any proposal that didn't actually cut spending and balance withing 5-10 years. So he might not have been as hardline as Ron is, but I think his heart's in the right place.

i don't get how people's brain works

take the occasional second guessing of ron paul that still comes up once in a while.. ron paul has been consistent for 30 years and never takes pensions or special interest money but OH, all of a sudden, because he puts earmark requests from his district into the bills then votes against it, all of a sudden he might be lying again.. it's always like this on again and off again.. you have decades of consistencies and no traces of dishonesty, but every time something pops up it somehow interrupts the whole train of logic and it becomes a very special instance and everyone sticks his tiny brain into it and drawing kindergarten pictures in their head linking this isolated event to those people who take special interest money.. and oh ya, same with the alleged fuking mason 'hand sign' and how ron paul got his fed audit partially passed.. all fuking conspiracies

exactly the same thing they pull against rand.. rand is also a strict constitutionalist and there is no trace of any dishonesty.. in fact he has helped his dad for decades.. but no, every time something come up, people put a glass box around it and say 'oh look, this must be something special'.. it is NOT, people.. get a fuking life..

these frequent flier lists...

will (of course) create a two-tiered system. One for corporate/government types and one for the rest of us.

Rand also shocked me back a week or so ago, when he suggested that he (like many other Republicans) would support/ promote mandatory drug testing for the unemployed. That doesn't sound very cost-effective


I dont like what I'm hearing lately from the Senator.

Visit https://soundcloud.com/politics-of-freedom for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of

Rand never said that this

Rand never said that this database should be mandated or maintained by the government, and in the past, he has spoken in favor of airlines having more responsibility for security. Also, these databases would be voluntary, as someone pointed out below. On the drug testing, I think his point is that someone shouldn't get welfare benefits if they're gonna use that money to buy drugs.


Does that include corporations and other countries?


drug testing without probable cause is a violation of the 4th amendment. Receiving welfare is not probable cause...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

People get upset thinking that their tax money is supporting

drug use (as is often, in fact, the case). I don't see what is wrong with setting this condition, as long as it is accompanied with the decriminalization of drug use for the rest of us.

Leges sine moribus vanae

What about...

eating junk food, not exercising, unnecessary entertainment, birthday presents, alcohol, etc. etc.

Don't want my money going for those either. Maybe put them in prison to make sure they aren't wasteful or lazy in any way with our money?

The government spends my tax money on all kinds of things I don't agree with, but it doesn't make me want to take away people's fundamental rights and dignity...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

A person loses his dignity

when he goes to The State for a handout.
BTW - What 'fundamental rights'?
The right to pick your pocket and spend the money on drugs?

Leges sine moribus vanae

The fundamental right...

described in the 4th amendment. This is going in circles... :)

The Constitution doesn't say you are free from search and seizure unless you accept welfare...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Welfare is unconstitutional

Welfare is unconstitutional in the first place ... I don't think people have much of a right to complain about unconstitutional drug tests as a condition of accepting unconstitutional benefits

One violation...

of the Constitution is not a valid justification for another one. Especially one that expands the government's powers to snoop around your private life.

Also, drug testing will push many users past marijuana, which stays in your system for a very long time, to harder drugs like cocaine/crack and meth which become undetectable in just a day or two. Unintended consequences...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I see it differently

This is a complex issue, but I've concluded that since people aren't being forced to partake of government programs, they're voluntarily subjecting themselves to the concomitant stipulations, so it's not a violation of rights--or the 4th amendment.

I view it similar to the way I view public property. It's unfortunate that it exists, but when it does, the most logical way of determining how it is regulated ( or sold, preferably) is through a democratic vote. Does this mean the minority who would have used the property differently are having their rights violated? I don't think that is the case.


You should not give in to evils, but proceed ever more boldly against them. ;)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~