21 votes

He's On a Losing Streak

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113717.html

Posted by Becky Akers on June 16, 2012 05:45 AM

Wow. Rather than “abolishing” the TSA, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was promising to do just a few weeks ago, he’s now seeking to “privatize” it – not only a bait-and-switch but exactly the non-solution for which Rep[rehensible] John Mica (R-Fl) is crusading. One of the two bills Rand’s introduced “would require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies to handle the work.” Whether it’s Mica’s or Rand’s proposal, both leave the Feds in charge of bungling security at airports. Yes, the deviants pawing you at checkpoints will receive their paychecks – which your taxes will continue to finance – from “private” companies, but the TSA (or, per Rand’s bill, its über-bureaucracy, the DHS) will dictate every move they make, from groping you to stealing your mouthwash.

Some airports already sexually assault passengers under this “private-public partnership” (when foreign governments practice this arrangement, we call it “fascism”). San Francisco’s is one of them. If you’ve ever flown through there, you can testify that from the passenger’s standpoint, there’s absolutely no difference whether Uncle Sam or a “private” company taking detailed orders from Uncle Sam employs the deviant with his hands down your pants.

No wonder the second bill Rand’s offering would “establish a passenger bill of rights.” Um, Rand? We already have a Bill of Rights; it's appended to the US Constitution, which never, ever even remotely allows the Feds to interfere with our travels in any way, let alone gate-rape us at airports. Indeed, its Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits “unreasonable search” – and believe me, the TSA’s searches are as unreasonable as they get. No other regime anywhere at any time, no matter how brutal or totalitarian, has sexually molested its citizenry as a condition of travel.

Rand, no offense, but I’ll take that Bill of Rights over yours any day. Geez, guy, get with the program.

Comment viewing options

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

Recyled Neocon idea if I understand this

So government will just "require" private companies to have urine tests instead of directly violating the Bill of Rights themselves.

This is a recycled Neocon idea first introduced in the 80s, and sounds like soemthing Gingrich would support, or Bush Sr.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

THIS is why Rand- and his

THIS is why Rand- and his endorsement of Romney- is dangerous. Many assume the actions he is undertaking are on behalf of liberty; but the reality is that they are softening the edges of Ron Paul's razor, which had finally begun to cut through all the BS.

Rand is adding layers of superficiality that Ron has fought decades to strip away from the political process.

I spoke too soon

That "passenger bill of rights" is the stupidest thing I have ever read. I was trying to defend him from what I felt was over-reacting, but this bill of rights thing is unacceptable. This is not the compromise I thought it was.

Repost of the link that instantly changed my mind.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=549

I Assumed It Was Good When I First Heard About It

I saw a link on Rand's Facebook that said he was introducing a bill to abolish the TSA a couple days ago. I was thinking that's awesome, it will never pass, but it's still awesome. Then I see Becky Ackers talking about it today and I was just floored. Why say you are introducing a bill to abolish the Fed on Facebook when you are doing nothing of the sort? It pissed me off because his wording was so misleading. I didn't even think to check up on it because I assumed he wasn't feeding a bunch of garbage. I just don't get it.

Fascism Defined:

“would require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies to handle the work.”

I guess he's working on a sequel to his dad's book of a similar title.

There are only two ways this can be taken.

Either Rand Paul is too dumb to see that this is just as bad as leaving the TSA as it is or he is simply playing more politics and trying to get us to believe that he's still fighting for the liberty movement. And I don't think Rand Paul is a dumb person.

More Neo-Con politics from Runt Paul... I'm shocked... (sarcasm)

I feel more betrayed by him every day. All politics and gamesmanship.

I want my $100 donation back from 2010

"A living Constitution is a dead one" -Ron Paul

Good Bye Bill of Rights

Here is why privatization is WORSE than obvious government control...

When there are cries of government overspending or abuse, the government prefers privatization over losing control. Privatization is the act of the government giving monopoly rights to an otherwise non-government entity. It sounds like a free market solution to the public, thereby eliminating objections from the public.

What they don't tell you is that "private" businesses are not bound to the Bill of Rights. Even so, the government gets to make the rules that are used to manipulate their new puppet. Usually, there is no competition among the privatized puppets.

This explanation is paraphrased from a book that I wrote on the subject.

By the way, I read the comment on this thread that no one has proof yet that Rand's Bill privatizes the TSA, but I wrote the information on privatization here for information purposes.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Have you learned nothing about competition?

Trust me, there will be competition to be the better security firm. This will result in the customers dictating who and how the screening firm is considered as "Acceptable". The complaint department will at least listen and lose the contract if they do not make efforts to be respectful. Right now the cattle have no right to complain at all, because there is no complaint department. You can't hit the TSA in the pockets for abuse, A private firm you can. Also this will put financial pressure on the airlines and the customers, The end result will be a reduction in screening altogether. One step at a time folks.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

This will result in the

This will result in the customers dictating who and how the screening firm is considered as "Acceptable".

No they won't. Some corrupt 'revolving door' bureaucrat at the DHS will decide who gets the contract.

If the TSA were abolished, and the airlines either provided their own security, or contracted it out completely independent of the government, then we'd have the competition we need.

gold = money
war = health of the state
liberty = prosperity

I stand corrected

I did not read it through. I did indeed think it was "privatized" as in the airlines providing their own security. Thank you for the correction and I agree.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

There is nothing wrong with privatization

The problem is when politicians call public/private partnerships privatization. If people understood that what they call privatization is more accurately described as fascism we wouldn't have these problems.

psst, don't ya know?

the new Frank Luntzian euphemism for "privatization" is "individualization."

lol

I so wish those corporatist FAKE "free marketeers" from the neoCon Chicago School of Econ, had NOT dominated this argument for so long, giving "privatization" a bad name.

literally, it's like almost over half of our political activism time is wasted by us the paleocons/Constitutionalists/libertarians/minarchists/anarcho-capitalist voluntaryists to fighting off over a century of propagandized, definition bastardizations by the econ imbecilic fascist authoritarians on both Left and Right.

but hey, it is what it is; that's all public indoctrination centers have gotten us: a sheeple populace clueless of the very words they speak.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I agree

It's tiresome having to spend time explaining the actual definition for a word some politician is abusing. It's like how almost all liberals think they are against free markets but what they call free markets would be better described as corporatism, crony capitalism, or fascism.

Text of bill has not been released

This whole article is premised on ONE sentence from Politico describing the bill.

Can everyone wait until the text of the bill is released before analyzing it?

FYI, the bill is S. 3303.

sure it's the political TMZ aka POLITICO online rag,

but unlike their usual stuff, it not some political gossip.

so on the nature of the bill, it's probably more than likely what it states.

but of course, it can be, in the usual tradition of Politico, be riddled with crap.

so as you say, the actual text isn't even out yet, and technically we are jumping to conclusion based on one line, in Politico, no less.

So, we shall track it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3303
Actual text, as it becomes available: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3303/text

When the final text is out, as you proffer, we can more factually discuss this matter, by then.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Me?

with Becky.

TSA AND DHS BOTH need to be eliminated, and the Bill of Rights ensured.

This whole incrementalist self-rationalizing sociopathy must end, when it comes to tyranny.

We do not, at least especially if you're a r3VOL, one should NEVER tolerate a new layer of govt tyranny if you can help it; obviously if you're born after 1913, you had no choice in the matter. but to propose a new legislation not calling of an end, but essentially legitimizing the DHS into a corporatist outfit in which it can approve which private airport security can do what, or not, is statist rhetorical BULLSH*T.

There can be no compromise with Natural Rights, PERIOD.

Rand or no Rand, accepting 'this is better than nothing' is accepting everything.

As the much more wiser Paul the Elder would say "If you accept a little bit of something, you accept 100% of the principle."

I've learned that lesson, long ago. And Doctor Paul succinctly put it into an everlasting poignantly short phrase that I can actually use to explain to those who many not see it that way.

THAT, is the difference: Dr. Paul is ever the educator.

If anything, the "traveler's Bill of Rights" should merely be a reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights to state, that the "Bill of Rights do NOT stop at the airport or any mode or place of transportation accommodation in America, period. Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution are fully active 24/7 in any and ALL places in America. Period. Any Federal or State official who actively seek to curb ANY part of the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the Constitution are committing a violation of their oath, punishable by 30yrs minimum, in a Federal supermax penitentiary."

LOL

You know had Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul crafted that bill, that's exactly, okay so more accurately, probably more than likely what it would say, (perhaps without the 30yrs part) and be less than a page, as are most of his bills: succinct and to the point, and UTTERLY Constitutional.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

The 99 other criminals in Senate will not abolish TSA. Sorry.

Rand was not able to even convince the other Senators to vote against indefinite detention and the murder of American citizens. Do you really think they they are going to just abolish the TSA? The 99 tyrants never vote to decrease the police state.

Has any Senator successfully convinced the Senate to dismantle an entire department?

I want the TSA to be destroyed as badly as anyone, but let's be realistic here. We need more Senators who aren't tyrants. Right now Rand is the only one who isn't. He is only 1% of the Senate.

What do you want from Rand? If he fights the other 99 head on he loses. If he compromises he STILL LOSES. What do you want from him? We need other liberty Senators. He can't do it alone.

I just don't want him doing

I just don't want him doing things that are counter productive. Introducing a bill that pushes for a public/private partnership is fascism not privatization. When any politician, including Rand Paul, does something like this we need to point it out. There are too many people in this country that are against privatization simply because republicans call fascist policies privatization. What is the point of compromising on this. We get nothing out of it. Nothing changes for the better and privatization gets an even worse name. I don't need people getting groped and fondled at the airport and then blaming that on privatization.

You can fight without ever winning,

but never win without a fight.

You can technically win by joining the enemy, I guess, but it kind of defeats the point.

Many people here want symbolism

They want another Ron Paul who will be the lone voice of sanity but never win a major legislation victory. I want this to, but Rand clearly does not want to be a symbol but a player.

I'll take what I can get. I'll take a compromise that weakens government power but doesn't completely dismantle it. I don't think Rand is in the wrong here.

That not what we are getting here

We are getting a fascistic policy that not only doesn't reduce government power but it give privatization a bad name.

Please cite the bill language

which you dislike.

Oops, it's not out yet,is it?

Nice hate thread anyway, though.

I'm not making this up

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=549

Rand Paul is the one who brought this up, not me. He is the one talking about "privatizing" the TSA. The two bills are S3302 and S3303.

I missed the "fascist" part

Where was that?

I saw "private screeners" mentioned.
I didn't see anything else which has been assumed by posters here.
Plus, EVERYTHING in the bill is an improvement over the way it is now.

Would you prefer he make it worse?

Will you be running for Senate this cycle, so you can show Rand how it should be done?

It is worse...

for the Govt to be able to blame third parties for unpleasant public reactions while at the same time skimming $$$ of the system.

Mussolini, the "father of fascism", said that fascism is the merging of Govt with society's corporate bodies (churches[faith-based programs], unions, corporations). A "fasce" is a bundle of sticks.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

This is what Ron Paul said last July:

What we need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the ‘guidance’ of the federal government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/ron-paul-called...

gold = money
war = health of the state
liberty = prosperity

A Public/Private Partnership is Fascism

Unless you think Rand is proposing a bill that eliminates the TSA and all government participation from airport security then it is a public/private partnership, aka fascism, and calling it privatization is misleading at best.

Also, it doesn't make things better. Unless you believe a fascist TSA is better than a socialist TSA. What this bill does is further confuse the term privatization. I don't want people going to the airport and getting felt up and radiated and blaming privatization for it. This is the exact type of bill Dr. Ron Paul opposes. I'll quote him again saying as much in July of last year.

"What we need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the ‘guidance’ of the federal government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers."

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...

I Don't Get This

BigT, you said on June 4,

"The TSA and Homeland Security must be disbanded and abolished.

These agencies are not consistent with a free country. They are Police State agencies."

Now suddenly you are ok with it being a public/private partnership? I'm sick and tired of getting groped when I want to go on a flight. I want both of those agencies abolished, the same as you. I don't want some fascist policy to be introduced disguised as a free market solution. Not only do we still get groped but it makes the free market look bad because people are going to think this plan actually represents the free market.

Rand's TSA Encounter was orchestrated

This makes me believe that Rand's TSA encounter of a few months ago was a orchestrated event and that Rand knowingly participated in it. It was a setup (for us). This is why it got MSM coverage. The MSM would have been silent if they weren't part of a scheme to launch Rand's career as a neocon in libertarian clothing.

Crisis - Reaction - Solution

Rand assaulted by TSA - "Outrage! This has got to stop!" - New deceptive bill that really changes nothing

Simply to submit bills that have a libertarian tone to them doesn't mean that he wants or believes they will be passed. He does it to maintain his fake image with his followers as his father's constitutionally-minded replacement. All this while he suckles up to Israeli special interest, neo-con insiders and puppets for the Banking Cartel like Romney.

I don't believe this.

Now you are accusing Rand of orchestrating the TSA incident in order to pass an even worse bill?

Come on. This is one of the most ridiculous paranoid conspiracy theories I've heard yet.

News Flash: Rand is not a "neocon in libertarian clothing." He isn't pretending to be a libertarian! He openly endorsed Romney. He isn't lying to us. He is not doing it secretly. Did I miss something here?