# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  ALERT: Rand Paul is being DETAINED at the Nashville Airport by the TSA

## tyleranastasi



----------


## jtbraine

jkgkg

----------


## RockEnds

I just saw that and was coming to post.  What in the world is going on?

----------


## Schiff_FTW

Well this should be interesting...

----------


## LisaNY

a joke/hoax/hack?

----------


## MRoCkEd

Ron has an update too:

Ron Paul
My son Rand is currently being detained by the TSA at the Nashville Airport. I'll share more details as the situation unfolds.
http://www.facebook.com/ronpaul/posts/10150536046641686

----------


## Cowlesy

My guess is he decided to get the search, and whoever is coordinating the social media might be overreacting just a tad.  Could be totally wrong, but that's my hunch.

----------


## RockEnds

> a joke/hoax/hack?


Not unless someone hacked their facebook.  It's Dr Paul's status right now.

----------


## swissaustrian

Sad for Rand, great for the campaign. This should be used politically far and wide.

----------


## Cinderella

Maybe they found the Constitution on him...

----------


## tsetsefly

Well he is a threat to the state... His limited government ideals pose a greater danger than al-queda...

----------


## isthisonetakenalso

Metallic ink on his pocket constitution...

----------


## pauliticalfan

Wow.

----------


## swissaustrian

Congress is in session, so *shouldn't he have immunity from prosecution?*

----------


## isthisonetakenalso

Ya, and hopefully they'll read it.

----------


## LisaNY

Maybe Rand went off and they're holding him.  I guess it doesn't matter if you're a sitting US Senator, my god what has  happened to this country.

----------


## Cody1

> Congress is in session, so *shouldn't he have immunity from prosecution?*





That's what I was thinking...I hope he's okay.

Also, given Rand's personality. Think he's trying to pull something?

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


Subversive literature and a threat to the State? 

Hope they don't NDAA him.

----------


## Fredom101

> Maybe Rand went off and they're holding him.  I guess it doesn't matter if you're a sitting US Senator, my god what has  happened to this country.


It shouldn't matter. Most "sitting US Senators" are complete corrupt criminals.

----------


## SonofThunder

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


This

----------


## Diurdi

I guess they tried to touch his junk and he told them to go $#@! themselves.

----------


## steph3n

> It shouldn't matter. Most "sitting US Senators" are complete corrupt criminals.


Actually it should matter because the TSA is NOT a LAW ENFORCEMENT organization and has ZERO power to detain, when they detain someone it is a violation of rights.

----------


## tbone717

Drudged

----------


## Fredom101

> Actually it should matter because the TSA is NOT a LAW ENFORCEMENT organization and has ZERO power to detain, when they detain someone it is a violation of rights.


True but let's not pretend Senator is some high-respecting profession today.

----------


## EndTheECB

Modern USA reminds me a bit of Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR). TSA should change name to Stasi so there may be no confusions.

----------


## shrugged0106

any chance this is a prank report?  Like Anon. or others would do?

----------


## angelatc

> 


So, does Rand always refer to himself in the third person plural?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

"My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming."

RP twitters says he refused full body pat down after TSA scanner ANOMALY ?

----------


## Cowlesy

Yeah it sounds like he refused a full body pat-down.

----------


## V3n

Campaign for Liberty:
Breaking News: We've just received word that Senator Rand Paul is currently being detained by the TSA at the Nashville airport for refusing full their invasive body pat down after their scanner had a problem. Stay tuned for updates.

----------


## Diurdi

> Actually it should matter because the TSA is NOT a LAW ENFORCEMENT organization and has ZERO power to detain, when they detain someone it is a violation of rights.


 Umm, not exactly correct.

Private corporation guards can detain civilians until the real law enforcement arrives if something happens on the property they guard.

Even a civilian can detain another civilian if caught in the act of a felony, right?

----------


## Cody1

> So, does Rand always refer to himself in the third person plural?


Maybe a friend/family has access to his fb also? Idk, it is weird.

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## Cowlesy

> Maybe a friend/family has access to his fb also? Idk, it is weird.


I imagine Moira runs his FB page (communications director).

----------


## aowen

People of Nashville, MOBILIZE! Head to the airport!! Save our freedom fighter!

----------


## Gary4Liberty

The terrorists are winning. They have taken away our freedoms and rights. The establishment is letting them win.   Imagine 911 happening and then afterwards the airports are staffed with taliban who are doing these searches and seizures. They basically won. They use our own people to do their work.

----------


## shrugged0106

Time to make the most out of this!   Sound the Revolution horns!

----------


## jasonxe

From Ron Paul's Twitter Account: "My son Rand Paul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming."

----------


## Tyler_Durden

This could turn into good press in the revolution against oppressive government.......

----------


## swissaustrian

> Time to make the most out of this!   Sound the Revolution horns!


this:

I just posted the following in the campaign suggestion box (see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...al-opportunity ) :
If the story on Rand's and Ron's facebook pages is true (Rand beeing detained by the TSA at Nashville airport), this could be a *HUGE political opportunity*:
1. The *TSA is totally unpopular and Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate opposing it*.
2. The fact that they detain an US Senator during a congress session where he should have *immunity from prosecution*, *shows how totally out of control the TSA and the whole police state for that matter are*.

I suggest that the campaign reiterates *RP's solution* that
a) the *airlines take care of the security of their passengers* and...
b) *pilotes are granted the right to bear arms in the cockpit*. This could also highlight Ron Paul's 2nd amendment credentials.

----------


## steph3n

> Umm, not exactly correct.
> 
> Private corporation guards can detain civilians until the real law enforcement arrives if something happens on the property they guard.
> 
> Even a civilian can detain another civilian if caught in the act of a felony, right?


Refusing  patdown is not a felony! And private citizens can be sued for unlawfully detaining, so can private guards.

----------


## SonofThunder

> So, does Rand always refer to himself in the third person plural?


 Seeing as he is detained, it was probably one of his staffers that made the post. They don't exactly let you use your facebook app on your smart phone while they're giving you the full body cavity search.

----------


## aowen

For crying out loud! It sounds like they sent him through the naked/radiation machine. But that wasn't enough. They want to touch his penis.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> I imagine Moira runs his FB page (communications director).


Yeah

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/re...-in-nashville/

----------


## UtahApocalypse

This could win Ron Paul the nomination

----------


## steph3n

> 


This is a stupid photo, they can't grope me at the airport.

----------


## JK/SEA

''aha!..we finally got him''..--Joe Lieberman







>s<

----------


## iamse7en

> 


They've been able to take our money, our privacy, our dignity, etc... They will get our internet too. It just will take more time. Little by little, in the name of security, protection, or what have you, they will take it as well.

----------


## RockEnds

This is going to get interesting.

----------


## european

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


if it wasnt so serious I would be laughing my ass off right now, but I ain´t... still +rep for foreseeing what will happen in a few years time

----------


## shrugged0106

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/re...-in-nashville/

----------


## Bodhi

If he his being detained, I'm guessing it is not him posting on Facebook but someone from his campaign.

----------


## culvereric

Free Rand Paul!!!!

----------


## Matthew5

Refusing the pat down even though he knew the end results...he just gained some +rep in my book.

----------


## blazeKing

So it's either the xray blast or the gropedown , what a government.


Go get em Rand

----------


## GrahamUK

This is just madness!! America, whats going on ? 

Maybe their just as scared as the MSM and Washington warhawks ... I mean if his Dad becomes pres then i imagine most of those mercenaries will be out of a job

----------


## nbruno322

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


Sad but true lol

----------


## european

first release at google news: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/re...-in-nashville/

----------


## pauliticalfan

Sitting US senator detained by the government? Why isn't this bigger news?

----------


## thoughtomator

on twitter: "What was the anomaly found on the scanner? A backbone?"

----------


## moostraks

> This is going to get interesting.


yep...If true, then Rand just moved up a few rungs in my view of him.

----------


## Muwahid

EVERYONE DRUDGE THIS STORY

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/23/re...-in-nashville/

^

----------


## centure7

> on twitter: "What was the anomaly found on the scanner? A backbone?"


Has anyone called the TSA to confirm???

----------


## Diurdi

> Refusing  patdown is not a felony! And private citizens can be sued for unlawfully detaining, so can private guards.


 Sure, I'm not saying what the TSA is doing right, just correcting the person I quoted.

Afaik the most TSA could do if you refuse to get checked is to escort your off the airport premises.

----------


## SonofThunder

> They've been able to take our money, our privacy, our dignity, etc... They will get our internet too. It just will take more time. Little by little, in the name of security, protection, or what have you, they will take it as well.


"Protecting our Children from Pornographers Online" or some such nonsense is the next one up.

----------


## EndTheECB

DRUDGE, DRUDGE, DRUDGE!

----------


## Bodhi

Can't wait to hear the whole story.

----------


## Bodhi

> Sitting US senator detained by the government? Why isn't this bigger news?


Well, it has just happened or in the process of happening.  I think this will be big news.

----------


## BAMAJD

I wonder if Ron will use this in the debate, or if he'll miss the debate if this goes on too long.

----------


## steph3n

> Sure, I'm not saying what the TSA is doing right, just correcting the person I quoted.
> 
> Afaik the most TSA could do if you refuse to get checked is to escort your off the airport premises.


It is incorrect, the people are allowing the TSA to detain without legal authority.

They also will not let you leave once the process is started, and that is unlawful detainment.

there are people that have requested a LEO to escort them out, and then gotten a bill from the TSA

----------


## unknown

> 


I was waiting for this.  I guess we should be happy that America stood up for something.

----------


## bronc_fan23

CNN picked this up 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ed-at-airport/

----------


## moostraks

> on twitter: "What was the anomaly found on the scanner? A backbone?"


lol!

----------


## Krugerrand

I suspect Rand missed the memo that Obama *sits on the pinnacle of American government and is without peer.*

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ntry-%E2%80%9D

----------


## speciallyblend

> I wonder if Ron will use this in the debate, or if he'll miss the debate if this goes on too long.


rand not ron

----------


## MsDoodahs

You know what makes me so sad?  I bet half the rank and file GOP are HOPING they use NDAA and vanish Rand.

Goddamn shame what this country has come to.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

they will say this is a publicity stunt

----------


## PeacePlan

Its on Drudge now

----------


## SonofThunder

> "Protecting our Children from Pornographers Online" or some such nonsense is the next one up.


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/show

----------


## speciallyblend

> CNN picked this up 
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ed-at-airport/


any real news? not cnn,fox or msnbc. They are not news.

----------


## scbissler

just mentioned on msnbc

----------


## skytoucher

Just heard a blurb about it on MSNBC, they will be talking about it after the break.

Also ABC news link:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-in-nashville/

----------


## speciallyblend

> just mentioned on msnbc


keep eating the crumbs ,maybe they will throw you another f msnbc,fox and cnn.

----------


## european

> on twitter: "What was the anomaly found on the scanner? A backbone?"

----------


## r3volutionpaul91

> This could win Ron Paul the nomination


how?

----------


## Muwahid

drudge picked it up, not the headline though unfort

----------


## DEGuy

Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

----------


## ZanZibar

Art I Sec 6: Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.

----------


## unknown

> ''aha!..we finally got him''..--Joe Lieberman
> >s<


lol

----------


## Matthew Zak

If this is a PR stunt, this is very quick thinking by team freedom.

I can imagine Rand tucking something metal in an orifice some place to cause an "anomaly" that would put him in position to refuse a grope. 

He's been watching a little Adam vs. The Man, hasn't he? :P

----------


## RonPaulRules

I drudged it.

----------


## Bruno

Crazy no updates yets!  Still detained, or free and not providing an update?

----------


## unknown

> on twitter: "What was the anomaly found on the scanner? A backbone?"


lol

----------


## zHorns

This is trending on Twitter.

Use the hash tag #FreeRandPaul

----------


## BAMAJD

> rand not ron


I know.

----------


## Matthew Zak

> Art I Sec 6: Section 6.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.


Eh, "breach of peace"... think of all the ways that phrase can be perverted.

----------


## unknown

> DRUDGE, DRUDGE, DRUDGE!


Good one but how do we drudge an image?

----------


## blazeKing

It's red linked on Drudge

----------


## Gary4Liberty

you all talk about how its illegal and unconstitutional and all but of all the people illegally detained and searched by TSA has even one of them ever won any kind of lawsuit?

----------


## unknown

> CNN picked this up 
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ed-at-airport/


Only on the blog?

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Art I Sec 6: Section 6.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.


 heads are going to roll. Expect Ron and Rand to submit a bill about TSA soon

----------


## Bruno

> Art I Sec 6: Section 6.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.


Unfortunately, TSA believes they are above the law, so that section does not apply.

----------


## Justinfrom1776

A sitting U.S. Senator detained by the TSA and all CNN can talk about is Tracy Morgan, Half-sunken cruise ship, Joe Paterno and Steven Tyler.. The media is on a mission to make us all stupid.

----------


## eduardo89

> Congress is in session, so *shouldn't he have immunity from prosecution?*


No.




> Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.

----------


## brandon

Wow. Good for Rand. That's awesome. I hope he doesn't get preferential treatment for being a senator and he has to fight this just like us mundanes would have to, except of course his fight would be national news and expose these professional molesters.

----------


## donnay

Is today the day Rand was suppose to filibuster PIPA Legislation?

----------


## unknown

On right now:

http://www.rentadrone.tv/msnbc-live-rockinroosters/

Wow, theyre defending the TSA...

----------


## Bruno

Msnbc covered this just now.  I only caught the end, but he is still being detained.

----------


## eduardo89

> Modern USA reminds me a bit of Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR). TSA should change name to Stasi so there may be no confusions.


Stasi at least was effective. TSA is a joke.

----------


## steph3n

> you all talk about how its illegal and unconstitutional and all but of all the people illegally detained and searched by TSA has even one of them ever won any kind of lawsuit?


Yes they have, a man in Arizona at the sunport

----------


## mport1

My respect for Rand just went up a ton.

----------


## bronc_fan23

> Is today the day Rand was suppose to filibuster PIPA Legislation?


No that bill hasn't even made it out of committee and I believe it was shelved.

----------


## EndTheECB

> Good one but how do we drudge an image?


I meant the news...

----------


## donnay

> No that bill hasn't even made it out of committee and I believe it was shelved.


Thank you, I did not know.  I thought that may be why they are detaining him.

----------


## Cinderella

Msnbc basically condemning him for not allowing the full body pat down saying that everyone else gets touched and patted down therefore he should be no exception...

----------


## bronc_fan23

ChadPergram Chad Pergram
My colleague Mike Levine reports that a law enforcement official says that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was not detained, despite contrary claims.

ChadPergram Chad Pergram
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) indicates that TSA "detained" his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in Nashville. Law enforcement says it is not true.

----------


## skytoucher

edit

----------


## LisaNY

> On right now:
> 
> http://www.rentadrone.tv/msnbc-live-rockinroosters/
> 
> Wow, theyre defending the TSA...


of course they are, because their man is president.

----------


## Muwahid

I hope rons pissed about this and talks about it tonight

----------


## MsDoodahs

> It's red linked on Drudge


why no siren mattdrudge?  why no siren?

----------


## Bruno

> Msnbc basically condemning him for not allowing the full body pat down saying that everyone else gets touched and patted down therefore he should be no exception...


Yes, we should use absolutely no common sense on who may or may not be a terrorist.  Grandmothers, people in wheelchairs, little kids, U.S. Senators, all line up for your probing.

----------


## unknown

> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> My colleague Mike Levine reports that a law enforcement official says that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was not detained, despite contrary claims.
> 
> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) indicates that TSA "detained" his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in Nashville. Law enforcement says it is not true.


Hmmmm....

----------


## The Gold Standard

> you all talk about how its illegal and unconstitutional and all but of all the people illegally detained and searched by TSA has even one of them ever won any kind of lawsuit?


Does it make it less unconstitutional or illegal if they didn't?

----------


## LisaNY

> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> My colleague Mike Levine reports that a law enforcement official says that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was not detained, despite contrary claims.
> 
> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) indicates that TSA "detained" his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in Nashville. Law enforcement says it is not true.


don't believe the liars at Fox

----------


## 69360

What the hell is going on in our country? A sitting US senator is detained without charge by the government while the president declares himself the soveriegn ruler above reproach in the GA court case. 

I'm both scared and ashamed.

----------


## kill the banks

updated reported anomaly scanned

----------


## Johnnybags

It was found Rand had balls of steel causing an anomaly in the sensors!

----------


## brandon

please upvote on reddit

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...submitted=true

----------


## eduardo89

> Art I Sec 6: Section 6.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.





> Unfortunately, TSA believes they are above the law, so that section does not apply.





> heads are going to roll. Expect Ron and Rand to submit a bill about TSA soon


As I already posted, this immunity ONLY refers to actions on the House/Senate floor and it includes the right to attend all votes in the House/Senate, even if the member of Congress is incarcerated. It is not an immunity from prosecution or detention outside the House/Senate. The courts have ruled on this already.

----------


## Lucille

Becky Aker's prayer for the Pauls:  




> Almighty God, protect this valiant family as they defend Your celestial gift of freedom. May this newest assault from a gang of rapists, pedophiles, and thieves be the cut that slices the TSA's own throat. Lord God, please, abolish the TSA. I ask this in Christ's name, amen.


AMEN!

----------


## Austin

> As I already posted, this immunity ONLY refers to actions on the House/Senate floor and it includes the right to attend all votes in the House/Senate, even if the member of Congress is incarcerated. It is not an immunity from prosecution or detention outside the House/Senate.


Furthermore, detainment != arrest.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

We need to shame the KDP on facebook, twitter and phone lines 502-695-4828

https://twitter.com/#!/kydems/status/161474887167385600

This is some hackish $#@!.

----------


## Bruno

> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> My colleague Mike Levine reports that a law enforcement official says that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was not detained, despite contrary claims.
> 
> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) indicates that TSA "detained" his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in Nashville. Law enforcement says it is not true.


Someone was just on Msnbc and stated that he is still being detained.

----------


## phill4paul

> This is a stupid photo, they can't grope me at the airport.


  Ummm...sarcasm? Basically showing how everyone can take the time to contact their congresscritters over SOPA but not find the outrage over TSA.

----------


## dcjones

Is congress in session right now?

----------


## CaseyJones

that was no anomaly ... Paul balls are made of steel

----------


## donnay

> You can't filibuster if you aren't there...


Yes, that is why I thought TSA was detaining him.

----------


## Cinderella

> Yes, we should use absolutely no common sense on who may or may not be a terrorist.  Grandmothers, people in wheelchairs, little kids, U.S. Senators, all line up for your probing.


I haven't flown since prior to 9/11...honestly I'm scared to be put in a position where myself and my daughters, 6 and 8, will be groped...makes me sick

----------


## No Free Beer

what a *BEAST!!!!!!*

----------


## purepaloma

Thanks for the Press TSA.

----------


## IndianaPolitico

Threw this together quickly, let's spread the word!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Indian...type=1&theater

----------


## JimInNY

> As I already posted, this immunity ONLY refers to actions on the House/Senate floor and it includes the right to attend all votes in the House/Senate, even if the member of Congress is incarcerated. It is not an immunity from prosecution or detention outside the House/Senate.


Did you miss this part?




> and in going to and returning from the same

----------


## ghengis86

> Yes, that is why I thought TSA was detaining him.


Debt increase filibuster? Right?

----------


## RonPaulGangsta



----------


## bpitas

Hmmm... Any chance this is a well-timed publicity stunt to help old folks in Florida see how screwed up the US is right now?
If it is, that's pure genius - I just hope they have everything on video tape because you KNOW the TSA is going to say this never happened and he was never "detained"...
The best possible impact would be if the mainstream media says it's not true, and then someone has it on hidden camera that it did in fact happen - it would call attention to the TSA *and* expose the media spin at the same time!

----------


## eduardo89

> I haven't flown since prior to 9/11...honestly I'm scared to be put in a position where myself and my daughters, 6 and 8, will be groped...makes me sick


Over the summer I flew and they tried to grope my daughter who was 6 months old at the time. It was in Mexico though

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> Yes, we should use absolutely no common sense on who may or may not be a terrorist.  Grandmothers, people in wheelchairs, little kids, U.S. Senators, all line up for your probing.


yes everyone except middle eastern men from age 14 to 35. They may not be searched because it is racial profiling. We dont racial profile because it is a violation of civil liberties and once we start down that road we cant go back. adjust your sarcasm meter as needed

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> My colleague Mike Levine reports that a law enforcement official says that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was not detained, despite contrary claims.
> 
> ChadPergram Chad Pergram
> Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) indicates that TSA "detained" his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in Nashville. Law enforcement says it is not true.


Ya know, I'm thinking Ron probably knows if his son is in TSA custody or not if his son TOLD HIM!

----------


## dcjones

CNN headline:  TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3

How is detaining "turning away"???

----------


## shrugged0106

> Hmmm... Any chance this is a well-timed publicity stunt to help old folks in Florida see how screwed up the US is right now?
> If it is, that's pure genius - I just hope they have everything on video tape because you KNOW the TSA is going to say this never happened and he was never "detained"...
> The best possible impact would be if the mainstream media says it's not true, and then someone has it on hidden camera that it did in fact happen - it would call attention to the TSA *and* expose the media spin at the same time!


There is a chance of that.

----------


## brandon

> CNN headline:  TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> How is detaining "turning away"???


wow. $#@! them.

----------


## Gary4Liberty

> that was no anomaly ... Paul balls are made of steel


priceless. I love it. I wish Jay Leno would make that joke tonight. and the one about them finding a backbone. That was great too.

----------


## unknown

> Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution:
> 
> "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."


"privileged from Arrest"

Makes you wonder, is this why they use the language "detain", "detainees" etc.?

----------


## Dr.3D

If this is true, there is going to be some bleeding behinds at the TSA.   You don't detain a senator when he is going to or from his work.

----------


## fuzzybekool

Why are people in this forum calling it a publicity stunt ?  lol

----------


## zHorns

> We need to shame the KDP on facebook, twitter and phone lines 502-695-4828
> 
> https://twitter.com/#!/kydems/status/161474887167385600
> 
> This is some hackish $#@!.


I replied to them, I live in Louisville and that $#@! is uncalled for.

Rand has done so much for the people of the Commonwealth...

----------


## ZanZibar

> The media is on a mission to make us all stupid.


Of course... they are the 5th branch of the government

----------


## ghengis86

> wow. $#@! them.


Yep. Setting the narrative first. He wasn't detained. He was politely told to leave. Nothing to see here mundane. Move along.

----------


## fuzzybekool

TSA confirmation of detainment - http://www.wsmv.com/story/16578487/k...etained-at-bna

----------


## Bruno

> CNN headline:  TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> How is detaining "turning away"???


I try to avoid the word sheeple, but there are defintely some stupid sheep posting in the comment section. 



Str8Dope
 If the rules stink - then how about you do your job and change them? Until then, follow the rules like the rest of us. 


0 minutes ago | Like | Report abuse





harryman2th
 Hey Rand Paul, it's a big sh** sandwich and we all have to take a bite. 


0 minutes ago | Like | Report abuse





s50
 First, I hope he re-thinks the Gestapo antics of the TSA.  But thank God they did not accord him special privlidges. 


0 minutes ago | Like | Report abuse

----------


## brushfire

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


http://securityedition.com/






> The Bill of Rights  Security Edition Card is The First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, *printed on each side of a sturdy, playing-card-sized, pieces of metal*. The cards have been redesigned with slightly rounded corners to make a card easier to carry in a wallet or pocket. The next time you travel, its possible that the person confiscating your mouthwash may not be familiar with the Bill of Rights.
> 
> *The controversial Fourth Amendment, which makes much of law enforcement so difficult, is highlighted in red.*

----------


## eduardo89

> Art I Sec 6: Section 6.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.


Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It *only* applies to actions *during their attendance at the session of their respective House*. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is *not* immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.




> Members of the United States Congress enjoy a similar parliamentary privilege as members of the British Parliament; that is, they cannot be prosecuted for anything they say on the floor of the House or Senate. They also enjoy the right to be present in Congress: that is, they may be in prison or jail the rest of the time, but they have the right to attend Congressional sessions, speak on the floor, vote, etc. These rights are specified in the Constitution and have been fairly uncontroversial in U.S. history. Courts have consistently interpreted them very narrowly.





> Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides,* but not to activity outside the legislative process.*

----------


## V3n

> CNN headline:  TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> How is detaining "turning away"???


He was 'turned away' from getting on his flight.

----------


## Bruno

Msnbc is going to cover it more this hour, saying conflicting stories.

----------


## unknown

> Why are people in this forum calling it a publicity stunt ?  lol


Its speculation but come on people.  This was not pre-planned.

----------


## sailingaway

OK, I can hardly wait. I expect this to be good.

----------


## donnay

> Debt increase filibuster? Right?


Just looked up what is happening in the Senate today:

January 23, 2012:

The Senate will convene at 2:00 p.m.  Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning business until 4:00 p.m.  Following morning business, the Senate will consider the nomination of John M. Gerrard, of Nebraska, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nebraska. As a reminder, cloture was filed on the Reid motion to proceed to S. 968, a bill to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property.

http://levin.senate.gov/

----------


## ZanZibar

> It was found Rand had balls of steel causing an anomaly in the sensors!


Thread winner!

----------


## ZanZibar

> Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It *only* applies to actions *during their attendance at the session of their respective House*. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is *not* immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.


Really? Looks to me like he is on his way to DC to do official business!

----------


## Lishy

edit: Deleted my own post now that the event has been concluded.

----------


## dfalken

> My respect for Rand just went up a ton.


This ^

----------


## Dr.3D

I thought members of congress were exempt from going through the TSA checks.  Guess not.   You never know when a member of congress will suddenly become a terrorist.

----------


## eduardo89

> Really? Looks to me like he is on his way to DC to do official business!


He was not detained/arrested for anything that had to do with official business. Read the court rulings, the immunity is very narrow and would not apply here.

His detainment had *nothing* to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.

----------


## JasonI

> I thought members of congress were exempt from going through the TSA checks.  Guess not.   You never know when a member of congress will suddenly become a terrorist.


From watching what most of them do I think you could label them "terrorists".

----------


## unknown

Imagine if they did this to Ron...

Can you say revolution?

----------


## sailingaway

> Sad for Rand, great for the campaign. This should be used politically far and wide.


Nah, if Rand refused he knew exactly what he was doing.  Which does not make it a publicity stunt (exactly) but drawing attention to an issue.  Civil disobedience to the extent of insisting on his rights.   But he's his father's son, he knows what it could mean, to do this.  He is trying to get Americans to not accept this sort of thing.

Although, maybe Rand does feel a bit left out of things....

----------


## Tyler_Durden

If we never see/hear from him again, NDAA is working like a well-oiled machine.....jussayin

----------


## AdamT

> CNN headline:  TSA turns away Sen. Rand Paul
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> How is detaining "turning away"???


That's called spin right there.

----------


## slamhead

> "My son @SenRandPaul being detained by TSA for refusing full body pat-down after anomaly in body scanner in Nashville. More details coming."
> 
> RP twitters says he refused full body pat down after TSA scanner ANOMALY ?


He must have inherited his father's balls of steel.

----------


## Tyler_Durden

> Nah, if Rand refused he knew exactly what he was doing.  Which does not make it a publicity stunt (exactly) but drawing attention to an issue.  Civil disobedience to the extent of insisting on his rights.   But he's his father's son, he knows what it could mean, to do this.  He is trying to get Americans to not accept this sort of thing.
> 
> Although, maybe Rand does feel a bit left out of things....


It's almost inspiring to do the same on a mass scale. That would be awesome!

----------


## donnay

> I thought members of congress were exempt from going through the TSA checks.  Guess not.   You never know when a member of congress will suddenly become a terrorist.


It's selectively enforced.  Just like so many other things in this country!!

----------


## LisaNY

perhaps he was turned away after being detained.

----------


## speciallyblend

don't worry fox,cnn and msnbc will tell the truth/ sarcasm

----------


## unknown

> perhaps he was turned away after being detained.


Was my thought as well.  Still, this is juicy.

----------


## sailingaway

> If this is a PR stunt, this is very quick thinking by team freedom.
> 
> I can imagine Rand tucking something metal in an orifice some place to cause an "anomaly" that would put him in position to refuse a grope. 
> 
> He's been watching a little Adam vs. The Man, hasn't he? :P


Oh please.  Metal in an oriface?  They said he wanted to go back through the scanner. It was likely a belt buckle or something, but then when they insisted he kinda went 'Oh, no you didn't!'

And once again, I do love the Constitution.

----------


## kill the banks

he wanted to  re enter the scanner after a "glitch" ... they refused and demanded body search ... drudge

----------


## LinuxJedi

Good for Rand... this is why I no longer live in the USA... and have to be very selective about the countries I fly through.  Let's use this to get some coverage for Ron.

I have contacted wewontfly.com, let's spread this far and wide as "wake up America" information.

----------


## sailingaway

> don't worry fox,cnn and msnbc will tell the truth/ sarcasm


We'll have to wait until it is confirmed by CSPAN or PBS, but I'll take even the muckraking tabloids like CNN at this point.

----------


## tangowhiskeykilo

> I thought members of congress were exempt from going through the TSA checks.  Guess not.   Y*ou never know when a member of congress will suddenly become a terrorist.  *


Isn't most of congress full of terrorist (a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.)
Terrorism- the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

----------


## lakefx

ABC News:

hxxp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rand-paul-in-pat-down-standoff-with-tsa-in-nashville/




> Sen. Rand Paul told his communications director this morning he was being detained by TSA at the Nashville airport.
> 
> The Twitter account associated with Paul staffer Moira Bagley, @moirabagley, tweeted around 10 a.m., ET, Just got a call from @senrandpaul. Hes currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.
> 
> A TSA spokesman said the agency was looking into the matter but could not immediately comment.
> 
> Paul apparently set off  an airport security full-body scanner on a glitch, a spokesman in Pauls office told ABC News.
> 
> The Paul staffer said TSA agents would not let Paul walk back through the body scanner and were demanding a full body pat-down.
> ...


Seems to be the most complete info so far...

----------


## Dr.3D

> Isn't most of congress full of terrorist (a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.)
> Terrorism- the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.


Well, if you want to put it that way, all of the people in the TSA are also terrorists.

----------


## shrugged0106

saw this on twitter just now...

Rand Paul detained for time, says senator -body scan revealed anomaly ard leg; Paul lifted pant leg 2 show nothng. TSA wantd full bodyscan.

----------


## sailingaway

> Art I Sec 6: Section 6.
> 
> The Senators and Representatives shall  receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and  paid out of the treasury of the United States. _They shall in all cases,  except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from  arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective  Houses, and in going to and returning from the same_; and for any speech  or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other  place.


I just drudged that provision....

----------


## unknown

> Isn't most of congress full of terrorist...


No, most are minions, bought and paid for by the Oligarchy.

----------


## low preference guy

> Nah, if Rand refused he knew exactly what he was doing.  Which does not make it a publicity stunt (exactly) but drawing attention to an issue.  Civil disobedience to the extent of insisting on his rights.   But he's his father's son, he knows what it could mean, to do this.  He is trying to get Americans to not accept this sort of thing.
> 
> Although, maybe Rand does feel a bit left out of things....


Or maybe he simply doesn't like having his balls squeezed.

----------


## EndTheECB

Rand Paul after being detained by the TSA at the Airport:

----------


## sailingaway

> deleted.


I.... don't even know what to say to that....

----------


## steph3n

> Hmmmm....


thy ALWAYS say it is not detaining, but it meets 100% of every definition of the word!

----------


## brushfire

Rand doubters - take note, and get ready to repent.

----------


## sailingaway

> Or maybe he simply doesn't like having his balls squeezed.


I'm completely cheering the guy on.  He had two options of how to take that moment and decided to make a point and stand on his rights, as Bierfieldt did, but with much more media to follow, I'm sure.

----------


## eduardo89

> I just drudged that provision....


Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.

His detainment had *nothing* to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.

----------


## devil21

*I dont know if it's true or not but a liberal friend told me that Paul was on his way to or on his way home from a Pro-life rally?*

Does anybody know why Rand was in Tennessee in the first place?  If it really was for a pro-life rally then Ron has some serious red meat to use in tonite's debate!

----------


## Muwahid

> Or maybe he simply doesn't like having his balls squeezed.


 try getting a jury to believe that!

----------


## ZanZibar

> Does anybody know why Rand was in Tennessee in the first place?


It's the closest major airport to his house.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> *I dont know if it's true or not but a liberal friend told me that Paul was on his way to or on his way home from a Pro-life rally?*
> 
> Does anybody know why Rand was in Tennessee in the first place?  If it really was for a pro-life rally then Ron has some serious red meat to use in tonite's debate!


We live in Bowling Green. No commercial airlines. Nashville is 50 minutes away. Closest airport.

----------


## 69360

Has the TSA ever done anything like this before to a sitting senator? Anyone know?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.
> 
> His detainment had *nothing* to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.


If he was heading back to D.C. to conduct legislative business, how can you say that?

----------


## RonPaulFever

> deleted.


You are human trash.  There's no other way to say it.

----------


## jtbraine

n,ljk

----------


## sailingaway

> Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.
> 
> His detainment had *nothing* to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.


OK, I should have read the whole thread, I still haven't.  I see your point about preventing ongoing bad action BUT the TSA is unconstitutional in my point to begin with so if it actually goes to court I think Rand has the 4th amendment to fall back on.

----------


## RonRules

If it's what we have to go through to get the "Paul" name in the news, then that's what we have to do!

----------


## V3n

He was flying _to_ the Right to Life March in DC, I believe.

----------


## aowen

"People with guns are good to go through... pro freedom senators are where we draw the line" 
-TSA-


By the way I'm not saying law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to take anything they want as long as the airline doesn't mind.

----------


## slamhead

> Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It *only* applies to actions *during their attendance at the session of their respective House*. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is *not* immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.


Of course the supreme court interpreted it a way it was not intended as it reads..."*AND* for any speech or debate in either house". It was the founding father's intention to keep our legislators free from molestation traveling to and from congress except for treason, felony, or breach of peace. Breach of peace is pretty broad though. I wonder how the supreme court interprets that. 

Breach of peace.




> The first two are somewhat self-explanatory; it has been suggested that the third is deliberately somewhat vague. The doctrine thus established is called congressional immunity; it arose out of the necessity to prevent a vengeful executive from arresting members of the legislature under a pretext to prevent them from taking actions that the executive might find to be displeasing. In recent years, this doctrine has been used to prevent members from being stopped and held for speeding on their way to sessions; this apparently is not a "breach of the peace", whereas perhaps another misdemeanor such as "drunk and disorderly" might be construed to be such.
> 
> Most states of the United States and most other English-speaking jurisdictions have extended this privilege to members of their legislatures on the theory outlined above.

----------


## ross11988

> Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.
> 
> His detainment had *nothing* to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.


Exactly. Anyone remember Larry Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C...d_consequences)

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

> I'm completely cheering the guy on.  He had two options of how to take that moment and decided to make a point and stand on his rights, as Bierfieldt did, but with much more media to follow, I'm sure.


You kidding? He would have been a laughingstock if he had submitted. The report would have been about how he fought in the senate but chickened out at the gate.

----------


## eduardo89

> If he was heading back to D.C. to conduct legislative business, how can you say that?


His detainment/arrest had nothing to do with legislative business. The clause has been determined by the courts to apply in only very specific circumstances and it does not apply here, you'd have to stretch it as far as the federal government stretches the interstate commerce clause for it to apply to this.

----------


## unknown

> deleted


WTF?

----------


## european

From Macedonia "TSA Detains US Senator Rand Paul... refuses groping" http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/20164/61/

*The irony in America, former convicts (TSA employees) detaining politicians. *

----------


## devil21

> He was flying _to_ the Right to Life March in DC, I believe.


That's what I was told so that's a second confirmation.  Ron Paul MUST bring this up tonite at the debate!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?

----------


## thoughtomator

There are votes in the Senate today. Rand cannot be legally detained unless one of the Constitutionally enumerated crimes was committed (which they weren't).

----------


## eduardo89

> OK, I should have read the whole thread, I still haven't.  I see your point about preventing ongoing bad action BUT the TSA is unconstitutional in my point to begin with so if it actually goes to court I think Rand has the 4th amendment to fall back on.


4th amendment is no longer part of the US Constitution.

----------


## eduardo89

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


Maybe he asked for the prints to be sent to Kelly?

----------


## thoughtomator

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


He's studly, he don't care about no nekkid pics of him

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

> Once again, that provision does not apply here. Congressmen do not have blanket immunity.
> 
> His detainment had *nothing* to do with official legislative business. The immunity does not apply here. I don't agree with the TSA at all, but if he sued it'd be thrown out right away. The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.


I believe Congressmen have gotten out of things like reckless driving under this excuse. Dunno about DUI, wouldn't surprise me though.

----------


## Lishy

> You are human trash.  There's no other way to say it.


What did I say which was wrong? Everyone says this is a publicity stunt.

What Rand appears to be doing is trying to get attention to how corrupt our system is. If he's doing what I think he's doing, he's testing the NDAA, and that will wake up parents who will vote for Ron Paul because he's the only one opposing this corruption.

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


Either that or let them cup your balls.

Pick your poison. I guess he prefers the scanner option.

----------


## sailingaway

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


Maybe he's proud...

----------


## steph3n

I find it interesting that I have multiple times had the opportunity to walk through the WTMD twice if setting something off, but he did not.

----------


## V3n

> Either that or let them cup your balls.
> 
> Pick your poison. I guess he prefers the scanner option.


At least the TSA Employees don't have a long memory.
With the Scanners they have your picture for life.

----------


## ATXRevolutionary

I'm new to the forums and I've googled and googled and been unable to figure out how to "drudge" a story.    I see http://drudgereport.com/ has a box called "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE".  Is that what you guys mean?

----------


## Muwahid

> What did I say which was wrong? Everyone says this is a publicity stunt.
> 
> What Rand appears to be doing is trying to get attention to how corrupt our system is. If he's doing what I think he's doing, he's testing the NDAA, and that will wake up parents who will vote for Ron Paul because he's the only one opposing this corruption.


If he "disappears" we lose a senator on our side.

----------


## steph3n

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


nothing says that it was the nude o scope. It may have been the simple walk through metal detector (WTMD)

I go through the WTMD and not the NoS or patdown.

----------


## Muwahid

> I'm new to the forums and I've googled and googled and been unable to figure out how to "drudge" a story.    I see http://drudgereport.com/ has a box called "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE".  Is that what you guys mean?


yep post the link, maybe with a short description

----------


## unknown

> I'm new to the forums and I've googled and googled and been unable to figure out how to "drudge" a story.    I see http://drudgereport.com/ has a box called "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE".  Is that what you guys mean?


Yah or you can email him.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Maybe he asked for the prints to be sent to Kelly?


Bah...get boudoir pictures done and tell the Thugs Standing Around to pound salt.

Opt Out!!!!!

----------


## unknown

Drudge is all over this.

----------


## devil21

Fwiw, a couple weeks ago I declined the nudie scanner and was given the pat down.  There was no nut grabbing or anything.  They've definitely changed the protocal to not touch private parts.

----------


## Diggerjr01

imo, provisions in the constitution, like immunity during legislative business, must be seen through the context of extreme situations.

 For example, eduardo89, "It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill."

If we were to be attacked, or an actual insurrection, etc.... if a senator "off duty" was in a bar piss drunk, then it is his duty and right by law to get to the hill to debate/vote/etc without detention, basically no matter what the situation. etc, etc.

The difficulty with laws are that they are enforced by the letter of the law, and not the context or intent of the law.... which is even more reason that if a congressman is heading for session or vote, there must be an extremely high threshold for detaining him.

----------


## Cinderella

Watch for the msm to spin this into: He was NOT detained but instead refused to be patted down therefore they refused to let him on the flight (for safety reasons of course)

----------


## Cowlesy

Is the militia en route yet? 

:P

/sarcasm

----------


## Lishy

> If he "disappears" we lose a senator on our side.


Rand Paul knows very well what he's doing. He wants to expose the NDAA and other security extremism.

----------


## mbburch

Those who have been saying that Rand is a spineless politician, nothing like his dad, etc. owe him an apology. The guy has balls, as I'm sure the TSA agent behind the scanner can confirm. Ron Paul did not raise a phony.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> His detainment/arrest had nothing to do with legislative business. The clause has been determined by the courts to apply in only very specific circumstances and it does not apply here, you'd have to stretch it as far as the federal government stretches the interstate commerce clause for it to apply to this.


So, you are telling me that if a Senator is heading back to D.C. to vote on a bill and another part of the government keeps him from attending and VOTING, it is okey dokey?

----------


## Trigonx

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


maybe that airport doesn't have porno scanners, only the metal detectors.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> His detainment/arrest had nothing to do with legislative business. The clause has been determined by the courts to apply in only very specific circumstances and it does not apply here, you'd have to stretch it as far as the federal government stretches the interstate commerce clause for it to apply to this.


Years ago when Al Gore ran for prez the first time (88, iirc), I read an article about him - maybe rolling stone?  anyways....the interviewer was riding with him in an SUV in DC...the driver was allowed to go through a specific traffic stop and the story pointed out how because Al was on route to do business in the Senate, he couldn't be stopped.

So where is this court determination?  Has to have been since 88.

Unless you can show us that, I think your schtick of "only applies to in very specific circumstances" is wrong.

----------


## hillertexas

> I'm new to the forums and I've googled and googled and been unable to figure out how to "drudge" a story.    I see http://drudgereport.com/ has a box called "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE".  Is that what you guys mean?


Scroll down the page on Drudge until you see a blank white box on the right hand side that has "SEND NEWS TIPS TO DRUDGE" typed above it.  Put your message/link/etc. in the box and hit "Submit".  Rejoice for you have "drudged".    And welcome aboard!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> nothing says that it was the nude o scope. It may have been the simple walk through metal detector (WTMD)
> 
> I go through the WTMD and not the NoS or patdown.


Second post in the thread, Ron says his son was detained after refusing the full body scan.

So maybe it was a MD and then a full body scan afterwards.

Don't know

OPT OUT

----------


## mullenium

> Watch for the msm to spin this into: He was NOT detained but instead refused to be patted down therefore they refused to let him on the flight (for safety reasons of course)


this is exactly what msnbc just said on tv

----------


## Diurdi

The left is going to try and spin this into "Paul thinks he's above the law" or "Paul is elitist Politician who do not think the same rules apply to him"-story

Jesus christ.

----------


## 69360

> Is the militia en route yet? 
> 
> :P
> 
> /sarcasm


We aren't at that level, YET. Given what's been happening in this country, things could surely rise to that level within the not so distant future

----------


## MsDoodahs

> The courts have been very specific about what the clause actually means and it would not apply here. It's like saying he couldn't be pulled over by the cops even if he was driving with a bottle of vodka in one hand and joint in the other if he was on his way to Capitol Hill.


WHERE?  Because that is EXACTLY what it meant back in 1988.  I was young and impressionable and that was the VERY THING that caught my attention from that article about AlGore - as a sitting US Senator, if on route to the Senate to do business, NO cops could detain him.  PERIOD.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Watch for the msm to spin this into: He was NOT detained but instead refused to be patted down therefore they refused to let him on the flight (for safety reasons of course)


Yeah, that's exactly how it is being spun.

----------


## Cinderella

> this is exactly what msnbc just said on tv


They are so disgustingly predictable 

Free Rand Paul!

----------


## moostraks

> WTF is Rand consenting to the porno scanners?


I took it to mean the full metal detector, not the porno scanners. If your version is the case I guess the physical hands on is his limit...

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

Here is the first video released on the topic....

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Maybe he's proud...


okay DAMN YOU SAILING for making me get strangled on my morning coffee!  lol!

----------


## J-Reg

How about a spontaneous "Free Rand Paul" Moneybomb?

----------


## mbburch

> The left is going to try and spin this into "Paul thinks he's above the law" or "Paul is elitist Politician who do not think the same rules apply to him"-story
> 
> Jesus christ.


I would think that most Americans hate the TSA and what they have to go through just to get on a plane. Even Limbaugh was against the porno scanners when they came out.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Here is the first video released on the topic....


This is playing right into his hands.

----------


## tmg19103

The media spin will be this is fake publicity for Ron's campaign and Rand thinks he is above the law for not subjecting himself to the groping.

We know the truth, be we also know the media.

They may well not make it a big story so as to not help Ron's campaign.

----------


## Sarge

I suspect Rand is going to have a lot to say about this once released.

----------


## moostraks

> Here is the first video released on the topic....


 so the porno scanner is okay but groping isn't. Oh well, at least he is opposing groping...

----------


## Trigonx

> The media spin will be this is fake publicity for Ron's campaign and Rand thinks he is above the law for not subjecting himself to the groping.
> 
> We know the truth, be we also know the media.
> 
> They may well not make it a big story so as to not help Ron's campaign.


the story then becomes the TSA.  WTF are they doing detaining a Senator.

----------


## No Free Beer

Here is my professor mocking the TSA:

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

> so the porno scanner is okay but groping isn't. Oh well, at least he is opposing groping...


Well, there is the other option...not flying, which apparently is the one that will take place.

----------


## hillertexas

The story is at the top of Drudge now.

----------


## wstrucke

Drudge has it front and center now, replaced that newt crap.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

----------


## thoughtomator

> Well, there is the other option...not flying, which apparently is the one that will take place.


That's exactly the option that I and millions of others have chosen in protest of these unconstitutional measures.

----------


## Muwahid



----------


## Anti Federalist

> so the porno scanner is okay but groping isn't. Oh well, at least he is opposing groping...


This is upside down IMO.

A physical pat down is less intrusive than a full body biometric "fingerprint" uploaded into the database.

Not to mention the radiation health concerns.

OPT OUT

----------


## BamaFanNKy



----------


## kill the banks

damn we're dangerous .. ps think dudge just updated

----------


## captain

REALLY?  I mean what is with TSA? Who do they think they are?  This is a US Senator not just 'Joe blow'---TSA needs to get a grip.  To not allow Rand to fly and detain him really pisses me off.  They know Rand talked against them publicly.  They are just being NASTY UGLY VINDICTIVE people.  

Ron Paul HAS to win the Presidential race!!!

----------


## floridasun1983

I don't see this as anything other than an American citizen saying "no" to government intrusion on his privacy.  I guess you can spin it however you want but my take is Rand didn't want to be fondled by a bunch of high school drop outs.  I agree with him.

----------


## Cody1

> The story is at the top of Drudge now.


Kind of a bad ass picture I think!

----------


## liveandletlive

this is all very interesting, funny, sad and disturbing at the same time!! can't wait to hear the TSA spin on this

----------


## tremendoustie

> This is upside down IMO.
> 
> A physical pat down is less intrusive than a full body biometric "fingerprint" uploaded into the database.
> 
> Not to mention the radiation health concerns.
> 
> OPT OUT


Yep, that's what I do. My main motivation is to protest their violation of people's privacy rights, at taxpayer expense.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Well, there is the other option...not flying, which apparently is the one that will take place.


Of course, your statement per-supposes that the TSA won't start their shenanigans on the trains and highways - which of course they have already been doing or plan on doing.

----------


## Cody1

lol Rand's got all the ladies interviewing him.

----------


## wstrucke

> This is upside down IMO.
> 
> A physical pat down is less intrusive than a full body biometric "fingerprint" uploaded into the database.
> 
> Not to mention the radiation health concerns.
> 
> OPT OUT


There is NO upside.  Trading one violation of your rights for another is NO TRADE.  I was forced to drive my family, including my 1 year old daughter, 3000 miles for a funeral last week because I refuse to submit to the illegal searches being conducted at the airports.  I can not afford civil disobedience, but I can use alternate modes of transportation until those are taken away as well.

----------


## Lafayette

Was just reading some comments over at politico, there seems to be a lot of _"he is not above the law, good job TSA!"_ type opinions  from both sides of the isle.

These people's support for the violation of their own rights are by far the biggest enemy to our Constitution, far bigger a threat than any thing that comes out of D.C.

----------


## tennman

It's on Drudge now. I may be late in saying that.

----------


## mbburch

> REALLY?  I mean what is with TSA? Who do they think they are?  This is a US Senator not just 'Joe blow'---TSA needs to get a grip.  To not allow Rand to fly and detain him really pisses me off.  They know Rand talked against them publicly.  They are just being NASTY UGLY VINDICTIVE people.  
> 
> Ron Paul HAS to win the Presidential race!!!


I'm sure the TSA agents involved are just following procedures -- they don't want to get fired. Doesn't make it right, but they are not targeting Rand. Any person refusing a patdown after a scan shows something would be detained. It's great that they are drawing attention to this; hopefully it will spark some outrage in the same way SOPA did.

----------


## Bruno

> lol Rand's got all the ladies interviewing him.


Is he on now?

----------


## vechorik

Blogs about this are sounding downright favorable! Go Rand, etc. Excellent opportunity to educate people.

----------


## otherone

They should really investigate why only hot chicks are allowed to be journalists.  The MsM has become Hooters.

----------


## jrice

WTVF - NewsChannel 5 (@NC5)
1/23/12 10:30 AM
UPDATE: The TSA said Sen. Rand Paul was not detained at any point.


The spin begins.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Was just reading some comments over at politico, there seems to be a lot of _"he is not above the law, good job TSA!"_ type opinions  from both sides of the isle.
> 
> These people's support for the violation of their own rights are by far the biggest enemy to our Constitution, far bigger a threat than any thing that comes out of D.C.


This is why it is pretty much hopeless.  The country is already toast.

----------


## JK/SEA

He was escorted out of the screening area by local law enforcement.

so what if Rand decided he wouldn't comply and started for the plane?...tazed or shot, gang tackled?.....

ok, i'm getting too pissed. A matter of time now that i get banned...need a break...$#@!.

----------


## Cody1

> Is he on now?


That picture posted within the last coupe of pages

----------


## steph3n

> I took it to mean the full metal detector, not the porno scanners. If your version is the case I guess the physical hands on is his limit...


TSA is claiming it was nude o scope, but I am never one to believe their pure propaganda.

----------


## thoughtomator

> They should really investigate why only hot chicks are allowed to be journalists.  The MsM has become Hooters.


then how do you explain Dana Bash?

----------


## EndTheECB

On the frontside in the Swedish news now:

"USA-Senator detained at airport" 
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/us...ts_6791263.svd

----------


## 69360

So is Rand on the no fly list now?

----------


## tbone717

> then how do you explain Dana Bash?


Or Rachel Maddow.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> They should really investigate why only hot chicks are allowed to be journalists.  The MsM has become Hooters.


OMG that cracked me up!

+rep!

----------


## cdw

> They should really investigate why only hot chicks are allowed to be journalists.  The MsM has become Hooters.


Two words: Dana Bash.

----------


## Cody1

Is it a possibility that Rand will call the MSM out on their bias?

----------


## otherone

> then how do you explain Dana Bash?



Dana Bash is a journalist?

----------


## vechorik

Good time to pump up Dr. Paul's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3O70lD270

TSA Thugs on the Loose!

----------


## Varin

> then how do you explain Dana Bash?


Nepotism

----------


## BamaFanNKy

https://twitter.com/#!/Judgenap/stat...90250282176512

----------


## tbone717

The Judge just said that he will be on his show tonight at 8

----------


## tsetsefly

LOL:

----------


## aowen

> On the frontside in the Swedish news now:
> 
> "USA-Senator detained at airport" 
> http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/us...ts_6791263.svd


Everyone look at that link. Who the $#@! uses a picture like that. The media trying to make us look like a bunch of loons is so obvious its painful.

----------


## SaulPaulinsky

> WTVF - NewsChannel 5 (@NC5)
> 1/23/12 10:30 AM
> UPDATE: The TSA said Sen. Rand Paul was not detained at any point.
> 
> 
> The spin begins.


No, not detained...he just couldn't leave lol.

----------


## Edward

> They should really investigate why only hot chicks are allowed to be journalists.  The MsM has become Hooters.


Marketing. It's for the same reason that you don't see bald, fat guys selling beer.

----------


## SonofThunder

What is the name for the Jews who would snitch on other Jews or act as guards in the Nazi concentration camps?

----------


## Lishy

The Mythbusters can sneak blades of steel onto a plane, but Rand cannot carry the constitution.

Come on, a U.S. senator is a suspected terrorist? What about Adam Savage? He is KNOWN for his MASSIVE BOMB EXPLOSIONS!

----------


## tremendoustie

> There is NO upside.  Trading one violation of your rights for another is NO TRADE.  I was forced to drive my family, including my 1 year old daughter, 3000 miles for a funeral last week because I refuse to submit to the illegal searches being conducted at the airports.  I can not afford civil disobedience, but I can use alternate modes of transportation until those are taken away as well.


And some of us cannot afford to add 8 days of driving to a two day business trip.

We all do what we can.

----------


## SonofThunder

> Marketing. It's for the same reason that you don't see bald, fat guys selling beer.


I think it is psy-ops. You're more likely to let your guard down for a hot chick.

----------


## TruckinMike

> The left is going to try and spin this into "Paul thinks he's above the law" or "Paul is elitist Politician who do not think the same rules apply to him"-story
> 
> Jesus christ.



Comments from the cnn blog--




> Guest
> What an arrogant ash=hole. Who does he think HE is? If it applies to us - then it applies to him. What a db. I'm glad they were doing their jobs and not being bullied by a right wing nut-job. (And yes I AM a Republican!!)





> Anathema
> Isn't it lovely when our supposed representation holds them selves as being so very much better than the rest of us? What a jerk.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Marketing. It's for the same reason that you don't see bald, fat guys selling beer.


Exactly - they're not providing news - they're SELLING marketing time.

----------


## cdw

I doubt they'll give Ron a chance to respond to this at the start of the debate tonight. If it's brought up at all, they'll give the first response to Mitt, Newt, or Santorum.

----------


## moostraks

> This is upside down IMO.
> 
> A physical pat down is less intrusive than a full body biometric "fingerprint" uploaded into the database.
> 
> Not to mention the radiation health concerns.
> 
> OPT OUT


To sexual abuse survivors both are horrible choices but the physical groping is absolutely untenable imo as it is so close to the previous violations while the pictures are the lesser invasive esp. when they are put forth as non-image capturing, non-identifying, low radiation option.(no I don't buy the propaganda but some might be able to use it to get past this option) I wouldn't do either so I won't fly until this is overturned and if I meet this elsewhere as they expand their use then I will eventually become a hermit because I *cannot* do either.

The problem of opting out for abuse survivors is the level of response to a person in a position of authority is not generally something that is the victim's strong point. It is why abusers are able to victimize them. So most will choose to avoid the confrontation in the first place.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

> Here is the first video released on the topic....


I captured this and uploaded it to my Youtube account. My account name is Libertarian Paulicy. Please subscribe to my Youtube channel. I release a lot of breaking video there everyday. I hope that the content gets a lot of views so Ron Paul newbies have something to sink their teeth into.

----------


## Tunink

> What is the name for the Jews who would snitch on other Jews or act as guards in the Nazi concentration camps?


George Soros?

----------


## captain

...of course TSA wouldn't let him on the plane. Don't you know there have been a lot of US Senators who have blown up planes lately?  --sarcasm

----------


## SonofThunder

> George Soros?


No really. There is a name for it. That's what I think of when these people say "he should be detained like everyone else"

I just can't remember the word

----------


## Bruno

> That picture posted within the last coupe of pages


Thanks!  Pages moving quick, missed it.

----------


## NolF

Fox business just said that Rand rebooked the flight after the incident, went through the scanner and got onto the new flight

----------


## Varin

> No really. There is a name for it. That's what I think of when these people say "he should be detained like everyone else"
> 
> I just can't remember the word


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo_(concentration_camp) perhaps

----------


## Pisces

> No really. There is a name for it. That's what I think of when these people say "he should be detained like everyone else"
> 
> I just can't remember the word


kapo?

----------


## SonofThunder

> kapo?


That's it, y'all rock!

----------


## steph3n

> Fox business just said that Rand rebooked the flight after the incident, went through the scanner and got onto the new flight


That is where things start to differ for the average person, others have tried to do that and get a trespass notice

----------


## donnay

> This is upside down IMO.
> 
> A physical pat down is less intrusive than a full body biometric "fingerprint" uploaded into the database.
> 
> Not to mention the radiation health concerns.
> 
> OPT OUT


Maybe he is opting out of both.  I would!

----------


## Todd

I didn't think that Senators or public figures could be detained on their way to their job?
Any credibility to that?

----------


## cindy25

still, could this be a warning?

or beginnings of martial law?

----------


## AdamT

> Drudge has it front and center now, replaced that newt crap.
> 
> http://www.drudgereport.com/


Great button Rand!!

----------


## sailingaway

> Watch for the msm to spin this into: He was NOT detained but instead refused to be patted down therefore they refused to let him on the flight (for safety reasons of course)


Well, they do say we are _dangerous...._

----------


## Krugerrand

> Fox business just said that Rand rebooked the flight after the incident, went through the scanner and got onto the new flight


Let's hope he doesn't hijack that plane.  We'd get a lot of bad press from that.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

I think more should follow Rand's lead and just start refusing the whole process knowing they will get headlines for doing so.... Amash, i'm looking at you.

----------


## airborne373

> Umm, not exactly correct.
> 
> Private corporation guards can detain civilians until the real law enforcement arrives if something happens on the property they guard.
> 
> Even a civilian can detain another civilian if caught in the act of a felony, right?


Your a bit confused. Private guards are citizens. Your use of the word "Civilian" denotes a complete lack of understanding. Police are "civilians."  Yes, citizens can detain another person if they see them in the commission of a felony. STOP giving our civil rights away by your lack of understanding of them.

----------


## donnay

Rand Paul in Pat-Down Standoff With TSA in Nashville
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-in-nashville/
Jan 23, 2012 10:33am

Sen. Rand Paul told his communications director this morning he was being detained by TSA at the Nashville airport.

The Twitter account associated with Paul staffer Moira Bagley, @moirabagley, tweeted around 10 a.m., ET, “Just got a call from @senrandpaul. He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.”

A TSA spokesman said the agency was looking into the matter but could not immediately comment.

Paul apparently set off  an airport security full-body scanner “on a glitch,” a spokesman in Paul’s office told ABC News.

The Paul staffer said TSA agents would not let Paul walk back through the body scanner and were demanding a full body pat-down.

The Paul spokesman said his office called TSA administrator John Pistole about the incident this morning.

The Senate is back in session today at 2 p.m., with votes scheduled at 4:30 p.m.

The issue of pat-downs has been an important one to Paul, the son of libertarian-leaning Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Sen.  Paul brought this issue up at a hearing earlier this year.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Have you retransmitted your coverage of this situation on social media?

every hour or so, send the updates...

Look's like we have a big fan out there




> zerohedge   zerohedge                                                   
> 
> *That will teach Rand Paul to not accept Goldman donations of Netjets free private jet hours*
> 1 hour ago  
> 
> 
>  
> zerohedge   zerohedge                                                   
> 
> ...

----------


## rb3b3

oh boy oh boy i sure hope this comes up in the dabate, and better yet i cant wait to see how the media spins it!!! this should be HUGE for ron paul!!!! hopefully! newt and the media got everyone on his side for cheating on his wife, i wonder how everyone will go against us for rand being detained by tsa! media will probably say that this is a good thing knowing that the tsa are doing their jobs making america safe from terrosist, that if they detain rand you can bet your ass they are going to detain terrorist!!

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> Have you retransmitted your coverage of this situation on social media?
> 
> every hour or so, send the updates...
> 
> Look's like we have a big fan out there


Zerohedge is awesome if you like to keep up with financial stuff:

http://www.zerohedge.com/

----------


## eduardo89

> So, you are telling me that if a Senator is heading back to D.C. to vote on a bill and another part of the government keeps him from attending and VOTING, it is okey dokey?


I don't see how you could have got that from what I said and this obviously wasn't the case. 




> WHERE?  Because that is EXACTLY what it meant back in 1988.  I was young and impressionable and that was the VERY THING that caught my attention from that article about AlGore - as a sitting US Senator, if on route to the Senate to do business, NO cops could detain him.  PERIOD.


Actually it was well established by in *1972* in Gravel vs United States. 




> While the Speech or Debate Clause recognizes speech, voting and other legislative acts as exempt from liability that otherwise might attach, it does not privilege either Senator or aide to violate an otherwise valid criminal law in preparing for or implementing legislative acts

----------


## donnay

Rand is current on a plane for DC.  TSA let him go.  

However, I am still shocked he went through the radiation scan--what was he thinking?

Source:
Rand's office

----------


## sailingaway

> https://twitter.com/#!/Judgenap/stat...90250282176512


what time is the debate on?

----------


## wgadget

> what time is the debate on?


I heard 9pm.

I hope so..I get home from work at 8:45pm.

----------


## pauliticalfan

> Comments from the cnn blog--


I bet those are CNN employees.

----------


## moderate libertarian

> Rush is so lame,he just made a joke that if it had been Ron Paul who set off the scanner hed understand why hed be detained because you sometimes wonder if he is a Islamic terrorist after hearing him speak


Rush was detained for 3 hours at airport for different reasons, that washed out neocon does not want to start jokes here. His arrest had brought "sex tourism" in the news:

March 5, 2009 11:35 AM Print Text 
*Rush Limbaugh Detained With Viagra*

Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at the airport after returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic. Customs officials found the Viagra in his luggage but his name was not on the prescription, said Paul Miller, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.

Miller said the alleged violation could be a second-degree misdemeanor. The sheriff's office was investigating and will soon turn the case over to the state attorney's office, which had no immediate comment Tuesday.

Under the deal reached last month with prosecutors, Limbaugh was not to be arrested for any infraction for 18 months in exchange for authorities deferring a charge of "doctor shopping." Prosecutors had alleged the conservative talk-show host illegally deceived multiple physicians to receive overlapping painkiller prescriptions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Limbaugh Jokes 'How Did I Get Bob Dole's Luggage?'*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limbaugh also must submit to random drug tests and continue treatment for his admitted addiction to painkillers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1753947.shtml

Does he really want to go there?

----------


## donnay

> Rand is current on a plane for DC.  TSA let him go.  
> 
> However, I am still shocked he went through the radiation scan--what was he thinking?
> 
> Source:
> Rand's office


*Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert*

By Daily Mail Reporter

Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.

The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.

But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.

They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1kIq7Hboo

----------


## pauliticalfan

Will Ron get the first question regarding this at the debate tonight?

----------


## 69360

> Rand is current on a plane for DC.  TSA let him go.  
> 
> However, I am still shocked he went through the radiation scan--what was he thinking?
> 
> Source:
> Rand's office


Apparently his personal line in the sand of what he will take is the patdowns. Everyone has their own personal limit, lets respect Rand's.

----------


## thoughtomator



----------


## tremendoustie

> Rand is current on a plane for DC.  TSA let him go.  
> 
> However, I am still shocked he went through the radiation scan--what was he thinking?
> 
> Source:
> Rand's office


I'm sure that's his standard way of flying. Your options are: 1. Go through the radiation scan, 2: opt out and get frisked, or 3: don't fly. 

3's out for him, for obvious reasons, and he seems to prefer 1 to 2.

I prefer 2, because it provides an opportunity to protest, and register opposition to their behavior.

He seems to find the scanner more tolerable than patdowns.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Will Ron get the first question regarding this at the debate tonight?


Are they going to ask Ron any questions at the debate tonight?

----------


## sailingaway

> Have you retransmitted your coverage of this situation on social media?
> 
> every hour or so, send the updates...
> 
> Look's like we have a big fan out there


zero hedge is zero hedge

----------


## RonPaulGangsta

> Will Ron get the first question regarding this at the debate tonight?

----------


## tremendoustie

> Apparently his personal line in the sand of what he will take is the patdowns. Everyone has their own personal limit, lets respect Rand's.


Yep. The important thing is to have a line.

----------


## Evilfox

> I'm sure that's his standard way of flying. Your options are: 1. Go through the radiation scan, 2: opt out and get frisked, or 3: don't fly. 
> 
> 3's out for him, for obvious reasons, and he seems to prefer 1 to 2.
> 
> I prefer 2, because it provides an opportunity to protest, and register opposition to their behavior.
> 
> He seems to find the scanner more tolerable than patdowns.


2, and just have a massive fart loaded.

----------


## jtbraine

[lk

----------


## ctiger2

> Will Ron get the first question regarding this at the debate tonight?



HAHAHA!!! No, the first question will be for Newt and why he's so emphatically against the TSA, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA and the Fed and wants to return to a Gold standard.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't see how you could have got that from what I said and this obviously wasn't the case. 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was well established by in *1972* in Gravel vs United States.


I actually hope he didn't use this. I think it was civil disobedience like Steve Bierfieldt did, remember? or insisting on his rights. If I were TSA I'd have USED the Constitution to end the situation, but I don't know if Rand claimed it.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> oh boy oh boy i sure hope this comes up in the dabate,


Why?  The "conservatives" have already booed the golden rule and cheered adultery, I expect they'd be all for his detention.

Hell, considering the mentality of some "conservatives," I won't be shocked to see them cheering decaptitation of their fellow americans.

----------


## donnay

> Apparently his personal line in the sand of what he will take is the patdowns. Everyone has their own personal limit, lets respect Rand's.


Oh okay...however, he is getting radiated.  I hope he checks that out.



> But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.
> 
> They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz1kIrSdnDe

----------


## liveandletlive

sad part is, most sheeple will probably whine about Rand Paul "Who does he think he is? Stop holding up the process! TSA just doing their job!"

pretty much the attitude of the average New Yorker, just go along to get along !

----------


## tremendoustie

> still, could this be a warning?
> 
> or beginnings of martial law?


No, just them following their standard, massively wasteful, anti-liberty, anti-fourth amendment, unamerican procedures.

----------


## airborne373

We need more LIBERTY in this country. 

Donation to: Campaign For Liberty
Date: Mon Jan 2012 23 11:24 am CST
Amount: $25

----------


## donnay

> I'm sure that's his standard way of flying. Your options are: 1. Go through the radiation scan, 2: opt out and get frisked, or 3: don't fly. 
> 
> 3's out for him, for obvious reasons, and he seems to prefer 1 to 2.
> 
> I prefer 2, because it provides an opportunity to protest, and register opposition to their behavior.
> 
> He seems to find the scanner more tolerable than patdowns.


I suppose if you like getting radiated.

----------


## slamhead

> I don't see how you could have got that from what I said and this obviously wasn't the case. 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was well established by in *1972* in Gravel vs United States.


Eduardo you are misinterpreting this. It does not just apply to immunity during official business on the floor of congress. The founding father's intended to keep enemies from hindering a legislator traveling to and from congress. With the exception of "breach of peace" it is very clear that a senator cannot be arrested for minor crimes less than a misdemeanor. Back before there was air travel legislators would have to travel by land passing through other states and such. It was intended to keep political enemies from keeping a legislator from casting a vote on the floor of congress.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

All I can say is that we should not be subjected to anyone frisking us if we haven't committed a crime. I was once frisked by a women police officer who had all the stereotypical markings of a dyke and she grabbed me by the balls and massaged them. It was some sort of power trip she was on. I was 17 years old and was asked to stop for no apparent reason and violated with no recourse. Just because someone wears a badge doesn't make them decent people. Some of these TSA people aren't even high school graduates and sent through minimal training while offered low wages.

----------


## A. Havnes

Way to go, Rand! Draw the line and refuse!

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Actually it was well established by in *1972* in Gravel vs United States.


First off, Gravel...would that be that older guy, what was his name....Mike?  Ran for prez last time, I think?  Anyone know?

Also - so when AlGore didn't have to obey traffic laws in DC - is that because it's just traffic laws or is that because like so much else in this country, it's selectively applied?

----------


## sailingaway

> HAHAHA!!! No, the first question will be for Newt and why he's so emphatically against the TSA, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA and the Fed and wants to return to a Gold standard.


Gingrich said he wants to EXPAND the patriot act. Mind you I'm sure he was referring to adding the NDAA indefinite detention. But I would think he adores TSA.

----------


## acptulsa

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


If so, they need to open it to Article I, Section 6.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same...

----------


## Ronulus

> Gingrich said he wants to EXPAND the patriot act. Mind you I'm sure he was referring to adding the NDAA indefinite detention. But I would think he adores TSA.


How else do you think he get's someone to touch his 'private parts'?

----------


## thoughtomator

> How else do you think he get's someone to touch his 'private parts'?


by spending a half-million at Tiffany's

----------


## 69360

> Yep. The important thing is to have a line.


I'd submit to the metal detector, because I feel it's prudent and warranted personally. I would refuse the body scanner and the pat down. Everyone has a limit of what they would take.

----------


## BamaFanNKy



----------


## kill the banks

waterboarding next on GOP  list for all tsa locations if refuse to submit ... golden rule and constitutional oath obsolete without notice

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


+9000

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> 


HAHAHAH LOL I love you guys

----------


## 8ClicksPerSecond

> sad part is, most sheeple will probably whine about Rand Paul "Who does he think he is? Stop holding up the process! TSA just doing their job!"
> 
> pretty much the attitude of the average New Yorker, just go along to get along !


 I'm a New Yorker

----------


## Back In Black

He shouldn't have even gone through the damn scanner.

----------


## affa

> on twitter: "What was the anomaly found on the scanner? A backbone?"


This, and the alternate answer 'A pocket Constitution', should both be spread far and wide.  Both are very powerful memes.

----------


## ONUV

ron must be proud of rand for standing up for what's right but sad for his country for what it has become.

----------


## ZanZibar

> The left is going to try and spin this into "Paul thinks he's above the law" or "Paul is elitist Politician who do not think the same rules apply to him"-story


Fortunately the Democrat base doesn't like the scanners either.

----------


## affa

> why no siren mattdrudge?  why no siren?


he saves them for 3 year old information rehashes used to create a backlash to surge hack politicians.

----------


## Jack Bauer



----------


## SWATH

Probably had a Ron Paul bumper sticker on him.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> he saves them for 3 year old information rehashes used to create a backlash to surge hack politicians.


You're exactly right!

----------


## G-Wohl

> pretty much the attitude of the average New Yorker, just go along to get along !


That is unbelievably offensive and completely off base. As a former New Yorker (and one who now lives across the river from Manhattan), I will tell you that the people are generally *pissed off* about the enormous NYPD presence and the privacy intrusions as of late. 9/11 was a horrific event for everyone there - including myself. But we've also bared the brunt of the consequences of that attack more than any other city.

I'm giving you negative rep because I am sick and tired of these forums being a bastion of baseless negativity and name-calling. Being contrary to the popular opinion is one thing, but this is terribly alienating language you are using that will be a net negative for our goal of getting RP elected.

----------


## donnay



----------


## affa

> Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It *only* applies to actions *during their attendance at the session of their respective House*. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is *not* immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.


Your interpretation makes no sense.   By your reasoning, if they want to stop him from voting, they simply need to detain him before he gets on the plane to DC... not on the steps to Congress.

Which is... kind of what they did here if I understand correctly.

----------


## ZanZibar

> The clause has been determined by the courts to apply in only very specific circumstances


And the courts were wrong.

----------


## unknown

> I was once frisked by a women police officer who had all the stereotypical markings of a dyke and she grabbed me by the balls and massaged them.


This is terrible.

By the way, do you happen to have her name or number?  Also, where did this happen and what exactly would one do to provoke this type of behavior?

----------


## thoughtomator

> Your interpretation makes no sense.   By your reasoning, if they want to stop him from voting, they simply need to detain him before he gets on the plane to DC... not on the steps to Congress.
> 
> Which is... kind of what they did here if I understand correctly.


Yup. Like the various interpretations of the general welfare and commerce clauses, if you interpret that clause in that manner, the rest of the Constitution becomes moot.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

What a concidence Randy gets detained on the same day the senate begins and what even more of a concidence that he promised to filibuster a certain bill. Also a nice concidence he gets in "trouble" with the very agency he has been fighting agianst since he became senator.

What a day for condiences, amirite?

----------


## lilymc

So what's the latest? Did they let him go yet?  (someone just tweeted that he was 'briefly detained')

----------


## low preference guy

> So what's the latest? Did they let him go yet?  (someone just tweeted that he was 'briefly detained')


he went through another machine and took another flight.

----------


## lilymc

> he went through another machine and took another flight.


Ah, ok, I hadn't heard that. Thanks!

----------


## wstrucke

> What a coincidence Randy gets detained on the same day the senate begins and what even more of a coincidence that he promised to filibuster a certain bill. Also a nice coincidence he gets in "trouble" with the very agency he has been fighting against since he became senator.
> 
> What a day for coincidences, am I right?


This is the kind of talk by supporters that causes many people to pause before supporting Ron Paul.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

it just crossed my mind, maybe Rand is going to use this so he can sue and force them to expose that the NSA is operating outside our government. Remember what a federal judge said in the Jesse Ventura case that the NSA was above federal jurisdiction. Maybe he is trying to get a case so he can push to see just what organization is claiming a higher jurisdiction than the federal government.

----------


## affa

> Fwiw, a couple weeks ago I declined the nudie scanner and was given the pat down.  There was no nut grabbing or anything.  They've definitely changed the protocal to not touch private parts.


So because you weren't, in one instance, they 'definitely changed the protocol'?  I think not.

----------


## Schiff_FTW

> This is the kind of talk by supporters that causes many people to pause before supporting Ron Paul.


Oh yeah, I'm sure people are jumping ship left and right because of what LiveForHonortune posted in some thread.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> This is the kind of talk by supporters that causes many people to pause before supporting Ron Paul.


I'd rather they don't support Paul if they see nothing wrong with this. It's absolutely ludicris and if it wasn't for the massive pressure from the media causing this become headlines all around the world, I seriously doubt they would have let him off so "easily".

----------


## tommyzDad

Guys, guys, guys. There are a lot of comments (mostly from some sheep named Mike Simmons) on Rand's Facebook that he was not in fact detained but only not allowed to board the flight. Granted the media used the word "detained," but was he in fact detained? Is he _not_ allowed to leave the airport as well as not board the flight?

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> it just crossed my mind, maybe Rand is going to use this so he can sue and force them to expose that the NSA is operating outside our government. Remember what a federal judge said in the Jesse Ventura case that the NSA was above federal jurisdiction. Maybe he is trying to get a case so he can push to see just what organization is claiming a higher jurisdiction than the federal government.


SCOTUS won't be any good at this point if you've seen what you've ruled the past few years. The 4th amendment is worthless now according to them.

----------


## eduardo89

> First off, Gravel...would that be that older guy, what was his name....Mike?  Ran for prez last time, I think?  Anyone know?
> 
> Also - so when AlGore didn't have to obey traffic laws in DC - *is that because it's just traffic laws or is that because like so much else in this country, it's selectively applied*?


Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> Guys, guys, guys. There are a lot of comments (mostly from some sheep named Mike Simmons) on Rand's Facebook that he was not in fact detained but only not allowed to board the flight. Granted the media used the word "detained," but was he in fact detained? Is he _not_ allowed to leave the airport as well as not board the flight?


We'll have to see what he has to say when Rand gets on judge tonight.

Edit- You know what? Scratch that. Rand and Ron Paul's facebook both use the word "detained".

I'll trust that over the media any day of the week.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

40 pages? Can someone PM me what happened?

----------


## JamesButabi

This whole ordeal wouldn't have been a problem if he just told them the hereditary trait he had that was messing up their scanners........   


BALLS OF STEEL

----------


## Carehn

Alex Jones has lost it over this! lol

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So, does Rand always refer to himself in the third person plural?


"is" is singular, plural would have ben "are."  And I very much doubt he is writing his own tweets from inside a TSA holding room.

----------


## AhuwaleKaNaneHuna

> This whole ordeal wouldn't have been a problem if he just told them the hereditary trait he had that was messing up their scanners........   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BALLS OF STEEL


roflmao

----------


## eduardo89

> Your interpretation makes no sense.   By your reasoning, if they want to stop him from voting, they simply need to detain him before he gets on the plane to DC... not on the steps to Congress.
> 
> Which is... kind of what they did here if I understand correctly.


They cannot arrest/detain him with the purpose of making him miss a vote. This is not what happened here. Also, they can only detain/arrest a congressman if he has broken a law unrelated to his duties in Congress, which I the case here. Him refusing a pardon has nothing whatsoever to do with his legislative duties. I'm not defending the law, I hate the TSA and I find the scanners and patdowns unconstitutional, but it's the law (yes, only administrative law because it's a regulation and not a law passed by congress, a law regardless) and until Congress or the courts act and repeal it (doubtful) its the law, simple as that. 




> And the courts were wrong.


Maybe, but until another court or Congress change it, it's the law.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Time to make the most out of this!   Sound the Revolution horns!


"Never let a crisis go to waste"?

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

From what I understand the body scanner showed that Rand had something under his clothing they suspected might be a weapon or contraband and they asked him to be patted down. He refused the pat down and said he would be happy to go through another scanner to show that he was not in possession of contraband. He was then detained (held in a cubicle by local law enforcement) until the next flight and he went through the scanner again without an issue. So...the scanner messed up, he refused a pat down, they held him for a few hours. Did I miss anything?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!


I'd rather be wrong, but I figured it was selective application of the law.....

God we are so far off track, I'm feeling hopeless .....

----------


## affa

> Rand is current on a plane for DC.  TSA let him go.  
> 
> However, I am still shocked he went through the radiation scan--what was he thinking?
> 
> Source:
> Rand's office


Recognize that if he had refused ALL searches, the media would have had more ammunition to slander him.  Instead, he went through a scan and offered to go through again, and also bared his leg.   This makes him seem cooperative, and gives his refusing to be pat down all the more merit to the average reader/watcher.  

All in all, I'm glad he allowed the scan because it's harder for the media to spin it as him being disagreeable.

----------


## TheTexan

Pfft...  now all the terrorists know that to get a weapon past security all they have to do is to put it on a senator.

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo you are misinterpreting this. It does not just apply to immunity during official business on the floor of congress. The founding father's intended to keep enemies from hindering a legislator traveling to and from congress. With the exception of "breach of peace" it is very clear that a senator cannot be arrested for minor crimes less than a misdemeanor. Back before there was air travel legislators would have to travel by land passing through other states and such. It was intended to keep political enemies from keeping a legislator from casting a vote on the floor of congress.


I know exactly what it means. The clause is there to make sure the executive branch can't prevent Congressmen from voting or from congressmen from being prosecuted or sued for doing their job. That doesn't mean they have immunity from unrelated laws, which was the case here. Rand was not being prevented from voting. Unless someone can prove that there was a direct order to stop him from getting to DC to carry out legislative business there was nothing unconstitutional about what the TSA did (let's ignore the blatant unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their scanners and pat downs for a second).

----------


## affa

> What a concidence Randy gets detained on the same day the senate begins and what even more of a concidence that he promised to filibuster a certain bill. Also a nice concidence he gets in "trouble" with the very agency he has been fighting agianst since he became senator.
> 
> What a day for condiences, amirite?





> This is the kind of talk by supporters that causes many people to pause before supporting Ron Paul.


That's an indictment of non-Paul supporters, not Paul supporters.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> I know exactly what it means. The clause is there to make sure the executive branch can't prevent Congressmen from voting or from congressmen from being prosecuted or sued for doing their job. That doesn't mean they have immunity from unrelated laws, which was the case here. Rand was not being prevented from voting. Unless someone can prove that there was a direct order to stop him from getting to DC to carry out legislative business there was nothing unconstitutional about what the TSA did (let's ignore the blatant unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their scanners and pat downs for a second).


Well first off, this being liberty forest, people really can't ignore the unconstituional nature of the TSA.

Second, I'd say being detained on a voting day counts. He should be in DC already. He's going for official government business so he should be granted a domestic version of diplomatic immunity which is what I feel the founders definitely intended.

Everyone has their own personal version of what the bible or constitution means these days it seems...

----------


## affa

> I know exactly what it means. The clause is there to make sure the executive branch can't prevent Congressmen from voting or from congressmen from being prosecuted or sued for doing their job. That doesn't mean they have immunity from unrelated laws, which was the case here. Rand was not being prevented from voting. Unless someone can prove that there was a direct order to stop him from getting to DC to carry out legislative business there was nothing unconstitutional about what the TSA did (let's ignore the blatant unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their scanners and pat downs for a second).


I absolutely, completely disagree with you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Does not apply here. Read what you've copy/pasted. It *only* applies to actions *during their attendance at the session of their respective House*. The courts have ruled on this immunity before and it's very, very narrow. It's called the "Speech or Debate Clause" and is intended to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It is *not* immunity from detention, arrest or prosecution.


Seems to me that Rand was clearly "going to" session in the US Senate, which would be covered by the article.  The whole point here is you can't arrest a Senator on his way to session, because that could be abused for political gain.  It clearly says "in going to and returning from" which clearly covers Rand Paul in this case.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well first off, this being liberty forest, people really can't ignore the unconstituional nature of the TSA.
> 
> Second, I'd say being detained on a voting day counts. He should be in DC already. He's going for official government business so he should be granted a domestic version of diplomatic immunity which is what I feel the founders definitely intended.
> 
> Everyone has their own personal version of what the bible or constitution means these days it seems...


What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are. 

The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I absolutely, completely disagree with you.


I'm with you.  The text of the article is blatantly clear, you can't arrest a Senator on his way to attend session.  I once did not understand that passage and it used to bother me, but now I do understand it.  The original intent was to prevent a political opponent from having a Senator of Congressman arrested on his way to the Senate or Congress, thereby possibly changing the outcome of a controversial vote or filibuster.  

Eduardo is usually right on most stuff, but quite wrong on this one.  The text is clear, and when aligned with original intent, it's even more clear.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are. 
> 
> The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.


So if I arrested someone to prevent a vote or a filibuster, all i have to do is claim I was arresting him for something else and it's all good?  

Come on, that makes no sense.  NOBODY who arrests a Senator to prevent him from voting is going to claim that they were trying to prevent him from voting.  They will ALWAYS claim it was for some other irrelevant reason.

Taking your logic, the section may as well not exist, it becomes meaningless.

Rand was arrested ON HIS WAY TO session.  Therefore he clearly falls under the text and the intent of this passage.

----------


## Krugerrand

> What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are. 
> 
> The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. *The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here.* They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.


How can you prove the intention of the detain-er?  I would think there be a need of erroring on the side of caution so that somebody could not detain/arrest on bogus trumped up charges to prevent a congressman from getting to session.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> What I meant by ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the TSA and their "safety" procedures is that until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional or Congress passes a law changin their practices it is the law of the land. Sadly that's the way things are. 
> 
> The fact is SCOTUS has ruled that the immunity only extends as far as carrying out legislative business and not to unrelated laws. The executive can't arrest Rand to prevent him from voting and that's not what happened here. They did not detain him with the intent of preventing him from reaching DC and carrying out his job. His refusal to get a pat down (which I completely agree with) was completely unrelated to him doing his job as a Senator.


Where in Article I Section. 6. Paragraph I, Sentence II does it use the word "vote"? I'll be waiting...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Really? Looks to me like he is on his way to DC to do official business!


Yeah, God forbid Rand is present to protest cloture on S. 968.

----------


## eduardo89

> Seems to me that Rand was clearly "going to" session in the US Senate, which would be covered by the article.  The whole point here is you can't arrest a Senator on his way to session, because that could be abused for political gain.  It clearly says "in going to and returning from" which clearly covers Rand Paul in this case.


He can be detained, arrested and prosecuted for breaking laws unrelated to his official duties, which is the case. It's just like a Congressman can be detained/arrested for drinking and driving even if he is on his way to vote. SCOTUS was very clear about this already. Another example is Larry Craig who was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, the immunity did not apply even though he was on his way to DC.

----------


## RP Supporter

On another site I'm on, the people(mostly liberals and neocons) are delighted to hear this. Delighted. Think about that. I can understand disagreeing with Paul, but you're delighted to hear that the government can detain anyone it wants?

I increasingly think we're doomed, simply because we've been divided and conquered. Most people who are not Paul supporters will cheer this because in their eyes, it makes us look bad. No one cares about the actual civil liberty violations taking place here.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> He can be detained, arrested and prosecuted for breaking laws unrelated to his official duties, which is the case. It's just like a Congressman can be detained/arrested for drinking and driving even if he is on his way to vote. SCOTUS was very clear about this already. Another example is Larry Craig who was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, the immunity did not apply even though he was on his way to DC.


How about we ignore what the Supreme "lol corporations are people, money is speech, and 4th amendment is worthless" Court and focus on what the constitution says about this?

----------


## blazeKing

> On another site I'm on, the people(mostly liberals and neocons) are delighted to hear this. Delighted. Think about that. I can understand disagreeing with Paul, but you're delighted to hear that the government can detain anyone it wants?
> 
> I increasingly think we're doomed, simply because we've been divided and conquered. Most people who are not Paul supporters will cheer this because in their eyes, it makes us look bad. No one cares about the actual civil liberty violations taking place here.


They have an "our team vs their team" mentality...they haven't woken up yet.  What they don't realize is, as long as they keep that up, everybody loses.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> On another site I'm on, the people(mostly liberals and neocons) are delighted to hear this. Delighted. Think about that. I can understand disagreeing with Paul, but you're delighted to hear that the government can detain anyone it wants?
> 
> I increasingly think we're doomed, simply because we've been divided and conquered. Most people who are not Paul supporters will cheer this because in their eyes, it makes us look bad. No one cares about the actual civil liberty violations taking place here.


It is quite heartbreaking, isn't it....

----------


## eduardo89

> How about we ignore what the Supreme "lol corporations are people, money is speech, and 4th amendment is worthless" Court and focus on what the constitution says about this?


Because that would be living in fantasyland. Try and use that as a defense in court and see how te judge reacts. The sad thing is, a SCOTUS ruling carries more weight than the actual Constitution these days.

----------


## Trigonx

The people in the comments on some articles that say "Oh he expects to be treated differently than the rest of us".  No dip $#@! he is acting the way we all should be acting when the TSA tries to groupe us.  Stand up for ourselves and not take $#@! from our intrusive government.

----------


## TheTexan

> Because that would be living in fantasyland. Try and use that as a defense in court and see how te judge reacts. The sad thing is, a SCOTUS ruling carries more weight than the actual Constitution these days.


Yep, this is because the SC is supposed to interpret the constitution, but when the President doesn't care about the constitution, he appoints judges that don't care about the constitution, and here we are.

----------


## eduardo89

> Eduardo is usually right on most stuff, but quite wrong on this one.  The text is clear, and when aligned with original intent, it's even more clear.


The original intent is one thing, the interpretation which is now the law of the land is another thing. I've said repeatedly that going by SCOTUS rulings, which ARE the law today, his constitutional right not to be detained on his way to DC was not violated because he was detained for a matter completely unrelated to the performance of his legislative business.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't see how you could have got that from what I said and this obviously wasn't the case. 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was well established by in *1972* in Gravel vs United States.


SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the plain text of the Constitution.

----------


## TheTexan

> SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the plain text of the Constitution.


Tell that to the commerce clause

----------


## eduardo89

> Yep, this is because the SC is supposed to interpret the constitution, but when the President doesn't care about the constitution, he appoints judges that don't care about the constitution, and here we are.


Which is why we need Ron as president and 60 Rands in the Senate to remove all current justices and replace them with strict constitutionalists. Then sue the hell out of the federal government so everything is overturned

----------


## eduardo89

> SCOTUS does not have the authority to override the plain text of the Constitution.





> Tell that to the commerce clause


And the general welfare clause. 

And the necessary and proper clause. 

And Article I Section 8

The list can go on...

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> Because that would be living in fantasyland. Try and use that as a defense in court and see how te judge reacts. The sad thing is, a SCOTUS ruling carries more weight than the actual Constitution these days.


So it's ok for you to tell others to ignore the TSA being unconstitutional and not live in fantasyland?

I'm merely saying, what IF. Not what IS. It is not fantasy when our nation at one time had it.

Then again, I WILL say what is. The constitution didn't say just voting. Just session or bussiness.

Now if Nixon's head in a jar thinks the constitution doesn't mean squat, he's wrong. Dead wrong.

You need to understand any reasonable person sees this as extremely upsetting. The core foundation of our nation is being chopped by the axe of tyranny.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Eduardo you are misinterpreting this. It does not just apply to immunity during official business on the floor of congress. The founding father's intended to keep enemies from hindering a legislator traveling to and from congress. With the exception of "breach of peace" it is very clear that a senator cannot be arrested for minor crimes less than a misdemeanor. Back before there was air travel legislators would have to travel by land passing through other states and such. It was intended to keep political enemies from keeping a legislator from casting a vote on the floor of congress.


This.  Original intent for the win.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Tell that to the commerce clause


Or to the 2nd amendment.

----------


## eduardo89

> Or to the 2nd amendment.


Or the 4th.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!


Um.  'selective application' where they let go Senators they agree with and detain senators they don't is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PREVENT with the passage in the first place.

----------


## 69360

> He can be detained, arrested and prosecuted for breaking laws unrelated to his official duties, which is the case. It's just like a Congressman can be detained/arrested for drinking and driving even if he is on his way to vote. SCOTUS was very clear about this already. Another example is Larry Craig who was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, the immunity did not apply even though he was on his way to DC.


The court will consider intent when ruling. Rand's intent was simply to board the plane which was necessary to return to the session. Craig's intent was to have sex, which wasn't necessary to return to the session. 

They are very different cases.

----------


## eduardo89

> So it's ok for you to tell others to ignore the TSA being unconstitutional and not live in fantasyland?
> 
> I'm merely saying, what IF. Not what IS. It is not fantasy when our nation at one time had it.
> 
> Then again, I WILL say what is. The constitution didn't say just voting. Just session or bussiness.
> 
> Now if Nixon's head in a jar thinks the constitution doesn't mean squat, he's wrong. Dead wrong.
> 
> You need to understand any reasonable person sees this as extremely upsetting. The core foundation of our nation is being chopped by the axe of tyranny.


That not what I said at all. I never defended the TSA or their practices and have consistently said that they need to be abolished for being unconstitutional. I said you'd be living in fantasyland if you're going to ignore the law and SCOTUS rulings just because you think they're wrong. They need to be changed/abolished/overturned but to ignore them because they don't fit in with your views is idiotic at best and dangerous at worst.

----------


## virginiakid

Hopefully the will be a great rally call for the campaign and those who feel the TSA is overstepping its boundaries.

----------


## eduardo89

> Um.  'selective application' where they let go Senators they agree with and detain senators they don't is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PREVENT with the passage in the first place.


I agree. And that's what I said to his post. They let Al Gore go without charges for driving drunk in violation of the law because they decided to selectively apply the law.

----------


## TheTexan

The Judicial Branch, Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch all don't give a damn about the original intent of the constitution, so the original intent of the constitution means zero.  Nada.

Nullification imo :/

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Um.  'selective application' where they let go Senators they agree with and detain senators they don't is EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WERE TRYING TO PREVENT with the passage in the first place.


Yet it is what we have today.

The last few pages of this thread ALONE demonstrate what a monster of a mess we're up against, y'all.

----------


## MsDoodahs

dupe.

----------


## eduardo89

> The court will consider intent when ruling. Rand's intent was simply to board the plane which was necessary to return to the session. Craig's intent was to have sex, which wasn't necessary to return to the session. 
> 
> They are very different cases.


I agree with you. But if you take the world literally a congressman cannot be detained for any reason while on his way to congress. That's why SCOTUS ruled in Gravel v US that te immunity does not apply to laws unrelated to the carrying out of legislative business.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He can be detained, arrested and prosecuted for breaking laws unrelated to his official duties, which is the case. It's just like a Congressman can be detained/arrested for drinking and driving even if he is on his way to vote. SCOTUS was very clear about this already. Another example is Larry Craig who was arrested for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, the immunity did not apply even though he was on his way to DC.


Sorry brother you are wrong.  Nobody who arrests a Senator to prevent a critical vote is going to SAY that they are arresting him to prevent a vote.  Therefore under your interpretation the entire passage is meaningless and there is no reason for the framers to have included it in the first place.

Clearly you cannot arrest a Senator on his way to session in Congress for any reason except those enumerated.  The text is plan on it's face.  

It's like the 2nd Amendment.  SCOTUS may have held up Federal Gun Control, but that does not make it any less blatant a Constitutional violation.

The text of the section is clear.  By a simple reading of the plain text it obviously applies in this case.

----------


## virginiakid

My question is, does congressman/woman have immunity going en route to congressional business? I didn't think they could be detained like that.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The original intent is one thing, the interpretation which is now the law of the land is another thing. I've said repeatedly that going by SCOTUS rulings, which ARE the law today, his constitutional right not to be detained on his way to DC was not violated because he was detained for a matter completely unrelated to the performance of his legislative business.


In our form of government, SCOTUS does not have the authority to overrule the Constitution.

----------


## eduardo89

> The Judicial Branch, Executive Branch, and Legislative Branch all don't give a damn about the original intent of the constitution, so the original intent of the constitution means zero.  Nada.
> 
> Nullification imo :/


Yup, that's the sad reality. Unless we have a SCOTUS that cares about original intent, or a POTUS who appoints those judges and 60 Senators who allow it to happen the Constitution's original intent is meaningless and to ignore this fact is akin to living in a fantasy land. 

Nullification is the only path I see to changing this. Even if Ron becomes president, SCOTUS and the Senate won't budge.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Tell that to the commerce clause


Our government does all kinds of unconstitutional things.  Doesn't mean they are actually allowed to, they just do it.  Wickard v Filburn was even more wrong than Plessy v Ferguson.

----------


## slamhead

> Yup, that's the sad reality. Unless we have a SCOTUS that cares about original intent, or a POTUS who appoints those judges and 60 Senators who allow it to happen the Constitution's original intent is meaningless and to ignore this fact is akin to living in a fantasy land. 
> 
> Nullification is the only path I see to changing this. Even if Ron becomes president, SCOTUS and the Senate won't budge.


You need to take a look at the case you are citing. It applies to "Speech and debate clause" and affirms that the clause extends to congressional *aides* "only" in the course of their legislative duties.




> Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.


Majority ruling by SCOTUS.




> In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own, "...the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself," the Court declared.[7] However, the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct, or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes.[8] The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts' order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute.[9]
> 
> However, the Court upheld the district court's ruling regarding private publication. "[Private] publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence


This case had to do with the publishing of the Pentagon Papers. They went after an aide that arranged their publishing in a news paper. I think under todays laws the aide would be protected under the whistle blower laws.

----------


## Krugerrand

I'll settle this....

Everybody who agrees with eduardo pound your desk with your right fist.

Everybody who disagrees, pound your desk with your left fist.





...




...




...


There, now we should all feel better!

----------


## MsDoodahs

You guys are actually in agreement, I do believe.

Gunny is saying the SCOTUS is wrong (blatant Constitutional violation)

Eduardo is saying the same - AND that if you TRY to go by what the Constitution says, they'll nail you - because of what SCOTUS said, which was wrong (blatant Constitutional violation).

At least that is what I'm getting from you guys.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> In our form of government, SCOTUS does not have the authority to overrule the Constitution.


Doesn't stop them from trying. The Supreme Court may be the final word on things but that doesn't stop them from being WRONG.

I'm going to quote the passage one more time.

"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;and for ANY SPEECH OR DEBATE IN EITHER HOUSE, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Take that as you will but I would definitely consider suing the highest court in the land itself for this.

----------


## eduardo89

> Our government does all kinds of unconstitutional things.  Doesn't mean they are actually allowed to, they just do it.  Wickard v Filburn was even more wrong than Plessy v Ferguson.


No one is arguing against that. But in practice the SCOTUS does have this power and does exercise this power. SCOTUS rulings, even if they violate the intent of the constitution, become law.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> Yup, that's the sad reality. Unless we have a SCOTUS that cares about original intent, or a POTUS who appoints those judges and 60 Senators who allow it to happen the Constitution's original intent is meaningless and to ignore this fact is akin to living in a fantasy land. 
> 
> Nullification is the only path I see to changing this. Even if Ron becomes president, SCOTUS and the Senate won't budge.


We're not going to deny their ruling existed, just that they're wrong because they are.

----------


## slamhead

> I'll settle this....
> 
> Everybody who agrees with eduardo pound your desk with your right fist.
> 
> Everybody who disagrees, pound your desk with your left fist.
> 
> 
> There, now we should all feel better!


haha...I pounded both fists as the arguments are mute as Rand was never arrested....but perhaps his immunity protected him from being arrested. If it was you and I we would have been put on a no fly list and shuffled off to some indefinite detention facility.

----------


## eduardo89

> You guys are actually in agreement, I do believe.
> 
> Gunny is saying the SCOTUS is wrong (blatant Constitutional violation)
> 
> Eduardo is saying the same - AND that if you TRY to go by what the Constitution says, they'll nail you - because of what SCOTUS said, which was wrong (blatant Constitutional violation).
> 
> At least that is what I'm getting from you guys.


Lol finally someone gets it! I think what they did to Rand is wrong, I think the TSA is unconstitutional, I think we have an out of control SCOTUS. Sadly, what SCOTUS says is the law of the land and I'd you go against them, even if they're wrong, you're screwed.

----------


## eduardo89

> We're not going to deny their ruling existed, just that they're wrong because they are.


Ok, so we're on the same page then! They're rulings might be wrong, but they're the law until overturned. 

That's why we need nullification!!!!!!!

----------


## eduardo89

> haha...I pounded both fists as the arguments are mute as Rand was never arrested....but perhaps his immunity protected him from being arrested. If it was you and I we would have been put on a no fly list and shuffled off to some indefinite detention facility.


Tried to +rep you but stupid iPhone sent it before I could finish typing out the message lol

F***ing iPhone did it to me again when I tried to rep Glen!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No one is arguing against that. But in practice the SCOTUS does have this power and does exercise this power. SCOTUS rulings, even if they violate the intent of the constitution, become law.


A violation of the Constitution does not make the government right just because they do it though.  In no way, shape, or form is any agent of the government authorized to detain a mamber of Congress on his way to session.  They may do it ANYWAY, just like SCOTUS may abrogate the Constitution even though they are not authorized to do so.  In this case TSA is breaking the law, and SCOTUS is breaking the law.

You have been phrasing this as though it was authorized for TSA to detain Rand since he was not actively in the chamber and voting at the time of detainment.  I could not possibly disagree more vehemently.  Government breaking the law is always illegal, it is never authorized, no matter WHO says "it's OK."

It's like saying that Obama assassinating American citizens is authorized because SCOTUS hasn't issued an injunction against it.  That's just _wrong_.  Nobody is authorized to abrogate the Constitution.  Not Congress, not POTUS, not SCOTUS, and not some dingbat TSA agent on a power trip.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No one is arguing against that. But in practice the SCOTUS does have this power and does exercise this power. SCOTUS rulings, even if they violate the intent of the constitution, become law.





> Ok, so we're on the same page then! They're rulings might be wrong, but they're the law until overturned. 
> 
> That's why we need nullification!!!!!!!


In our form of government, courts do not write law.

----------


## eduardo89

> A violation of the Constitution does not make the government right just because they do it though.  In no way, shape, or form is any agent of the government authorized to detain a mamber of Congress on his way to session.  They may do it ANYWAY, just like SCOTUS may abrogate the Constitution even though they are not authorized to do so.  In this case TSA is breaking the law, and SCOTUS is breaking the law.
> 
> You have been phrasing this as though it was authorized for TSA to detain Rand since he was not actively in the chamber and voting at the time of detainment.  I could not possibly disagree more vehemently.  Government breaking the law is always illegal, it is never authorized, no matter WHO says "it's OK."
> 
> It's like saying that Obama assassinating American citizens is authorized because SCOTUS hasn't issued an injunction against it.  That's just _wrong_.  Nobody is authorized to abrogate the Constitution.  Not Congress, not POTUS, not SCOTUS, and not some dingbat TSA agent on a power trip.


I agree with everything you've said. Sadly it doesn't work like that in practice and as long as we have a POTUS, SCOTUS and congress who don't give a damn about the Constitution it is the "law" even if it is illegal.

----------


## eduardo89

> In our form of government, courts do not write law.


No, but they interpret what the law means. 

Actually in many cases the courts HAVE written the law. 

And let's stop arguing, we both agree it's wrong, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional. Sadly it's the way things are right now and that needs to be changed.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

Look, beyond whether what they did was right or wrong (and it was definitely wrong), let's talk about how badly this reflects on the state of our nation.

This made headlines all around the world. We're already being laughed at by British people and even Chinese for being a police state.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

//

----------


## MsDoodahs

> Look, beyond whether what they did was right or wrong (and it was definitely wrong), let's talk about how badly this reflects on the state of our nation.
> 
> This made headlines all around the world. We're already being laughed at by British people and even Chinese for being a police state.


How's tourism these days?  TSA bull$#@! have any impact on it?

----------


## slamhead

The Gravel ruling was actually a good ruling. It had to do with the "Speech and debate clause". It upheld the protection of congressional aides in exercising of their duties but ruled against the aide as arranging the publishing of classified documents in a paper was not part of his legislative duty.

----------


## eduardo89

> Look, beyond whether what they did was right or wrong (and it was definitely wrong), let's talk about how badly this reflects on the state of our nation.
> 
> This made headlines all around the world. We're already being laughed at by British people and even Chinese for being a police state.


Yeah it's sad the way things have worked out. The Constitution is a beautiful document, but it just goes to show that unless we have moral men leading and a people who stand up for every single one of their rights, every single time, no matter how small or inconsequential it may seem that gradually over time government erodes all your rights, one by one until you have nothing left.

----------


## 07041826

> haha...I pounded both fists as the arguments are mute as Rand was never arrested...


It's moot, not mute. 

Moot   

adjective

1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The only enforcement the Constitution has every had is We the People in the voting booth.  That's what we've forgotten.  My goal is to put a Constitution into the hands of every single voter and convince them that we can save America together if they but simply read the document prior to voting and vote according to it.

----------


## pen_thief

It appears I'm late to this thread and it's derailed a bit but I'd just like to add:

I hope he made it as uncomfortable and awkward for the TSA as humanly possible 
and I hope this opens up some people's eyes, as well!

----------


## eduardo89

> It's moot, not mute. 
> 
> Moot   
> 
> adjective
> 
> 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
> 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.


Nit pickers gonna nit pick.

----------


## 69360

> I agree with you. But if you take the world literally a congressman cannot be detained for any reason while on his way to congress. That's why SCOTUS ruled in Gravel v US that te immunity does not apply to laws unrelated to the carrying out of legislative business.


The intent of Article 1 section 6 clause 1 is very clear. It was intended to prevent the detention of a senator or representative enroute to session. Allowing this to happen sets a very dangerous precedent. 

I believe Rand could have ignored the TSA and walked toward the plane and been on firm constitutional ground if they attempted an arrest.

----------


## swiss_supporter

> Look, beyond whether what they did was right or wrong (and it was definitely wrong), let's talk about how badly this reflects on the state of our nation.
> 
> This made headlines all around the world. We're already being laughed at by British people and even Chinese for being a police state.


Don't get me wrong - I love your country for it's beauty and it's friendly people. For me the USA is still the country of unlimited possibilities. But when I travel to the US by plane I just think that the security measures are crazy. We have to take a survey with ridiculous questions, such as "do you carry bombs with you". And the immigration office is also a joke. Even if you just fly through the US, for example to get to Mexico, you have to leave your fingerprints.

When I see how easy it is for US citizens to get into my country (=Switzerland) I think it is pretty unfair ;-)

----------


## Krugerrand

> It's moot, not mute. 
> 
> Moot   
> 
> adjective
> 
> 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
> 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.


Perhaps he pounded quietly.

----------


## LiveForHonortune

> Don't get me wrong - I love your country for it's beauty and it's friendly people. For me the USA is still the country of unlimited possibilities. But when I travel to the US by plane I just think that the security measures are crazy. We have to take a survey with ridiculous questions, such as "do you carry bombs with you". And the immigration office is also a joke. Even if you just fly through the US, for example to get to Mexico, you have to leave your fingerprints.
> 
> When I see how easy it is for US citizens to get into my country (=Switzerland) I think it is pretty unfair ;-)


Meeh... I'd rather you don't patronize our country at this point. The sad state of affairs are the worst it has been since ever. I'd rather live during civil war times than this. The ridiculous frustration we have and the fact congress has a 5% approval rating yet the same people get voted back in most of the time. At least you Swiss guys get mandatory free guns and ammo.

----------


## brushfire

> It's moot, not mute. 
> 
> Moot   
> 
> adjective
> 
> 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
> 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.


The point was made, *irregardless *

----------


## swiss_supporter

> Meeh... I'd rather you don't patronize our country at this point. The sad state of affairs are the worst it has been since ever. I'd rather live during civil war times than this. The ridiculous frustration we have and the fact congress has a 5% approval rating yet the same people get voted back in most of the time. At least you Swiss guys get mandatory free guns and ammo.


I don't want to offend anybody. But it is my honest opinion about your security measures. I think the US is slowly turning into a police state. But we also have big problems over here. They don't give you ammo anymore in the military, just the guns. The politicians from the left are turning Switzerland into a socialist state. And the media is also biased. It's getting worse over here. That's why I want Ron Paul to be your president. It wouldn't just change the US, it would change the whole world!

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't want to offend anybody. But it is my honest opinion about your security measures. I think the US is slowly turning into a police state. But we also have big problems over here. They don't give you ammo anymore in the military, just the guns. The politicians from the left are turning Switzerland into a socialist state. And the media is also biased. It's getting worse over here. That's why I want Ron Paul to be your president. It wouldn't just change the US, it would change the whole world!


Ammo is still subsidized though isn't it?

Very off topic, but where in CH are you from?

----------


## Voluntary Man

Good that he refused the pat-down.

What I'm wondering, though, is WHY he CONSENTS to the even more invasive stripsearch machines (which radiates you, in order to create and store a detailed naked image of your body). I do just the opposite; if they want to violate me, they're gonna have to work for it, one-on-one. 

I have to fly for work, but I don't let my wife and children fly, because of the TSA. They can scan us all, but they can't grope us all. The pat-down is just a diversion, to intimidate you into going through their Rapescan stripsearch machines. 

I think Rand has this one backwards, but I'm glad he's taking a stand, and drawing some heat to the TSA.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...94#post4082294

----------


## swiss_supporter

> Ammo is still subsidized though isn't it?
> 
> Very off topic, but where in CH are you from?


Right. But if you are in the military, as most mens used to be, you used to get a gun and ammo to take home. Nowadays you have to leave the ammo there, but you can take your gun home. What sense does that make? I'm from St. Moritz...

But back to the topic. I honestly think that the security measures are too much. I travelled a lot of times to the US and it is getting worse everytime. Last time I had to wait like 6 hours at the immigration office and they wouldn't let me in. I don't know why? Afterwards they told me that they made a mistake and I can get in. We have to leave a lot of informations there and also our fingerprints and we have to carry a biometrical pass with a chip with us. I'm wondering what they're doing with that info?

----------


## libertygrl

> I don't want to offend anybody. But it is my honest opinion about your security measures. I think the US is slowly turning into a police state. But we also have big problems over here. They don't give you ammo anymore in the military, just the guns. The politicians from the left are turning Switzerland into a socialist state. And the media is also biased. It's getting worse over here. That's why I want Ron Paul to be your president. It wouldn't just change the US, it would change the whole world!


I think many people here realize that if we had Ron Paul as president we'd be setting an example for others to follow. More countries would admire us again and the world would be a much peaceful place.   But it doesn't have to stop here in the U.S.   Many of you in other countries who have been inspired by Ron Paul, need to spread his message of Libertarianism for others to follow within your own communities and eventually the halls of government.  Start your own meetup groups.  Maybe call it "The Ron Paul Society for Peace and Prosperity!" and try to reform your own country.  This is the time people might be more receptive now because of how bad the economy is.  You know what they say... no one can stop an idea whose time has come!   Freedom brings people together.

----------


## Andrew Ryan

Rand will be on the situation room with wolf blitzer today to talk about this.

----------


## eduardo89

> Rand will be on the situation room with wolf blitzer today to talk about this.


Wolf: "Senator, why were you trying to put hundreds of innocent American lives at risk by not allowing yourself to be properly groped?"

----------


## swiss_supporter

> I think many people here realize that if we had Ron Paul as president we'd be setting an example for others to follow. More countries would admire us again and the world would be a much peaceful place.   But it doesn't have to stop here in the U.S.   Many of you in other countries who have been inspired by Ron Paul, need to spread his message of Libertarianism for others to follow within your own communities and eventually the halls of government.  Start your own meetup groups.  Maybe call it "The Ron Paul Society for Peace and Prosperity!" and try to reform your own country.  This is the time people might be more receptive now because of how bad the economy is.  You know what they say... no one can stop an idea whose time has come!   Freedom brings people together.


Yeah, that's true. We are also working hard over here to educate people. More and more people are waking up to the fact that we are in trouble. We have an organization in Switzerland which is trying to spread the libertarian message. We are doing it through blogs, facebook-groups and meetups. And we also have some politicians who are involved (for example our youngest congressman in the parliament). But it is still interesting to see how the movement is growing in the US and how Ron Paul really has a chance of winning this thing... And we are planing on coming over to the US to support Ron Paul. For instance to show that he is not an "isolationist", and to show that it is possible to be friends with each other. I think this could be huge, since there will be some members from the swiss and maybe german parliament.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Rand Paul being detained haha,america what  a joke.

----------


## Svenskar_för_Ron_Paul

What will the outcome of this be do you think?

----------


## swissaustrian

> Yeah, that's true. We are also working hard over here to educate people. More and more people are waking up to the fact that we are in trouble. We have an organization in Switzerland which is trying to spread the libertarian message.


Are you reffering to the "Liberales Institut" in Zürich?

----------


## Lymeade-Lady

> I haven't flown since prior to 9/11...honestly I'm scared to be put in a position where myself and my daughters, 6 and 8, will be groped...makes me sick


I'm with you--and I also have 2 daughters.  I'd rather teach them appropriate boundaries than fly somewhere for vacation.  Fortunately, most our family is in driving distance.

----------


## swiss_supporter

> Are you reffering to the "Liberales Institut" in Zürich?


Not exactly. We are group of young people. For example our blog: http://switzerland4paul.blogspot.com or our youtube-channels where we subtitle Ron Paul Videos. But there are many organizations. We are trying to organize the different organizations. For example we have meetups to plan stuff together with congressman Lukas Reimann.

----------


## swissaustrian

> Not exactly. We are group of young people. For example our blog: http://switzerland4paul.blogspot.com or our youtube-channels where we subtitle Ron Paul Videos. But there are many organizations. We are trying to organize the different organizations. For example we have meetups to plan stuff together with congressman Lukas Reimann.


I like LR, but his voting record in the Nationalrat isn't purely Libertarian
I sent you a personal message, so we can discuss this in more detail

----------


## eduardo89

> I like LR, but his voting record in the Nationalrat isn't purely Libertarian
> I sent you a personal message, so we can discuss this in more detail


Bist du eigentlich Schweizer oder Österreicher?

----------


## swissaustrian

> Bist du eigentlich Schweizer oder Österreicher?


Schweizer Anhänger der österreichischen Ökonomie

----------


## eduardo89

> Schweizer Anhänger der österreichischen Ökonomie


Now your username makes perfect sense to me haha

----------


## fatjohn

> Nit pickers gonna nit pick.


It´s "gonna pick nit" not "gonna nit pick".

----------


## eduardo89

> It´s "gonna pick nit" not "gonna nit pick".


It's nitpicking, not picking nit. Nitpickers nitpick, they don't pick nit.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I'm with you--and I also have 2 daughters.  I'd rather teach them appropriate boundaries than fly somewhere for vacation.  Fortunately, most our family is in driving distance.


This is what we need to share everywhere:

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It's nitpicking, not picking nit. Nitpickers nitpick, they don't pick nit.


LOL you reminded me of whatsername Ziva on whatsits NCIS with that one 

American idiom is seldom logical.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Maybe they found the Constitution on him...


Yep. I was thinking the same exact thing, lol.

----------


## jtbraine

I,n,mn,m

----------


## eduardo89

> LOL you reminded me of whatsername Ziva on whatsits NCIS with that one 
> 
> American idiom is seldom logical.


Did you just imply I'm Mossad?

----------


## MsDoodahs

> The point was made, *irregardless *


ARGH!

noooooooooo!

nails on a chalkboard!!!


ARGH!

----------


## fatjohn

> It's nitpicking, not picking nit. Nitpickers nitpick, they don't pick nit.


Ah like iphone-users iphone use. http://www.ehow.com/how_5660093_pick-nits.html. Anyway, I'm not an english native myself. Don't worry to much Eduardo just messing around.

----------


## mosquitobite

> "Never let a crisis go to waste"?


I was thinking the same thing.  Most Americans tolerate, but do not like the TSA.  Let's use it for educational purposes!   And right before a national debate! \o/

----------


## eduardo89

> Ah like iphone-users iphone use. http://www.ehow.com/how_5660093_pick-nits.html. Anyway, I'm not an english native myself. Don't worry to much Eduardo just messing around.


iPhone users is two words. Nitpicking and nitpicker are one word each. I'm a native English speaker, but I had to look it up lol

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nitpick

----------


## swissaustrian

> I was thinking the same thing.  Most Americans tolerate, but do not like the TSA.  Let's use it for educational purposes!   And right before a national debate! \o/


I think the campaign is aware of the political opportunity.
(I also created a thread about this in the campaign suggestion box: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...al-opportunity)

----------


## jmdrake

> 





> This is a stupid photo, they can't grope me at the airport.


Actually it's a great photo.  And I think you missed the point.  Google, Wikipedia et al helped shut down the congressional website and switchboard over SOPA and PIPA but they let the NDAA go through without a peep.  Yeah all of *us* are ready to fight for all over our freedoms, but some folks only want to fight for their access to free porn.

----------


## Benjam

Why does he use the scanners in the first place? They are damaging to health.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Did you just imply I'm Mossad?


LMAO no that would be Josh and Bryan, and we already have them ID'd 

I was referring to the running joke that she always breaks American idioms.

----------


## JJ2

Doesn't Rand Paul carry a pocket Constitution? Why didn't he just read to them the part where it says Senators cannot be arrested on their way to Congress?

----------


## Dr.3D

> It's nitpicking, not picking nit. Nitpickers nitpick, they don't pick nit.


I dunno.  If they find a nit, I'm sure they will pick it.

A nit is the egg of lice ya know.

----------


## eduardo89

> LMAO no that would be Josh and Bryan, and we already have them ID'd 
> 
> I was referring to the running joke that she always breaks American idioms.


So I'm the party pooper? Like Jennifer.

----------


## eduardo89

> I dunno.  If they find a nit, I'm sure they will pick it.
> 
> A nit is the egg of lice ya know.


Thats nit picking, not nitpicking. Picking a nit is not the same thing nitpicking. A nit picker is not necessarily a nitpicker unless he's nitpicky about nit picking.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Thats nit picking, not nitpicking. Picking a nit is not the same thing nitpicking. A nit picker is not necessarily a nitpicker unless he's nitpicky about nit picking.


Well, jeesh... let's not get nitpicky about it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So I'm the party pooper? Like Jennifer.


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to eduardo89 again.

lmao!*

----------


## ross11988

> Why does he use the scanners in the first place? They are damaging to health.


I believe he went through a standard mental detector which many airports still have. Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think regular metal detectors have any health effects?

----------


## Voluntary Man

> I believe he went through a standard mental detector which many airports still have. Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think regular metal detectors have any health effects?


Perhaps, but that's not what the article implies.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...94#post4082294

----------


## stillhere

All the liberals on CNN.com's comments are saying he should be removed from office and wanted special treatment. I don't get why liberals don't care for civil liberties anymore, now that Obama is in office. They have excused the Patriot Act, the wars, the increasing TSA presence outside of airports, the new pat downs, and indefinite detention. 

These people are truly sick and the greater threat to liberty than the big bad scary would senator....I'm glad Rand stood up. Maybe they should be informed and know that this isn't about him, but everyone in general.

----------


## FA.Hayek

Like father like son! Go Rand!

----------


## Hutch41

I apologize if this has already been asked, but Rand raised a stink about the pat-down, but has no problems going through body scanners unlike his father?

----------


## sparebulb

> I apologize if this has already been asked, but Rand raised a stink about the pat-down, but has no problems going through body scanners unlike his father?


I'm not going to second guess Rand, but I'm with you.  My method would be to refuse the scanner and then endure the grope-check.

This whole event is a lose-lose for Rand and us through the twisted lens of the dinosaur government media.  However, I will forever respect him for his selfless resistance to this jackbooted nonsense.

----------


## TheLibertarianNationalist

Great news. I wonder what the right-wing radio hosts will say about this. Should be interesting.

----------

