How My Lawsuit Against the TSA Made Airports Safe For the Constitution Again

via The Huffington Post

On March 29, 2009, I was traveling through Lambert-St. Louis International Airport carrying approximately $4,700 in cash. I'm the Director of Development for Campaign for Liberty, a political organization that grew out of Congressman Ron Paul's presidential campaign and promotes constitutional principles of freedom. The cash was money the Campaign for Liberty had received at our Regional Conference in St. Louis -- the proceeds of ticket sales, t-shirts, stickers, books, etc. -- that I was transporting back to our office in Virginia. The price for bringing my organization's cash box through TSA screening? TSA agents detained me for half an hour of harassing questioning.t.
Of course, carrying cash on flights within the United States is not illegal. My case was one of many troubling incidents in which the TSA attempted to transform its limited search authority into a license to invade people's privacy by performing sweeping, unfounded searches that have nothing to do with keeping flights safe. The only difference between others who have been subjected to these types of illegal searches and myself is that I was equipped with a pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution and my iPhone. And I wasn't afraid to use either.

Although my knowledge of the law was limited, I did not believe that I should have to surrender my constitutional rights because I chose to travel by plane. I knew I was not doing anything illegal or suspicious. I also knew the government's interest in investigating me had nothing to do with flight safety. There was no suggestion I was carrying anything dangerous to anyone on board or the plane itself. The TSA agents focused their entire interrogation on the fact that I was carrying $4,700 cash. Based on that, they held me in an interrogation room to investigate me; I remained polite but insisted on at least being informed of my rights under the Constitution.

You don't have to believe my characterization of the interrogation. I recorded audio of the incident with my iPhone. Two things emerge clearly from the recording: first, the agents were not plausibly investigating evidence of a risk to flight safety; and second, they were not interested in informing me of my legal rights. When a combination of TSA agents and police officers crowded the room, the interactions became like something you'd see on a television police drama.

I was repeatedly asked where I worked, what I was doing with the money, where I got the money, and a host of other unnecessary questions. My response? "Am I legally required to answer?" I was told I would be taken to see the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), asked if I needed to be handcuffed, and informed, "If you have nothing to hide, just answer the questions." Upon my final statement that I was looking for direction as I did not understand the law, I was informed, "We're gonna help you understand the law," and I was lead down the hall to be further investigated, I was told, by the FBI and/or DEA. Although I never did end up speaking with the FBI or DEA, it's worth listening to the audio of my interrogation to get a clear sense of the situation.

The law states that TSA agents should be able to search for weapons and explosives, things that could pose a threat to flight safety. But extending their searches to fishing expeditions for general law enforcement purposes - searches TSA agents are not trained to perform - only serves to distract from that task.

On June 18, 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on my behalf in federal court, charging TSA with violating my constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. My focus was on principle rather than financial gain, and I did not seek money in the lawsuit. Rather, my case asked the court to order TSA screeners to conform their searches to the Constitution's requirements. Under the Constitution, TSA screeners do not have the unlimited ability to search and detain passengers. Search procedures designed for purposes other than screening for weapons and explosives exceed TSA's authority and violate passenger rights, and we hoped a court order could generate a policy from TSA that respected all travelers' liberties.

What a difference a lawsuit makes... Eight days before the government's response was due in our case, TSA issued a new policy directive making clear that its safety screening procedures would be strictly limited to passenger searches for the purpose of safeguarding flight safety. In combination with other directives issued in the wake of our lawsuit, TSA's policy now makes clear that passengers should not experience the kind of suspicionless detention and questioning I had been subjected to.

In light of this victory, yesterday the ACLU informed the court of our intention to voluntarily dismiss the suit. The Constitution draws a critical distinction, which these new directives reflect: when subjecting individuals to blanket, suspicionless searches, TSA agents must adhere to their limited mandate of protecting flights against weapons or explosives. The new policy is clear: passengers are no longer forced to check their constitutional rights at the airport counter, and that is a victory for all. (Read more inside ..)

The Alternative Right

By Kevin Deanna, via TakiMag.com

It’s 1964. A stranger approaches and tells you two political movements will arise in the near future, the New Left and the New Right. One of these movements will dominate American politics for a good quarter century. Indeed, political scientists will define the entire period in terms of the ascendancy of this group; historians will write books naming this age after the movement’s most successful leader. Politicians, scholars, and activists on right and left will go so far as to call it a “Revolution.” Read the full article here. (Read more inside ..)

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion

By Ron Paul

Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions.Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can’t pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people’s best interest. (Read more inside ..)

Republicans Embrace Ron Paul on Domestic Policy

Dr. No's moment
By: Daniel Libit
July 18, 2009 06:22 PM EST

“He hasn’t bombed Iran yet,” says Ron Paul, when asked to assess the best and worst characteristics of President Barack Obama’s six months in office.

“The worst thing is he is probably still thinking about it.” No sooner does the representative from Texas’ 14th Congressional District, nicknamed “Dr. No” by his detractors, find himself embraced by mainstream Republicans (and even some Democrats) on domestic policy issues, then he pivots his focus to foreign affairs.

Obama, Paul told POLITICO during a sit-down in his office this week, “has talked a little better than his action, but he has already expanded [the number of troops] in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He became the peace candidate: ‘Yeah, we’re going to end that war in Iraq.’ But it’s not sincere. I don't think they had any intention, never did.”

It’s a unique time for Paul. With the economy in the tank, the same cable news shows that spurned him during the election now keep asking him on to talk monetary policy. Republican House members are finally voting with him on spending measures.

But following his exhilarant, if quixotic, quest for the presidency, Paul finds himself simultaneously gratified and frustrated by his return to the friendlier-than-before confines of the House of Representatives. He thinks he’s well situated in Congress to push for his libertarian causes, but then claims he doesn't "pay a whole lot of attention" to the activity on the House floor these days, adding, "I don't think it's relevant to the big picture.”

“A lot of this is just tinkering, bailing out, more money, more spending, no shift of direction and it's a little bit frustrating," he says.

Asked if he feels more embraced by the Republican Party establishment, Paul shrugs and says, "half and half.”

"I think there's respect. But they don't call me in and say, ‘What we need to find out from you is how you reach the young people.’"

As for another presidential run in 2012, “I don’t think that’s likely,” Paul says.

But in the next breath, he admits that he would have made the same prediction three years before his last run for the party’s banner. And he questions whether the names being bandied about as possible Republican nominees will connect to his supporters.

“The one thing that is characteristic about anybody who joins us is that they are energized and everybody recognizes that," Paul says. "We also know that it is the energy in a small group of people that really leads nations.”

"Let's say I have 15 percent of Republicans and [Mitt] Romney has 30 percent. If his people aren't energized, our guys might stand for three of his."

As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as "more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”

"I wonder whether she's energizing the 15-20 year olds," Paul muses. "That would be a question I would have. Because she doesn't talk about the Federal Reserve and some of these issues. She doesn't talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture."

Worse still, he adds, Palinites are partisans: “If Obama was the only one who was guilty, they would be on his case all the time, but there is a lot of partisanship and I am probably less partisan and therefore she is going to appeal to partisan Republicans better.”

As Paul sees it, such partisanship is the rough equivalent of an old Onion headline, “"Our local area sports team is superior to your local area sports team," Or as he puts it, “I think when it comes to foreign policy and monetary policy on big spending and watching out for the big corporations, Republicans are Democrats.”

And then he reverses again crediting Obama for restoring, however unintentionally, Republican principles.

“Republicans now are conservatives again” since the election, he says. “They are more consistent in voting against all these spending [measures]. And I kid them, I say, ‘are you guys voting with me now or am I voting with you?’

“Of course, they would always complain when I voted against Republican spending.“

Looking back at his presidential run, Paul seems sincerely surprised: He’s stayed the same, but suddenly the young folk who were whistling past him for years stopped to listen, even as the party’s other candidates did their best to ignore him.

“Some people say, ‘Oh, that was a good strategy,’” Paul says. “It was no more strategy than a man on the moon. It was just that I knew what I believed in, I kept talking about it, knew the problems were coming. I really assumed I would probably be back in medicine or something when the crisis hit.”

The Campaign for Liberty, the grass-roots organization that grew out of Paul's presidential campaign, has raised over $3 million since last June, attracting some 200,000 members.

“It just sort of baffles me," says Paul, shrinking, as he tends to do, when the notion of his star quality is raised.

And as of last week, 271 members of the House – about one-third of them Democrats – have signed onto HR-1207; a measure Paul introduced last February to audit the Federal Reserve.

When the Campaign for Liberty had a petition drop in support of the measure some six weeks ago, members were informed the night before that there would be a photo-op with Paul. Even with such late notice, 11 showed up to have their picture taken with "Dr. No," including Tom Cole, the former chair of the NRCC.

At the same time, Paul shrugs off his role in the House. “So I don’t work here so much. I didn’t get many signatures, because I have sort of twisted arms or put on pressure. Plus, I have nothing to trade, I am not a committee chairman and don’t have any clout, but because we have grassroots support, they got energized, and that’s how we have [271 members]…on the bill.”

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC (Read more inside ..)

"Fight Them Over There Vs. Over Here" a False Choice

Ron Paul
The Washington Times

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions. The purpose of the United States is to protect the liberty of the American people. We should never allow the WTO, NAFTA, the U.N. or the Law of the Sea Treaty to transfer power from America to an international body.

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world. America should be armed with defensive weapons capable of repelling any attack. We should spend all appropriate money to make sure that no country in world can credibly threaten us.

Unfortunately, our foreign policy is undermining our security. We have more than 700 military installations in 135 countries around the globe. We have 50,000 troops in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, and 25,000 in South Korea. Worse, we have our brave men and women bogged down occupying Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of ethnic strife and civil war.

We spend more than $1 trillion per year on our foreign policy, and our military is stretched thin. We can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. We must bring our troops home from around the world, cut overseas spending and strengthen our national defense.

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Congress abandoned that responsibility during the buildup to the Iraq war and must never make that mistake again. When wars are undeclared, they drag on with no clear plan or exit strategy. If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.

4. We do not engage in nation-building. Conservatives know government is a poor tool to solve problems. It then makes no sense that we would think that our government could build civil societies and solve the tremendously complex problems of a developing country. Nation-building does not work. It places a tremendous burden on our military and takes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayer. The best thing we as Americans can do is offer friendship while setting a good example of what a free and prosperous society looks like. Ronald Reagan wanted America to be a "shining city on the hill." We should make that our goal.

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations. Intervention, however, always has unintended consequences and almost always gets us in trouble. For example, in 1953, our CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since. So much of our intervention makes no sense. We backed Saddam Hussein for much of the 1980s, and then twice went to war against him. In the 1990s, we bribed North Korea not to pursue atomic weapons with nuclear technology, and Kim Jong-il used that assistance to build several nuclear bombs.

Intervention simply does not serve our long-term interests.

The world is a dangerous place and we should be concerned, but intervention and militarism cannot solve our problems. The answers to our foreign policy problems lie in defending our soil, scaling back our global military footprint and trading with all willing partners. We have strayed far from this philosophy, but we can get back on track by looking to our Constitution, our traditions and the example of our Founding Fathers.

Ron Paul, a Pittsburgh-born obstetrician and Republican House member from Texas, campaigned for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination on a limited-government platform.. (Read more inside ..)

Ron Paul & the Federal Reserve in Legos

And here is the rest of it. (Read more inside ..)

Does it Depress You to Know How Alone You Really Are?

Such are the words spoken by the Joker to Commissioner Gordon in the movie "The Dark Knight." These words were all I could think of as I heard the recent news concerning Mark Sanford and reflected on Congressman Ron Paul, perhaps the only decent, honest elected official in our nation. In the film, the movie's villain the Joker chides Commissioner Gordon upon being questioned about the whereabouts of Harvey Dent, the District Attorney who is seen as one of the only hardworking, honest and decent public servants in the city. Unbeknownst to the people, Dent is actually an individual with deep emotional problems who later goes on a killing spree of those he holds responsible for the death of his female love interest.

As Commissioner Gordon, an honest upstanding police officer, fights to hold the city together, he seems corruption, bribery, and filth swarm through the ranks of the police department. Those who are honest and stand up for justice are killed or removed from their positions of leadership. Those who are corrupt and dirty are allowed to infiltrate the police department and the justice system and are bribed by the mob to allow crime to continue. The Joker condescendingly toys with Gordon and asks him what it is like to perhaps be the only decent and honest official in an entire city filled with corruption. He asks him what it feels like to know that you are completely alone, and that there is no one else out there who will fight to protect the things you value?

I immediately thought of this scene as I heard about Mark Sanford and watched the news break last night. Many had pegged Sanford as the one to pick up the torch from 73 year old Congressman Ron Paul and continue to spread the message of true conservative/libertarian values. The story will probably get more convoluted before it gets any better, as emails have now surfaced that show the conversation between Mark Sanford and the woman involved in the affair. The emails are somewhat embarrassing to say the least. Further reports question whether or not Sanford's trips to Argentina were paid for by taxpayers. This is obviously something to be investigated and is a possible offense that should be looked into more deeply.

I feel a sense of sadness not for Mark Sanford's political career, but for Congressman Ron Paul. A man who has literally spent his life promoting the principles of liberty and for virtually all of his years as an elected official has had no one to join him in his endeavor. The scene in the Dark Knight plays over and over in my mind. "Does it Depress You to Know How Alone You Really Are?"

I question what Ron Paul goes through on a daily basis. What does it feel like, knowing that you may just be the only hope and ray of light in a nation increasingly becoming a totalitarian state? What does it feel like to know that in many ways you truly are alone among corruption and decay as you stand for what is moral and what is just. I think of this, and it makes me respect Ron Paul all the more.

. (Read more inside ..)

"Torturing the Rule of Law"

By Congressman Ron Paul

While Congress is sidetracked by who said what to whom and when, our nation finds itself at a crossroads on the issue of torture. We are at a point where we must decide if torture is something that is now going to be considered justifiable and reasonable under certain circumstances, or is America better than that?

"Enhanced interrogation" as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.

Click here to read more (Read more inside ..)