I can't agree with Brennan's methods. There are ways to protest without exposing yourself, and for reasons that Brennan is now aware of, he should have found another way.

Be clear. Is the fine justified or not?

As you consider this, compare to his being groped.

In my view, he only made it clear what was being done to himself and others. I suppose the public will do anything rather than face the truth.

I suppose he could have been a bit less dramatic but he is getting the word out!
Rand Paul refused the magnetic scanner, opted for the metal detector and then when TSA told him he must be "patted down" because it was procedure, Sen Paul informed them they needed a warrant. They had no probable cause to search him and therefore violating his 4th Amendment rights. He never gave in and waited for a warrant. They detained him for 4 hours before allowing him to board his flight....without a pat down.

I can't agree with Brennan's methods. There are ways to protest without exposing yourself, and for reasons that Brennan is now aware of, he should have found another way. -- Patrick at May 20, 2013 6:23 AM

Patrick,

There are several issues in this:

That Brennan stripped in protest in front of everyone is the first thing. To get to that level of frustration, especially with someone who probably traveled regularly, means that he had his limit of abuse by pizza delivery guys and C-store clerks.

He was found not guilty and within his constitutional First Amendment rights to protest the treatment he was receiving.

So now the TSA is trying to claim he was "allegedly breaking a federal rule stating passengers may not "interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate" TSA screeners."

This is not technically double jeopardy per the Fifth Amendment rulings as they stand. But it shows that the TSA was so confident they would be ruled in the right that they didn't include the "lesser" charge. Now that they lost on the primary charge, they are going back to the prosecutorial well and finding a new charge.

This is the same type of thing if Casey Anthony had been acquitted on the murder, but the DA hadn't included the four counts of providing false information to police as charges. So now they go back after her for the "perjury" post acquittal. That is a payback charge. I think if he fights it on Fifth Amendment he wins.

Patrick, from everything I've seen you post, you seem to think that our rights come from the government. They don't. We have our liberty granted by god, nature, or whatever higher power. The U.S. Constitution is what we ceded to the government to protect in general such as protection from foriegn governments, vultures in other states and other stuff. (Read and understand the Constitution and that should be enough.)

A partial thumbnail sketch of the Bill of Rights is a list of what the government can't do. I'll just hit 1 & 2.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A. The government can't tell you to believe in god;

B. You don't have to worry about telling anyone or the government they suck.

C. You can get together with your buddies to say the government sucks

D. You have a right to sue the government because they suck.

Amendment II:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A. You have a right to defend yourself and others from enemies whether foriegn or domestic, criminal or a tyrannical government.

The free state line was there because the individual states were expected to have there own militias that they loaned to the fed as needed and protected them from their neighboring states. Not that there was a federal standing army and the Guard/Reserves were a part of it.

Once you start to get these concepts you question a lot of the other crap that the fed does as "right" but is actually unconstitutional.

Jim P. I find it utterly fascinating that you went into a such a tirade, rife with presumption of what I believe, merely because I faulted Brennan's methods. Note, I did not fault the fact that he protested; I said he should have found another way.

Brennan wants to boo-hoo that his nudie pics are all over the internet? Gee, can't imagine how that could have happened. He only stripped naked in an airport.

But thanks for posting the link to that old thread. I stopped following it, and didn't realize that others decided to weigh in.

Lost in all this self-righteous harrumphing about the poor persecuted Tea Party is one simple fact: the "Tea Party" applications that attracted extra scrutiny were 501(c)(4) applications. Why is this important?

501(c)(4) organizations are prohibited from intervening on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate.

Quite frankly, any organization with the name "Tea Party," "Patriot," or "Democrat," "Republican," "Conservative," or "Liberal" in its name deserves extra scrutiny if they want to apply for tax exempt status when the law dictates that cannot endorse or work against political candidates.

Jim P., I almost missed this, due to your clever conflation of "rights" and "liberty."

Patrick, from everything I've seen you post, you seem to think that our rights come from the government. They don't. We have our liberty granted by god, nature, or whatever higher power.

Get thee to an unabridged dictionary. They are not the same thing.

And if you think otherwise, I suggest the next time your rights are infringed upon, you appeal to your "god, nature or whatever higher power" and see if they help you.

Regarding the TSA, the courts have ruled that flying is voluntary; we do not have a "right to fly." Therefore, availing yourself of a voluntary service implies consent to a search.

And finally, the Second Amendment says nothing about defending oneself from a tyrannical government.

So Patrick, if the government decides that in order to buy a car you have to be first fucked in the ass by a 300lb man who hasnt bathed in a month you would have no problem with that?

After all buying a car is vollentary and you have no right to drive.

What if you wanted to by a 64oz soda and the government said you first had to have a hernia check?

After all you are availing yourself of a voluntary service from a civilian owned business and it implies consent to a search from the federal government, right?

And finally, the Second Amendment says nothing about defending oneself from a tyrannical government.

Wow Pat, didnt realise tyrannical governments promoted a free state. Thank you for that insight into your psyche.

I really tire of people who can't follow a discussion, luj. You may now join the others who presence and postings I refuse to acknowledge from now until the end of time. Bye, luj. Nice ignoring you.

The reference to "tyrannical governments" was Jim P.'s, in his rather liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. Neither he nor I said that the government is tyrannical. I merely pointed out that the Second Amendment said nothing about defending oneself from a tyrannical government.

As for what I do and do not have a problem with, you wouldn't know that, because I never said one way or another. I merely pointed out what the courts said, numbnuts. The courts. Do you see anything about what I do and do not have a problem with? No, you don't. Because I didn't say it.

This is what the courts have said. Not what I said, but the courts have said. Unless you think my job is to sit behind a bench in choir robes and get addressed as "Your Honor" all day, the distinction isn't hard to make.

And with that, you have now read the last response I will ever make to you, now or ever. If you value it, print it out and frame it.

"And with that, you have now read the last response I will ever make to you, now or ever."

Wow, can I get in on this deal?
As epitomized by your glee at not having to care for your own mother and subsequent direction to us, never to do the like, I have no desire to see your petulant defenses of government infringements OR your oblivious attempts to explain yourself in terms only you apparently understand. Hey, you've focused on my objections in some cases while ignoring the others pointing out the soup on your tie.

So hey, do what you want - you're going to anyway - but I won't miss you.
Say Hi to Mom for me.

Pat

free state

tyrannical government

compare and contrast

2nd amendment say people need guns to protect their free state

WHO THE FUCK DO YOU SUPPOSE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING IT FROM?

I also noticed you ignored my response to your idea that the government has the right to fondle my balls if I give money to people not the government in exchange for service

Rad, didn't say I was going to leave. I said I was ignoring luj, and I'm going to. He can post to me whatever he wants. But once I recognize it's his stuff, I push it out of my mind, refuse to think about it, and I don't read.

As for my mother, she has now gone up north where some of my other siblings, seven of them, will provide for her care. When she returns to Florida, where I live, in December, I will resume my caring for her.

It doesn't mean I like doing it. And it doesn't mean it doesn't take it's toll on me. Since you obviously don't have the wherewithal to be a caregiver, you wouldn't know that. But don't let that stop you from passing judgment on those of us who are, even if it is only for half a year.

You're an incredibly petty and hateful individual, Rad.

But to answer your question, 'Waste, no, I don't think the fine was justified. But he seems to be in good hands, he has a lawyer taking up his cause, pro bono. (I wonder if the Tea Party has any lawyers in their ranks willing to take up their cause for the IRS.)

And thank you for recognizing the fact that I didn't address his fine, one way or another. See? You're learning.

But as I read the article, the first thing I noticed was his complaint that his pics of his 50-year-old, out-of-shape uncovered backside had found widespread (pun very intended) circulation throughout the Internet.

Every cellphone in circulation has a camera, and everyone carries one. He has no right to complain of his self-inflicted woes.

"Since you obviously don't have the wherewithal to be a caregiver, you wouldn't know that. But don't let that stop you from passing judgment on those of us who are, even if it is only for half a year.
You're an incredibly petty and hateful individual, Rad."

Not about me, Patrick. Who said they were GLAD to be rid of their own mother, that caregiving sucked and that we, your audience, should never do it? Who dismissed the hope that this was insincere? YOU DID. Note that others gather the same meaning from your posts? Of course not. They're unimportant.

"Wherewithal"? "Obvious"? Clearly you haven't been paying attention - as usual. If you had, you'd have noticed Crid's lament about my pay, even though he knows nothing about my job, and your own post about caring for a loved one was heartless.
Now I suspect you're just being dramatic to gain attention. I'll be happy if you ignore me, happier still if you'd just go hang with "Knowing" and jeer at the people who don't want a gov't flunky in their shorts.

What? I'm not allowed to be relieved that my mother has gone to Vermont where my siblings can take over her care, and give me a few months reprieve?

As for gaining attention, I have too much now. Morons like you, who can't read without reading into

A good example is the nonentity luj. I merely said that courts have ruled that we do not have the right to fly and since we don't have this right, they have ruled that using an airport is a choice; therefore availing ourselves of this choice implies consent to a search. In other words, as the courts have it, if you don't like it, don't fly.

Now, did I say anywhere that I endorse this? Nope. Merely reporting the facts. But luj, like you, ever dense and immune to reason with a incorrigible need to lock everyone down to a position, decided that my merely reporting what the courts have said, of course, means I support it.

If I said "The sky is blue," luj would launch into a massive hissy-fit. "How dare you decide the sky had to be blue! Why not chartreuse? Or amber?"

As for my mother's care, I notice that you're the only one who made the assumption. And I actually regret explaining anything to you. As I said, you are petty and hateful. I was only too happy to let you assume the worst about me. It's quite in keeping with your character (or lack thereof).

Brennan wants to boo-hoo that his nudie pics are all over the internet? Gee, can't imagine how that could have happened. He only stripped naked in an airport. -- Patrick at May 21, 2013 5:03 AM

How do you get the idea Brennan wants to boo-hoo that his nudie pics went viral out of his complaint that the TSA is charging him with a different violation at this late date? I see nothing in there where he states he was unhappy about his picture going viral.

And if you think otherwise, I suggest the next time your rights are infringed upon, you appeal to your "god, nature or whatever higher power" and see if they help you.

He appealed to the courts. The courts decided in his favor. The TSA now wants a second bite at the apple.

You don't understand that our natural rights and liberty are conjoined. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution with that in mind. A free people people are those with liberty and rights are not beholden to the state, a king or anyone "superior" to them. They don't have to ask the state for permission to go or do most things. The TSA is an imposition on the free market.

501(c)(4) organizations are prohibited from intervening on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate.

Jim P. You don't understand that our natural rights and liberty are conjoined. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution with that in mind.

Lovely sentiments, but what you don't understand is that until "god, nature or whatever higher power" speak up in a language we understand, all it is is a religious opinion.

The only freedom you have is freedom of thought. And that is only because it can't be monitored.

And more to the point, "god, nature or whatever higher power" has yet to step in and protect you whenever your precious rights are infringed upon. So, lacking authority to speak up and confer them upon you, and lacking the power to protect them, they are not your "rights" at all.

It's a nice, lovely, sentiment, even ideal. But without some authority to give them to you and protect you, they are not "rights."

Regarding Media Matters or MoveOn, did they actually include their support of liberal candidates in their charter? Because there is nothing in the names of these organizations that suggests a liberal proactive bias.

Lovely sentiments, but what you don't understand is that until "god, nature or whatever higher power" speak up in a language we understand, all it is is a religious opinion. -- Patrick at May 21, 2013 8:32 PM

And it has been written down and spoken for:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I've pretty much been an agnostic/atheist since about 12 years old and am now on the north side of 40. So I used that phraseology to present the idea of "god".

It's a nice, lovely, sentiment, even ideal. But without some authority to give them to you and protect you, they are not "rights." -- Patrick at May 21, 2013 8:32 PM

That is what the Federal Constitution does. It supposedly limits the government and enumerates our rights and liberties. Those not enumerated, like the right to travel, were presumed to be inherent and did not need to be listed.

But you are avoiding the point of this whole blog entry.

Think of it this way:

I meet up with you in a bar. I say to you after a conversation "I think you are a total jerk." You try to slap me and I avoid it. Then I walk out before you can swing again.

So I walk into the same bar a year later and you swing at me again without saying a word to me, or me to you.

Do you think that's right?

That is what is being discussed here. The TSA is trying to take a second slap.