No Bozo, we libertarians have hated the Act since it was first proposed. However, it was the Democrats who voted against it when it was proposed by Bush and for it when renewed by Obama.

I finally got the site to load and it appears that the TSA is actually going to do something rational.

I wish that this had started a few years ago when I regularly traveled between the airports listed. Now, I don't expect to fly more than a couple of times this year and not to any of the airports on the list.

Thanks, LK

If Paul isn't the nominee then to get to the debates Gary Johnson would need to reach 5% in the polls. Of course if he gets to 5% they'll change it to 10% and if he reaches 10% they'll change it to 20%. Basically, for Johnson to be allowed to participate in the debates he would have to first win the election.

If I was served a National Security letter and was therefore fully aware of the violation of someone's rights I would be subject to prison time if I revealed that fact. Now, under the NDAA I could be taken off the streets and held indefinitely on the grounds that I aided terrorists by revealing the existence of the NSL.

What this amounts to is that knowledge of the violation of individual rights is dangerous, especially if you speak about it.

Before you ask, yes, I am an American citizen but as to whether I have actually knowledge of an NSL I wouldn't dare tell you. It is however, public knowledge that at least 700,000 NSLs have been served. Do you seriously believe that all 700,000 were jihadis?

"We are not at war with collectivism. "

We're at war with progressives and that is the same thing.

I find this hard to believe because I, and many others, travel regularly for business and no one I know has one of these "Get Out of The Line Free" cards.

That's a pretty good summary cb750 (may I call you 'cb'?)

Most of these plots are broken up because the jihadis have no native support in America. This forces them to the streets to find weapons and explosives where they invariably walk into either an FBI or a local "sting". The last idiot jihadi tried to get guns in Mexico and encountered an American DEA agent. The FBI stepped in and "stung" him.

As long as there is no grassroots support for jihadists they will never be able to mount a serious threat.

There is no hostile army occupying America except possibly the FBI.

"The rise of Islam in Europe is due to white guilt and open borders, that is, to liberalism. "

There is ten times the "white guilt" in America that there has ever been in Europe and until fairly recently our borders were quite open. The Bill of Rights,with its broad protections of individual rights, protected us. Modern liberals, i.e. progressive have long recognized that the Bill of Rights stands in the way of their plans to establish a state hostile to individualism.

The property aspect of the 4th Amendment jurisprudence is based on a terribly incorrect decision made in "Olmstead v US" where it was ruled that telephone conversations could be bugged at the will of local police since no invasion of property was required. This was changed by "Katz v US" to a criteria of a "reasonable expectation of privacy". This was better, but not nearly good enough.

The right of privacy is easily justified as being necessary for the protection of the specifically named rights of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. Freedom of speech is often protected by anonymity and that right to remain anonymous has been recognized as an important bulwark against tyranny. Try to achieve anonymity without privacy.

You can further argue that the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination cannot be fully protected if conversations can be recorded without probable cause.

In "Griswold v Connecticut" Justice Goldberg in a separate concurring opinion argued that privacy was at least in part covered by the 9th Amendment, something with which I fully agree.

The 9th Amendment states that there are unenumerated rights which are also valid. The purpose of this Amendment, as Madison argued, was to compel the government to find where in the Constitution it was empowered to act rather than attempt to extend its power by a narrow interpretation of individual rights. This would force a narrow interpretation of powers and a broad interpretation of rights. The 9th Amendment combined with a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause would leave little doubt as to the right of privacy.

Wait a few more years of Obama and come back and say the same thing if you can.