More about the whistle-blowing Air Marshal who was targeted by the IRS

Anderson Cooper had done a segment on an air marshal named Jeffrey Black, who was audited by the IRS almost immediately after it became public that he had participated in a documentary about the shortcomings of the agency where he once worked, the Transportation Security Administration. Here’s the CNN clip...

...The documentary in which Black participated, Please Remove Your Shoes, is currently available on Netflix. The CNN clip inaccurately describes it as a “spoof” — in fact, it’s a pretty scary documentary if you fly often, and a frustrating one if you follow the goings-on at various government agencies.

Black appears on camera several times, beginning about 38 minutes into the film. In case you’re wondering what sort of revelations might have resulted in an IRS audit, I’ve put together some of the key revelations in the film based on his participation...

These things might have been exposed long ago and further transgressions and atrocities avoided. Meanwhile, we’re being set up for Bush 3, maybe with Rubio as vice president.

I think I would do better than the crapheads the GOP seems to push... and I have zero experience in the executive. (I would, however, make many enemies in the bureaucracy because I would seek to reduce their power and scope; hopefully to zero by dissolving the agency altogether [there's a really, really dirty trick I could use if the Courts/Congress said that I had to fund the agencies].)

A fish stinks from the head. Those who discouraged impeachment in favor of voting this clown-show out of office should at least be remorseful, if they’re not making public apologies.

Ah, but here's the thing: you don't have standing.
Honestly, it doesn't matter if we're talking presidential eligibility or challenging contraconstitutional statutes; you, as a peon, are not one of the ruling-caste — and, therefore, any perception of injustice in the system is obviously due to your inability to see the bigger picture. [/politi-think]

The mistake you’re making is assuming I’m not one of the ruling caste, because I am. And, if you want to hear a secret, so are you, and so is everybody reading this. It’s easier keeping people down when they are convinced there’s nothing that they can do about their condition, when there is - and if there really weren’t, the people you’re assuming are the exclusive ruling class wouldn’t spend so much of their resources trying to convince you otherwise.

I understand what you’re staying about the legal term of standing, but those people in Washington actually work for you and me, believe it or not. And there are some of them who recognize this, and some of those who do who both believe this clown-in-chief should be impeached, and are in a position to initiate it.

The mistake you’re making is assuming I’m not one of the ruling caste, because I am. And, if you want to hear a secret, so are you, and so is everybody reading this.

No; a caste is something you're born into — your theory, while closer to what the Constitution specifies, would deny [lawful] immigrants from having a say in the government. {I considered using the term "ruling class", but the political-oligarchy we have is much more caste-like than not.}

It’s easier keeping people down when they are convinced there’s nothing that they can do about their condition, when there is - and if there really weren’t, the people you’re assuming are the exclusive ruling class wouldn’t spend so much of their resources trying to convince you otherwise.

[Somewhat] Agreed; but here's the big question when, if ever, will a significant portion of the people [say 5%] cheer an attack on government? Joseph Stack [if I recall the name right], the guy who flew a plane into the IRS building because of that agency's lawlessness was resoundingly condemned — and yet now we have evidence of that agency's corruption, perhaps even more widespread than he thought.

I disagree, in part, due to the 'adventures' I've had in trying to challenge contraconstitutional statutes (state-level, via that State's constitution) — there is, apparently, no way to challenge the statute [in the legal arena] without violating that [invalid] statute. This is troublesome because this forces you to argue from the position of The Accused, reducing your argument to something that can be hand-wavily dismissed as equivalent to "but you're wrong too"-style arguments.

It's more than that; by all rights, the military should be arresting the NSA agents. The NSA has, after all, violated the 4th and 5th amendments on a scale that qualifies as warfare against the general population, their 'secret court' (really, a secret court!?) blatantly violates the 6th amendment, and the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution against even domestic enemies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.