Bob Barr now a regular columnist in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

2008 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr has been writing editorials and guest column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for the past couple of months, which we’ve covered here, here, and here (and there is much more where that came from). Now Barr is moving up in the world–the Atlanta Journal-Constitution just released information saying that Bob Barr will now have a once-weekly column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

On the opinion pages, we are in a concerted march toward providing a rich marketplace of views, including liberal, conservative and others that defy labeling. We are in the process of selecting a new full-time conservative columnist. We have opened this up to the public and also asked you to let us know what you think of the sample columns from the finalists. We received 750 responses from people — giving us excellent feedback as we winnow the field. When this process is complete, we will have this new columnist three times a week, as well as Jim Wooten once a week, Bob Barr once a week, Cynthia Tucker twice a week and Jay Bookman twice a week, giving us a much stronger local columnist lineup than ever. Our new commentary editor keeps a running count of conservative and liberal columns on the pages to make sure we are balanced.

40 thoughts on “Bob Barr now a regular columnist in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

  1. Trent Hill Post author

    I thought it was strange that AFTER the election was over he came out strongly against the War on Drugs and admitted DOMA was a mistake. Seems like that would’ve been thing to say BEFORE the election.

    But he wants to stay in the public eye, which makes me think he is probably looking to take back a congressional seat, run for US Senate, or for Governor.

  2. paulie cannoli

    I thought it was strange that AFTER the election was over he came out strongly against the War on Drugs and admitted DOMA was a mistake. Seems like that would’ve been thing to say BEFORE the election.

    His ideological evolution continues. I still think he just ran for too high an office too soon after joining the LP.

    But he wants to stay in the public eye, which makes me think he is probably looking to take back a congressional seat, run for US Senate, or for Governor.

    Quite likely.

  3. Trent Hill Post author

    And honestly–I’d like to see Barr go into the Senate, so long as he continued to be libertarian.

  4. Michael Seebeck

    Once a week? Does it take him that long to sharpen his crayons and form coherent sentences without Verney’s hand up his ass?

  5. Jake Witmer

    Ask him whether he supports jury nullification of law. …LOL

    As of the Denver Convention, he didn’t understand the concept and was giving answers he learned in prosecutor school. A thinker on the level of Spooner, he is not.

    Remind him of the statements he made in his article on the Yates Jury. He may be right that that jury “got it wrong” …Where I disagree is when he states that “The jury is to take the law as the judge gives it to them.”

    Ahhh. The old nemesis of individual liberty, jury instruction, rears its ugly head again. How many years has it been since John Peter Zenger’s jury was instructed to “take the law as it was given to them”?

    Someone needs to send Barr a copy of Spooner’s essay on jury trial.

  6. Nexus

    I supported Barr in the general election, but did so not wanting the good to be the enemy of the perfect. I just can’t see Barr(or Wayne Root for that matter) as a leader in the liberty movement on the level of Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, or Peter Schiff. He is too compromised.

  7. Susan Hogarth

    I still think he just ran for too high an office too soon after joining the LP.

    I agree – I do not think Barr (nor the Party, of course) were particularly well-served by the rush to move him immediately onto the National Committee and then into the race for president. More development time as an activist would have made him a much more effective Party organizer and Libertarian campaigner.

  8. HS

    “I doubt he runs as a Libertarian. Republican.”

    I agree. He’s going to probably try and run as a new type of Republican, which I guess means sweeping his lengthy past as the prototypical old type of Republican under the rug.

  9. robert capozzi

    susan, please expand. do you have a rule of thumb for the length of time the re-education takes?

  10. Susan Hogarth

    No rule of thumb, Robert, and I did not use the term ‘re-education’.

    The LP has decades of history as part of a movement that is outside the two-party system. Barr was very much inside the two-party system, and had a lot of expertise using that system which could be very helpful to the LP. However, I think trying to apply that expertise without having at least some minimal activist background within the LP was a mistake.

  11. robert capozzi

    susan, in some sense, I’d suggest ALL campaigns are “mistakes,” or make a lot of mistakes.

    in the areas where we’d agree that Barr made them, I’d say were more than made up for by Barr’s media access, credibility and articulateness.

    the opportunity arose. the party calculated the risks as best it could. i’d agree that perhaps Barr’d have been a better candidate for 2012, but, then, isn’t that always so until about 65, when age can become an issue.

  12. TeachingTheWorld

    robert capozzi,

    i Can See you Everywhere here on ipr, and i know that you used to enjoy your NighT LiFe, but what have you been doing, and what do you do now for work and fun.

  13. Michael Seebeck

    Sorry, folks, I had my snark turned up there. Barr does not impress me in the slightest.

  14. Rocky Eades

    The word I have is that Barr has no plans to ever again run for office – of course, he had no plans to run for potus, either, if you believe that. That’s why he endorsed his good friend Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia Senate run-off election.

  15. Jim Davidson

    Hey, good news. Bob Barr supporters and Libertarian Party members are members of militias, are violent terrorists, and are a threat to Missouri law enforcement because militia members have in the past killed Missouri LEOs. This news is from a recent call my friend Catherine Bleish made to the Missouri Information Analysis Center. She spoke to Officer Hotz about the recent documents published by Alex Jones.

    I don’t generally like Alex, but here is his link on the “secret” report. Just in time for the Campaign for Liberty extravaganza in St. Louis. Check out especially the top of page 7.

    The pages are shown as images, click on them for a readable size.

    Whee! We’re all terrorists. Missouri law enforcement will now be on hand to slaughter Campaign for Liberty enthusiasts as they arrive. Go go Missouri tourism!

  16. Jim Davidson

    Catherine’s press release.

    Press Release

    For Immediate Release

    Liberty Restoration Project responds to Document released by Mo. Division of Drug and Crime Control/ Missouri Information Analysis Center

    Kansas City, MO. March 12th 2009:

    The Liberty Restoration Project (LRP) obtained a notice today that was released by the Missouri Division of Drug and Crime Control, P.O. Box 568 in Jefferson City today. This document declares that “Militia Members most commonly associate with 3rd Party political groups” indicating Congressman Ron Paul, former Congressman Bob Barr, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin to be springboards of Anti-government militia groups in Missouri. The Liberty Restoration Project views this document as defamation to a growing “Freedom Movement” that is focused on peace, freedom, civil liberty, and constitutional obedience. The Liberty Restoration Project in Kansas City is a focus group based off of many of the principles laid forth by 3rd Party leaders, including an audit and/or repeal of the Federal Reserve Banks of the United States, and many other topics that are addressed by these leaders.

    The document has been confirmed via telephone by Officer Hotz who spoke with Catherine Bleish and confirmed they “stand by everything the documents say” and that “militias are a threat as MO officers have been killed by militia members.” When representatives of the LRP have called the attached phone numbers, they have been met with confirming messages stating that they are aware of the document, and that they would have someone return a phone call. One of the reasons the LRP believes that this document is so destructive is because of Congressman Ron Paul’s Regional “Campaign For Liberty” conference in St. Louis starting on the 27th of March, 2009 which will bring in hundreds of Ron Paul supporters and “Freedom Movement” groups. The LRP believes that this is a blatant attempt to stifle liberty and a message that teaches American people what it means to be an American with a voice, and a message of peace and civil liberty. The Liberty Restoration Project is currently awaiting a response from the Division of Drug and Crime Control. The only names listed on this document come in the form of email, and the names listed are: Brandon Middleton, and Greg Hug.

    The Liberty Restoration Project also wants to express their views about “Militia’s”, citing the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution; “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.” Although no members of the LRP are members of a militia, they feel that a Militia is Constutionally founded and have advocated in the past for Missouri representatives to adhere to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and abide by the 2nd Amendment. Yet the document in question annotates a Militia as something to be feared, warned against, and fought. The LRP wishes for a retraction of this document, and a public apology made, and if this is not met, the LRP has promised heavy activism against their Division and will pursue further actions to correct what they feel is a devastating misrepresentation of what the “Freedom Movement” is about.

    For More information about the LRP, please visit:

    For More information about the Campaign For Liberty, please visit:

    Attached you will find scans of the Document in question.

    Catherine Bleish
    executive director
    Liberty Restoration Project

    Freedom reaches across party lines.

  17. Michael Seebeck

    I gave that thing a severe look-through and I’m calling it bullshit. I found literally a hundred errors in the writeup on technical stuff alone.

    It also appears to have been written by at least two people, possibly three, and the correlations of disparate groups is just laughable.

  18. Michael Seebeck

    Jim, did this Hotz character confirm the report as authentic? And if so, how do they justify such shoddy work?

  19. Trent Hill Post author


    I think it’s pretty obviously a forgery. But even if it isnt–it never says Ron Paulers are terrorists or militia members. It says some militia members are Ron Paul supporters, and some militia members are possible terrorists–which means there could possibly be some overlap between the Ron Paul supporters and possible terrorists.

  20. Jim Davidson

    In her recent comments, Catherine Bleish notes that she spoke to Officer Hotz of MIAC, who confirmed the document and asserted the power to target militia members because, according to Hotz, members of Missouri law enforcement have been killed by militia members. I suggest you contact Liberty Restoration Project’s Catherine Bleish for details on who she talked to.

    Or, you know, do some actual journalism. Something Trent doesn’t seem willing to do. Contact MIAC yourself to confirm it.

    The government has taken an extreme position. It does deliberately say in the MIAC report that police should be watchful of anyone with a Bob Barr bumper sticker, or a Campaign for Liberty sticker, because of all the bad things they detail about what “militia” people have done over the years. And heaven forbid anyone to form a militia themselves, Second Amendment be damned. I would expect checkpoints on Missouri roads to target C4L members coming to the event in St. Louis later this month. A few exemplary shootings ought to raise the bar a bit.

  21. Jim Davidson

    Here, for the lazy non-journalists, is Catherine’s recent statement.

    “5. About 3.5 hours after the first phone call I got a phone call from an officer Hotz of the state highway patrol who called me from 573-522-0000. He confirmed that they stand by everything in the memo, just not all the rumors on the internet. I had him repeat that he confirmed it about 5 times. He told me it was not sweeping everyone under that title, just noting TRENDS in militia members. He told me that the militia is a threat because officers have been killed by militia members.”

  22. Trent Hill

    “And for those too lazy to read the memo, it doesn’t say what Alex Jones or Jim Davidson say it says.”

    Bingo bango. Then again, this isnt surprising–Jim Davidson can rarely open his mouth without spewing force some sort of ridiculous conjecture.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp


    Actually, I don’t mind it when Jim engages in “conjecture.” He’s often more correct in such conjecture than might seem obvious.

    The instant case is not, however, a matter of conjecture. The document in question is available. Jim says the document says X when in point of fact the document simply and verifiably does not say X. That’s not conjecture, it’s factual error.

  24. Michael Seebeck

    Then someone in theMSHP ought to be fired for flunking junior-high English for that atrocious mess. I counted 99 errors, and the thing was obviously not proofread or reviewed.

    Case in point: It’s dated 2-20-09 and refers to Obama as “President Elect” [sic] three times when he was sworn in a month prior. Either news travels really slowly to Jefferson City, the MHSP didn’t get it read to them, or they are just incompetent.

    And the C4L and 2010 LP Convention are there, too. How ironic.

  25. Jim Davidson

    Yes, it should be fun, Michael. C4L is in St. Louis later this month. C4L people are speaking at a Liberty Restoration Project “end the Fed” rally in Kansas City, Missouri in April. And the LP convention in May 2010.

    No doubt some of this C4L stuff will rub off on the BTP for our Meatspace Convention at the end of May this year, also in KC MO.


    Government documents with spelling errors and errors of fact? Oh, my.

    I would encourage you to contact Bleish or MIAC to confirm if you still think it is a forgery. I do not think it is.

  26. Michael Seebeck

    I wasn’t the one who said it was, Jim. That was Trent.

    All I know is that thing should never have been published in that condition.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    Pity and forgiveness to our conspiracy-theory brothers and sisters. I sometimes wonder whether their innate death wish is pronounced. Some choose the fetal position, others wild mountains-out-of-molehills.

    Paranoia is unpleasant to watch, especially when it dons a tin-foil hat.

    As Rothbard said: “Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals.”

    And: “Or are there more sinister political-economic interests involved? I submit that the naïfs who stubbornly refuse to examine the interplay of political and economic interest in government are tossing away an essential tool for analyzing the world in which we live.”

    With this sort of thing out there, is anyone surprised that there’s an overlap between Ls and conspiracy theorists?

    The Pope sez it’s so, so it MUST be, yes?

    Or, could it be that the Pope/Emperor’s new clothes are skin? Thin skin at that!

  28. Jake Witmer


    Those are good quotes from Rothbard. It seems Capozzi doesn’t understand how good they are. But it goes without saying that good ideas are often misunderstood. Indeed, I used to stray away from Rothbard and Konkin’s “camp” due to their association with “conspiracy theorists”.
    (I still disagree with many conspiracy theorists, and still strongly disagree with certain things Alex Jones says. But that is the nature of even the best theorists: they are assumed wrong until they are proven right.)

    I still stray from Konkin because he eschews political battles as “inherently corrupt”. (Elections are no more inherently corrupt than guns. If guns keep falling into the hands of five-year-olds, or elections into the hands of statists, then we should fight that trend, using the full capacity of our minds.)

    But Rothbard has a point, as does G. Edward Griffin. It makes sense to disbelieve in all conspiracy theories until there is evidence for believing in them. However, it does not make sense even when evidence emerges to uncritically accept the conspiracy as “true in all its details”. All conspiracies, by nature, involve secrecy. When evidence of a conspiracy is uncovered, it makes sense to sheild one from its intended effects.

    If the recent takeover of the LP is designed to allow for some freedom, but not all, then serious questions should be asked of those who fail to promote all freedom. By far, the primary push into the LP was made by people who are more interventionist than was previously tolerated. Because of my willingness to tolerate Heinleinian irritability and militarism (of the same kind that was presented as a questionable virtue in “Starship Troopers”), repeated overtures have been made to me to drop my anti-war stance. People who have made this overture to me were two people employed by the National LP to petition the public for petition signatures in 2008. I believe it stands to reason that any infiltrator of the LP would be more politically sophisticated than the libertarian leadership itself. (After all, the only thing they desire is the maintenance of whatever power –such as unlimited military contracts– they have.)

    As far as I’ve seen, no Libertarian (of the “Reason Magazine” flavor) has been able to refute G. Edward Griffin’s writings on “conspiracy”.

    Having been victimized by a small conspiracy in 2008, I now fully understand how all conspiracy victims operate without full knowledge of their conspirators, and how that lack of knowledge is used –in retaliation– to make them look naive. Most victims of conspiracy who get close to their conspirators wind up losing control of their tempers (which further makes them an easy target). I did the same, in 2008, many times. (Even a cursory view of these boards shows me foolishly losing my temper many times.)

    After realizing that the Libertarian Party is not able to resist infiltration, it makes it easier for myself (and most other actual libertarians) to walk away from the LP, unless and until control of the Party can be regained at a National Convention.

    For those who oppose supporting a libertarian party that suddenly becomes another statist party after winning significant elections, I suggest you read the book “Out of Control” by Kevin Kelly. He doesn’t talk too much about resisting infiltration in the book, but he does talk about feedback, which is the same basic thing (given a deep enough view of its importance, that is). In his section on Norbert Weiner’s “Cybernetics” and feedback, he immediately mentions Hayek, and his work on feedback in economics. The same principles emphasized in “Out of Control” (cryptography and “one-way systems”, feedback) can be applied to a political party.

    I urge libertarians who have read a few basic libertarian philosophy books (such as “For a New Liberty” by Rothbard or “Why Government Doesn’t Work” by Harry Browne) to eschew further philosophical investigation, and begin reading about ways in which elections are won (“Winning Elections” by Dick Simpson, “Out of Control” by Kevin Kelly), and ways in which political control is maintained. With that kind of knowledge, the libertarian movement of 2007 was easily large enough to win control of the United States political system. Ron Paul’s candidacy indicated true levels of voter dissatisfaction that can be reached with a libertarian message.

    The battle for individual freedom demands that we gain political and cultural control of one state. If we gain control of anything less, we can be fought and defeated by both state and federal authorities. If the state turns against us, we are lost, because locals in other areas of the state will not feel unity with our cause.

    Until you can afford to move to AK, WY, or NH, I strongly suggest that you learn how to perform adequate jury rights activism in your state, or if you lack the ability to get involved physically, I suggest you involve yourself with AK, WY, and NH fora online.

    This is in keeping with the powerful political concepts of decentralization (maximizing the individual’s political power via his participation in the jury) and feedback (maximizing the power of individual rights candidates by their use of feedback tracking from the voters who support them).

    And sure, pay attention to those who are scheming behind your back, and spreading rumours about you, since that’s all that conspiracies really are. If you don’t think that that happens in politics, you really are blind.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *