Bob Barr: ‘Michael Roberts, Express Jet Pilot, For President in 2012’

Bob Barr in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

For the past year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, along with Members of Congress from both parties and the Obama Administration, have been demanding Americans give up our basic civil liberties and our fundamental right to privacy, by submitting to a full-body scan — amounting to a virtual strip search – simply because we need to fly on a commercial airliner. At least one American hero – Express Jet pilot Michael Roberts – has said “enough is enough,” and refused to participate any longer in this demeaning security charade.

Read more…

40 thoughts on “Bob Barr: ‘Michael Roberts, Express Jet Pilot, For President in 2012’

  1. Darryl W. Perry

    Let me see if I get this right; someone (ExpressJet Pilot) does one thing right (refusing naked scans & groping), his political beliefs aren’t known by many people (what are his views on taxation, war, the drug war, central banking, etc” and a former Congressman (& Presidential candidate) that supported the PATRIOT Act, drug war, FISA, etc says that this “hero” should be President???

  2. paulie Post author

    I think the reference to “president 2012” was probably rhetorical, not serious.

    To my knowledge, Mr. Roberts has expressed no interest in seeking the presidency.

    Although, who knows? Maybe Bob Barr knows him.

  3. Darryl W. Perry

    Rhetorical or not… words have meanings.

    Aside from the obvious humor (as a supporter of non-aggression); imagine the outcry if I said “death to LINO’s (Libertarians in Name Only)”

  4. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    Michale Roberts [Info. Not Avail.] for president, that’s one we should nominate in 2011, Darryl.

    MP Darryl Perry [Boston Tea], your rants are becoming counter productive, because we need to work as a team. Michael Roberts [Info. Not Avail.] included!

    We’re being decimated, and all you can do is offer inflammatory, exclusionary and counter productive remarks.

    I’ve already told you we need a female for president, and a male for vice president like you or me. A female like Jennifer Burns [Republican]. A female Burns/Perry [Republican/Boston Tea] would be a good idea, if you’d just cooperate.

    Or, you be be like all the other clowns, and help sabotage or delay the victory.

    We’re tired of this, when are you going to start be a team player? If you want to play golf, why don’t you GoNott search for Secretary/MP David Olkkola [Democratic]? He’s very much into golf.

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  5. Robert Capozzi

    dp, wow. when someone says or does something cool, haven`t you heard someone say in reaction “x for president”? It`s hyperbole for effect.

  6. Observer

    Oh, nut doesn’t Mr Barr want to support his old friend Wayne Allyn Root for president?

  7. literate libertarian

    Barr did not call for anyone’s death, rhetorically or otherwise. A distinction perhaps lost on his cyber-stalkers.

  8. Darryl W. Perry

    Barr did support the PATRIOT Act & drug war… which have both killed civil liberties… with the drug war having killed many people; so it could be said that Bob Barr HAS “called for the death” of people.

    NOTE:
    I never said LINO’s should be killed

  9. Darryl W. Perry

    @RC – yes, I have heard some people say “his dillweed for President” – however, I’ve never before heard a former Congressman/Presidential candidate say such… how dare I question the great and powerful BOBBARR!!!

  10. Steve

    I get rhetorical flourish, but why would a former
    Congressman and Presidential candidate write that some unknown figure is “in the top tier” of Presidential candidates. Its an odd choice of phrase to be sure, unless this guy really is going to run for President.

    And if that’s the case and Barr thinks that a person who gains national media attention because of one stand for liberty automatically qualifies for the presidency, I’d suggest we’d do better with Alan Gura, the lawyer who won Heller v. DC in the SCOTUS and endorsed Barr in ’08.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    dp: how dare I question the great and powerful BOBBARR!!!

    me: Questioning Barr is within bounds, IMO. Questioning Barr in a foolish manner is counterproductive…a lose/lose situation.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    Foolishness by one does not exclude foolishness by another in response. IMO, your critique is foolish, based on a conventional turn-of-phrase that you yourself acknowledge is common.

    It’s OK, though, we all do and say foolish things, including me. It’s my practice to admit it quickly and move on. It doesn’t appear to be your practice.

  13. Darryl W. Perry

    I’ll admit that my second statement (made in jest) may have come off wrong; but I stand by my original question:
    “Let me see if I get this right; someone (ExpressJet Pilot) does one thing right (refusing naked scans & groping), his political beliefs aren’t known by many people (what are his views on taxation, war, the drug war, central banking, etc” and a former Congressman (& Presidential candidate) that supported the PATRIOT Act, drug war, FISA, etc says that this “hero” should be President???”

  14. Darryl W. Perry

    BOBBARR’s statement, “And in my eyes the courage he exhibited in this instance, and his demonstrated understanding of the Bill of Rights, places him in the top tier of candidates seeking the office of President of the United States in 2012,” does NOT appear to be hyperbole… but akin to a legitimate endorsement that a certain person, not only should run, but is a front-runner if he does.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, no, you didn’t get it right. Barr was NOT saying the pilot should be president. Barr was praising his action of standing up to intrusive government in one instance. Barr did so using a term of art that most American readers get. You apparently didn’t, rendering your question foolish IMO.

    Barr can be critiqued on many grounds. Doing so with pointed and foolish questions tends to make those who have a neutral opinion of him sympathetic to Barr, having to have his reputation and views challenged in a foolish manner.

    Consider not digging a deeper hole. That serves to compound your initial foolish act.

    The good news is you have 6 more years to learn how not to be foolish in public! 😉

  16. Darryl W. Perry

    @RC – I’ll retract my “foolish question” when BOBBARR states that he was not legitimately suggesting that Mr. Roberts is “top tier of candidates seeking the office of President of the United States in 2012.”

  17. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, you’re really not getting this, it appears. Foolishness is unilateral. There are no contingencies; no conditions. That is, your “question” was foolish regardless of what Barr said or didn’t.

    Here’s how it should go: Just admit you were being foolish and move on.

    Critique Barr separately.

    BTW, Barr likely cares less what the BTP 2016 candidate says about him.

    FWIW, I’d say Barr’s statement was a good one. From an experience perspective, I’d say he was as qualified as Obama or McCain. He hoped to have a Perot-type showing, but he never caught fire. As the LP candidate, that statement was a stretch, I’d agree.

  18. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, maybe. But what does Barr’s arguable overstatement have to do with your foolish question?

    IMO: Zero.

    Man up. Fess up. Move on.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, yep, read it agin, and yep, there is zero connection, at least not for anyone who understands conversational American English and terms. I can understand if a non-native speaker might be confused by Barr’s statement, but s’far as I know, you don’t have that excuse, given your intention to run for US President yourself.

  20. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    To: MP Darryl Perry [Boston Tea]
    From: MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Darryl, I just talked to Stephanie Burns [Republican], and she is very well connected in the Bay area. She’s friends with John Dennis [Republican], Cindy Sheehan [Democratic] to name a few. She’s a big MP Ron Paul [Republican] supporter.

    But she hasn’t been getting the email. She said she’s depressed with politics.

    I told her about you and the Boston Tea Party, she perked up, and was interested.

    I’m still testing the email to her, I guess that Yahoo screens my email as spam. I told her about IPR, and all the big wigs here. She said she’d try to check it out.

    Try to make up with Robert Capozzi [Info. Not Avail.], you’ll need every vote you can get to reach 33.33% plus two votes, the minimal needed to win US Prez in ’16. Maybe if you apologized?

    I can try to get a mediator, CA-PAR Mediator Minister Victoria Peterson [Independent] of SF? She knows Jon Dennis [Republican] too.

    MP Bob Barr [Libertarian] is on our side, and we’re all the king makers; a female/Barr, Gura, Starr, Capozzi, and you.

    –James

    A Republican female Burns/Perry with the Boston Tea for President in 2016!

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Everyone invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott.

    THAT’s what I’m talking about!

  21. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    …probably should have written in the above post “A female/Barr/a female”. Thank you.

    Clap, clap, clap, appluase, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, applause, applause, “Thank you!” clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, applause, applause, clap, clap, clap, “please….thank you”…Clap, clap, clap, appluase, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, applause, applause, “Thank you!” clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, applause, applause, clap, clap, clap, “please….thank you”…Clap, clap, clap, appluase, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, applause, applause, “PLEASE!” clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, applause, applause, clap, clap, clap, “thank you”…

  22. paulie Post author

    Based on the essays I’ve been reading at

    http://fedupflyers.org/

    If Michael Roberts does decide to run for president, I may very well support him as well.

    For example…

    http://fedupflyers.org/the-big-picture/but-flying-is-not-a-right

    by Michael S. Roberts

    If I had a dollar for every time over the past few weeks that I’ve heard someone say, “Flying is a privilege, not a right,” I would have no need to think about my current employment status at all (I’m currently on a leave of absence from the airline). Let’s examine this little – and, I’m sorry, but I do mean little – thought pattern for a moment, shall we?

    The following is my response, cleaned up a bit for public consumption, to a coworker (that’s right, a fellow airline pilot who makes his living the same way I do) who said:

    I do not think that flying on an airplane is an unalienable or natural right.

    I answered:

    Then what is it? And who legitimately owns and grants the rights to it? Whoever they might be, what gives them this exclusive power over we the people who are the authentic governing authority in this country? In other words, how did they come by this power? It could only be through our consent, right? And, if it is our consent that endows them, then wouldn’t that mean that it is we the people who legitimately own and grant the rights to it? And, having established that no other human agency gave us that ownership and power, how is it not a natural right?

    Then the follow up to that is: what real benefit do we derive by transferring our power over to politicians and bureaucrats who, rather than producing goods or services that contribute to the basic needs, welfare, or comfort of ordinary people, instead make their living by siphoning the productivity of others off the market to build their own houses and communities (complete with gates to keep us productive types off their lawns)? Oh, that’s right – we benefit because they, being our betters and the creme de la creme of society, are watching over us, keeping us safe and secure, delivering us from evil, etc. since we cannot possibly take care of ourselves even though we are the ones who gave them the power to take care of us BECA– USE IT WAS OURS TO GIVE.

    The Wright Bros. were just two guys with two brains and a dream who innovated something of genuine value to all humankind. They didn’t have to file any permits, and nobody granted them the privilege of tinkering around in their shop or buzzing around over the ground. But like all new innovative enterprises, early flight was sloppy and dangerous. Although the best minds and technicians available were already giving their all to making it better and especially safer, it only took a couple mishaps to open the door for the state to step in and take over.

    It’s a pattern that has repeated throughout history. Things happen that we can’t completely control. So we seek a higher power to take control. If we’re not happy with what we find, we make our own higher power – only it doesn’t have any power at all except what we give it, reducing our own power in the process. Now we’ve created ourselves a monster to tell us what to do, and we take comfort in knowing that all those big, scary things out there are being handled by the all wise, all knowing thing we created in our own image to save us.

    But, as it grows, its appetite grows too. Now we’re spending more and more of our time and labor feeding it. And, when even that’s no longer enough, it starts to feed directly on us! That’s why, for example, funds from the Recovery Act (your productivity) are being used to stimulate the economy by purchasing really expensive, dangerous machines and hire droves of blue-shirted minions to abuse you when you come to work or wish to exercise your privilege of moving around like the birds of the sky, the beasts of the field, or the fish of the sea. You have erected and empowered and served this thing, crying out to it for help and deliverance, and now that it is turning around and eating you alive, you still come to its defense and justify its sovereign right to exploit, enslave, and abuse you.

    How are driving, walking, or sitting in your den drinking beer and scratching your [self] any different from flying – or are those also privileges, and not rights? Will you still defend the state even when they’re dictating those aspects of your life as well? Oh wait, maybe they already are…

    So, what do you all say? Among our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, where does the modern blessing of human flight fit – or does it?

  23. Pingback: The ultimate update: Naked scanners, TSA, National Opt-Out Day, and the third party point-of-view | Independent Political Report

  24. Bob Barr gets this one right

    http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/11/26/at-tsa-the-hits-just-keep-on-coming/

    At TSA, the hits just keep on coming

    6:00 am November 26, 2010, by Bob Barr

    Perhaps the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently has received reliable intelligence that al Qaeda has been busy recruiting cancer survivors as sleeper terrorists, and grade-school students travelling with their parents as suicide bombers. Or maybe TSA’s leaders recently reminded the agency’s many thousands of security screeners that using common sense when deciding which airline passengers to subject to the most intrusive and demeaning security check possible, would result in an unsatisfactory rating on their next performance evaluation.

    Whatever the reason, and despite a rising tide of criticism and resistance from the travelling public, the parade of horror stories emanating from airport security check points continues.

    A North Carolina breast cancer survivor was forced to remove her prosthesis during a “pat-down.” At Detroit Metropolitan Airport a male bladder cancer survivor was forced to remove his urostomy bag, during his screening by a TSA agent so devoid of decency that the passenger wound up covered in his own urine.

    In Salt Lake City, a young boy was pulled aside for “secondary screening.” A video of the incident shows a TSA worker patting down the shirtless child while his father stands behind him watching.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently has documented more than 900 complaints from passengers, whose experiences at the hands of TSA left them feeling violated and humiliated by screeners who went too far in carrying out their duties.

    Sadly, these stories are becoming all too familiar as the government refuses to back down from these invasive tactics; largely a show of security theater.

    Yet even as TSA and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are sticking to their story that the full, naked-body scans and the intrusive manual body searches are absolutely essential to maintain the security of commercial air travel, questions abound.

    Reports are surfacing, for example, that in response to a pre-Thanksgiving Day call for air travelers to “opt out” of the full-body scanners, at many TSA checkpoints the scanners were purposefully turned off in order to minimize the chance for a successful “Opt Out Day,” and to ease the PR problems faced by TSA.

    In another incident, Adam Savage of the television show Mythbusters, was subjected to a full-body scan as he was making his way through security to board a flight to speak at a conference. In a video available on YouTube, Savage explains how he usually goes through his luggage to remove any items that may be potentially harmful; noting that in this particular case he forgot to do so. Savage pulled out two 12-inch steel razor blades that were accidently left in his inside jacket pocket. Holding the razor blades at the audience, he says, referring to TSA, “You’re going to look at my junk, and somehow you miss this?”

    And it is not just at airports any longer. Some federal office buildings apparently are turning to the naked-image body scanners.

    For DHS, the airports may be just the starting point. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano already has floated a plan to add additional security measures to mass transit, trains, and boats. While it is not yet clear whether such measures would be as invasive as those now employed at airports, I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for a more reasonable approach.

  25. sdfsd

    Since tax payer dollars funded the bailout of numerous airlines, I would say that flying is a right, not a privilege. If your dollars funded it, it means you have part ownership, duh! Whoever came up with this misnomer needs to be reminded of the fact that the tax payers bailed out the airlines. Let’s see here folks, can you think of other corporations that were bailed out by your tax dollars and try to figure out what your privileges and rights are??? Hello??? Is this thing on??????????

Leave a Reply

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