« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Secretary Napolitano Disrespects And Disarms Pilots

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  February 16th, 2012 at 09:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano disrespected Federal Flight Deck Officers (armed pilots) during a hearing yesterday in testimony presented to the House Homeland Security Committee.  Sec. Napolitano showed a lack of knowledge about the program in addition to an intent to kill it over the next few years.  The testimony yesterday provides further evidence of “President Obama’s Plan to Kill Armed Pilots Program.”

Representative Chip Cravaack (R-MN) a former commercial airline pilot and Federal Flight Deck Officer, asked Napolitano some tough questions at the hearing.  If you look at the evidence of the Obama Aministration’s proposed 50% cut in funding for the program and the comments of Secretary Napolitano yesterday, one can only conclude that this administration has marked the armed pilots program for elimination over the next few years.  Expect no armed pilots if President Obama is allowed a second term.

Rep. Cravaack estimated that it costs the American public about $15 dollars to cover each flight with an armed pilot. That is a cost effective means to provide national security.  The Congressman also argue that armed pilots pay more out of pocket than they receive in the value of training.  FFDOs are patriotic Americans who are volunteering their own time to protect our skies.  And the DHS thanks them with a massive cut to the FFDO’s budget. 

Napolitano argued that the FFDOs are not “risk based.”  What does the Secretary consider risk based? 

Maybe a pat down of 3 year olds as reported by Fox in Tampa Bay, Florida?

The cell phone video, taken by a Houston television reporter, shows his 3-year-old daughter crying and screaming as an official from the Transportation Security Administration tries to conduct a pat-down at the airport in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Or maybe it is risk based to ask 90 year olds to take off adult diapers according to Time’s NewsFeed?

Jean Weber of Destin, Florida filed a complaint with federal authorities last week alleging that security officials forced her 95-year-old mother to remove her adult diaper as part of a security pat-down at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport. “It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” Weber told the Northwest Florida Daily News on June 24. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.”

Or maybe it is risk based to force extra screening on the most dangerous of Americans, members of the United States Senate (from Politico)?

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was blocked from boarding a flight Monday by the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tenn., after refusing a full body pat-down, POLITICO has confirmed. “I spoke with him five minutes ago and he was being detained indefinitely,” Paul spokesperson Moira Bagley said. “The image scan went off; he refused patdown.”

This means that the Department of Homeland Security is relying on a trust based system.  They want you to trust them to weigh the risk and to figure out the most risky passengers and flights.  They want this trust notwithstanding the fact that they completely botched the attack by the ”underwear bomber.”  They also want to jettison a program that has proven to work.  There is no rational reason to kill the program.

When asked by Rep. Cravaack if Sec. Napolitano believes that the FFDO to be the last line of defense, she responded with the following:

The reduction for the Federal Flight Officer Program is predicate on the fact that it is not risk based.  And to have an FFDO just, you know, whether somebody is on a flight or not and we are moving in the TSA to risk based systems and those are the ones we are going to put money into.

Rep. Cravaack then asked again if an FFDO was the last line of defense against terrorism.  Sec. Napolitano tried to dodged the question again then responded that there are “many layers of defense before people even get a ticket and one of the things I continue to emphasise is the checkpoint at the gate that has caused some concern is only one of many other layers.”  Then came the zinger from the Secretary to armed pilots.

Rep. Cravaack – Is a Federal Flight Deck Officer the last line of defense for our travelling public?

Sec. Napolitano – I think the armed cockpit door actually is.

There is no such thing as an “armed cockpit door.”  The Secretary must mean a reinforced cockpit door, but to say that an armed pilot is not a last line of defense is disrespectful to all the commercial airline pilots who are volunteering their time today to protect the cockpit from attack.

When further asked if it was Sec. Napolitano’s intention to phase out armed pilots, the Secretary said “I think as the budget request shows, it is our intention to reduce it.  Yes.”  The Secretary admitted that they want to reduce it and wind down the program. 

The FFDO program is under attack by the Obama Administration.  Hopefully, Rep. Cravaack and other allies of the program can save the program from attack by the Secretary of Homeland Security.  Congress has the ultimate authority to either fund or not fund the program.  The flying public is not served well by an administration driven more by an animus to guns than a concern about aviation security.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • anjinconsulting

    Of the prime directive over riding all other concerns. The prime directive is apparently to disarm folks at all levels regardless of their effectiveness to deter crime. All dictatorial regimes do that as a first step; after all, armed citizens are more prone to defend their liberties than unarmed citizens.

  • goodolboy

    secretaries in this administration. I say one of the worst because there are many running for the title of THE worst. This woman is totally incompetent. I understand how she was chosen by Obama; but, I don’t see how the people of NM elected her as governor unless it was a lot of CA transplants voting.

    • westcoastpatriette

      Governor Jan Brewer ran to replace Napolitano when Obama appointed her to the DHS.

  • altexas

    Too many big words for some.

    • jdw4america

      It means that the government can’t do something unless it really, really wants to.

      I looked it up in The Democrat’s Guide to A Fundamentally Transformed America by Barack H. Obama and Friends

      • stonewall1863

        This isn’t a 2nd amendment issue, but it is a gun issue. The FFDO program takes ordinary airline pilots and gives them training to carry a handgun in the cockpit. The left doesn’t want anyone but paid government agents (that they can control) to have a gun…ever. If an airline pilot can not have a gun to protect his passengers and crew – not to mention the people in tall buildings on the ground – then none of our gun rights are safe.

        The FFDO issue is about the primary responsibility of the federal government: Defending the nation. Armed pilots do it far better and for a tiny fraction of the cost than any other TSA program. It makes sense to enhance this low-cost program that has succeeded beyond all expectations an draw down far more expensive programs (like the Federal Air Marshals) that have been loaded with scandal, turnover and incompetence.

        • nutstuyu

          butsomething but why does this have to be a federally funded program? Railroads have had their own police forces since the first railroads were built. Why don’t the airlines finally stand up to TSA and say “we’ll take it from here”?

    • znjs

      The 2nd amendment does not guarantee you the right to be trained on the federal govt’s dime for operating a guy on a plane. This is not a 2nd amendment issue, and if we the people pushing for the Constitution to be respected instead of trampled on the ground can’t tell a basic 2nd amendment issue from one that is not what hope is there?

      You’re as bad as those that thing getting fired for saying something on the job that your company didn’t approve of is a violation of your freedom of speech.

      • threebs

        maybe the 2nd amendment does not, BUT, the constitution allows for the national defense, and this definitely falls under that provision. Just another attempt by the Obama Administration to neglect THE single most important responsibility of the Federal government.

        • znjs

          The title references “shall not be infringed” which isn’t about national defense.

      • obxdiver

        This particular issue when viewed in isolation, may not be a 2nd Amendment issue. However, it does illustrate this administration’s disdain for the 2nd Amendment and their animosity towards an inanimate object called a gun.

        FFDO’s don’t have to do a thing. Their mere presence is enough to discourage an attempted take over of a plane by terrorists.

        It’s simply astounding that an administration would attack a program that is one of the cheapest and most effective ways of protecting citizens. One could almost see this as a desire to open the door for an attack.

        • znjs

          There is an argument to be made that giving pilots training is an effective security measure and is worth taxpayers money to do. I don’t buy it, but it could a case could be made.

          But what it seems like is this isn’t what people are worried about. There are many for whom their response is a paranoid “They’re coming for my guns!” knee-jerk reaction. No, cutting funds for a program that promotes gun use is not the same as coming for your guns. It’s just not. It’s cutting govt spending for what is likely an ineffective way to keep planes secure. That’s a good thing.

      • wumingren

        You miss the point of the phase out of the FFDO program. Without the FFDO program, pilots will not be allowed to carry weapons, even if they foot the entire bill for training and equipment. The FFDO program merely grants pilots “permission” to carry weapons on the basis that pilots are under Federal authority. Take away the program, and you take away the authority. Take away the authority and you … hey, wait a minute! … taking away authority should have nothing to do with the pilots’ Second Amendment rights. Yet, that’s exactly what will happen. Everyone knows that, especially the anti-gun liberals.

        • obxdiver

          I have a concealed carry permit issued by the state police who have deemed I can be trusted to carry a firearm on the street, to the grocery store, the hardware store, and any other place I want (with a few exceptions). Why is it that I suddenly cannot be trusted with my firearm once I enter an airport?

          The right to “keep” arms means nothing without the right to “bear” arms. That’s why the Constitution provides for both.

          • funwithknives

            Anywhere good ol’ Janet goes, she gets armed security, in spades.
            So guns are good enough and dollar efficient enough for her and the like. No one has taken any shots at her {that we know of] so this must work fairly well.
            But armed FFDO’s aren’t Precautionary Principled, sufficiently to get asked back for another round. *Good Enough for Me, but NOT FOR THEE* is a really crummy way to make friends and influence people.
            But Thee and Me are just numbers to be ignored, where Progressives are concerned. “It’ll be Aw-Right!” is not a policy, and looking down on the flying public, however disguised,could be the kind of Transparency Barry was talkin’ ’bout.
            As-In: “They’re Lookin Through You…”, Not At You. So nice to be wanted, isn’t it?

  • greyeagle

    This woman has been the most ineffective leader of Homeland Security. She is clueless. How on earth was she ever elected the Governor of Arizona?

  • phototiger

    Off on a bit of a tangent, but I wish that people would reject the modern urban use of “disrespect” as a verb and return to the older, more accepted way to use it, which is as a noun. “Disrespected” is not a real word except to the uneducated rap culture from which it was extracted.

    In Mr. Darling’s opening sentence, he states that “Janet Napolitano disrespected Federal Flight Deck Officers.” After reading that, the first thing that popped in my mind was the typical street reply of “Oh no, he di’int.”

    • altexas

      Writing advice is clearly needed here but too off topic So I want even begin. I recommend this guy. http://raymondpward.typepad.com/newlegalwriter/

      A friend and former classmate. Now an appellate lawyer in New Orleans.

      • davesinsanantonio

        understand that language is dynamic.

        Words are created all the time.

        Usages change.

        Old words fall by the wayside.

        American English seems to change more and faster than other languages. Try to keep up.

        • funwithknives

          fer cryin’ out loud.
          It’s called *Style*, friend.
          As-In: ” ‘Bri’s’ got *Style* “. YouKnow Wat I’MSayin’?NuffSaid.

    • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

      Haven’t you heard? Redefining words is the American way. Words like marriage, public servant, preserve, protect, and defend… they don’t mean what they used to. Heck, look at “natural-born”. But if you try to preserve anything, someone will call you a conservative, trying to conserve the past instead of “embracing progress.” We should have listened to their songbird saints like Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston? Conservatives have been saying for a long time to “say no to drugs.” More words.

    • Brian Darling

      I wanted to write “Sec of HHS J-No dissed packin pilots…” but thought that might be over the line violence against grammar. “showed disrespect to” would have been better.

  • http://tuleya.com Tuleya

    My 70 year old (almost) mother says this is a joke her “grandparents” used to make when she was a kid.

    • http://tuleya.com Tuleya

      oops, sorry.

  • rj145

    A locked door is a poor deterrent to the armed invader, compared to an armed defender on the other side.

    May I suggest that BHO disarm his Secret Service detail and reduce their numbers by 50% in light of the Secretaries “risk based” foreknowledge on matters of security.

    • znjs

      if they can’t get in anyhow.

      • obxdiver

        What happens when they start grabbing passengers and killing them one by one until their demand that the door be unlocked is met?

        • znjs

          First off they’d just use the passengers as human shields. How many pilots would not take that shot? But even if they would, the worst thing the pilot could do in that situation is try to be a hero and open that door. I want them to make the hard choice in that situation – you don’t give terrorists potential access to the cockpit. Then you all die anyhow. You’re not saving anyone.

          • obxdiver

            A terrorist is a lot less likely to attempt the scenario I posited if they know the guy on the other side has a gun. However, knowing they could do it with impunity leaves that option wide open for them.

            Your point, however, does provide support for what I believe should be done. That is, place trained and armed personnel on the plane among the passengers. That way the door stays locked, the deterrent is still there, and if needed the terrorists can be taken out.

            If it comes down to possibly hitting one passenger being used as a shield while taking out the terrorist vs. knowing he will kill many more if I do nothing, I’m taking the shot.

          • znjs

            Yes to air marshals, absolutely. But no to pilots ever, ever opening that door under any circumstance. In fact that would be the strongest argument I could see for pilots never having weapons – I don’t want them trying to be a hero.

            Also I’d point out that saying you’d take that shot on the ground sitting in front of your computer screen is one thing, in actuality shooting an innocent person seems like it might be something that would at least make some pilots hesitate.

          • obxdiver

            Unless they’ve been there multiple times, anyone would hesitate. That’s one of the points of training: mental preparation to minimize that hesitation by knowing the right choice ahead of time.

            And I must admit, I have a different attitude than most as I have a USMC DI and marksmanship instructor for a father, now retired. I spent my formative years living on Parris Island and I could shoot an M-16 before I could ride a bike. That was close to forty years ago, though. In today’s environment, Dad would probably be crucified for just letting me see a rifle at that age, never mind letting me run live rounds through one on a regular basis.

            Ok, I’m starting to drift out into the weeds here. I’ll just say I like it when debates end up with both parties reaching a reasonable conclusion. Too bad our legislators can’t seem to follow suit.

          • funwithknives

            Take a CC class and one of the first things you get asked is if you could shoot in self-defense. If the many, outweigh the few {or the one} any FFDO carrying has to consider this beforehand,or they just do not bother.
            Remember the F-16 pilots looking for Flt.93/Shanksville? What were their orders? If you can’t face the task, then don’t take-on the task.
            These FFDO’s assume the task,and what is the benefit? Basically ,to be dismissed out of hand.{ Thas’ Jes’ Pit-eee-Ful}

  • zeprin

    Let’s make it a race to see which disappears fastest.
    The pilots right to carry or the DHS and it’s Secretary.

    • nutstuyu

      Nt.

  • spolson

    I never thought people would; pay for water in a bottle at a same rate as Soda and in some cases milk, I have heard that 50% of Americans watch Professional wrestling, Liberals and Democrats (is there a difference?) can’t imagine that their President is a socialist or a Muslim, but he admits to it, watching Vampires on TV is on every channel but the notion of a Christian god is fought tooth and nail.

    On the first day of Barack Hussein Obama campaign for President I didn’t think our country would elect a man with that name let alone without looking into the questionable background, associates and record. After 3 years we still no less about him that Sarah Palin’s third cousin. We need to pay attention to what we believe and assume.

    I see a president who has gone on a world shame tour and apologized to our enemies and questionable partners. Insulted us and our long time allies. Taken over Billions worth of private enterprises with no authority. Fired and hired people in the private sector, Violated and ignore our constitution. Violated our rights by executive order. Insulted our military and cut their funding cut funding for pilot firearms training ( The only real cut in government spending.) and increased the funding and authority of the TSA to violate our rights.

    Add those thing and almost everything else he has done and you have a man with a mission to undermine our; defense, economy, society, constitution, pride, spirit, principles. None of this is accidental, a misunderstanding, It is purposeful, malicious, treason. It is unthinkable but we need to think and not assume it is too outrageous or a mistake. I can put my hands on my birth certificate in one minute at the cost of $0. Not Millions and lawyers and operatives and 3 years. And mine has the correct country for my fathers birth not a country that was created years later. He isn’t even really black. but uses the race card. He must go. Pay attention to what is happening not what you assume must be. He lies about everything. Does the opposite of what he says. He is no different than any other despot in history. 4 more years will finish this country. He may try to finish it in his last year.

  • Pingback: Information