Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Saturday, July 5, 2025
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Liberty Guard
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
Monthly Archives

July 2014

From the Desk of Bob Barr

Federal Judge Raps DC Government In Gun Control Case

by Liberty Guard Author July 30, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Alexander Herzen, an 18th century writer from Russia, once quipped, “There is nothing in the world more stubborn than a corpse: you can hit it, you can knock it to pieces, but you cannot convince it.” Today, such a description could apply to unconstitutional gun control laws, which received what should have been a death sentence in 2008 with the Heller decision, only to languish on despite being knocked to pieces in court in the half dozen years since that seminal decision.

In Heller, one if the most important rulings for liberty in recent American history, attorney Alan Gura successfully sued the D.C. government; in the process overturning its blatantly unconstitutional, 1970s-era ban on firearms. Heller clearly affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment; as contrasted to the mushy, collective right interpretation long-favored by gun-grabbers like Michael Bloomberg and Rahm Emmanuel. Gura then successfully sued the city of Chicago, which resulted in the High Court’s 2010 McDonald decision, thus extending Heller’s ruling to local governments across the country.

Following these two landmark Supreme Court rulings, other lawsuits picked apart the anti-gun apparatus in federal court. Yet, as stubborn as a corpse can be, anti-gun state and local government officials immediately began fashioning new ways to undermine the restoration of gun rights in their jurisdictions. Officials in Washington, D.C. — ground zero for the modern day resurgence of the Second Amendment – refused to comply with the letter and intent of those Supreme Court decisions.

For example, the District forces its residents to obtain a permit to carry a firearm outside of the home; but the City steadfastly has refused to institute a process enabling citizens seeking to so defend themselves, to obtain permits. In essence, the city created a de facto ban on carrying firearms in public, all the while claiming to comply with the intent of the Heller decision. One can see why Gura has been so busy.

Fortunately, half a decade worth of post-Heller litigation paid off last week, when federal district court Judge Frederick Scullin ruled D.C.’s permitting scheme to be unconstitutional. “In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny,” wrote Scullin, “there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

Scullin’s refreshingly clear ruling follows one in December 2012 by federal Court of Appeals Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Richard Posner. In that ruling Posner noted that “to confine the right to be armed to the home” — as Illinois’ then-blanket ban on the private carry of firearms did — “is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.” Posner noted pointedly that residents of Chicago, a notoriously dangerous city despite years of aggressive gun control laws, had a far greater claim to self-defense outside the home than in it.

As Scullin and Posner’s rulings suggest, it is only logical that law-abiding citizens protecting themselves from violence outside the home is a natural and logical focus of the Second Amendment, especially given the legal clarity on the issue from two recent Supreme Court battles. Unfortunately, logic is not an attribute favored by gun-control zealots such as those controlling the levers of power in the District of Columbia; which is precisely why the fight for the Second Amendment continues long after a majority of Supreme Court justices might have thought they resolved the issue in 2008 and 2010.

And, the anti-gun grandstanding in the courts is not without financial costs to taxpayers, who are forced to pay the legal fees of both parties after each government defeat. The six years D.C. officials dragged Dick Heller through the legal system, only to be told what the language of and history behind the Second Amendments clearly proclaims to the world (that “the right of the people to keep and bear [a]rms shall not be infringed”), cost taxpayers more than one million dollars in attorney fees, just for Heller’s team.

That is why some members of Congress are starting to use the power of the purse strings to rein in D.C. officials who continue to violate the clear directive of the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, for example, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) successfully passed an appropriations amendment that prohibits the District of Columbia from using federal tax dollars to enforce its unconstitutional gun control laws. While the fate of such a common-sense measure remains unclear in the Senate, the fact that many Democratic incumbents facing reelection in November hail from states whose voters are strong Second Amendment supporters, raises the legislation’s odds considerably.

July 30, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Federal Court Ruling Cracks IRS Stonewall

by Liberty Guard Author July 23, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Judge Susan Dlott may not be a household name among conservatives; but the federal judge’s decision last week allowing a lawsuit against the IRS to move forward might make her one. By rejecting the demand from federal government attorneys that the case be dismissed, thereby allowing some of the charges to continue to trial, Dlott has struck a meaningful blow in support of those of us in America still committed to the pursuit of the truth and the rule of law. Her ruling is by no means a slam-dunk for the Tea Party groups involved in the lawsuit; but it is a vital step in holding politically-motivated IRS officials accountable for violating the constitutional rights of conservatives.

Being able to have a day in court seemed an unlikely prospect at the outset of this scandal. One need only consider the IRS’ systematic stonewalling of Congress to understand just how strong is the out-of-control agency’s commitment to protecting itself against being held accountable for misdeeds. If the agency’s top brass was so brazen as to defy seasoned and relentless investigators like House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, then attempting to torpedo a mere lawsuit in federal District Court must have seemed like child’s play for the Establishment. Fortunately for justice — and the Constitution — Judge Dlott is not buying into the IRS’ arguments that it is immune from having to defend its actions in a court of law.

The judge did caution that much of what the Tea Party has alleged will be difficult to prove; after all, evidence at the IRS seems mysteriously to disappear daily.

In fact, Thomas Kane, the IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, who oversees document production for congressional investigations, testified last Thursday to a congressional panel about “computer problems” affecting other members of the IRS, including some directly involved in the investigation, which might prevent the IRS from fully complying with Issa’s subpoenas. His testimony contained other bombshells. IRS officials originally claimed that “problems” destroyed disgraced former Service official Lois Lerner’s email communications, erasing likely incriminating evidence linking her (and probably other Obama Administration officials) to criminal conduct. Kane’s testimony now indicates this too may have been more obstruction from top IRS officials. “I don’t know if there is a backup tape with information on it or there isn’t,” Kane told investigators; concluding in a classic understatement, “I know that there’s an issue out there about it.”

“Finding out that IRS Commissioner [John] Koskinen jumped the gun in reporting to Congress that the IRS ‘confirmed’ all back-up tapes had been destroyed makes me even more suspicious of why he waited months to inform Congress about lost Lois Lerner e-mails,” Issa said in a statement following Kane’s testimony. The apparent flip-flop on such a crucial component of the investigation raises the prospect that the IRS was floating the lie about the tapes in order to see if it could escape prosecution; and when it became clear Issa had no intention of relenting in his pursuit, they are now backtracking to avoid additional charges. For instance, aU.S. Archivist recently told a congressional committee the IRS “did not follow the law” by failing to report the loss of Lerner’s emails.

The only thing we know for sure is the IRS is doing everything it can to bury the evidence and the truth. This presents an interesting moral quandary for Democrats, who for years watched in silence as the Obama Administration ran roughshod over every conceivable safeguard against government corruption. “If the government is right in [the Tea Party] case, it means that from now on, no matter who the president is, the IRS can pick out a group of people that disagrees with the president and pull those people out, delay them, harass them, target them, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it,” says Edward Greim, the attorney representing the Tea Party groups suing the IRS.

The refusal to so much as even impliedly question Obama’s lawlessness reflects how Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. By remaining silent in the face of repeated Administration scandals over the last six years, Democrats became complicit in likely criminal behavior of the Administration. Furthermore, as Greim highlighted, their silence sets a dangerous precedent of a virtually unchecked Executive Branch; one that eventually will fall back into the hands Republicans sooner than Democrats care to admit — ironically because of this refusal to speak out against misconduct.

The manner in which Democrats in the House and the Senate have served to defend and enable the Administration’s brazen lawlessness should – hopefully will – hurt them at the polls this fall. In the meantime, Judge Dlott’s interim ruling permitting the Tea Party lawsuit against IRS abuses to move forward, is an important reminder the rule of law still burns in America, if dimly and sporadically.

 

July 23, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Illegal Immigration Crisis Has “Made in Mexico” Written All Over It

by Liberty Guard Author July 16, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

One might hope that with a full-blown catastrophe looming on our nation’s southern border, Democrats might have considered discarding their standard talking points memo — blaming the crisis on former President Bush and the Republicans in the House — and respond with a realistic plan worthy of America’s national leaders. Alas, we are not so fortunate. Dead children literally are washing up on the shores of the Rio Grande — a result of chasing the dream of amnesty spun by the likes of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. And the closest our brave commander-in-chief has ventured to the border with Mexico is 220 miles; and then only for a fundraiser in Austin.

Democrats claim Republicans in the House of Representatives are to blame for the chaos on our southern border, because they failed to adopt a “bipartisan” solution sent to them compliments of Harry Reid and his merry band of liberals in the Senate. Republicans rightfully note that Democrats never showed up to the negotiating table in good faith; always intending to present an unreasonable plan in order to “frame” the GOP with inaction and unleash Obama to act as he pleases.

Yet, one major player in this human tragedy at the border has largely been lost in the dusty billows of this partisan scuffle: Mexico.

Yes, Democrats intentionally created gridlock in Congress as a dangerous game of election-year brinkmanship; and yes, Republicans thus far have failed to move forward in the House with specific, targeted measures to protect the border and bring our 1980s-era legal immigration laws into alignment with 21st Century needs of American businesses.

However, allowing Mexico to continue its blatant stoking of America’s immigration crisis, presents itself a clear and present danger to our nation’s security and economic well being.

Make no mistake — Mexico is the real problem. Obama can blame economic hardship, rampant gang violence and YouTube videos in Central America. But it is the Mexican government’s affirmative facilitation of this massive illegal border crossing that is directly responsible for the current conditions along the border. The resolution of this government-made crisis is quite simple: immediately repatriate the illegal entrants to Mexico – the country from whence this latest surge of illegal aliens comes; and at the same time tell Mexico if it does not start addressing the problem, strict economic sanctions will be forthcoming.

Despite hand-wringing to the contrary by Administration officials, there is no law that prevents the United States from immediately sending these men, women and children back Mexico, especially given Mexico’s role in ensuring they are dropped off on our doorstep. And, if we need to temporarily house them for a few days in make-ship detention facilities, there is no need to spend millions of dollars on new buildings, or modernizing existing facilities; or – far worse — transporting the illegal minors to households and community facilities across our country. We could also house them temporarily in tent cities, such as those proposed by my friend, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Of course, Mexico is not acting alone. In fact, a recent agreement between Mexico and Guatemala allows people from that Central American country to freely enter Mexico, lawfully travel the length of the country, and have Mexican officials turn a blind eye when they then illegally cross into the United States. This is nothing short of an international conspiracy to violate America’s laws and undermine our country’s sovereignty; and Democrats in the Administration and the Congress play right along.

The clearest example of this immigration bait set by Democrats is the Executive Order signed two years ago by Obama, known as the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival” (DACA). As a result of this “Executive Action,” Obama directed the DHS to “exercise prosecutorial discretion as appropriate to ensure that enforcement resources are not expended on low priority cases.” A translation of this bureaucratic gobbledygook can be condensed into a single phrase: Immunity from deportation for children illegally in the United States.

Unilateral decisions such as this made by Obama are just some of the reasons parents in Mexico and other Central American countries are sending their kids northward. They hope and expect – not without some justification – that Obama soon will issue another such order granting a new round of immunity from deportation for kids coming across the border. Indeed, as recently as this past Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest laid the groundwork for just such action, when he noted that immigrants who “face a credible threat of death upon their return to their home country” likely will be “granted humanitarian relief.” In a word — Amnesty.

If things were not already bad enough from the meddling of Mexico, and the undermining of U.S. law by Democrats, now the United Nations is moving to insert itself into the crisis and add international pressure to treat all unaccompanied minors as “refugees.” Such a determination by the erudite minds at the U.N. would carry no legal weight in the U.S., but would embolden Democrats to double-down on polices that so far have pushed America to the brink.

Republicans in the House must act quickly in the short term to head off what could become an irreversible change to our way of life. In the longer term, the fall elections — which hopefully will result in a Republican majority in the Senate — and the 2016 presidential election – which finally will rid us of this awful president — cannot come soon enough.

July 16, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Top Five Liberal Myths About the Hobby Lobby Case

by Liberty Guard Author July 9, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Judging from the seething reaction by liberals to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case, one might easily forget that just two years ago they were singing the Court’s praises after it refused to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. Then again, such extreme emotional swings should not be unexpected when one’s perception of justice is based not on law, but on politics and emotion. Therefore, in spite of a ruling that was far more limited in scope than could easily have been the case, the Left’s over-the-top reaction to Hobby Lobby is based on myth and delusion. Below are the top five liberal myths about the Hobby Lobby case, and how one might explain why they are wrong.

Case Overview

In a 5-4 decision on June 30th, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that the “contraceptive mandate” in ObamaCare violated the religious freedom of certain for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby, which are morally opposed to such forms of contraceptives. While the Court recognized that contraceptive coverage was a “compelling government interest” (as a matter of law), it did not consider that forcing business owners to pay for such coverage was the “least restrictive” way of fulfilling this interest because of the impact on the free exercise religious freedom. In short, the Court extended to “closely held corporations” the same protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) afforded currently to non-profit corporations.

Myth 1: “The Supreme Court just declared a war on women.”

For many liberals, the notion of a “war on women” underlies most conservative legislative or legal victories. It is therefore not surprising the Hobby Lobby decision precipitated indignant howls from feminists and liberals. Even though the Court ruled that business owners did not have to pay for coverage, the majority stated the government could pay for such coverage directly, or utilize the same accommodations afforded to RFRA-exempted non-profit organizations currently applicable. The party who pays for the cost of covering contraceptives, not access to contraceptives, is the only aspect changed by the Court’s ruling. Thus, if the Left’s true concern was access to contraceptive coverage, then its outrage over the decision would be entirely unwarranted; but, of course, it is not.

Myth 2: “What is next, blood transfusions and vaccines?”

Even before the Court decided the case, liberals were sliding down the slippery slope of what else was next on the chopping block should the Justices rule in Hobby Lobby’s favor. Perhaps this is why Justice Samuel Alito directly confronted this paranoia in his ruling; noting that the Court’s narrowly-tailored opinion applied only to the contraceptive mandate, and “should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates . . . must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.” Suggesting the ruling affords religious business owners a license for denying all other types of coverage is not only a gross misreading of the case, but contradicts what the Justices explicitly stated.

Myth 3: “The LGBT community should be concerned.”

Once again, such a claim falls well outside the intentionally narrow scope of the ruling, and directly contradicts the Court’s opinion. In the majority opinion summary, Alito wrote that the ruling does not “provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.” The intention of the Court with regard to the decision’s application to discriminatory practices could not be any clearer, which is why this myth is pure fear-mongering. Sure, a company might try to challenge anti-discrimination laws based on this ruling (courts cannot anticipatorily stop people from making frivolous challenges), but it is highly doubtful such a challenge would make it out of the lower courts based on this decision alone.

Myth 4: “Corporations don’t have a right to religious expression.”

The legal concept of corporate “personhood” dates back more than a century, and is the basis of much of modern corporate law. The concept of personhood protects individual shareholders from the actions of the business; so, for example, a person owning just a few shares of stock in General Motors cannot be sued directly if a Chevy Volt catches on fire. Furthermore, the courts have recognized certain fundamental protections for individuals should also be extended to corporations; preventing the government from seizing company assets without a warrant, or shutting down companies for speech with which government officials might disagree. The RFRA protects individuals from being compelled by law to take actions that violate their religious beliefs. This protection was then (naturally) extended to non-profit corporations, such as religious organizations. It seems unreasonable, as the Court stated, that a for-profit corporation ceases to be entitled to hold religious views simply because it makes a profit. After all, were not liberals protesting Chick-Fil-A two years ago for the company’s “religious expression” of Christian values?

Myth 5: “Employers can now mandate health decisions for their employees.”

When an employee agrees to work for a company, he or she agrees to certain salary and incentives as compensation. A mandate is not much of a mandate when it is a part of a voluntary agreement between two parties. Therefore, if an employee does not like the type of coverage offered by an employer — the same as he or she might not like the salary offered – they are free to find employment elsewhere. Hired employees have no more right to demand customized insurance coverage than they do a corner office.

July 9, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Take Lessons From America’s Great Generals in Fighting Obama Lawlessness

by Liberty Guard Author July 3, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

U.S. Generals Douglas MacArthur and George Patton were two of the most brilliant military minds in the history of modern warfare. Under their commands, American forces in Europe and the Far East decimated hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers, making way for freedom in countries previously ruled by evil tyrants, and preserving our way of life at the same time. An essential element of their strategic approach to warfare was the knowledge that when an enemy is attacking on more than one front, you cannot rely on a single weapon or plan of attack; you must fight with as many options as possible, on as many fronts as you can.

Today, Republicans in Congress could use some of that strategic wisdom in battling a President who is attacking the very foundation of liberty in America from all directions.

There is little question that President Obama is waging total war against the rule of law in America. He uses “Executive Authority” to bypass Congress in making unilateral decisions by decree. He colludes with Democrats in the Senate to create gridlock, providing him more opportunity to justify his unilateral actions. He makes [now illegal] “recess appointments” to stack key government agencies with high-level bureaucrats to institutionalize his Big Government agenda. He tampers with congressional investigations into the gross misconduct of his federal employees through political pressure and manipulation. Those under him destroy evidence. And, to ensure immunity from legal consequences for his unconstitutional activities, he has compromised the Department of Justice — turning Attorney General Eric Holder into his Enabler-in-Chief.

Republicans, long somnambulant in holding Obama accountable for shredding the Constitution, appear finally to be mustering the courage to fight back; evidenced by Speaker John Boehner’s announcement of a forthcoming lawsuit against Obama’s illegal Executive Actions. “For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country,” Boehner wrote in a memo to Congressional Republicans last week, “ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own.”

According to reports, Boehner will call for a vote in the House in the next few weeks to authorize its general counsel to file suit against Obama covering a number of his executive actions. The lawsuit then will wend its way through the federal court system in the District of Columbia; hopefully to land eventually in the laps of the Supreme Court justices, where an important precedent will be set – one way or the other.

The lawsuit is just one of four crucial “fronts” – including legislation, appropriation riders, lawsuits, and ultimately impeachment — for Congress to use in stopping a president or an Administration operating outside the law and the Constitution.

As I noted here last week, the House could begin sending to the Senate a number of bills narrowly tailored to specifically target, and reverse, onerous executive actions taken by the President. Not only would Obama then be forced to follow the law rather than making up excuses for acting on his own, it would at least force Harry Reid and Democrats in the Senate to explain why they have failed to allow any meaningful and realistic legislation from the House to reach the floor of the Senate. Appropriation riders would help cut funding for Obama’s fiat-created federal programs, as the House has the constitutional power to do so. Lastly, the House could begin an official “inquiry” into whether the President may have committed impeachable offenses, as a preliminary step in collecting and organizing evidence for possible impeachment.

As Patton and MacArthur demonstrated on the battlefield, Boehner and the majority Republicans in the House should utilize all four “fronts” in the coming months to go on the offensive against Obama’s lawlessness. There is no better time than now to act, while Democrats still refuse to accept the reality they helped Obama create, in spite of defeats in the Supreme Court.

Fortunately, voters increasingly are coming to recognize the danger of having a President allowed to exercise unfettered power. The scandals at the IRS and the Veterans Administration, the massive spying programs targeting law-abiding citizens, inept foreign policies in the Middle East, a border with Mexico being overrun with illegals – have combined to open Americas’ eyes wide to the dangers posed by this President and this Administration.

Were Douglas MacArthur or George Patton in the Congress today; they would be attacking relentlessly, repeatedly, and vigorously. Because that is how you defeat a stubborn enemy.

July 3, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram

Search Archives

Recent Posts

  • A European, Socialized Pharmaceutical Marketplace Should Have No Place in America

    May 9, 2025
  • Bob joins NTD News

    March 27, 2025
  • Government Over-Regulation Is Handing China The Energy Future

    March 19, 2025
  • The Climate Control Movement In Europe Is Alive and Still Kicking

    March 6, 2025
  • The Regulatory State Continues to Target Fantasy Sports

    February 27, 2025

About Us

  • Liberty Guard
    3330 Cumberland Blvd.
    Suite 500
    Atlanta, Georgia 30339
  • Email: [email protected]

From The Desk of Bob Barr

A European, Socialized Pharmaceutical Marketplace Should Have No Place in America
Government Over-Regulation Is Handing China The Energy Future
The Climate Control Movement In Europe Is Alive and Still Kicking

Latest Videos

Not My Fingerprints
Idiots In Full View
Biden Administration Champions Stupid Idea

Get Liberty Guard Email Updates




©2024 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.

Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram
  • Refund and Data Policies
  • State Disclosures
  • Join
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join