Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Tuesday, July 1, 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

January 2016

BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Forget “Distracted Walking” – The Real Problem Is “Distracted Voting”

by lgadmin January 20, 2016
written by lgadmin

According to several recent studies, emergency room visits are surging for injuries stemming from what has been described as “distracted walking.” Incidents of pedestrians with their eyes glued to the screens of their “smart phones” or tablets, tripping over curbs or walking off train platforms are becoming almost commonplace.

The effects of a society overloaded with information, apps and various forms of electronic communication are manifest in more than just bumps and bruises. Our minds also are reeling from the flood of rapid-fire data and media consumption. People are finding it increasingly difficult to concentrate on tasks requiring intellectual focus and attention to detail. Attention spans are fast decreasing as electronic devices push individuals to jump quickly and automatically from stimulus to stimulus and from topic to topic. Even goldfish are now said to have a longer attention span than humans.

To psychologists, the deteriorating condition of human cognition presents an alarming omen. By contrast, to many 21st-Century politicians, it is a Godsend; making the job of controlling voters with shiny verbal or electronic baubles far easier than in decades past.

While this phenomenon of what might be termed “distracted voting” or “D.V.,” may not result in immediate physical injury to the practitioner, in the long-run, and in the body politic, it is in many respects far more devastating to society. Distracted voting may not send voters to the hospital emergency room, but it puts them clearly and directly in harm’s way from advocates of enhanced government power.

Of the candidates running for president this year, none more than Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump have benefited from D.V.

The entirety of Sanders’ campaign have been promises of “free everything” that will require an astronomical increase in taxes to cover a price tag in the multiple trillions of dollars; on top of the ruinous consequences to businesses, healthcare and education. Yet, all his supporters appear to hear or care about, are the simple promises of “free healthcare,” “free college,” and Uncle Bernie’s plans to “tax the rich” to get them to pay their “fair share.” Few, if any of his largely young supporters bother to check further into how these fantasies will actually play out, or what it ultimately will cost them.

On the Republican side of the political divide, and much like Bernie, Donald Trump has proposed similar fantastical ideas for how to “make America great again,” such as building a gigantic wall along every inch of the border, banning Muslims from entering the country, or using executively-imposed tariffs and other regulatory executive action to punish companies with plants in other countries. By any objective standard, Trump’s proposals should have him laughed out of the GOP as an anti-Constitution, crony capitalist authoritarian.

However, voters distracted by Trump’s simplistic solutions and entertaining bullying of anyone who dares challenge him, fail to see the full picture of what they are supporting; namely, the same form of unconstitutional, executive action in which the current President has engaged. But, as long as Trump is perceived as “telling it like it is,” distracted voters blindly support whatever it is he’s yelling at the moment.

Then there’s Hillary. Using lessons from her former boss Barack Obama, candidate Hillary Clinton has taken “distracted voting” a step further; using it to not only mask the shortcomings of her proposals and accomplishments, but to skirt any responsibility for the corruption that has been the hallmark of her entire public career.

Just as Obama has masked his pitifully short record of substantive achievement over the seven years of his presidency by distracting the electorate with endless bloviating and casting blame on others, so has Hillary employed similar tactics to camouflage the corruption that infects every step of her political career. Voters are distracted from that reality to the fairy tale narrative of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has unfairly dogged Hillary and Bill since their days in Little Rock. The story of poor, persecuted Hillary is a familiar bell to the ears of her supporters, who rush like Pavlov’s dogs to her side whenever its ring distracts them.

The phenomenon of Distracted Voting is more than just a poor reflection of our weakened ability to properly vet those asking for our votes. It represents a serious, and worsening diminishing of our ability to use logic and reason to objectively weigh the so-called “facts” presented to our senses. Furthermore, D.V. exposes a vulnerability to political manipulation that has already shown it can, virtually overnight, take a pro-Constitution Tea Partier, and turn him into a Trump supporter.

If we truly want to wrest our nation from the clutches of siren politicians like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, we first must reclaim our minds and stop being distracted with whatever shiny objects politicians dangle in front of our eyes – or our smart phone.

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 20, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

When It Comes To Combatting Gun Violence, the Real Empty Seat is in the Oval Office

by lgadmin January 13, 2016
written by lgadmin

At one time in the United States, when storied leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan walked the corridors of the White House, the annual State of the Union actually meant something. Whether delivered as a written report, or in person to a joint session of Congress, the ceremonial act was, as Article II of the U. S. Constitution mandates, an opportunity for the President to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union,” as well as recommend policies to fix the issues currently facing the nation. Most importantly, given the stature and respect of those delivering the remarks, State of the Union addresses were events that Americans looked to for real substance, reassurance, and even inspiration.

Today — and especially since Bill Clinton discovered that States of the Union provided an excellent opportunity to present a political laundry list for his Party’s supporters — we are lucky to get just one genuine fact that has not first been put through the ringer of highly paid speechwriters, political consultants, and Party apparatchiks. Even guests of the First Family have become political pawns, carefully chosen to serve as human exclamation points to punctuate the cause du jour featured in the President’s speech.

This year, the theatrics that accompanied Barack Obama’s final State of the Union took a new twist, with one visitor’s seat left vacant as a contrived “memorial” to the victims of gun violence; used by the President to shame Congress for its supposed inaction on gun control.

The real “empty seat,” however, is the one behind the President’s Oval Office desk.

For seven years, we have been held captive as Obama periodically bloviates about the need for tighter gun control, notably after each devastating tragedy involving firearms. A perfect example of this was Obama’s firearms “town hall” last week, in which carefully screened questions served up to the President repeated opportunities to deliver long screeds about gun control, with virtually no substance, but much smoke and mirrors.

Obama, it is well-established, never has been loathe to point fingers and uses his presidential bully pulpit to try to shame supporters of the Second Amendment — often the National Rifle Association by name as a proxy for all firearms owners as a whole. The sheer paranoia of this Administration toward the NRA and its perceived omnipotence, helps Obama perpetuate the myth that the NRA’s five million, dues-paying members are but a front for a secretive and unaccountable “vast Right-wing conspiracy,” controlled by “the gun industry.”

Obama’s fantastical notions about the NRA would be laughable but for the fact that Obama’s acerbic propaganda signals just how far removed he is from the sentiment of the nation, while providing him an excuse for why he must “go it alone” in forging anti-gun policies by non-legislative Executive Actions.

In reality, the only person Obama has to blame for a lack of “meaningful action” on gun crime, is himself. And, the facts lend no support to his efforts either.

Despite the heated rhetoric about gun crime following isolated mass shootings, for example, a 2014 audit of federal prosecutions shows a dramatic decrease in federal gun-crime prosecutions under Obama. Moreover, firearms investigations by Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms also are in decline. Obama loves to explain away this drop in prosecutions of actual gun crime – such as straw man purchases, and possession of firearms by felons – as a matter of cuts to ATF funding forced on him by a hostile Republican Congress. However, it is his own Department of Justice that sets law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities for federal prosecutions — including for firearms violations — and, when it comes to taking violent criminals off the street, it simply has not been a priority for Obama.

In the words of one gun control historian at George Washington University commenting on shifting priorities at the Justice Department under Obama, “there’s more ideological cache harassing Bubba at the gun show than getting a handle on gun crime.” And, with the further confusion created by Obama’s recent Executive Actions about who needs a Federal Firearms License to sell a firearm, this harassment will only increase without any positive effect on gun violence.

It was always unlikely that, in his waning days as President, Obama would somehow come to terms with the reality about firearms ownership (up) and firearms crimes (down); or, that in the areas where he could have actually made a tangible impact on gun violence, Obama would finally take responsibility for failing because of his unwillingness to set aside politics and actually lead. So, while the Mainstream Media and the left-wing Blogosphere will gush over Obama’s “vacant seat” metaphor during his State of the Union, the only seat that reallymatters when it comes to protecting American citizens against individuals using guns with which to commit crimes, is the one behind the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 13, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Despite The Tears, Obama’s Anti-Gun Moves Are Dangerous

by lgadmin January 6, 2016
written by lgadmin

On December 31st, people gathered across America and the world to welcome the New Year with joyous festivities, hopeful resolutions, and cheerful optimism about fresh starts. Bucking the trend, President Obama opted against such new beginnings and vowed instead to do in 2016 as he has the last seven years: Whatever he wants, regardless of what the Constitution, Congress, the Courts, or the public, has to say about it.

Using his vehicle of choice, Obama this week announced – with a flood of presidential tears – several “Executive Actions” aimed at restricting gun sales and ownership in the United States. Similar to his past moves, which range from further regulating healthcare to (illegally) expanding work permits for illegal immigrants, the President justified his unilateral policy decrees on a need to bypass an “ineffectual” Congress. Rather than actually traveling a few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue to meet personally with congressional leaders, Obama chose again to chastise Congress for being held “hostage” by the “gun lobby.” Obama’s teary-eyed efforts to rally supporters to his gun-control agenda every time a publicized mass-shooting occurs, has become something of a broken record. While the latest proposals – like those unveiled three years ago following the Newtown tragedy — appear on the surface to be largely benign, we had best take them seriously. As Ross Perot cautioned us, “the devil is in the details”; there is a relevant corollary to Perot’s maxim – “it’s often not what’s on the lines count; it’s what between the lines that matters most.” Of most concern among the proposals is the Administration’s attempt to broaden the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms; a classification which requires cumbersome licensing from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in addition to dramatically enhanced penalties for violating the myriad regulations and conditions attendant to being a firearms dealer (a “Federal Firearms Licensee” or “FFL”). Yet, even the Administration is not clear on who would qualify. According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, selling even one firearm could qualify an individual as a federal dealer, “depending on the circumstances” – vagueness not welcome from the person supposed to be the nation’s top lawyer.

In examining Monday’s decrees, Obama’s failure to propose even harsher gun control schemes as demanded by the Left, should not be viewed as a victory for Second Amendment supporters. The eventual goal of gun control advocates is not necessarily “gun control” per se, but ultimately reducing the number of firearms in circulation, and undermining the strength and authority of the Second Amendment. By simply making firearms more expensive to manufacture, and more complicated (and legally treacherous) to own or sell, the president’s “modest” proposals are every bit as dangerous as a move to outlaw certain categories of guns or ammunition; without the fuss of more direct measures that would never actually secure congressional approval. Much like his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, Obama remains chronically apathetic towards the heavy-lifting required to work with Congress in order to pass his agenda through the regular constitutional process. But unlike Clinton, Obama detests the glad-handing, negotiations, and compromises with those he sees as beneath him; and finds it is far easier to use the “stroke of the pen” to accomplish his goals, regardless of the damage thereby done to such vital principles as limited presidential power and separation of powers between the branches of government. Whereas Clinton was relatively open with his Second Amendment agenda and proposed mostly symbolic policies designed to score political points, Obama has chosen to work in the shadows via non-legislative means that strike more calculated blows to heart of gun rights. And his efforts in this regard are many. Consider the Obama Administration’s signing of the “Arms Trade Treaty” (ATT), which even without ratification by Congress, means the U.S. is “obligated” not to act “contrary to” the gun-control efforts proffered by the treaty explicitly or in ancillary documents. Or, “Operation Choke Point” in 2014, when Obama ordered the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pressure banks to dry up financial funding critical to firearms transactions and firearms-related companies. Or, how Obama has attempted to shoehorn the Centers for Disease Control into the gun control debate in an ongoing attempt to make gun violence a “public health” crisis; thereby subject to Food and Drug Administration regulatory control. These are but a few examples of the many calculated moves by the Obama Administration over the last seven years designed to circumvent Congress, and gut the Second Amendment without subjecting himself or his proposals to real debate. The new round of executive actions is more of the same, regardless of how “modest” the President and his allies claim them to be. Each step down this path opens the door wider for subsequent administrations to take the same approach regarding other issues. Whether this Congress, unlike its predecessors, recognizes this long-term damage and takes steps to stop the Administration, is – unfortunately – unlikely.

 

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 6, 2016 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