September 2017

Sports’ Golden Gods Proving Themselves Just Brass Asses

Bob Barr

9/27/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

Turn on the television any given night, and you’re likely to see late night host Jimmy Kimmel bloviating like a public healthcare expert, unemployed NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick pretending to be a professor of criminal justice, or perhaps even crooner Stevie Wonder warning us about the dangers of global warming. Instead of finding entertainment where once you expected it to be, we now find ourselves on the mean streets of 21^st Century political discourse.

If National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell is wondering why ratings for the sport that pays him millions are falling, or Warner Bros. executives struggling to understand why movie-goers are on the decline, look no further. Where sporting events or the Oscars used to offer a few hours in which to forget about controversy and simply be entertained, we now are treated as captive audiences to a constant parade of celebrity political manifestos. Celebrities wail that they have a duty and a right to use their high paid posts to effect political change; and the hubris to think that their audiences should actually care.

In no rational universe is the ability to throw an air-filled pigskin sack 60-yards down a field a sign of any greater understanding of public policy or political philosophy, than someone who never laced up a pair of cleats in his life; nor does hosting a late night talk show lend credibility to one’s personal political views. Having a broad public podium, and having a broad knowledge of issues, are two entirely different things.

In fact, when actually pressed on workable solutions for the very issue over which he was making such a stink, all Kaepernick had to offer were robotic soundbites. The shallowness of his “cause” was revealed clearly by the fact that he did not even vote in the 2016 election. All Kaepernick craved was an opportunity for attention, not for leadership. His “heroic” protest amounted to nothing more intellectually cogent than that of a petulant teenager barking on social media about complex issues far beyond his or her pubescent grasp; just on a bigger, more publicized scale.

It is not as if other sports stars and organizations are doing anything more. For example, have the Pittsburgh Steelers endorsed the GOP-sponsored legislation for criminal justice reform, which would have a historic and positive impact on minority communities ravaged by decades of drugs and violence? Has the Seattle Seahawks organization begun working with Washington state legislators on reforming civil asset forfeiture laws, which disproportionally affects minorities, and are ranked among some of the worst in the nation?

No, of course not. And why should they?  Fans keep paying exorbitant ticket prices, advertisers continue to pay millions for a 30- or 60-second spot, the athletes rake in millions of dollars to catch balls, and team owners laugh all the way to the bank.

Many of these overpaid prima donnas never graduated college; some did not attend in the first place. So, why should we expect someone who scored a 12 out of 50 on the Wonderlic Test (the NFL’s version of the SAT) to have a rational, well-considered opinion on civil asset forfeiture, criminal justice reform, or the complex legalities behind the use of lethal force by police? On the other side of the equation, why should they expect us to believe they are more deserving of our attention on politics than, say, a stranger on the street? Because they may appear on our Fantasy Football roster?

We should all want and hope that professional athletes will be role models when it comes to exhibiting good sportsmanship on the field, being charitable with their enormous salaries, and abstaining from criminal behavior. This is all a part of being a good citizen.

But it is our deification and idolatry of these “Golden Gods” of sports that make them appear more than they are and lends to the illusion that somehow, as fans, we are supposed to give a hoot what they think on or off the field, rather than what they do on it. Frankly, if this latest uproar over whether a player or coach kneels during the national anthem or holds hands with his locker buddy, leads to serious questioning about our long-held deification of sports figures, then there is something positive to come from this.

As Mona Charen noted in a column earlier this week quoting Calvin Coolidge, politicians “live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation, which sooner or later impairs their judgment.” On the gridiron, that benchmark has long been passed.

Jennifer Chambrin

Assistant to Former Congressman Bob Barr

2120 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 125

Atlanta, GA 30339

770-836-1776

678-384-5745 fax

Yes, Virginia, Federalism Applies to Marijuana Reform

Bob Barr

9/20/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

There is a simple, universal elegance to the conservative concept of federalism. When confronted with a governing decision not explicitly addressed in the Constitution as a duty of the federal government – providing national defense, for example – that decision is best left to the states. Not only is this in the spirit of how our Founding Fathers envisioned government in a free society, but more practically, it ensures that people are governed by those who best understand their constituents – local and state officials.  Federalism also protects the rights of states to speak, act, and legislate in a constitutionally-guaranteed and sovereign manner; rather than be subjected to one-size-fits-all solutions peddled by Washington bureaucrats who have long forgotten the constituents who put them there and pay their salaries.

Although many reduce the debate over state legalization of marijuana to personal opinions about individual drug use or its medicinal value, doing so misses the more consequential issue regarding the federal government’s flagrant interference in a state’s constitutional right to self-governance. True conservatives recognize this truth and apply the philosophy to all issues that deal with the intersection of state and federal jurisdictions. There should be no such thing as “selective federalism,” where one supports federal control or state control based solely on what outcome is preferred personally.

Therefore, when it comes to the long-standing dispute over marijuana, amplified in recent years by a stream of states that now have medical marijuana laws (29 plus D.C.), or which have legalized it outright for recreational use (eight), the conservative response should be straightforward — leave it to the states. Instead, the stubborn determination of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reassert federal authority over marijuana, despite the changing tides at the state level, has complicated what should be a non-issue for a Republican-controlled Executive branch and Congress.

In the case of marijuana legalization, which in some states came directly through ballot referendums, action by the federal Department of Justice is truly overruling the voice of the American people. Such authoritative action robs states of the power guaranteed to them by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in favor of keeping the matter in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Washington.

Despite the anti-federalism push led by Sessions and at least tolerated by President Trump and congressional GOP leaders, some members of Congress seem to be getting the message from their constituents back home and are trying to make it easier for states to explore this new territory.  Fortunately, also, these efforts are bipartisan and enjoy support from the influential Americans for Tax Reform, as well as from the “usual suspects” such as the CATO Institute.

As Jonathan Adler, a constitutional law professor at Case Western University School of Law noted recently, Congress has used appropriation riders to tie the hands of agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration, preventing the agency from spending money to interfere with marijuana operations in states where it has been legalized. However, such riders are of limited scope and effect. “The fact that marijuana possession remains illegal under federal law has far-reaching implications whether or not the DEA can raid medical marijuana dispensaries,” says Adler. The law professor also notes that a crafty attorney general can relatively easily circumvent appropriations riders. Moreover, Uncle Sam has many other tools available with which to thwart commercial marijuana businesses; including regulations that prevent cannabis businesses from accessing banks and other federally-controlled financial services institutions essential to conducting business in the modern era. Civil RICO laws remain a potent federal threat as well.

The bottom line is, “the only way to protect state-level marijuana reform efforts is to change federal [drug] law,” concludes Adler.

While many politicians run to Washington, D.C. to drink from the “Swamp,” far removed from the kitchen table issues back home, such issues do not magically disappear or decrease in importance. Problems with heroin and opioid addiction, budget shortfalls, and unemployment persist and are left to the responsibility of governors and state officials to resolve. If the people or their elected state officials decide that marijuana reform may help ease these burdens – and states have enjoyed success with these very issues in legalizing marijuana – then it is their constitutional right to explore them. Washington bureaucrats have no moral or legal right to interfere. Trump, Sessions, and other Republicans should know better and would do well to get out of the way and focus instead on truly federal issues (of which there are many).

Congress, Trump and Governor Eviscerate the Bill of Rights

Bob Barr

9/13/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

On a daily basis, government officials at all levels make decisions and take steps that are, to put it mildly, without basis in our Constitution, or are in direct contravention of that magnificent document.  As bad as these actions are, most citizens do not consider them fundamental or flagrant abuses of the Constitution (though they should). Most Americans still believe that the government operates in their best interests and according to the terms of the Constitution.

The government likes it that way. But, as we have seen just recently, it is merely a lack of opportunity, not desire, holding government back. Unfortunately, such opportunities are always one “emergency” away.

In advance of Hurricane Irma, U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp issued an order that the territory’s National Guard is “authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunitions, explosives, incendiary material and any other property that may be required by the military forces” (emphasis added).  Presumably, the edict was predicated on the need to maintain order and safety of USVI citizens within lawful bounds.  But that is not what it said.

The shocking order was reminiscent of one issued in 2005 by New Orleans officials in the days following Hurricane Katrina, confiscating private firearms from citizens (in many instances, forcibly) who remained in their homes to protect themselves and their property from looters. “No one will be able to be armed,” New Orleans Police Chief Edwin Compass told the Washington Post at the time. “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

But unlike New Orleans’ unconstitutional order, Mapp’s goes even further, calling for the seizure not just of firearms but of “any other property.” What does that mean? Conceivably anything the National Guard wants – food, money, cars, houses. The sheer scope of the order is breathtaking, as are its constitutional implications; violating not just the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but the Third as well – one thought perhaps least likely ever to be relevant under a modern government. It very well could be one of the most constitutionally egregious government orders issued since British rule. But, hey, it is an emergency, right?

Once the order became public, the governor tried to backtrack on his brazen edict, claiming weakly that — despite the clear and unambiguous wording of the document — it was meant only to enable the National Guard to purchase items it needed, not “seize” them from private citizens. But words do matter, and once a door is opened, the government sooner or later is always going to go through it. Precedent has been set.

This is precisely why legislation quietly passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Trump just weeks ago, is cause for similar concern. House Joint Resolution 76, a bill creating a tri-state Washington Metrorail Safety Commission for the D.C.-area did not raise any eyebrows at the time it was presented to Congress. However, buried within the text of the bill is a provision that grants virtually unlimited power to Metro authorities to enter and inspect any private property “near” the area’s Rail System at any time, without warrant or consent. Given both the size of the D.C. Metro system, and government’s penchant for skirting the Fourth Amendment (here, here,here, here, here), the implications are clear — if you live or have a business near a Metro stop, you have no Fourth Amendment protection against police coming into your home or business whenever they feel the need.

This blatant assault on the Bill of Rights garnered a mere five — count ’em, five — votes against it in the House and none in the “senior” Chamber across the Rotunda. In other words, of the 635 officials in our nation’s Capital in a position to have stopped this outrage (435 House members, 100 senators, and one president), only five cared enough to do so.

If an observer were cynical, he would conclude with a high degree of likelihood that the vast majority of those who voted “aye” did so because they did not even take the time to learn the provision was in the legislation. What is even more frightening, however, is the possibility that many of these elected officials consciously voted to strip thousands of citizens of metro D.C. of their right to be free from unreasonable government searches, simply because they were convinced by the measure’s proponents that the power was essential to guard against possible terrorist attacks.

We truly have reached the point at which fear — whether from a natural or man-made source — now officially trumps the Bill of Rights; even if that fear is only hypothetical or illusory.

Fight Leftist Tech Giants With Capitalism, Not Big Government

Bob Barr

9/6/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

Perhaps it is too much West Coast air, or perhaps because the vast wealth of their owners keeps them insulated from the working class, but with few exceptions (such as Pay Pal founder Peter Theil), tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon all share a left-leaning, Kumbaya-like corporate culture; one that will protect itself with all the vengeful vigor of any social justice warrior on a college campus.

This corporate culture war has pushed many conservatives to view these companies and their enormous clout as a threat in the market place and in politics. This is, of course, much the same as they see groups like MoveOn.org, or politicians like Rep. Nancy Pelosi; and such sentiments are hardly unjustified. Private companies, not politicians or special interest groups, for example, were the leading force in the amending of California’s original religious liberty bill; and conservatives have long been disproportionately targeted on social media with bans for “objectionable” content that site administrators claim to be “hate speech.”

Fear and skepticism of the power of these companies appeared to reach a peak last month when Google fired a senior software engineer for politely questioning the company’s gender initiatives in an internal memo. Adding fuel to the fire, the company then seemingly forced the firing of a respected scholar at the New America Foundation, of which Google is a major benefactor, because his research shed a critical light on the concentration of power by American tech giants. For many on the Right, as Popeye says, “that’s all they can stands, and they can’t stands no more.”

“Google’s fascist witch-burning of an honest engineer for refusing to bow down at the altar of politically correct lies was the final straw,” Kurt Schlichter wrote last month here at Townhall.com. He continued, “Republicans at both the federal and the state level need to rein in [Silicon Valley]…through the kind of crushing regulation of these private business that we conservatives used to oppose.” In other words, to beat the liberals, conservatives must act like liberals, even if it means throwing the free market to the wind. I sympathize with Schlichter’s anger and frustration, but his is a terrible idea.

There is no question that these tech firms wield enormous power, and that they play by a double standard when it comes to tolerance; but playing by liberals’ rules does not help us beat them, it only makes us more like them.

In the decades since America’s last great Republican president, Ronald Reagan, the GOP’s principles have morphed to become, shall we say…a little “squishy.” George H.W. Bush promised “no new taxes,” but raised them. George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative,” which translated into huge, expansive federal programs like “No Child Left Behind” and the costly Medicare Modernization Act; not to mention some $700 billion to bail out Wall Street as part of the “Troubled Asset Relief Program.” Now, with President Donald Trump – who does not seem to care much for Republican orthodoxy – one is never quite sure what position the President will take; conservative one day, populist the next.

The result is a Republican Party philosophically rudderless, and concerned more with winning the next election than its principles. In fact, the GOP’s free market, pro-capitalism roots (as diluted as they might have become), may be one of the last true differentiators between “us” and “them.” If anything, it is time to double-down on these principles, not let up as some conservative critics of the tech industry suggest.

As private consumers, conservatives are well within their rights to find alternatives to Google, Facebook, Amazon and others, in protest of these companies’ Leftist agendas; and, from a pure personal privacy perspective, not using their services may be a smart move as well. Yet, demanding government take swift and punitive action, simply because we do not like them, undermines everything that makes conservatism superior to liberalism. Using, as Schlichter states, new or pre-existing regulations to harass liberal companies into submission may feel good, but consider how it felt to watch President Obama use the National Labor Relations Board to block Boeing from opening a new factory in a non-union state. Conservatives should be fighting against such abuse of power, not encouraging it when it might [temporarily] help “our” side. If we keep our wits and our principles about us, the spirit of true conservatism in the tech market places will outlast them all; including Google and Facebook.