September 2018

Democrats’ Reign of Terror
Townhall.com
By Bob Barr

From the safety of the historian’s perspective, what made the French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror” truly terrifying was not the streets of blood or the crash of guillotines, but the Revolutionary government’s utter rejection of the rule of law in order to satisfy the people’s bloodlust during that moment in time. When it was decided that justice must be served quicker and more efficiently when facing enemies of the new order, pillars of western civilization were simply cast aside in favor of mob “justice.”  Public trials, legal representation, verdicts short of death sentences — all were deemed nuisances to the changes sought by the revolutionaries; and all were discarded with an ease that was truly frightening.

Today, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would be justified in feeling as if he has been transported back to Paris in 1793, as his accusers in the United States Senate scream hysterically about the hindrances of due process in pursuit of their concept of “justice.” To them, the unverified accusations of an accuser are more than sufficient grounds to send the Judge to the chopping block.  His senatorial accusers and the mob they represent “feel” his guilt, with the coup de grace being his membership in a class of persons each guilty by association – white men.

“Her credible allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh should disqualify him from ever being confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand stated more than a week ago, just days after Christine Ford’s accusations were leaked to the media. Meanwhile, Sen. Mazie Hirono told CNN that Kavanaugh’s “credibility is already very questionable” based on nothing more than her distaste for his judicial rulings; clearly implying he is not due the same presumption of innocence as others. In the minds of both Gillibrand and Hirono – two sitting U.S. Senators – Kavanaugh was rendered guilty the minute he accepted the president’s nomination; and no evidence could rise to the level of providing a basis on which they would consider changing their verdict.

Democrats have reached a new level of intellectual corruption with their smear campaign against Kavanaugh.   In the process, they have essentially rendered Ms. Ford’s allegations nothing more than a political trump card with little, if any, real concern for her well-being. This conduct alone should shake the core of Americans who already fear the political process in Washington has become untenably toxic.

It is the complete and visceral contempt of due process exhibited by Gillibrand, Hirono and their colleagues (and echoed by the Mainstream Media) that should have Americans truly fearful.

The lessons for what America would look like under such a regime are not theoretical. Recent American history, particularly during the Jim Crow era in the South, offers examples of what justice becomes when shortcuts to due process are taken; when the “guilt” of the accused is already presumed, especially in that era when accusations against black men were leveled by white women. Even today, negligence in the judicial process can be a blight on marginalized communities that lack both the education and resources to adequately defend themselves when falsely accused. Yet, Democrats – who regularly profess themselves the “champions” of the downtrodden — would further weaken the standard for guilt and the standards for due process, merely because they see such a move as favoring their short-term political goals.

While the Democrats’ strategy to wait until the last minute to ambush Kavanaugh and ultimately to delay the nomination of any Trump pick is carefully orchestrated political theater, it is the animus to the rule of law afforded their perceived enemies across the board that should deeply worry America. Whether it is the Electoral College, which they believe was responsible for lifting Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton two years ago, or the theory they could simply pack the Supreme Court with new seats to dilute a conservative majority, Democrats clearly are willing to destroy any tradition or safeguard of American democracy in pursuit of the power they have failed to gain at the ballot box.

Ironically, with this unbecoming conduct Democrats may have reenergized a Republican electorate that might otherwise have stayed home in November, disillusioned with a Republican Congress that has failed to take advantage of their congressional majorities. Now, engaged voters are able to see what is really at stake if the “blue wave” Democrats crave actually comes to pass in six weeks.

The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror lasted 10 months from 1793 to 1794.  If the current crop of Democrat nihilists win the mid-term elections in November, the damage the Rule of Law would suffer in 21st Century America will be far longer.

We May Be Witness to a Defining Moment in Korea

The American Spectator

A great unsung Donald Trump achievement

Speaking to a large gathering at Rice University stadium in September 1962, President John Kennedy challenged his countrymen to place a man on the surface of the moon and return him safely to the earth. At the time, many of those countrymen thought his dream unattainable, at least within the timeframe of a single decade as the President suggested. Yet, in less than seven years, a team of scientists and engineers accomplished exactly what Kennedy envisioned.

Late in his presidency, Ronald Reagan challenged his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, to “tear down” the Berlin Wall; a structure that had stood for more than a quarter century as a seeming permanent monument to the strength of the communist system. His critics, and even some in his own political Party, sloughed off Reagan’s challenge as nothing more than a catchy soundbite delivered by an eloquent but elderly president. A mere two years later, the Berlin Wall and the totalitarian regimes it personified, began crumbling.

Early this year, President Trump publicly broached the likelihood of a personal meeting with North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Un, who just weeks before Trump had ridiculed as “Little Rocket Man.” Unsurprisingly, pundits were highly skeptical that a meeting between the two leaders would take place, and even if it did, that any meaningful substantive results would follow. But here we are, just three months after the Singapore Summit, and the leaders of the two Koreas – split apart and still technically in a state of war since 1950 – expressing optimism that the four nations directly involved in that oft-forgotten war (including China and the United States) will sign a peace treaty before the end of this year.

To perhaps a majority of decision-makers in Washington, New York, and elsewhere, believing such a scenario not only possible but likely would itself be deemed delusional. Democrats – who saw their last President, Barack Obama, constantly showered with praise as a visionary world leader throughout his eight years in office (including receiving the Nobel Peace Prize during his very first year as President) – scoff at the notion that Trump is capable of accomplishing something truly noteworthy in international affairs.

Were the metrics by which a leader is measured based on his or her rhetoric, Trump’s detractors would have a case to be made. His blustery rhetoric and confrontational Tweets easily can be – and often are – seen as reflecting a shallow and inattentive approach to serious issues; especially those involving matters of national security and diplomacy. Still, there is no mistaking the fact that things long-considered immutable in that part of the world in which North and South Korea reside, are changing.

The mainstream media in the United States may downplay and even ignore steps this Administration is taking in the Pacific Rim and elsewhere. Cable news producers and social media puppeteers at Facebook and Google may choose to ridicule Trump’s style and actions. And the Bizarro World that has enveloped the Supreme Court confirmation proceedings in our nation’s Capital, may continue to push substantive international news to the background.

However, what cannot be rightly ignored or dismissed is the fact that President Donald Trump has brought a perspective to the office he occupies that has been seen but rarely in our lifetimes. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had it; so did John Kennedy. Perhaps a few others, but not many; and certainly no other occupant of the White House since Reagan.

What exactly is this spark that appears to be among the qualities possessed by President Trump? Clearly it is not a formula subject to easy quantification; or quantification at all. Perhaps the person holding it does not expressly recognize they have it, or consciously choose its use at a particular moment. Regardless, it can be a game changer.

In the simplest terms, what we see in Mr. Trump’s actions is – to use a hackneyed but apt phrase – thinking outside the box; looking beyond the confines of traditional analysis. Where presidents before Reagan saw the Cold War as a permanent condition to be “dealt with,” he saw it as a condition to be overcome. As noted masterfully by Herbert Meyer in a February 2017 Imprimis essay, it was just such a mindset that led Reagan to ask questions of his foreign intelligence and military advisors that rearranged their thinking, in such a way as to focus on attacking the Soviet Union’s weaknesses, rather than on defending against its perceived strengths.

Perhaps because he is unshackled by Washington insiders and careerists, Trump seems unbound by traditional views of the world. Perhaps it is because he is not “educated” in the same manner as those who traditionally have pulled the levers of power in Washington. Whatever the reason, Trump’s willingness to reach out to the very strange Kim Jong-Un and to view that troubled peninsula as something more than a permanent military stalemate, has signaled to Seoul that there is a better path than the status quo; that it is okay to shake the hand of one’s adversary.

Whatever his shortcomings in other arenas, in charting this path President Trump has paved the way for a change on the world stage that rivals one of the last century’s greatest moments – the fall of the Soviet Union. For this, he rightly deserves credit.

OPINION: HOUSE SENDS KNEE-JERK CRIME BILL TO SENATE

The Daily Caller

9:42 AM 09/20/2018

Bob Barr | Former Congressman (R-GA)

Lightning-fast responses may be an ability that separates good athletes from outstanding ones. Possessing the skill to respond instantaneously to what is happening around you can mean the difference between the checkered flag at the Indianapolis 500 and a second-place finisher no one will long remember.

But in crafting legislation, knee-jerk reactions to events in the real world seldom withstand the test of time and frequently cause more long-term harm than benefit. Unfortunately, this is a lesson rarely understood by state legislators or by those who serve in the Congress of the United States.

A list of bad legislation passed by the Congress in response to “crises” would have to include the so-called “Dodd-Frank Act,” which included within its myriad sections the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare.”

Both of these massive pieces of legislation became the law of the land in 2010 (when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House), and both gave rise to numerous problems – both anticipated and unforeseen – that necessitated significant remedial action by the courts, the Congress and the Executive Branch.

Legislative responses to problems almost always are made to appear appropriate, if not critically important, at the time Congress involves itself. More often than not, however, the remedy turns out to be ill-suited to the malady.
This is the case regarding a bill that recently passed the House and awaits action by the Senate – the “Community Safety and Security Act of 2018” (H.R. 6691). As often is the case, the title of this proposed law belies the actual impact of the legislation, and the solution to the problem it purports to “fix” is certain to cause further and more serious problems down the road.

H.R. 6691 is a knee-jerk response to a Supreme Court decision this past spring: Dimaya v. Sessions. The majority opinion in the case was authored by Associate Justice Elena Kagan, but partially joined in by the newest Associate Justice appointed by President Trump, Neil Gorsuch.

What appears to have rankled the GOP majority in the House and led directly to the legislative fix is the Court’s holding that at least for federal immigration deportation actions, the definition of a “crime of violence” is impermissively vague.

While many conservatives routinely criticize the Federal Government for employing a criminal law net that is too sweeping, when it comes to reining in that dragnet, a different standard is used. In this particular case, the desire to deport any immigrant (in this instance, a lawful immigrant) who has violated a state or federal law, appears to have trumped the principle that if the government is going to take away a person’s liberty via conviction of a crime, the definition of the crime must be clear and unambiguous, in order that the person is actually on notice that they have broken the law.

Unfortunately, in its apparent zeal to prove its tough immigration chops, the Republicans in the House cobbled together a bill (H.R. 6691) and rushed it through that body without even pausing to mark it up in committee. Far from clarifying the federal standard for “crimes of violence,” this legislation actually makes the problem worse.

As Jason Pye, Vice President of Legislative Affairs for Washington-based FreedomWorks has noted, H.R. 6691 goes so far as proposing to codify “fleeing” as a “crime of violence.”  Pye correctly notes also that another “crime of violence” included in the Act’s expansion of the federal criminal code, is the offense of “interference with flight crew members,” notwithstanding that such phrase under federal law carries with it no essential element of violence.

The bill compounds the problem of putting individuals on notice as to what might constitute violent criminal behavior by defining “coercion” to mean “causing the performance or non-performance of any act by another person under which such other person has a legal right to do or to abstain from doing, through fraud.” What such definition actually means or has to do with “crimes of violence” is not at all clear.

If only for the sake of those of us who actually remain concerned about a federal criminal code that already is far too lengthy and unclear, let us hope the Senate gives this piece of knee-jerk legislation a quick and unambiguous burial.

BOB BARR is the President and CEO, LEEF and was a Member of Congress representing Georgia’s 7th Congressional District from 1995-2003

Reopening Kavanaugh Hearings Sets Dangerous Precedent
Townhall.com

It is a good thing Washington politicians do not hold themselves to the same standard as that to which Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is being held. The new standard appears to be that an unverifiable allegation of wrongdoing during a nominee’s high school years, disqualifies that person from holding public office.  Were such a bar applied to virtually any Republican or Democrat in Congress, in all probability we would be looking at 535 vacancies. Of course, for the 21st Century Democrat Party, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander; and the one-sided madness continues.

The comedic performance by the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats earlier this month during the Kavanaugh hearings, which appeared at the time to be the worst they could muster, sadly turned out only to be prelude to what now is taking place.  The childish tantrums by Senators Feinstein, Booker, Harris and company, have turned to blood sport as they gleefully dance around their cauldron of hatred, into which they have tossed unverifiable allegations that Kavanaugh committed a misdeed as a teenager nearly four decades ago.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Sen. Schumer’s gang has been joined by a handful of Republican Senators afraid – as always – to stand and defend their own turf.

At the outset, it is unclear what would the modern-day Inspector Javerts have the government do with the unverifiable and dated allegations now levelled against Kavanaugh?  The FBI correctly declined Feinstein’s kind offer to launch an investigation into what would have been – even if verifiable proof were to be had – a non-federal crime. The Senator, herself a lawyer, apparently had forgotten what she surely learned in Criminal Law 101; that short of murder, the statute of limitations applicable to allegations such as she “discovered” would have expired decades ago.

Perhaps Feinstein is hoping there is a crime lurking somewhere in the thousands of forms and other statements made by Judge Kavanaugh during or before his nomination, in which he denied an event such as is now being alleged, and he is therefore and somehow guilty of lying?  This would be preposterous on its face if presented to any federal (or state) law enforcement official; yet even some Republicans quake in the face of such a mere allegation – piously huffing and puffing that “we must get to the bottom of this.”

While Majority Leader McConnell asks the right questions — in which he sort of, kind of, indirectly impugns Feinstein’s motives — the door has been pushed open, to now drag the confirmation process deeper into the mud and murky waters of character assassination some believed had been buried a quarter century ago with the Clarence Thomas confirmation.  Sadly, the years between then and now appear to have taught us little.  Professional qualifications count for nothing; character assassination is the name of the game, and the Republicans foolishly have afforded the Democrats a stage on which to present their theater of the absurd.

The new standard on which to reopen hearings for a nominee after extended hearings in the regular order, now has become no standard at all.  Judiciary Chairman Grassley stated that “[a]nyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard.” Republicans now have established the precedent that “anyone” who levels a charge against a nominee will be entitled to have their accusation aired; even after extensive public hearings have been held, and notwithstanding that a member of the opposition deliberately holds onto the unverifiable accusatory information until after the regular-order hearings concluded.

To some extent, one can sympathize with the situation in which McConnell finds himself.  The razor-thin GOP majority in the Senate means that just two weak-kneed members can scuttle the confirmation of a person eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court; one who reflects the highest and best judicial philosophy favored by the Republican Party.  This essentially places McConnell at the mercy of a Jeff Flake, a Lisa Murkowski, a Susan Collins, or a Lindsey Graham; any one of who would throw Kavanaugh under the bus if it made himself or herself appear saintly in the eyes of the mainstream media.

In thus succumbing to the Democrats, and in caving to the leftist media and so-called #metoo movement that would have us see a deviant sexual predator lurking behind every bush, the Republicans have undercut perhaps the last vestige of fair play and decency remaining in the “advice and consent” responsibility placed in the hands of the Senate by Article II of the Constitution.  This represents a sad day for our Republic, which promises to become only sadder in the times to come.

Cory Booker’s ‘I Am the Big Lebowski’ Moment
Townhall.com

Sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for four days last week probably caused Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the sole witness, to imagine himself watching an episode of the old Superman comic; the one where Superman is transported into an alternate Bizarro World universe.  In that Bizarro World, you may recall, everything is the opposite of the real world.

For Kavanaugh, watching the hearing play out before him, he easily could picture not only two very different political parties before him, but two different worlds.  On the Republican side were senators clearly interested in the substance of a Supreme Court nominee’s thinking on, and approach to, the Constitution and laws of the United States.  On the other side – the Bizarro World, if you will – were men and women interested in a combination of playing “Gotcha!,” displays of adolescent bad manners, and exhibiting a degree of repetitiveness that would lead one to conclude no one of them could hear what any of the others were saying.

These bizarre theatrics were played out with an audience behind Kavanaugh that periodically erupted into unintelligible shouting by spectators sometimes dressed in weird costumes.  Although Sen. Lindsey Graham opined at one point that the hearings were “not fit for children” (or words to that effect), I would differ – the antics displayed by the Democrats were of such low degree that children probably would have enjoyed watching them.

Children, of course, might not appreciate the difference between a “textualist” and an “originalist,” understand the principle of “separation of powers,” or be concerned whether “privacy” is a right protected under the Constitution.  However, for those of us who actually care more about a Supreme Court justice’s legal thinking than in how many ways he can tell a Senator, “I am bound by precedent and judicial ethics to not answer that questions explicitly,” there is much to digest in Kavanaugh’s testimony.

We know, for example, that Judge Kavanaugh actually has read the Federalist Papers.  Even more important, based on his testimony we know he understands that each of our three branches of government has defined and limited powers; and that “policy” concerns definitely are not a proper basis on which federal judges are to render verdicts.  It seems clear to anyone with even a scintilla of objectivity that the Justice-to-be is neither a fan of nor an enemy to regulations per se; but rather that he bears little patience for regulatory power not clearly defined or firmly based on a power enumerated in the Constitution.

It also is clear from a reading of last week’s hearing transcripts that Judge Kavanaugh – unlike Sen. Dianne Feinstein, along with many others on her side of the aisle – understands the Second Amendment.  He apparently knows that the Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was not placed into the Bill of Rights simply to ensure Americans could hunt or target shoot.  The Judge also showed us he maintains a degree of real-world common sense and grasp of history; as when he explained the manner by which former Justice Antonin Scalia properly dissected the Second Amendment, in finding the District of Columbia’s long-standing ban on firearms to be unconstitutional.

During one exchange between Kavanaugh and Feinstein regarding firearms rights, the Judge showed he far more clearly than the Senator understood what “in common usage” means, in the context of analyzing the Second Amendment’s scope.  In that particular discussion, the Senator’s deep animus toward firearms came through loud and clear, in her almost laughable effort to justify banning the AR-style rifle simply because it was not “commonly used” in mass shootings.

Interlaced with discussions of true substance were threads of humor; sometimes apparently unintended, as when Sen. Cory Booker rendered his idiotic “I am Spartacus” declaration.  The New Jersey Senator worried that his feigned heroism in releasing e-mails would be the “closest” he would ever get to such a “Spartacus moment.”  In all likelihood, the Senator’s worry will prove to be unfounded.  Knowing of his desire to be his Party’s 2020 nominee for President, and after witnessing his unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that the Committee had preempted his heroics by releasing the e-mails earlier that day, the American electorate surely will witness future such “moments” by Sen. Booker.

Besides, the more apt declaration by Mr. Booker would have been to declare his move the “I am the Big Lebowski” moment, in recognition of his deeply silly performance during a proceeding intended to be among the most consequential in which a United States Senator could participate.