September 2019

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

It is the end of the world, and progressives are dancing in the streets. If this seems a rather curious, if not bizarre response to a fast-approaching global calamity, you probably do not understand today’s “progressives.”

This week’s #ShutDownDC global warming demonstrations have been less a protest than a public exhibition of costumes, dance moves, and pet political causes, many of which are only at-best tangentially related to environmental stewardship. There were LGBT activists gyrating in the streets as confetti rained over them. There were Black Lives Matter advocates and assorted anti-capitalists. Most notably, of course, there were plenty of cameras to capture the pageantry. You would hardly know mankind was only a few “impossible burgers” away from global calamity.

Farcical is the only way to accurately describe this circus of a “protest.” No mature and rational person would view the menagerie and think to himself, “You know, this event convinces me that I must do more to protect the environment.” 

Fundamental changes to public policy, much less sweeping cultural shifts, requires years, if not decades, of hard work – marshalling data, building coalitions, and developing long-term strategies and workable tactics; with the entire endeavor predicated on clearly defined and realistic goals. Ideally, policy changes occur in tandem with private sector advancements. 

In contrast to the mainstream media’s treatment of the week’s climate change protests as a serious, if not game-changing event, it appears to be more of an opportunity by many participants to see and be seen; an undertaking where the more outrageous the antics, the greater social credibility one gains in the eyes of one’s peers. 

Contrary to the Left’s stereotypical view of conservatives, most conservatives are strong conservationists — hunters, boaters, anglers, and outdoors-types who are passionate about protecting the places they love and enjoy. There are a number of low hanging, but nonetheless effective environmental policy options that would enjoy support among conservatives.  These include expansion of natural gas technology and uses, removing regulatory red tape that keeps costs for alternative energy investments prohibitive, and strengthening property rights to protect citizens and communities against illegal pollution. Yet, because such ideas are not sufficiently radical to be included in the “Green New Deal,” they remain of little, if any, interest to the Left. 

Another reason such practical proposals are unattractive to climate change progressives, is that they do not deliver the emotional kick liberals use to determine “value” to the movement. Moreover, such realistic proposals do not have as their goal the deconstruction of America’s capitalist framework, which is the true aim of rabid environmentalists.  These radicals use global warming as a smokescreen for their more extreme goals, as easily seen in the many anti-capitalist signs and banners on display during this week’s street theater.

This is the ugly truth behind the climate change farce.  Democrats by and large do not so much care about the environment as wanting to be perceived as caring about it. This is why they favor the “all or nothing” approach to reform; which affords them the luxury of not having to make inconvenient lifestyle changes, while pursuing extreme measures cloaked in the message of “reform, or we all die.” 

When climate activists back up doomsday rhetoric with confetti-laced street dancing, and when their movement’s loudest climate advocates – whether in Washington, DC or Hollywood, California – refuse to lead by example with basic lifestyle changes, what value is there in coming to the table with them to parlay?

Instead, conservatives will find more success in taking individual responsibility at the local level for environmental stewardship and conservation. They should continue to support private sector innovation (and policies that foster such innovation) for ways to make our energy consumption cleaner and more efficient; whether that be expanded use of natural gas, ever-cheapening solar energy, or something completely new. 

In spite of the best efforts by New Age Democrats to kill-off the private sector, it remains the best hope for our environment and our future.  This is the case even if Elon Musk fails to inspire the same street-dancing enthusiasm as does the prospect of moving Americans back to a pre-industrial agrarian economy in the siren name of “progress.”

Townhall.com

By Bob Barr

In a world not that long ago, a newspaper’s “Editor’s Note” was used primarily to address minor, factual errors; mistakes like a wrong date or misspelling of a name. Today, however, it increasingly appears to be the only place where actual journalism is transacted; albeit, only after the original article has been published.

“Report, thenverify” should be the new masthead motto for The New York Times and other news outlets that have lost all semblance of balance and professionalism.

This phenomenon is especially prominent in articles about President Trump and his administration.  A “blockbuster” scoop about the president, or Republicans in general, seems to be followed shortly by an editor’s note clarifying the “facts” of the story; and, in many cases, repudiating it altogether. 

Recall the infamous BuzzFeed article from January, reporting what would have been a devastating blow to Trump, but which was quickly debunked by Robert Mueller himself. And, this week, we see the Times going once again after Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on alleged past sexual misconduct, only to have the crux of the article dunked by a follow-up editor’s note detailing the accuser has no memory of – wait for it – the accusations on which the hit piece is based.

Editors blame weak fact checks in the rush to publish first in today’s 24/7 news cycle, but the Mainstream Media’s abhorrent treatment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh made clear the much more disturbing truth; that when it comes to weaponizing bylines against political enemies, facts are irrelevant when the damage of accusations alone will serve nicely.

To cover themselves and their precious “ethics” in this repulsive practice, the Mainstream Media has invented a new term — “credibly accused” — which allows them to go to print with mere allegations rather than take the extra step of substantiating the claims. These New Age Journalists understand that in today’s outrage culture, an accusation is all it takes to get someone or something “canceled,” especially if such an accusation is deemed “credible.” And if the accusations eventually fall apart? No worries. They were just reporting that the target was accused, not that he or she was “guilty”; a distinction without a difference to the target of the article.

This, of course, is entirely the point of “credibly accused.” In spite of the surface gravitas of the phrase, there is no objective standard to what is considered a “credible” accusation. It has no meaning other than that a journalist decides to label it “credible.”  Individuals who then read, hear or view it in various media forms, tend to believe it to be true because, after all, it wasprinted in a newspaper. 

In the past, such circular reporting would have been bounced by editors who still maintained some shred of integrity.  Today, however, as in the case of this week’s New York Times Kavanaugh hit piece, such articles appear once and then grow generically from news to opinion sections, and thence into the limitless world of social media. 

Does the reader know the difference? Most times, no; especially when the initial reporting is further fueled by “credible” political figures who themselves run with the story before they determine its veracity. Back in the newspaper’s headquarters, there is no worry because, once again, the editors and the reporters have created for themselves plausible deniability.  They are journalistic cowards who have no care whatsoever for the damage they do to the targets of their faulty reporting; in fact, they likely revel in it.

Did a retraction help restore the life and reputation of the Covington Catholic School kids skewered in the media for racism, when it turned out that they were the victims? And what about Kavanaugh, who once again is dragged through the mud over “credible” accusations that cannot be recalled even by the supposed accuser? The public by and large will remember only the headline, not the small footnote added days after the original piece with the faux apology.

For these New Age Journalists, who boast openly that they have a duty and obligation to use their bylines against those who they deem to be dangerous, facts have become irrelevant.  It is the cause that matters.  After all, in their minds’ eye, they are saving the world, and if there is collateral damage to other individuals along the way, that is to them a small price to pay. 

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

The “public nuisance” legal theory cited recently by an Oklahoma judge as the basis on which to hold a drug manufacturing company liable for opioid abuse in that state, joins other dubious legal and public policy mechanisms as tactics with which the gun control movement aims to achieve its long-desired goal of disarming law-abiding Americans.  The movement’s advocates are framing the legal and public debate about gun violence in much the same way as that surrounding the opioid problem – as an “epidemic.”  The strategy is the same – driven by fear, not facts.  

Headlines designed not to educate but rather to stoke emotions are the norm.  Language and semantics are employed with little if any regard to accuracy, but with every intent to elicit the public’s fear.   

Factually, for example, firearm violence is down.  Millions of AR-15 style rifles are owned and used safely by millions of law-abiding citizens regularly.  Fully automatic firearms still are unlawful except in the hands of the military, law enforcement, or the very few individuals specifically licensed by the federal government to possess them.  

Regardless of facts such as these, however, the media and Democrat presidential candidates continue to scream that “weapons of war” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle — claimed by them to have been designed for the “sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible” — are everywhere and must be banished from every home and business in the country.  With histrionics like these, it is no wonder politicians and even judges look to every possible way to “do something”; even if it means using laws on the books for purposes never so intended. 

Public nuisance laws are by no means a new arrow in the quiver of gun control advocates. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used New York’s public nuisance law in the early 2000s to go after firearms retailers in states as far removed from the Big Apple as Georgia.  His overall plan fizzled, but he did succeed in putting several small firearms stores out of business because their owners could not afford the legal fees needed to defend against his abusive lawsuits.  The current New York state government is employing the same public nuisance strategy, among others, in a drive to put the NRA (which is chartered as a non-profit entity in the state) out of business.

Never a Party to be deterred in its drive to limit individual liberty guaranteed by the Second Amendment, Democrats are pulling every trick out of the bag this election cycle.  Calls for “red flag” laws, AR-15 “buy-back” mandates, and “universal” background checks, vie with calls for “impeachment” for top billing at Democrat town halls and debates.     

The fact that each of these (and other) proposals contain provisions that violate various parts of our Constitution, appears of little import when balanced against the overarching need to “do something.”   Just as long-standing legal principles must give way in the face of cries to “do something” to address the “opioid crisis,” so too must “outdated” notions of gun ownership succumb to the 21^st Century “crisis” of gun violence.

The notion that whatever “crisis” is declared at any given time by government or by those seeking to become part of the government, justifies whatever means are deemed necessary to overcome it, is by no means limited to the crusades against opioids and guns.

Just last week, for example, in the name of fighting international terrorism, the federal government demanded that Apple and Google turn over names and other identifying information on thousands of individuals who downloaded an app designed to improve the performance of a particular rifle scope.  Neither the companies that developed the app or manufactured the scope, nor any individuals who downloaded it, are suspected of having committed any crimes that would provide the basis required under federal law or the Fourth Amendment for such broad inquiry by the government.  

Apparently, however, the simple assertion by the government that it needs this trove of information in order to pursue an investigation of users in other countries in possible violation of federal export laws, is deemed by the Justice Department to be sufficient basis on which to make such a privacy-invasive demand.

In a time that seems so very long ago, our courts would step in and protect against constitutional, legal and policy overreaches such as these.  Sadly, however, that safety valve can no longer be assumed to be there.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Anyone hoping to find consistency in how courts are assigning responsibility for the so-called “opioid crisis” will be sadly disappointed.  Last May, a North Dakota judge dismissed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma that sought to hold the pharmaceutical manufacturer responsible for that state’s opioid problem. Just last week, an Oklahoma judge in a very similar case decided to take the opposite approach and found that another drug manufacturing giant, Johnson & Johnson, was responsible for the state’s high number of individuals using the opioids it manufactured; to the tune of nearly $600 million.

In each of these lawsuits, the pharmaceutical company was charged under the respective state’s “nuisance” laws, with engaging in “deceptive” marketing practices that in turn caused and contributed to individuals’ opioid addiction.  

Using nuisance laws in this way — targeting deep-pocketed corporations selling or manufacturing dis-favored products within a state – is a legal maneuver increasingly favored by aggressive state attorneys general to attack everything from cigarettes to firearms. 

Considering the facts in these two most recent opioid cases were very similar, why were the judges’ rulings dramatically different?  As Reason’s Jacob Sullum put it, the rulings “pit a simple narrative of the ‘opioid crisis’ with a clear set of villains against a more complicated story that’s closer to the truth.” In other words, the two courts had very different concepts of “justice” regardless of the facts presented.

In North Dakota, both sides of the controversy were argued and weighed, with Judge James Hill holding that the State failed to meet its burden of proof; not that Purdue was completely innocent, but rather the State did not have sufficient evidence to find the company legally responsible. Oklahoma Judge Thad Balkman took a far more policy-based approach. He appeared to essentially ignore the evidence presented by the corporate defendant, including strong evidence showing that abuse of the prescription medication it manufactured was only a small part of the overall opioid death trend.  He then went for the multi-hundred-million-dollar pound of corporate flesh.

In North Dakota, we see judicial reasoning reflective of the objective standard normally expected from courts.  The Oklahoma judge’s reasoning reflects something more akin to mob justice; purposed only to slake society’s collective thirst for assigning blame and punishment. 

Broadly speaking, the problem with the Oklahoma verdict extends far beyond the opioid setting on which it and its North Dakota counterpart were based.  

For example, as Democrats continue their relentless effort to dismantle the buffer between politics and the judiciary at every level, we face the very real danger that courts are becoming little more than public stockades, where true guilt matters far less than simply finding someone to punish and shame. It is distressing that many of today’s judges appear willing, if not eager, to make decisions reflecting such a philosophy.

Democrats understand this well, and it is why they have become adept at using our state and federal court systems as political bludgeons to hamper President Trump’s ability to implement the public policies on which he was elected.  In this emerging game of judicial brinksmanship, a single federal judge is able to bring to a screeching halt virtually any important national policy move Trump makes. 

Democrat kingmaker George Soros also clearly understands the power inherent in our supposedly impartial judicial system.  In recent years, he has devoted significant financial resources to ensure that local prosecutors, state attorneys general and state judges who share his political philosophy are elected to such offices (along with a willingness to thus abuse the powers of those positions).  

At the federal level, Democrats are keenly aware that Trump’s picks for district, appellate and Supreme Court judges are far less likely than those nominated by his Democrat predecessors to view courts as policymaking bodies.  It is precisely why Senate Democrats remain so hatefully dedicated to regaining control of the Senate and defeating Trump next year.  The Oklahoma judge’s expansive assignment of responsibility to a perhaps unsympathetic corporation for individuals abusing a product is but a small taste of what is to come if the Democrat Party succeeds in its political goals next year.