December 2020

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The recent revelation of a historic hacking attack on U.S. businesses and government targets has put America’s national security apparatus in a conundrum. On one hand, the scale of the likely Russian sponsored attack is an excellent cudgel with which to press Congress for more power and money to fund secretive — and constitutionally problematic — national security programs. On the other, it proves that privacy hawks have been rightfully concerned about the state of America’s data security.

Earlier this month, reports surfaced that a major IT security company, SolarWinds, was hacked and its software corrupted to include a “back door” easily exploited by other hackers. This corrupt software was then unknowingly pushed by way of an “update” to an estimated 18,000 customers – including numerous Fortune 500 companies and several government agencies – which left the back door wide open to hackers for months prior to being discovered. Experts suggest we may never know the full scale of this attack, or the degree to which it imperils America’s national security.

That the hack involved a malicious back door is an irony not lost on privacy hawks, who have for years warned against federal agencies (especially the ultra-secret National Security Agency) having the power to force private software providers, smart phone manufacturers, and social media giants to build back doors that allow for surreptitious government access to users of their products and to their companies’ databases. The resulting compromised security has been as regrettable as it was predictable.

In 2015, for example, the Chinese government is suspected of hacking into the NSA itself, via an encryption back door the agency demanded of a major cybersecurity company. Even earlier than that, the NSA was involved in developing one of the most effective hacks of Microsoft systems, only to have this tool stolen by hackers and released to the public, where it is now accessible by criminals, foreign governments, and all manner of non-state actors.

It would be one thing if U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies were involved in just one side of this perilous game of cat-and-mouse between hackers and sensitive databases. Congress then could use its legislative and oversight powers to prohibit these agencies from engaging in practices that weaken private sector security and encryption. However, in addition to weakening available cybersecurity measures, government (at all levels) also has a well-known, insatiable thirst for data on private citizens that makes it a target rich environment for attackers.

It is not necessary to watch the Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma to understand the frightening extent to which social media companies are creating a comprehensive data model of all users. This massive database documents past and present behaviors, and increasingly is able to predict future behavior; truly the Holy Grail for hackers whether to gain market advantage or to blackmail individuals with top-level security clearances.

This month’s revelation of a historic, prolonged, and almost certainly continuing attack on America’s vital government networks, is a stark reminder that Uncle Sam’s internet security infrastructure is woefully inadequate and in desperate need of an overhaul. Even more important, the attack highlights why the federal government should not be allowed backdoor access to private sector encryption capabilities.

Updating America’s cybersecurity infrastructure to meet the increasing talent of foreign threats is a Herculean challenge and is one that never ends; hackers never sleep, and we do at our own peril. Allowing government agencies to have backdoor keys to private encryption capabilities actually heightens the risk that unfriendly hackers will gain access to even more private databases than they otherwise would.

This most recent massive data hack should be a clarion wake-up call for the American people to demand that the Congress at long last take real action to limit the information on individual citizens that is collected and databased by federal agencies, whether the Transportation Security Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the FBI, or the dozens of other agencies that now routinely gather detailed private information on millions of citizens.

Simply continuing down the oft-hacked path on which the government now trods electronically, will only become less and less secure over time.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr and Amy Swearer

In an unusual twist of electoral fate, not one but both of Georgia’s sitting Republican United States senators face Democrat challengers in a runoff election scheduled for Jan. 5, 2021, just two days after the 117^th Congress will have been seated. The Second Amendment does not by name appear on the Georgia ballot, but it might as well.    

If both incumbent senators – David Perdue and Kelley Loeffler – are defeated next month, the new Senate will be evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, which means that two weeks later, on Jan. 20 when Joe Biden is sworn in as the 46^th president of the United States, his newly installed vice president, Kamala Harris, becomes the tie-breaking, de facto 101^st senator.    

Neither Biden nor Harris is friend to the Second Amendment, and neither are the two Democrats – Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock – running against Perdue and Loeffler. Their election would be a toxic mixture for the majority of Georgians who are now and historically have been strong backers of the right to keep and bear arms, both philosophically and in practice.    

An evenly split Senate resulting from a twin Republican defeat in Georgia next month will have profound impact on Second Amendment issues coming before the Senate, in terms of both legislation and confirmations. In this regard, it is important to understand where Georgia’s pair of Democrat challengers now fighting to join the Senate, stand on such issues.    

Even a cursory look at where Ossoff (who is challenging Perdue) and Warnock (Loeffler’s adversary) stand on matters relating to firearms reveals they are bitter enemies of gun rights, especially as those views are held and practiced by most Georgians.    

Where both Perdue and Loeffler have been strongly endorsed by the National Rifle Association (the gold standard according to which most voters turn in order to determine if a candidate is pro-Second Amendment), Ossoff and Warnock have been warmly embraced by major gun-control organizations, including the Giffords Law Center, the Brady Campaign, and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety.    

Beyond these endorsements, Ossoff and Warnock share positions on firearms far to the left of those held by a majority of Georgians. These include advocating for a ban on the AR-15 rifle, the most popular and commonly held rifle in America, as well as on so-called “high capacity” magazines for rifles and handguns. Nor do facts support this particular gun control position held by Ossoff and Warnock. According to the FBI, for example, in 2019 there were 367 Georgia homicides carried out with firearms, but only 14 involved rifles of any type.    

The two Democrats also support forcing gun owners to demonstrate “high qualification and compelling specific needs” before being allowed to possess or carry certain firearms.    

Most Georgians, on the other hand, instinctively understand it is the citizenry that serves as the first line of defense against criminals, which is why there are more than one million concealed carry permits in the wallets of Georgians.    

It also accounts for the dramatic increase in firearms sales in Georgia this year, responding to the violence that wracked cities across the country, including in the state’s capital city of Atlanta.    

Gun control measures such as those that both Ossoff and Warnock would support as senators clearly place them outside the mainstream of Georgia voters.    

Voters who strongly support the Second Amendment were key to Gov. Brian Kemp’s 2018 victory over Democrat Stacey Abrams, just as they have been in every cycle going back to the 1994 election that saw a Republican majority elected to the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades and the installation of Georgian Newt Gingrich as Speaker.    

If these two hard-left Democrats are elected on Jan. 5, they would be reliable votes for virtually every gun control measure pushed by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, both of whom have themselves publicly supported extreme measures, including making the AR-15 rifle platform and high-capacity magazines illegal and levying heavy taxes on both firearms and ammunition.    

The Jan. 5 Georgia runoff election truly is a defining moment for the Second Amendment in the Peach State.    

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

Amy Swearer is an attorney and Second Amendment expert. The views expressed here do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of any other person or entity.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The country is now four costly COVID stimulus packages deep. By now there is ample evidence that “stimulus” money is fleeting and can only take us so far. What the country really needs from Congress are not repetitive shots in the arm, but substantive legislative reforms to help our economy re-open and stay open. Unfortunately, this requires hard work by both Houses, at a time when it is far easier to just keep piling hundreds of billions of dollars onto the already unimaginably huge national debt.

To be sure, unemployed citizens and small business owners struggling because of government-mandated shutdowns deserve monetary relief, but direct payments are at best a stop gap measure. Also, such funding represents only a fraction of overall spending included in the most recent omnibus bill. This massive spending bill once again fails to include any reforms to address the myriad underlying conditions related to the pandemic — most importantly, COVID-related liability reform.

With the country still a long way away from the level of vaccination required even to hope to return to pre-COVID normalcy, it is a virtual certainty that Congress will find itself in this same predicament a few months from now, as its members continue to delay passing COVID-related liability reforms that stymie both short- and long-term economic recovery.

The Washington Post recently highlighted a wave of COVID-related lawsuits already being filed in courthouses across the country, by trial lawyers eager to target business owners, many of whom do not have the means to defend themselves vigorously. Already, ads are popping up on TV, radio, and online encouraging the public to get rich quick by signing up for frivolous lawsuits.

It truly is sad to now see lawyers trying to blame business owners, many of whom are only doing their best to follow all public health guidelines for limiting the “spread” of the virus, even as they try and serve their customers’ needs.

Sadly, some businesses will be forced to exhaust every penny defending themselves from these bogus lawsuits, leaving them once again with their hands out like Oliver Twist, asking Washington for more. Others, despite receiving relief funds, will remain closed for fear the lawsuit onslaught will transform a temporary closure into a permanent one.

As bad as COVID has been for small business owners, trial lawyers have found a way to make it even worse.

This is why it is so important for Congress to pass at least a limited liability shield as soon as possible, to ensure that only those businesses openly engaging in poor, irresponsible behavior can be sued. While many members of Congress understand this need, a vocal minority dependent on the trial bar’s campaign contributions continues to ignore the problem and its dire ramifications.

Thankfully, there is hope for reform. As noted in a report last May in The Hill, some moderate Democrat senators remain open to considering liability protection for businesses. Also, the fact that there will be runoff elections for both of Georgia’s Senate seats on January 5^th provides a real opportunity to place COVID liability front and center when the 117^th Congress convenes early next month.

Speaking of Georgia, the Peach State is a textbook example of the lack of effectiveness in Congress’ current relief strategy. Although already receiving more than 150,000 federal COVID-relief loans, a recent study reveals that nearly 40 percent of the state’s restaurants may not last another six months under current conditions. Many other small businesses are in the same sinking boat.

For those familiar with Georgia’s legal system, the reason for this is obvious. Georgia consistently places in the top-10 for states with the worst litigation environments. Just weeks ago, the American Tort Reform Association named Georgia sixth on its list of “Judicial Hellholes.” Bad at any time, the current pandemic has only exacerbated the costly and often frivolous legal troubles small businesses typically face. This “perfect storm” for COVID lawsuits can, and will, bleed many struggling Georgia businesses of whatever resources they hope to replenish with the stimulus.

This is why it is critical that all four candidates on the Georgia runoff ballot be pressed to support COVID liability reform if elected. Working actively to implement liability reform will help ensure that businesses not only in Georgia but across the country will once again will be able to put the “open for business” sign — and keep it there.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.   He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

Daily Caller

By Bob Barr

As irksome as are the recent COVID restrictions imposed by New York, New Jersey, California and other states primarily run by Democrat governors, citizens should be thankful that our Founding Fathers understood and acted on the need to place clear limitations on government powers through a Bill of Rights.

While anglophiles may protest that England, too, has a Bill of Rights, it is nothing like ours that was ratified in 1791.

The British “Bill of Rights” predates ours by just over 100 years, but its weaknesses were manifest in the manner by which the colonists were mistreated by the Crown, notwithstanding being considered “Englishmen.” The 1689 Bill of Rights, for example, offered no real protection to colonists whose homes and businesses were invaded by British soldiers acting on order from the Crown pursuant to the infamous “Writs of Assistance.” Nor did that early Bill of Rights provide protection against severe censorship measures enforced by the Redcoats.

While the English version did include words supporting citizens’ right to bear arms in self-defense, they rang hollow, as when British troops moved to seize colonials’ arms and gunpowder, leading to the battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775.

Perhaps most important in this Age of COVID, is the fact that the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. While some American governors, such as New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, New York’s Andrew Cuomo, Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and California’s Gavin Newsom would have been far more comfortable identifying as Tories back in the Revolutionary War era, at least most U.S. governors in 2020 still respect individual rights as being superior to arbitrary government decrees.

Meanwhile, over in Great Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson has extended and expanded the scope of that country’s COVID restrictions, beyond those yet decreed by his American state-level counterparts. Were these latest restrictions not extremely serious, their crafting appears almost comical.

Families across the United Kingdom (including not only England, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are restricted to celebrating Christmas only in accord with mandated “bubbles.” Yes, “bubbles.”

Bubbles are groups of households permitted by law to come together for Christmas celebration (a relaxation of the rules that apply already on other days). In Wales, this means only two households can congregate on Dec. 25 in a home, a place of worship, or in a public outdoor area. Families in Northern Ireland and those in at least most parts of England, and in Scotland, are a bit more fortunate, with bubbles of up to three households graciously permitted to share Christmas cheer or worship.

Failure to abide by such bubble restrictions can result in fines up to £10,000 ($13,500 depending on the exchange rate); fines also can be levied if a household refuses to admit a police officer seeking to determine if the household bubble is too big.

Governors in America who have exercised their self-defined “emergency powers” most broadly, would feel right at home in the U.K, where the government already has closed all pubs, restaurants and “non-essential” businesses. Interestingly, however, schools, universities and playgrounds remain open, so long as enforced social distancing rules and nationwide mask mandates are followed.

Here in America, the good Dr. Fauci tried in vain to keep people from travelling over the Thanksgiving holiday. Like Governors Newsom, Cuomo, Murphy and Whitmer, however, he too would fit right in “across the pond” in England, where people can only leave their homes for very specific and limited reasons; enforced by police roadblocks.

In our country, despite the continuing efforts by primarily “Blue State” officials to emulate Britain’s draconian COVID restrictions, we thankfully have many local law enforcement officials like Howell Township’s Chief Andrew Kudrick in New Jersey, who have courageously stood fast against what they correctly consider unconstitutional state mandates by publicly refusing to enforce them.

At the end of the day, despite our Cuomos, Murphys, Newsoms, and Whitmers, and the disappointing reluctance of many courts to limit their powers, it still is far better to be an American than a citizen of Great Britain, or any other country for that matter, thanks in large measure to our Bill of Rights.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Self-styled media “fact checkers” worked overtime last week defending Texas State Rep. Terry Meza’s bill to amend the Lone Star State’s “Castle Doctrine” from well-deserved criticism. No matter the effort to present Meza’s proposal as a serious measure, however, it remains at its core juvenile and dangerous.

It is true that Meza’s bill (H.B. 196) does not repeal outright Texas’ Castle Doctrine, the law that codifies situations in which property owners are justified in using deadly force for self-defense. It would, however, gut much of the law by removing “robbery” and “aggravated robbery” from the list of justifying actions. In defending her bill from critics who joked she hoped the change could promote wealth redistribution, Meza used “stealing lawn ornaments” as an example of why the change was needed.

One might be forgiven for not being able to separate the satire from Meza herself, but what cannot be excused is Meza’s ignorance of the law, as both a lawmaker and an attorney. It seems she has no clue that under Texas law, theft and robbery are two entirely different legal concepts. Nobody is being shot over “stealing law ornaments,” and if they were, the state’s Castle Doctrine would (rightfully) not protect the property owner from prosecution. At best, her bill is a bad solution to a problem that simply does not exist.

The distinction between theft and robbery is important and is what makes Meza’s ignorance – whether deliberate or actual — so dangerous. Both theft and robbery are based on theft of property, but “robbery” and “aggravated robbery” are reserved for property theft in which the assailant either causes, or threatens to cause, “imminent bodily injury or death.” So, to use Meza’s example, it would be when someone is stealing lawn ornaments, and then threatens to kill the property owner when confronted. In such scenario, if the suspect is shot by the homeowner it would not be for stealing plastic flamingos, but because the homeowner took the suspect at their word and reasonably believed he or she intended to cause immediate and serious harm or death.

Under Meza’s changes to the Castle Doctrine, property owners upon confronting a person in the process of committing a crime, who has now threatened to hurt or kill them, must turn their backs on a violent suspect and flee. What happens if the perpetrator then gives chase, or as the victim runs away the criminal pulls a gun to prevent the property owner from calling police? Meza’s bill would force property owners to wait until they are in ipsa mali, that is, in actual harm before taking action to defend themselves — being told you are about to be murdered is not sufficient grounds for defending yourself; you actually have to be in the process of being murdered to do so.

It would be one thing if this was another run-of-the-mill gun grab by the Left. Considered as it should be, however, in context with the “Black Lives Matter” riots and the social push to “defund the police,” Meza’s proposal is part and parcel of a broad strategy by the Left to “reimagine” both law enforcement and self-defense.

Theirs is a fantasy world in which unarmed “crisis” workers deescalate violent situations with soothing words, and the newly defunded police will appear on cue to nab the bad guys in the act without the citizen needing to protect their home and property on their own.

It is a world in which the rich deserve to have their possessions taken in order to effect a more equitable distribution of society’s assets. In this fantasy world, bail should not be required because doing so rewards people with sufficient assets to make bail and penalizes those with naught. In this La La Land of Social Justice, traditional notions of self-defense are seen as outmoded and either racist or “classist.”

Those who know history understand that the concept of rugged individualism has served as a key component of America’s — and Texas’ – entrepreneurial successes. To Meza and her followers this principle, like the Castle Doctrine, is to be similarly discarded in favor of social egalitarianism.

When it comes to undermining the fundamental principle of self-defense on which our Second Amendment is premised, people like Terry Meza are doing more than killing jobs; they will be costing lives.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

I am not sure who he was, but when English jurist Lord Sowell in 1788 wrote that, “precedent embalms a principle,” he could just as well have been addressing 21^st Century policy makers here in America as he was the protagonists in an 18^th Century British court ruling. As gun owners here in America look with trepidation toward a Biden-Harris Administration come January 20^th, a precedent set by the Trump Administration is likely to haunt them.

Three years ago in Las Vegas, Nevada, mass murderer Stephen Paddock slaughtered 58 innocent people and wounded hundreds more, shooting into a concert audience from a hotel window on The Strip. Among the tools he used in this horrific crime was a device known as a “bump stock.” This contraption, which never has been considered by gun aficionados to be a legitimate firearm accessory, is a piece of plastic with no moving parts. It can, however, be used to increase the rate of fire for certain semi-automatic rifles, even as it reduces accuracy.

In response to the Paddock mass murder, in 2018 the Department of Justice directed that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) change federal regulations regarding machine guns, so that a “bump stock” would fall within the definition of a “machine gun.” With that one “stroke of the pen,” a piece of plastic previously lawful to own, was rendered illegal.

Unlike gun control by legislation, this was gun control by fiat. Elected Members of Congress played no role in the decision, having already punted on the question — with some members afraid to upset their pro-Second Amendment constituents, and others fearful that their anti-gun voters would be angered because they were not doing more to restrict firearms and accessories.

Thus did a piece of plastic with no moving parts become a “machine gun,” and starting last year, every person who had previously purchased or otherwise acquired such a lawful device, would henceforth have to destroy it, turn it over to the feds for them to destroy, or be considered an unlawful owner of a machine gun.

Federal regulations that by their terms defy common sense but nevertheless carry the force and effect of law, are by no means something new. However, considering the undisguised antipathy which both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have for firearms, this particular precedent is certain to prove troublesome for gun owners in the coming four years.

Consider the AR-15 rifle, by far the most popular rifle in America, with upwards of 18 million estimated to be the hands of private citizens. This semi-automatic rifle is used widely in marksmanship contests, for hunting, and for self-defense in millions of homes and businesses across the country. Biden and Harris, however, consider the AR-15 to be a “weapon of war,” and going after it is almost certain to be one of the early ways their Administration will seek to solidify its “progressive” credentials. What better way to justify such a move, than to employ the same regulatory legerdemain by which the Trump Administration outlawed bump stocks.

One step in the plan to start removing AR-15 rifles from homes, businesses, and gun clubs across the country would be for Biden’s ATF to start requiring each such rifle to be registered with the agency under the National Firearms Act and pay a $200 tax stamp. This would result in an estimated $3.6 billion windfall for Uncle Sam. For the incoming Administration and to the gun control movement broadly, this tax would hit the wallets of the new disfavored caste: well-to-do gun owners.

In reality, however, this “small” tax, as with other “sin taxes” like those on cigarettes and alcohol, disproportionately hurts the very constituents Biden and Harris claim to champion – low-income wage earners and minorities. These are the gun owners far less able to afford a tax levied for the “privilege” of exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right by owning a firearm of proven effectiveness and value. How the incoming Administration then deals with this speedbump on its drive to begin ridding the country of inappropriate “weapons of war,” will be an interesting sideshow; but rest assured, it will not slow their gun control game plan in which they will use using every precedent they can uncover.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

There never was evidence or scientific data that in-person schooling presented an elevated virus threat for students, faculty, or staff warranting schools’ prolonged closure – no evidence whatsoever. In fact, it was clear even before the traditional school year’s start that children and young adults were far less likely to be infected with COVID or to be severely impacted if they became infected.

So, was the response by teachers’ unions and bureaucratic school administrators to reopen but with common-sense health and safety measures in place, so students were not kept away from teachers, classmates, and all the other benefits in-school learning provides? Of course not. Their response was to put on blinders, ignore common sense and hard evidence, and remain…closed.

There does now seem to be a glimmer of hope that this close-mindedness is softening slightly. The New York City public school system, for example, plans to open soon for in-person classes, at least for elementary students. The timing of this about-face, and whether it actually will remain in-place, are questions still on the table, and parents should continue to demand to know why it took the teachers and school administrators so long to admit what everyone else knew months ago. Even more important, parents should demand accountability, including firing teachers and bureaucrats for the waste of money caused by their bad decisions, and for the damage inflicted on the students as a result.

Waiting for any apology by those self-serving public officials would be a waste of time. As with other fear-driven public policy decisions made in response to the pandemic, refusals to open schools for in-person teaching were nothing more than partisan footballs to be kicked around by the National Education Association and its state affiliates, hoping President Trump and Republican governors who wanted to open schools sooner rather than later would look foolish.

Students, not politicians, of course, have been the real victims in this debacle, as partisan politics overrode their interests and those of their parents, many of whom struggled to keep their jobs while overseeing children forced to stay at home “learning” in front of a computer screen.

The problems resulting from this partisan short-sightedness are not trivial. It is estimated that delayed school openings this year will cost the average student seven months of learning; even more for black students and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. For all the pre-COVID talk about how increased school funding is needed to close the “educational gap” between students from poor and wealthy backgrounds, the decision to keep schools closed will cause lasting, if not permanent, damage to students who already are the most disadvantaged. This problem has been well-known in academic circles, but in the current context is simply ignored by Democrat school administrators and unionized teachers because it does not fit their partisan agenda.

Now, when outrage from parents can no longer be easily ignored and scientific evidence has become so obvious it, too, cannot be ignored, some Democrats are grudgingly moving to reopen schools – a decision they should have made months ago, yet for which they expect to be lauded by parents and the public at large for finally doing something right. Of course, the mainstream media rushes to provide that adoration, as in blessing New York Gov. Cuomo with an Emmy for his objectively bad – if not criminally negligent — handling of the pandemic when it hit the Empire State earlier this year.

Fawning praise, however, will only encourage these Johnny-come-latelies to continue making decisions based not on hard evidence, common sense, and the best interests of their constituents, but on partisan political calculations masquerading as “public policy.”

It will be interesting to see whether these public school administrators and teachers will assent to receive a COVID vaccine when it becomes available (probably before the end of this month), or will refuse because, after all, the vaccines have been developed in record time thanks to the Trump Administration’s project “Warp Speed.” Sad it will be, however, if these public “servants,” both hired and elected, cause further harm to their fellow citizens by impeding their ability to receive the vaccine.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.