March 2021

Townhall

by Bob Barr

In 1850, American author Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a novel in which the female protagonist was forced to wear a highly visible “scarlet letter” as a sign that she had committed a terrible sin (adultery). The term has ever since been used as shorthand for publicly stigmatizing someone who has done (or not done) something for which they should be ostracized or punished.

Now, more than 170 years after “The Scarlet Letter” was published, President Joe Biden, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and others are calling for a 21st Century scarlet letter (in this case a “C” for COVID), in the form of an electronic app attesting that the bearer has either received a COVID vaccine or has otherwise been deemed immunized to the virus.

Unlike the “A” that Hawthorne’s protagonist, Hester Prynne, was forced to display, the new-fangled “COVID Passport” works also in reverse, by identifying those who have not been immunized and are therefore to be denied admission to an event or service they might otherwise access.

The hypocrisy of the Democrats’ plan for a COVID ID is glaring.

Just last week, Biden blasted the governor and legislature of Georgia for mandating that absentee voters must show a valid ID in order to receive a ballot. There were other measures included in the legislative package, but the ID requirement caused the loudest howl by Biden and other Democrats who claimed it was “racist” in its intent, and in practice would “suppress” the minority vote.

In a word, requiring a person to show a valid ID in order to obtain a benefit, here an absentee ballot, was, in the view of the President of the United States and many others in his party, “racist,” a reverse scarlet letter if you will.

So much for consistency. What is “racist” one day is not so the next day, depending, of course, on who or which political party is advocating for an identification requirement.

More importantly, there are the privacy concerns that underlie – or certainly should underlie – the use of an electronic tag or “passport” (as advocates for proof of COVID immunity like to call it).

Hester Prynne was forced to display her Scarlet A on her outer clothing. COVID passport advocates are more sophisticated, or cagey, in this regard, and propose to rely on a type of electronic talisman that would be read or discoverable by a government agency or private business serving as a gatekeeper, to deny entry to undesirables. “Undesirables” in this context would be individuals who do not meet the criteria set by the government to be considered COVID-safe.

Not surprisingly, New York appears to be the first state actually to have begun implementing a COVID “passport.” Cuomo has even come up with a cute name for the app – the “Excelsior Pass.” Sounds so impressive there almost certainly will be some New Yorkers who sign up simply to be a member of such a rarefied class of “Excelsior” designees. Cuomo has – with a straight face, even – assured every holder of the pass that their privacy will be protected.

Despite assurances from Empire State officials that people who opt to sign up for the new app will be guaranteed that their personal and medical information that necessarily has to be inputted into the app will be protected, clearly, there is no way this will be the case. In order for the system to work as advertised, there has to be a link between the holder of the app (the “COVID-free” person) and the business he or she wants to access; whether a concert at Madison Square Garden, dinner at a five-star restaurant, or entrance to a government building. There is no way that with such links being accessed every time the Excelsior Pass holder elects to use the app, their privacy can be secured, whether at the point of access or at the database(s) where the information is maintained.

Already, Silicon Valley behemoths, including Microsoft and Oracle, are chomping at the bit to be part of the COVID passport system(s) that the Biden Administration is developing. These and other corporations, such as Walmart, are members of a “Vaccine Credential Initiative” working to ensure that “health information” belonging to users of the apps these companies develop and own, will be “feely and safely accessible.” That pretty much says it all.

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. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

While age may have slowed Jesse Jackson’s political activities (he is nearly 80 years old), the strategy he launched in the early 1980s of using race as a lever to pressure corporations into donating money to causes he championed lives on, with renewed vigor in today’s hyper-partisan political environment. Truly, no sporting event or business is safe from becoming a racial football.

In Georgia, the 85^th Masters Golf Tournament, which has withstood charges of racism and sexism in recent years, now is under attack not for anything it has done (or not done), but simply because the governor of the state in which it is located last week signed legislation making the state’s voting procedures more secure. That act alone was enough to initiate calls by Black Lives Matter groups and others to both boycott and move the venerable tournament out of Augusta, Georgia.

Baseball, which historically was considered America’s apolitical national pastime, now also is in the crosshairs of these same groups for the very same reason. The annual All-Star game, scheduled to be played this summer at the Atlanta Braves stadium in a suburb of the city long considered the “Capitol of the New South,” is being targeted for boycott and transfer to a stadium in another state.

For now, at least, neither batting averages nor handicaps define professional sports in America, only race.

This actually is nothing new since racial activists five years ago discovered that disrespecting the playing of our National Anthem prior to professional sporting events garnered them significant publicity. What is new, however, is the widening scope of activities that now trigger calls for boycotts, and the vehemence that accompanies such demands.

Not only has the recent changes to Georgia’s voting laws spawned demands to move these major sporting events (and movie productions) out of the state, but calls also have been issued by left-wing groups to boycott some of the Peach State’s most iconic products and services, including Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines.

These targeted corporations have themselves done nothing to warrant the ire of BLM or any other civil rights groups; quite the contrary. Coca Cola and Delta, for example, have for years been committed to, and demonstrably instituted the very principles of “diversity and equity” that these activist groups demand. The companies apparently are targeted for boycott simply because they are headquartered in Georgia and are not publicly demanding that the just-passed voting reform legislation be repealed.

The blatantly unfair demand that the new laws be rescinded is not going to be met, at least anytime soon, but the corporations may very well bow to the demands by offering concessions, like increased donations to BLM and clones and to Democrat candidates in the coming 2022 and 2024 election cycles, and perhaps further changes to hiring and promotion practices.

These tactics reflect the 21^st century version of what writers and researchers have called the long-running “intimidation and shakedown tactics” of Jesse Jackson; honed to near-perfection by charging racism in order to secure payments to his self-styled civil rights organization, the “Rainbow Push Coalition” (and other groups with which he has been associated) as far back as the early 1980s. Al Sharpton emulated Jackson’s tactics through his “National Action Network.”

Examined objectively, the legislation recently signed by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp actually has nothing to do with race. The measures simply tighten procedures to ensure that opportunities for fraud in balloting is minimized to a degree beyond what prevailed in the November 2020 general and January 5^th Senate run-off elections. But the mere fact that the new laws require voters to show an ID before receiving an absentee ballot, now is enough to demand harsh penalties on businesses and sporting events in the state; actions that by some analyses, will wind up harming the very people BLM, for example, claims to champion.

Ultimately, whether such heavy-handed and ill-placed intimidation tactics will succeed in changing the political makeup of the government in Georgia (and in other states being targeted), will be decided by next year’s voters. Voter capitulation to such blatant economic and political extortion would deeply undermine – perhaps for generations — the unique brand of federalism and representative democracy that is one of our nation’s core strengths.

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. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Old English law, transported to the United States centuries ago, holds that “a man’s home is his castle” and may be protected against unwanted entry except in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court of the United States has now taken under advisement a case from Rhode Island that could significantly weaken that protection.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution enshrines the “castle doctrine” as it relates to one’s home, by requiring the police to obtain a warrant before they may lawfully enter that domicile and seize evidence. There are, of course, exceptions to this warrant requirement, and the Rhode Island case, on which the Supreme Court heard arguments just this week, is but the latest in a continuing effort by state police agencies to expand those warrant exceptions.

As with most every case that finds its way to the High Court, this latest one (the facts of which actually occurred six years ago, in August 2015) presents a reasonable, if not persuasive argument for the government — at least on the surface. The local police were called by the wife of the homeowner, one Edward Caniglia, because she was concerned that, following an argument the previous day, he might harm her or himself with one of the two handguns he owned lawfully and kept in their home.

The police came and reportedly told Caniglia they would confiscate his firearms unless he agreed to be taken to a local hospital for a mental evaluation. Based apparently on the officers’ pressure, Mr. Caniglia was transported to a hospital for such an evaluation, which concluded he did not pose any threat. However, while he was away and being evaluated the police decided to enter his house without a warrant and confiscated his handguns and ammunition; refusing for months thereafter to return them.

Lower federal courts upheld the legitimacy of the police actions, and Caniglia appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue before the nine Justices is whether police are justified in entering a home and seizing a homeowner’s lawfully possessed firearms without first securing a warrant establishing probable cause that such invasive action is necessary, even though, as in Caniglia’s case, the police had more than sufficient time to try and secure a warrant, and there was no evidence any crime had been committed.

The warrant exception on which Rhode Island is basing its case, is a narrowly drawn doctrine that previously had been allowed to permit police to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles in order to protect the public in a “caretaking” capacity after a traffic stop, for example, and not necessarily to look for evidence of a crime. Extending such a vague doctrine to a person’s home is a giant leap and brought together otherwise divergent groups including the ACLU and the American Conservative Union Foundation, which both filed briefs opposing Rhode Island’s broad assertion of warrantless search and seizure power.

This case predates the recent spate of so-called “Red Flag” laws adopted by several states that allow police or private parties to obtain court orders to confiscate a person’s firearms at least temporarily, based on testimony that the person poses an imminent threat of serious harm to themselves or others. However, Caniglia’s case highlights the problems inherent in such “anticipatory” seizures of lawfully owned firearms.

The case also may reveal whether former President Trump’s first two Supreme Court nominees – Neil Gorsuch and Bret Kavanaugh – will be willing to stake out a position in support of both the Fourth and Second Amendments. If so, they likely would join with Clarence Thomas, who has long urged his colleagues to stand up for both provisions in the Bill of Rights. The Court’s most recent Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, has not yet participated in a such an important individual liberties case since joining the Court last year, but her record in support of Second Amendment rights is well-known. The fifth vote in such a majority likely would be Justice Sam Alito, who authored the 2010 McDonald opinion which held that the Second Amendment protects not a “collective” right but an individual right to keep and bear arms in all 50 states.

Without at least a five-vote majority, both the Fourth and Second Amendments will emerge far weaker than they are even now.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Democrats are sniffing glue and reading the New York Times again. How else can one explain their reduction of the deeply complex and innately subhuman act of slaughtering eight individuals to a run-of-the-mill “hate” crime, on par with screaming racial slurs at a passerby on the sidewalk? It is an explanation so sophomoric that it borders on irresponsibly stupid.

No act of mass murder is an ordinary crime, whether fueled by anger, passion or psychosis. Intentionally murdering innocent strangers requires a detachment from basic humanity that is not an attribute common to the vast majority of criminals. Comprehending how an individual arrives psychologically at such a dark depth is a key to preventing similar tragedies in the future.

Progress in understanding such horrific criminal behavior, however, grinds to a halt when a key stakeholder refuses to scratch even a micron below the surface of the overt acts. Worse still, in the case of last week’s murders at massage parlors in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, Democrats have displayed actual hostility toward those who delve beneath the surface, when facts and analysis begin to contradict their simplistic narrative. As cultural commentator Jon Stokes recently noted on Twitter, it “isn’t just the incuriosity, but the .  .  .  anti-curiosity” that strikes him as particularly troublesome with the Democrats’ reaction to the Atlanta shootings. “You’re just supposed to say ‘amen’” and move on.

Consider Georgia’s newly elected, far-Left Sen. Raphael Warnock, who clapped back at the FBI last weekend when the agency suggested the Atlanta shooting did not appear to be racially motivated. Warnock’s un-inquisitive explanation for the murders was simply, “we all know hate when we see it.”

Which narrative is more likely to be played endlessly in the mainstream media echo chamber, thus filtering down to a population as lazy as the media when it comes to fact-finding? The one daring to suggest that America suffers from a deep and multi-faceted cultural sickness that generates far too many mass murderers, or the one that immediately goes off on the usual tangents about COVID, former President Donald Trump, and, of course, racism?

In this minimalist world view, police violence occurs because black lives don’t matter; mass shootings happen because of the Second Amendment; and bad schools are the result of insufficient funding. A high school debate club would have its way with congressional Democrats if this were the extent to which they are willing to go in penetrating America’s most troubling social and economic problems.

It does not stop with the quality of debate, either. The so-called “solutions” emerging from this superficial perspective are, and will remain, equally vacuous and counterproductive.

Consider how “defund the police” became a rallying cry of “woke” progressives last year following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Catchy as the slogan may have been with rioters, reframing justice reform behind such an insipid, irrational objective undermined years of coalition building between liberal and conservative stakeholders working for criminal justice reform; a hard-fought process that resulted in Trump signing the historic First Step Act in 2018.

Enacting similar bipartisan legislation today would be impossible for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Democrat leaders assiduously avoid ruffling feathers of the progressive scolds within their ranks whose explanation for virtually every problem we face is “systemic racism.” We will be no closer to finding an answer to mass shootings if Democrats continue their identity politics chest-thumping in response to the Atlanta spa murders.

It is in a sense, understandable for people to seek neat, tidy and superficially logical explanations to illogical and inhuman behavior. Thus, “the shooter hated Asians” as answer to the question of how or why a young man would go on a killing rampage at an Asian spa because of alleged sex and pornography addiction, soothes the craving for simplicity. It is – or certainly should be — the responsibility of those in positions of power and knowledge to look beyond such assumptions, not repeat them mindlessly.

It matters little whether Democrat leaders deep down know this but choose to act contrarily or have dumbed themselves down to such a degree they no longer are able to separate fact from their own spin. Either explanation is equally unproductive and indeed, dangerous.

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. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

For those concerned with becoming a victim of today’s raging “Cancel Culture,” there is a rather simple solution: be born perfect. Actually, be born perfect, live a perfect life, and never run afoul of the unwritten, constantly changing, and haphazardly enforced rules determined by an anonymous committee of self-appointed social media scolds. Or, maybe it is not so simple.

It is easy to make light of the obviously impossible standards liberals have set for acceptable thoughts, speech, and actions; to the point where liberals now are cancelling one another. Nevertheless, beyond this absurdity lies a less obvious and quiescent trait of the Cancel Culture – a depressingly pessimistic view of humanity.

It would be one thing if this gloomy construct were about nothing more than exacting control over the public square; but the movement’s insatiable bloodlust has taken victims who dared make the mistake of putting even just a toe into the spotlight in any forum.

In 2019, Carson King’s ESPN College Game Day sign asking for beer money donations went viral and turned into a million-dollar fundraiser for University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital. In today’s toxic and unforgiving culture, this was a mortal sin. Aaron Calvin, at the time a reporter for the Des Moines Register, quickly “discovered” tweets from King from seven years before, when he was just 16 years-old which, when taken out of time and context were considered by some to be “racist.” That was that. King was canceled and publicly humiliated.

In the span of 10 days, King went from anonymous sign guy to million-dollar fundraiser, to “canceled” when, as he puts it, circumstances out of his control “make your life very public.” In a statement on Twitter, King responded to the vicious hero-to-zero Cancel Culture outrage by making the requisite mea culpa, that he “cannot go back and change what [he] posted when [he] was a 16-year-old,” but that he can “apologize and work to improve every day and make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.” Of course, it was too late even for such debasement to afford him cover.

We always knew “woke” scolds were humorless, but what happened to King shows us they also loathe virtually everything that makes humans such amazing creatures – imagination, intellect, vision, even compassion.

Eighteenth Century English poet Alexander Pope wrote, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” Today’s Cancel Culture misses wide on both. Its standard of conduct is based on a ridiculous notion that humans are born into this world as perfect progressive mouthpieces, even though the rules for what is acceptable change with the winds. Furthermore, there is nary a hint of mercy or understanding in the viciousness with which they will make anyone, from celebrity to private citizen, a public example when failing to meet this impossible standard.

No individual remains exactly as they were 10 years prior, much less as a child or young adult. Experience and knowledge gained through the years invariably shapes who we are and how we see the world. It is why as adults we do not eat ice cream for breakfast or still believe in Santa Claus. To be held to belief systems of what is essentially a lifetime ago, is as cruel as it is nonsensical.

What a depressing perspective on humanity this world view presents –seeing people as inflexible, linear beings incapable of change, no matter how awful or wrongheaded one’s behavior or mindset might once have been. If Cancel Culture’s outlook on human development is accurate, then what is the point of engaging in any intellectual exploration, debate, or even politics for that matter, since the objective of all such endeavors is to both learn and to change the minds of the other side? According to Cancel Culture cops this is not possible, so why even try.

With such a warped view of the human condition, it is no wonder that wherever Cancel Culture goes, misery follows; it is all they know. For denizens of this unhappy world, the principle in our Declaration of Independence that we must be free to engage in the “pursuit of Happiness” no longer has meaning.

FullMAGnews

by Bob Barr

For decades conservatives and law enforcement considered each other cultural allies, united in a common appreciation – and respect – for law and order. Today, this relationship is being strained, in some instances to the breaking point, and, as I discuss in a recent white paper published at The Heritage Foundation, the modern era of gun control is much to blame.

That gun control serves as a flashpoint for this rift should not surprise. As reflected in laws and regulatory mandates, gun control requires enforcement, which is a responsibility that by and large falls to the police. By enacting increasingly intrusive gun control measures, liberal politicians are forcing police to take actions that put them at odds, if not on a collision course, with gun owners. This might manifest itself in the enforcement of “extreme risk protection orders” (ERPOs) also known as “Red Flag Laws,” or rounding up newly banned sporting rifles — an increasingly likely possibility if Republicans fail to take seriously signals by many Democrat leaders to do just that.

Results of these pressure points have been a mix of encouragement, and disappointment.

When Virginia Democrats gained total control of the Commonwealth following the 2019 elections, one of their first major acts was introducing sweeping gun control bills in the General Assembly. Extreme as they enacted measures were, ranging from monthly purchase limits to universal background checks, they were less far-reaching than what was initially planned. This was due largely to the backlash from not just citizens, but from county sheriffs as well, who promised to turn their counties into “gun sanctuaries” by refusing to enforce laws that ran afoul of the Second Amendment.

For gun rights, this was a huge win. It demonstrated that when the “law” in “law and order” directly contradicts the most supreme law of the land — the United States Constitution — many local sheriffs could still be reliable allies in protecting gun rights; or, at least, those law enforcement officials occupying positions answerable to citizens, not the bureaucracy (as are most police chiefs). This distinction makes all the difference.

While rural sheriffs have stood bravely on the front line defending the Second Amendment, law enforcement leaders in major cities largely have been comfortably on the other side of the battle. Take, for instance, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo, who argued for increased “red flag law” powers by questioning whether city officials stood with the gun lobby “or the children that are getting gunned down in this country every single day?” Then there is Scott Israel, the former Sheriff of Broward County in Florida, who was in charge during the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Israel has been repeating the time-worn gun-control myth, that more armed citizens would “make the job of law enforcement far more difficult and divert them from the real threat.”

These clearly are not the allies in law enforcement that conservatives want or need. They do, however, reflect a troubling philosophical shift among many law enforcement officials siding not with law-abiding citizens in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, but with left-wing politicians pinning their hopes (and taxpayer dollars) on ever-increasing government control over that fundamental right.

The comments from Acevedo and Israel capture perfectly the complicated dynamic between Second Amendment conservatives and law enforcement.

Whereas the Second Amendment reflects an individual’s natural right to self-defense, police see this as their responsibility, and their responsibility alone. They remain protective of this duty, often to the detriment of Second Amendment rights. In fact, as Acevedo’s hyperbolic blustering suggests, they see guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens as fundamentally dangerous.

This attitude comes with consequence. First, law enforcement leaders are increasingly moving from silently serving in the background of policy debates, into using a very public bully pulpit from which to push greater gun control measures. And, in states that require permit approvals from police officials, some have even abused their role in this process to chill gun rights, simply by “slow-walking” the process.

Secondly, this attitude has resulted in increasingly contentious situations between armed citizens and police, which unfortunately has resulted in unnecessary injury and occasionally death. The real tragedy here is that in American society where the Second Amendment is afforded the due respect its history and fundamental meaning deserve, such confrontations should never occur. More on this to come.

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. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

It was only a matter of time. We knew it was coming – gun control.

Newly installed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has long advocated for limits on the right of citizens to own guns, so has Speaker Nancy Pelosi; and Vice President Kamala Harris always has been a cheerleader for gun control. Who can forget then-presidential candidate Joe Biden in 2020 publicly declaring he might, if elected, make extreme gun control advocate “Beto” O’Rourke his “gun czar.”

The waiting is over. The battle for the Second Amendment is underway in earnest, and the GOP had better be prepared to do serious battle or they (and the American people) will have their constitutional pocket picked clean.

Last week, House Democrats sent two bills to the Senate. Measures that enthrall the gun control crowd, not by making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms but by making it significantly harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns for self-defense or other lawful purposes.

Both bills — H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 – come with the time-worn gun control label as “common sense” measures designed solely to close “loopholes” in the National Instant Background Check System. While the “NICS” system has not worked perfectly (what federal program has?), it has served surprisingly well for more than two decades at preventing sales of firearms to individuals prohibited by law from possessing them. Regardless, gun control advocates have been looking for ways to expand it ever since it was first passed by Congress in 1993.

In fact, neither H.R. 8 nor H.R. 1446 are benign “reform” measures.

H.R. 1446, the “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021,” is the more insidious of the pair. While pretending to do nothing more than extend the current legal time period available for the FBI (which administers NICS) to deny a proposed firearm sale from three business days to 10, its actual result would be to extend such time period for up to one month or more. During that time, a lawful applicant might remain defenseless against a stalker, deranged ex-spouse or another threatening individual.

Before NICS was passed in 1993, the Congress recognized that unless there was a strict time limit for gun purchase approvals, federal bureaucrats could “slow walk” applicants indefinitely; thus, the three-business day limit after which a gun retailer could legally complete the gun purchase even if not yet formally okayed by the FBI. However, in the latest move by the House, that bureaucratic “safe harbor” would extend far longer, possibly indefinitely. The result would be to significantly if not fatally undermine the ability of many gun purchasers to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right perhaps when they need it most.

The companion bill passing the House last week, H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021,” is the Holy Grail of the gun control movement – Universal Background Checks. The intent of this bill, unlike the more opaque H.R. 1446, is clear. It would, with few exceptions (such as some gifts from one spouse to the other spouse) require that private transfers of firearms must fully comply with the same NICS process with which all sales from a licensed gun dealer now must comply.

The blind spot in all this is the “common sense” fact that these new procedures (which had been considered and rejected as overly broad and constitutionally problematic when considered by the Congress 28 years ago) will not stop individuals intent on obtaining and using firearms for unlawful purposes.

Even as the Congress now is fast-tracking the legislative gun control agenda, Biden appears ready to start using executive powers with the same goal in mind. One measure apparently under active consideration would be to return control over lawful export of firearms back to the bureaucratically heavy and liberally minded State Department, and strip the power from the Commerce Department where Trump had set it

All this is but a taste of what is certain to come in the months ahead as Pelosi, Schumer, and Harris busy themselves with directing steps to carry out Biden’s well-known desire to strip law-abiding citizens and businesses of ways by which they are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  If the Republican Party and its representatives in the Congress fail to articulate clearly what such measures will really do, and if they fail to vigorously fight against all such measures, when the dust settles before the 2022 elections, our Second Amendment will emerge as but a skeleton of its intended and former self.

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. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

It was a bad week for British Royals. While one royal family, the Windsors, handled damage control following last Sunday’s interview between Oprah and the now-California based Royals formerly known as Sussex, another British monarch was making waves on Twitter for all the wrong reasons.  Burger King UK decided to use International Women’s Day to announce a new culinary scholarship program for women with the tweet, “Women belong in the kitchen.” As expected, it quickly went all to pot.

One might wonder how a brand, especially a global one with armies of marketing and advertising professionals, could publicly disseminate a tweet so obviously tone-deaf it would not even pass for a bad joke in a country club locker room.

This is what “woke blindness” looks like, where someone or something is so “woke” their pious self-righteousness makes them oblivious to normal human sensibilities. Basically, they believe their wokeness, like funding scholarships for women chefs, means they can do no wrong – even when making a joke of misogyny. As Burger King quickly discovered, woke movement scolds lack any sense of humor or mercy (common sense disappeared long ago).

Contrary to the image of unity around the issue of “wokeness” (whatever it functionally means), the social justice movement is actually a highly fractured, highly competitive composite of intersectional groups, each with their own priorities, morality, and superiority complex. On the surface, they cooperate and generally unite around common causes (especially anti-capitalist ones), but when their paths cross – watch out.

One of the best examples of this intersectional infighting is summarized in a 2018 article about Vanesa Wruble, a Jewish woman who helped found the Women’s March. When Wruble met one night with other women who would help found the march, Wruble “said the conversation took a turn when Tamika Mallory, a black gun control activist, and Carmen Perez, a Latina criminal justice reform activist, replied that Jews needed to confront their own role in racism.” As the article highlights, the Women’s March has long struggled to shake off accusations of anti-Semitism, especially after ousting Wruble.

Are you dizzy, yet?

The intersectional squabbling would be comically farcical if not for the tragic consequences to real people once the stakes are raised. Take, for instance, the fight over due process rights for college students accused of sexual misconduct. Feminists cheered when President Obama’s “Dear Colleague” letter, issued by the Office for Civil Rights, dictated to federally funded Higher Ed institutions the procedures that must be followed when pursuing sexual assault allegations, notwithstanding they severely undermined students’ due process rights. No thought was given to how diminished due process protections might impact, say, the group historically most likely to be falsely accused of sex crimes: young black males.

These are the more serious entanglements of intersectional fighting, but even the petty ones can take down figures who were at one time considered “heroes” of the Left. Ellen DeGeneres was “canceled” after reports of a toxic workplace culture (offending the union-minded intersectional faction). Matt Yglesias, co-founder of the ultra-left Vox.com, was “canceled” out of the organization he founded for signing an open letter voicing concern for cancel culture (offending the anti-offending intersectional faction). Then there is Starbucks, once the darling of culture warriors, which now periodically is pilloried by the same people.

Nobody, and nothing, is safe forever. Even Abraham Lincoln has been canceled.

This does not bode well for “The Burger King,” who by the end of the saga, may end up neutered and emasculated just like Mr. Potato Head; penance for its sins against the high priests of wokeness.

Here is some free advice, since clearly, brands are not getting it from advertising teams who see their clients’ marketing budgets as yet another platform for progressive activism – focus on the product and leave politics for the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC. Americans are growing weary with the constant bombardment of scolding and moralizing coming from all sides: Hollywood, pro-sports, and now, fast food chains.

When these brands inevitably screw-up, which they will because it is impossible to walk the progressive line for long without stepping on a crack, their previous woke demonstrations will not save them. Worse, they will have alienated the last remaining customers who just wanted a burger. Wokeness killed the King. Long live the Burger Peasant.

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. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.