lgadmin

Townhall

With citizens across the country understandably focused on increased rates of urban violent crime, and with local and state law enforcement agencies suffering under manpower shortages, another crime headache could not come at a worse time. This is, however, what law enforcement may be facing in the coming months; and in fact, already is facing in Atlanta, Georgia – the resurgence of eco-terrorism.

Just outside the bustling downtown environs of Atlanta, in a still-heavily wooded area known as “Intrenchment Creek Park,” a group of anarchists, environmental extremists, and anti-police activists have declared war on the construction of a new and desperately needed police training facility for the Atlanta Police Department.

Breaking with the largely non-violent measures employed in recent years by environmental absolutists, this new generation of “forest defenders” has returned to the violent tactics that characterized the movement decades ago and saw multi-million dollar arson campaigns from Oregon to Colorado and beyond.

While the overarching goal of these environmental extremists is claimed to be reducing the “threats” to the environment causing global warming, the group in Atlanta has updated and expanded that mission statement.

In a new wrinkle on the environmental focus of these “green defenders,” the still-loose “movement” that has reared its head in Atlanta, claims as part of its mission protecting minority and native American communities against harm allegedly caused by law enforcement and by commercial development (in this case, the construction of a new movie studio in the same area as the police training center).

The tactics of these post-2020 anti-police activists, however, are well-known to law enforcement officials who have followed the trail of burned buildings and vehicles dating back to the destruction of a ski resort development in Vail, Colorado in 1998 by a group known as the “Earth Liberation Front” or “ELF.” These tactics include torching police and construction company vehicles, throwing Molotov Cocktails at police and other personnel attempting to effect arrests, and guerrilla actions using everything from bricks to firearms.

These new eco-terrorists also have vandalized construction companies’ offices in a number of cities, including in the Atlanta area; and in moves eerily reminiscent of the manner by which pro-abortion groups recently targeted the homes of disfavored Supreme Court justices, they have publicized the names and addresses of executives of those companies, and even harassed them at churches they attend.

Recent arrests at the Atlanta police training site show clearly that perpetrators are being recruited from cities across the country, and include individuals apparently involved in other environmental campaigns such as targeting the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016. The wide-ranging recruitment base of the extremists has brought federal law enforcement into the picture, with both the FBI and ATF now involved in the expanding investigations, although only to a limited degree for the time being.

The resurgence of eco-terrorism also has drawn the attention of the Congress, although as with virtually every action or suggested action by a member of Congress from one Party, the move will immediately be discounted and belittled by those across the aisle. This was the case last Fall when a group of House GOP members moved to formalize and expand the work against violent eco-extremist groups by the FBI. The Republicans cited public comments in prominent New York magazine interviews by one of the longtime leaders of the eco-extremists, Andreas Malm, who brazenly called on his followers to “move away from .   .  .  polite [and] peaceful civil disobedience” to “intelligent sabotage.”

Even in the face of these new threats and actual violent campaigns by environmental extremists, the problem remains largely under the national radar, with law enforcement at all levels having its hands full with spikes in urban violence in major cities from coast-to-coast, even as their departments face heavy criticism from minority communities.

History has shown, however, that allowing such violence to go unaddressed will only increase the organizational underpinnings of the movement, as well as the incidence and scope of the violence.

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

George Washington University, located in the heart of our nation’s Capital, is widely considered a top-tier institution of higher learning. It also is among the most expensive schools in the country. Notwithstanding such pedigree, the university in recent months has shown the country that both its student body and its board of trustees rank among the dumbest in our nation.

Just two months ago, for example, the GW Board of Trustees decided to “retire” the school’s long-time moniker, the “Colonials.” This decision resulted from a three-year long study which concluded that trashing the mascot was essential because the term “colonial” triggered visions of slavery and colonization, and was therefore anathema to the “unifying” purpose of a school moniker.

Meanwhile, as the trustees now turn their attention to finding a more soothing and less “divisive” moniker (a process proposed to consume another year or more of their time), George Washington’s student body has been busy trashing no less a distinguished constitutional law lecturer than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has taught a seminar at the university’s law school for more than a decade.

While the vast majority of law schools in America would trip over themselves to have a Supreme Court justice lead a seminar on constitutional law – or would have done so before today’s “woke culture” turned academia on its head – GW students have just thumbed their collective nose at such a godsend.

The reason for such a move by the students? Abortion — the new holy grail of leftwing politics.

In late June, the High Court rendered a decision overturning the 1973 landmark abortion-rights case, Roe v. Wade. In the opinion of a new,  five-member majority — a majority that included Clarence Thomas — the nearly half-century old opinion was based on flawed legal analysis which, as pointed out in the current majority opinion, had improperly “discovered” a previously hidden federal right to abortion.

To correct that earlier erroneous opinion, the current Court majority simply returned to the citizens of the several states the responsibility and power to decide, through their elected representatives, whether and to what extent abortions can be performed legally.

Not surprisingly, the new abortion opinion did not sit well with GW’s ever vigilant and woke student body, which quickly drafted and circulated a petition that championed the “right to bodily autonomy of people with wombs.” To rectify this apparently outrageous Supreme Court decision that vested in the people of each state the power to decide whether and when women can legally abort a fetus, some 12,500 people reportedly signed the petition calling on George Washington University to send Justice Thomas packing.

Thomas, who apparently has better things to do with his time and considerable intellect than teach where he is not wanted, bid farewell to the “Colonials.”

Prof. John Banzhaf, a liberal fixture at GW’s law school for decades, crowed about the petition’s victory in holding Justice Thomas “accountable.” Accountable for what is not clear, but denying law students the opportunity to hear, learn from, and debate a man of such vast legal knowledge and intellect as Clarence Thomas, is anything but a “victory.” It is a shame and a short-sighted move of profound stupidity.

However, considering that this major university’s leadership found fear and divisiveness in having a mascot known as a “Colonial,” we really should not expect anything but stupidity from its students.

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

There was a time long ago in America’s civic institutions, where men and women who had accomplished great things for our country and for mankind, were studied by students of all ages — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Jonas Salk, and many other notables adorned classrooms and textbooks in schools across the country.

Now, in an increasing number of public schools children are present with a far different role model. The age of the Drag Queen has arrived.

This loony phenomenon, presented as lessons in “diversity” and “acceptance,” has even found its way into churches, and not just fringe religious sects, but mainstream denominations – Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, and Episcopal — presented not only as lewd sideshows, but as official religious services. The United Methodist Church, for example, has accepted as a candidate for full pastoral ordination, a “Drag Queen Pastor” who proclaims himself a “dragavangelist” and laces his sermons with profanity and gibberish about “divine queerness.”

It might be argued in defense of such activities that if adults wish to attend religious services extolling men dressed as women who prance down the aisle like court jesters, they are free to do so, as long as attendance is voluntary. Disturbingly, this lunacy goes beyond consensual adult activity, as with a Lutheran Church in Chicago recently hosting a “Drag Queen Prayer Time” for children during its Sunday service.

As frequently happens with contemporary cultural phenomena, they tend to bleed across national boundaries, and churches in Canada reportedly are witnessing the same “Drag Queen Evangelism” infecting the U.S. Such expansive reach is made easy through social media, including the Chinese-controlled Tik Tok platform, which recently carried a video of an Episcopal church school event featuring a “Drag Queen Activist” in New York City.

Even in “red” states such as Texas, drag queen religious programs are being featured, including some being packaged with Critical Race Theory and lectures on the evils of “whiteness.”

More troubling than churches encouraging Drag Queen Evangelism, however, are Drag Queen activities paid for by taxpayers in public schools, which are by their very nature, not voluntary institutions.

In New York, non-profits have tapped into the drag queen movement in public schools. One report notes that in June 2022 alone, “Drag Story Hour NYC,” took in $46,000 for drag performances in the City’s schools, libraries, and “street festivals.” This apparently is not something new in the Big Apple, which reportedly has wasted more than $200,000 in taxpayer money on just this one drag-oriented non-profit since 2018.

Not to be outdone by New York, schools in California are muscling in on the drag queen education craze, with one middle school presenting a show featuring a drag queen named “Nicole Jizz.” When criticized, the school principal merely offered a weak apology for the lewd name of the “queen,” but not for featuring the performance itself.

Indeed, rather than condemning such activities, especially those involving the use of taxpayer funds for these types of programs in public schools, some top public officials are praising them. This was the case in June, when Michigan’s Attorney General, Dana Nessel, said publicly at a civil rights conference that “drag queens make everything better” in schools.

In some cases, as with Michigan’s attorney general, support for drag queen programs appears to stem from officials who have been elected as openly gay, who then use their office to push their personal agenda on constituents.

It goes deeper.

Notwithstanding that drag performances by vaudevillians and early theatrical actors date to the late 19th Century, taking such fringe activities out of bars, movie houses, and private clubs, and forcing them into the public square, including churches and schools as “mainstream,” illustrates a disturbing trend that has taken hold in our society over the past three decades.

In this movement, every attribute or achievement formerly admired and emulated has been stripped of value in the name of “equity.” Valuing one accomplishment over another, or one person’s achievements over another’s, is considered inequitable and therefore condemnable. Thus, everyone is a winner and every action, no matter how bizarre or extreme, must be praised equally, if not prized over traditional measures of value.

In such a culture, positive achievement is no longer valued and, sadly, will become increasingly rare. This is the very dark cultural void into which we are headed.

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

The medical profession for generations remained largely immune from the partisan politics that has affected virtually every other sector of our society, helping to protect the sacred bond of trust between doctor and patient from the rancor of petty, partisan political ideologies.

Starting with gun control several years ago, and accelerating now with the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade, that bond is fraying significantly with woke doctors latching onto such issues as a way to tout their ideological bona fides.

In one clear example of this, dozens of graduating doctors from the University of Michigan walked out of their “white coat“ ceremony  to protest a speaker who was to address them not on pro-life issues, but who was simply known as being pro-life.

While most people have little if any concern about the politics of an auto mechanic or a cashier at the grocery store, this understandably is not the case when it comes to doctors who openly, and even hostilely, espouse radical opinions affecting the medical profession and treatment of patients.

Consider, for instance, the trend of emergency medicine physicians jumping into the gun control debate to assert their “expert” policy perspective on gunshot wounds. While it is true that these doctors see first-hand the effects of such violence, many are eager to share their opinions on such matters as the “lethality” of and need for “assault weapons.”

Such views have nothing to do with treatment of patients, and often are not based on any degree of real knowledge about how firearms function or the ballistic properties of differing types and calibers of ammunition. These gratuitous opinions by medical doctors on “gun control” and “weapons of war” are then widely circulated by gun-control advocates as “medical” evidence supporting stricter gun control measures.

Dr. Anthony Fauci did much the same thing during the COVID pandemic. While the good doctor is an infectious disease specialist, when he made (and continues to make) his incessant calls for mandates and lockdowns, he presented himself, and was allowed to do so by two presidents, as something much broader — as a public policy expert. This injected a harmful degree of legal and constitutional confusion into the handling of an already complex pandemic and wound up costing billions of dollars and perhaps thousands of lives.

Physicians are not alone in this trend to politicize and weaponize virtually every facet of our society. America has a long history of profession-based politics, from college professors to union leaders and from Hollywood actors and producers to super-rich athletes. Doctors, however, have in the past been, and should be, held to a higher standard, considering that objectivity and stoicism are essential components of their profession and of their responsibilities to patients relying on them.

Every physician will speak to the importance of patients being honest and upfront with them when answering questions about their health and lifestyle choices, as this allows the doctor to treat patients better and more accurately. But as doctors become more openly involved in publicly partisan politics in their handling of medical issues, the risks increase that patients will alter their answers based on how they believe their doctor will judge them, or worse, refuse to treat them or report them to the authorities for some perceived “threat” to themselves or others.

A 2016 study from Yale researchers suggested politics does in fact impact how physicians treat their patients, so this is hardly a hypothetical debate. As physicians become more radicalized and embrace the progressive rule that protest is itself the most noble of actions, patients have a right to be concerned about the politicization of a profession on which they rely for their health and very lives.

Doctors do not surrender their constitutionally guaranteed right to hold and express opinions, including on current public policy matters, by virtue of being certified to practice medicine. Increasingly, however, physicians are going beyond this and signaling to patients and peers that their opinions take precedence over treatments and access to medical care.

In so doing, doctors clearly have forgotten, or have chosen to deliberately ignore, the following key language from the Hippocratic Oath to which they swore allegiance: “[to] remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings.”

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

Last week the White House publicly issued a “Readout” describing a July 22 meeting between “senior advisors” to President Joe Biden and several state legislators from New York, Delaware, California and Illinois; all so-called “blue states” whose political leaders are firmly committed to restricting law-abiding citizens’ ability to exercise their rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The news release was the latest example of this administration’s pattern of deliberately mischaracterizing federal laws regarding the liability of firearms retailers and manufacturers for subsequent criminal use of products they sell or manufacture. In other words, a lie designed to further its gun-control agenda.

The federal law at issue is the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” or “PLCAA,” legislation passed by the Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2005.

PLCAA was deemed necessary by a majority of both houses of the Congress and the president of the United States, in the wake of a series of civil lawsuits against lawful manufacturers and retailers of firearms for the subsequent use of those products by individuals for criminal purposes.

The law does not and was never intended to provide absolute protection for manufacturers or retailers of firearms. Rather, the PLCAA was designed simply to provide a legal framework according to which neither manufacturers nor retailers of lawful firearms would be treated differently from other lawful businesses, such as automobile manufacturers and dealers that never had been held liable for the subsequent use of their products (cars) by negligent or unlawful drivers.

In fact, the clear language of the PLCAA provides that so long as the firearms businesses follow the many laws governing their operations, and so long as neither the manufacturer nor the retailer knew or had reason to believe its product would be used by criminals or in an unlawful way, neither business could be sued if an individual later used the gun in such manner.

If, however, there was or is evidence to the contrary — that is that either the manufacturer or the retailer knew or had reason to believe the subsequent owner or user of the firearm would use it in an unlawful manner — they can in fact be sued civilly for damages, just like any other business.

Notwithstanding this clear language and publicly available reporting on the PLCAA at the time of its passage, the Biden administration continues to deliberately mischaracterize the statute.

For example, in last week’s news release, which noted that “President Biden has repeatedly called on Congress to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” the White House claimed that the law provides “more protection from liability” than is afforded other products, and that it completely “denies” victims of “gun violence” any civil remedy in the courts — statements that are categorically untrue.

In fact, the same as before the PLCAA was enacted, a victim of gun violence has full opportunity to sue the individual who used the firearm unlawfully, as well as any other individual or business that transferred or manufactured the gun that was used to commit a criminal offense, if that business did not itself abide by the law or sold or transferred the firearm negligently or with reason to believe it would be used unlawfully.

Continuing to assert that the PLCAA provides absolute immunity from lawsuits against a firearms manufacturer or retailer is utterly disingenuous. Still, this administration and as its gun-control cohorts in the Congress, along with its enablers in the media, continue perpetrating such a deliberate lie to the American people for the sole purpose of furthering the left’s long-held goal of limiting to the greatest extent possible the manufacture, retail and individual possession of lawful firearms.

However, for an administration claiming that our country’s southern border is secure and that an economy experiencing a record level of inflation is in good shape, lying about the scope of a federal law is considered but a minor fib.

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

The votes had not been counted before the schemes to change the outcome of the election began. By the time of the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol, there were at least nine separate plots designed to keep Donald Trump in the White House.

Much as King Henry II’s rhetorical question, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest” encouraged those around him to murder the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1170, Trump’s incessant cries to have Biden’s 2020 victory overturned led his devotees to conjure all manner of schemes by which to accomplish what they perceived to be their leader’s desire.

Even today, almost two years after the November 2020 vote, we still are finding out just how numerous were these varied plots.

There was the use of disinformation to muddy the waters with claims of election fraud ranging from the credible, such as illegal ballot harvesting in several states and clear violations of Pennsylvania’s election laws, to the truly bizarre – like Roger Stone’s theory about North Korean boats delivering fake ballots through Maine, or Sidney Powell’s claim about rigged voting machines built by Hugo Chavez.

Some of the schemes were simply self-serving efforts by Trump supporters to gain personal advantage, such as the patently absurd proposal by environmental lawyer Jeffrey Clark to have Trump name him Acting Attorney General in late December 2020 so he could mastermind an election reversal.

There were other proposed plots based on executive overreach. Virginia attorney William Olson suggested in writing that Trump replace both his own White House counsel and the Acting Attorney General with attorneys who would do his bidding to ensure pro-Trump vote counts in key states. More concerning, a drafted, but never issued Executive Order compelled the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines for “analysis.”

Most notable were the schemes proposed by figures directly advising the President, such as Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, which contorted the law – and the Constitution – to justify “alternative” slates of electors to be chosen by Vice President Mike Pence during the official certification.

While there is not yet solid evidence that, in the final analysis Trump himself directly approved any of these ideas presented to him — other than the Pence “certification” maneuver — all resulted from Trump’s obsession that the election had been “stolen” and from his constant calls, in private and publicly, that steps be taken to correct things.

In a sense, Trump left office the same way he entered: relying solely on his gut, rather than a core set of principles and surrounded by a cadre of loyal but knowledgeable advisers. Had he chosen to fight allegations of voter fraud solely within the bounds of the law, rather than undermining it, he could have retained the credibility necessary for seeking a second term, even if it came four years late.

As further evidence of these hairbrained proposals come to light, however, the more it will overshadow and tarnish the many important and positive things Trump accomplished during his four-year tenure, especially in the energy and regulatory arenas and his judicial appointments. It will also make his path back, if that remains his plan, even more difficult.

Had Trump left office with dignity and principle, there is little question he now would be well-positioned to win again in 2024. Instead, the continuing revelations of his post-November 2020 shenanigans, including recent evidence made public by the House January 6 Committee, cloud his chances to win his Party’s 2024 nomination, and are dragging down his own polling numbers.

The more evidence that emerges about Trump’s extra-legal and extra-constitutional efforts to overturn the last election, the greater the chance that other Republican contenders will lose their fear of Trump and opt to challenge him directly in next year’s primary contests.

The longer this process drags out, the more it will hurt the GOP by shifting focus away from Biden’s and the Democrats’ sorry record, back to 2020 and January 6, 2021; even perhaps hurting the Party’s margin of victory in this year’s vital congressional contests.

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

The Democratic Party’s appetite for gun-control legislation is constant, especially in the wake of a mass shooting. Occasionally, they are able to enlist sufficient Republican support in the Congress to actually pass legislation limiting the Second Amendment rights of citizens. This was the case last month when the requisite number of Republicans crossed over and gave Democrats a victory in sending the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act” to President Biden for his eager signature.

Not content with their success in passing that expansive legislation, Democrats in the House last week passed another bill to prove they are “doing something” to prevent criminals from shooting innocent victims. At least that’s the theory behind the “Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022” (H.R. 6538) that now awaits Senate action.

H.R. 6538 has a price tag of “only” $2 million (at least to start) and does not itself restrict exercise of citizens’ Second Amendment rights. It is, however, pointless and unnecessary.

Obviously the bill’s primary sponsors, Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline and Republican Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, concluded that existing “alert” communications between law enforcement agencies are inadequate. Thus, we need an office at the U.S. Department of Justice dedicated to monitoring such events and alerting everyone else — another bureaucracy to “coordinate” something, along with a “study” to be conducted by the Government Accountability Office to let us know how they are doing.

Don’t get me wrong, the disgracefully inadequate, bordering on criminally negligent behavior by the school police agency during the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, illustrates that there are shortcomings in how some police departments and individual officers respond to an “active shooter.” (Strangely, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act signed with much fanfare by Biden, contained no funds specifically earmarked for improved police training, but that’s another story.) However, setting up another office in Washington to serve as nothing but a clearing house for “active shooter” information is not going to touch, much less solve such serious problems.

Still, 43 House GOP members joined all but a single Democrat in voting to create another “Amber Alert,” this one for active shooter situations.

While such an action may sound benign, the actual language in the bill, had Members actually read it before voting “aye,” should have alerted them that this “alert” bill is far too broad to be of serious benefit. For example, the term “active shooter” includes any person “engaged in killing or attempting to kill” (my emphasis) persons in a “populated area.” Additionally, the active shooter must be “determined to pose an active, imminent threat to people in the populated area.” It is apparent right there that there will be problems figuring out what may be in the mind of a “determined” person “attempting to kill” people.

The tendency, of course, will be to include more not fewer potential shooting scenarios in the alert system.

The more problematic provision in the legislation is its definition of “Populated Area” as would trigger a nationwide alert — “a location where one or more persons other than the active shooter are present.” In other words, if there is an armed individual “determined” to pose a danger to at least one other person in an area where there are at least two people present, the alert goes into effect. Broad enough?

Then there is the “coordination” responsibility. The Justice Department must coordinate its work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Department, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

H.R. 6538 is the epitome of a pointless response to a problem needing hard work and commitment, but which receives only a glossy, bureaucratic veneer from the Congress. In a word, as noted by Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan who voted against the bill — it is a “gimmick.”

Moreover, this legislation duplicates other communications systems already in place, such as the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS), which itself is in addition to “fusion centers” active in every state and which employ some 3,000 individuals and have cost taxpayers billions of dollars “with little to show for it,” even though supposed to alert communities to criminal or terrorist activities.

As illustrated by passage of H.R. 6538, however, duplication of effort is hardly a reason for the House of Representatives not to enact more legislation.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta and serves as head of Liberty Guard.