Author

Liberty Guard Author

Bob Barr in The Daily Caller — How George Soros Is Remaking The Judicial System In His Image

by Liberty Guard Author May 8, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

BARR: HOW GEORGE SOROS IS REMAKING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN HIS IMAGE
The Daily Caller
11:00 AM 05/07/2019 | OPINION
Former Rep. Bob Barr | Contributor

George Soros, along with Michael Bloomberg, has become the man conservatives love to hate; and with good reason. He harbors extreme left-wing political views, he is fabulously wealthy, and he has long-exhibited a willingness to “put his money where his mouth is.”

Perhaps even more important than his wealth, however, is the fact that Soros understands that to effect lasting and systemic societal change, requires a consistent focus on politics at the local level. In this, Soros shares an understanding with Bloomberg; but where the former New York Mayor continues to focus like a laser on one issue – gun control – Soros is intent on achieving a far broader goal – to alter the basic structure of our judicial system.

Soros cleverly – and smartly – has concluded that one of the most effective vehicles through which to accomplish this ambitious goal, is to fund left-leaning candidates for the one elected office that perhaps more than any other is able to change the fundamental values by which communities function – the local district attorney or “D.A.” While Soros’ crusade to implement this plan has not met with success in every instance, his victories in just the past four years have been significant.

Throughout our nation’s history, prosecutors have enjoyed significant power to decide which cases to investigate and prosecute. The principle of “prosecutorial discretion” inherited from British law, clothes prosecutors with immunity against being second-guessed in their decisions about which cases to pursue and which to leave aside – in other words, what values to prioritize by prosecuting which crimes.

Thus, if a prosecutor determines that a potential case involving a police officer who has exercised deadly force against a civilian is not prosecutable, his or her decision will not be overridden by a court. Or, if a prosecutor implements a policy that certain low-level misdemeanors or felonies, such as shoplifting or check forgery, will not be prosecuted, the only recourse is to remove that prosecutor via the ballot box.

Soros also understands that local D.A. races garner significantly less voter attention than elections for governors, senators and representatives; making it far easier for him to slip money in under the radar and improve the odds of winning.

Beginning in 2015 and 2016, Soros appears to have decided to begin dumping large amounts of cash into local district attorney races through political action committees that do not bear his name, and to do so late in the campaign cycle; significantly raising the likelihood that his chosen candidates would win. Consistent with Soros’ left-wing political philosophy, of course, campaigns identified for this financial shot-in-the-arm were those of lawyers espousing a similarly “progressive” – in some cases, anti-law enforcement – platform.

This “progressive” prosecution philosophy reflects such notions that law enforcement in contemporary America has become unacceptably discriminatory, if not outright racist, and that many property crimes were being committed by poor people as a means of survival in a society that itself had become “classist.”

This philosophy plays itself out in prosecution guidelines such as those now being implemented in such major metropolitan areas as Albuquerque, New Mexico; Chicago, Illinois; Shreveport, Louisiana; Orlando, Florida; Houston and Dallas, Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and other cities across the country in which Soros-backed “progressive prosecutors” won elections in 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Common themes among these district attorneys are calls to end the death penalty, cash bail and “mass incarceration” (not clearly defined) especially for “people of color”; and policies not to charge individuals for property theft crimes valued less than $1,000 (Chicago D.A. Kim Foxx, of Jussie Smollett notoriety) or $750 (Dallas D.A. John Creuzot). As explained – quite seriously – by Creuzot, such a policy is warranted because it would just not be right to prosecute someone who “is stealing to eat, to sustain themselves.”

Despite not having any personal stake in such races, groups funded by Soros and other liberal organizations are pumping millions of dollars into local prosecutor contests across the country (for example, $1.7 million into just a single race – Larry Krasner’s 2017 winning election in Philadelphia). The goal? To reshape justice in America to fit their liberal mold.

This movement’s impressive win-loss record reportedly has emboldened it to now embark on a drive to begin electing judges with similarly leftist philosophy. If recent history is any indication, conservatives had best be prepared to fight fire with fire.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

May 8, 2019 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr Liberty Updates

In A Hero’s Funeral Is A Lesson For Us All

by Liberty Guard Author May 8, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Riley Howell was laid to rest Sunday in Waynesville, North Carolina, at a funeral service with full military honors. He was not killed in a Middle East war zone; he was not even an enlisted member of the Armed Services. Riley was a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who died rushing toward a person who entered his classroom with a pistol and began shooting.

Riley’s parents say he was shot three times at close range as he charged forward, but still managed to take the shooter to the ground so hard that he whined to first responders of internal injuries. It happened in the blink of an eye, but Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney credits Riley with saving countless lives and giving police, who fortunately were nearby, time to get to the classroom and detain the shooter. “But for [Riley Howell’s] work, the assailant might not have been disarmed . . . his sacrifice saved lives,” Putney said.

Indeed, Riley’s final act in life – saving others regardless of cost – was an ultimate expression of humanity, tragically juxtaposed to that of the extreme inhumanity exhibited by his killer. But, in leaving behind a legacy of heroism, he also offers an important lesson for us all.

We are told by the Department of Homeland Security that the appropriate response to an active shooter situation is “run, hide, fight,” in descending order of priority. Though perhaps effective for self-preservation, such instructions reflect a disturbing truth that we have in many respects lost the collective courage of our forefathers; and have become in large measure a nation that encourages the role of the victim and the submissive, rather than encourage proactive individual responsibility in defense of one’s life and values and the lives of others.

It is important to bear in mind also that such a passive mentality contradicts what little we actually know and have observed about the mindset of mass shooters.

Unlike traditional criminal activity involving firearms – which has been studied and researched at length by all manner of experts — we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the complexities of mass shootings; occurrences in which demographics, motives, planning, targets, and even firearms used, are characteristics that vary from one incident to another. However, one of the few, if perhaps only, common characteristics among most, if not all of these killers, is cowardice. These criminals tend to pick “soft” targets, in which victims are seen as unprotected and vulnerable; they then flee, surrender, or commit suicide at the onset of resistance or as soon as they perceive themselves to be in danger.

The evolution of law enforcement tactics for active shooter scenarios since the 1999 Columbine school shooting reflect this view. Officers now are trained to immediately seek and confront active shooters upon arriving at the scene, rather than spend precious minutes regrouping and waiting for additional tactical support.

Conversely – as witnessed in last year’s mass shooting at the high school in Parkland, Florida – where a law enforcement officer on the scene hesitates or hides, the tragedy is worsened considerably.

In the San Diego synagogue shooting two weeks ago, an unarmed Army veteran in the congregation who rushed and shouted at the shooter, was enough to send him scurrying to his car where he was quickly apprehended. When factoring in the number of incidents where armed citizens also played a role in prematurely ending active shooter situations before police arrive (documented excellently here), it becomes abundantly clear that the “run, hide, fight” prioritization of action is misplaced. Evil in whatever form is best met with immediate and assertive resistance

There is a reason why these cowards do not normally pick military or police targets for their sprees. The question is — or should be — what changes if suddenly “soft” targets were no longer declared to be safe havens for potential shooters; but instead seen as areas where students, teachers, congregants, clergy, mall shoppers, and everyone else were no longer willing to play the role of victim, but instead fight back with all the ferocity of those who value life and will protect it at all costs? What if we all found the courage, determination, and selflessness of Riley Howell?

A real willingness to change the passive mindset that now prevails in contemporary American culture, is a far better place from which to launch a national debate on how to deal with mass shooting situations, than is advocating for more “gun control” or for less First Amendment freedom. And doing so would more appropriately honor the sacrifice and heroism of Riley Howell.

May 8, 2019 0 comment

Blog

How George Soros Is Remaking The Judicial System In His Image

by Liberty Guard Author May 7, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

The Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Perhaps even more important than his wealth, however, is the fact that Soros understands that to effect lasting and systemic societal change, requires a consistent focus on politics at the local level. In this, Soros shares an understanding with Bloomberg; but where the former New York Mayor continues to focus like a laser on one issue — gun control — Soros is intent on achieving a far broader goal – to alter the basic structure of our judicial system.

Soros cleverly — and smartly — has concluded that one of the most effective vehicles through which to accomplish this ambitious goal, is to fund left-leaning candidates for the one elected office that perhaps more than any other is able to change the fundamental values by which communities function — the local district attorney or “D.A.” While Soros’ crusade to implement this plan has not met with success in every instance, his victories in just the past four years have been significant.

Throughout our nation’s history, prosecutors have enjoyed significant power to decide which cases to investigate and prosecute. The principle of “prosecutorial discretion” inherited from British law, clothes prosecutors with immunity against being second-guessed in their decisions about which cases to pursue and which to leave aside — in other words, what values to prioritize by prosecuting which crimes.

Beginning in 2015 and 2016, Soros appears to have decided to begin dumping large amounts of cash into local district attorney races through political action committees that do not bear his name, and to do so late in the campaign cycle; significantly raising the likelihood that his chosen candidates would win. Consistent with Soros’ left-wing political philosophy, of course, campaigns identified for this financial shot-in-the-arm were those of lawyers espousing a similarly “progressive” — in some cases, anti-law enforcement — platform.

Common themes among these district attorneys are calls to end the death penalty, cash bail and “mass incarceration” (not clearly defined) especially for “people of color”; and policies not to charge individuals for property theft crimes valued less than $1,000 (Chicago D.A. Kim Foxx, of Jussie Smollett notoriety) or $750 (Dallas D.A. John Creuzot). As explained — quite seriously — by Creuzot, such a policy is warranted because it would just not be right to prosecute someone who “is stealing to eat, to sustain themselves.”

Despite not having any personal stake in such races, groups funded by Soros and other liberal organizations are pumping millions of dollars into local prosecutor contests across the country (for example, $1.7 million into just a single race — Larry Krasner’s 2017 winning election in Philadelphia). The goal? To reshape justice in America to fit their liberal mold.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

May 7, 2019 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr Liberty Updates

Cultural Depravity at Root of Mass Shootings

by Liberty Guard Author May 2, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

Townhall.com

Bob Barr

In the wake of last week’s tragic shooting at a Jewish temple outside San Diego, California, attention is once again focused largely on the instruments used in the murder, rather on the root causes of the incident; especially the depraved internet community in which this and other recent murderers live.

Except for the victims of these murderous rampages and the brave public safety first responders, we citizens are largely insulated from the actual horrors of mass murder. We are spared the horrendous visuals of bodies torn apart from bombs and bullets; the stomach-churning screams of victims as they’re stalked and murdered at point blank range; the stench of death mixed with ammunition propellant. These details are far too unsettling for public consumption (properly so), which is why conventional wisdom leads many to believe such violence is more common than it really is; as if picking up a gun and shooting-up a church is as easy as playing a video game. It is not.

The mass killings of strangers is not a normal act for a human being; even for most hardened criminals. We simply are not programed for emotionless, indiscriminate killing; that is, unless we cease to view other people as human. This is how the Holocaust occurred in a highly educated, industrialized nation; or how a 19-year-old from San Diego could walk into a synagogue with a single goal in mind – to kill other people.

By focusing our emotional attention after such tragedies debating (as we do with excruciating predictability) the type of firearm used, or whether the First Amendment should protect hate speech, we fail to address the greatest danger of all, and the root cause of these crimes – social isolation.

Wherever you look in today’s society, examples of increasing social isolation are apparent. Many examples can be considered benign – digital customer support and kiosks for ordering everything from fast food to medications. Other examples are more sinister — children preferring online gaming with strangers to team sports with friends, or worse, adult men who prefer sex robots to actual human relationships.

The cumulative collateral effect of such social isolation is a growing detachment from other people; and, as we have seen recently, it can be deadly.

Many of us are fortunate to find and join social groups at work, school, or church to help keep us firmly grounded. But increasingly, many of our fellow humans do not, and have instead turned to the internet for a sense of worth and belonging, even a new personal identity.

Not surprisingly, both the San Diego and Christchurch killers belonged to the same internet message board; an online ecosystem with equal parts political extremism and internet machoism. Here, political incorrectness is lauded in proportion to the offensiveness of the statement. Before long, the hatred becomes less a joke than a conviction; a radicalization process encouraged along the way by nameless “friends” on the other side of the digital connection, who are similarly detached from the real faces they mock and on which they prey.

When the San Diego killer announced his murderous plan to his digital “community,” instead of dissuading him, those on the message board urged him to “get the high score” – sickening slang for the number of victims. This was his new “family,” and this was their form of love; just as it was for the Christchurch shooter and other recent mass murderers such as the Charleston killer.

Disturbing as it may be, this phenomenon will continue to worsen as cultural and social institutions increasingly are belittled and undermined. The two-parent nuclear family and the support it provides is becoming all too rare. Religious institutions constantly are under attack, with church membership at an all-time low. Greek Life at colleges is swiftly becoming a relic of the past as fraternities and sororities clash with the P.C. campus movement that declares any group activity encouraging bonding based on common ideals, be declared “discriminatory” and therefore banned.

Politically we operate now in a climate in which “punching” other people is the new norm, and even Members of Congress openly call for the stalking and harassment of opponents. No opportunity is passed up to ruin an opponent’s professional and personal life because of a political disagreement. Laws are debated, enacted, and then glorified — such as in New York and Virginia — according to which newborn babies can be left to die after birth. Clearly, nothing that debases life or values is beyond the pale.

And still, in such a depraved and forlorn environment, we somehow seem surprised when an internet junkie carries out in real life what he and his faceless cohorts practice daily on their laptops computers.

May 2, 2019 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr

Offering unfair advantage to satellite providers

by Liberty Guard Author April 29, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

The Washington Times

by Bob Barr

The world is changing, and in the “Internet Age” the pace of change is relentless. Examples abound of victims of such change.

Kodak — the company that less than a generation ago was the world leader in providing film for the ubiquitous 35mm cameras around the necks of tourists from San Francisco to Cairo — is a pale shadow of its former self. Landline telephone companies that for over a century provided the primary communications link for families through two world wars, the Great Depression and the advent of the Space Age, is today a virtual technology dinosaur.

The means by which virtually every American home receives television services is not immune from such change. The new kids on the block — streaming video services offered by Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Video, soon Disney, and many others — already are pulling serious numbers of customers from the established providers of paid TV services: Cable and satellite TV.

Instead of letting this expanding market thrive, Congress is instead considering renewing a 30-year-old, outdated and totally unnecessary law offering unfair advantage to satellite providers.

The initial legislative vehicle for this regulatory throwback was passed by Congress in 1988 as the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), and is now titled the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR). Thirty years ago, the World Wide Web had not even been formally developed and made available to individuals and companies around the globe for mass use. At the time, a perhaps credible argument could be made that then-upstart satellite TV service providers needed a degree of help in competing against then well-entrenched cable providers.

In response, Congress passed legislation giving new satellite TV companies significantly discounted compulsory copyright licenses, enabling them to compete with the then-much larger cable providers.

Since its passage, this law has been reauthorized every five years, each time raising more and more questions about whether satellite companies that since had grown into industry giants still need the assistance. Now, three decades since the feds gave satellite TV a significant financial boost to compete with cable TV, STELAR is poised to continue that unlevel playing field. Satellite TV providers, especially giants DirecTV and Dish TV, now are multi-billion-dollar, profit-making enterprises in direct competition with cable providers licensed to operate in designated markets across the country.

A very real example of the problem created by STELAR’s benefit to satellite TV providers is that the law permits those companies to more cheaply import distant signals into local areas, instead of providing access to local broadcast affiliates. Lost in this scenario is local news programming that serves to keep citizens informed about municipal, regional and state governmental activities; even local weather reporting is unavailable to TV viewers in such areas. Bringing in distant signals instead of the local broadcast deprives those citizens of these important benefits.

Free-market advocates in the dozen markets across the country where satellite is allowed to import distant signals rather than provide local television, are urging Congress to let the outdated, unnecessary, and demonstrably unfair STELAR Act expire. But in Washington, D.C., where the strongest force in the universe remains the force of the status quo, any attempt to end an existing program, even one that no longer serves a useful purpose, is no easy task.

Reauthorization of STELAR would represent blatant crony capitalism — providing increased profits to the satellite TV providers, and resources with which to compete against the growing threat from streaming TV service providers; money and resources not available to cable companies.

Congress has a perfect opportunity to prove itself true to American free-market principles by simply allowing STELAR to gracefully expire; which, by the way, was the original intent for such legislation three decades ago.

• Bob Barr is a former Republican U.S. representative from Georgia.

April 29, 2019 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr Liberty Updates

Bob Barr in FoxNews.com — Bob Barr: Trump shouldn’t be impeached, but Bill Clinton’s impeachment was justified – Here’s why

by Liberty Guard Author April 24, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

Bob Barr: Trump shouldn’t be impeached, but Bill Clinton’s impeachment was justified – Here’s why

FoxNews.com

Some House Democrats who are calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump on a charge of obstruction of justice claim that President Clinton was impeached in 1998 for far less serious misconduct. As a leader of the Clinton impeachment effort, I disagree.

I still believe the Clinton impeachment was justified. But based on what is now in the public record, I don’t believe a Trump impeachment is warranted.

Clinton, of course, remained in office after the House impeached him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice because the Senate acquitted him in a trial. Even if the Democratic-controlled House impeached President Trump, he would also likely stay in office after a Senate trial.

Impeachment simply means the House charges the president with serious misconduct it considers to be what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The phrase is not defined in the Constitution, and in a sense can mean whatever a simple majority in the House says it means.

However, there are two instances in which sitting presidents have been impeached – Andrew Johnson and Clinton – and one in which President Nixon almost certainly would have been impeached had he not first resigned. Looking at these cases gives us clear guidance that there needs to be a very substantial and substantive basis set forth on the record in order for the impeachment process to have the credibility it merits.

With Democrats in majority control of the House – holding 235 seats, compared to the 197 seats held by Republicans – odds are that the Democrats can impeach Trump if they want to.

Congressional Democrats opposed to President Trump have every right to vote against his legislative proposals, to challenge his actions in office with lawsuits, and to work to defeat him in the November 2020 election. But right now they don’t have grounds to impeach him.

But an impeached president can be removed from office only if 67 members of the 100-member Senate vote to convict him of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Since Democrats (and two independents aligned with them) hold only 47 seats in the Senate, the odds of them getting support from 20 Republican senators to tell Trump “you’re fired” seen insurmountable, based on what we know today.

In 1998, when I served in the House as a Republican representing a district in Georgia, I was one of the leaders of the successful effort to impeach President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.

I’m sure many Democrats would say my motives were purely partisan in the case of Democratic President Clinton, and my views are purely partisan in saying Republican President Trump should not be impeached. But that’s not the case.

For one thing, during my tenure as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990 (appointed to that post by President Reagan), I lead the prosecution of a sitting Republican congressman from Georgia for perjury. That’s right, the same offense for which Democrat Bill Clinton was impeached.

In the month since Attorney General William Barr (no relation to me) released his letter summarizing conclusions of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Russia’s interference in our 2016 presidential election, America has become a nation overflowing with self-proclaimed “experts” on the law of obstruction.

Not even during the height of the Clinton impeachment in December 1998 did the level of debate over what constitutes obstruction of justice reach the level of scrutiny and intensity currently on display across our country.

One important difference between allegations of obstruction against President Clinton and those now leveled against President Trump is paramount.

The case against Clinton was based on extensive and detailed evidence of explicit acts by the then-president, constituting a pattern of activity intended clearly to corruptly influence actual legal proceedings against him then underway.

In stark contrast, the “case” against Trump is based on evidence of disparate actions subject to clearly differing interpretations, but all relating to an allegation – collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to elect Trump – that Mueller determined is not fully and clearly supported by evidence.

As the redacted version of the Mueller report released last week by Barr stated: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government on its election interference activities.”

And of critical importance, there were no court cases taking place for Trump to obstruct. While Mueller and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York filed charges and obtained guilty pleas and convictions against some Trump associates, the crimes in those cases had nothing to do with election collusion with Russia – the legal focus of Mueller’s investigation.

A quick refresher course in the 1998 impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee is in order to show the differences with the calls today for the impeachment of President Trump.

The impetus of the hearings involving President Clinton was a report submitted to the House in September 1998 by the Office of Independent Counsel headed by former federal judge Ken Starr.

Starr was an independent counsel, operating under a different law (since expired) that gave him more independence from the Justice Department than Mueller had as a special counsel.

Independent Counsel Starr was required by law to submit his report to the House. In contrast, Special Counsel Mueller was required to submit his report to the attorney general. Both men complied with the different laws under which they were appointed.

The report on Clinton set forth in detail “substantial and credible evidence” – the criteria in the independent counsel law – that the then-president had committed 11 impeachable offenses, including instances in which he perjured himself and obstructed justice.

The House Judiciary Committee conducted extensive hearings on the charges against President Clinton, focusing on the federal laws of obstruction, how those laws had been interpreted over the years, and examination of numerous cases in which individuals had been convicted under circumstances similar to those involving Clinton.

The Judiciary Committee then approved a resolution stating that Clinton should be impeached on four articles, including ones alleging perjury and obstruction of justice. This resolution then went to the full House.

The context for the obstruction article of impeachment against President Clinton was a legal proceeding in federal court involving the sexual harassment case brought against Clinton by Paula Jones, in which former White House intern Monica Lewinsky was a witness.

The predicate evidence developed in the Judiciary Committee hearings, which included the detailed material in the Starr report, established clearly that Clinton had lied under oath and had engaged in a deliberate, intentional series of acts designed for one purpose only – to cover up his sexual relationship with Lewinsky and to corruptly influence her testimony against him.

As noted in the “Report of the Committee on the Judiciary” on the impeachment matter (submitted to the full House in December 1998), “although the actions of President Clinton do not have to rise to the level of violating the federal statute regarding obstruction of justice in order to justify impeachment, some if not all of his actions clearly do.”

These actions included, among many other detailed offenses: corruptly attempting to cause a witness against him (Lewinsky) to “execute a sworn affidavit … he knew to be perjurious, false, and misleading.”

The House Judiciary Committee hearings established as well, and also among other offenses, that Clinton “corruptly engaged in … a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil rights action brought against him.”

Contrast the extensive record of specific acts by President Clinton to corruptly influence ongoing legal proceedings in federal court (the Paula Jones case and the independent counsel grand jury proceedings), with the obstruction currently alleged to have been committed by President Trump.

All allegations of obstruction leveled at Trump arise from something far less legally substantive than the circumstance under which Clinton was impeached. There is no legal proceeding against Trump in which he has been alleged to have corruptly acted; there is only an investigation (of collusion with Russia) by Mueller that found nothing prosecutable against the current president.

Moreover, there are no civil proceedings targeting President Trump in which he is alleged to have corruptly acted, as existed in the 1998 case against President Clinton.

Clinton did far more than lash out at his tormentors, who included Starr. And Clinton’s actions went far beyond indirectly urging his tormentors to stop mistreating him and those in his administration. These allegations are the essence of the obstruction charges House Democrats now seek to advance against Trump.

I realize all this is complicated and may be hard to follow. But the bottom line is this President Clinton interfered in a judicial proceeding against himself, and President Trump did not. For this reason, Clinton deserved to be impeached but Trump does not.

The Founding Fathers deliberately made the impeachment process very difficult. They did not want impeachment used as a tool to enable Congress to easily remove the president over policy and political disagreements.

Former Rep. Bob Barr was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia from 1995 to 2003. He is now president of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

April 24, 2019 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr Liberty Updates

Bob Barr in the Daily Caller — Major League Baseball’s Agreement With Cuba Deserves Trump’s Approval

by Liberty Guard Author April 24, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

Major League Baseball’s Agreement With Cuba Deserves Trump’s Approval
The Daily Caller
By Bob Barr

April 22, 2019

The expression “cut off your nose to spite your face” has been in use for centuries. I’m not sure it translates easily into Spanish, but it reflects accurately what the Trump administration did earlier this month in nixing a pending agreement between Major League Baseball (“MLB”) and its Cuban counterpart (the “FCB”).

The MLB had spent years hashing out an agreement with the FCB that would establish a lawful and workable process by which Cuban ballplayers could be scouted in Cuba by U.S. major league teams, and then signed to gainful contracts.

The proposed deal would have freed Cuban players from having to rely — as they now must — on dealing with smugglers and unscrupulous agents in order to secure passage out of their home country and into the United States in order to participate in “America’s pastime.” This is because under the existing embargo rules governing U.S.-Cuba relations, players in that country cannot negotiate as free agents while still in Cuba. Thus, these players, including many eagerly sought-after by MLB scouts, have to find surreptitious (and dangerous) ways to leave their island nation; evading the many obstacles placed in their way by the Cuban government.

The Dec. 19 agreement would have solved those problems, and by every reasonable standard would have been a win for players, MLB teams, and baseball fans. Importantly, the MLB made sure the proposed agreement was vetted through the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). This is the agency charged with ensuring that no U.S. national security interests are compromised in arrangements between American and foreign entities.

OFAC in fact had given the official green light to the MLC-FCB deal, and everything pointed toward a favorable outcome. Cuban-born White Sox First Baseman Jose Abreu best summed it up with this statement: “Knowing that the next generation of Cuban baseball players will not endure the unimaginable fate of past Cuban players is the realization of an impossible dream for all of us. Dealing with the exploitation of smugglers and unscrupulous agencies will finally come to an end for the Cuban baseball player.” His sentiments were echoed by MLB officials and many of the nearly two dozen other Cuban-born players currently on the MLB active roster.

Despite MLB negotiators having successfully dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” in reaching the hard-fought agreement, however, individuals who consider any accommodation with Cuba or Cubans as a moral betrayal, apparently succeeded in convincing the Trump administration to axe the deal. Florida Senator Marco Rubio labeled the deal “immoral” and “illegal,” notwithstanding that it had been arrived at transparently and in accord with the federal agency charged with ensuring such agreements are legal.
Another Cuban hardliner, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official now serving as Trump’s Special Representative for Venezuela, publicly slammed the deal in an opinion piece shortly after it was announced. In perhaps the strangest argument against the MLB-FCB agreement, National Security Adviser John Bolton reportedly concluded it should be nixed because it would benefit Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, even though it had no direct or indirect relationship with or impact in that country.

Despite the fact that OFAC expressly determined that the Cuban Baseball Federation is not an arm of the Cuban government, these hardliners continue to beat the drum that the Havana regime would improperly benefit financially from the agreement, simply because the CFB would receive a percentage fee from any contract signed by a Cuban player with a major league team in the U.S. (Such fee arrangements are identical to those in similar agreements between the MLB and its counterparts in Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan.)

With overall attendance at MLB games slumping (dropping last year below 70 million for the first time in over 15 years) — caused partly by witnessing “some really bad baseball,” in the view of sportswriter Maury Brown — bringing in a group of young, exciting players from Cuba could provide a much-needed shot in the arm for the franchises (including for the Miami Marlins, whose attendance drop has been among the most pronounced).
More broadly, it is worth noting there already are numerous U.S. business interests that benefit from government-sanctioned economic arrangements with Cuba; including airlines, cruise lines, travel agencies and money-wiring services. Denying such benefit to individual Cuban baseball players and their families, and to the MLB teams for which they seek to play, based on misplaced notions of morality or national security, is indefensible on any legitimate grounds. The decision nixing the MLB-FCB agreement needs to be reversed.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr<http://www.twitter.com/BobBarr>) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

April 24, 2019 0 comment

Blog

Trump shouldn’t be impeached, but Bill Clinton’s impeachment was justified – Here’s why

by Liberty Guard Author April 24, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

FoxNews.com

by Bob Barr

I still believe the Clinton impeachment was justified. But based on what is now in the public record, I don’t believe a Trump impeachment is warranted.

With Democrats in majority control of the House – holding 235 seats, compared to the 197 seats held by Republicans – odds are that the Democrats can impeach Trump if they want to.

Congressional Democrats opposed to President Trump have every right to vote against his legislative proposals, to challenge his actions in office with lawsuits, and to work to defeat him in the November 2020 election. But right now they don’t have grounds to impeach him.

One important difference between allegations of obstruction against President Clinton and those now leveled against President Trump is paramount.

A quick refresher course in the 1998 impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee is in order to show the differences with the calls today for the impeachment of President Trump.

The impetus of the hearings involving President Clinton was a report submitted to the House in September 1998 by the Office of Independent Counsel headed by former federal judge Ken Starr.

Starr was an independent counsel, operating under a different law (since expired) that gave him more independence from the Justice Department than Mueller had as a special counsel.

Moreover, there are no civil proceedings targeting President Trump in which he is alleged to have corruptly acted, as existed in the 1998 case against President Clinton.

Former Rep. Bob Barr was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia from 1995 to 2003. He is now president of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

April 24, 2019 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr Liberty Updates

Maria Butina — More Maxwell Smart than James Bond

by Liberty Guard Author April 24, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

Townhall.com

Bob Barr

The Cold War years of the 1960s gave rise to two very different cinematic characterizations of spies – the debonair but ruthless James Bond (aka “Agent 007”), and the bumbling but likeable Maxwell Smart (aka “Agent 86”). Now, half a century later, the federal government has jailed 30-year old Maria Butina as a Russian spy and has asserted that her secretive actions posed a serious threat to our nation’s security. The reality, however, is that Butina’s activities fit far more easily into an episode of Get Smart than as a serious espionage case.

During her time as both a visitor and a student in the U.S. from 2015 until her arrest and indictment last year, Butina attended numerous political events while maintaining contacts with officials in her home country. The Department of Justice appropriately has alleged that acting in this manner, Butina violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by failing to register thereunder. She ultimately was pressured into pleading guilty to conspiring to violate that statute.

In spite of being arrested and held in solitary confinement for what essentially constitutes an administrative offense, Butina’s biggest mistake appears to be that her activities and her paperwork omission placed her squarely within the ongoing narrative of Russian collusion.

The Sentencing Memorandum filed last week by the Justice Department, for example, concedes that Butina is neither “a spy in the traditional sense” nor a “trained intelligence officer.” The government instead asserts that Butina conspired to use “connections” developed during her sojourn in the United States to create “backchannel communications” to the Russian government. Characterizing all this as a serious espionage conspiracy, however, is somewhat of a stretch.

The crux of the government’s case surrounds Butina’s attempts to pass “key information about Americans who were in a position to influence United States politics” back to a contact in the Russian government, for “the benefit of the Russian Federation.” In fact, this supposed “key information” amounted to little more than cobbling together lists of known or supposed Trump campaign advisors and other purported policy influencers; and suggesting how they might be persuaded to look favorably on Russia.

As an “influencer,” Butina failed miserably time and again. Promised meetings between her U.S. “contacts” and Russian officials never seemed to materialize, nor did Butina ever gain access to any real insider information. In one noteworthy instance, Butina tried to use the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast to arrange a meeting between Trump and a group of visiting Russian officials. The meeting never took place of course, because as anyone even vaguely familiar with that event knows, the Prayer Breakfast has never been a forum for political pow-wows; especially between the President of the United States and foreign individuals unknown to him.

The Prayer Breakfast incident is just one of many naïve plans described in the government’s court filings that allegedly were concocted by Butina and designed to ingratiate herself with officials in her home country, and also to secure for herself a paying job.

Despite the government’s effort to present Butina as a formidable foreign agent whose actions harmed our national security, the most it could charge her with is failing to file a form with the Justice Department declaring herself to be an agent for the Russian government. Consistent with that judgment of Butina as a major player in an international espionage plot, government lawyers have asked the court to impose a two-year jail term; a sentence unusually stiff for what amounts to an administrative filing offense.

It is noteworthy that the crime of failing to file under FARA is not even listed in the federal Sentencing Guidelines — the compendium of federal criminal offenses designed to guide judges in imposing fair and consistent sentences.

The government asserts that the activities in which Butina engaged –attending various political meetings and rallies (even one attended by then-candidate Trump in 2016) – posed a serious threat to our national security; a threat that would have been avoided if only Butina had registered under FARA. The argument that our country’s intelligence and counter-intelligence services were in the dark about Maria Butina solely because she failed to file a piece of paper announcing herself is not really one that can be made with a straight face.

The reasons why Butina simply is not deported on the next flight to Moscow lie not so much in the legal arena, as in the political and PR realm.

April 24, 2019 0 comment

Blog

Major League Baseball’s Agreement With Cuba Deserves Trump’s Approval

by Liberty Guard Author April 22, 2019

written by Liberty Guard Author

The Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Another Cuban hardliner, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official now serving as Trump’s Special Representative for Venezuela, publicly slammed the deal in an opinion piece shortly after it was announced. In perhaps the strangest argument against the MLB-FCB agreement, National Security Adviser John Bolton reportedly concluded it should be nixed because it would benefit Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, even though it had no direct or indirect relationship with or impact in that country.

More broadly, it is worth noting there already are numerous U.S. business interests that benefit from government-sanctioned economic arrangements with Cuba; including airlines, cruise lines, travel agencies and money-wiring services. Denying such benefit to individual Cuban baseball players and their families, and to the MLB teams for which they seek to play, based on misplaced notions of morality or national security, is indefensible on any legitimate grounds. The decision nixing the MLB-FCB agreement needs to be reversed.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

April 22, 2019 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts

Liberty Guard Author

Liberty Guard Author

Bob Barr in The Daily Caller — How George Soros Is Remaking The Judicial System In His Image

In A Hero’s Funeral Is A Lesson For Us All

How George Soros Is Remaking The Judicial System In His Image

Cultural Depravity at Root of Mass Shootings

Bob Barr

Offering unfair advantage to satellite providers

Bob Barr in FoxNews.com — Bob Barr: Trump shouldn’t be impeached, but Bill Clinton’s impeachment was justified – Here’s why

Bob Barr in the Daily Caller — Major League Baseball’s Agreement With Cuba Deserves Trump’s Approval

Trump shouldn’t be impeached, but Bill Clinton’s impeachment was justified – Here’s why

Maria Butina — More Maxwell Smart than James Bond

Major League Baseball’s Agreement With Cuba Deserves Trump’s Approval

About Us

From The Desk of Bob Barr

Latest Videos

Get Liberty Guard Email Updates