Liberty Guard Author

Democratic Party Has Become a Cartoon Version of Its Former Self
Townhall.com

There was a time long, long ago in which the national Democratic Party actually stood for something.  Real ideas.   Not necessarily good ideas, but substantive ideas nonetheless. The Party was led by men and women who actually articulated substantive programs. John Kennedy formulated meaningful tax policies, and launched America’s conquest of the Moon.  His successor, Lyndon Johnson, proposed and pushed through the Congress massive and far-reaching federal support programs that still are costing us today.  During the 1970s and into the 80s there were Democratic Members of the Congress who articulated well-considered social policies for welfare recipients and working families; New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan comes to mind.

But no more.  Today in the Democratic caucus, a substantive idea would land with an echoing thud on the floor and be quickly swept away; barely noticed amid the vitriol that consumes the nation’s senior national political party.

While Democrats nowadays prefer the moniker “Progressive” to “Liberal” as a descriptor for their Party and its members, there is nothing remotely progressive about this once proud political movement.  Today’s Democratic Party has become not only a hollowed-out shell of its former incarnation, but as revealed in just the past four months, now is a cartoon version of what it used to be.

In what previous era in the real world, for example, would a Senator sitting on that body’s Judiciary Committee, label himself “Spartacus” after a movie character, when posing a question to a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States?  New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker did precisely that; with a straight face, nonetheless.   In this Democratic Bizarro World, that very same Cory Booker is considered a serious contender for his Party’s 2020 nomination for President.

Want further evidence of the comedy that has overtaken the Democratic Party?   Another presidential wannabe – Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – has made the fact that she has the tiniest bit of Native American Indian blood in her DNA a key part of her self-proclaimed qualification to be that Party’s presidential nominee.

The piece de resistance for contemporary analysis of the bankruptcy of substantive ideas in the Democratic Party, however, is the freshman Congresswoman from New York City, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.  This new Media Darling continues to amaze with displays of how vacuous her knowledge of history, economics, civics, and mathematics truly is.

While some here in my home state of Georgia, or in one of our neighboring states, might forgive young Ms. Ocasio-Cortez with a kind “Bless her heart,” due to her youth and inexperience, the Congresswoman’s shallowness is shared by others of her Party who are not so youthful or inexperienced.  Shouts to impeach President Trump based on nothing more than disdain, if not hatred, for him personally or for other members of his family, bounce around the House chamber like children shouting at each other during a game of “Marco Polo.”

The most telling evidence that today’s national Democratic Party lacks even a scintilla of substance is perhaps not so much in the childish antics of a Maxine Waters or an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez; or even in the already-tiresome calls for investigations of anything and everything “Trump.”  The proof that the Party is utterly devoid of substance or professionalism can be seen every day in the open failure of its leaders to take even the most modest of steps to rein in such antics.

Whereas in decades past when the Democratic Party controlled the levers of power in the House or the Senate, leaders like Tip O’Neill would demand at least some level of decorum and decency from its membership.  Today, neither Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer dares to – or cares to – step in and insist on even a nominal degree of professionalism.  In such an environment, it is then hardly surprising that another freshman Congresswoman proudly uses the foulest of language in public to describe the President of the United States and receives nary the slightest rebuke from Speaker Pelosi.

Perhaps the saddest take-away from an examination of this scenario – in which the Democratic Party appears to revel in its lack of substance and decorum – is the lack of a substantive policy response from the other side of the aisle.   While we all should be thankful that the GOP congressional leadership and members do not stoop to the disgusting level of profanity to which their Democrat counterparts have sunk; it is distressing that the lack of coherent, substantive policy in our Nation’s Capital continues to be a bipartisan problem.

Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’

Townhall.com

1/2/2019 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”  Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.”  In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”

Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.

Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.

In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch.  This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.

By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire country; not to the Legislative Branch.
Conversely, and in another important principle incorporated into the Constitution, Members of the Legislative Branch (the two Houses of Congress) neither answer to nor are to be controlled by the President.  Rather, each Member of Congress (whether Representative or Senator) is to reflect and be answerable to the constituents of his or her district or state; not to the President. While those interests may from time to time coincide, U.S. Representatives and Senators are not serving in that august institution merely to do a president’s bidding.

So, what has changed (other than a profound ignorance of the principles undergirding our constitutional form of government)?  Why do Republican Members of Congress by and large consider it their bounden duty to use their powers and responsibilities to do the bidding of a president simply because the person occupying that office is of the same political party as are they?  Similarly, why do Democrats operate in the same mode when the White House is occupied by a person with a “D” after their name?

In a word, what has turned our political structure on its head, is the one thing our Founding Fathers disdained and warned us about – party politics.  Especially in the closed, two-party system that has constrained politics in America for more than a century and a half, the primary allegiance deemed important to the vast majority of Representatives and Senators now serving, is to the President who happens to be of their same political party.  If the president is a Republican, the congressional leaders of that party consider it their obligation to employ their powers to enact his agenda; and failure to toe that line is considered cause for punishment.  The Democrats operate in just the same manner.

Thus have the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches become muddled, if not largely erased; and most Members of Congress now rarely assert a voice or an agenda independent from that of the president.  Members not of the president’s party consider it their primary responsibility to oppose the Administration’s agenda; those who share the president’s political affiliation view it as their almost sacred responsibility to do whatever they can to support the agenda of “their” president.

The current battle between the Congress and President Trump regarding “the wall” is but the most recent example of how far we have drifted from the principle of a Congress as not only a “co-equal” branch of government, but an independent one.  Republicans assert that they and their fellow GOP members “must” support the wall simply because President Trump demands it and made it a signature issue of his 2016 campaign.  Democrats adamantly oppose the “wall” and anything else Trump advocates, because he is not of their party and based on the fact he desires it.

What is at stake here is not “the wall” or any other specific program championed by this president or one of his predecessors.  What has been lost – and is an ingredient vital for the proper functioning of our country’s government for the benefit of the citizenry – is a Legislative Branch fueled by independent regard for ideas and principles rather than blind loyalty to a political party.

A Regulatory State Christmas Miracle
Townhall.com

12/26/2018 9:30:00 AM – Bob Barr

Assets at the National Security Agency have intercepted extensive email and internet chatter from sources within the United States and abroad regarding an alleged birth of a special child in a rural farm just yesterday, December 25th, almost certainly a small town known as “Bethlehem” in Pennsylvania. Due to the apparently unique circumstances of the birth, and the potential security threat of a child rumored to be the start of a social movement undermining the role of government as the people’s exclusive moral compass, we request permission to place federal and state security assets on high alert.

Federal officials were first alerted to a potential disturbance when an abnormally bright star was spotted in the sky in the vicinity of Bethlehem. Teams at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported normal atmospheric conditions at the time. However, over the last 24-hours, research teams at both agencies are now speculating that global warming may have caused this unusual phenomenon.

Drone surveillance has permitted us real-time gathering of evidence in our effort pinpoint the exact location and circumstances of the alleged miraculous birth.

A confidential informant sent to the location has informed us of a shocking situation on the ground. It is said that the child was born in a barn, surrounded by various livestock, without the aid of medical doctors, other care givers, certified midwives, or even a licensed doula. We have therefore sought the assistance of the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, as well as inspectors at the Food and Drug Administration, to determine the full extent of federal health and agriculture regulations that likely have been violated. As a preventive safety measure, we suggest all livestock present be seized, quarantined, and tested.

Preliminary reports from HHS officials on the ground indicate that numerous federal and international health and safety regulations already have been violated broken or ignored during this occurrence. Officials within HHS, of course, have noted that so-called “unforeseen circumstances and conditions” are no excuse for citizens to ignore federal health and safety mandates. You should know also that HHS officials will attempt to ensure the birth parents are provided full information on enrolling in the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” in order to minimize the chances for a recurrence of what appears a most unfortunate unregulated birth.

Representatives from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration also have been dispatched to the area so as to ensure all occupational safety regulations are upheld, given the birth is said to have occurred on what appears to be a commercial farm. We are certain that at the very least, poor lighting and ventilation in the barn may be placing everyone’s health and safety at immediate risk.

Moreover, despite numerous hotels being located in the vicinity of the alleged birth, it appears the parents were denied accommodation. This raises the possibility, if not likelihood, that public accommodation laws have been violated. This information will, of course, be passed to the lawyers at the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.

We are monitoring additional chatter regarding reports of at least three “wise men” said to be moving towards the scene in Bethlehem, in possession of lavish gifts for the child. Their identities are uncertain; therefore we have instructed local police that, upon contact with the suspects, they are to employ civil asset forfeiture powers to seize the gifts until the Internal Revenue Service is able to conduct a full investigation to determine that these individuals are in compliance with all relevant IRS rules for gift-giving, and have not purchased the alleged gifts with unreported income.

Finally, it is our preliminary recommendation that we contact local Child Welfare Services to prepare to have the newborn child placed into the custody of the State. It is our firm belief that a prompt and multi-faceted response to this incident will send a very clear message that this Administration will not tolerate willful violation of public health and safety mandates. However, considering the recent successes enjoyed by civilian entities in securing court injunctions against Executive Branch actions, we recommend plans be initiated to ensure the Department of Justice is fully prepared to defend our actions in court.

Mr. President, we will update you regularly as more information becomes available regarding this highly unusual and disturbing breach of regulatory norms.

Townhall.com
DECEMBER 19, 2018

Federal Election Law “Gotcha!”
Bob Barr

12/19/2018 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

Rather than jump into the media-led free-for-all clamoring for President Trump to be indicted or impeached (or both) based on the latest court filing by Special Counsel Mueller or the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, let’s step back for just a moment.  It might behoove all sides to  consider matters as weighty as these, by at least glancing at relevant historical and legal precedents. In so doing, two cases come readily to mind: the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton and the 2012 prosecution of former Sen. John Edwards.  Such a review would urge caution, rather than the headlong rush to judgment that appears as the default to which so many in the media and political arenas are today drawn.

While a Member of the House of Representatives in 1997, I introduced the first formal resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to inquire into whether there were grounds for impeachment against Clinton.  This move followed mounting evidence that his Administration had violated a number of federal laws, including most importantly, those designed to protect against foreign government contributions to a U.S. presidential campaign, and guarding against disclosure of national security-related technology to a foreign government.

Late the following year, after extensive hearings by the Committee and a vote by the full House, Clinton was impeached on two counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.  While these articles of impeachment were unrelated to those that precipitated my initial inquiry, they nonetheless were based on solid evidence establishing the elements of well-known federal criminal laws – perjury and obstruction.

Rather than trying to manufacture trumped-up charges of wrongdoing to make a bigger splash in the media, the Judiciary Committee focused on proving specific charges; supported on the record with clear evidence from expert witnesses, experienced prosecutors, and even former federal employees convicted for the same crimes.

The Committee did not simply throw a handful of spurious charges against the wall hoping some might stick.   Sure, charges of obstruction of justice and perjury lack the panache of “Russian collusion,” or the tabloid drama of hush money paid to adult porn stars. But by focusing on precise violations of specific laws that were commonly used and widely understood, the House constructed a successful case against Clinton leading to only the second impeachment of a sitting president in American history.

Now, two decades later, we are dealing with salacious charges against a former “fixer” for Donald Trump, and scattershot charges against former Trump associates like Paul Manafort that have little, if anything, to do with the President.  While these may be high-octane fuel for television drama and tabloid exploitation, they lack the clear and carefully crafted prosecutorial decision-making that formed the foundation for the “Starr Report” and the subsequent impeachment of Clinton.

The course now being followed by those now investigating Trump most probably also will end as did the 2012 prosecution of John Edwards; in an embarrassing failure.

Many of Trump’s accusers (like those who went after Edwards) are basing their case on alleged violations of federal campaign financing law which, unlike the well-understood and time-tested nature of crimes such as perjury and obstruction of justice, are a convoluted mess.

It is one thing to levy a civil fine against a federal campaign for violating a reporting requirement hidden within the labyrinth federal campaign finance laws.  Building a criminal prosecution or an impeachment of a sitting President for such a violation, however, is perhaps only slightly easier than constructing a house on a foundation of quicksand. This is exactly what prosecutors discovered at the end of the day six years ago in the Edwards prosecution. Fitting the round peg of personal hush payments by Edwards to a former mistress, into the square hole of federal campaign law violations, did not convince a jury then; and nothing since is likely to have changed this calculation.

That federal jury six years ago did not acquit Edwards because they misapplied federal campaign laws.  They found him not guilty because federal campaign laws were not then and are not now intended to or designed to criminalize such personal behavior, no matter how distasteful.

The Edwards case illustrates the inherent shortcomings of federal election laws when used to punish “bad behavior.” The handwriting was on the wall for anyone who cared to study the genesis of our modern federal election financing laws in 1975 – a response to the corrupt 1972 Nixon reelection campaign; in which huge amounts of money flowed surreptitiously into the campaign, and suspicious appointments flowed out.

The Federal Election Commission’s clearly defined and intended purpose was to bolster confidence in our country’s electoral process by setting campaign donation limits and requiring transparency; not to police “bad” or immoral behavior.

Efforts to punish Trump with the hammer of convoluted election laws not intended to be used in such a matter or manner, illustrates just one of the many challenges prosecutors would face in pursuing Trump with criminal charges; or by Members of Congress pressing impeachment.   Both their time would be far better spent pursuing issues of real and relevant substance to the American people.   Special Counsel Mueller could begin that course correction by quickly wrapping up his open-ended investigation that already has gone on far too long.

Pelosi and Schumer Should Take a Lesson from Bill Clinton
The Daily Caller
By Bob Barr

As much as the media obsesses over President Trump, and as much as he exhibits to the media the behavior they love to hate, it is amazing how little the media remembers.

The latest flap over immigration policy, and especially the televised Oval Office meeting just last Tuesday with soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi and still-Senate Minority Leader Schumer, has the left and its media darlings all in a tizzy.

The fact is, the episode and its aftermath are vintage Trump – pure stagecraft. And anything the president said at that meeting had a shelf life of precisely one news cycle.

The White House meeting was orchestrated by Trump not to announce new substantive policy or signal a major change in policy. Trump has been railing about building the wall since long before he was elected in 2016.
His base continues to support him on that issue, and he knows this. He also must know the polling on the question of whether to build a wall has remained relatively constant over the course of his presidency and does not spike or crater depending on what he says. It’s all about negotiating. Think Bill Clinton.

Even more important than Trump’s oft-demonstrated ability to control the news cycle, is his notorious habit of maneuvering his adversaries into chasing critters down rabbit holes. This is simply a ploy to then strengthen his own bargaining position by appearing to back away from one of those red herrings.

The bottom line for this president is that virtually everything is negotiable, including “the wall.” Well, not the wall itself, but any aspect of it, including the funding amount and the timetable.

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer returned to Capitol Hill after meeting with Trump the other day and told their colleagues that they had reached a complete dead end with the administration, neither one of them deserves the mantle of Democrat leader. What Trump was telling them, in reality, is: “I’ve made my latest offer; now give me yours and we’ll negotiate.”

For Democrats, if they fail to see things this way, they will be missing a golden opportunity to get something from Trump in return for some sort of compromise on funding for the wall.

With a number of important appropriations measure still awaiting final action by the Congress – bills that always are vessels into which both sides can pour goodies for their constituencies – Pelosi and Schumer surely can enunciate a list of items to include that are of value to their team.

Moreover, despite Trump’s boastful comments about relishing a “government shutdown,” Trump realizes such a move is not really in anyone’s long-term interests, notwithstanding short-term kudos with which his hard-core supporters would shower him.

Here again, Democrats should learn to look beyond the moment’s rhetoric. Bill Clinton was a master at this and tied the Republicans up in knots during the so-called “shutdown” in late 1995 and early 1996.

But after the mini-crisis blew over, Clinton and the congressional Republicans (led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich) better understood each other. Both parties learned to play to their base but in a constructive way, and within a year-and-a-half, had passed historic welfare reform legislation and balanced the federal budget.

Both Pelosi and Schumer were in the House at that time, but right now, neither appears to have any recollection of how patience and negotiating skills cannot only strengthen one’s political base but accomplish real and substantive good for the country. Both leaders seem to be at least temporarily blinded by their perhaps understandable dislike for Trump or are feeling the heat from the more radical new members of their caucus.

If the Democratic leaders persist in concluding that there is nothing more to be gained by negotiating with Trump and by giving him some funding for the wall, they will have let slip through their fingers a real chance to help themselves and the country.

So what if they have to share the credit with Trump? Clinton and Gingrich both claimed credit for balancing the budget, and the country was better off for it.

To be sure, Trump will not be bought off by meaningless gestures regarding the wall. But if Pelosi and Schumer decide to play a smarter game than they thus far have, they will strengthen themselves for future negotiations with Trump, and at the same time will have tamped down some of the more radical elements nipping at their heels. Seems to be a win for them and for Trump.

Bob Barr 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.

New Jersey Assaults the First and Second Amendments

By Bob Barr

Townhall.com

Last week I wrote about a spate of bills in the New York State Senate, sponsored by a liberal Senator from Brooklyn, intending to squash gun ownership across the entire Empire State. On the other side of the Hudson, New Jersey politicians are upping the ante, with a measure signed into law last month that criminalizes speech. Not just any speech, mind you; but speech relating to the Second Amendment.

You can still rant in New Jersey about Donald Trump, or call conservatives any manner of vile names.  But, if you try to communicate online about certain firearms matters, Bingo!  The “Garden State” authorities will come after you for daring to provide instructions for readers to learn how to print plans for a 3-D firearm. This is not about criminalizing the possession of such an instrument (New Jersey competes with its older brother in making it extremely difficult to legally own a firearm at all).  The new law makes it illegal to even communicate how to print one.

Insidiously, New Jersey political leaders, whose fear of the right to keep and bear arms knows no bounds, have constructed this latest Second Amendment speech infringement in such a way that it effectively makes it unlawful for anyone to place such plans online anywhere, not just in their state.  What prompted this draconian measure?  One small company — Defense Distributed, a non-profit defense firm based not in Newark or Jersey City, but in Austin, Texas.  Defense Distributed had the audacity to provide instructions for individuals who want to try their hand at printing a 3-D firearm to do so.

There is, of course, more to what New Jersey is doing beyond just banning the communication of the firearm plans themselves.  As in New York, which is moving to force gun purchasers and owners to give law enforcement unfettered access to all their social media and internet searches in return for the “privilege” of possessing a firearm, the broader purpose is to chill people from even considering owning or purchasing firearms in the first place.

If New Jersey had simply banned the manufacture of 3-D printed firearms within its borders, it would be another kneejerk reaction typical of most any liberal state legislature, but would likely — and unfortunately — survive a court challenge. However, by going a step further and banning the “facilitation” of manufacturing such a firearm by making it illegal to “distribute by any means, including the Internet, plans on how to print a 3-D gun to a person in New Jersey,” the law crosses the line into First Amendment territory.

This new tactic, if permitted to stand, lays the groundwork for a state to criminalize everything from engineering books detailing the process of the 3-D printing of firearms for educational purposes, to hosting digital copies of 3-D printed gun designs regardless of where they are in the world, if someone from New Jersey has any way whatsoever to access them.  It will then be a small step to banning the transmission of plans for any firearms-related actions.

Even in today’s society where the interpretation of “interstate commerce” has been stretched by government to afford it the right to regulate virtually any product or activity in which an individual might engage, this law reaches new heights of unconstitutional behavior.  And our federal Courts, which are supposed to be the constitutional failsafe by which citizens are protected against unconstitutional acts by government, have failed to lift a finger to help. It seems that while federal district courts are all too happy to jump in and issue nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump from implementing federal policies with which they disagree politically, when it comes to stopping favored but nonetheless unconstitutional acts by state governments, federal jurists are content to sit idly on the sidelines.

Ironically, it was this year that the state of New Jersey won a Supreme Court case against a law passed by the U.S. Congress banning sports betting online. New Jersey, then, was an aggressive champion for free Internet speech.  But now, mere months later, it has changed its tune.  The state’s former free-speech advocates have morphed into Nanny State Internet censors.  Their justification for such blatant hypocrisy?  The tried and true, go-to justification for virtually all Second Amendment-limiting state action: “public safety”; which trumps not only “individual safety” but every other constitutionally-guaranteed right in today’s world.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will at long last step in and undergird the Second Amendment with the same degree of authority as it has its sister provisions in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps this outrageous action by New Jersey, which locks the First and Second Amendment in a single challenge, will be that case.  In light of recent actions by the High Court, however, I will not be holding my breath.