From the Desk of Bob Barr

Townhall

by Bob Barr

I love Delta Airlines. It is my true hometown airline and I fly it regularly. If any passenger were to act in a way that endangers the flight, the crew, or other passengers, that person should be held accountable by Delta and by federal law if circumstances warrant. But, please, let’s not create another “No Fly” list.

Currently, the FBI maintains a classified “terror watchlist” containing the names and information for thousands of individuals the government believes pose a potential terror threat.

There is the TSA’s “No-Fly List” that determines who is allowed to board a commercial airplane. The agency also maintains a Secondary Security Screening Selection (SSSS) list that assigns certain passengers for additional screening.

It is no secret that the federal government already maintains a number of “lists” that serve to prevent individuals whose names appear thereon from engaging in what otherwise would be constitutionally guaranteed activities, such as purchasing a firearm or travelling interstate (yes, this has been held by the Supreme Court to be a protected right). We simply do not need another list.

Not that long ago, the private sector maintained a healthy suspicion of government power, and its potential for abuse. The 9/11 terror attacks changed this dynamic significantly, with the private sector cooperating increasingly (and occasionally, unlawfully) with federal officials to achieve the shared goal of keeping America safe.

Today, however, the mentality that the public and private sectors are “partners” is commonplace, and often has less to do with the original intent of preventing terror attacks, and more to do with enlisting Uncle Sam and his federal agents to help private companies do their job (and vice versa).

In fact, running to the feds seems increasingly the default position of private sector leaders faced with policing behavior they find objectionable. Last October, for example, the National School Boards Association begged the Department of Justice to help it control angry parents who were showing up at school board meetings and voicing their objections to policies that affected their children.

In the ongoing COVID pandemic, social media companies use the federal government’s “facts” as unquestionable justification for banning users of their platforms.

Commercial air carriers such as Delta are right to be concerned about the rise in unruly, and at times violent behavior in airplane cabins as well as at airports. The behaviors with which airlines are concerned are but one manifestation of a deeply disturbing trend throughout many sectors of contemporary society, from schools to retail businesses, where disruptive behavior has become a first response to any real or perceived disagreement or “disrespect.”

Commercial air travel is a highly regulated industry, and its leaders must answer to several federal agencies, including the Transportation Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Justice. It is, therefore, important that airlines, including Delta, maintain a close and cooperative relationship with the feds, and to refer cases for federal prosecution whenever facts and circumstances warrant.

Delta and other commercial airline companies have every right to take steps necessary to prevent passengers from using their services if they engage in unruly or unlawful behavior. Airlines can even ban passengers from further flights if they present a real and continuing threat to airline safety.

Airlines must continue to be permitted to exercise broad powers to police passenger behavior, but creating an industry-wide, government-maintained list of “bad” passengers is not necessary, and itself raises serious constitutional issues.

Although sharing “banned-passenger” information between airlines may be considered by the airlines to be acceptable, mandating that every carrier enforce every other carrier’s bans, adds another constitutional wrinkle to the equation, and might itself run afoul of existing federal laws such as those preventing industry collusion.

Moreover, if either the airlines or the administration believes that existing air travel laws need to be in some way strengthened, they have every opportunity to make their case to the Congress. In fact, if the industry truly believes such legislative action is necessary to make the skies safer, they have a responsibility to do ask the Congress to act.

But going down the road of creating another “No Fly List” is neither a good nor a necessary option. It is one that the American people, and particularly those millions who travel regularly by air, should vigorously oppose.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

President Joe Biden left the safe confines of the Oval Office last week to visit New York City, which is suffering under a massive rise in major crimes — two young police officers were murdered there just days before.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

“Advantage Putin. No, advantage Biden. Clearly a stalemate.” The debate goes on and on in Washington, Moscow, Berlin, and elsewhere, in anticipation of an armed conflict between the former Soviet vassal state of Ukraine and its erstwhile mother state of Russia.

The “fog of war” is becoming denser with each passing day, even though no shot has yet been fired.

Assuredly, many people will die if there is in fact a war between Russia and Ukraine, although this “human factor” figures little in public policy debates. Of far greater interest to world leaders are the economic and geopolitical consequences of a potential war.

Ukraine occupies a position of some geographic and economic importance to Russia and to Europe (especially Germany). And, while not a member of NATO, Ukraine is a friend and ally to the organization and to its most important member – the United States.

Considering the stakes involved, it would be reasonable to presume that President Biden would be doing everything possible to avoid an armed conflict.

However, aside from Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s sincere and well-intentioned efforts to keep matters in that region on a diplomatic track, others in the Administration and on Capitol Hill, including Biden himself, appear hell-bent to push the situation towards a military resolution.

In recent days, Biden has pressed the issue directly in a phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart. Biden also has ordered U.S. troops in the region placed on high alert, and accelerated shipments of American military materiel to Ukraine.

What precisely is the vital national security interest that would justify direct or even heavy indirect U.S. military involvement in Ukraine, has never been clearly enunciated. Protecting the “freedom” of Ukrainian citizens and helping to ensure the survival of their “democracy,” while laudable goals, are hardly legitimate bases for U.S. military action, especially when confronting a major nuclear power and long-time adversary.

Brushing away all the dust on this Russia-Ukraine chessboard makes clear that the United States is faced with what retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Blaine D. Holt recently called, “an avoidable war.”

Putin may be a wily chess player, but his goals in the current Ukraine crisis are not particularly difficult to discern. Among other things, Putin seeks (as always) to prove his machismo (in this he is at least more open than other world leaders who pretend they are not doing the same thing).

Far more important, however, is Moscow’s tangible goals of preventing a NATO coalition member directly on Russia’s southwestern border. Equally important to Moscow is securing a “land bridge” from its territory north and east of Ukraine, through the largely pro-Russia “Donbas” region of Ukraine to Crimea and the Black Sea port of Sevastopol (which already is under Russian control).

U.S. foreign intelligence has a regrettable history, dating to Cold War era, of overestimating Russian military might, and we seem to be falling into the same trap today.

Despite his bluster and show of military force, Putin is playing with a relatively weak hand. Russia’s armed forces are good but not top-notch, although they far surpass Ukraine’s troop strength and armaments.

Important also is the fact that Russia’s economy is highly dependent on oil and natural gas exports, both of which would be severely disrupted by a war. Moreover, U.S.-led global financial sanctions would hit Russian oligarchs in their wallets, where it hurts; and this is the one group Putin must keep happy to remain in power.

America’s ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer has fueled the notion, undoubtedly shared by Putin, that the United States is weak. This perception, accurate or not, is dangerous, especially if Biden presses the “military button” as a way to prove otherwise, or as a means to shift attention away from his own corrupt dealings with Ukraine before he ascended to the presidency.

The bottom line is that Russia cannot really afford a war, especially one that likely would result in crippling economic sanctions, and likely lead to years of guerilla opposition from Ukrainian freedom fighters.

For the U.S. and Europe, there is little if any need to become involved militarily, considering there still are non-military moves to be played; options that allow Putin to save face, accomplish some of what he desires, and keep NATO whole (at least for now).

The ultimate loser if this “avoidable war” is not avoided, will be the unfortunate “fall guy” – Ukraine.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Any American driver who might occasionally like to put “pedal to the metal” on one of our nation’s many roadways had better take notice of provisions in the “infrastructure” bill signed into law recently by President Joe Biden.

In particular, freedom-loving motorists had best be aware of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s just unveiled Master Plan to pursue a target of “zero deaths” on America’s roadways. A key component of his plan is to blanket those roadways with speed cameras – technology controlled by government supposed to achieve a lofty, though unattainable goal.

The plan is, of course, based on the false premise that the Constitution provides the authority for the federal government to embark on a massive spending and control spree to eradicate all driving-related deaths on roadways across the nation, but who is going to nitpick constitutional principles when it comes to “saving lives?” Certainly not Buttigieg, or apparently anyone else in the Biden administration.

Another speed bump standing in Buttigieg’s way is that several states already outlaw speed cameras, and for good reason. In addition to their questionable safety benefits (some studies suggest they make roadways more rather than less dangerous), control and enforcement of such networks is often outsourced to non-government entities — companies that profit from each ticket sent out. These private companies do not have to worry directly about pesky due process, privacy and other constitutional rights that might stand in the way.

As for achieving traffic death “equity,” while Buttigieg argues speed cameras remove “racial profiling” from policing, he ignores studies that show speed cameras disproportionately hurt poor and minority citizens – a fact even Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot admitted.

It is unlikely that few, if any, of the 32 Republican members of Congress who voted for the massive, $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill bothered to read its myriad provisions or, making matters worse, considered the consequences of giving Uncle Sam money and power to do essentially whatever Washington desires to make U.S. roadways “safe.”

The obsession with “safety” and the fear of not falling in line appears to have blinded lawmakers to even basic, common sense concerns about what is constitutional or in the best interests of citizens.

Buttigieg’s just-released plan to federalize virtually all vehicle travel on U.S. roadways brought to my mind a visit I made to the United Kingdom in the late 1990s while a Member of Congress. When driving from London to Heathrow Airport, it was impossible to miss the endless string of automated speed cameras along the roadways. I distinctly recall commenting at the time to one of the other members traveling with me, “I’m glad we are living in the United States where a Constitution and a written Bill of Rights protect us against such abuse of power by the government.”

How times have changed.

It seems clear that Buttigieg intends to use the power he has been gifted in the “infrastructure” law to direct billions in federal highway funds to pet projects and left-wing interest groups as a way to prove his chops for a presidential run down the road. He knows that once those dollars start flowing recipient companies, states and local governments will do whatever they can to keep the spigot open.

So, with the “infrastructure” law laying the groundwork for such intrusive measures as shutting down cars being driven in a manner deemed “unsafe” by a government-designed algorithm and an interlocked national network of speed surveillance cameras, what might come next? Perhaps muting a vehicle’s audio system should the driver be listening to broadcasts the government believes to be “unsafe” or that conveys “misinformation,” such as a Joe Rogan’s podcast?

Stay tuned.

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

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The “modern” Olympic Games are no longer “Olympic.” They have, in recent decades, become as much about politics and money as about individual athletic excellence. It is time to either change them dramatically or just end them altogether.

The 1968 “Black Power” fists by two American athletes as they stood on the dais while our national anthem was played, opened to door to use of the Olympic venue for making controversial political statements. The door was thrown wide open a dozen years later when, in 1980, the United States led a 66-nation boycott of the Summer Games because the Carter Administration was upset with the Soviet Union’s military incursions in Afghanistan. (The predecessor 1976 games suffered a smaller, but still significant, boycott for other, unrelated political reasons.)

It’s been largely downhill since then.

Perhaps it should not be shocking that the Olympics have gone the way of sports generally. The same alliance of money and politics that has made U.S. professional sports increasingly difficult to watch, is endemic to the games and its governing body, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Television revenue is the fuel for modern Olympics, just as steroid abuse appears to fuel the bodies of many of its athletes.

The few weeks of each summer or winter competition have become so jam-packed with events as to make it nearly impossible to focus on the traditional “Olympic” events on which the Games historically were based. Regularly adding events like skateboarding may bring in a few younger viewers, but at the cost of further diluting the lasting significance of the Games.

The packed schedule makes coverage of events akin to riding in bumper cars, lurching from one stage to the next before the viewer knows what is taking place in the actual arena.

There is barely an effort made by U.S. networks to cover teams from other countries, which used to be one of the more interesting aspects of tuning in to the coverage. Were the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” hockey match between the underdog Americans and the highly favored Soviet team played today, it would likely be shown only as highlights cut-in to live coverage of the snowboard “half pipe.”

Outside of the arena, it is far worse. Countries already struggling economically are routinely scammed into picking up the tab for hosting the Olympics, with promises of tourism and long-term financial return that rarely, if ever materialize. And, when the games predictably come to illiberal countries like Russia and China, the latter of which is hosting this year’s Winter Games, the Olympics serve primarily as an open mic for their state propaganda.

For the sake of the future of the Games and the athletes, it is time to take the “games” out of the Olympics with a complete overhaul.

A good start would be to make Greece and Switzerland the permanent homes for the Summer and Winter Games, respectively. All participating nations would cover the costs of maintaining permanent facilities, and thereby remove much of the financial burden nations now assume in building new facilities every two years. An added bonus is that removing the “selection” process from the Games will knock the IOC’s ego down a few pegs.

Were Greece and Switzerland to agree to such an endeavor, it would remove much of the political gamesmanship that now so deeply permeates the Games. Moreover, both countries are, in general, liberal societies without track records of human rights abuse, civil liberties violations, and anti-Western governments – factors that have become recurring excuses for athletes and participating nations to further politicize the Games.

Significantly paring-back the number of competitions to those involving true athletic ability as opposed to the latest “athletic” fad, and requiring that athletes be allowed to compete only with others of their same “birth sex,” needs also to be part of these reforms.

If the IOC and its top supporting nations do not soon take corrective action in saving the games from being swallowed up by the same forces that have poisoned professional sports generally, the Olympics risk becoming just another narcissistic, over-commercialized and over-politicized event easy to ignore, on par with the NFL or the Oscars.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The Grand Old Party is at a major crossroads as it nears its 168th birthday. Former President Donald Trump is at a similar juncture as he nears his 76th. How these two traverse their intersecting crossroads will go a long way to determine whether Republicans will win major victories in this year’s congressional contests and whether they will recapture the White House in 2024.

At the moment, the disjointed and deteriorating relationship between Mr. Trump and some of the Party’s rising stars does not bode well for lasting GOP victories. This should not be the case.

Polling shows clearly that the American electorate is deeply frustrated and disappointed with the Biden presidency; to the extent even that voters are being pulled away from the Democrat Party and into the Republican orbit.

At the same time, a cadre of well-known and popular Republican governors are implementing positive public policies far more successfully than their Democrat counterparts.

In both houses of Congress, Republican leadership is successfully maintaining a united front in opposition to the socialist agendas being pressed by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Schumer.

Republicans should be clamoring to highlight the tremendous accomplishments of governors like Florida’s Ron DeSantis, Maryland’s Larry Hogan, and others. These state leaders represent a clear and positive antidote to the damage being inflicted on our country by the Biden Administration and its congressional cohorts.

So, what exactly is the problem for the GOP? In a word, the immediate past president.

Unlike Republican former presidents before him, who, after leaving office supported the Party, its leaders, and its candidates so as to strengthen the Party moving forward, Trump has shown no desire to fill the role of GOP “elder statesman” — a post from which he could provide a strong and positive voice fueling GOP momentum heading into November 2022 and 2024.

Instead, Trump appears to have voluntarily anchored himself to a circular 2020 election loop; occasionally stopping only long enough to attack other Republicans who he feels “betrayed” him. In one instance – Georgia – he has opined publicly that far-left Democrat Stacey Abrams would make a better governor than conservative incumbent GOP Gov. Brian Kemp; an absurd and destructive notion no matter the context.

Then there is Trump’s fracas with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Probably nobody except Trump has endured the level of abuse from the Mainstream Media as has DeSantis. Nevertheless, the Floridian’s steadfast leadership during COVID to keep Florida “open for business,” combined with his cool-as-a-cucumber demeanor in the face of media attacks, has made him an early — and deservedly credible — 2024 frontrunner.

Going after DeSantis now is akin to putting a stick in the spokes of one’s own bicycle. Although the latest kerfuffle comes from private comments leaked to the media, it is not the first shot Trump has taken at DeSantis in recent weeks. Such squabbles serve no end other than to possibly weaken DeSantis as a future presidential candidate, which in turn weakens the GOP.

If Trump’s true interests lie in helping the Republican Party and its future, a serious attitude adjustment is in order. To start, grievances Trump may harbor with other high profile GOP leaders should be sorted privately; public spats are especially harmful to Republicans this cycle, considering all that is on the line in the next three years.

Even better would be for Trump to stop fighting with the GOP’s crop of stars, and instead help guide them behind the scenes.

Trump should focus his public relations on all the good his administration accomplished — huge tax cuts, a booming economy, and a truly genius approach to finding a vaccine for COVID. Reminding the public of such wins would be immensely helpful for the GOP, which in turn can focus on its many and ongoing positive policy accomplishments — contrasted to the awful state of affairs wrought by the current administration.

Most importantly, the GOP must decide to openly support its governors and congressional leaders against baseless and errant attacks, regardless of who is making them, whether a Democrat or a former Republican president.

Failing to thus stand up for itself and for its own elected officials – the ones who now are actually implementing policies which the Grand Old Party historically has championed – is a weakness that will, in the end, hurt Republicans more than anything the Democrats might throw at it.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

In recent weeks, state governments across the country have begun prioritizing the issue of criminal justice reform, and at the federal level it is high time for Congress to return to this vital issue.

It has now been four years since Congress, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, passed the First Step Act — the most significant criminal justice reform in decades. While the legislation arguably did more than any other to get low-risk, nonviolent offenders back on their feet, even President Donald Trump acknowledged that the federal government still has more work to do in this matter.

The 50 states have similarly acknowledged as much. That is why states such as New York and Pennsylvania have made passing the Clean Slate Act a priority. This bill will expunge the records of certain low-risk, nonviolent offenders who have already completed their sentences, allowing them to better qualify for work, education, and housing opportunities.

While it is commendable to see so many states take action to reform their own criminal justice codes, as a former U.S. Attorney I know all too well that the federal government needs to do the same with the federal criminal code.

The Kyle Rittenhouse case provided the American people a glimpse into why reform on the state and federal levels needs to become a top priority.

Although much of the country, including most legal analysts, recognized that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, the politicized prosecutors in Wisconsin still invested heavily to see Rittenhouse put in jail.

Rittenhouse was lucky. Most defendants do not have the resources to fight prosecutorial abuse as aggressively as did Rittenhouse’s legal team. In most cases, especially at the federal level, prosecutors routinely pressure defendants with decades in prison if they do not accept offered plea deals.

While such plea agreements may allow those charged to avoid prison, they still are left with criminal records that stay with them for the remainder of their lives; denying them jobs, housing, even education. These records drastically limit their economic and rehabilitative opportunities, thereby increasing their chances of recidivism.

For the more than 70 million Americans that have committed nonviolent criminal offenses — from the struggling single mom who shoplifted from the grocery store to the young adult arrested for possession of marijuana — their long-term prospects are dire. It is not, and should not be a question of allowing these low-risk, nonviolent offenders to escape punishment, but rather whether they really need a criminal record for the rest of their lives because of a low-risk, nonviolent mistake made years before.

Congress apparently does not think so, which is why a consortium of members, including Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst and Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Guy Reschenthaler have introduced the Clean Slate Act at the federal level.

Akin to the many similar Clean Slate bills introduced in state legislatures, the federal version will expunge the records of certain low-risk, nonviolent offenders that have already served their time, allowing them to provide for their families, contribute to society and move on with their lives once again. Not every nonviolent offender will qualify, nor should they. Still, this legislation will allow millions of Americans who have paid for a past mistake to finally move on.

A bipartisan coalition of center-right and center-left groups, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for American Progress and the Faith and Freedom Coalition, have all endorsed this bill, and it is difficult to find anyone in vocal opposition to it.

When will congressional leaders, on either side of the aisle, call it up for a vote?

With 91% of Americans agreeing that the criminal justice system needs fixing, there is no reason for this issue to linger any longer. Pressure for these reforms needs to be pushed to the very top of the congressional food chain.

A weigh-in to leadership from some of Congress’ most notable criminal justice reform advocates — from John Cornyn, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and Rand Paul on the Republican side to Cory Booker and Dick Durbin on the Democratic side — could provide the necessary horsepower to expedite consideration of this important legislation, and help this and future generations of Americans get back on the right track.

It is a move long overdue.

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.