From the Desk of Bob Barr

Townhall

For more than a decade, China has been carefully and strategically making commercial, diplomatic, and even military inroads in Latin America and the Caribbean. Now, Beijing reportedly is building a military facility on the northern coast of Cuba, less than 100 miles from the United States. Our response has been less than impressive.

It is not as if Beijing’s multi-pronged strategy to increase its presence in the Western Hemisphere has escaped Washington’s attention. Even in the late 1990s, I and several other Members of Congress expressed concern that Chinese companies (all of which ultimately answer to the governing Chinese Communist Party) were establishing commercial beachheads at both entrances to the Panama Canal, just as Panama gained control of the strategic waterway pursuant to the treaty signed with the Carter Administration in 1977. Our concerns fell on deaf ears.

In 2018, a smiling President Xi Jinping was photographed next to Panama’s president, alongside the Panama Canal.

Chinese trade with countries in the region has soared in recent years, ballooning from $180 billion in 2002 to $450 billion last year. China’s investments have included everything from mining and agriculture projects to infrastructure and communications technology that has surveillance capabilities.

China’s diplomatic gains in the region have been no less significant, with Paraguay the only South American country that still recognizes Taiwan.

Even in the Bahamas, a one-hour flight from Miami, China’s presence is far larger than ours. Not coincidentally, the U.S. Navy maintains a major test and training facility in the Bahamas.

While there is little the United States can do to directly thwart China’s commercial and diplomatic moves in the region, our failure to articulate and maintain anything approaching a coherent strategic policy for the Western Hemisphere in the decades since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, has made it easy for China to make inroads.

Moreover, the relations Beijing has established in the area can negatively impact our interests.

For example, two years ago a U.S. Coast Guard cutter was refused permission to dock at a facility in Argentina. Argentina has been a long-time ally of the United States, but now maintains strong political and economic ties with China.

Of far more immediate concern than the lengthening list of Chinese economic and political moves throughout the region, is Beijing’s growing presence in Cuba, a mere 90 miles from the southernmost tip of Florida.

President Obama giddily reestablished relations with Cuba in 2015, but appears to have secured nothing in return that might have provided some assurances that our adversaries, including China and Iran, would not be permitted to use the island nation for their own nefarious purposes.

In a move that reportedly started in 2019 but which now appears to be gathering speed, China is constructing a military facility on Cuba’s northern coastline; one that reportedly incorporates training and intelligence gathering capabilities.

U.S. military leaders, especially Army General Laura Richardson who heads the U.S. Southern Command, appear clearly to understand the gravity of these Chinese moves. In remarks during her 2021 Senate confirmation hearings, Richardson echoed her predecessor’s concerns, in telling Senators that China’s plans in the region are “very sophisticated” and clearly are designed to project “sustain[ed] military power.”

Unfortunately, the red flags raised by our own military leaders do not appear to have had a discernible impact on congressional leaders or the White House in terms of articulating any meaningful policy initiatives.

The Biden Administration does little more than repeatedly express “concern” about China’s burgeoning influence in the area.

Although some Members of Congress have raised red flags over China’s surveillance capabilities in Cuba, on the broader level little is happening on Capitol Hill. The Senate, for example, has failed even to pass a bill (S.1519, the “Western Hemisphere Security Strategy Act of 2023”) that would simply direct the Departments of State and Defense to develop a “multi-year strategy” for our “diplomatic and security” policies in the hemisphere.

Meanwhile, the GOP-led select committee charged with examining strategic competition with China appears more concerned with narrow, partisan issues than with understanding and proposing measures to counter China’s aggressive moves in our own backyard.

Mention has been made recently about the “Monroe Doctrine” as a possible tool with which to address the problem. It will, however, take far more than a policy articulated in 1823 designed to thwart further European colonization in the Western Hemisphere, to address the extremely serious threats now facing us in the region, especially from Communist China.

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

Daily Caller

Last week the Supreme Court declared President Biden’s plan to cancel $430 billion in student loan repayments unconstitutional. The President’s  response was to immediately announce that his Administration would find a way to circumvent the decision —  thereby further undermining respect for our courts and the judges who serve in them.

Indeed, the previous day the President dismissed another ruling by the Court, this one on affirmative action, by disdainfully calling the Supreme Court of the United States “not a normal court” and impliedly unworthy of respect.

It was no surprise, then, that the President’s challenge to the Court’s decisions prompted calls for those who would have had their debts wiped out by his plan, to simply refuse to make further payments. Who can blame them?

Long gone are the days when political leaders would respond to a court ruling with which they disagreed by stating, “we disagree with the court’s decision but will of course abide by it.” Former Vice President Al Gore’s respectful acceptance of the December 2000 Supreme Court decision awarding the presidency to his rival George W. Bush, today would earn him the sobriquet of “wimp” by his Democrat colleagues.

This latest round of disparaging judges and courts generally did not start with the current administration. Former President Trump was well-known for attacking judges who issued opinions with which he disagreed during his term in office.

Few, however, have gone so far as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), when he threatened Associate Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name in 2020 at a pro-abortion rally on the steps of the Supreme Court.

It is noteworthy also that Biden’s most recent disdainful response to the Supreme Court mirrors the aftermath of last year’s Supreme Court Bruen decision, which struck down New York’s century-old Sullivan Law that had made it virtually impossible for New Yorkers to lawfully carry handguns for self-defense.

In that instance, it was not Biden but Democrat New York Governor Kathy Hochul who blasted the Court’s decision and immediately urged the state legislature to pass new legislation directly and purposefully undermining the Bruen decision(which it quickly did).

In both of those instances, high government officials signaled directly and openly that decisions by the highest court in the land are not to be afforded respect or deference. Not only that, but such decisions are fair targets to be undercut by executive and legislative action when the holdings are not in accord with the liberal philosophy of its critics.

It therefore should come as no surprise that outside groups — whether those advocating against repayment of student loan obligations, or gun control organizations urging states to circumvent court decisions supporting the Second Amendment — are fostering similar disrespect for the rule of law.

While some of the published criticisms directed to the Court’s June 30th student loan decision are founded on legal arguments, others have been visceral, even stupid, in their analysis. One Twitter user, for example, declared that the decision was part of a plan to “uneducate young people.”

There actually exists an anti-student loan repayment organization, “Student Loan Justice,” whose director opined long before last week’s court decision that contractual student loans “ha[d] become weaponized.” 

The silliness of such individual responses aside, having high government officials, from governors to Members of Congress and sitting presidents openly disparaging our federal courts seriously undermines confidence in not only the court system but the government as a whole, regardless of the partisan political lens through which such institutions might be viewed.

To be sure, criticism of the Supreme Court, even by presidents as esteemed as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, is nothing new over the course of our nation’s history. However, with trust in the High Court already at a disturbingly low ebb, attacks such as those by Biden, Schumer, and Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) who declared it a “cesspool of corruption,” can be especially damaging to the public’s confidence in courts at all levels.

John Adams described the representative democracy he helped form as “a government of laws, and not of men.” If our political leaders fail to quickly reverse the trend of directly and openly undermining the courts and the judges who define the limits of those laws, our ongoing descent into systemic chaos will only accelerate.

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

Governments love to tax. It matters little if it is your local county commission looking to raise the millage rate on property taxes, or the federal government searching for new ways to tax income pursuant to the authority granted it by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution – the default for government is to increase revenue.

There may, however, be a bit of light at the end of the tax tunnel.

Predictably, of course, the Biden Administration and its cohorts on Capitol Hill and in lobbyist offices on the K Street Corridor remain adamantly opposed to any talk of tax “cuts.”

The cautious optimism many experts see on the tax horizon, is thanks to the reality that Republicans maintain majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and in state governorships and legislatures. Tax policies that are supportive of both families and businesses are reasons why states including my home state of Georgia attract jobs, while high-tax states such as California are losing both people and businesses.

Even at the international level, where President Biden two years ago embraced a G-7 plan for a global minimum tax of 15%, recent pushback by the GOP-controlled House has thrown a monkey wrench into Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s plan to move the United States closer to that competition-killing policy.

Few public policy issues define more clearly the divide between Democrats and Republicans than taxes, and thankfully the GOP by and large remains the party that understands if you reduce the tax burdens on individuals and on businesses that create jobs, sufficient funds will still flow into government coffers with which to provide essential services. Democrats, on the other hand, consider tax-cuts such as those implemented by former President Trump and which now are being implemented at the state level by many “Red State” governors, to be inherently “regressive” — a “worrisome trend” symptomatic of a “fever” that must be broken before it does more harm to the citizenry.

The degree to which Biden’s party abhors tax cuts was displayed starkly in 2021 when Senate Democrats included a provision in the President’s $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” that actually would have prohibited states from cutting taxes if they accepted funds made available through the Plan. This absurd restriction finally was struck down by the federal appellate courts early this year, but it serves to illustrate just how far Democrats will go in their drive to keep taxes high.

Meanwhile, Uncle Sam is being hoisted on his own petard. By pushing consumers to buy electric vehicles rather than gas-powered cars and trucks, fuel tax revenues have dropped noticeably. This has caused Biden and several states to turn their greedy eyes at taxing vehicles based on miles driven rather than the amount of gas purchased at the pump.

Biden’s predilection for a gas mileage tax was evident in his 2022 infrastructure spending bill, which included $125 million for a pilot program. As gas tax revenues diminish, the lure of increased taxes that could be reaped by way of a mileage tax is becoming ever more desirable

Speaking of taxes, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case in its 2023-24 term that may determine whether it is constitutionally permissible for the IRS to continue taxing unrealized gains on investments. In other words, whether the government can force an individual to pay taxes on income based solely on profits earned by a company in which an individual has invested but never themself received any income.

A professor at Chapman University has noted that this tax case, which will test the limits of the federal government’s 16th Amendment power to tax income, is the most important to be decided by the High Court in a century.

If the Supreme Court in fact places such a common sense limit on the reach of the government’s power to tax income; if the House continues to resist opening new tax avenues for the executive branch, such as taxing corporations by way of a global minimum tax; and if Red State governors continue to reduce state income taxes, that faint light at the end of the tax tunnel could grow considerably brighter by the time next year’s elections arrive.

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

In 1959, a young screenwriter named Rod Serling created what would become one of the 20th Century’s most iconic television series. “The Twilight Zone” has become so much a part of our culture that contemporary dictionaries include the term “twilight zone” as a defined noun, meaning “an area just beyond ordinary legal and ethical limits.”

Considering recent cultural changes, America’s political system quite easily can fit within that very definition, insofar as “ordinary legal and ethical limits” seem no longer to apply.

In one of the most recent examples of this phenomenon, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Kevin McCarthy, declared something that historically, ethically, and legally would in the past have been considered laughable — erasing official actions taken previously by the Congress of the United States.

Townhall

The ubiquitous term “smart device” often is employed without seriously considering the implications of devices that are, in the context of the Internet of Things, “a wired or wireless context-aware electronic device capable of performing autonomous computing and connecting to other devices for data exchange,” with the key phrases being “autonomous” and “connecting.”

Writing his dystopian novel, 1984 nearly 75 years ago, George Orwell could only dream of such technology. Today, however, governments and companies that make and use “smart” devices, fully understand the power of such technology and eagerly embrace its use by individuals in the real world.

First, there are companies that develop, manufacture, sell, and maintain “smart” devices – everything from “smart” phones to “smart” homes and numerous “linked” devices inside the dwellings. There is now a market for wearable, “smart” clothes.

There are the tech companies that develop the software that enables the “smart” devices to communicate with the owners and users, with other “smart” devices, and most importantly, with the really “smart” people associated with companies that monitor the myriad devices.

Then there are the government entities with wide-ranging interests in “smart” devices. This universe includes federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, from the FBI and 50 state bureaus of investigation to thousands of county and municipal police and sheriffs offices across the country.

Beyond all those law enforcement agencies keenly interested in having access to such “smart” information to assist in preventing and solving crimes, there are agencies with interests in the devices for reasons other than law enforcement; interests that relate to such goals as reducing energy or water usage or changing consumer habits.

All these entities – from the FBI to the Atlanta Police Department (which maintains one of the largest and most pervasive camera surveillance systems in the country), and from Amazon  to Bosch and other major companies involved in the “smart” manufacturing market – share one thing in common: the unquenchable thirst for data.

It is that drive for information harvested from “smart” devices that runs headlong against the privacy rights of Americans. Here is where the contradiction between privacy concerns and convenience manifests itself. While a significant majority of Americans – as high as 84% in a recent survey – express some level of “concern” about the privacy of their personal data, the market for information-hungry “smart” devices controlled by third parties keeps expanding.

Convenience and fear of crime drive much of the civilian market for “smart” devices, and there perhaps is no better example of this than the exploding market for “smart” doorbells, such the Amazon-owned Ring devices. It is that fear of crime and the yearning for a sense of security that appears clearly to be driving the sale of Ring doorbells; a policy that has for the past several years been reinforced by law enforcement agencies that encourage homeowners to install “smart” doorbells and allow police to have access to the information they gather.

It is that sense of fear that overrides individuals’ privacy concerns that might otherwise augur against installing such devices in one’s home.

Few Ring customers are likely to be familiar with the company’s poor record for protecting the security of users’ data, a history that precipitated the filing of a lawsuit against the company by the Federal Trade Commission last month. Even fewer customers would likely have any awareness that the doorbell camera company maintained an apparently unsecured manufacturing company in Ukraine, known as “Ring Ukraine.”

Despite problems of hacking, company misuse of customers’ supposedly private data, and sharing of private data with innumerable police agencies, sales of “smart” doorbells and other devices continues to climb.

Interestingly in this regard — and as a perfect example of what Emory Professor Mark Bauerlein has described as “the dumbest generation” — a recent poll shows that nearly 30% of Americans under the age of 30 would have no problem with the government directly surveilling the interior of their homes with “smart” devices.

All things considered, it truly should surprise no customer of such devices when a device and the company that monitors them, decides to punish a user by shutting down all their “smart” devices, even if the vindictive action is premised on a mistake. After all, every one of those “smart” devices is made, monitored, and ultimately controlled not by the “smart” customer, but by other , far “smarter” persons and entities whose interests may not coincide with the customer’s.

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 this time the soma had begun to work. Eyes shone, cheeks were flushed, the inner light of universal benevolence broke out on every face in happy, friendly smiles.

—“Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley (1932)

“’Isn’t it amazing?’ she said. ‘It’s what everyone says about this damn drug, that it makes people feel love.’”

— Harriet de Wit, quoted in “How a dose of MDMA transformed a white supremacist,” by Rachel Nuwer, BBC (June 14, 2023)

Some things don’t change, as they say. So it is with attempts to alter human behavior. For millennia, people of various cultures and for various reasons — some good, some evil — have experimented with ways to alter human perception and behavior as a way to improve society. This was the premise of Aldous Huxley’s dystopian Brave New World, published in 1932 and which described a society uniformly and purposefully addicted to and controlled by the drug “soma.”

Now, almost a century later, there still are those trying to accomplish what Huxley wrote about as fiction.

A recent study conducted by Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science Harriet de Wit at the University of Chicago used not the fictitious soma but a real drug — MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) – in a study to determine its usefulness for increasing the “pleasantness of social touch.”

MDMA has been around for quite some time, having been discovered early in the 20th Century by German chemists for possible pharmaceutical purposes. Decades later, the CIA conducted experiments with the drug, known commonly as “Molly” or “Ecstasy” rather than its lengthy scientific name. The experiments were part of the Agency’s notorious, top secret “MK-Ultra” program to discover the limits of humans to withstand torture and other forms of pressure.

After the CIA’s program became public knowledge in the 1970s, and knowing the serious and potentially fatal side effects of the drug, the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1985 placed MDMA on the list of Controlled Substances, with criminal penalties for its unprescribed possession or use.

As with many activities prohibited by the government, declaring MDMA a Schedule I Controlled Substances did not diminish its attractiveness for individuals desiring the “high” it offers. Since the 1990s, ecstasy has remained a drug of choice for many young people and celebrities, especially at “raves” featuring loud, electronic music and crowds of dancers. Users crave the sense of euphoria it provides, along with the burst of energy it brings.

While the drug appears to have some therapeutic potential for those suffering PTSD and other serious anxiety disorders, the federal government has not yet downgraded MDMA from a Schedule I Controlled Substance, largely because of its many serious side effects, which includes hallucinations, distorted perception, memory loss, impaired ability to engage in motor skills such as driving a vehicle, and potentially fatally high body temperature.

The 2020 study of MDMA’s effects on social behavior by Prof. de Wit is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the optimism recently expressed by BBC author Rachel Nuwer when she wrote about it and interviewed one individual who had volunteered to take the drug as part of the study.

The individual, identified only as “Brendan,” came to the study as an avowed white nationalist and left it as someone who reportedly now sees the world not through a racial lens but through the eyes of “love” as “the most important thing.” As related in her account of de Wit’s work, Brendan’s perceived world morphed into one where he had “connection” with everyone, including even the Antifa activist who had previously outed him and caused him to lose his job.

While author Nuwer admits that the example of Brendan’s conversion from white nationalist to flower child does not establish our readiness for the government to begin the mass distribution of MDMA as with soma in Brave New World, she seems clearly to hope this is the direction in which the studies by de Wit and others take us.

Nuwer and de Wit correctly lament the absence of qualities such as “compassion, kindness, empathy, gratitude, altruism, fairness, trust, and cooperation” in today’s society. The absence of these attributes, however, reflects deep, negative changes in our culture, and cannot be resuscitated by soma, MDMA, or any other mind-altering drug; thinking otherwise would seem to be a side effect of viewing the world through a soma lens.

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

Shoplifting, including organized retail theft, has been surging in cities across America, and a new generation of woke CEOs and state legislators are implementing unusual methods of addressing the epidemic. Actually, they are coming up with ways not to deal with the problem.

In 2022 alone, it is estimated that retail stores lost more than $94.5 billion to shoplifters. Retail industry analysts estimate that the average loss per shoplifting incident is $1,178.57; that was in 2021, which represented a 26.6% increase over 2020.

Despite the prevalence of anti-theft technology and ubiquitous surveillance cameras supposed to stem the shoplifting tide, a mere 2% of shoplifters are caught and far fewer ever prosecuted.

The CEO of one major retail company, Lululemon, has implemented a “zero tolerance” plan by which to deal with shoplifters. Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald’s company-wide “zero tolerance” policy, however, does not punish the shoplifters. Instead, it calls for firing any employee who tries to impede a shoplifter. Two employees (in woke speak, the company calls them “educators” rather than “employees”) recently were summarily fired from the Lululemon store where they worked in Peachtree Corners, Georgia, for no reason other than they confronted a couple of shoplifters and demanded they leave the store.

Common sense actions as confronting shoplifters caught in the act of pilfering expensive clothing at a retail store in years past would be considered standard response to shoplifters caught in the act, and praised by management. Now, at least from the perspective of the highly educated and generously paid Calvin McDonald, the preferred way to protect the company and its shareholders, is to simply “step back, [and] let the theft occur.”

Strange as Lululemon’s policy is, it is consistent with a piece of legislation recently passed overwhelmingly by the California State Senate — S.B. 553, which would prohibit employers in the state from “maintaining policies that require employees to confront .  .  .  suspected shoplifters.”  The legislation focuses largely on ensuring that retail employers implement labor policies to promote employee “safety” by not confronting or challenging shoplifters. A modern version of the “leave the inmate in charge of the asylum” adage.

Adding to the cost of shoplifting borne by businesses and consumers alike are the soft-on-shoplifting prosecution policies of woke district attorneys including those in a number of Democrat-run cities.

Over-the-counter drugs are a favorite target for shoplifters.  This presents a very practical challenge for stores that carry these easily concealable items – how to prevent theft but also make the items viewable to prospective consumers.

Some efforts by heads of major chains such as Walgreens who, unlike their counterpart at Lululemon, actually and responsibly strive to stem the crime wave in hard-hit cities like Chicago, are resorting to placing most items behind locked glass doors. Not surprisingly, such efforts have not been met with favor by shoppers, despite the store describing the design as a way to “enhance the experiences of [its] customers and team members” (i.e., employees).

Where this all will lead remains to be seen, but the prospects for more effective control of rampant shoplifting in the current environment does not appear bright.

The mix of “restorative justice” prosecutors, woke and timid CEOs, state laws and corporate policies making it increasingly difficult to stand up to shoplifters, deteriorating civil social bonds, increased gang and organized retail theft rings, legalized drug use, homeless camps on doorsteps of retail businesses, widespread propensity toward violent behavior, street-based mental health issues, reduced police presence, periodic rampages by gangs, and shuttering of retail establishments on the losing end of heightened shoplifting, combine to create a truly toxic mixture.

The Lululemon approach may salve the conscience of woke companies and government officials, but it will do nothing to solve the problem of rampant shoplifting.

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

When he is not wandering aimlessly across a stage, President Biden is leveling the most vile of curses in his vocabulary at news stories with which he disagrees – “Malarkey!” This was his retort last week to a reporter’s query about allegations that he corruptly profited to the tune of $5 million while serving as Barack Obama’s Vice President.

Meanwhile, former President Trump has been relentlessly and, as always, loudly, insulting Special Counsel Jack Smith for bringing an indictment against him for unlawfully possessing and disclosing highly classified documents after his tenure as Commander in Chief expired. For good measure, the former president also has been insulting anyone, including the man he appointed as his last Attorney General, who fails to similarly discount the 37-count indictment filed against him last week in the U.S. District Court in Miami.

Actually, both cases have merit, both raise extremely serious questions about the competency of each man to serve in such high office, and both matters should be pursued seriously.

The case against Trump was laid bare in the 44-page indictment returned against him last Thursday. The document is resplendent with details, including photographs, demonstrating the cavalier, and certainly un-presidential manner with which the former president considered classified national security information.

Trump’s supporters argue, with perhaps a degree of validity, that charging a former president with nothing more than mis-handling classified papers is, in the broad scheme of things, not among the more serious issues facing America at home and abroad right now. Trump defenders declare also —  and with a degree of cogency — that charging him but not Hillary Clinton with such offenses represents an un-level and two-tiered system of justice. They decry also that other office holders, Joe Biden among them, are not being treated as harshly as is Mr. Trump.

All these responses to the indictment are, to a degree, valid. None, however, erases what is at the foundation of the indictment – an inappropriate and dangerously lackadaisical attitude respecting information on which our nation’s military and intelligence leaders rely when making decisions of war and peace.

Whether one likes or dislikes those serving in our Foreign Intelligence Community, and regardless of whether a president or an ex-president is or is not a fan of the top brass at the Pentagon, the fact remains that the security environment within which decision-making at those levels occurs, must be respected and is disregarded at very real risk of endangering lives, relationships, resources, and strategic options. This is not a game.

The notion that a president should be permitted to declare on a whim that highly classified intelligence information is no more worthy of legal protection than a Rand-McNalley roadmap, should not be among the attributes of someone seeking to be president, much less someone who has served as president. And blindly defending a former president who exhibits such callous, almost gleeful disregard for established and statutorily founded procedures is unbecoming a major political party.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the unfolding contest between the still-new GOP majority in the House of Representatives and the very well-established FBI concerning evidence of high-level corruption involving the then-Vice President and now President of the United States, is anything but “malarkey.”

The allegations that, while serving as Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden benefited financially to the tune of several million dollars as quid pro quo for acting in his capacity as vice president, are among the most serious charges that could ever be levelled against a sitting vice president (or president). If true, such acts would be staggering in their implications for our country and its standing in the world.

Thus far, the American public is not privy to anything beyond a reported “credible” FBI document or documents that such untoward behavior took place. The mere possibility that evidence not yet discounted by the FBI or the Department of Justice exists, merits the most thorough and timely assessment of which our government is capable.

If, instead, we witness a process stymied by the partisan gridlock that has infected virtually every meaningful investigation engaged in by any congressional committee in either the House or the Senate by either the Republicans or the Democrats in recent years, the stench of corruption will extend far beyond our borders, and linger long past the tenures in office of either Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump.

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

A surprisingly unanimous Supreme Court decision last week finally clipped the ever-expanding wings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

For more than half a century, imperious regulators at the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, with which it shares regulatory jurisdiction over “wetlands” and “navigable waters of the United States,” have worked to prevent citizens and businesses from taking common sense steps to develop privately owned property in ways that benefit them and which have no significant negative impact on the environment.

One ploy the EPA and the Army Corps often have used in their war on private property owners, is to assert expansive jurisdiction over small or occasional bodies of water and “wetlands” — claiming these constitute “navigable waters of the United States,” and are therefore subject to regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA).

This was the predicament in which Michael and Chantell Sackett found themselves in 2007, when the EPA moved to stop them from improving their small parcel of property near Priest Lake, Idaho. The Sacketts had, in the eyes of Uncle Sam’s regulators, committed an egregious offense by failing to first obtain a Corps of Engineers permit before taking preliminary steps to improve their property. The government claimed the property contained “wetlands” that in some way and at some point in time had a “nexus” to a navigable waterway of the United States.

The Sacketts’ position was simple — property with no waterway at all, much less one that is “navigable,” does not transmogrify into “navigable water” simply because it is near such a waterway and might contain some occasional “wetlands.” Despite this common sense interpretation of the scope of the Clean Water Act, the federal government continued for 16 years to harass the Sacketts.

Unlike many private property owners who have neither the money nor the time to wage a multi-year legal battle with the EPA or the Corps of Engineers, the Sacketts were represented in their struggle by the conservative public interest law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, which enabled them to continue fighting until their historic victory.

Justice Alito, who authored last week’s Sackett opinion, identified clearly what was at stake. He noted, for example, that literally hundreds of millions of acres of “wetlands,” and virtually every piece of land with a channel or conduit for rainwater runoff would be subject to arbitrary government permitting control unless the EPA was reined in.

In fact, had the Sackett family been forced to throw in the towel, the Biden Administration was prepared and ready to implement an even broader regulation on “wetlands” and “navigable waters” it had proposed last January: “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States.’” The gobbledygook in this proposed regulation is utterly, and purposefully undecipherable.

Biden’s proposal, which thankfully will now have to be redrafted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, would have forced a landowner wanting to develop a parcel of land, to first determine if it contained any “wetland” that might have either a “continuous surface connection to a relatively permanent” waterway, or have a “significant nexus” such as might “significantly affect .  .  .  traditional navigable waters.”

Even if a property owner could figure all that out, they would still need to obtain a permit before taking any steps to develop their property — a process that often takes years.

Alito’s opinion stops the EPA from forcing property owners to comply with its breathtakingly expansive wetlands position. In its place is a significantly narrower jurisdictional power that limits the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to only those wetlands that truly are “as a practical matter indistinguishable” from larger (i.e., “navigable”) bodies of water nearby; not those with some occasional or vague “nexus” to, or potential impact on actual “navigable waters.”

While environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, see an environmental disaster in the wake of the Sackett decision, in reality all the Supreme Court has done is to put the EPA back into the constitutional lane as intended by the 1972 law. It’s about time.

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

Students are learning less and fighting more. The Biden Administration, which seems to view virtually every policy matter through a racial lens, however, is making it more difficult for schools to actually protect teachers and students.

The dispute over how to discipline disruptive students is nothing new. Unfortunately, this Administration, like its predecessor under President Obama, has made it a cultural and legal flashpoint, with little  regard for the actual safety of those involved, including teachers.

The current and ongoing debate about school discipline was teed up in January 2014 when President Obama’s Education and Justice departments issued a “Dear Colleague” letter outlining how Uncle Sam wanted schools to administer “discipline” without racially discriminatory effect.

Four years later, the Trump Administration rescinded the Obama “guidance” on school discipline and issued its own “Dear Colleague” letter on December 21, 2018, returning primary responsibility for disciplining students back to local schools and school boards.

For the past two years, the Biden Administration’s departments of Education and Justice have been “reviewing” Trump’s 2018 guidance letter, and on May 26th, issued its own “Dear Colleague” letter, re-focusing on federally determined “racial disparities” in school discipline.

Each of these “Dear Colleague” letters, although not possessed of direct legal power, carries significant weight in alerting state and local schools how the federal government will come down on them if they fail to follow the “guidance” contained therein. The Obama-Biden approach to school discipline was and now remains, one that presumes racial discrimination in any discipline policy where minority students are disciplined at a higher rate, or more harshly, than their non-minority counterparts.

Thus, starting in January 2014 the Department of Justice was empowered, if not encouraged, to sue a local or state school upon receiving a complaint that a disciplinary action or policy was “discriminatory.” Schools were advised not to mete out direct disciplinary action, but rather to assess the “root causes” of a student’s “misbehavior.”

Essentially missing from this student-centric approach is any real concern for the safety of teachers, school principals, and other students. Indeed, the just-released “Dear Colleague” letter, which emphasizes the availability of federal funds “to support schools,” is silent on using those taxpayer dollars to protect teachers and school administrators.

The Obama-initiated policy also was intimidating for local and state schools, each of which was under constant threat of being sued if the U.S. Attorney General determined that a disciplinary action or practice was employed more harshly against a black student rather than a white student.

Despite sound constitutional analysis that such a policy as reflected in the 2014 guidance resulting in de facto “racial quotas in suspensions” was itself unconstitutional and at odds with existing federal civil rights laws, the Obama Administration plowed ahead with suing various schools for disciplining students too harshly.

The result of this “restorative justice” approach has been a marked increase in the number and violent nature of student misbehavior, a trend significantly exacerbated by the widespread use of remote learning during the COVID pandemic.

The increases in the number and severity of students engaging in serious “misbehavior,” including the use of firearms and other weapons, has become so obvious that even the left-leaning NPR has been forced to acknowledge the problem. In a program on the topic just last week, experts discussed several examples of violent student behaviors in Democrat-run cities including Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington. One expert, Wayne Ivey, noted that students feel empowered to behave violently because they know they face no serious disciplinary consequences. Elsewhere, teachers are quitting their jobs because they are “afraid for their safety.”

Despite all this — and in the face of continuing reports showing that students are failing miserably to achieve proficiency in such key subjects as mathematics, reading, and history — the best the Biden Administration can muster in response is to blame the pandemic and “politicians” (read, “Republicans”) looking to cut school budgets, and to once again issue “guidance” that threatens schools with federal lawsuits if their discipline policies run afoul of its obsessive focus on “racial disparity.”

The Administration deserves an “F” for its policies supposed to encourage learning and to protect teachers and students alike. Parents and teachers across the country should keep this report card in mind when they vote next year.

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.