Liberty Updates

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

When he introduced his “national security team” last week, Joe Biden declared that “America is back.” A more accurate label would be, “the Establishment is back.” Long-time denizens of the Washington Beltway are hoisting more than one glass of champagne in anticipation of more such announcements in the coming weeks.  

Whether or not this “team” will “lead the world” as Biden boldly declared is at best open to debate, but what is not in dispute is the unmistakable Washington Establishment pedigree of the men and women he brought forth two days before Thanksgiving.  

His Secretary of State designee, Antony Blinken, is described by the media as a “veteran foreign policy hand” and a “longtime diplomat.” In other words, someone who will be greeted with relief by the many careerists at Foggy Bottom who have chafed for nearly four years at the current administration’s diplomatic bluntness.  

Biden also announced Alejandro Mayorkas, who had served in that Department for several years during the Obama administration, as his pick for Secretary of Homeland Security. While fellow Democrats unsurprisingly praised this choice, the fact that his 2013 Senate confirmation hearing to be deputy secretary at DHS was marred by a serious ethics investigation during his tenure as head of the Citizenship and Immigration Services is already raising red flags in the Senate, which remains for now at least under GOP control.  

Potentially problematic also is Biden’s choice as national security adviser – Jake Sullivan. While Sullivan possesses “extensive foreign policy background,” which certainly is appropriate for the job, he also served as a top deputy and close confidant of Hillary Clinton during her contentious tenure as Secretary of State. While national security adviser is not a post subject to confirmation by the Senate, Sullivan’s friendship with Clinton, coupled with his inside work negotiating the controversial “Iran nuclear deal,” will win him no friends on the Republican side of the congressional aisle.  

With a national security budget of $750 billion and a foreign intelligence budget of nearly $86 billion, individuals selected by Biden who will be spending all that money should be subject to robust if not intense scrutiny not only by members of Congress from both parties, but by the voting public as well.  

Relevant to such inquiry should be tough questions regarding how the incoming president and his team intend to protect individual privacy from abusive government surveillance powers and technology. This is reflected in a November 27 article by Byron Tau in the Wall Street Journal — “Next Step in Government Data Tracking Is the Internet of Things.” If Tau’s reporting does not set off serious alarm bells on Capitol Hill, its members are even more somnambulant than previously thought.  

Tau describes how the little-known Air Force Research Laboratory recently contracted with an even lesser-known company – SignalFrame – to explore how millions of cellphones using the Android operating system (manufactured by Google) could be tracked simply by being near a SignalFrame device. Such surreptitious tracking, known in the tech world as “sniffing,” can be accomplished without the cellphone’s owner or user ever being aware that its geospatial position is being tracked, data-based, and analyzed.  

Government agencies for several years have used “Stingray” devices that mimic commercial cellphone towers to surreptitiously gather geospatial information on cellphones that come within range. The new technology being developed by SignalFrame, which has piqued the attention of the Air Force (and almost certainly other federal agencies), appears to take the Stingray power to a whole new level.  

Biden has been largely silent on matters relating to individual privacy. In this, he seems to be on the same wavelength as the Trump administration and recent congresses. Already troubling, however, are Biden’s announced plans to attack the COVID pandemic, which includes significant money for privacy-invasive “contact tracing,” enlisting an army of “U.S. Public Health Jobs Corps” members, a “Nationwide Pandemic Dashboard,” rejoining the World Health Organization and more.  

Regardless of whether the Senate remains under Republican control come January 2021, congressional leaders should make safeguarding individual privacy against ever-expanding surreptitious surveillance technology by Uncle Sam, a far higher priority than in the recent past.  

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.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

All things considered, America has done remarkably well through the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite profoundly dramatic changes to the very fabric of American life (primarily the result of state and local government overreach), we are nearing the light at the end of the tunnel. The economy slowed, but it did not stop. Schools closed, but children are still learning (at least sort of). People are sick and some are dying, but there is a miracle cure on the horizon. All this, thanks to private sector innovation.

So why does Joe Biden want to kill it?

When you think about it, America’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is nothing short of incredible. In just a matter of weeks this past Spring, how we work, learn, and live changed dramatically. However, rather than the economy grinding to a halt, many American businesses quickly pivoted – with considerable, if somewhat uneven success – to a work-from-home model. The same with schooling; it still continues to be a struggle (no thanks to petulant teachers and their unions), but remote learning allows at least some semblance of academic instruction. Even restaurants found lifelines by partnering with food delivery startups after state and local government tyrants shut them down arbitrarily.

None of these successes would have been possible even five years ago. Exponential advancements in broadband means internet speeds are faster, and cheaper than ever before, thereby allowing tens of millions of Americans to work from home without major internet interruptions. Technical devices are more affordable than ever, making remote opportunities more possible for the working class. And, thanks to app technology that can create jobs out of thin air, tech startups not only employed people as the economy slowed, but kept people employed by helping restaurants serve customers – even at home.

It is thanks to the private sector that America has survived COVID-19; certainly not without pain, especially to the travel and hospitality sectors, but far from the doom and gloom predicted (if not hoped for) by Democrats. Our economy faltered but did not crash and burn as many had expected, and some sectors even thrived. In large part, this was because of a President who knew to get out of the private sector’s way even before COVID hit, and who struck the right balance with government assistance when necessary. That all looks to change with Joe Biden.

Consider the advancements with America’s internet infrastructure, including the recent launch of 5G networks across the country, which only occurred because internet providers did not have both hands tied behind their backs with meddlesome regulations like “Net Neutrality.” That misnomer of a policy had been pushed hard by the Obama-Biden Administration, and the former V-P has not changed his desire to see it implemented now.

Biden also has indicated he will support federal legislation similar to the freelance job-killing “AB 5” law in California, with which his running mate, Kamala Harris, is so enamored; but which is devastating to the “gig” economy that is the lifeblood of companies like Uber and Instacart.

The difference in how the government and the private sector responded to COVID should be proof that in every economic sector, from virology to space travel, the private sector simply does it cheaper, faster, and better than the government. Unfortunately, Democrats cannot help themselves when it comes to throwing a wrench in the gears. They think with just the right touch (which gets only heavier), they can force the private sector to do “more.” This, of course, always ends up being less – less jobs, less wealth, less innovation, and less opportunity. In the case of a pandemic like COVID, the consequences will be even more dire, resulting not just in economic loss, but loss of life as well as healthcare innovations stall or never materialize.

We are living in a new golden age of private sector innovation. NASA is using private commercial spacecraft to send astronauts into space, billionaires like Bill Gates are working on clean energy solutions that the government did not have the imagination to dream, and as CEOs like Elon Musk have done more for moving our society away from fossil fuel cars than any of Obama’s “green” new deals.

With a market-driven economy leading the way, America can survive COVID-19, but can that free market which has brought us tantalizingly close to this goal, survive under the heavy hand of a President Joe Biden?  The answer to this question is not a happy one.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He served as an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

 

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

While our venerable Constitution describes the basic structure of our tripartite federal government and outlines the powers to be exercised by each of the three branches, the mechanisms whereby those functions are translated from word to deed reside in the real world, not on parchment. So it is with presidential transitions.

The Constitution is silent on how the change from an incumbent president to a successor is to occur. A presidential term lasts four years and ends precisely at noon on January 20 of the year following the November election. That is where the certainty ends. How those nearly three transitional months play out often have been rocky rather than smooth, and occasionally downright hostile. The current stand-off between President Trump and apparent President-elect Biden promises to be no exception

That neither Trump nor Biden likes the other is no secret, and in this they are in good historic company. America’s second president, John Adams, disliked his successor, Thomas Jefferson, to such a degree he left Washington before the latter’s swearing in and never looked back (Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, repeated the snub by refusing to attend his successor’s inauguration in 1829). History records that the 31^st president, Herbert Hoover, and the man who trounced him in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, were on such poor terms by the time of the latter’s inauguration that neither spoke a word to the other on the ceremonial car ride to the U.S. Capitol.

At times, the presidential transition process has veered into the juvenile, as when Bill Clinton’s White House staff removed the “w” from typewriters and keyboards on their way out the door, prior to George W. Bush taking his oath of office after the infamous November 2000 “hanging chad” election. (As always, the taxpayers pick up the tab for such antics; estimates are that replacing all those busted “w’s” cost between $12,000 and $14,000.)

Fortunately, history has shown that not only does life go on, but the country survives even very unfriendly transitions. More important than what happens before January 20, however, is what happens after that date; in this case, how Biden exercises his power as “employer-in-chief.”

It is, after all, though the appointment process that the incoming president can make a profound and lasting impact on public policy. While it is the high-profile appointments – secretary of state, treasury secretary, attorney general and other cabinet-level posts – that garner public attention by the boatload, it is in appointments to jobs that do not require the “advice and consent” of the Senate where a new president can really make his mark. And it is here that Biden’s nearly five decades as a denizen of the “swamp” will pay rich dividends to him and his party.

Unlike Trump, who barged into office promising to “drain the swamp,” Biden will be looking to “fill the swamp;” and he will have bureaucratic allies in every department, agency and office eager to help him.

To his credit, Trump did a credible job of replacing many top-level, bureaucracy-loving officials in key departments with individuals who shared his disdain for the Nanny State. Unfortunately, Trump’s dislike for the Washington “Establishment” extended even to refusing to heed or take advantage of advice from well-intentioned and knowledgeable Republicans, who early-on offered to help him identify and fill those second- and third-tier positions that are crucial to ensuring that policy directives from the top are actually implemented where the rubber meets the road. Biden will not make such a mistake.

The former vice president loves bureaucrats and they in turn love him; his administration will be relentless in reversing Trump’s regulation-averse policies and ferreting out and removing Trump holdovers. In fact, Biden has already started.

Two months before Inauguration Day 2021, Biden and his cohorts, including snarky governors like New York’s Cuomo and California’s Newsom and the weaselly Dr. Fauci, are undercutting the good news that a COVID vaccine has been developed and should be ready for distribution before the end of next month. This disgraceful display of hatred not just for President Trump, but for the market-based process that appears to have given the citizens of America and the entire world a defense against the Coronavirus pandemic in record time, is but a hint of the price we will be paying for a resurgence of the Nanny State in a Biden administration. It truly will be a regulatory Hell.

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.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The government’s long-running and destructive effort to control our nation’s economy at all levels, which went into overdrive this year with the advent of COVID-19, barely slowed for the speed bump that was the November 3 election.

The current pattern has become distressingly clear and sadly predictable: issue declarations and then shame people into following them.

Without any science to support many of their recommendations, unelected bureaucrats and politicians enamored of the power their status provides, continue to propose radical and often nonsensical measures.

The American people can see this system at work simply by skimming through Joe Biden’s official transition agenda. It includes implementing mask mandates nationwide and many other Nanny State proclamations. Others have proposed mandates even worse than Biden’s, including wearing a mask between bites at dinner and refraining from getting together during Thanksgiving. Some have even suggested that failure to wear a mask should make one an accessory to murder in the eyes of the law.

These decrees have hurt all 50 states, including my home state of Georgia, in a big way. Mandates have caused the loss of over 60,000 jobs in the Peach State’s food and accommodations sectors alone. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam is not yet done interfering in Georgia’s affairs.

Biden’s COVID advisor already is discussing another four-to-six week nationwide lockdown to “control” the pandemic. Doing this would devastate Georgia’s already struggling businesses and the workers they employ. But even that is not enough for the Nanny State.

If not overruled soon, this bureaucratic intervention is on track to hit Georgians even harder, by reaching into one of the people’s small pleasures — enjoying a beer or other alcoholic beverage. This could be accomplished with a typical regulatory punch, called “Guidelines.”

The federal government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) recently announced a plan to change long-standing, science-based alcohol consumption recommendations for adult males, reducing them by half down to just a single drink per day.

It is not exactly clear why the committee, which helps the government revise the dietary guidelines every half-decade, chose to make this new recommendation. The preponderance of science clearly shows no health risks with adults enjoying a couple of glasses of beer or other alcoholic beverage each day. Moreover, nearly half of the studies the DGAC reviewed showed that there may be health benefits to moderate consumption, but the DGAC still has plowed ahead with its restrictive recommendation.

Beyond its impact on an adult’s ability to make responsible decisions about what they drink, the DGAC proposal will cause further financial harm to thousands of restaurants and bars in Georgia and every other state.

The government’s dietary guidelines frequently are used as the basis for other stifling regulatory methods to limit consumption based on bureaucratic whims. Assuming this to be the desired goal in this instance is hardly an irrational fear. In fact, one of the advisors on the 2020 DGAC happens to be a well-known advocate for policies to reduce alcohol sales.

Even viewed in the most favorable light, the DGAC’s new recommendation constitutes an irritating display of the warped priorities too often underlying government actions. Right now, officials in Washington should be focusing on passing the moribund stimulus bill that small businesses in Georgia and elsewhere need and deserve, instead of spending their time and our money convincing grown men to stop drinking a couple of beers during a Braves or Falcons game.

But there is hope. While it may fall to the DGAC to make recommendations, it is the president who makes the final call.

Within just a few weeks, the Trump Administration will decide whether or not to adopt the committee’s recommendations. Unlike many bureaucrats and politicians, those in this White House have been refreshingly hesitant to impose mandates and orders not grounded in either science or common sense.

It is to be hoped that this Administration will in this instance do what is needed to crack down on regulatory nannies, and thereby protect home-state businesses and ensure Georgians and our fellow countrymen retain their freedom to choose.

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.

Daily Caller by Bob Barr Remarks last week by Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito, delivered remotely to the Federalist Society at its annual National Lawyers Convention, have sent liberal Supreme Court observers into conniptions. What was Alito’s sin? The George W. Bush-nominated judge dared defend religious freedom and other liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, a posture that in a previous era would have been widely welcomed by the very critics who now are savaging Alito.   The Washington, D.C.-based publication Politico joined the anti-Alito bandwagon. A November 13 piece reporting on the justice’s speech, written by Josh Gerstein, called the remarks “inflammatory” under a headline that labelled them “politically charged.” In fact, there was nothing “political” about Alito’s speech; unless, of course, it is considered unacceptably “political” to draw attention to the important responsibility the High Court has “to protect freedom of speech” and other civil liberties.   Alito also came under fire from the Left for stating the obvious – that the coronavirus “pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty.” He observed that the COVID-driven and liberty-restrictive environment in which the country now finds itself was not simply the result of a sudden and unforeseen emergency, but rather the consequence of a number of “disturbing trends” that had been present long before the pandemic broke.  It was this observation by the 70-year old associate justice that seems to have been the flashpoint raising the hackles of liberals, some of whom flew off into La La Land with their reactions.   For example, University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle is reported to have declared that Alito’s remarks were something that awakened her from a “vampire dream” because they were so “unscrupulously biased, political, and even angry” (where do law schools find these people?). Most reactions by leftists to Alito’s remarks were not as silly as Wehle’s, but they were still upset by the nerve his remarks touched.   The justice’s comments harkened back to a day when standing firm against infringements on speech, especially religious speech — and on the free exercise of religion — were considered principles to be staunchly, if not unquestioningly, defended by liberal minds everywhere, including in law schools. No more.   As Alito noted, in recent years, especially in the wake of Supreme Court decisions delving into deeply held social beliefs such as same-sex marriage, it has become verboten to publicly express opinions or ideas at odds therewith. In other words, to openly express support for the concept of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, or that abortion is immoral, now is considered bigotry. Discrimination against religion, especially traditional church-based religion, in the wake of COVID-inspired government mandates, has manifested itself beyond simply intolerance of religious speech. Nevada, for example, prohibited church services for more than 50 parishioners even as it allowed unlimited numbers of gamblers to attend casinos. That this struck Alito as arbitrary and problematic now has earned him the unbridled enmity of the Left.   Animosity toward Alito and other Republican-nominated justices, now numbering six out of the nine serving on the Court, is nothing new. A number of prominent Democrat senators, not least among which is Minority Leader (and majority-leader wannabe) Chuck Schumer, have in recent months openly threatened negative legislative action against them if they fail to toe the liberal line on such hot-button issues as abortion (but not, of course, cases supporting the Second Amendment).   Alito last week warned of the danger such open threats by the legislative branch of government pose to the independence of the judicial branch and the High Court in particular – also something the Left in the past defended against. Now, however, the fact that a Supreme Court Justice has the audacity to speak out against threats against the court by Democrat leaders in the Congress, becomes proof that such “reforms” are necessary. Such is the Bizarro World in which we live.   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.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

When asked to identify the most powerful force in the universe, Albert Einstein reportedly declared it to be “compound interest.” While I hesitate to disagree with a bona fide genius, the answer to the question thus posed is not compound interest, it is the status quo.

The power wielded over political and legal matters by the status quo will become obvious in the days ahead as the country works its way through the pending and anticipated challenges to the November 3 election results.

Now that the Biden-Harris ticket has been “officially” declared the winner by the mainstream media, social media and the political establishment, it becomes the “status quo.” This fact alone provides those who support the former vice president’s bid to assume the highest office in the land a significant advantage over those who favor President Trump remaining in the office.

Efforts to dislodge the “declared winner” face Herculean challenges.

It often has been said that just as insurance companies exist to deny insureds’ claims for coverage, appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court, serve primarily as mechanisms to not decide cases brought by lower courts. This explains why most decisions reached by trial courts that are appealed are either rejected for decision by the appellate courts or, if accepted, affirmed.

The situation in the legislative arena is similarly daunting for those attempting to overturn or even simply amend existing law. Changes proposed to existing laws — even minor ones — rarely succeed. More than the partisan nature of the politics surrounding the substantive issues is the fact that a majority of Democrats and Republicans share a deep hesitancy to change any existing law – in other words, to upset the “status quo.”

Similarly, when it comes to election challenges based on voter fraud, the status quo almost always prevails. While there have been instances in which federal and state courts have accepted such cases for review, and even a few in which they have overturned the results, these are the rare exception, regardless of whether the challenges were made by Republicans or Democrats. The Election Fraud Database maintained by the Heritage Foundation explains many of the election results that have in recent years been overturned or in which evidence of vote buying was documented.

Former Justice Department lawyer and Federal Elections Commission member Hans von Spakovsky, who heads the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Institute, also has noted that no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2008 decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, confirmed that voter fraud remains a very real and continuing threat to the integrity of our democratic system; a problem magnified by massive mail-in voting such as permitted by states across the country in this most recent election.

Thus, despite state-of-the-art technology available to states and local governments across the country designed to significantly reduce chances for voter fraud to occur, evidence of election shenanigans continues to surface. Just last week, for example, a so-called “computer glitch” was revealed in the software used by counties throughout Michigan to tabulate votes.

While GOP lawyers have drawn attention to the Michigan vote-counting problem – one that potentially could infect other states using the same software — it did not for a moment cause either the Biden campaign or its mainstream media and social media allies to pause their drumbeat for the former vice president to be referred to as “President-Elect.” Twitter reportedly did its part by “censoring” Tweets calling attention to the Michigan “glitches” and those unearthed in other states.

As soon as the Biden-Harris ticket was anointed the “declared winner” on Saturday, it became the status quo; for the left, a result no longer open to debate or even to be questioned.

Moving ahead, it will be extremely difficult for Republican challenges to find judges willing to risk public opprobrium by allowing such a decision to be formally challenged in court, even to the limited degree of receiving evidence to evaluate. After all, for Democrats and their cohorts, the value of “evidence” pales when weighed against their opinions, beliefs and priorities collectively shared with the mainstream media and the lords of social media.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990 and an official with the CIA in the 1970s.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Like most every teenage boy in the early 1960s — and perhaps more so than most since I had grown up with my family moving from country to country every couple of years (my Dad was a civil engineer) – I had never heard of Scottish actor Sean Connery until Dr. No hit the big screen in 1962, while I was living with my family in Lima, Peru. But my perception of “cool” thereafter always would be linked to the dashing actor who portrayed James Bond, aka “Agent Double-O-Seven,” in that movie (which I paid to see more than once).

After watching the movie, I became an avid fan of Ian Fleming’s novels recounting the exciting if not-so-realistic life of a Cold War-era spy (several years later, I found myself employed by the CIA, but as an analyst and lawyer with no “license to kill”).

At the time I was enthralled to watch Dr. No, I had never worn a tuxedo, but on Connery, especially with a Walther PPK tucked neatly thereunder in a discrete shoulder holster, the deep black formalwear possessed an unmistakable panache. Whether in swimming trunks, a three-piece suit, or a cardigan leaning against one of the many exotic sports cars he drove in those movies, Sean Connery on film exuded an enduring, timeless style. His allure, however, was far deeper and broader than the James Bond character he portrayed in seven film versions of Ian Fleming’s British special agent.

Connery’s acting career was extremely diverse. His on-screen portrayals varied from the sexy and debonaire 007 character to which he always will be linked, to a 19^th Century Irish coal miner in “The Molly Maguires” and a 14^th Century Franciscan friar in “The Name of the Rose,” to his Academy Award-winning performance of a Prohibition-era police officer in “The Untouchables.”

Few actors of his era (which spanned six decades) can match the depth and breadth of Connery’s career, a presence that continued in his off-screen life. He remained politically active, especially as an avowed Scottish nationalist who supported independence for his native Scotland in word, deed and money. His outspoken advocacy for Scottish independence did not, however, stop Queen Elizabeth II from knighting him in 2000; an honor of which he was justly proud and carried with respect.

Unlike many of his acting contemporaries, Connery was able to largely keep his personal life out of tabloid news – thanks in large measure to his stature in film and politics, but also the result of a conscious decision on his part to maintain clear distance between his film persona and his real life. There even has been no clear public confirmation of his religious views, despite repeated efforts by outside entities to breach the privacy wall Connery maintained throughout his long career.

In a time now, when grown men can be seen wearing tank tops and flip flops travelling on commercial airlines, and in which childish name-calling,  petty insults and foul language have become common place in politics and civic discourse generally in both the United States and the United Kingdom, being able to have looked up to a man of substance, good manners and proper fashion on screen and off, deserves special mention. Sean Connery the man and the actor, leaves a noticeable vacuum.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He was an official with the CIA during the 1970s.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

April 19 was the day America lost the fight against COVID-19. It was on that day that two hospital workers in Denver stood in front of a truck with people heading to the Capitol to protest the state’s stay-at-home order. Suddenly there was clarity. You were either with the hospital workers or the protestors in the truck. That was it; no in-between, no confusion. The lines had been drawn. COVID was — like every other issue in this Year of Our Lord 2020 — absolutely partisan.

This, of course, was not by accident. Partisan leaders on each side recognized the value in making COVID political, and went all-in hoping their position would better resonate with voters. Consider the Great Shutdown debate. Republicans arguing it was about the economy, and Democrats about health and safety. Subtlety was thrown to the wind, as nuance is not helpful when trying to stoke people’s emotions and further drive them into embittered tribes.

Predictably, today’s debate over COVID-19, which should be discussed seriously as a national crisis impacting both our health care and economy, is just another toxic mess full of vile rhetoric and misinformation designed only to better each party’s chances in November. Take, for instance, the ghoulish joy liberals express at infection rates in the South because these states’ leaders dared to defy Leftist orthodoxy on COVID shutdowns; or how many anti-Trumpers openly hoped the president’s COVID infection would remove him from office, and perhaps even from this physical world.

To characterize this situation as unhealthy is an extreme understatement. There really are no winners in such an environment. Citizens are held hostage as any meaningful progress in Congress grinds to a halt, with members either too stubborn or too scared to reach across the aisle on even the most limited and obvious of compromise solutions. Basic human civility among colleagues becomes “betrayal,” as when the hug between Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein after an intense but respectful confirmation hearing resulted in calls to “cancel” Feinstein.

It has not always been like this. In an era not so long ago but which now feels like ancient history, I served as a member of Congress when, despite deep philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats, we managed to find solutions to America’s problems. In fact, in one year when the GOP controlled Congress and Democrats occupied the White House, we cut taxes, reformed welfare, and balanced the federal budget.

Of course, it helped that in those days we had leaders like Newt Gingrich, who despite the political disagreements with President Bill Clinton, was willing and able to reach meaningful compromises, even as both leaders claimed to be protecting their base constituencies. While Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were both in Congress in those days, just one generation later neither can direct anything but bile at any GOP member of either the House or the Senate.

Can you even imagine today doing what Newt Gingrich and then-Minority Leader Dick Gebhardt did at the start of the 105^th Congress — hold a bipartisan congressional retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania for all House Members, their spouses and children? This occurred a mere two years after the majority in the House switched from Democrat to Republican for the first time in 40 years, and as tempers were still somewhat raw as a result.

However, the simple act of a bipartisan retreat forced members from one party to be in close proximity to their counterparts on the other side of the aisle for three days, away from the partisan halls of the Capitol. Democratic and Republican Members ate, talked, and socialized (including dancing) together over the course of a weekend. Members from one party were able to see their counterparts from the other party not as one-dimensional cut-outs to be shouted down and belittled, but as human beings with strengths and weaknesses, and as parents and families just like theirs.

The lessons from Hershey, PA in 1997 are lessons badly needed today for members of Congress, the president, and citizens alike. We must make America civil again if we are to have any hope of breaking these cycles of partisan brinkmanship, in which the goal is not a functional democracy, but rather complete control of government and everything it touches; where the winning side has free reign to ram through whatever it wants. In the short term this may seem necessary to balance out the changes of the last regime, but ultimately draws the country ever closer to all-encompassing authoritarianism as such “balancing” becomes increasingly more extreme — even inhuman, as in wishing COVID on your political enemies.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller by Bob Barr   From 2017 to 2019, America averaged 11 mass shootings per year; nearly double the rate of the three prior years. Although still a statistical rarity when it comes to crime, the uptick in mass shootings was cause for concern and attention by those on the right and the left. Yet, in 2020 America has endured only one such tragedy, not only running counter to the supposedly grim “new normal” painted by Democrats as a way to shame Second Amendment supporters, but shattering the data trends altogether.     For the self-proclaimed “Party of Science,” the facts this year – a record number of gun sales and a historically low number of mass shootings — should prompt at least a brief reflection on the party’s anti-gun platform, which holds that guns are always and inherently dangerous. Democrats’ take on “science,” however, is just as bad as their understanding of the Second Amendment. When it comes to actual facts about firearms, they cannot close their eyes and ears fast enough.     The simple, obvious truth is that if gun ownership rose to an all-time high and mass shooting incidents fell dramatically during the same period, gun ownership is not the cause of mass shootings.  This should have been obvious long before 2020, but for all of their histrionics about conservatives not wanting to talk about gun violence in the wake of mass shootings, Democrats continue their refusal to talk about anything other than banning guns as the solution to violent crime (including shootings in cities with the most stringent gun control laws already on the books).     For real scientists, the effects of 2020, and in particular that of COVID-19 on mass shootings, is an instructive reveal of the complexities behind such events, which Democrats have long ignored or refused to consider. An FBI study of mass shootings from 2000 to 2018 showed 44 percent occurred in “commerce” locations such as businesses and malls, and another 21 percent in education settings. These also happen to be areas impacted heavily by COVID-19, resulting in mass closures across the nation.     It is no coincidence that the removal of the favored soft targets for these killers has resulted in a dramatic drop-off of mass shootings. Nor is it a coincidence that psychopaths who murder pick such targets; they offer plenty of victims who are almost completely unprotected.     The vulnerability of soft targets to these attacks has for decades been a concern of Second Amendment activists. In fact, the FBI confirmed these fears in a 2018 report on mass shootings, noting “the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.” Even so, calls for restoring or buttressing citizens’ natural rights to self-defense outside the home as a solution to reducing mass shooting casualties are routinely mocked by Democrats. Even calls for armed guards or police protecting schools are met with derision.     All of this presents an uncomfortable reality for Democrats heading into the 2020 elections. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, millions of the record number of gun purchases this year were by first-time buyers, motivated by concerns about the economy and social unrest. Included in this cadre of new firearm owners are many who consider themselves politically liberal, and who until now might even have counted themselves among those who viewed the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” as one that applied collectively rather than individually.     The problem for Joe Biden, if he is elected, is that these new firearms owners are unlikely just to roll over once he begins implementing the stringent gun control measures for which he has advocated as a candidate.     None of this, of course, is likely to stop Biden from doubling-down on gun control, which is why every gun owner, whether new or long-time, must see their vote next month as one that will directly impact the future of their gun rights, more so than in any election since Bill Clinton’s in 1992.     For all their blustering about “science,” Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats want nothing to do with facts when it comes to guns and their plan to limit or strip citizens of their lawfully owned firearms. The consequences for the Second Amendment this election cycle could not be starker — an assessment confirmed by the science of research.     Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The long-awaited and much-discussed anti-trust suit against Big Tech behemoth Google has been filed by the Justice Department. While many on the conservative side of the ledger are applauding the government’s action, the reality is that Google, while big and powerful, is not a “monopoly” that ought to be subject to such drastic action by the federal government.

I do not make that statement as a die-hard fan of Google. I have been among those critical of the search engine company for using manipulative algorithms to direct internet users in ways that skew the results, the so-called “search engine manipulative effect” or “SEME.” I also have chastised Google for the way it has stretched the “fair use” doctrine beyond reasonable limits in the company’s years-long battle with Oracle over “application programming interfaces.”

Those and other criticisms of Google, however, are reflective of issues that can be remedied by civil lawsuits (as in the Oracle case now awaiting Supreme Court action), or through targeted action by the Congress (if it would wake from its customary somnambulance and actually follow up its oversight responsibility with focused, meaningful legislative proposals rather than just talk).

Pulling the trigger on a massive antitrust action against Google, however, is simply not called for. A decision reached in 2013 by the Federal Trade Commission following a two-year investigation of its own. In the broad scheme of things, little has changed since then that would render Google a monopoly to be broken apart by the feds.

Yes, Google is still big, and yes it wields considerable power as a global search engine. But Google is by no means the only search engine on the internet block. There are more than two dozen active search engines available to internet users, each one only a few clicks on the keyboard away if a person is dissatisfied with their Google “experience.”

In terms of advertising revenues, while Google brings in far more than Facebook or Amazon, recent reports show that, far from being stifled by Google, Amazon’s ad revenues have been increasing substantially at the expense of both Facebook and Google. In other words, competition in the internet advertising market remains alive and well.

Objective analysis of the internet search and advertising market simply do not support the conclusion that Google sits atop that market because it has engaged in practices that harm either consumers or businesses that advertise on the platform. Unfortunately, in a highly charged election year the search engine giant makes an easy and tempting target for Democrats and Republicans alike, as a way to burnish their pro-consumer and anti-Big Business credentials.

Liberal members of Congress, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, and of course, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, delight in beating up on Google largely because it is big and successful. Many conservatives in the nation’s Capitol are quick to jump on the anti-Google bandwagon because of its thinly disguised bias toward Democrats. But neither reason provides proper basis for an anti-trust lawsuit, in many ways the most powerful legal tool in the government’s arsenal.

The anti-trust hammer should not be unleashed at this time and in this manner to punish a company that, while imperfect, has changed dramatically and positively the way people all over the word perceive and use information, information being the real currency of the 21st Century. The repercussions of a successful anti-trust lawsuit against Google would be felt for years to come, and would open the door to search engine companies from other countries, notably including China, whose bias against the United States and disdain for the very free markets that spawned Google and so many other internet tech companies, is (or should be) well known to lawyers at the Department of Justice.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990. He currently serves as President and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.