Liberty Updates

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Politicians love anniversaries, especially those recalling tragic events. Every time an anniversary of such a public event occurs — whether the first, fifth, tenth or twenty-fifth — some politician will rush to remind the public of the past event as a way to position himself or herself as a true leader, by calling for the government to do whatever it is they want done that would have prevented the prior tragedy or which they claim will prevent its recurrence.

This past week, amidst the myriad problems relating to the COVID pandemic and the recurring violence destroying lives, property and businesses in cities across the country, Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine used the bully pulpit of his office to again call for the state legislature to pass gun control measures he has long championed. The timing for his latest call was the anniversary of a shooting spree last August 4^th by an individual outside a Dayton, Ohio bar who fatally shot nine people before he was shot dead by police.

In the immediate aftermath of that 2019 shooting, DeWine issued a call for the legislature to pass a long list of gun control measures, including many that bore no relationship to the manner by which the Dayton shooter — a 26-year old white male with antifa sympathies — was able to obtain the firearm he used to carry out his horrific crime.

Included in DeWine’s proposal were measures constituting what has become known in recent years as a “Red Flag Law.” Such a law empowers law enforcement officers and other individuals including friends or relatives of a gun owner, to obtain a court order directing police to seize all firearms possessed by the person against whom the order is directed, based on allegations that the individual poses a threat to himself or others. A number of states already have passed such measures, despite their constitutional infirmities. DeWine’s initial legislative package also called for what would amount to a statewide “universal” background check system for virtually all firearms transfers including those between private, law-abiding citizens.

Thus far, Ohio’s legislature has shown little interest in passing such far-reaching legislation, despite DeWine’s pressing.

In the face of this legislative resistance, DeWine later in 2019 backed away from some of the more problematic provisions in what he cleverly titled his “STRONG Ohio” bill, including those that would have directly and formally established a Red Flag Law. However, the details of his proposed law clearly move toward just such a law, and he continues to press for other problematic provisions, including opening the door to a potential firearms registry for transfers between private persons.

Like many gun control advocates holding public office, DeWine appears drawn to the limelight rather than the hard work of dealing with the legislature and the public to enact meaningful measures that would address actual problems but still within both the letter and the intent of the Second Amendment and other provisions in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. In fact, hidden within his proposals are some measures that could provide the basis for such action.

If, instead of grandstanding before the media on the anniversary of a tragedy that already constituted a criminal act, the Governor worked hard to craft more limited legislation and budgetary measures that address known deficiencies in laws designed already to keep firearms out of the hands of persons not allowed under long-standing federal to possess them, he likely would have far more success. But then again, that is much harder than calling a news conference and restating the time-worn trope that “Doing nothing is simply not an option,” as he did last week.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as 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

When 13,000 air traffic controllers walked off the job in August 1981, President Ronald Reagan had this to say: “Tell them when the strike’s over, they don’t have any jobs.” The media, not yet fully familiar with the seriousness with which Reagan intended to govern, scoffed at the president’s threat. But it was not a bluff. Two days later, when more than 11,000 controllers refused to come back, Reagan fired them all. It was a powerful move, and demonstrated to the entire country that essential public employees serve the public, not union bosses. America’s public school teachers should be reminded of this fact.

With thousands of teachers across the country currently protesting a return to the classroom because of COVID fears, Reagan’s example is particularly relevant. Like air traffic controllers, teachers sign employment contracts. While air traffic controllers contract with the federal government and teachers with local school districts, the principle is the same: perform the duties for which you were hired, or be fired.

Teachers who refuse to teach in the setting for which they were hired – the classroom – need to stop acting like scared bunnies and grow up. If they truly are “essential” workers, as they remind us repeatedly, then they need to start behaving like other essential employees and get back to work.

Many businesses, unfortunately, have been forced by the government to shut down wholly or in part in reaction to the coronavirus pandemic, and this is having a devastating effect on our national economy. Amidst this devastation, public schools in virtually every jurisdiction across the country ended the school year early after COVID hit our shores in March.

Unlike commercial businesses, however, the prolonged closure of schools has ramifications far beyond the economic. Moreover, educating children is a process that cannot be switched on and off like a production line; the damage to young minds that are allowed to lie fallow month after month, or which are presented with “virtual” learning in place of human-to-human interface, creates learning voids not easily replenished.

“Teaching” means, if anything, working with students as well as encouraging students to work with other students in a social setting for the purpose of learning essential skills and acquiring essential knowledge. “Virtual” teaching is not teaching at all; it is cinematography – nothing more than an adult (the “teacher”) speaking to a camera, with an audience of one (the “student”) at the end of the electronic transmission watching a screen. Raw information may be thus transmitted, but not true knowledge.

What many public school teachers and their union bosses at the National Education Association appear to be setting as the price for them to return to the classroom, is a guarantee that the environment will be 100% percent COVID-free at all times. Such a condition is, of course, impossible to meet and essentially allows the teachers to avoid a return to their job site for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, demanding a zero-risk premise for classroom teaching sends the message to students (and everyone else for that matter) that risk-avoidance is the highest and most desirable goal for society. This further erodes the principle on which America’s greatness heretofore has been premised – that society advances not by avoiding challenges, but by meeting and overcoming them.

There might perhaps be somewhat more compassion for the our-way-or-the-highway posture being taken by these public school teachers had they and their union not spent decades working to ensure that public education remained the only practical option for millions of families across America. Unionized teachers continue to vilify homeschooling and oppose providing taxpaying parents any meaningful ability to choose where to send their children to be educated.

No teacher should be forced to go into the classroom against their will. However, if local government leaders properly equip them with personal protective equipment and mandate reasonable protocols within the schools to minimize the risk of COVID, and if teachers and their unions then still refuse to teach in school, it is time to “pull a Reagan” and fire them. The money saved from thinning educational bloat of protesting teachers and useless district administrators with nothing to do, can be returned to parents who are struggling to pay for alternatives to ensure their children actually have a productive school year.

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

The Nanny State has survived wars, economic downturns and election upheavals. It has shown itself stronger even than a major, worldwide pandemic. From semi-reasonable mandates such as requiring masks when in large groups, to the absurd, such as wearing a mask while walking alone with your dog, Nanny State regulators at all levels of government have been busy little bees during this coronavirus pandemic.

Not satisfied with limiting its intrusive meddling to measures at least marginally related to the pandemic, however, Big Brother now has focused its attention on social drinking — working to stop responsible adults from having a couple of drinks with dinner or during happy hour on occasion.

The vehicle for this latest nosiness is the drafting of new 2020 Dietary Guidelines by a government advisory committee. These dietary busy bodies are recommending that adults should not consume more than one drink per day. As with many federal “guidelines,” this latest compendium contradicts earlier versions, setting a standard that is 50% lower for men. A closer look at the make-up of the advisory committee hints at why the proposed guidelines are more draconian than its predecessor.

Timothy Naimi, an alcohol researcher on the Advisory Committee, appears to be leading the committee’s crackdown on accountable drinking by adult men and women. He has publicly defended the questionable goal, going so far as to warn the American people against having a couple of drinks after days of no-drinking activity. His comments suggest that every responsible man or woman who may like to unwind with more than one drink every so often is not only putting their own health at risk, but endangering society at large.

Naimi is an advocate of increased alcohol sales restrictions and taxes and a well-known adversary of the alcohol industry. It should come as no surprise therefore that the new government guidelines he helped devise appear based more on the lifestyle choices, opinions, and ideological worldview of one school of thought than they are on scientific facts and evidence. In fact, even a cursory reading of the text of this new report demonstrates that it has few data-driven legs to stand on.

By their own admission, they state that the drinking levels in the previous Dietary Guidelines “constitute reasonably low risk” and that “most studies found lower risk among men consuming within ranges up to 2 drinks per day.” However, they claim that by a mere “preponderance” of evidence they have discovered, men and women should only have one drink a day; hardly convincing. Their conclusion is weakened further considering that the document states that only a single study examined the difference between men consuming one or two drinks per day.

The lack of factual, empirical data for the committee’s recommendations would be quickly discounted if in fact it was subject to rigorous scientific methodology. But for Nanny State adherents like Naimi, what counts most are conclusions that support government power to intervene in private and commercial transactions and decision-making. To call the evidence on which this group has relied “conclusive” would be laughable but for the likelihood that, like numerous other government-funded studies, sooner or later it will fuel regulatory edicts with significant economic ramifications for the industry affected.

Apparently cognizant that their report would draw scrutiny, Naimi and his colleagues devote an entire concluding section to answering the question, “Why is tightening recommendations for men justified?” The authors claim that, although incidents such as motor vehicle crashes, falls and violence typically occur at higher levels of consumption, the “risk increases above zero drinks,” so the American people should therefore impose greater limitations on themselves.

This line of reasoning is akin to arguing that the government should reduce highway speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 54 simply because “the faster the speed, the more harm can potentially come.” The myopic logic fueling this report also ignores the negative consequences that can come from driving too slowly, just as the proposed 2020 Guidelines ignore the benefits that people may receive from moderate drinking, including reduced risk of strokes and heart disease.

The report would have little if any practical value at any time, but especially in these pandemic-stressed times, it makes no sense whatsoever and, if followed, will lead to significant harm to individuals and to an industry already hit hard by pandemic-based restrictions.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as 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

Our collective attention these days understandably has focused on the Left’s violent protests against America’s cities. Buildings are being burned, mobs are attacking federal employees, and innocent people are being murdered. Meanwhile, a deeply more destructive war is being waged by the Left; one that seeks to dismantle the essential values that sustain the very soul of our country.

In some ways, the Left’s attacks on America’s traditional values is not new; conservatives are used to hearing comedy hacks like Bill Maher mock God, and rich Hollywood starlets and pop singers scold us about the inequalities of capitalism. These are not serious people.

The people who are serious about undermining values such as God, freedom, and individualism are abandoning the public bully pulpit as the forum of choice from which to corrupt our values. One of the insidious tactics they have learned to employ is destruction of the one essential tool whereby ideas and values are collectively understood and transmitted from person to person, and generation to generation – language.

When words no longer have meaning, beliefs and values atrophy. Manipulation of the masses is made far easier. Examples abound.

Undermining the Second Amendment by enacting gun control measures is facilitated by describing it not as what it is – depriving individuals of a God-given right to protect themselves – but by defining the problem as something it is not, and in terms that garner broad (if superficial) public support; namely, protecting the “public health” against a public health “crisis” (gun violence). To further this unscrupulous but clever attack on a fundamental liberty, the Left has worked relentlessly since the 1970s to convince Americans how important it is to have to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) empowered to enact gun control measures as a means of stemming a “public health crisis.”

Now, it is “racism” that is the new “public health crisis” needing the heavy hand of government intrusion to cure. Official resolutions by government bodies declaring “racism” to be a “public health crisis” are becoming commonplace. The non sequitur of declaring a disgusting and long-discredited practice such as “racism” to be a “health” issue, much less one of “crisis” proportion, is swept aside in favor of using it as a political hammer with which to attack and undermine traditional American values – which are not and never have been “racist.”

Of what possible value can the term “public health” have if something as subjective as “racism” (which liberals now use to describe essentially anything they do not like) can be classified under it? The answer is obvious – none — which is the precise goal of the Left.

What is happening with America’s trusted institutions is only a precursor for what is to come if this type of language corruption is allowed to continue. What is to come of the next generation when they are told as children that “gender” is fluid and anyone can choose to be a boy or girl whenever they feel like it? That wanting to achieve the American dream is “toxic whiteness?” Or when they are physically attacked for having ideas or saying things that others consider offensive and which therefore constitute “violence,” and when remaining silent is also “violence?”

In this Bizarro World you cannot win. It brings to mind Ellsworth Toohey’s character in Ayn Rand’s masterpiece, The Fountainhead. Toohey understood the greatest tool for control was breaking a society of any objective truth about what it valued; leaving him to decide for them. To do so, he used his position as a “social critic” to trash excellence and elevate mediocrity, so that his audience lost all touch with their values, and more importantly, with their ability to judge for themselves what is valuable. “Don’t set out to raze all shrines—you’ll frighten men,” Toohey lectures; “enshrine mediocrity—and the shrines are razed.”

As America’s shrines to individuals such as George Washington and Frederick Douglass are defaced and pulled to the ground, and as values such as hard work and individualism are criticized as being racist, how hauntingly appropriate are Toohey’s words at this moment in our nation’s history. May they also serve as a reminder of what is at stake.

Buildings can be fixed. Our nation’s soul and the values on which it has been sustained for almost two-and-a-half centuries, once lost, cannot so easily be recovered.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Most Americans are probably familiar with the principle that neither the Legislative Branch nor the Executive possesses unlimited power. What might come as a surprise, however, is that our Founders established that the third branch — the Judicial — likewise does not enjoy unlimited power over its sister branches.

The notion of a limited federal judiciary may appear radical to generations of liberals and conservatives alike who have been conditioned to turn to the federal courts every time a president of the other political party takes an action with which they disagree. This viewpoint also finds broad support among those serving on the federal bench, many of whom are more than happy to accept for decision any dispute presented to them if doing so seems to expand their power.

The principle that the Judicial Branch of our federal government must operate within limits like the other two accords with the overall structure of our constitutional system as explained at length in the Federalist essays written in 1787 and 1788 by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Underlying the entire constitutional framework of our government is the principle that it may exercise only powers that are — as stated in Federalist 45 by Madison — “few and defined.” It is most noteworthy that in articulating this principle there was no caveat for the Judicial Branch.

The principle that all three branches of government are limited in their jurisdiction and power is fundamental and applies across the entire breadth of the federal government, including to the Judiciary.

In other Federalist essays penned by Hamilton, the role of the Judiciary is defined as the “bulwark” against “legislative overreach,” empowered to declare laws violative of the Constitution to be void. Reflecting this limited responsibility of the Judiciary (described as the “weakest of the three departments”) Hamilton noted that the branch lacks any “influence over the sword or the purse” and is in no way “superior” to the other branches.

Nowhere in the text of the Constitution or in the explanatory Federalist Papers is there any hint that federal judges are empowered to pass judgement on administrative actions of presidents executing laws that have not been found to be unconstitutional.

If on the contrary, a president engages in acts that are prohibited by or contrary to federal law (as George W. Bush did in abusing the FISA law after the terrorist attacks of 9-11) then the federal courts properly have jurisdiction to stop him. This principle was defined early on in the seminal 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall. Importantly, Marshall declared also that a president who acts within the administrative responsibilities of the office, is not to be second-guessed by federal judges. Unfortunately, it is just this practice of judicial abuse that has become a form of gamesmanship by many lower federal judges ever since President Trump was inaugurated.

This principle of administrative independence is currently presented in the context of Trump order to federal law enforcement officers to protect federal facilities and personnel and to enforce violations of federal laws in cities across the country facing violence by protesting mobs. No federal judge has yet taken the extreme step of declaring such presidential acts unlawful or unconstitutional; but considering the propensity of so-called “Blue State” governors and municipal officials to forum shop for judges inclined to find fault with everything Trump does, it likely is only a matter of time before the conflict is thus joined.

If in fact a federal trial judge were to declare Trump’s order unlawful, the president would be well within his constitutional rights to ignore such efforts since they are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch.

It is time for a president of the United States to remind this third branch of the government that it, too, must stay within its constitutional lane just as he and the Congress are made to do.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as 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.com

by Bob Barr

A highlight of any visit to our nation’s capital is spending time at one or more of the beautiful Smithsonian Institution museums that line the National Mall. Since the Smithsonian was founded in 1846, these museums have grown to house artworks and artifacts from Native American pottery to the Apollo moon lander, allowing visitors from around the world to see and understand the greatness that is our country and our culture.

Tragically, even this magnificent cluster of museums has fallen victim to the destructive political correctness that now is driving protestors to deface and tear down statues of George Washington and other great Americans.

One of the more recent examples of this divisive effort is seen in a program on “Whiteness” at the National Museum of African American History & Culture (NMAAHC), a part of the Smithsonian Institution. This bizarre exhibition warns viewers of “white racialized identity” as embodied by such cultural beliefs as “rugged individualism,” “the nuclear family,” and “hard work” – all hallmarks of what formerly were considered positive traits that helped build our country; but which now are presented in a negative light, essentially as racist. Instead of noting the ability of each individual by strength to overcome adversity, white participants in this macabre exhibition instead are lectured to consider themselves “fragile” because of their skin color.

The deep disdain for capitalism as a foundation of America’s growth from a small littoral country into a world superpower, and the undisguised assault on Western Enlightenment that are reflected in this exhibit, would be shocking if found anywhere in a public forum, but especially so when incorporated as part of the publicly-funded Smithsonian.

On the other hand, considering what is being urged these days by such once-respected institutions as the New York Times and what is being taught at many heretofore respected institutions of higher learning, perhaps this should not be seen as shocking.

There is, after all, a movement known as the “1619 Project” that seeks to convince persons ignorant of both history and common sense that America was not founded in 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. According to this twisted narrative, America was “founded” a century and a half earlier, not on principles of individual liberty and limited government, but singularly on slavery and white privilege.

This perverse re-writing of history is now being offered the imprimatur of legitimacy through inclusion in the NMAAHC.

The Smithsonian describes its foundational purpose as a repository for the “American national identity,” which embodies “an identity rooted in exploration, innovation, and a unique American style.” For many decades after its official founding, it upheld this legacy. Nevertheless, such a powerful tool as the world-renowned Smithsonian could not be resisted forever by those who wish to rewrite history. Thus, over the years, radical-Left activists have infiltrated the Smithsonian system, not openly as the radical revisionists they are, but as “historians,” “social scientists,” and “educators.”

NMAAHC’s program is a deliberate effort to radicalize a member museum of the Smithsonian using misinformation and propaganda completely at odds with the very foundation of the Smithsonian’s establishment: “the increase and diffusion of knowledge.” The “Whiteness” exhibit is the opposite of knowledge, as it turns America’s historically documented founding philosophy of individual liberty on its head with circular logic and academic gobbledygook devoid of any genuine substance. In so doing, these radical revisionists are ruining the reputation of a storied institution, for the sole purpose of turning it into another mouthpiece for the “woke” agenda.

The pride that American adults and schoolchildren would feel as they crossed the threshold into the National Museum of American History to view the massive American flag that flew over Ft. McHenry as Francis Scott Key penned the words to the “Star-Spangled Banner,” now is sought to be replaced by a sense of guilt and shame as visitors confront the “Whiteness” exhibit at another of the Smithsonian’s museums just blocks away.

The drive by the Left to radicalize our country and our culture is not only being waged by Antifa thugs, Black Lives Matter protestors and liberal elected officials, who enable their destructive behavior on the streets of America’s cities, from Portland to Atlanta. It is a war being fought just as aggressively, though more discreetly, in the very public institutions supposed to preserve and protect our nation’s heritage.

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

For years there has been developing a deep clash in our country between generations, political parties and personalities. This many-faceted conflict broke to the surface with the election of Donald Trump four years ago, and has remained part of virtually every major public policy issue since Trump’s first day in office. It now has erupted into full violence.

Perhaps nowhere in the country is the culture clash more starkly displayed than in Portland, Oregon; not in Minneapolis, not in New York City and not even in Washington, DC. Portland has become ground zero where the battle for the very heart of America’s culture is being played out.

Portland has long been known as a city of high-brow culture and far-left politics. For decades, it was a magnet for liberals of all stripes and ages; but in the past few years it has attracted a far more sinister and dangerous element – Antifa. Portland’s soft, left-wing political establishment, led since January 2017 by pacifist Mayor Ted Wheeler, provides a perfect breeding ground for violent protesters.

Since joining forces in late May, Antifa and Black Lives Matter have engaged in nightly demonstrations, vandalism, and arson, meeting little resistance from the city. In recent days, however, Wheeler’s strategy of “soft policing” (backed by Oregon’s equally liberal Governor Kate Brown) has run into resistance.

President Trump has thrown down the gauntlet in Portland, declaring that while the state’s and the city’s political leaders may not care if vandals desecrate federal buildings and facilities and endanger federal employees in Portland, he does. Reflecting an executive order he signed in late June directing federal law enforcement to proactively protect federal buildings, structures and personnel against vandals and other violent activists, and to actually prosecute those who perpetrate such acts, Trump recently ordered federal law enforcement personnel into Portland to do just that.

Judging by the howls emanating from Portland City Hall and from the state capitol in Eugene, one might conclude that the President had sent Patton’s Third Army into the city. Both Wheeler and Brown cried that Trump had sent masses of “secret police” into Portland to indiscriminately grab peaceful protestors off the streets and whisk them off to secret locations (perhaps to be waterboarded).

In fact, there has been nothing secret about the Administration’s actions; far from it. The President and the acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf have made clear in numerous public pronouncements their commitment to protect federal facilities and personnel in Portland and other cities. Moreover, ubiquitous TV cameras and cell phone recordings would make clandestine police actions next to impossible at any rate.

Wheeler continues to view the goings on in the city he nominally leads through the same rose-tinted glasses that throughout his tenure has allowed Antifa thugs to physically attack conservative journalists, stop traffic on major highways, and engage in acts of arson and vandalism largely at will. Not surprisingly, Trump does not view violent protests with the same degree of compassion as does the mayor, particularly when directed at federal properties and personnel.

Wheeler’s timidity in dealing with violent protestors truly has blinded him to reality. For example, even as Antifa and Black Lives Matters protestors last weekend were attacking Portland Police buildings as well as the federal courthouse in the city, Wheeler was on TV complaining that it was only the presence of federal law enforcement that caused any problem.

Despite hyped-up claims by Mayor Wheeler, Governor Brown, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and now House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY), that federal law enforcement in Portland have been engaging in wantonly unconstitutional actions protecting federal facilities and personnel from violence, President Trump is unlikely to back down; nor should he.

As President, Mr. Trump has an absolute responsibility to protect federal facilities and personnel whenever and wherever they are threatened, whether at home or abroad. That this no longer is considered by the Democrat Party as a legitimate underpinning of civil society, illustrates the depth of the chasm into which we are sliding.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as 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

It did not take the gun control crowd long to find ways to piggy-back onto the COVID-19 pandemic scare and press their extremist agenda. A recently-published article by a college professor, suggesting that COVID-19 contact tracing should be studied seriously as a solution to the problem of gun violence in America, reveals the partisan political agenda underlying much of the ongoing debate about the pandemic.

To be sure, the COVID-19 pandemic is a serious health issue. Addressing it requires that government agencies cooperate, act transparently, and focus their efforts on health and medical measures that actually are relevant to the problems presented by the virus. Key to the eventual success of efforts to rein in the pandemic, however, is one additional ingredient very often lacking in measures suggested or mandated by appointed and elected officials: consistency.

Whipsawing citizens by alternatively telling them medical masks are not really helpful, and then mandating them, hardly helped to develop the credibility needed to ensure public compliance with meaningful measures to slow the spread of the virus. This gulf was widened further when police began to ticket individuals for not wearing masks while engaged in isolated activities, such as sunning on an empty beach or jogging along an otherwise deserted trail.

Shuttering churches but not Black Lives Matter gatherings further illustrated the hypocrisy underlying actions by state and municipal authorities.

Any lingering doubt of the hypocrisy or subjectivity underlying many of these government edicts should have been dispelled with pictures of government officials grandstanding for the media, shoulder-to-shoulder with protestors, during the recent spate of riots engulfing many major metropolitan areas.

In the midst of all this, COVID contact tracing, using the power of ubiquitous “smart” phones to map patterns of contacts by individuals known to have or suspected of having contracted the virus, surfaced as a way to slow the spread of the virus.

The glaringly-obvious privacy problems inherent in contact tracing have to some extent tempered the rush to implement such programs (or perhaps simply caused officials to do so less publicly). Its emergence as a means of more broadly controlling people, however, has been seized by Nanny State advocates as a way to pursue government control of non-medical issues including, of course, gun control.

A recently-published article by Northwestern University sociology professor Andrew Papachristos is illustrative of this movement to employ invasive contact tracing to address other problems, such as gun violence. In this particular proposal, however, there is no substance whatsoever. Not once does the professor actually say how contact tracing data would solve gun violence, only that “research” of it – as some deus ex machina device – would magically solve the problem.

That nonsense, such as the kind promoted by Papachristos, would be taken seriously even to the extent of publication demonstrates the degree to which the Left will seize on virtually any occurrence, whether a viral pandemic, a police shooting, and especially the never-ending crusade to undermine the Second Amendment, as a vehicle with which to further their political agenda.

At its core, this proposal is a call for the comprehensive tracking and databasing of citizens’ daily lives. Once databased, the information can be easily extracted, then analyzed and finally (and easily) manipulated to identify and ultimately quash behavior deemed socially unacceptable, all under the guise of white knights protecting the public health.

Even if contact tracing could conceivably be managed by private third parties and completely anonymized (such as through encrypted cell phone technology), the mere existence of the data inevitably would prove too tempting for the government not to find some way to justify obtaining it for other uses — in the “public interest,” of course.

Government repeatedly has shown itself untrustworthy to maintain or have access to databases, such as those now being proposed for COVID-19 contact tracing. That door must remain closed, notwithstanding a call by a sociology professor to open it for gun control purposes.

###

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

If there were lingering doubt remaining in the mind of any New York City police officer that the state’s elected leadership is biased against the NYPD, it would have been erased last week.

On July 8^th Letitia James, the Attorney General for the state of New York, issued a “Preliminary Report on the New York City Police Department’s Response to Demonstrations Following the Death of George Floyd.” The 57-page document makes clear that neither the governor (who requested the report) nor the attorney general “has the backs” of the largest civilian police force in the country.

From start to finish, the report illustrates that the lens through which the state’s attorney general views the NYPD is one that presumes the department to be rife with racism, and which repeatedly responded to “peaceful” protests with unnecessary force. Even though the report is deemed “preliminary,” the attorney general exhibits no hesitancy in recommending long-term, systemic “reforms” to the NYPD.

At its core, this report is designed to support pre-conceived changes to the NYPD, premised on obvious disdain for the department as it currently exists.

The report punches all the right rhetorical buttons. The attorney general states that the office hopes to “reimagine” the role of the city’s police force, and thereby to “rebuild” the “trust” between it and the people of New York that the NYPD itself has destroyed. The report talks grandiosely of how its recommendations will, if implemented, fundamentally “redesign public safety and the role of police in society.”

The wording throughout the report reveals its bias in favor of the protesters and against the police. References to actions by the protesters are prefaced with the term “allegedly;” responsive actions by the police are not similarly modified. Even when the report notes that police were subject to having objects thrown at them (everything from frozen plastic bottles of water to glass bottles and bricks), they are not deemed to have “responded” against the violence aimed at them with pepper spray and batons, but rather that they “retaliated” against the “peaceful protestors.”

Descriptions of police responses and mob violence are lumped together as “violence by protesters and police,” with no distinction between the two groups or the appropriateness of their actions.

Concern is expressed in the report that the actions by the police were “terrifying” to the protesters, and “generated a lot of fear amongst the crowd.” Nary a word is found in the report for whatever fear may have been felt by police officers facing unruly, violent crowds armed with glass bottles, bricks and Molotov Cocktails.

The report is at pains to note that the “fear” felt by the protesters resulting from the violent actions of the NYPD, constitutes “ongoing emotional and mental trauma,” such that some of the protestors now find themselves having “trouble sleeping and eating,” and are “afraid to leave their homes” for fear “that NYPD would attack them in the street.” Such testimony, though bordering on nonsensical, nonetheless is consistent with the premise of the attorney general’s investigation, which was to document “perceived wrongdoing” by the NYPD.

This report is part of an orchestrated plan laying the groundwork for a complete revamp of the NYPD in the image of the New Left that is being pressed openly by George Soros. In the strange new world recommended in this report, police would have no jurisdiction over traffic offenses, and “minor offenses” such as “fare evasion,” trespassing on private property, disorderly conduct and marijuana possession would be decriminalized, so as to reduce fear-inducing confrontations between police and citizens.

The Commissioner of Police no longer would have effective control of the NYPD, which would instead be lodged with a greatly strengthened Civilian Complaint Review Board and Office of Inspector General.

The recipe detailed in this Report, even clothed as it is as “preliminary,” is a prescription for disaster for the citizens of this once great city.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7^th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as 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.

American Action News

by Bob Barr

Five years ago, a single white man walked into Atlanta’s International Airport with a lawfully owned AR-15 rifle; simply making a statement that a law-abiding citizen should be able to lawfully carry a firearm in public places. Notwithstanding the benign nature of the stunt, the Atlanta and national media went into high alert, as did law enforcement, which questioned and followed the man closely to ensure he did not bother anybody (he did not). Nowhere was there reported a word of public support for the gun-toting citizen.

Last weekend, between 100 and 200 black men marched along a major Atlanta road to Stone Mountain State Park. Virtually all the marchers conspicuously carried AR-15s or similar style rifles, were dressed in black and wore masks. Most sported ammunition bandoliers and many were festooned also in protective vests.

There was nary a peep of criticism or concern expressed by the media or government officials, some of whom gushed over the fact that the armed phalanx was “peaceful” – well, sort of.

How times have changed. Or is it something other than the passage of time that distinguishes the one man carrying a single rifle in a public place in 2015, from hundreds doing the same thing just five years later? Oh, did I mention that a number of this past week’s armed marchers engaged in intimidating verbal confrontations with white motorists?

The July 4th marchers were led by a foul-mouthed masked man calling himself “Grand Master Jay” in an oh-so-clever play on the manner by which KKK big wigs referred to themselves as “Masters,” “Wizards,” and the like. The marchers’ oft-shouted demands called for everything from reparations for slavery to removal of the three Confederate generals carved into the massive granite outcropping.

Calling themselves alternatively a “Black Militia” and a “Not F*#@ing Around Coalition,” the armed marchers strutted around the streets near the state-run park, stopping cars and making demands of white (not black) drivers. Police who stood by as little more than disinterested observers.

The inescapable irony in the scene, which would have been comical aside from the fact that it was not, lies in how the authorities treated these armed, black marchers who were verbally assaulting and menacingly intimidating law-abiding citizens on the public thoroughfares. The kid gloves with which the authorities treated the black marchers, was in clear contrast to the heightened concern exhibited by authorities and the media, whenever armed white protestors occasionally gather in the vicinity of Stone Mountain.

The timid response by officials in Georgia last Saturday also is in stark contrast to the hyperbolic manner by which authorities in Richmond, Virginia and Lansing, Michigan responded to groups of armed white protestors earlier this year. Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer called the protestors “perverse” and various legislators declared how “afraid” the protestors made them feel.

The obsequious response to the Black Militia march by Georgia authorities all but guarantees there will be further such displays by this group and likely copy-cats.

A perfect example of how tepid responses to armed vigilantism begets violence was illustrated the very same Independence Day weekend in Atlanta, when eight-year-old Secoriea Turner was fatally shot. The little girl was killed near a burned-out Wendy’s, where on June 12th a black man was fatally shot by a white police officer after he had resisted being arrested and then fired a taser at the officer.

For three weeks following that incident, Atlanta’s mayor and police chief had turned a blind eye to barricades that had been erected at the burned-out fast food restaurant and then allowed armed blacks to “guard” the area. It was only after Secoriea Turner was shot on the night of July 4th that the mayor awoke to the problem and issued her first tough words against the armed thugs; too late to save young Secoriea Turner.

Timidity in response to armed thuggery, whether accompanied by high-minded rhetoric of “racial justice” or extortionate demands for “reparations” money, only begets more of the same. Whether authorities in Atlanta and other cities ever will awake to this reality is at best very iffy in today’s racially strained environment. The real question is how many more innocent lives will be lost in the meantime.