Liberty Updates

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

The 2013 Edward Snowden leaks revealed for the first time the frightening extent to which post-9/11 national security powers had been expanded – and abused – in the decade thereafter. But it was not until the FBI’s partisan crusade against the Trump electoral victory, did we have a clear and vivid picture of the degree to which those powers could be abused in the hands of bitter and unaccountable intelligence officials. American citizens would finally come to realize that if it could happen to the President of the United States, it could happen to anyone. 

Ironically, it is because of this hubris deep inside America’s intelligence community that we are now closer than ever to reforming at least some of the abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. With certain provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) set to expire on Sunday – most notably the much-abused Section 215 — hope for restoration of at least some of America’s civil liberties is on the horizon (but not guaranteed).

Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) once again are leading the fight to bring these expansive government surveillance powers back into line with the Fourth Amendment. It is unclear what will transpire over the next few days as party leaders seek to cobble together a majority of votes on one of the three possible outcomes; but also, to ensure the basic intelligence law remains on the books.

The first is full reauthorization. And, if Rep. Adam Schiff and other surveillance hawks in Congress on both sides of the aisle  have their way — with the full support of the Intelligence Community — it will be without any proposed amendments that weaken the powers that were deployed against the Trump campaign and Administration. Already Schiff has attempted to bully-away attempts to reform Section 215, including those by fellow Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren. 

The second possibility is the other side of the coin; true meaningful reform to FISA that dramatically curtails domestic – not foreign — spying powers. FreedomWorks has a great rundown of what such reforms might look like, including once and for all eliminating the terrible Call Detail Records (CDR) program that has been abused repeatedly.  FreedomWorks’ proposal also would require a warrant for US citizens targeted by FISA orders and would take away the FBI’s FISA reporting exemptions. 

FreedomWorks admits Lofgren’s reform bill (the “Safeguarding Americans’ Private Records Act of 2020”) and its Senate companion are not a comprehensive fix to all of Section 215’s abuses.  Nonetheless, the well-respected organization says it still is “a major improvement and our 4th Amendment would be in much better shape for it.” However, as is the case for full authorization, the votes are likely not there for such sweeping reforms given the Sunday deadline.

The Senate, of course, could have been hard at work on this important matter months ago, knowing this deadline loomed. But putting it off until the eleventh hour – a well-known legislative maneuver – makes it easier to avoid the hard work of substantive reform and to simply kick the can down the street once again.

The final and most likely option is a compromise between full reauthorization and sweeping FISA reforms; in which Section 215 is temporarily reauthorized before the deadline but with some worthwhile reform concessions. For example, there is significant support for striking CDR completely from the books, particularly since the NSA has already shuttered the program responsible for collecting this data. This should make for an easy concession from Rep. Schiff and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler. In exchange, pro-reformers might consent to a temporary reauthorization of FISA for two to six weeks while negotiations between the two sides continue on the more complicated provisions. 

At this late stage, just a few days before these oft-abused surveillance powers are set to expire, and with the coronavirus pushing virtually every other major legislative issue from the headlines, the outcome here is muddled to say the least – a situation surveillance advocates within the Congress and the Administration will use to their advantage.

Another real opportunity to repeal domestic spying powers that were enacted under the guise of “foreign intelligence surveillance” and that never should have been granted in the first place, may not come for another decade – if ever. If we let slip by this opportunity, vital Fourth Amendment guarantees against abusive government surveillance may be forever lost.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

For nearly three-quarters of a century, America’s taxpayers have given tens of billions of dollars to an agency of the federal government charged expressly with identifying, controlling and preventing diseases. Yet, despite having faced numerous disease outbreaks in those decades – from malaria in the post-World War II southern states, to SARS, avian flu and Ebola outbreaks in recent years – the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appears to have been woefully unprepared to respond to the still-developing COVID-19, or “Coronavirus,” that sprang out of mainland China at the end of last year.

Predictably, Democrats are almost gleefully pointing to President Trump’s departmental reorganization and funding cuts for the CDC in 2018 as the reason for the agency’s anemic response to COVID-19’s rapid spread.  The root cause of the problems at CDC are not of Trump’s making, however, and go far deeper than any recent administrative changes or funding decisions.  

The CDC for years has suffered from a problem common to government agencies everywhere – “mission creep”; whereby an agency and congressional appropriators deliberately keep expanding its responsibilities in order to justify bigger and bigger budgets.  In the case of CDC, this is reflected in the range of non-disease related responsibilities it has championed in recent years; everything from school bullying to workplace accidents and, most notably, gun control.

Such institutional expansionism, however, comes at a price; and here it is a loss of focus and priority to what once was the core responsibility of the CDC – control and prevention of diseases.

Trump’s three-year long effort to reform federal regulatory and policy functions across the vast horizon of the federal government, does not sit well with bureaucrats inside those agencies, whether it be at “Foggy Bottom” where the State Department sits, or Atlanta where the CDC is headquartered.  

As president, Trump has every right – indeed the obligation – to effect changes within federal agencies in an attempt to make them more effective, efficient, and purposeful in their missions. That the CDC and its protectors in the Democratic Party should find fault with such steps, and then blame the Administration for the latest unforeseen virus emanating from somewhere deep inside China, belies the inherent partisan nature of their posturing.

The breakdown at the CDC has been a slow-moving crisis in the making, and Democrat blame-shifting to Trump is, as the president said, a “hoax.” For years, Democrats in the Congress have been more concerned with beefing up the Center’s jurisdiction to study gun violence than with ensuring the sprawling agency does a better job carrying out its core mission of identifying and controlling communicable diseases like, well, new strains of viral infections.

Apparently, at least until now, turning the gun control debate into a “public health” issue and therefore arguably within the broadest jurisdiction of the CDC, was more important (and simpler) for congressional Democrats than delving into the structure and prioritization of disease control matters at the agency.  

Considering we are in the grip of a highly contentious presidential election that will not resolve itself for at least another eight months, it is not likely the Democrats will don their adult hats and work with the administration to  make long-needed changes at the CDC that will start returning it to its appropriate boundaries.  It is thus all the more important that Trump not be deterred in his drive to continue doing this on his own; not only to mitigate the effects of the coronavirus, but to ensure the CDC is far better prepared to meet the next viral threat which inevitably will eventually present itself. 

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Having recently tackled the scourge of “assault” weapons in the Commonwealth, Virginia Democrats now have set their sights on the looming major public health threat of unlicensed art therapy. Citing the risks posed by “toxic chemicals” in paint and glue, by scissors “which have sharp edges capable of causing cuts or punctures,” and with objects like clay that can be dangerous “if thrown,” Democrats are stepping up to correct what surely was an oversight by our Founding Fathers who failed to  envision such dangerous implements in the hands of unlicensed civilians (consider the danger to have one’s skin punctured by a newly-sharpened quill pen!). 

As ridiculous as licensing art therapists may sound, it is par for the course in Nanny State legislatures across the nation; often regardless of whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Take, for instance, that Louisiana requires a license for arranging flowers. Oh, and do not worry about being grifted by “fraudulent” fortune tellers – they’re licensed in several states, including Florida, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Even blow-drying hair requires more than 1,000 hours of training and potentially $20,000 in education and fees, before gaining the government’s stamp of approval. 

But who are government bureaucrats really protecting with these insane requirements? Many of the trades regulated under occupational licensing are low-wage positions, with little risk to participants or customers. Is there actually rampant fraud and public safety concerns within these fields necessary to making the barriers to entry so prohibitive? Or, are such licensing requirements being pushed by trade groups (as was the case in Virginia) to protect their businesses from increased competition; with regulation-hungry legislators happy to be seen as the saviors of public welfare and eager to use the regulatory hammer to prove their concern for their constituents.

The absurdity inherent in pushing these regulations should answer that question. After all, anyone with a halfway functioning brain knows it is complete malarkey to suggest unlicensed hair braiders, handymen, and a litany of other professions presented a clear and present threat to the public in the absence of licensing requirements. Furthermore, it is hard to argue with a straight face that a rubber stamp by the government does anything at all to stop unethical individuals from behaving unethically. 

Angie’s List and Yelp probably have done more to protect the public from disreputable and substandard businesses than any government licensing board. But the Nanny State thrives.

The actual harm to the public is not unlicensed individuals being paid for a service by people who willingly request it – the basic tenet of capitalism; it is the economic opportunities lost as the result of this protectionist Nanny Statism. It also happens to be a burden that falls hardest on non-college educated, often times members of minority communities, who rely on their trade skills to provide a living. Rather than have a shot at the American dream (or simply putting food on the table), budding entrepreneurs never even have a chance in the face of a mountain of time consuming and cost prohibitive bureaucratic requirements.

With nearly one-third of jobs today requiring the government’s permission, occupational licensing is completely out of control. Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope at the end of the regulatory tunnel, by some Republican governors to reverse decades of this craziness. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey has worked diligently in the past few years to start undoing occupational licensing madness in his state. His fight for license reciprocity, a major issue particularly for military families that move frequently from state to state, is a model that should be emulated nationally.

Shoshana Weissmann, a resident fellow at the libertarian R Street Institute, and Twitter’s de facto leader on occupational licensing issues, cites the importance of licensing reforms in the ongoing justice reform movement. “When people find work quickly after incarceration, they’re less likely to recidivate,” says Weissmann; adding that nebulous “good moral character” requirements used in some occupational licenses often prevent otherwise qualified individual from working in fields wholly unrelated to their past legal transgressions – a scenario that in effect “helps no one and hurts public safety.”

While President Trump continues to dismantle the behemoth federal regulatory state, legislators and governors in state governments from one coast to the other still are busy enacting regulatory roadblocks for entrepreneurs working to realize the American dream. 

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

When a young Mark Zuckerberg signed his new “Facebook” project with a video game quote — “Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master” – it was unlikely he consciously considered it a warning of how a dictatorial Chinese government could medically endanger the global population.

The young Zuckerberg clearly understood that information is power; power he and other social media moguls now wield.  But do they – or do people generally – even now understand or appreciate how control over the flow of information can be abused and imperil human beings in so many ways, when in the hands of unaccountable government officials? 

While human rights issues associated with authoritarian regimes is (or certainly should be) a constant moral concern, there is a more practical danger with the control of information under oppressive governments. I wrote last month that the tragedy with Iran’s downing of a civilian aircraft – the result of military incompetence and a breakdown of information between military and civil authorities – was a prelude to a far greater nuclear nightmare should that country ever achieve its goal of possessing nuclear weapons. Now, we see these same mechanisms in China with the outbreak of the Coronavirus.

Even in the best of circumstances, controlling the spread of a previously unknown infectious disease is difficult. It becomes nearly impossible when the disease originates within a tightly controlled, authoritarian society that is image-obsessed and highly averse to having its reputation tarnished anywhere, especially on the international stage. Suddenly, the flow of information about the disease becomes a weapon not in addressing the outbreak, but in protecting those responsible from being held accountable.

Because information about the impact of the virus within China’s nearly impenetrable borders is so sparse, it is next to impossible to determine the extent or trajectory of the threat to the rest of the world. What we do know, however, is that much like the culture of fear within the smaller, but still tightly contained regime in Iran, China’s oppressive rule is rife with mistrust, incompetence, bad decision-making, and failures to act – all prerequisites for yet another cover-up of historic proportions. The Coronavirus outbreak could very well be China’s “Chernobyl,” wherein the obsession with keeping it “their” problem turns the situation into “our” problem.

Beyond the health concerns involving the Coronavirus, China’s conduct should serve as a warning for western governments as well, including our own. Left to its own devices, government – any government – will protect itself first and above all else. China’s communist behemoth is doing that right now, even as health officials in Europe, the United States and elsewhere try to understand what it is doing and limit the damage.

It would be extreme hubris were we to believe ourselves immune from governmental disfunction and abuse simply because we live in a society far more open and transparent than China’s. Our own James Madison, writing 232 years ago in Federalist 51, recognized that government unconstrained by explicit legal mechanisms to limit its exercise of power, would inevitably descend into despotism. We certainly are not on the precipice of despotism in Washington – Nancy Pelosi’s wild fearmongering notwithstanding – but the “mission creep” that infects American bureaucracies from the Pentagon to health facilities across the country, remains a constant threat inching us in that direction.

When a President-elect Donald Trump dared question the authority of the “Deep State,” and it, in turn, reacted by targeting him using existing laws and procedures designed to protect our government from abuse by adversaries, it is not only good public policy, but absolutely essential policy that we identify and question those abuses, correct them, and punish the perpetrators.  Every time such corrective action is not taken makes it more likely another such abuse will happen, and more likely it will go undetected.

Neither Madison nor his fellow Federalist writers used the term “Deep State” in their magnificent essays; they were not faced with a “communist dictatorship” by that name.  But they knew the beast by other names, in their era and in times past.  They had lived — and nearly died – under despotism.   The fate of societies that had risen and then crumbled because they lacked the tools to tame the beast, were understood clearly by these wisest of men.  

Whether in modern-day Moscow, Tehran or Beijing, or in 18th Century Great Britain, unchecked and unquestioned government power leads to serfdom and ultimately, death.  If we today fail to draw corrective lessons from these and other examples, the seeds of our own demise will continue to germinate.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

As Rep. Nancy Pelosi stood behind President Donald Trump at the conclusion of the State of the Union address and childishly ripped his speech in half, it symbolized more than just the Democrats’ contempt for the president.  It represented the party’s final break with reality — its shamelessness exceeded only by its transparent desperation for relevancy.

In the blunt words of long-time Democrat guru James Carville, his party has “tacked off the damn radar.”  

The bizarre, leftward course now being charted by America’s oldest major political party did not start with Sen. Bernie Sanders becoming a presidential nominee front-runner, or with Pelosi throwing a series of very public tantrums. In many respects, the answer to the questions of how and why the Democrat Party reached this point starts with Twitter, the social media platform that in many respects now dominates news and politics. 

Democrats recognized early on Twitter’s potential for spreading their message, and party adherents quickly latched onto the social media platform as their vehicle of choice. In this, they have been joined by cadres of liberal reporters and journalists in the mainstream media, who similarly have flocked to Twitter to get the scoop on trending topics they then purport to transform into “news” stories. 

However, the very platform Democrats believed would amplify their message, has, in reality, become an ideologically incestuous echo chamber for extremist positions in which the party itself has become entrapped, and increasingly deaf to mainstream issues important to moderate voters.

Adding to the danger of this closed feedback system are mainstream media reporters who believe the trending topics they read on Twitter — elevated by online activists who represent a tiny fraction of Americans overall — are newsworthy. An isolated topic or issue that otherwise would pass without notice now makes headlines, thus becoming fodder for discussion among Democratic politicians eager to cash in on the latest outrage. As a result, all of the fringe extremism that previously was contained within social media overflows into the public square. 

Unable or unwilling to separate the online world from reality, Democrats have come to believe the same behavior and issues that make them “Twitter famous” will also make them popular with voters.  Not so.

Rather than making them more connected to their constituents and better attuned to local sentiment, candidates and elected Democrats drift further into the extremes as they seek online glory and their next “viral” moment, paying only nominal lip-service to the issues that once existed at the heart of the Democratic Party and fueled its electoral successes. The downward spiral continues as candidates realize it is not enough to be “woke” on just one or two issues.   If they are not 100 percent on all the issues important to progressives, they risk losing their online status should they be “canceled” for failing this absurd, all-or-nothing litmus test. 

The result is a Democratic Party that is electable in New York’s Bushwick neighborhood or San Francisco’s Mission District, but utterly unpalatable to voters outside such “progressive” urban areas.

Still, Democrats don’t seem to get it, as evidenced by how poorly the 2020 race has gone for them so far. Rather than crafting a populist message like that which helped elevate Trump to the White House in 2016, Democrats climb over themselves to be seen as the “most progressive” of the bunch. 

It did not help that they were thrown into a series of issue-specific town halls by news outlets who calculated this would be great for advertising dollars, but where for hours candidates had to figure out ways to stand out from each other on niche topics such as guns and climate change. This naturally took them to greater and greater extremes through the night, leading to some pretty embarrassing moments, as when all the candidates raised their hand as a vow to provide universal healthcare to illegal immigrants – a position extreme even for traditionally liberal voters.

The cumulative effect of this pandering for notoriety on a platform used by less than 10 percent of the population, of which even less are politically like-minded, has created the state of extreme discord among Democrats we are witnessing today.   It is a rift in which candidates look, act, and sound increasingly alien to the mainstream voters to which they need to appeal in order to succeed in the general election. 

It remains to be seen whether Carville is to be a prophet or a pariah for speaking this truth.  

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

As they say, “words have meaning”; even – rather, especially – words in the Constitution.  Take the words found in Article 2, Section 4, which provide the only grounds on which a president can be impeached and removed from office: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Despite the interminable effort by Pelosi, Schiff and their merry band to ignore both these words and the historical context in which they were written, the President of the United States can be removed from office only if found to have committed a serious (“high”) crime. 

In a startling display of ignorance of history – which renowned historian David McCullough wrote recently is something that “keeps him up at night” – impeachment-focused Democrats appear to have forgotten our Founders established a government led by a “President” elected by the People, and not by a “Prime Minister” chosen by the legislative branch.  

The difference at the heart of the debate over how our country’s leader may be removed is more than semantic; it reflects clearly two of the principles – separation of powers and checks and balances – woven into the fabric of our constitutional republic. The President is elected by the People but can be removed by the Congress, that is, the legislative branch.  In contrast, a British Prime Minister is chosen by and can be removed by the legislative branch in which he or she serves whenever that head of state loses the support of the Parliament, for whatever reason (including, for example, disreputable behavior or “maladministration”). 

While technically a prime minister can be removed by impeachment – an extreme procedure under old British law – the use of “impeachment” as a means of removing a prime minister is neither necessary nor useful.

In our country, by contrast, the process of “impeachment” takes on far greater importance than in the country from which we extricated ourselves more than two and a quarter centuries ago.  This is why “impeachment” must be considered in the context of our system of government, not Britain’s. 

In the British parliamentary system, impeachment is used to police its own members, as opposed to how it is intended to be used in America — as a check by the legislative branch over the Executive. As such, the Founders understood the threshold had to be much higher, to prevent the very type of abuse of power we are witnessing under Democrats today.

If the standard for impeachment were read to include behavior not constituting serious crimes, such as conduct deemed by the pursuing parties as unbecoming of the office, then there would be little, if any, protections on the Executive from being subjected to a constant cycle of challenges from the legislative branch. The effect, when abused as the Founders anticipated, would be to paralyze the office of the President, and subsequently, of the government itself.  We have witnessed this also in how the Democrats already have done with the judicial branch, by using friendly judges to enact national injunctions against the President’s domestic agenda. Clearly, this was not the intent of the Framers.

Instead, the Constitution provides the legislative branch with numerous other tools (legislative, appropriations and oversight) to be employed as checks on the Executive. That these powers have not been employed effectively by Congress in recent decades to rein-in presidential abuses and power grabs, reflects not any defect in our Constitution; but instead a growing imbalance of power between these two branches of government.  Failure by successive congresses to stand firm against power grabs by a string of modern presidents, must not be permitted to provide justification for this Congress to abuse the impeachment power to remove a president over policy or procedure differences. But this is precisely what the Democrats have attempted to do against President Trump.

The Pelosi-launched and Schiff-driven impeachment effort against Trump does not provide justification to pervert the original intent of the Founders that a president may be removed only for committing serious criminal acts, not because of disagreements – no matter how serious – with the Congress.

This half-baked impeachment effort by Democrats to remove Trump is but a desperate move by a Party utterly bereft of ideas, vision or leadership.  Fortunately, the Framers designed the Constitution to prevent against such manifest desperation, not enable it. Try as they might to shoehorn the standard of impeachment to cover a trial that revealed no proof of high crimes or any other legal offenses, Democrats have no constitutional standing to carry their scheme any further; although their blind hatred of Donald Trump will likely fuel their continued efforts to destroy him.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

In years gone by there existed an understanding that one’s personal information surrendered to private companies was a voluntary choice – the “cost,” if you will, to obtaining the benefit of a company’s goods or services.  Importantly – and constitutionally – such a “trade off” was far different from the government obtaining personal and private information by way of surveillance or other information-gathering actions undertaken without a warrant.  

There was a relatively clear line between private company collection of personal information voluntarily provided, and the government gathering such information without one’s knowledge or consent.  Today, that “line” has been blurred to the point of near erasure.

Government officials, of course, have never been short on creative ways to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on unreasonable and warrantless gathering of information.  We all are familiar, for example, with the abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act procedures by previous administrations, whereby the federal government was able to unlawfully surveil U.S. citizens’ private communications.  Some of us also may recall the FBI’s use of Best Buy’s “Geek Squad” technicians to browse computers for illegal content while on service calls. 

But with the digital age have come new opportunities for companies and government agencies alike to spy on citizens. 

The rise of social media and other technological advancements — geo-tracking and at-home DNA testing — have led to an explosion of highly personal information shared openly with third parties — and in turn, government agencies as well. Like throwing chum in the water to attract sharks, this treasure trove of data in the hands of private companies has caught the attention of government agencies at all levels; especially law enforcement agencies suddenly freed from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. 

While some companies, like Apple, have at times put up a principled fight against such incursions, despite backlash from the Department of Justice, most others have shown little hesitancy to cooperating with government agencies. 

Earlier this year, one of the largest at-home DNA testing companies, FamilyTreeDNA, was outed for voluntarily helping the FBI with criminal investigations, without notifying its customers of how their DNA samples were being used. Just this month, a company called Clearview AI boasted it had scraped three billion facial images from public sources, including from social media, to create a facial-recognition product, which it happily shares with law enforcement.

While users may trust that a company or app will protect their data, recent revelations of the cozy sharing relationship between companies and the government prove that such trust is badly misplaced. Even what many people might consider nominal and unimportant data points, such as photos or geolocation information, can be harvested, bundled, and databased in ways that far exceed what is expected, or known, by the users – data over which the original collection company loses control once shared with other companies or government agencies. 

Today’s privacy reality is that it is now impossible to draw a distinction between data harvesting undertaken by the private sector, and that of the public sector. The only realistic assumption must be that any data collected by third parties in the private sector can, and at some point, will, be subjected to law enforcement investigations regardless of when that information was first shared by the consumer, or under what privacy policies. 

The willingness of companies in the private sector to cooperate with law enforcement officials has become the new norm. Absent meaningful state or federal statutory protections of consumer data explicitly stating this data is off-limits to law enforcement without a warrant, this trend will only worsen.

Any breach of personal privacy is a danger to individual liberty, but the true threat is the consolidation of these breaches over time, eventually leading to a comprehensive profile of every citizen that includes information such as DNA profile, facial recognition, health and financial histories, online activity, and real-time location. This is, after all, precisely what China is doing with the massive “social credit” system it is quickly implementing for its entire population. You can bet social media companies and internet search engines in our country are paying rapt attention to how that process unfolds, and explains why these companies are opposed to even the most basic legislative reform proposals.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

The list of reasons Iran should not become a nuclear nation is lengthy; but recent events present the starkest reason yet why that must never happen.

In the broadest sense, nuclear power should not belong to a nation that openly talks about eliminating an entire race of people from the planet. Rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, Iran’s theocratic regime clearly cannot be trusted to use such power only for deterrent purposes. 

The recent downing of a civilian aircraft by its military forces serves as a glaringly obvious, practical reason why Iran must never gain access to military nuclear technology — incompetence. 

Contrary to the visage of Iran as a mega-presence on the world stage (a view regularly promoted by the regime’s leaders), the country is not a formidable military presence by modern standards. Our Defense Intelligence Agency notes that the Iranian regime in recent years has emphasized military improvements to its forces.  However, as a result of embargoes on foreign-produced technology, such improvements have been hamstrung by sanctions and internal financial troubles.  Iran’s once modern air force now is comprised of aging fighter jets, and its ballistic missile arsenal – the backbone of its military power – includes many that the DIA believes to be old and inaccurate.

As calculated by the military-tracking organization GlobalFirePower.com, Iran’s military power ranks 14^th in the world, behind countries such as Egypt and Brazil. While the military threat posed by Iran is not one to be taken lightly, it is not one that warrants the same degree of concern as Russia’s or China’s. Iran’s offensive strength lies in its ability and predisposition to engage in asymmetrical warfare; causing regional or cyberspace disruptions as opposed to full-on military conflict.

Becoming a nuclear power, however, remains an obsession of Iran’s leaders. And it is in this regard that what happened earlier this month must remain at the forefront of efforts by the United States and our allies to ensure Iran’s dream never materializes.  The demonstrated inability by the country’s military to properly use a rudimentary missile air defense system, resulting in the accidental shoot-down of a civilian aircraft, underscores the practical need to keep more lethal weapons out of the regime’s hands. 

Arming Iran with nuclear weapons, or even non-nuclear weaponry significantly more advanced and powerful than is currently available to them, is akin to putting a teenager behind the wheel of a 707-horsepower Dodge Charger Hellcat; a move irresponsible in the extreme.

Complicating matters further is the serious disconnect between Iran’s military leaders and its civilian authorities, a problem that was on full display following the shooting down of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. The lack of transparency and accountability displayed in the aftermath of that tragedy is symptomatic of the manner by which the country has been governed for more than four decades.  It is a dysfunctional system that breeds mistrust and secrecy, to the point that one hand does not know what the other hand is doing.

In such a closed theocratic system, true accountability is neither fostered nor tolerated.  If forced by domestic or outside pressure to admit mistake, the action taken will be as limited and short-lived as possible; resulting in no systemic or long-term reform and essentially guaranteeing future blunders.  

Though much more limited in scope, Iran’s downing of Flight 752 is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Chernobyl was the byproduct of political obsession, shoddy engineering, systemic fear of voicing concern, cultural hubris and overall breakdown in communication between civilian and government agencies.  As we later learned, the catastrophe was very nearly global in scope; but also one that would have been avoidable in virtually any non-totalitarian society. In Soviet Russia, however, Chernobyl was the result of government hubris and dysfunction.  

Similarly, Iran appears un-phased by the killing of 176 civilians in a completely avoidable accident; choosing instead to cast blame on the United States for the tense regional environment in which the catastrophic military blunder happened. This, on top of its general incompetence, is all the more reason for a reinvigorated global effort to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran’s reach.  A key element of this effort must be to renew the U.N. arms embargo currently set to expire in October, which would free Iran to update its military and pursue far more deadly and advanced weaponry.

Iran has offered the world absolutely no reason to suggest it is morally or practically capable of being trusted with weapons of mass destruction, and the downing of Flight 752 this month is only the latest reminder. We need not give them more opportunities to further prove us right.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Virginia Democrats flexed their muscle in Richmond this week; passing four gun control bills through the Senate Judiciary Committee.  This action had been promised by Gov. Ralph Northam since his Party gained majorities in both houses of the state legislature last November.  As with other state governors who believe that the best way to stop criminals from committing murder is to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms, these measures will do just that – make it harder for law abiding citizens of Virginia to exercise their rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Specifically, the Northam-endorsed proposals will limit citizens to one handgun purchase a month, mandate universal background checks, and allow local governments to selectively ban firearms from public events. Most troubling, one measure authorizes law enforcement to preemptively seize firearms from individuals they deem to be a threat (a so-called “red flag” law).  But there’s more.

The “crown jewel” of Northam’s expansive gun control agenda is a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”  This measure is expected to pass through committee this week, which then will trigger a long-anticipated showdown in the General Assembly.

In a concession of sorts, Northam agreed to include in the gun ban a “grandfather” clause allowing individuals who currently own a to-be-banned firearm, to continue to do so without automatically violating the law.  They would, however, be required to register their newly banned “assault weapon” with state authorities. 

This change illustrates the true fraud behind Northam’s gun control push – it was never really to address an “emergency” about public safety.  Rather, it is a partisan “spiking the football” following the electoral sweep by Virginia Democrats last November. In grandstanding about their legislative clout and mocking concerned citizens as “losers” and “nuts,” however, Democrats have needlessly provoked an intense confrontation in the state. 

This is no ordinary political stand-off. Democrats indicated they had every intention of doing whatever it took to implement their sweeping gun ban; including, if necessary, using the National Guard. This overheated rhetoric, on top of the radical policies being proposed, prompted more than 90 Virginia localities to declare themselves “gun sanctuaries,” placing local law enforcement and government officials in direct confrontation with Richmond and state officials.  

All this is to say that if Democrats knew their promises were nothing more than a gimmick that would be partially rolled back at the 11^th hour, it was highly irresponsible to push the confrontation this far knowing how it was tearing the state apart.  This process has fostered genuine fear in the eyes of Virginia’s that their fundamental rights were going to be taken away, by force if necessary. As governments have understood for centuries, creating fear then becomes justification for more and expanded government power.

It need not have played out this way.  Northam and his Democrat cohorts could have taken the time to craft specific legislative proposals that might actually address real-world gun violence issues — for instance, cracking down on “straw purchase” gun sales, and funding improved mental health programs in the Commonwealth.  Such measures would have enjoyed bipartisan support and would not have raised the serious constitutional problems inherent in the gun control measures Northam is pursuing now.  

Working to implement measures that actually might reduce the risk of further gun violence, however, would have involved real effort on the part of the Governor and Virginia legislators; effort they obviously were unwilling to expend.  In their calculus, taking the low road and regurgitating the tired rhetoric about the dangers posed by “assault weapons,” “silencers” and “high capacity magazines” – while at the same time and clamoring for absolute “universal background checks” — was the easier course; even if it meant having to back down a bit when confronted with reality.  

In the most fundamental sense, pursuing any course other than that on which Northam, et al. now have embarked, would not fit the gun control model to which the Democrat Party in Virginia and nationally has become so tightly bound. 

Northam and the Virginia legislature are remaking the Commonwealth of Virginia in the image of Michael Bloomberg and George Soros; an image bearing no resemblance to the model of freedom and liberty designed by truly great Virginians like George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. For the sake of their, and our posterity, let us pray that this rebranding of Virginia will be reversed in the coming election cycles.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

By all accounts, the low-tax, light-touch regulatory environment produced by Congress and the Trump administration has done wonders for America as we enter election year 2020. In the latest jobs report, 321,000 new jobs were added to the economy. The unemployment rate currently sits at a healthy 3.5 percent; down two full points from when President Obama left office just three years ago. The American economy is without a doubt going strong. Still, some say that America’s best times may soon be in the rear-view mirror.

While it would be understandable if in 2020 the U.S. is not able to match the astonishing gains of last year, there is no reason to expect a significant slowdown as some are predicting — not if Washington pushes to ensure its pro-jobs agenda comes to complete fruition this year.

Part of the problem is that the existing economic data just is not accounting for all relevant factors. Take, for example, my home state of Georgia. According to the University of Georgia, the Peach State’s economy will grow at a significantly slower rate in the new year. It projects that largely due to global factors, the state will experience a net loss of agriculture and manufacturing jobs in 2020.
 
However, just days after the release of the UGA analysis, President Trump reached agreement on a partial trade deal with China; a deal that will prevent some of China’s protectionist, anti-free market activities that allowed it to wipe away over 90,000 Georgian jobs between 2001 and 2013. That means at least some jobs coming back home in 2020 that were not previously expected. 

Washington’s free-trade celebration need not stop there, either. Days after the announcement of the U.S.-China deal, Democrats and Republicans unexpectedly came together to pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in Congress. Given that Canada and Mexico are two of America’s – and Georgia’s — top trading partners, the renegotiated terms certainly will help to boost American employment as well. That means there are still more jobs to be created that U.S. economists didn’t previously take into consideration in their more pessimistic analyses.

For the good of America’s economy in 2020, Congress can and should continue to grease through these agreements. Important also will be actions by lawmakers and regulators to safeguard against abuse the many economic development successes initiated by the several states that have helped drive the country’s robust economy.

Again, Georgia serves as an illustrative example. Few states provide as many incentives to conduct business within their borders as does the Peach State. At the same time, however, due to matters outside of their control, Georgians — like Americans more generally — need some help from the feds to ensure that free-market competition within and across its borders is maintained.

This year, for instance, the significant number of new Georgian jobs promised by Thyssenkrupp, an elevator company building a new headquarters right next door to the Atlanta Braves’ stadium, could be compromised due to a pending acquisition  from Kone, a leading competitor. The merger would likely pose no problems if the companies respected the free marketplace. Of concern, however, is the fact that Thyssenkrupp and Kone have previously been fined by the E.U. for uncompetitive behavior, including for artificially inflating procurement contract figures. If the government hands these two unnatural monopolies even more power, Georgia could be robbed not just of the many jobs the expansion would create, but also the millions of dollars in economic value the company is expected to bring in.

At the very least, threats to the economic development initiatives in states across the country, like the one potentially posed by Thyssenkrupp and Kone, should prompt inquiries from home state senators – in Georgia’s case, David Purdue and the Senate’s newest member, Kelly Loeffler. If necessary, they can then recommend whether the relevant committees or any other government bodies should become involved to protect the Georgia and the U.S. economies from anti-free market actors that may try to abuse the system.

Here’s the key takeaway — President Trump has proved himself a highly competent helmsman in the economic and regulatory arenas, and he is steering the U.S. economy in the right direction; at times with unexpected help from the Democrat-controlled House.  If he and other Washington decision-makers continue to advance free trade policies, while at the same time demanding answers to federal matters that could adversely impact state competition, price competitiveness, and employment, the 2020 economy will afford us all many pleasant surprises.