Liberty Updates

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

As the economic boom that has defined the first four years of the Trump presidency continues, the likelihood increases that the Left will face four more years in what to them is the nether world of a Trump presidency.  As this realization grows in the minds of the Left, so too does the already virulent anger that has characterized the movement since Noon on January 20, 2017.

It has been obvious to even the most casual observer that Democrats still have not recovered from Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016.  The Left never has accepted the fact that Trump ran a better campaign than Hillary three years ago, or that his message was more in tune with voters than was that of his opponent.  The arrogance and sanctimony that ever since has characterized the Democrat Party and its adherents, appears certain now to be the rules by which the Left will conduct itself in the months leading to the November election.

In some instances, this worldview has given rise to child-like tantrums; like that of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams who steadfastly has refused for more than a year to concede losing to Republican Brian Kemp.  The conspiratorial-based movement she launched in the wake of her November 2018 defeat, has found continuing and fawning support from national Democrat leaders like Joe Biden, and significant financial benefits from benefactors like George Soros.

Before Trump even took his oath of office, Democrats were plotting revenge.  The use of dirty tricks by which Democrats have obstructed the Trump Administration has been unprecedented in both scale and aggressiveness. From using unelected, leftist federal judges to block the White House’s domestic agenda through the use of improper, nationwide injunctions, to the repulsive treatment of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, no trick or ploy is a bridge too far for Democrats when it comes to opposing Trump.

This is why the “impeachment” of Trump fell so flat. Outside partisan Democrat confines, the public saw it for what it really was — not a serious decision made after a deliberative and constitutionally based process, but fulfillment of a partisan promise made by Democrats the day after Trump was elected. Impeachment by majority vote of the House was a foregone conclusion; simply another escalation of increasingly bitter behavior directed at the President by people who refused to accept him as the duly elected leader of the nation.

As Trump edges closer to another electoral victory later this year, things are only going to get worse; perhaps much worse.

When the impeachment gambit officially runs its course and fails in the Senate, Democrats will turn to other weapons: more lawsuits in federal and state courts, and abuse of the legislative, oversight and appropriations powers they still possess through majority control of the House. Their goal will be to slow or grind the administration to a halt in whatever way they can, while still attacking Trump and his supporters with subpoenas, inquiries, and threats. It will be a no-holds-barred opposition with a vengeance.

But it is more than the halls of Congress in which the danger of Leftist instability is increasing. Over the last few years, the country has witnessed an escalation of force and intimidation from leftist political groups. One need only look to the violence of ANTIFA, or the recent street-clogging antics of Extinction Rebellion, to see how desperate they truly are. As Republicans continue to find substantive success through the president’s policies and judicial nominations, and as leftist groups fail to gain traction in the public arena, they will become increasingly frustrated, radical, and likely violent. 

The hostility seen in disgruntled child activists like Greta Thunberg and the Parkland High School activists, who scowl and seethe whenever offered media opportunities, is the same anger that fuels the entire Left right now. The tools of choice to which they increasingly turn are shouting, media manipulation and violence to wrest power from those who have been elected to the offices they covet.

Perhaps another stunning defeat in 2020 will be the wakeup call the Democrats and their leftist allies need to spark a more reasonable strategy change.  Unfortunately, with recent history as our guide, a far more likely scenario is more excuses, finger-pointing, and conspiracy theories to justify their growing resentment of the democratic processes – a process they used to favor but which they now deride because it provided a win for a president they hate. 

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Virginia is the birthplace of America’s independence and the state that gave us such towering patriots as Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Today, however, the Commonwealth is home to a governor and legislative majority that proposes to do what the British Crown never could: disarm the citizenry by force. 

When reporting on parts of Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s proposals for gun control first broke over the summer, the barely believable extremism could easily have been mistaken as fake news.  Now, after the November election which gave Democrat Northam majorities in both houses of the state legislature, it is clear the former practicing physician is deadly serious in targeting not only gun owners and retailers but even self-defense experts. 

His objectives are sweeping, and include among other measures, bans on so-called “assault weapons,” high capacity magazines, and suppressors; universal background checks; handgun purchasing limits; a “red flag” law; and a ban on any self-defense classes that conceivably could be construed as hostile to government interests. 

“Assault rifles” would be redefined to that of the discredited 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban; a cosmetically driven definition that makes illegal common sporting rifles enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans, simply because they “look mean.”  Shotguns and pistols with similar accessory feature likewise would be banned under the proposed legislation. Furthermore, the bills would also ban sound suppressors, a crucial safety device for home defense, along with magazines that have a capacity greater than the arbitrary 10 rounds long favored by gun control advocates.

The legislation filed in June, expanded this fall, and now being readied for the new legislature to be sworn in next month contains stiff penalties for violations. Possession, sale, or transfer of a banned firearm would be a Class 6 felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a $2,500 fine. The possession, sale or transfer of banned high capacity magazines would carry a similar fine and up to 12-months in prison.

Initially, the legislation set a window of one year for citizens to sell, destroy, or surrender what would become illegal firearms and accessories, or be subjected to criminal prosecution. The updated legislation filed last month, however, lacks this amnesty window, making the possession of these items immediately illegal upon the measure being signed into law.  This is ex post facto confiscation whether Northam and his cohorts call it so or not.  It is as gross an affront to the Bill of Rights drafted by Madison and made a part of our Constitution in 1791, as any since the infamous, and thankfully short-lived Alien and Sedition Acts signed in 1798.

In response to early public backlash, Northam said recently the pending legislation would include a “grandfather” clause allowing Virginians to keep what they already own (how generous!). This “concession” not only undercuts the purported “public safety” urgency rationale of the ban but is in direct contrast to what already has been proposed. Virginia gun owners would be foolish to believe such promises so facilely mouthed by Northam.   

Moreover, the Governor’s “grandfather” clause comes with strings attached; including the requirement to register the to-be-banned items with the state.  Such a listing would expose gun owners to serious privacy incursions by state officials, and abusive Freedom of Information Act requests by anti-gun activists meant to shame firearm owners and put them in direct harm of harassment and theft. A registry also ensures these would be the first individuals to have law enforcement knocking down their doors when the inevitable forced confiscation finally comes, or a “red flag protective” order issued. 

Even more chilling is the suggestion made last week by State Rep. Donald McEachin that Northam may need to activate the Virginia National Guard to enforce the law, as a result of the growing number of counties and municipalities that have declared themselves to be “gun sanctuaries,” where unconstitutional gun control laws will not be enforced by local police. While Northam did not admit openly this was an option, he did say that “there are going to be consequences” if the law is not enforced, but that he will “cross that bridge if and when we get to it.” With some 90 percent of Virginia counties already declaring themselves to be such sanctuaries, it appears Northam may be at that bridge now. 

If measures such as these actually are signed into law, the Commonwealth’s motto, sic semper tyrannis, would need to be changed to the more accurate, detrahere arma —“to disarm”

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Now that the House is set to impeach President Trump for what its Nadler-led Judiciary Committee decided were “impeachable offenses,” it is time to consider what will or, more important, should happen in a Senate trial.  In my view, no matter the utter lack of substance in the articles of impeachment certain to be approved by the House this week, the president should prepare to mount a vigorous defense and Senate Republican leaders should assist, not impede him.

As an Impeachment Manager in the 1999 trial of former President Clinton, I learned very early that an impeachment trial in the Senate has little in common with “normal” trials that take place daily in federal and state courtrooms according to well-established rules of procedure.  

Each and every impeachment that crosses the Capitol Rotunda from the House to the Senate, comes without any pre-existing rules of procedure for the trial, whether for a federal judge or a president of the United States. The Senate must adopt by simple majority vote unique rules for the conduct of each and every impeachment trial, including whether to allow live witnesses to testify and the scope of evidence to be admitted. These are extremely important tactical decisions and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must not allow Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to massage them into pablum. 

It is important the president keep these procedural nuances in mind as he decides who will represent him in the upcoming trial, and what strategy to pursue.

The situation will be very different from the one Clinton faced two decades ago. In January 1999, the Democrat president confronted a Republican-led Senate. Yet, even in those circumstances, the Senate adopted procedures for Clinton’s trial that severely handicapped the ability of the House Impeachment Managers (including myself) to prosecute the case against him – allowing no live witnesses and severely restricting the evidence that could be presented.  

The restrictive rules under which we were forced to proceed in January and February 1999, reflected the fact that the Senate – even under Republican control – had no stomach for an impeachment trial, notwithstanding the strong evidence developed by the Independent Counsel’s Office and the House Judiciary Committee that Clinton clearly had violated federal criminal laws against perjury and obstruction of justice.

Now, 21 years later, a Republican president will face a Senate majority of his own party. Trump would be well-advised not to presume the GOP-controlled Senate will necessarily protect his interests in establishing the parameters for his trial. It is Trump’s future that will be on the line there, not that of any Senator and the forum in which he defends that legacy must be one that allows him to present as broad a defense as he desires.  

Unlike the substantive articles on which Clinton was impeached, those presented by the House Judiciary Committee against Trump are astounding in their weakness. They lack even the pretense of substance, relying on the vaguest notions of “abuse of office” and “obstruction of Congress.” Thrown into the mix at the last minute by the Judiciary Committee in its report, are bizarre charges that the president is a “threat to national security” and that he “betrayed the nation.” Rather than strengthen the already weak case developed by the Judiciary Committee (and the Intelligence Committee before it), such hyperbole simply confirms that the report is nothing but a political hit job.

With this background, the only substantive record with which the Senate, the American people, and history will be able to fairly judge President Trump, will be that presented publicly in the Senate trial. In fairness to the president and to that history, this must include live witness testimony, including from the so-called whistleblower, along with any others the president desires. This is the only way for him to place into full and fair context all that body of evidence the House Democrat majority chose to ignore.

To present that defense, Trump must have a legal team chosen by him and for him — strong, single-minded individuals dedicated to vindicating him completely, and savvy as to the Senators who will determine his constitutional fate. Members of the team should possess a variety of skills but be fully complementary. Some of those members may already be working with Trump, others not yet, but each and every one must be mindful that they will be defending not only a president unjustly accused, but a Constitution deeply damaged in the rush to judgment by House Democrats.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

For the first time in nearly a decade, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case directly involving the Second Amendment. Not since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 has the High Court taken up a gun rights case, despite several opportunities to further clarify its landmark decisions in that case and the Heller opinion two years earlier. Conservatives, however, would be well advised to hold off uncorking the champagne bottles. 

While the case at hand, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, appears ripe for a favorable ruling especially as the Court has shifted to the right since 2010, such an outcome must first overcome several hurdles.  Most important is the question of whether the Court will even issue a ruling now that New York has struck the offending law from the books, arguably making the case moot, and thereby sidestepping any strengthening of the McDonald and Heller rulings. 

Before the City’s clever move repealing the law, it prohibited licensed gun owners from transporting an unloaded and stowed firearm from the home to ranges or dwellings outside the city limits. Conservatives, however, point to troublesome remnants of the revamped ordinance as reasons for a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court. Also problematic is the fact that the City could reinstate the statute as quickly as it earlier repealed it.

The nuanced and highly specific nature of the case also makes it less likely that the Court, even if it were to issue a ruling, would hand down the broad support for gun rights that Heller and McDonald failed to deliver. Instead, like those two cases, it is just as likely that this most recent case would follow similarly narrow lines and leave for another day the many unanswered questions about restrictive gun control schemes in the post-Heller environment; and, potentially, to a very different Court.  

It is this last point that understandably has left conservatives frustrated. Opportunities to clarify its last two landmark but still narrowly tailored Second Amendment decisions, have been many; yet the Court consistently has demurred.  This hesitancy prompted Justice Clarence Thomas to take the Court to task for such missed chances. In his 2017 dissent when the majority refused to accept for decision Peruta v. California, a perfect case involving the issue of firearms for self-defense in public, Thomas wrote, “even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively”; adding that he saw “no reason to await another case.”

Nevertheless, the Court waited – as do we all.

The Court’s reticence on definitively affirming the practical effects of the Heller ruling, coupled with its general reluctance to expand further than the immediate merits of any new case, and disappointing leadership from other conservatives on the bench, are reasons why Republicans should not be overly eager to pin their hopes on the Supreme Court this time or in the future to save the Second Amendment. 

Instead, conservatives should do what they have been successful at in the past; that is, winning at the ballot box and stopping disastrous gun control proposals at the state and local levels before they ever make it onto the statute books. There is no need to continuously fight costly uphill battles through the court system if Republicans can win legislatively; but this, too, is becoming more difficult.

The GOP’s feckless approach of late in defense of gun rights, has made Republicans vulnerable to devastating electoral losses, as in Virginia last month.  Equally debilitating has been the embrace of certain gun control schemes as a way of appeasing anti-gun activists. Support for so-called “universal background checks” and “red flag laws” by Republican Senators like Florida’s Marco Rubio or Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, embolden gun control activists and improve chances for enactment of such constitutionally defective measures by state governments.

If Republicans seriously want to keep the Second Amendment from being gutted entirely, they should consider the Supreme Court as a last resort rather than the first and best hope for preserving this vital individual liberty. They instead must grow a backbone with which to proactively defend the Second Amendment in city, county, state and federal elections every cycle; and simultaneously support those men and women in law enforcement who do understand and support the individual right to keep and bear arms, even in the face of adverse publicity that inevitably follows every instance in which criminals abuse firearms.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

The request on Twitter was simple: provide a “controversial” food opinion. Professor Tom Nichols, like thousands of other Twitter users, offered his: “Indian food is terrible and we pretend it isn’t.” Some 17,000 replies later, replete with charges of “racism,” Nichols has become one of the most recent examples of how the “Cancel Culture” is debasing and corrupting our country’s proud history of free speech.  

The Cancel Culture movement has become the scourge of Western civilization, a movement that will just as easily run roughshod over a Fortune 500 CEO as one of our next-door neighbors. It is a cultural pandemic long in the making and worsening each day it is allowed to fester unchallenged.

In 2015, I wrote about New York’s left-wing Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu’s joint investigation of ExxonMobil, for nothing more than failing to toe the Leftist line on climate change, a charge absurdly claimed to constitute criminal “securities fraud.” At the time, this was a somewhat novel way to browbeat a disfavored industry; it now has morphed into one of the Left’s preferred cudgels.

Earlier this month, fast food chain Chick-Fil-A announced it no longer would be including the Salvation Army or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as recipients of its charitable giving program. This change caused many conservative supporters and customers of the Atlanta-based company understandably to feel betrayed. More important, the move was one the company never should have been forced to make in a society that’s supposed to protect both lawful commerce and free speech.

In spite of serving delicious food, providing top-notch service, and enjoying a clear record of philanthropy, the company faced constant and open pressure from the Left simply because its leadership endorsed traditional, Biblical notions of marriage. That fact alone was sufficient reason to cancel Chick-Fil-A.

By any reasoned definition, this is tyranny and with each such warped victory, the Left will more aggressively press its advantage in the business, academic, and cultural sectors of American society.

Consider, for example, the ongoing efforts by activist state attorneys general and civilian gun control groups, to hold gun manufacturers responsible for mass shootings by criminals using lawfully manufactured firearms.  

This strategy is based on the theory that the gun manufacturers engaged in “false marketing practices,” and therefore are not entitled to the protection afforded to them under federal law as a manufacturer of a lawful product. In this way, the gun control movement is hoping to “cancel” firearms companies, in much the same way that pharmaceutical manufacturers are being punished for causing the “opioid crisis.” 

We see the same “cancel culture” strategy at play in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s ongoing crusade against the National Rifle Association, a textbook example of how a state governor can employ the regulatory tools at his disposal to cancel an otherwise lawful organization against which he harbors deep animosity.

The problem becomes more complicated when private, but socially indispensable companies such as financial service providers, decide to withhold services based on ideology. Michelle Malkin wrote earlier this year about Chase Bank’s curious closures of customer accounts affiliated with the so-called “Alt-Right,” actions similar to that of PayPal last year. 

Private companies, of course, enjoy broad discretion to serve whichever customers they wish. But is there a line to be drawn, and if so, where, particularly when such power is used to “cancel” a constitutionally protected right, or is used by a company that happens to be regulated by the federal government? It is, after all, one thing for snowflake Twitter users to take to social media to “cancel” another user for some perceived “insensitive” tweet.  It is – or should be — far more troubling, however, when government regulators abuse their power to try and put firearms manufacturers and retailers out of business, as did the Obama Administration with “Operation Choke Point” in 2013. 

Who will be left standing when all the “good guys” decide the stakes are too high to voice unpopular opinions, or when manufacturers of lawful but out-of-favor products can no longer afford the cost of doing business? Our Founding Fathers understood history and human nature, and wisely included in our Constitution mechanisms designed to guarantee we would not be placed in such predicaments. If we now are unwilling or unable to use those tools to fight back against the tyranny of the Cancel Culture, then we fully deserve the unenviable fate awaiting us.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

In legal proceedings or interactions with law enforcement, the one rule any defense attorney would offer is to always consult with an attorney first, regardless of the circumstances or whether you might be guilty of anything. The reason is simple: everything you say is or can become a matter of legal consequence (even if not under oath). Absolutely anyone, even if completely innocent of any wrongdoing, can unintentionally cause themselves legal harm or headache by virtue of a simple misstatement or misunderstanding a question put to them.

So, under normal circumstances, I would recommend President Trump not give Democrats any ammunition to use against him, even if provided accidentally. Of course, as has become obvious to all but the most diehard Democrats, the ongoing impeachment proceedings are far from “normal.” They are not even normal legal proceedings. They are political theater being orchestrated by Rep. Adam Schiff but with very real potential consequences for the president and the presidency.

In these circumstances, the best course for President Trump may very well be for him take the offensive and do what he does best: fight on the playing field provided, but at a time of your choosing and with your choice of weapon; in this match up, Trump has the ability to beat his opponents face-to-face. 

The pitfalls of such a move are the same as for any witness in a legal proceeding, whether under oath or not — inconsistencies, misstatements, contradictions, etc. This is why my initial thought was that Trump should not testify, and that his advisors should so advise him. However, as the impeachment inquiry has progressed it has become crystal clear Schiff and his Democrat cohorts are interested only in political grandstanding, and not proceeding according to established rules and precedents (as followed in the Clinton impeachment in 1998). I believe the president should seriously consider calling Pelosi’s bluff. 

Trump is a master at confounding his adversaries. He expertly navigated the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, vanquishing his opponents one-by-one, after each underestimated his debate prowess. He then wiped out Hillary Clinton in the general election debates. While the venue now has changed from the debate stage to congressional committee hearing rooms, the goal of the other side has not. Congressional Democrats want to remove Trump as president, just as his opponents three years ago sought to keep him from that post.

Frankly, Trump thrives in such situations, and is far more adept in such a battle than has been exhibited thus far by any of his congressional opponents. 

Clearly, there would be things he likely would say that others would dispute but, differences in opinion, intent, and conclusions are just that – and not “indictable.” Testifying also would allow Trump to finally set the story straight. After all, he is the only one who can say what he really meant in a conversation, as opposed to letting career bureaucrats and his Deep State enemies conjecture and twist his words. 

Democrats are so eager to let others tell them what they want to hear, perhaps the time has come for Trump to tell them what they fear – the truth. 

There are important caveats to this advice, however. First, Trump must be extremely careful, and be carefully counseled, to make absolutely certain anything he says to Congress (even if only in writing) is consistent with what he wrote to Robert Mueller in response to the questions posed of him. Given that his Mueller submission was a legal document, Democrats will be looking for any contradictions or inconsistencies, which could have legal ramifications for Trump.

Trump and his legal team also must keep in mind that the Schiff-controlled Intelligence Committee is not the only House Committee looking for a way to remove him from office. Most importantly, the Judiciary Committee will be carefully studying each word Trump utters or writes.

If this course is pursued, it is best pursued quickly. It is always best to catch your opponents off balance, and to seize the momentum. This also would diminish the time for the Mainstream Media to muddy the water with wild conjecturing about what Trump will or will not say. 

Democrats have controlled the impeachment narrative for too long and the GOP has been predictably slow to fight back aggressively and coherently.  

Calling Pelosi’s bluff carries risks, but if Democrats are going to impeach Trump no matter what (as appears to be the case), why not go on the offensive and really change the game?

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

For years President Donald Trump has warned the nation about the dangerous mission creep of America’s intelligence agencies into the domestic affairs of the nation.  For just as long, if not longer, those of us who have been involved in the political arena have raised alarms about the dangers of embedded careerists in government, whose agenda is expanding – not limiting – the powers of the federal government.  The mainstream media and the liberal Establishment, of course, have delighted in mocking us for issuing such warnings.

Now, thanks to a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency declaring publicly and proudly, “Thank God for the Deep State,” it can no longer be disputed that such a creature exists.  That utterance last week by John McLaughlin ought to sound alarms throughout our Land; but in a sense, we should thank him for clearing the air and removing any doubt as to why it is vital that Trump be reelected next year.  Trump is the Deep State’s worst nightmare.

In the 1970s, when I was training for a career at the CIA, one of the principles hammered into us was that good intelligence was, is, and must continue to be objective in nature, and delivered to policymakers without a political perspective or agenda. In other words, our job was to gather, analyze and report information to our country’s decision-makers and most definitely, not to make those decisions ourselves. 

As a classmate of mine during this extensive training, I know McLaughlin knows — or at least knew — this founding principle as well. The difference, however, is that while I left the agency and grew to see the threat to democracy posed by unchecked, secretive government power, McLaughlin, like so many around him, appears clearly to have become infatuated with the righteousness of their mission, and now to see their role as being far bigger than serving as America’s silent eyes and ears.

McLaughlin’s statement turns the very principle on which the CIA was founded in the immediate aftermath of WWII on its head. Whether or not intended, McLaughlin is admitting that intelligence officers now should, or perhaps must, consider it their duty not to report objectively to policy makers.  Instead, in McLaughlin’s view, intelligence officials are to use the power of their office to drive policy; especially, as is now quite obvious, if they conclude that those policy makers — including even the president they are bound to serve — are making bad decisions. 

This is exactly what Trump warned us about.

Rather than leave the direction of the country to duly elected officials in the White House and Congress — men and women who can be held accountable to the people — the faceless, nameless operatives in the CIA and elsewhere in government are now taking an active role in policymaking.  In the case of those myriad agencies making up the sprawling Intelligence Community, the marching orders for these Deep Staters from McLaughlin, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and so many more, are to employ the virtually unlimited powers and resources available to them as intelligence agencies to further their policy agenda.  

McLaughlin and others like him still in service obviously have become so enamored with their own righteousness and the “evil” of the policymakers with whom they disagree, they will do whatever it takes to “protect” us from ourselves.

This is exactly what happened to Comey who in 2016, drunk on his own self-righteousness, lost his objectivity and tried to play politics with what should have been objective FBI investigations of Hillary Clinton’s email server. The result was that Comey himself became a storyline in America’s 2016 elections, influencing at least in some part the outcome of the vote. Rather than serve as a warning about such meddling by the FBI, Comey’s actions appear to have served as inspiration; as now so-called “whistleblowers” in the Intelligence Community hope to do the same with Trump. In this game plan, McLaughlin clearly has their back, and his pious comments thanking the Almighty for the Deep State will serve only to encourage such underhanded and destructive actions as still are unfolding by virtue of the “Ukraine Whistleblower.”

There are many reasons for which voters should cast their votes next year for President Trump — the strong economy and regulatory reform chief among them.  In many respects, however, the single most important reason to reelect him is to continue his drive to rid the federal government of Deep State denizens like McLaughlin, Comey, Brennan, and so many others; along with their elected enablers like Rep. Adam Schiff.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

In the not too distant past, most adults realized that not everything one saw on the internet or on social media was to be taken as true. Today, however, what used to be a sarcastic phrase – “I saw it on the internet so it must be true” – is taken quite literally, regardless of the online source for such information; especially if it confirms our existing opinions and beliefs.   

This reflects a deep-seated cultural problem far beyond the ken of the Congress to solve; yet, of course, they try. And, as is par for the congressional course, they are pinning blame on an easy target: Facebook.

While Facebook certainly can be blamed for plenty of social ills, including the proliferation of “fake news” by its billions of users, as a private company it is frankly none of Congress’ business what it does with its platform. More to the point, expecting Facebook to lead the war against a societal problem for which “fake news” is but a symptom, is a waste of time and money, and sets a very bad precedent for legislative meddling. 

Facebook can’t fix stupid, and “stupid” is the real problem.

At the most fundamental level, allowing Congress, or any third party, to sanitize and label what is and is not “real” information is a terrible reflection of the intellectual laziness that infects our society. Have we become so averse to engaging in threshold research, or asking basic questions necessary to determine if something actually makes sense or is logically sound, that we need Mark Zuckerberg or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to help us arrive at the “truth,” or more importantly, what they determine for us to be the truth? This appears to be precisely what Congress is demanding Facebook do.

Yes, misinformation is dangerous, and can be used to manipulate people for political purposes. This is hardly a new phenomenon. George Orwell wrote about it at length in his dystopian novel 1984, and our Founding Fathers understood it instinctively as reflected in how they constructed our constitutional government.

Members of Congress may yell loudly at Mark Zuckerberg for failing to rein in misinformation on the gigantic social media platform he created.  But such charade is simply another instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

If Rep. Maxine Waters can make up lies about America’s border patrol, if Ocasio-Cortez can make up facts about “farting cows” causing global warming, and if Hillary Clinton can, without any shred of proof, accuse fellow Democrat and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a “Russian agent” – and people then take them seriously – then clearly the problem of misinformation goes far beyond fake Facebook groups and a handful of Russian banner ads.

“Misinformation” is everywhere.  It is not the problem. The problem is society’s expanding inability to use our brains to distinguish fact from fiction, and what is real from what is being fed to us for someone else’s benefit. 

We have shortened Ronald Reagan’s sage advice to “trust, but verify,” into simply “trust.” 

A recurrent theme in Ayn Rand’s opus, Atlas Shrugged, is a call to check one’s premises. In other words, if a contradiction exists, then the premises of the question at hand are likely wrong. It is an easy logical exercise for anyone to break down virtually any statement in order to verify its truth. But the process still requires a bare minimum of intellectual horsepower. 

For example, if it seems like Rep. Gabbard serving in the U.S. military and then in Congress is an odd thing for a “Russian agent” to do, then perhaps Hillary Clinton was wrong in such accusation.  In economics, if we understand that higher import costs are passed along to consumers, then we can deduce that trade wars are not going to make our economy strong again. The list of examples goes on; distressingly so. 

Of course, the premise here is that Americans are willing to think, which as we see in today’s hyper-partisan environment, may itself be a premise to check. However, with the swiftly advancing technology making “deep fakes” available to virtually anyone, the problem of misinformation will only grow worse before it gets better; and no Silicon Valley CEO or federal mandate will save us. The only hope is that Americans recapture the capacity to once again stop believing everything they read on the internet. 

I, for one, am not holding my breath for either our education system or better parenting skills to pull us out of this quagmire.