Liberty Updates

Townhall

by Bob Barr

In a free market system, sellers compete by offering products of either a higher quality, or at a lower price. However, when sellers collude to sell their products all at a fixed price, consumers pay a higher price because there is no longer a need for competition. In the private sector, this is called a cartel. In the public sector, we call it a G7 summit.

Joe Biden fancies himself something of a straight shooter, so why is he not shooting straight with Americans when it comes to the G7’s latest scheme for a global minimum corporate tax of 15 percent? Try as they might to spin it, the G7’s plan is a global tax cartel, and while this sort of socialism is par for the course for Europe, America should know better.

America is a country whose entrepreneurs built the world’s greatest and strongest economy. We are home to recent success stories like Apple and Amazon, but also benefit from some three million businesses owned by immigrants that generated more than a trillion dollars for the U.S. economy.

Why in the world, then, would we voluntarily agree to make doing business in America and with American companies worse, so that by comparison, it makes doing business in Europe better? It is not the American taxpayers’ job to subsidize European socialism, but that is exactly what Biden is volunteering them to do by pledging U.S. support for this tax cartel.

If European countries want to band together and levy higher taxes on corporations, that is their business. America should be working in the opposite direction, however, by taking steps that make operating a corporation in the United States more appealing. Between its kangaroo courts and mind-boggling fines whenever the European Union decides it is owed money by a corporation, the pitch to move business operations to the U.S. is – or should be – a no-brainer.

Of course, that pitch becomes considerably less believable when America starts adopting the same socialist tax policies that have incentivized companies to flee Europe.

Today’s global companies are more “portable” than ever. Many, like those in Big Tech, have no real manufacturing footprint; others have their manufacturing processes already dispersed around the globe. When corporations decide to pick-up and leave a country, they can do so without the same disruption to their operations that previously would have forced them to just stay put.

Only hubris and detachment from market reality can explain why the G7 thinks companies will only consider investing in a country within the tax cartel, instead of others that recognizes the value of providing economic freedom to do business and make money.

As developing nations today are learning from the ruinous lessons of socialism, the G7 appears to be heading more towards it. It is here that we see the E.U. losing its edge in competing for global business, thus belying the true intent behind the cartel’s action. Europe knows it cannot compete with a global economic landscape favoring economic freedom, and it desperately needs tax revenue to continue funding its progressive agenda, thus the push for a global minimum tax.

Washington should not require a crystal ball to see what future awaits us by jumping on the G7 global tax bandwagon. One has only to consider what is happening to states here at home. New York and California are hemorrhaging both corporations and wealthy citizens. States like Texas and Florida are flourishing as economic “refugees” relocate in pursuit of friendlier business climates and better tax rates. Does Biden think it will be any different on a global scale? Does he not care? Or is this “Europeanization” of corporate tax policy what he actually desires for America?

A global tax cartel forces America to oppose what we do best – engage capitalism.

The Left’s fawning over Europe is nothing new, but as we watch the continent’s slide toward economic decay, unchecked immigration, and ineffective healthcare systems stretched beyond the breaking point by COVID, now is precisely the wrong time to embrace those policies.

However, with Biden at our helm and doing whatever he can to prove he is the “nice cop” taking over from “bad cop” Donald Trump, appeasing his European buddies is more important than working to maintain America’s leadership on the world economic stage.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

During his Senate confirmation hearing on May 26, Joe Biden’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), David Chipman, was asked to define an “assault weapon.” For someone being considered for such a position, especially with his decades of experience lobbying for stricter gun control laws (and as an ATF special agent), the question from Sen. Tom Cotton should have been a soft ball. Instead, Chipman whiffed like a little leaguer going up against Nolan.

After sputtering through some nonsensical gobbledygook, Chipman finally declared that an “assault weapon” is “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22.” Really?

If the ATF nominee actually believes what he said, it represents an unprecedented expansion of the general definition of “assault weapon” even as has been used by Democrats for decades in crafting gun control legislation. Regardless of whether his response reflected a degree of careful analysis, or was simply a poorly crafted off-the-cuff answer, the statement by itself disqualifies him for the job.

Anyone who has ever debated gun control advocates on this issue, or on any matter related to the Second Amendment, surely has observed the disparity between knowledge of firearms and the intensity with which liberals make their arguments against them. In fact, the two traits appear inversely proportional, with often the loudest advocates of gun control having the least knowledge about firearms and the Second Amendment. A perfect example of this dichotomy is the loud but ignorant gun-control hero, Parkland High School alumnus David Hogg.

This ignorance does not exist in a vacuum, and it has real-world consequences. As Reason’s Jacob Sullum outlines in a piece detailing why California’s “assault weapon” ban recently was struck down by a federal judge, the entire premise of the law was based on a fundamental lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise) of the firearms that were banned. This misunderstanding led to decades of unconstitutional deprivation of California citizens’ Second Amendment rights, not to mention expensive legal fights defending the ill-conceived law.

For decades, the Left has pushed openly to ban so-called “assault weapons;” either by piecemeal chipping away at characteristics common to rifles such as the popular “AR-15” platform, or by simply declaring them as a class of firearms to be unlawful. In this environment, it is incomprehensible that someone like Chipman, who has years of experience lobbying for such bans, does not know the definitional basis of what it is he is asking Congress to enact. Nobody in his position can, or at least should be that dim.

This leaves the only plausible excuse for Chipman’s answer to be that he does, in fact, believe the definition of “assault rifles” to encompass nearly every modern sporting rifle. Should this be an accurate reflection of his views, the man represents the very worst case for serving as director of ATF.

As I have often written, the important future battles over gun control will not so much be waged in the halls of Congress as they will be in America’s bureaucratic swamp via rule-making processes. These actions remain largely out of the public eye and rarely are checked by Congress, which makes zealots like Chipman especially dangerous.

Driven by both a personal agenda and a mandate from the Oval Office, Chipman’s broad definition of “assault weapon” makes clear he would use the ATF’s equally broad regulatory powers in new and dangerous ways. Already the ATF has signaled its desire to readdress the definition of pistol braces used on common AR- and AK-style pistols, essentially rendering them unlawful.

More dangerous still is the recently published ATF proposal to completely redefine what constitutes a firearm’s “frame or receiver” and the manner by which firearms are to be identified. This far-reaching proposal would upend decades of firearms laws and regulations, and would open the door to massive expansion of the ways in which ATF could control the manufacture, retail, and tracking of all firearms.

With Chipman or a similarly incompetent individual at the helm of ATF being but a phone call or email directive away from gun control advocates in Congress or non-governmental advocacy groups, the harm to the industry and to individual gun owners could be devastating, even if Republicans are able to wrest control of the Congress from the Democrats in next year’s election.

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

Townhall

by Bob Barr

In a world of facts and reason, Rebekah Jones is an outlier. As National Review’s Charles Cooke elaborately detailed last month about the Florida Department of Health’s former COVID-19 data analyst, Jones is many things – fabulist, grifter, disgraced former professor, and subject of numerous criminal charges from felony robbery to cyber-stalking. But courageous “truth teller” she certainly is not. Then again, in today’s world that depends on one’s politics.

The case against Jones’ credibility is as clear-cut as it gets among today’s flurry of media disinformation, but the Left has nevertheless embraced her as a Joan of Arc figure of the COVID-19 crisis; largely, if not exclusively, because her allegations that Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis manipulated COVID-19 health stats for political gain fits the narrative they yearn to believe. And, as the saying goes, that is their story and they are sticking to it – facts, or Jones’ deranged behavior, to the contrary.

There is little more to add in discrediting Jones’ wild claims against DeSantis that Cooke has not already addressed over the last month, but Jones’ ability to hoodwink liberals simply because her story confirms their personal and political biases, is worth exploring further. It reflects a disturbing trend, particularly among the mainstream media and Democrat politicians, in which “truth-seeking” is more about confirming a narrative, than actually seeking the truth.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to accept information more readily as true if it reflects currently held beliefs, as well as to more quickly reject information that challenges these. To some degree, confirmation bias is a part of human nature. However, when it comes to institutions such as the media, the creep of confirmation bias into the news-gathering process by agenda-driven journalists produces results that range from embarrassing to outright threats to national security.

Fortunately, in the case of Jones, it has been mostly the former. For all the sanctimonious finger-wagging at the Right for its associations with the QAnon phenomenon, the Left’s obsession with Jones simply because she is attacking one of the GOP’s best and brightest rising stars, is laughably hypocritical. Even 60 Minutes’ hit-piece on DeSantis came-off as so nakedly partisan, it barely qualified as offensive.

The situation is much different, however, when the stakes are raised with national security on the line. Take, for instance, the mainstream media’s intentional scuttling of any hint that COVID-19 may have originated from a research facility in Wuhan because such a theory conflicted with the Left’s browbeating of Trump and other Republicans about “anti-Asian” rhetoric. Where might we be today in holding China responsible for its malfeasance had the media last year invested the same vigor into following fact-based and plausible theories about the virus’ origin, rather than blindly taking as gospel assertions from one man, the now discredited Dr. Anthony Fauci, that a lab leak was virtually impossible.

The list of the Left’s “Emperors with no Clothes” is indeed lengthening.

As I wrote last week, the Left’s perpetual blind spot for the threat posed by China to U.S. interests is made even worse by a confirmation bias that steels American media and politicians from any counter information that might have a shot at breaking this spell. How can elected officials in charge of making national policy, or the media outlets that help inform these elected officials, be effective if they only see reality through such hyper-partisan tunnel vision?

Jones may be taking the Left for a ride, raking in donations from gullible supporters while making fools of journalists who fall for her scam, but it is what she, and Fauci (now cashing in on his own lucrative book deal), represents that should be a wake-up call for the Left and Right alike. Our ability to absorb and objectively process new information is a critical survival mechanism. Dulling this ability by simply assuming we are being told the truth by those who share common beliefs makes us more prone to believing false narratives from bad actors, especially those disguised as friends.

“Trust, but verify,” was a phrase often used by President Ronald during negotiations with the Soviet Union over nuclear disarmament. Today, however, we do far too much of the former, and far too little of the latter. It is an environment of fake news and propaganda, that without immediate correction, will surely bring ruin to our great nation.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Conservatives for years have warned about the dangers posed to the Second Amendment by regulatory chokepoints imposed by state and local lawmakers. They warned these processes could be unintentionally, or more likely intentionally, used to chill citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Over the last year in North Carolina, these fears have proved frighteningly prescient.

North Carolina is one of 10 states and Washington, D.C. that require a permit to purchase a pistol, which is processed and approved by the county sheriff after completing a background check on the applicant. State law requires this process to be completed within 14 days. Despite this legal requirement, however, in some counties the wait is now stretching into months. Unlike federal background checks, there is no “default” approval after expiration of the statutory window for processing.

County sheriffs, such as Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry L. McFadden who rode into office on the 2018 “Progressive Wave,” claim the simultaneous factors of COVID-19-related work disruption and a historic surge in gun purchases, have put counties behind in processing pistol purchase permits. Thus, people should “just be patient.” In other words, the officials will get to the permits when it fits their priorities, and in the meantime, citizens should sit quietly and wait.

The lack of urgency to addressing what amounts to a denial of citizens’ Second Amendment rights is inexcusable. Consider the impact this bureaucratic bottleneck places on first-time gun purchasers in particular. If a person believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger, other than a long gun that is completely impractical for arming oneself outside the home, there is no option other than to hope and pray that their permit is processed in time. After all, who do citizens call when it is police breaking the law?

Adding to the absurdity of these regulatory hurdles is the fact that this government law-breaking is for the sake of upholding a process already made redundant by federal background checks performed at the time a rifle or pistol is purchased from a firearms retailer anywhere in the United States. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn about how and why these schemes remain on the books, is that they provide state and local gun-grabbers a tool by which to punish citizens seeking to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.

Sadly, the situation in North Carolina is not unique. Consider Maryland’s onerous purchase permit scheme, which is currently being challenged in court by the National Rifle Association. The NRA Institute for Legal Action (NRA-ILA) correctly asserts that Maryland’s regulatory requirements place financial and time burdens on applicants that are designed intentionally to “’intimidate’ law-abiding citizens and prevent them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.” As I have noted previously, such burdens fall hardest on working class and minority communities. Given the racist origins of gun control, this too seems intentional.

Such manipulation of the regulatory measures imposed by state and local governments to chill gun rights are consistent with gun control measures passed last March by the Democrat majority in the U.S. House. By requiring all firearm purchases, including private sales, to include a federal background check, while greatly extending the window in which these checks can be processed, Democrats have potentially created a de facto national waiting period of at least 20 business days (from the current three days), under the guise that background check systems cannot keep up with demand, an excuse that has demonstrably not been the case under the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) which has been operating for more than two decades.

Local sheriffs, like North Carolina’s McFadden, are able to undermine the federal system’s approval time constraints based on state statutes, which will remain in place unless and until those gun control laws are changed by voters or they are struck down by the courts as impermissible infringements on the Second Amendment.

These regulatory minefields are the battlefields on which the real war on firearms rights currently is being waged. Without a broad and decisive Second Amendment victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, which recent history suggests is unlikely to happen, citizens in many states and municipalities will remain at the mercy of local anti-gun officials.

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

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Why in the world was the U.S. funding virus research in China? This is the $10 trillion question about which more members of Congress other than Sen. Rand Paul should be grilling Dr. Anthony Fauci, who thus far has failed to give Americans the straight answers we deserve.

The issue is far bigger than Fauci and what Republicans should be demanding is a clear answer to why America funds any research of any sort with our primary world adversary, especially research that is at best “dual use” research, and at worst a precursor for devastating biological warfare.

One reason is that the Left has never appeared to understand the real world, in which there are friends and enemies; including enemies with smiling faces and offering candy, but whose aim is to kill you. In the case of China, smiling faces are empty promises of domestic liberalization, and its proffered candy is lucrative Chinese markets for U.S. companies.

The truth behind the mask is all too easy to spot – if one is willing to look.

Human rights abuses against the Uyghur people, Orwellian surveillance networks and “social credit” systems, a tyrannical crackdown in Hong Kong, and state-sponsored cyber-hacking of U.S. companies are but a few examples of China’s recent reprehensible conduct. Still, the Left continues to mollycoddle this global power as if it were nothing more than a puppy wetting the carpet.

This behavior is embarrassing when it comes from the private sector, as when the NBA, an avowed “social justice” advocate, shushed its players from criticizing China for fear of jeopardizing the league’s $5 billion investment in that country, or when a spineless Hollywood actor apologizes to Beijing for making a factual statement about Taiwan. Kowtowing from U.S. government leaders, however, is a far more serious matter.

Despite the formidable size of its military, China’s bread and butter remains asymmetrical warfare, focusing on geopolitical pressure to manipulate other international powers including the U.S., while using its military chess pieces primarily to ward off interference in its internal affairs. With China’s finely honed knowledge of how money and power flows through Washington, D.C., its leaders understand that buying influence in academia, the media, Hollywood, and woke corporations serves the dual purpose of controlling American politicians.

It therefore comes as no surprise that fact-based theories about COVID-19 originating in a Chinese lab led to pushback by leftist politicians and media. Some Democrats even played the race card, accusing Republicans of being “anti-Asian” for placing the blame on China; no doubt exactly as Chinese officials privately predicted.

China’s well-known and historical predisposition to play the “long game” in its dealings with U.S. administrations, allows it to wait patiently for presidents more easily manipulated to its agenda – someone like Joe Biden. With Democrats now in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, it is unlikely China will ever be held accountable for its release of the COVID virus and its intentional cover up efforts.

None of this analysis is new. China’s bad and manipulative behavior has been on display for decades, which only raises the question of why the U.S. continues to play into its hands geopolitically, even as we give the communists critical intelligence by “partnering” with them on health, economic, and academic endeavors, like Fauci’s research in Wuhan. That such resources sooner or later will be used directly or indirectly against us has been a very real and tangible danger for decades.

Perhaps America’s primacy as a global superpower has dulled our ability to recognize a bully when we see one, but it is beyond time for the U.S. to begin fighting back, using the same asymmetrical methods as China uses against us. For example, Trump’s 2016 post-election phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen was a masterclass in subtle, diplomatic shot-firing at China. Another easy win would be extending refugee status to Hong Kong citizens attempting to escape tyrannical Chinese rule.

Democrat politicians and the lords of social media in Silicon Valley may whine and complain about agitating their “buddies” across the Pacific, but these craven concerns need to be brushed aside. China is already waging war against the U.S., even if Democrats choose not to recognize the reality.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

As America celebrates another Memorial Day, remembering and honoring those who gave their lives in defense of our country and our freedoms, it is appropriate that we reflect also on the state of our armed forces, not so much in terms of where and how our forces are deployed (itself a timely and critical exercise for the Congress to deal with), but from the perspective of freedom within the military. In other words, are the men and women who serve, and who have served in our armed services, in both military and civilian capacities, having their individual liberty constrained simply by being associated with the military?

This might seem an odd question to be asked of our military, but considering the strange priorities reflected in actions taken by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin during his first four months in office, it is a very relevant inquiry; the answer to which is deeply troubling.

In his 2003 book on the history of secret police – The Unsleeping Eye – Robert Stove quotes a passage written by Napoleon Bonaparte’s notorious Minister of Police, Joseph Fouché, to describe the situation by which new governments solidify their hold on power:

“Every government at its dawn usually takes advantage of a danger it has created, either to make it more firm, or to extend its power; all it needs is to escape a conspiracy to acquire more strength and influence.”

Joe Biden was sworn into office just two weeks after the Jan. 6 violence that took place on Capitol Hill following a speech earlier that day by then-President Donald Trump. This “insurrection,” as liberals and the mainstream media have come to call it, became the centerpiece for much of what the new administration claimed was the need for a crack-down on “extremism” and “white supremacy.” Indeed, to this day, nearly six months after Jan. 6, national guard troops remain stationed in Washington, D.C. and “temporary” fencing remains on the Capitol ground.

In his role as defense secretary, Lloyd Austin has taken hold of the “extremism” ball passed to him by Biden, and continues to run with it as a primary, if not the main focus of his job. First, he highlighted the “danger” posed by “extremists in the ranks” to be a fundamental, if not existential threat to the good order and performance of America’s military, and on Feb. 5 issued an unusual, military-wide “stand down” to “address extremism.” He followed this on April 9 by issuing a Defense Department order to establish a “Countering Extremism Working Group (CEWG)” with jurisdiction to include all military service members, civilian DOD employees and even retired military.

At the helm of this wide-ranging but vaguely defined “working group,” is Bishop Garrison, appointed by Austin to be his “Point of Contact.” Mr. Garrison’s position is not subject to Senate confirmation, and whether Republicans in either the House or the Senate will proactively inquire into what exactly he and his working group will be up to in the months ahead, remains to be seen. Republicans, however, should be concerned – very concerned – about where this is leading, insofar as it clearly conveys a plan to identify, intimidate, and remove civilians and military personnel with whatever Mr. Garrison and Secretary Austin consider to be “extremist” views.”

For Garrison, what he considers “extremist” views is obvious from his own social media postings, some dating back two years:  anyone associated with or who supported Donald Trump is an extremist and a “racist.” Notwithstanding his having graduated from West Point and serving with distinction in the Army, Garrison’s deeply leftist and anti-Trump views are widely known, and are well-tailored to fill the role of chief Political Officer in today’s Defense Department. His duties as Lloyd Austin’s right-hand man in this regard, as detailed in Austin’s April 6 memo, include:

• Ensuring that potential recruits not harbor any current or “previous” extremist views or behavior.
• Setting up a system by which veterans can report on any contacts by an extremist group, after they have left the military.
• “Monitoring” social media activity for extremist views that might be held by current and potential Department positions.
• Watching for persons who might simply have been “following” or “liking” extremist views, even if they did not actually subscribe to such views or engage in extremist activities.

Austin cleverly did not designate Mr. Garrison as his “Political Commissar,” but in his new role as the Secretary’s Point of Contact for Extremism, that is precisely what he will be doing.

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

Townhall

by Bob Barr

In a recent piece at The Bulwark, Sonny Bunch puts into words a sentiment sensed by many for years, namely, that what once made social media so great has now made it unbearable. According to Bunch, social media’s original design as platforms for “debate culture” has descended into a toxic landscape of information silos where arguments are “dismissed in favor of agreement.”

Rather than a boundless world of information and opinions, social media now serves to blind users from reality.

This sorry situation, however, is precisely what Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein predicted in his 2008 book, The Dumbest Generation, How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. How tragically right he was.

Today, social media is used far less for reasoned debate than as the vehicle for outraged mobs to launch vicious fusillades against their perceived enemies. Some targets of this vehemence are large organizations and companies able to withstand such attacks. Often, however, victims of social media lynch mobs are individuals who knowingly or by chance have traversed the social media crosshairs of the Left and expressed views at odds with the prevailing social media orthodoxy.

In spite of the potentially life-changing consequences of becoming the latest “Central Park Karen,” or merely someone wrongly accused of being a “Nazi,” such nuances are lost on these online mobs, as their aim is not to change minds or debunk misinformation, but to destroy their targets personally, emotionally, and financially – all while taking glee in the ruin they cause. This internet misbehavior is fueled by hashtags that facilitate coordination and aided by secret algorithms designed to keep users hooked by feeding them aggregated content catering to their preferred tastes and world views.

Whether tech companies could have (or, should have) seen this coming, they are responsible for building the content silos now tearing our culture apart. This raises an important question: Is social media’s descent a reflection of society’s debasement, or a catalyst accelerating it? Actually, both.

Two of social media biggest failures – tribalism and confirmation bias – existed long before the rise of Facebook and Twitter, as traits of the human condition. Individuals naturally gravitate toward like-minded people and possess an instinctual skepticism of ideas and information different from theirs. Traditional liberal arts education was designed specifically to undermine that innate skepticism, and provide young minds with the intellectual tools to withstand the challenge of competing ideas and to unashamedly defend one’s own views.

The demise of traditional liberal arts education in favor of leftist groupthink, coupled with the ascendancy of social media as a way to block out disfavored ideas, has resulted in barriers to independent thought and reasoned debate that make it now nearly impossible to overcome.

In the pressure cooker of social media, bad ideas and bad behaviors are not checked, but rather rewarded with greater engagement, in a sociopathic feedback system used by its purveyors to create addiction to their services.

To make matters worse, traditional alternatives to social media’s distortive effect on information and reality, including the mainstream media, politicians, and religious leaders, appear to be following in social media’s footsteps, with fear-mongering and hyperbolic rhetoric increasingly used to manipulate followers. We see this dangerous phenomenon everywhere.

For example, notwithstanding the fact that trust in the media has sunk to an all-time low, news outlets constantly peddle fear and even outright lies, because doing so brings social media “clicks” and boosts ad revenue. Substance and truth are nothing more than flotsam, to the point where misinformation spreads six-times faster than the truth on Twitter.

In the midst of all this, politicians, although fully cognizant that radical polarization is ripping our country apart, continue using the very same overheated rhetoric on which social media thrives, because it brings in campaign dollars. Even religious leaders prey on fears of a culture in decline because, sadly, it strengthens their congregants’ faith .  .  .  and increases tithes and offerings.

State legislative attempts to rein in social media, well-intentioned as they are (such as the bill recently signed by Florida Gov. de Santis), are virtually guaranteed to be successfully challenged in federal courts, based mainly on the many First Amendment precedents affirming the primacy of public “speech” over government limitation. That task, however, is made far easier thanks to so-called Section 230 of the 1996 “Communications Decency Act,” which treats social media companies as simple “platforms” rather than what they increasingly have morphed into – publishers with their own goals and agendas.

The long-foreseen dangers of social media are now upon us. Whether we survive what we have sown is an open question.

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

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Last year’s toxic confluence of urban violence and COVID lockdowns led to a surge in gun ownership, particularly among first-time purchasers and minorities. More firearms were purchased in 2020 than any year on record – some 21 million, with about 40% being first-time buyers. The radical offshoot of 2020’s urban violence to “defund the police,” led in many cities by the Marxist-inspired Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, also has given rise to an increased interest in private police forces, run not by government and not paid for with taxpayer funds.

The concept of private policing is by no means a new or novel idea; the Foundation for Economic Education, or FEE, wrote about it in an article by Nicholas Elliott 30 years ago in February 1991, for example. It is, however, taking on new life – and controversy – as a result of the dramatic rise in violent crime rates in cities hit hard by the “defund” movement. Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Atlanta and of course, Minneapolis where the “defund” movement really started, all are witnessing significant increases in violent crime as law enforcement funding has been cut and as anti-police sentiment has grown.

Historically, and contrary to popular belief, the primary responsibility for protection of oneself does not fall to the police; it is the primary responsibility of the individual. This not only reflects the reality that the police cannot be everywhere all the time, but also represents a legal principle recognized in federal court decisions, including by the United States Supreme Court. In fact, that there were no organized, publicly funded police departments in the U.S. until the late 19th century. Citizens themselves were considered stewards of their homes and businesses, and responsible for their personal safety and that of their family members – thus the need for the Second Amendment to ensure the ability of citizens to defend themselves with a firearm.

With the urbanization of the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and reflecting the rise in crime rates and the number of criminal offenses, police departments were formed in cities across the country to provide investigative resources and aid in prosecution of criminal offenses. However, the primary responsibility to protect oneself remained vested with the individual, notwithstanding the explosive growth in taxpayer-funded programs by government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels over the past seven decades.

Now, in this third decade of the 21st century, with the defund movement decimating police budgets in the very places where police presence is most needed, Americans of all backgrounds and ethnicities are coming to realize this truism – it is they that are responsible for protecting themselves, their families, and their businesses. The surge in first-time gun buyers, especially among black Americans reflects just this reality. And, in some metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles County, private policing paid for by individual subscribers, is moving to fill the void created by the defund movement.

Citizen, described in a recent article as a “neighborhood watch app” that has partnered with the large private security firm Los Angeles Professional Security (LAPS), provides “subscription law enforcement service” to residents and businesses that pay a regular fee for protection.

This trend actually is not new. Long before the violent upheavals and subsequent anti-police fervor of the past few years, the ability of major police departments to maintain their numbers was dropping noticeably. This was particularly the case in states governed by Democrat elected officials, such as California and New Jersey.

In response to this decreased funding trend, specialized units were disbanded, investigations cut back, and some city departments disbanded altogether, thereby placing additional burdens on county police. Even traditional law enforcement organizations, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), concluded in 2015 that partnering with private security firms, a strategy that had taken hold in the U.K. and other countries on the continent, would be of significant benefit in the years ahead.

Significant legal and privacy issues remain to be resolved fully before the concept of subscriber-based security services takes hold across the country, and liberals will decry it as “class-based” security for the rich only. Notwithstanding such criticism, programs like those in Los Angeles, and increased individual ownership of firearms, will come to define the future of policing in many cities across the country.

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

FullMAGnews

by Bob Barr

The Leftist media has finally discovered black gun owners. Just look at the Washington Post Magazine’s glowing spread about reducing the stigma of black gun ownership; a supportive sentiment that Jeff Bezos’ journalism play toy would never apply to gun owners broadly. It seems the Left has finally found a gun owner it likes, even if it is just because they believe increasing black gun ownership scares white conservatives.

The joke, however, is on them.

In recent years, anyone at a gun range or an NRA-sponsored event, or on gun message boards, is aware of this trend that the Left is just now noticing. But rather than react in fear or anger like the Left had hoped, the gun community has extended a welcoming hand to these new adherents, recognizing that every gun owner – black, brown, white, or green – is another voice in support of the fundamental right enjoyed by all people but which is expressly guaranteed to Americans by the Second Amendment.

While the Left cheapens black gun ownership with identity politics malarkey, supporters of the Second Amendment recognize and respect the intimate nature gun rights played in black history. Figures like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were well known for their carrying of firearms for defense (an historical fact, even if glossed-over by triggered liberals). For blacks during Reconstruction and Jim Crow, gun rights could be the difference between life and death. Their exercise of the Second Amendment rights was in the true spirit of what the Founders intended – an expression of the natural right to self-preservation.

This extremely important nuance is, of course, completely lost on Leftists who only see a “gotcha” opportunity by trying to paint the modern black gun owner as some sort of radical Black Panther type (see, The Hill’s troubling image choice in a tweet last month), rather than just another man or woman at the range punching targets after a stressful day at work.

In some circles, one might say the media’s disingenuous infatuation with black gun owners to be overtly racist; at the very least, problematic. After all, if the Washington Post actually cared about black gun owners, they would perhaps reexamine and apologize for its decades of support for gun control, which – as Second Amendment advocates frequently point out – has undeniably racist origins. They might even look into gun control’s disproportionate impact on working class and minority communities, rather than continuing to ignore it as they provide platforms to anti-gun propaganda coming from Democrats in Congress, or from organizations like Mike Bloomberg’s “Everytown.”

Then again, the Media likely knows if they look too hard at reasons behind the increase in black gun ownership, they might accidently justify why the Second Amendment remains an essential part of the Constitution and our national culture. For example, if more blacks are purchasing firearms because they believe police are unable or unwilling to provide adequate personal protection, it suggests conservatives were right all along about the Second Amendment being necessary for personal defense (an argument the Supreme Court will soon consider in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett).

Whoops.

Although the media may be celebrating the rise of black gun ownership for all the wrong reasons, it is still a trend worth celebrating. In spite of the fear-mongering of Democrats in Congress, support for stricter gun control is dropping – in no small part because of the surge in gun ownership, particularly among first-time purchasers. Whether black gun owners armed themselves out of fear of racially motivated mass shootings like the 2015 Mother Emanuel church shooting in Charleston, or because during the 2020 riots police were not able to protect black-owned residences and businesses caught in the chaos, they join tens of millions of other gun owners who exercise their Second Amendment rights based on the same desire for protection of person and property.

As much as the media will try to drive a wedge into the Second Amendment community with cheap race-baiting, we know better than to let them pick this fight. Our unity scares them because it defies the progressive playbook of identity politics and takes away their ability to define the gun rights movement as fundamentally racist. Their loss is our gain.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of FullMagNews.com

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

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Support for President Trump has become something of a litmus test in today’s GOP. While this actually is not a bad measure of political backbone for a Party often in need of it, the removal of Liz Cheney as Conference chair and her replacement with up-and-comer Elise Stefanik, is a reminder that in order to project and protect conservative values, the Party needs more. Much more.

Beyond Stefanik’s support for Trump is a troubling voting history in Congress. According to FreedomWorks’ 2020 congressional scorecard, Stefanik received a paltry 37 percent on scored votes. By comparison, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a 26 – just 11 points less than the GOP’s now third-ranking member in the House. Stefanik hardly seems the right choice to carry the GOP mantle at a time when conservative values are under attack from a progressive mob determined to wipe out all that we hold dear.

There are other troubling signs for the GOP. Take Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.

Gaetz’s support for Trump and willingness to stand up to critics played a major role in the Florida Millennial blossoming into a rising GOP star, even though rumors of his questionable behavior were known for years. And, with a FreedomWorks’ congressional score of 65 (largely attributed to many missed votes on key bills), Gaetz’s unreliability as a crucial conservative vote fails to offset the liability he has become.

Stefanik and Gaetz are but the latest examples of the personality-over-principles problem within the GOP.

The prevalence of social media in today’s political campaigns appears to have forever altered how candidates communicate with voters. In some ways, this has given way to a welcomed sense of intimacy and genuineness through candid conversations recorded by the candidates themselves, rather than emotionless, focus-group-tested rote speeches and campaign ads.

On the other hand, social media, and the drive to “go viral” tends to bring out more bombastic behavior and antics, which may work well on the campaign trail and in congressional hearings soundbites, but can just as easily be highly counterproductive. Members who cannot, or will not rise to the dignity of the office they come to hold, become unwelcome distractions at a moment when the Party’s focus must be to sell the conservative agenda to voters.

This is not to say that members of Congress should be “seen, not heard.” In fact, one could argue the GOP needs more dominant personalities, able to command the attention and respect of voters in order to carry the conservative message forward. The problem occurs when the personality clouds that message – or hides it altogether.

Dominant Republican figures such as Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Newt Gingrich were not the sole product of outsized personalities able to “troll” their opponents. Their successes resulted from their abilities to sell the conservative message artfully and effectively to voters in a way that brought new voters into the party and offered existing members something new to cheer about. This is not possible without principles, no matter the size of one’s online following.

Trump was able to generate more votes for an incumbent president in history, but it still was not enough. The groundwork he laid will require the next generation of GOP leaders to not just tell voters that we need to “make America great again,” but explain to them precisely how it will do so.

Trump captured voters’ attention. It is now up to the GOP to hold it.

This is no easy task or one that should be taken lightly. As much as it seems obvious that Democrats want to destroy everything that makes America great, such insidiousness is wrapped in the seductive trappings of “free everything.” Opting to be the opposition Party that spends, but just not quite as lavishly as the Democrat Party, is hardly a winning strategy for the GOP.

Republicans will never be able to out-spend liberals. The only long-term, winning strategy is a true return to conservative principles that demonstrate to voters – clearly, consistently, and substantively – the very real threats to individual liberty posed by runaway spending, higher taxes, and authoritarian moves. This is, however, a strategy that will not, indeed cannot, be achieved by superficial personality theater.

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