Tag:

Congress

Blog

Liberty Guard Opposes Funding for the REAL ID ACT

by lgadmin May 18, 2016

written by lgadmin

Liberty Guard Opposes Funding for the REAL ID ACT

5/17/2016

(Atlanta, GA) – Liberty Guard today announced its opposition to funding for the Real ID Act. .

The REAL ID Act gives broad latitude to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the power to add to the list of “official purposes” for which a compliant ID is required, “all authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants” toward compliance, and the power to determine whether a state is in compliance with the Act.

Liberty Guard has joined more than one dozen organizations opposing California’s funding of this ill-conceived federal mandate.

Bob Barr, Chairman of Liberty Guard, commented, “The Read ID Act represents a massive federal overreach, that raises serious problems for individual privacy and principles of federalism.” The program, Barr also noted, “should, not be forced onto states, and I am proud to join with other organizations that support privacy and liberty, and oppose funding for Real ID implementation.”

About Liberty Guard:

Formed in 2009 by Bob Barr, and supported by over 150,000 Americans across the country, Liberty Guard is dedicated to restoring and strengthening liberty against intrusions by government at all levels; including taking action against TSA privacy intrusions and ObamaCare. Liberty Guard remains committed to identifying and supporting policy, candidates, and causes which champion liberty and return our country to constitutional principles.

###

Contact:

Steve Thomas

703-819-0127

Support Liberty Guard by visiting libertyguard.org.

May 18, 2016 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr

My Candidate for the Next Speaker of the House: Newt Gingrich

by lgadmin September 28, 2015

written by lgadmin

Want a Speaker who knows how to get things done? Want a Speaker who is smart as a whip? Want a Speaker with a proven record of success under the most trying of conditions? How about one who knows when to press an advantage, and when to compromise? Want a Speaker who actually learns from his mistakes? Or a Speaker who has exhibited a true willingness to work with a president of the other political party without sacrificing the core goal of his Party? Then elect Newt Gingrich as the next Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

First, some disclaimers. I did not agree with everything Newt did as Speaker from 1995-1999, when we served together in the House; and, I do not agree with every position he has taken since he resigned the speakership and his congressional seat amidst a scandal a decade and a half ago. Newt did not endorse me when I sought a return to the House in 2014.

However, Newt Gingrich remains one of the singularly brightest and most competent public figures in the United States today. He can write a book, or deliver a seminar to a gathering of top CEOs or political leaders, on the most substantive of issues; from health care reform, to technology futures. There are few others alive today in the political arena who can do this — and none among those known to be considering, or being considered as a replacement to John Boehner.

While all 61 occupants of this constitutionally-established post have been members of the House of Representatives, the Constitution does not limit the pool of candidates to this college. Indeed, it would present a wave of fresh air to break with tradition in this regard; and, after all, 90% of a Speaker’s duties and responsibilities have nothing to do with representing his or her home district. And then again, Newt has served many years in the House; he knows how it works and how to keep a very fractious majority together even as he fought a very adversarial minority Party. In Speaker Gingrich, we would have the best of both worlds – fresh air and experience.

Think back. The last time we had a Speaker who actually accomplished notable goals as Speaker, and as a direct result of his hard work to forge a working majority and convince a President (who was not his friend) to come along, was Newt Gingrich. Structural reform of the House of Representatives, the Contract with America, a balanced federal budget, welfare reform, and tax cuts are just some of his more noteworthy accomplishments. Granted, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who served as Speaker from January 2007 to January 2011, can claim passage of significant legislation during her tenure – the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, for example — but these were easy legislative victories considering the fact that she enjoyed a Democratic majority in the House, a similar situation in the Senate and, most importantly, a President of her own Party who strongly pressed for passage of those precise measures.

Sure, Newt has been out of public office for over 15 years, but he has hardly been out of public service. His schedule is busy as ever; full of speeches, articles, interviews, consulting gigs, and appearances at political events. He is every bit the Energizer Bunny today as in years past. He has been active in more issues than he was during his terms as Speaker, for the simple fact his responsibilities do not include the many day-to-day duties with which the occupant of that office must concern himself.

Yes, Newt can be stubborn, wrong, egotistical, and aloof. He is no Everyman. At the same time, Newt has navigated the roadways between Wall Street and Main Street with consistent success; and he possesses as deep an understanding of what makes America tick as any current office holder, at any level of government. For Newt there would be no learning curve. Yet, there have been learning curves for Newt; and unlike many of his peers, he actually has learned from them.

Whereas two decades ago when Newt would deliver a speech, he might identify six main themes, each with five subparts and three minor themes. Then, through the course of an hour-long speech, Newt would and could follow each and every branch of his complex presentation. His audiences, of course, rarely could; even though they would gather he knew what he was talking about and it all somehow made sense. Today, Newt’s speeches are far more precise and aurally legible. He has learned how to simplify complexity far better than in his previous incarnation.

Despite their many partisan differences, Newt Gingrich and his counterpart at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue during the tumultuous years he served as Speaker – Bill Clinton – share much in common. Most importantly, they both possess an ability to fight for those goals their Party demands, but also a willingness to recognize when the time is ripe to join forces to accomplish something the country needs, and not be concerned that the other will claim credit for it.

Newt has learned the hard way that the world does not revolve around him. But Newt knew then, and he knows now, what makes the world revolve and what needs to be done to make it continue to do so, in a way that no other potential candidate for Speaker even comes close to being able to claim.

Originally Published here via townhall.com

September 28, 2015 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr

Defund and Repeal Military Gun Free Zones Now!

by lgadmin July 22, 2015

written by lgadmin

On September 16, 2013, civilian contractor Aaron Alexis entered a building at the Washington Navy Yard, where he walked to the fourth floor bathroom and loaded a shotgun. Within six minutes of the first shots fired, Alexis had murdered 10 people; and before police killed him more than an hour later, the death toll would rise to 12. It was the second deadliest shooting on a U.S. military base in American history; occurring only four years after Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist turned radicalized Muslim terrorist, killed 13 service men and women in Ft. Hood, Texas.

When the news broke last week of another mass shooting at two “Gun Free” military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the story was all-too-familiar. “Gun Free Zones” make absolutely no sense to begin with; but mandating them at locations we know to a virtual certainty are terrorist targets, including U.S. military sites, borders on criminally negligent.

The failure of two presidents and several congresses to reverse the Clinton-era ban on firearms on military bases, in spite of the horrific attacks over the last few years, only heightens the outrage all Americans should feel; but especially our military personnel.

Yet not a single high-ranking officer in any branch of the armed forces, has dared express doubt about the policy. In fact, a major roadblock to this latest response to yet another attack against a military target is the military itself. Top brass in the military’s current leadership have simply fallen in lock-step with the Obama Administration’s politically correct world-view that firearms are too “scary” and “dangerous” to be trusted in the hands even of combat-trained military personnel.

Common sense steps such as removing the prohibition on military personnel carrying personal or military-issued firearms, or installing bulletproof glass at recruitment centers, are rebuffed by military leaders like Army recruiting spokesman Brian Lepley. In the immediate aftermath of last week’s shooting, Lepley defended the military’s “Gun Free” policy and blabbered about needing “to maintain a connection to the American people.” To these timid Obama bureaucrats, military recruitment centers should have the feel of a processing center for the Peace Corps, rather than displaying any signs of being actual military facilities.

This domestic pacification policy has not just prevented us from taking any meaningful action following recent terror attacks; it has stunted our ability to learn anything from them. For example, not a single page in the Ft. Hood post-mortem analysis contained any relevant or substantive policy recommendations to “protect the force” against future attacks. Instead, the 80-page report signed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates contained page after page of politically-correct gobbledygook designed to appease the Administration and not ruffle any feathers.

The net effect of all this is that in the five-and-a-half years since the worst mass shooting at a U.S. military instillation in American history — during which time two other major attacks and several smaller ones have been occurred — government officials are still reacting to these tragedies as if each one is the first ever. This head-in-the-sand mentality, punctuated by statements like those from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who apparently still believes such attacks are “unfathomable,” has to end if we are to have any hope of keeping our military men and women safe.

Fortunately, some state governors are not waiting around for another vacuous Department of Defense “report,” and are actually leading the charge to protect at least some members of the military from the threat of domestic terror attacks. Governors in Florida, Indiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas have ordered personnel at National Guard facilities, which are controlled by the states, to arm themselves. As Texas Governor Greg Abbott explained, “it has become clear that our military personnel must have the ability to defend themselves against these type of attacks on our own soil.” This is precisely the point that Congress, the Department of Defense, and presidential administrations of both parties have yet to grasp.

In justifying its power to surreptitiously surveil American citizens on U.S. soil, the federal government routinely emphasizes that the fight against terrorism must be waged both domestically and abroad. Why, then, do we strip members of the U.S. military of their ability to defend themselves against terrorists, simply because they are on U.S. soil rather than in a warzone in the Middle East — especially when these are becoming the preferred targets of terrorists?

That is the question Republicans must be forced to answer now that they are in control of both the House and Senate. The time for excuses and inaction is long past. With the 2016 election cycle in full swing, Republicans have an excellent opportunity to prove to members of the military that their right to defend themselves does not start at the water’s edge.

It’s time to defund and repeal military Gun Free Zones!

Originally published here on townhall.com

July 22, 2015 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr

The Tory Party vs. Rand Paul

by Liberty Guard Author June 3, 2015

written by Liberty Guard Author

If John McCain, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, and the other Republican senators lashing into Rand Paul because of his efforts to force expiration of Sec. 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act had been alive and part of the debate back in 1775-76, they would have been blasting Patrick Henry for supporting Liberty. Colonialists McCain, Cornyn and McConnell would have been firmly in the Tory camp; defending the powers of the Crown to “protect” the colonialists through such tools as Writs of Assistance.

Today, in this 21st Century, the tools may have changed, but the foundational principle on which our independence was fought – a federal government of limited and defined powers — remains the same; yet it is in far greater danger today than 240 years ago.

To McCain and other defenders of the all-powerful and all-seeing national security labyrinth that has mushroomed in the last 14 years, Rand Paul’s stand against permitting the National Security Agency to continue exercising a power to electronically surveil American citizens’ private communications without reasonable cause – an abuse a federal Court of Appeals already has ruled to be unlawful — is “reckless” and a threat to America.

These modern-day Tories might as well champion the words of ol’ King George III, who characterized his benevolent tyranny thus: “I wish nothing but good; therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel.”

And what has this “scoundrel’ Rand Paul done? Dismantle the NSA? Destroy the power of the Intelligence Community to monitor real threats? Take away the ability of the CIA to conduct legitimate covert operations? Hardly.

All Paul has done to earn the enmity of the “Anything-It-Takes-to-Make-Us-Safe” caucus in the Senate is to try and reform Sec. 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act to bring it in line with the law and the Fourth Amendment.

Moreover, it is not as if the federal government does not have, and would continue to have, a full arsenal of tools at its disposal to identify, monitor and thwart real terrorist threats. And already moves are afoot openly – and quietly – to ensure that during this interim period when Sec. 215 is at least formally in limbo, those communications that pose a threat and are worthy of monitoring, are in fact monitored.

It would be naïve indeed to think the massive surveillance apparatus at the NSA is at a true standstill after years of abuse justified by the government’s broad interpretation the USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions. Already, there are attempts to weaken the USA Freedom Act – which passed the House last month and places at least some limits on Sec. 215 abuses. For example, Senate surveillance hawks want to keep secret the rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that has, unshackled by public knowledge or input, shaped how and what information the government collects on American citizens. Other proposals include extending the time the government is allowed to collect bulk phone metadata before handing over control of databases to telecom companies; and requiring the companies to give government advance notice of any changes to their retention policies. This latter provision would give Congress time to enact legislation prohibiting such changes if believed to hamper the government’s snooping efforts.

Of course, even such moves by McConnell and other Rand Paul-bashers do not soften their disdain for the junior Senator from Kentucky. McConnell continues to fume at Paul’s refusal to “play nice”; and he stopped just short of naming Paul directly when accusing the opposition of leading “a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation launched in the wake of unlawful actions of Edward Snowden.”

McCain – never one known for congeniality or subtlety — has taken an even lower road, in accusing Paul of putting “a higher priority on his fundraising and his ambitions than on the security of the nation.” Not that McCain would ever use “national security” as a fund-raising theme.

Threats to American freedom are nothing new. And our Founding Fathers understood that if Liberty was to have enduring life, limitations on government power must be made permanent and not allowed to fade depending on the nature of a particular threat. Thus, our Founders chiseled the Fourth Amendment into the bedrock of our young nation even as we faced a very real and present threat from our former master, Great Britain – an enemy far more powerful than modern-day terrorist organizations.

It is depressing in the extreme that these lessons – this history – have now been forgotten and blithely discarded by so many of our political “leaders” more concerned about restoring the powers of the Crown than protecting the Liberty of the individual.

Originally published here on townhall.com

June 3, 2015 0 comment

Blog From the Desk of Bob Barr

Time for Congress to Stop D.C.’s Anti-Gun Shenanigans

by Liberty Guard Author May 20, 2015

written by Liberty Guard Author

Since the landmark 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia case, which Second-Amendment lawyer Alan Gura argued before the Supreme Court, anti-gun officials in the nation’s capital have spent every waking hour trying to avoid doing what the high Court ordered be done: allow District residents to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Gura has been fighting them every step of the way; and on Monday, was victorious once again, as a United States District Court granted his injunction to stop the city from requiring concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.”

“The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime,” wrote District Judge Frederick Scullin in slapping down D.C.’s latest effort to undermine the Heller mandate. It was Scullin who, last year, struck down D.C.’s de facto ban on guns through regulations that failed to provide a system to obtain concealed carry permits, despite requiring them for carry in public. In echoing his earlier opinion, Scullin remarked in his most recent directive that the city’s specious new “good reason”/“proper reason” requirement, “makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

The outrageous conduct of the D.C. government to evade its duty to uphold the Second Amendment ever since it was first handed a defeat in Heller, is a case study for how many local and state governments react to an increasing number of rulings in favor of gun rights. Rather than accept the now well-established fact that citizens possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, many local and state governments employ all manner of procedural maneuvers and regulatory tricks, to inhibit this right while falsely claiming to be following the judicial rulings.

Their plan is to buy time and wear down pro-Second Amendment forces; and at some point perhaps to find a sympathetic liberal judge to support their dilatory actions. Fortunately, there are pugnacious lawyers like Gura, and courageous judges like Scullin, who will not be intimidated or worn down.

But fighting the anti-firearm forces is expensive and time-consuming – including the cost to taxpayers. For example, the District of Columbia was required to pay Gura and his legal team $1.1 million for the Heller case, and even this amount was stiffing Gura for what he was actually owed for his many years of work on the case — close to $3.6 million.

Also often overlooked, is the double standard anti-gun Democrats apply when inventing new ways to stymie the Second Amendment, contrasted to their hysterics when they perceive Republicans to be even remotely challenging the rights and privileges they so highly cherish.

Consider voter ID laws. States that have dared to assert the right to protect the integrity of their elections with voter ID laws were threatened and intimidated by Democrats, all the way up to the Department of Justice under Eric Holder, for the negligible impact the cost of a government-issued ID required for voting, might have on minority groups. Meanwhile, the cost of acquiring a concealed carry license in Illinois, driven up by regulatory burdens, created a racial disparity so great that only 10 percent of licensees are non-white.

Yet, only in the case of voter ID laws did Holder describe the actions of government to be “political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights.”

The net effect of these shenanigans, if D.C. is to be any example, is an endless series of lawsuits, appeals, rulings, and dodging that keeps Second Amendment attorneys like Gura constantly in the courtroom, taxpayers on the hook, and the Bill of Rights hostage.

If D.C. citizens had any sense, they would use Monday’s ruling as the final straw to put pressure on Mayor Muriel Bowser to fire Police Chief Cathy Lanier, who seems utterly deaf to understanding basic orders from now multiple courts, that the right of the people in “her” city to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It appears time for the Congress, which has ultimate authority over the District of Columbia, to step in and force these scofflaws to follow the Constitution and court rulings, even if they don’t like it.

Originally published here via townhall.com

May 20, 2015 0 comment

From the Desk of Bob Barr

GOP Squandered Its Best Opportunity To Hold Hillary Accountable

by Liberty Guard Author April 15, 2015

written by Liberty Guard Author

In her Sunday video announcing her presidential candidacy, Hillary Clinton touched as many hot buttons as could be crammed into a two-minute spot – women, working families, single moms, gays, Hispanics, retirees, even dog owners made the cut. Not surprisingly, what failed to make the cut was the most serious scandal (among many) which will dog Hillary throughout the primary and general campaign season – the fact that she violated numerous federal laws and regulations regarding official e-mails during and after her tenure as Secretary of State, and has thumbed her nose at the Congress seeking answers.

It made perfect sense, of course, for the presumptive Democratic nominee to stay as far from this scandal as possible.

For one thing, Clinton undoubtedly appreciates the fact that congressional Republicans rarely exhibit any instinct or stomach for pressing an attack against a Democrat adversary, regardless of how strong the merits. Already, for example, the Republican leadership in the House has let slip by what probably was its strongest and most potent weapon with which to attack Hillary.

That golden opportunity was not the Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy. To be sure, the Benghazi Committee’s investigation is an important one, and may yet uncover important evidence that Hillary and other Obama Administration officials were derelict in their duties before, during and after the fatal 2012 attack on the American consulate in that Libyan city. But already the Select Committee is bogged down in negotiations with Clinton’s attorneys, who are gleefully parsing every word in a committee “request” to the former Secretary of State to kindly turn over her e-mail server to a “neutral” entity for review.

Based on my background as a United States Attorney, and especially as an impeachment manager in the trial of former President Bill Clinton, once you start down that path of playing “Mother May I” with an adversary as adept at delaying and obfuscating as are both Clintons, you have pretty well lost whatever advantage you might have had.

Moreover, while the Benghazi Select Committee is clothed with essentially the same powers as a standing committee of the House, including the power to subpoena witnesses and materials relevant to its jurisdiction, the fact is, its jurisdiction is limited. While the Resolution establishing the Select Committee does sweep broadly, at some point every witness it might call and every document it might subpoena, will be subject to wrangling over whether or not it falls within the scope of the “Benghazi” incident. This inherent limitation will prove a source of continuing irritation, controversy and delay for the work of the Select Committee, no matter how aggressive a Chairman Gowdy turns out to be; and he is a good one.

Which brings us to the golden opportunity the GOP had to obtain answers and hold Hillary accountable to the law and to the American People, but for some reason rejected — the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, chaired by Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz.

The House Oversight Committee has the broadest jurisdiction of any committee of the Congress – including the power to inquire into the operation of every department, office and agency of the federal government; to ensure they and those persons administering them (or who did administer them) are doing so consistent with the letter and the intent of legislation passed by the Congress. It is a permanent committee, and its chairman has the power – not enjoyed by any other committee chairman – to issue subpoenas without vote of the committee.

Of course, Chaffetz, like every committee chairman, ultimately is limited in what he can do as a committee chairman by the leadership of the majority party to which he belongs. And therein lies the rub.

Chaffetz announced earlier this year that his committee would investigate the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal insofar as it clearly deals with possible violations of federal laws and regulations governing the integrity of communications and records keeping by government officials and departments. The jurisdiction of the committee clearly covers both the subject matter and the individuals involved in all aspects of the Clinton e-mail scandal; and there would be no argument over whether any particular witness or document subpoenaed did or did not relate to the Benghazi incident.

The Oversight Committee could even, should it desire, take a witness – even a former cabinet official – into custody for refusing to appear or produce subpoenaed materials (broadly construed by courts today to include computers). This reflects the power vested in a congressional committee — as a part of a branch of our government co-equal with the executive branch – and upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a 1927 decision that has not been overturned since. That would be an extreme measure, but it reflects the trump cards held by the GOP as the majority party in both houses of Congress; power that means something only if understood and wielded.

In failing to lay the groundwork for definitive action through an investigation conducted by the Government Oversight Committee, the GOP has significantly, if not fatally limited its ability to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for violating the laws and lawful regulations applicable to her and every other high government official.

April 15, 2015 0 comment