Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Monday, May 19, 2025
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Liberty Guard
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
Tag:

Law Enforcement

BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Let’s Hope the GOP is Serious About Sentencing Reform

by lgadmin July 15, 2015
written by lgadmin

Last Friday, President Obama wrote 46 letters to men and women across the United States that will change their lives. “Dear Jerry,” Obama wrote to one man, “I wanted to personally inform you that I will be granting your application for commutation.” Jerry, like the others, is a convicted drug offender who, Obama claims, should long ago have served his time and been released back into society. Instead, tens of thousands of other low-level drug offenders continue to fester in federal prison; the consequence of overzealous, 1980s-era mandatory minimum sentencing requirements that have led to dangerous overcrowding in the federal prison system, and has cost taxpayers billions annually in the process.

The President, who is to announce plans for comprehensive criminal justice reform later this week, will join a growing number of members of Congress — from both parties — who support sentencing reform. One such example is legislation proposed by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Lee (R-UT), called the Smarter Sentencing Act. This proposal would reduce mandatory minimum sentence requirements for some offenders, while expanding a so-called “safety valve” exception for others; helping to ease prison overcrowding.

This endeavor is supported by public policy groups from both ends of the political spectrum; from FreedomWorks to the Center for American Progress. The goal of this “trans-partisan” coalition is to work together to make America’s criminal justice process smarter, more effective, and more fiscally responsible.

The mainstream nature of this debate, and the growing support for sentencing reform among conservatives in particular, illustrates a radical change in Republican attitudes towards criminal justice just in the past decade. Only a few years ago, for example, the majority of Republican lawmakers would have refused even to discuss the hot-button issue of comprehensive sentencing reform. About the only “reform” GOP leaders in Washington would have considered would have been stiffer penalties and federalization of additional crimes. Now, many in the GOP are open to considering meaningful reform of the justice system’s sentencing structure; a system that saw America’s federal prison population swell by more than 750 percent in just three decades, stretching both budgets and prison resources to their limits.

The conservative case for sentencing reform is clear. The situation worsens with each new inmate added to federal prison system by an outdated sentencing structure that allows for little, if any discretion for judges to differentiate between drug kingpins and non-violent, low level offenders.

The cost of housing federal inmates, especially those serving lengthy, minimum mandatory terms, is huge. In 2013, taxpayers forked over more than $29,000 to incarcerate every federal inmate; pushing federal prison costs to more than 25 percent of the entire Department of Justice budget. This money, much of which is wasted on incarcerating non-violent drug offenders with little to no criminal history, can and should be spent on pursuing real criminals.

The current mandatory minimum sentencing system comes with disastrous societal costs, as well; consequences that are far more difficult to remedy, and which are felt across generations. According to statistics provided by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), one out of every 28 children in America today has a family member in jail or in prison. This fact alone helps create a “cradle to grave” predicament for any spouse or child. A one-income household, while the spouse is in prison (not to mention the hardships of finding work after prison), increases the reliance on taxpayer-subsidized programs such as Medicaid and EBT/SNAP. Additionally, children from single-parent homes face increased risk of lower school performance, truancy, and criminal behavior. Without sentencing reform, we not only ruin one generation’s chance of upward social mobility, but that of their dependents as well.

Taking into consideration such devastating consequences of rigid mandatory minimums — which come with little evidence to suggest any long-term, positive impact on crime reduction – even many heretofore “tough-on-crime” Republicans have now come to recognize that simply being “tough” is not smart; nor is it fiscally or socially “conservative,” if that term means supporting families, jobs and communities.

Whether this new-found recognition will survive in the ongoing Republican presidential primary – especially with the bombastic Donald Trump leading the field – remains to be seen. But there are grounds to believe it will.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has made criminal justice reform a key component of his campaign. Texans Ted Cruz and Rick Perry have each come out strongly in favor of sentencing reform. “The current draconian mandatory minimum sentences sometimes result in sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the perpetrator’s unique circumstances,” noted Cruz; adding that, “harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes have contributed to prison overpopulation and are both unfair and ineffective relative to the public expense and human costs of years-long incarceration.”

Such sentiments reflecting the views of key Republican leaders, and supported by such influential conservative-oriented organizations as FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, and others — if they result in substantive changes to the way our justice system deals with crime and sentencing – will have a profound and positive effect on our society for generations to come.

 

Originally published here on townhall.com

July 15, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Charleston May Be In The “Low Country,” But It Demonstrates “High Values”

by lgadmin June 24, 2015
written by lgadmin

After even a few minutes walking the historic streets of Charleston, South Carolina, it becomes clear why the city is revered by so many. Charleston’s rich history, world-class culinary offerings, and a community of people recognized as being among the friendliest in the nation, account for its consistent ranking high on the list of vacation destinations for Americans and foreigners alike.

Many Charlestonians refer to their home as the “Holy City” because of the large number of churches — including some of the oldest in the nation — within its borders. These all are reasons why the news of the cold-blooded murder of nine members of Emanuel A.M.E. Church in downtown Charleston last week is so difficult to comprehend. Charleston simply is not a place where one expects to find such evil.

Yet, amidst the grief and tragedy, Charleston proved, once again, how special it is. At the bond hearing for the shooter, who had hoped his attack would spark a “race war,” the victims’ families one-by-one addressed the killer — not with hate or anger, but with a display of genuine love and forgiveness that comes only from a truly “holy” people. In that moment, it became clear Charleston would not descend into the same violence and chaos that manifested itself in Ferguson and Baltimore. Rather, Charleston would present itself as a lesson to the world about the power of love, faith and forgiveness.

If only national politicians had gotten the message.

Less than 24 hours after the shooting, and just minutes after the suspect was arrested, President Obama stood in front of the nation on TV and issued a politically-charged message, blaming guns and America itself for the actions of this young lunatic: “Once again innocent people were killed because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.” Our Gun-Controller in Chief went on to claim that, “At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries” (which, of course, it does).

Hillary Clinton, not wanting to miss an opportunity to look similarly “presidential,” provided another nonsensical explanation for Dylann Roof’s murderous acts — blaming “hate speech,” and making the fantastical jump to referencing a recent speech by Donald Trump to support her thesis.

The urge to irrationally blame guns and the Second Amendment for the acts of a deranged 21-year old even manifested itself among some Republicans. Bush-family advisor Karl Rove opined that until someone has the “oomph” (whatever that means) to repeal the Second Amendment, we will continue to witness acts of gun violence.

These political rants represent a problem far beyond merely showing how out of touch Washington elites have become with the world outside the Beltway. When the President of the United States, and another who is a front-runner for the job, stand before the nation issuing the same, tired talking points, and reduce a complex situation to sound bites about “guns” and “negative speech,” any meaningful debate over the true causes of such tragedies is short-circuited. Rather than being offered real options based on sound reasoning, we are offered only a broken record of recycled sound bites that have no legal or factual basis.

Instead of trotting out the same gun control proposals that already have been struck down by the courts – and which consistently have failed to staunch gun violence in cities like Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C. – perhaps the Congress and our state legislatures could fund meaningful research into the role mental illness, and the possible impact SSRI drugs play in mass shootings. Or, instead of treading on First Amendment rights by targeting “hate speech” as a cure-all for “racism,” might our political leaders address aspects of our criminal justice system that disproportionally impact minority communities, and work to pass meaningful reforms such as the Smarter Sentencing Act?

Such measures might actually find far more support among the citizens of Charleston and other places outside the Washington Beltway, than Sunday talk-show sound bites or slogans that festoon presidential campaign paraphernalia.

Last Saturday, thousands of people joined hands and walked together across the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston — demonstrating the city’s solidarity and commitment to peace, rather than showing the world a city using a tragedy as an excuse to vent anger and spew hatred. The citizens of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, and especially those who work in Washington, D.C., could learn a lot from the people of Charleston, South Carolina.

Charleston may be geographically in the “Low Country,” but its citizens display far higher values and understanding than do people in many other cities.

Originally published here on townhall.com

June 24, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Bizarro-World View Of Self-Defense On Display In Ferguson

by Liberty Guard Author December 3, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Last week, residents of Ferguson, Missouri might have noticed a strange sight amidst the scenes of burning buildings, overturned cars, crazed rioters, and police in full military dress. Standing stoically on the rooftops of buildings in areas threatened by prolonged rioting were men dressed in masks and camouflage, armed with buckets of water, fire extinguishers, and occasionally AR-15 rifles.

These men were not members of the Ferguson Police Department or the Missouri National Guard. They were members of the Oath Keepers, a nationwide collective of military veterans, former law enforcement officers, first responders and other concerned citizens who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. They were drawn to Ferguson to help protect the people and property of the town from the rioters and criminals, who largely had avoided being stopped by the police and National Guard troops.

While the appearance of the Oath Keepers came as a relief to citizens and small business owners affected by the riots, to the authorities they posed a threat. That’s right. Within just days of arriving, rather than being thanked by the police for volunteering to help protect lives and property, these law-abiding volunteers were ordered to get out of town, apparently for “operating without a license.”

Absurd as it is that a person would need a “license” to do nothing more than protect private property from wanton destruction — especially when the police force’s apparent “best efforts” to do so were woefully deficient — that is exactly how government views the right to self-defense in the Bizarro World of 21st Century America.

While the government’s assault on the principle of self-defense underlying the Second Amendment is nothing new, the degree to which federal and state officials misunderstand or simply choose to ignore the fundamental principle of self-defense, is truly disheartening.

Many people consider that the modern era of gun control began in the late 1960s following the assassination of Robert Kennedy; but it actually dates to 1934 when the Congress passed the 1934 National Firearms Act. Since that seminal event, a distinct anti-firearms philosophy has taken hold in large segments of society; one that considers personal ownership of a firearm not as an exercise of a God-given right to defend oneself, but rather as a direct threat to “public safety.” Adherents of this group-centric philosophy consider the right to defend oneself with a firearm as something separate from — indeed, inferior to — the collective responsibility of government to protect society. In this world view, “public safety” trumps both individual responsibility and individual liberty.

Employing footholds gained through advocacy in the legislative, judicial and executive branches at all levels of government, these anti-gun forces have worked steadily to transmogrify the Second Amendment into a public-policy commodity, subject to the at-will regulation of government officials. The ultimate goal of this movement is to empower government as the exclusive owner of the means to personal defense; thus relegating citizens to a position of absolute reliance on the government for their personal and property protection. It is all about Control.

The historically-sound notion that citizens possess primary responsibility for protection of their persons and property, is reflected not only in the clear intent of the Second Amendment, but as well in federal court decisions. For example, in 1981, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted inWarren v. District of Columbia, that “. . . government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.” This assertion was reiterated a year later by the Seventh Circuit, in Bowers v. DeVito, when that Court held “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state.”

Government, of course, wants to have it both ways. While accepting it is under no absolute obligation to protect citizens from harm (thereby avoiding liability for failing to protect against criminal actions), government officials constantly seek to acquire and maintain a monopoly of the means by which individuals are able to exercise their responsibility to protect themselves – that is, by remaining free to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Thus the bizarre spectacle of police in Ferguson rejecting efforts by citizens to protect lives and property when most critical to do so.

Unfortunately, the reaction by state and local authorities in Ferguson to citizen-based self-defense represents not the exception, but the prevalent view of “public safety”; and not only in the United States but throughout western society generally. It is, however, particularly discouraging that such a fundamentally flawed understanding of individual rights and constitutional history are run amuck here, in what Ronald Reagan correctly described as “the last best hope of man on earth.”

December 3, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Have We Learned Nothing In The 23 Years Since The Rodney King Riots?

by Liberty Guard Author August 20, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

It has been nearly a quarter of a century since the bloody “Rodney King” riots ripped through Los Angeles. In the years since those horrific events in 1991, police departments across the country have been faced with numerous racially-charged altercations – including many involving police shootings of civilian suspects. During that same time, American taxpayers at all levels of government have seen hundreds of billions of their dollars spent to improve law enforcement training, procedures, and equipment. But, have we learned anything?

If what is unfolding in Ferguson, Missouri following the August 9th fatal shooting of unarmed, black teenager Michael Brown by a white police officer is any indication, all that training, money and equipment has been utterly wasted.

In less than one week, Ferguson transformed from a small and largely unknown St. Louis suburb into an occupied territory in the middle of a raging warzone. The act that initially sparked this unfortunate series of events — the shooting death of Brown – was quickly overtaken by an embarrassing series of missteps by political and law enforcement officials. The manner in which these bumbling officials issued conflicting and inconsistent statements and took similarly indecisive actions, serves as a lesson in how not to handle such an incident.

One of these factors, of course, is the danger posed by the over-militarization of civilian law enforcement. This highly problematic process moved into high gear with the 1993 ATF-Branch Davidian confrontation outside Waco, Texas, and accelerated rapidly after the 911 terror attacks. In recent days, many commentators and experts have focused on this very real and continuing threat to our civil liberties (I have written in the past about this alarming problem). Still, the infatuation many local and state law enforcement agencies have with whiz-bang military firepower, vehicles, clothing and mindset shows little sign of abating.

As serious as is the problem with over-militarizing domestic law enforcement in 21st Century America, in a broader sense it is a merely a symptom of an even more fundamental disease plaguing law enforcement organizations across the country and at all levels of government: the failure to understand, remember, and act upon the foundational principles on which our constitutionally-based federal republic was formed. These First Principles include, among others of course, that: ultimate authority in America resides in the citizenry, not government agents; government exists to serve the People, not vice versa; the Bill of Rights provides checks on government power rather than serving as a road map for government to erode individual liberty; and, federal government powers are defined and limited.

Occasional lapses in such understandings can be tolerated, but when married to the utter incompetence such as displayed by those involved in trying to control the discord in Ferguson, it is a situation guaranteed to worsen, to spread, and ultimately to feed precedent for further mischief by those always sniffing around for such opportunities.

When elected and appointed officials forget the Constitution and what it stands for, bad situations turn worse. The cast of characters reflecting this phenomenon now includes (among others) the mayor and police chief in Ferguson, and the U.S. Attorney General with his heavy-handed and premature move to seize control of the local situation.

It is said that “nature abhors a vacuum.” The modern corollary to that time-tested truism, however, is “government loves a vacuum” because it provides opportunity to step in and assert or take control. This is what happens time and again in these situations; Ferguson is but the latest example.

When local and state officials exhibited indecision and vacillation in their statements and actions in the immediate aftermath of Brown’s death, it created a vacuum. The national media, of course, rushed in to define and hype the situation to its benefit. This was followed closely by the usual “civil rights” champions elbowing their way to the camera banks — the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, and the “New” Black Panthers. The unraveling of the situation accelerated quickly thereafter.

Even after it became obvious to even casual observers that initial comments and actions responding to the Brown shooting were mishandled, those same local and state officials continued to bungle their statements and actions; wavering between toughness and choruses of “Kumbaya,” and between detachment and forceful engagement. Not surprisingly, Uncle Sam recognized an opportunity to take control, and strode in with new directives, more “observers,” dozens of FBI agents, and the Attorney General himself. The feds claim to have taken the high moral ground; and, in so doing have once again diminished and pushed aside that authority which under our constitutional framework is supposed to be paramount – state and local government.

If we the People allow this inversion of constitutional power and federalism again to stand, it will confirm that we, too, have learned nothing in the past generation.

August 20, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram

Search Archives

Recent Posts

  • A European, Socialized Pharmaceutical Marketplace Should Have No Place in America

    May 9, 2025
  • Bob joins NTD News

    March 27, 2025
  • Government Over-Regulation Is Handing China The Energy Future

    March 19, 2025
  • The Climate Control Movement In Europe Is Alive and Still Kicking

    March 6, 2025
  • The Regulatory State Continues to Target Fantasy Sports

    February 27, 2025

About Us

  • Liberty Guard
    3330 Cumberland Blvd.
    Suite 500
    Atlanta, Georgia 30339
  • Email: [email protected]

From The Desk of Bob Barr

A European, Socialized Pharmaceutical Marketplace Should Have No Place in America
Government Over-Regulation Is Handing China The Energy Future
The Climate Control Movement In Europe Is Alive and Still Kicking

Latest Videos

Not My Fingerprints
Idiots In Full View
Biden Administration Champions Stupid Idea

Get Liberty Guard Email Updates




©2024 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.

Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram
  • Refund and Data Policies
  • State Disclosures
  • Join
Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join