Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Friday, May 9, 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:

Obama

BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Remember Isaiah – Gun Grabbers Never Rest

by lgadmin April 20, 2016
written by lgadmin

The prophet Isaiah, in one of his many insights on human nature, warned us in Chapter 57, Verse 20 in the Old Testament book bearing his name, that the wicked never rest. He likened them to “the troubled sea . . . whose waters cast up mire and dirt.”

So it is with gun-control advocates in 21st Century America, who continue to stir their toxic potions formulated to undermine our constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, with so much of the nation’s media and political attention focused on matters involving convention delegate counts, primary vote results, and Donald Trump’s latest hissy-fit-of-the-day, much of what the Left is doing to weaken the 2nd Amendment receives far less attention than it should.

The latest venue in which the gun grabbers have opted to ply their trade, is a piece of real estate so small and far-removed from the mainland, that few Americans could find it on a world map even if offered a winning lottery ticket to do so.

The Northern Mariana Islands, one of only two territories designated as a “Commonwealth” for purposes of U.S. sovereignty (the only other one being Puerto Rico), is a small chain of islands in the Pacific Ocean. The territory’s last brush with mainland recognition was in August 1945, when an airstrip on the island of Tinian served as the takeoff-point for the “Enola Gay” on its bombing run to Hiroshima. Now, 71-years later, The Northern Mariana Islands are home to one of the latest assaults on the right to keep and bear arms.

Just last month, a federal judge ruled that the Commonwealth government’s strict gun ban was unconstitutional. To retaliate, the legislature mandated that a $1,000 tax be paid by any purchaser of a handgun. Governor Torres puffed out his chest and declared his hope that this confiscatory action would serve as a “role model” for other states and municipalities.

This action by the Mariana Islands is by no means the first effort by anti-Second Amendment governors and legislatures to ban or limit possession of firearms by levying excessive taxes, though it is the most severe. And, even though the tax likely will be stricken down once challenges work their way through the federal legal system, the burden on those citizens of this Pacific Ocean Commonwealth wishing to purchase a handgun is very real.

Here in the continental United States, three months ago the city of Seattle in the state of Washington reaffirmed its long-standing aversion to the Second Amendment by enacting a $25 tax on each firearm purchase, and a tax of two to five cents on every round of ammunition sold. Officials in Cook County, Illinois, another notoriously anti-gun jurisdiction, are gleefully waiting for June 1st, when a per-round tax on ammunition goes into effect there.

Meanwhile, across the continent in Connecticut, a state court judge decided last week that federal law has no applicability in that state; at least if the law in question serves to protect firearms manufacturers and retailers against lawsuits based on the unlawful use of the firearm by a purchaser or subsequent user. The fact that the federal law provides to firearms manufacturers and retailers nothing more than the same level of protection afforded manufacturers and retailers of virtually every other lawful product made or sold in the United States, mattered little to the local judge.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has long-advocated for a national, 25% sales tax on firearms purchases; and routinely takes her Socialist opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, to task for not kowtowing just as strongly as she to the anti-gun agenda. For the most part, however, these and other continuing challenges to one of our most basic liberties remain under the radar in this presidential election cycle.

Fortunately, Republican candidate Ted Cruz has not taken his eye off the target even as he fends off Trump’s constant rantings that he is “stealing” delegates from the New York billionaire. Last week, for example, Cruz joined with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and introduced a Senate bill, to rein in the notorious Obama Administration initiative known as “Operation Choke Point.” The Cruz-Lee legislation would stop federal agencies from abusing their power by pressuring banks and other financial institutions to cut off credit and other financial services for businesses that deal lawfully in firearms and related products; which is precisely what the Obama Administration has been doing for years.

The sooner broader attention can be focused on these and other gun-control efforts this campaign cycle, the better the chance we can defeat them before lasting damage is done to one of most cherished and important civil liberties.

April 20, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

When It Comes To Combatting Gun Violence, the Real Empty Seat is in the Oval Office

by lgadmin January 13, 2016
written by lgadmin

At one time in the United States, when storied leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan walked the corridors of the White House, the annual State of the Union actually meant something. Whether delivered as a written report, or in person to a joint session of Congress, the ceremonial act was, as Article II of the U. S. Constitution mandates, an opportunity for the President to “give to the Congress information of the state of the union,” as well as recommend policies to fix the issues currently facing the nation. Most importantly, given the stature and respect of those delivering the remarks, State of the Union addresses were events that Americans looked to for real substance, reassurance, and even inspiration.

Today — and especially since Bill Clinton discovered that States of the Union provided an excellent opportunity to present a political laundry list for his Party’s supporters — we are lucky to get just one genuine fact that has not first been put through the ringer of highly paid speechwriters, political consultants, and Party apparatchiks. Even guests of the First Family have become political pawns, carefully chosen to serve as human exclamation points to punctuate the cause du jour featured in the President’s speech.

This year, the theatrics that accompanied Barack Obama’s final State of the Union took a new twist, with one visitor’s seat left vacant as a contrived “memorial” to the victims of gun violence; used by the President to shame Congress for its supposed inaction on gun control.

The real “empty seat,” however, is the one behind the President’s Oval Office desk.

For seven years, we have been held captive as Obama periodically bloviates about the need for tighter gun control, notably after each devastating tragedy involving firearms. A perfect example of this was Obama’s firearms “town hall” last week, in which carefully screened questions served up to the President repeated opportunities to deliver long screeds about gun control, with virtually no substance, but much smoke and mirrors.

Obama, it is well-established, never has been loathe to point fingers and uses his presidential bully pulpit to try to shame supporters of the Second Amendment — often the National Rifle Association by name as a proxy for all firearms owners as a whole. The sheer paranoia of this Administration toward the NRA and its perceived omnipotence, helps Obama perpetuate the myth that the NRA’s five million, dues-paying members are but a front for a secretive and unaccountable “vast Right-wing conspiracy,” controlled by “the gun industry.”

Obama’s fantastical notions about the NRA would be laughable but for the fact that Obama’s acerbic propaganda signals just how far removed he is from the sentiment of the nation, while providing him an excuse for why he must “go it alone” in forging anti-gun policies by non-legislative Executive Actions.

In reality, the only person Obama has to blame for a lack of “meaningful action” on gun crime, is himself. And, the facts lend no support to his efforts either.

Despite the heated rhetoric about gun crime following isolated mass shootings, for example, a 2014 audit of federal prosecutions shows a dramatic decrease in federal gun-crime prosecutions under Obama. Moreover, firearms investigations by Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms also are in decline. Obama loves to explain away this drop in prosecutions of actual gun crime – such as straw man purchases, and possession of firearms by felons – as a matter of cuts to ATF funding forced on him by a hostile Republican Congress. However, it is his own Department of Justice that sets law enforcement and prosecutorial priorities for federal prosecutions — including for firearms violations — and, when it comes to taking violent criminals off the street, it simply has not been a priority for Obama.

In the words of one gun control historian at George Washington University commenting on shifting priorities at the Justice Department under Obama, “there’s more ideological cache harassing Bubba at the gun show than getting a handle on gun crime.” And, with the further confusion created by Obama’s recent Executive Actions about who needs a Federal Firearms License to sell a firearm, this harassment will only increase without any positive effect on gun violence.

It was always unlikely that, in his waning days as President, Obama would somehow come to terms with the reality about firearms ownership (up) and firearms crimes (down); or, that in the areas where he could have actually made a tangible impact on gun violence, Obama would finally take responsibility for failing because of his unwillingness to set aside politics and actually lead. So, while the Mainstream Media and the left-wing Blogosphere will gush over Obama’s “vacant seat” metaphor during his State of the Union, the only seat that reallymatters when it comes to protecting American citizens against individuals using guns with which to commit crimes, is the one behind the President’s desk in the Oval Office.

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 13, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Despite The Tears, Obama’s Anti-Gun Moves Are Dangerous

by lgadmin January 6, 2016
written by lgadmin

On December 31st, people gathered across America and the world to welcome the New Year with joyous festivities, hopeful resolutions, and cheerful optimism about fresh starts. Bucking the trend, President Obama opted against such new beginnings and vowed instead to do in 2016 as he has the last seven years: Whatever he wants, regardless of what the Constitution, Congress, the Courts, or the public, has to say about it.

Using his vehicle of choice, Obama this week announced – with a flood of presidential tears – several “Executive Actions” aimed at restricting gun sales and ownership in the United States. Similar to his past moves, which range from further regulating healthcare to (illegally) expanding work permits for illegal immigrants, the President justified his unilateral policy decrees on a need to bypass an “ineffectual” Congress. Rather than actually traveling a few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue to meet personally with congressional leaders, Obama chose again to chastise Congress for being held “hostage” by the “gun lobby.” Obama’s teary-eyed efforts to rally supporters to his gun-control agenda every time a publicized mass-shooting occurs, has become something of a broken record. While the latest proposals – like those unveiled three years ago following the Newtown tragedy — appear on the surface to be largely benign, we had best take them seriously. As Ross Perot cautioned us, “the devil is in the details”; there is a relevant corollary to Perot’s maxim – “it’s often not what’s on the lines count; it’s what between the lines that matters most.” Of most concern among the proposals is the Administration’s attempt to broaden the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms; a classification which requires cumbersome licensing from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in addition to dramatically enhanced penalties for violating the myriad regulations and conditions attendant to being a firearms dealer (a “Federal Firearms Licensee” or “FFL”). Yet, even the Administration is not clear on who would qualify. According to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, selling even one firearm could qualify an individual as a federal dealer, “depending on the circumstances” – vagueness not welcome from the person supposed to be the nation’s top lawyer.

In examining Monday’s decrees, Obama’s failure to propose even harsher gun control schemes as demanded by the Left, should not be viewed as a victory for Second Amendment supporters. The eventual goal of gun control advocates is not necessarily “gun control” per se, but ultimately reducing the number of firearms in circulation, and undermining the strength and authority of the Second Amendment. By simply making firearms more expensive to manufacture, and more complicated (and legally treacherous) to own or sell, the president’s “modest” proposals are every bit as dangerous as a move to outlaw certain categories of guns or ammunition; without the fuss of more direct measures that would never actually secure congressional approval. Much like his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton, Obama remains chronically apathetic towards the heavy-lifting required to work with Congress in order to pass his agenda through the regular constitutional process. But unlike Clinton, Obama detests the glad-handing, negotiations, and compromises with those he sees as beneath him; and finds it is far easier to use the “stroke of the pen” to accomplish his goals, regardless of the damage thereby done to such vital principles as limited presidential power and separation of powers between the branches of government. Whereas Clinton was relatively open with his Second Amendment agenda and proposed mostly symbolic policies designed to score political points, Obama has chosen to work in the shadows via non-legislative means that strike more calculated blows to heart of gun rights. And his efforts in this regard are many. Consider the Obama Administration’s signing of the “Arms Trade Treaty” (ATT), which even without ratification by Congress, means the U.S. is “obligated” not to act “contrary to” the gun-control efforts proffered by the treaty explicitly or in ancillary documents. Or, “Operation Choke Point” in 2014, when Obama ordered the Department of Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pressure banks to dry up financial funding critical to firearms transactions and firearms-related companies. Or, how Obama has attempted to shoehorn the Centers for Disease Control into the gun control debate in an ongoing attempt to make gun violence a “public health” crisis; thereby subject to Food and Drug Administration regulatory control. These are but a few examples of the many calculated moves by the Obama Administration over the last seven years designed to circumvent Congress, and gut the Second Amendment without subjecting himself or his proposals to real debate. The new round of executive actions is more of the same, regardless of how “modest” the President and his allies claim them to be. Each step down this path opens the door wider for subsequent administrations to take the same approach regarding other issues. Whether this Congress, unlike its predecessors, recognizes this long-term damage and takes steps to stop the Administration, is – unfortunately – unlikely.

 

Originally published here via townhall.com

January 6, 2016 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Syrian Refugee Policy Raises Serious States’ Rights Issue

by lgadmin November 25, 2015
written by lgadmin

The flood of refugees from Syria and other Middle East countries that the Obama Administration is preparing to distribute to communities across the nation raises very real and understandable security concerns among government officials at the state and local levels, and among the citizenry generally.  It is, of course, facile for President Obama to proclaim piously that he “is not a afraid.”  With the full protection of the U.S. Secret Service, the armed forces, and every law enforcement agency in the country protecting him, why should he fret?  The rest of us are not quite so lucky.

Whether we, or any nation, has any moral obligation to throw open its doors and accept tens of thousands of Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees at this (or any) juncture, and whether it is fiscally prudent for us to do so when we already are drowning in entitlement spending, are questions worthy of vigorous political debate.

In many respects, however, as important as are the security and fiscal concerns that accompany a plan to bring in tens of thousands of refugees from suspect nations and backgrounds, are the fundamental legal and constitutional questions that arise when the federal government imperiously claims absolute power to bring into the country whoever it wants and place them in whatever communities it wants, regardless of whether those states and counties want or can afford to maintain them.  This is why so many governors have declared their states will not be a party to such irresponsibility.  The federalism question underlying such concerns is why the Administration’s actions and threats should be challenged in court.

While a few Republican lawmakers in Washington are discussing these federalism issues, it is state governors and attorneys general who ultimately must shoulder the burden for fighting the Obama Administration if they want to have a realistic chance at putting a stop to the refugee lunacy. Even if congressional Republicans were to propose  legislation with real teeth — something the S.A.F.E. Act of 2015 passed last week largely lacks — it would never “earn” the signature of this president.  The battle should be joined in federal court; and quickly.

Under our Constitution, the president does possess broad authority regarding national borders and matters of citizenship; the immigration battles with Arizona clarified that principle just a few years back.  However, whether this power extends to welcoming foreigners into the country and then depositing thousands of potentially dangerous individuals into communities across the country, is an important and timely issue that demands resolution.  As a security concern for governors — whose responsibility to safeguard their citizens is no less important than the president’s — this challenge should be viewed as no less important than the challenges the states leveled against Obamacare.

The president’s plans for the refugees, and his blindness to the complex social, economic and national security issues that go well beyond the scope of the superficial and largely irrelevant “morality” debate, undermine the very essence of federalism and states’ rights. It is not that Republican (and one Democrat) governors do not want to host war-weary refugees looking for a safe place to live; but rather that they do not want to jeopardize the safety of their states by rushing haphazardly to respond to the World’s moral crusade du jour.

It is not as if there are not current examples of the price to be paid for a knee-jerk reaction to media and bleeding-heart calls for “compassion.” It took German Chancellor Angela Merkel only weeks to see how disastrous her grandstanding in support of the flood of refugees rushing to Western Europe from the Middle East and the Balkans last summer proved to be.

Europe’s rush to throw itself onto the altar of altruism, at the expense of national security, was illustrated tragically by the recent attacks in Paris; and it is precisely why the looming battle between Obama and the states is so important.

Obama’s political career is ending in a little more than one year (may I get an “Amen”), and what motivates his decisions is grounded less in the national interest than a personal one as he makes a last-ditch effort to build a legacy justifying the Nobel Peace Prize he received for no apparent reason at the start of his presidency. This perhaps is why he feels no shame when lecturing governors about how refugees “deserve love and stability and protection,” while ignoring the virtual lockdown in Brussels resulting from credible threats of major terrorism acts; or the warnings from European and his own intelligence agencies about the potential for terrorists to disguise themselves as refugees.

Obama’s decisions in this regard reflect a cognitive dissonance only possible for a leader who neither recognizes nor accepts responsibility for his actions, because he is — after all — The President.  Thank goodness we have at least some governors who do not share such an exalted — and dangerous — self-image.

 

Originally Published here via townhall.com

November 25, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

America’s Slip in “Freedom Index” is No Surprise

by lgadmin November 18, 2015
written by lgadmin

Even as President Barack Obama reminds the world in the wake of the massive ISIS attacks in Paris that America, under his “leadership,” has little interest in leading on anything other than “climate change” rhetoric, the Unites States continues to lose ground to other nations in terms of the freedom it affords its own citizens.

According to the Human Freedom Index, a report issued by the Cato Institute’s Ian Vasquez and the Visio Institut, and which measures the level of personal and economic freedom in countries around the world, the country that once held high the torch of freedom in the world, now ranks 20th; behind countries such as Hong Kong, Canada, the U.K., Germany, Mauritius, and 14 others.

The easy answer for this sobering reality check is to blame inept leaders like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. However, these individuals are but a symptom of a far more fundamental problem that has deeply eroded the foundation of our nation.

Over the last several years, we have undergone a debilitating transition from leadership guided by principled ideas and understanding, to a parade of politicos who respond to the calamity of the day (be it ISIS, mass shootings, or corporate corruption) with reactive policies designed to stoke the fires of fear most effectively and quickly. In this environment, with each shriek of “doom” followed by a “quick fix” to “save the people,” America becomes a little less free. Having realized that leading by fear, not principle, is a formula for gaining media coverage and fundraising dollars, political opportunists salivate at the next chance to look “presidential.”

Consider for a moment the current presidential campaign being waged by Donald Trump. Despite religious freedom being one of the principles on which the United States was founded, Trump’s reaction to the terrorist attacks in Paris is to call for the closing of U.S. mosques. Trump’s fellow neophyte presidential candidate Ben Carson, seemingly unaware of the dangerous precedent of using bureaucrats as speech police, has suggested using the Department of Education to “monitor” political bias on college campuses. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush trumpets his desire to go back in time and kill “Baby Hitler.”

Democrats are not in any better shape. Their nominee-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton, is a crony corporatist whose sense of civil and personal liberties is guided by whatever position is polling best that day. The Democrat’s back up, Bernie Sanders, is an avowed socialist wailing constantly for “free” everything, and idiotically fixated on “climate change” as the most dire and immediate threat facing the country.

Depth of leadership at the top is hardly an environment in which freedom can survive for long; and indeed it isn’t, as the Freedom Index chronicles. As Americans, we tend to take for granted what is necessary to preserve freedom; for one thing, in our short history as a nation we have never experienced the true brutality of monarchies, dictatorships, juntas, or other forms of rule that fill the vacuum when Liberty disappears. We forget that for Liberty to survive, it takes more than a physical defense of the country; it requires a philosophical understanding and defense of the Constitution, in order to defeat enemies who use words and ideas rather than bombs and bullets to achieve their aims.

Without leaders who genuinely understand the foundation of American freedom, and who can truly defend not just the effectiveness of individual and economic freedom, but the morality of this freedom, we are as defenseless as a country without an army. After all, how can our leaders protect our constitutional freedoms if they do not understand why we have a written Constitution in the first place, or why sacrificing some these freedoms for our “safety” undermines them all?

Unfortunately, this is exactly what will continue to happen if we choose to elect leaders like our current president, whose comprehension of freedom is nothing more than a sound bite or message on a campaign poster.

Upon exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Ben Franklin reportedly was asked whether the Founding Fathers had built a monarchy, or a Republic as the governing structure for our new nation. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Franklin replied. When looking ahead to the 2016 elections, perhaps the real question we should ask ourselves is not if we can keep the Republic, but if we still possess the will and the understanding to do so.

 

Originally Published here via townhall.com

November 18, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Europe’s Immigration “Crisis” Is Not America’s Problem

by lgadmin September 16, 2015
written by lgadmin

Trashed streets. Tent camps. Chaos at railway stations. A toddler’s body washed up on the seashore. These are the scenes replayed over and over by the news media, depicting the worst refugee crisis to hammer Europe in more than half a Century. Among other refugees, some four million Syrians — nearly a quarter of its population – reportedly have fled the country as a four-year civil war rages; overwhelming surrounding countries, and sending hundreds of thousands streaming toward the heart of Europe. However, it is not so much personal security that is the goal of many, if not most of these immigrants, as it is jobs and the economic freebies offered by that continent’s pervasive social welfare system.

While several European Nanny States, including France and England, succumbed to the tugs at the heartstrings resulting from photos of plaintive children, and precipitously announced they would accept thousands of immigrants, Ground Zero quickly became Germany — perceived by many as having a virtually unlimited need for workers.

However, even Germany, which initially welcomed thousands of refugees with open arms and group hugs, has now realized the folly of its unrealistic “open border” policy. Chancellor Angela Merkel has moved belatedly to stem the rising immigrant tide – the schönes chaos or “glorious mess” created by her government’s dithering.

Here in America, rather than simply leave Germany, France, Austria and England to deal with the can of worms they opened, President Barack Obama and many members of Congress are wringing their hands and fretting about how to deal with this latest immigration crisis.

Obama last week announced plans to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees to enter the U.S. Even more troubling than this initial immigrant tranche, is the fact that many in the Democrat Party – and even some Republicans in the Congress – are pressuring the President to admit many more Syrian immigrants; perhaps ten times that number.

The basis for this “open door” immigration policy? Bloviating by the Administration that, “the refugee crisis is not just a European problem, it’s a world problem,” which then somehow – magically – creates an “obligation” on the part of the United States to do something.

An influx of immigrants from an area dominated by ISIS is a very real danger to national security; and despite promises from the Administration that it will take all due diligence to screen these immigrants, its track record in handling such intelligence and security matters leaves much to be worried about. Already there are reports suggesting that economic migrants from other countries, seeking to take advantage of better economic conditions and social welfare in Europe, are using fake Syrian passports to avoid being sent back to their own countries.

There is a more fundamental question than simply what security risks are posed by these immigrants, or if they even qualify for “refugee” status at all. What we should be asking is why we have any obligation, responsibility, or reason to take in these immigrants from Syria and elsewhere in the first place; particularly when our own immigration problem at the border with Mexico continues to fester without resolution.

Perhaps Obama harbors guilty feelings about his Administration’s inept handling of the turmoil in Syria and the rise of ISIS; factors which have fueled much of the current instability in the region. Or, perhaps it is simply a bid by a lame duck to salvage a degree of foreign policy relevance in the waning months of his presidency. Whatever the reason, this latest “open door” immigration folly should be slammed shut by the Congress, not encouraged.

One need only flip the calendar back one year to see how ill-prepared we are to deal with immigration problems at our own borders, much less one facing Europe. It was just last year when the Obama Administration authorized planeloads of “undocumented” immigrant families from Mexico and Central America, to be placed into communities across the country, for no sound reason but simply as a humanitarian gesture. The cost of that “policy” – in both dollars and security risks – is still being calculated.

And now, Obama and other Bleeding Hearts in our nation’s Capital want to do the same thing with thousands of immigrants from Syria and other countries torn by sectarian violence and suffering from lack of economic opportunity.

What about the obligation to the American taxpayer, who, as always, will bear the cost for housing, feeding and maintaining these “refugees”? What about the obligation to protect the fundamental values on which our country was built and under which it has prospered, but which have been widely rejected in the regions from which these people come? And at the very least, what about the common-sense notion that we must focus on fixing one immigration crisis at our southern border, before meddling in another one for which there is neither a clear obligation to or benefit for the United States?

Originally Published here via townhall.com

September 16, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
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
From the Desk of Bob Barr

The “Transformative” Tyranny of Mandatory Voting

by Liberty Guard Author March 25, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author

The longer Barack Obama serves in office, the more difficult it becomes to really consider him as “President of the United States.” The man’s respect for, and his understanding of, our form of government appears to diminish with each speech he gives, and with each action he takes as President. Still, he is if nothing else, consistent.

Barack Obama has been consistently truthful with the American people in telegraphing his desire of “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America. He exhorted citizens to do precisely that by voting for him in 2008. His signature legislative victory – Obamacare – delivered in 2010, is in the final stages of transforming health care in America from a system driven by the doctor-patient relationship, to one controlled from start to finish, and directly or indirectly, by government.

Obama’s drive to “transform” has not stopped at the ocean’s edge. Through a continuing series of inept moves in the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere, he has succeeded in transforming America from an influential world superpower, to a nation as much mistrusted as respected on vital security matters.

As disturbing as are these realities, even more frightening is the extent to which Obama yearns still to dislodge America from its foundation as a nation unique in placing individual liberty at the pinnacle of political power. His clear objective is to transform us into a society in which government mandates control virtually every aspect of citizens’ lives.

Obama’s latest plan is to transform the “right” to vote into the “requirement” to vote.

During a speech last week to the City Club of Cleveland, Obama declared himself a fan of mandatory voting. The President deflated America to other countries that are practitioners of forced voting. He opined, for example, that in Australia (a country that remains part of the British Commonwealth), citizens are required to vote; and concluded that instituting a similar mandate here would be “transformative.” He is right. Taking away peoples’ right to decide whether to vote in a particular election, and forcing them under penalty of law to vote, would be “transformative”; but certainly not in a good sense.

The world thus envisioned by Barack Obama would be a country in which everyone has a right to health care, to a college education, to a job, and to everything else the benevolent government decides the people should have; everything, that is, except the right to decide whether to vote. Obama noted favorably that the result of mandated voting would be to increase voting by the core constituencies of the Democratic Party; though the Voter-in-Chief paid lip service to the broader goal of increasing the overall percentage of voters who actually vote (which is low).

Voting in this Bizarro World would become simply another burden of being a citizen; right up there with paying taxes or carrying government-defined health insurance.

Some observers – many, perhaps — might be inclined to shrug off these latest musings of Barack Obama as simply “food for thought” offered by a president in the last two years of a second term. What gives them real currency, and why we ought to be extremely concerned about them, is the propensity already demonstrated by this President for doing what he wants via executive orders, whenever the Congress or the American people fail to give him what he wants through lawful and constitutional process. In this same mold, Attorney General Eric Holder misses no opportunity to attack efforts by state legislatures to protect their voting procedures against fraud by ensuring that only lawful citizens vote.

At the end of the day, there are innumerable ways this Administration could try to link federal benefits to voting, either directly or indirectly.

As a child, I lived in many other cultures and countries, including some in which voting was a requirement enforced by military force. This had the effect of driving up the percentage of people “voting” to laudable heights – but at the same time, driving down individual freedom to depressing depths. However, so long as those advocating for such forced measure can remain in charge – and they usually can in such a system – for them, it is a desirable arrangement. For the rest of us, not so much.

March 25, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Liberty Updates

Liberty Update – Net Neutrality

by Liberty Guard Author March 5, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author
March 5, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Message to Republicans — Motives Do Matter

by Liberty Guard Author March 4, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author

“I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. Giuliana made this startling statement in defense of his earlier observation that Obama does not truly “love America.” Not surprisingly, Giuliani’s criticism had pushed the Left to apoplectic fits. Obama’s defenders rushed to the aid of their Savior-in-Chief; characterizing Giuliani as a washed-up “has-been” taking cheap shots at the man he failed to beat in 2008. Less expected, however, were the droves of Republicans who jumped aboard the “motives-don’t-matter” bandwagon.

While Giuliani’s initial criticism of Obama was not unlike that of other conservatives during the last six years, many Republicans lost no time jumping in front of the cameras to distance themselves from Giuliani and echo his mantra. “I don’t think it helps to question the President’s patriotism or motives,” said Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. He was joined by other Republican notables, including 2016 presidential hopefuls Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush observed it was proper to question the President’s “policies” but not why he does what he does.

Like most “outrages” on the Left, the Democrats’ blustering was a time-tested trick to force squeamish Republicans to back down. In fact, the Democrats were using the very tool they have employed so effectively for years – question Republicans’ motives. How many times, for example, have we heard liberal wags claim that any criticism of Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder reflects Republican racial animus; or that opposition to redefining marriage is motivated by “homophobia?” Even GOP efforts to reform welfare is attributed to a mean-spirited hatred of the “poor.” In these and countless other instances, Liberals openly and shamelessly question conservatives’ motives; often in very personal terms.

Motives do matter; so why are so many Republicans so squeamish about admitting this, especially when such criticism is pegged to important matters of national security and other fundamental policy issues? Common sense dictates they should know better. Giuliani, who first rose to national prominence in the 1980s as the hard-charging United States Attorney in New York City, certainly must recall that establishing a motive or knowledge of bad acts is an essential element of a successful prosecution. It’s Criminal Law 101.

In the political arena, inquiring into and understanding why a decision-maker undertakes certain actions as opposed to others — actions that may affect our entire economy or our nation’s defense — is a vital first step in developing alternative policies and correcting mistakes.

For example, the refusal by Republicans to subject the President’s motives to public debate is doing exactly what Obama is doing with regard to ISIS — criticizing the terror organization’s actions without understanding the reasons it commits atrocities. If we do not understand the mind of the enemy, we doom ourselves to flailing around in the dark against an adversary without any real hope of defeating him.

President Ronald Reagan orchestrated the defeat of the Soviet Union not simply by criticizing the self-evident inefficiencies of the Soviet economy, or the deplorable living conditions created by its authoritarian regime. He did so by enunciating the moral depravity at the core of the Communist philosophy, as the “evil empire” it was. Only by understanding and articulating what motivated Communists was Reagan able to outflank them; ultimately sending the USSR to the “ash heap of history,” as he predicted would happen.

As was true in the 1980s, so it is now in this 21st Century. Condemning the unconstitutional actions of the Obama Administration is appropriate and essential (even obvious). But this makes sense only if and when we begin to deconstruct the motivations for such actions in order to truly understand the enemy we face. Otherwise we are just shooting in the dark.

Many of today’s Democrats, reflecting the philosophy underlying this Administration, are no longer motivated solely by the benign desire to help others using the power of government. Instead, Obama and those in his Administration appear clearly to act based on a genuine disdain for and rejection of the American traditions of free markets, private property, and individual rights; principles they see as a moral blight on society rather than as a foundation from which to protect and strengthen our nation.

If the GOP truly hopes to defeat this brand of toxic “progressivism,” it had better learn to defend its positions aggressively, rather than backing down whenever the media or its political adversaries play the “motive” card.

March 4, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram

Search Archives

Recent Posts

  • 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
  • Trump Pivots 180 Degrees From Biden In Support of the Second Amendment

    February 13, 2025

About Us

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

From The Desk of Bob Barr

Government Over-Regulation Is Handing China The Energy Future
The Climate Control Movement In Europe Is Alive and Still Kicking
The Regulatory State Continues to Target Fantasy Sports

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