Liberty Guard
  • Projects
  • About
  • Leadership
  • Podcast
  • Blog
    • From The Desk of Bob Barr
    • Liberty Updates
    • Media Appearances
    • All Articles
  • Videos
  • Contact
  • Join
DONATE
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
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:

Terrorism

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
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

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
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogFrom the Desk of Bob Barr

Is Trump America’s “Strongman”?

by lgadmin July 15, 2015
written by lgadmin

When it comes to public confidence in American institutions, conditions rival those of California’s epic drought. According to a recent Gallup poll, the American public is mired in a now eight-year period of historically low confidence in traditional institutions, including government, banks, religious organizations, and the news media. Only the U.S. military and small businesses enjoy greater public confidence than in decades past. Congress, no stranger to dismal approval ratings, “enjoys” strong confidence from only eight percent of Americans.

Under the tepid leadership of the Obama Administration, the United States appears to bow before strong leaders abroad, from Moscow to Havana to Tehran. Faith in America around the globe ebbs with each new “deadline” given Iranian negotiators in Europe. Every ISIS atrocity is played out repeatedly in social and mainstream media, and heightens fears of a “lone wolf” attack here at home. We indeed are in a time of fear and uncertainty.

Is the time ripe for America’s version of the Third World “strongman”? Will we see the arrival of a “macho” leader, riding in on a white horse with sword drawn, to rally a citizenry frozen in fear and uncertainty? Has this strongman already arrived? Is it Donald Trump?

Since first announcing his intentions to run for president last month, Trump has dominated the headlines with inflammatory rhetoric followed by blustery refusals to apologize. While most pundits believed (hoped?) Trump’s brash behavior would doom him to remain at the bottom of the presidential pile, his poll numbers continue to rise. Last week, CNN reported only he and Jeb Bush held double-digit support among GOP voters.

To Mainstream Media pundits, for whom isolation within the Beltway has dulled any sense of the pulse of the nation outside of Washington’s political aristocracy, Trump’s surge among conservative grassroots makes little sense. To them, the measure of a candidate’s viability is their performance as a “talking head” on Sunday shows; or their willingness to sit for fluff interviews in which no real questions are asked and no real answers given. And, while most candidates would jump at the chance to kiss the rings of the Establishment media, Trump understands the road to the grassroots does not go through D.C.; and in this understanding, Trump plays his hand to perfection.

As The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs noted recently, “Donald Trump is appealing to people . . . who hate politics, who hate politicians. [S]omeone . . . who they view as a straight-shooter, someone who’s different and fresh.”

In other words, Trump is the anti-politician politician; the classic “strongman” but in civilian, rather than military garb.

While candidates like Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie have struggled to find a voice that resonates beyond their core supporters, Trump is bullying his way to the top using a tone and style reminiscent of the Latin American “strongman” leader. In typical “strongman” style, Trump is employing a dual combination of strength and simplicity — through his unapologetic style of campaigning and the comfort of policy solutions simple enough to broadly fit people’s preconceived notions of how to fix America’s problems. The combination of the two creates a visage of confidence, which compared to the weak vacillations of the Obama Administration, evokes a powerful emotional reaction to the point where Trump’s patently unserious political posturing is overlooked.

And this is what has the media so confused; they can only focus on the content of his speeches, not what people are taking from them. Trump is gaining ground on his competitors not for what he says — which clearly is intended more to provoke tempers than stir genuine debate — but for what his tone and demeanor symbolize. As Willem Dafoe noted in the movie “Boondock Saints,” it is all about “symbology”; and how Trump’s GOP adversaries respond to his symbology matters a great deal.

Rather than egging Trump on with petty insults, or attempting to engage him in a fruitless debate — both of which serve only to create a media spectacle the Left is more than willing to provoke – GOP candidates might want to take at least a few notes.

Republican voters clearly do not want another candidate who will go to Washington and simply perpetuate the Establishment culture by playing the same games that have left America’s problems to fester at home and abroad. Voters yearn for a candidate whose default position is not to play defense and back away from every challenge — whether at our own back door regarding illegal immigration from Mexico, the continued expansion of ISIS in the Middle East, or a federal court system usurping power from both the legislative and executive branches of government.

The field is wide open for a Republican candidate who recognizes the value of a bold leadership style, but who couples it with a more serious understanding and presentation of solutions befitting an American President rather than a Latin American Strongman.

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

“Don’t Sweat it” Takes On Whole New Meaning With TSA

by Liberty Guard Author April 1, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author

Careful, airline passengers! If you happen to show up to your flight late, or are nervous about forgetting to turn off the lights before your trip, you may find yourself interrogated by one of the Transportation Security Administration’s 3,000 “Behavior Detection Officers” (BDOs). These lightly trained security sleuths are employing an actual “ scoring” system to identity terrorists trying to board a commercial airliner. Even “exaggerated yawning,” a “cold penetrating stare,” or strong “body odor” are among the tell-tale signs for which the eagle eyes – and noses – of these BDOs are watching.

In case you might be wondering who is paying for this nonsense – we are; the American taxpayers.

What TSA officially and coyly calls its Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program is one of the many so-called security innovations concocted by the TSA, which describes itself as an “intelligence driven counter-terrorism agency.” And, while this program is yet another example of how the TSA now more closely resembles a Saturday Night Live skit than a serious federal agency tasked with protecting America’s commercial air system from terrorism, the laughs abruptly end when considering the financial costs and the loss of liberty that comes with it.

How did America transition from the Land of the Free – a country in which freedom to travel was long-considered (even by the Supreme Court) to be a fundamental right – to one in which we permit government employees to subject us to invasive searches if we smell bad or yawn too much?

It is easy – and accurate – to trace the current situation back to the reaction to the 9-11 terrorist attacks; but it actually began decades earlier, when law enforcement agents began taking liberties with the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as part of the “War on Drugs.” Even then, however, the courts eventually put a stop to such practices as “drug courier profiles” conducted at airports. Those now-disallowed “profiles” included many of the same indices as TSA employs now in its SPOT program.

The language of the Fourth Amendment has not changed; and the Supreme Court has not overturned its ban on drug-courier profiling. Yet, TSA is currently subjecting air travelers to precisely the same arbitrary, unscientific profiling that drug agents are no longer allowed to use. What has changed? We have. We are a far more timid and fearful nation than we were in the 1970s; and the intrusiveness of government control over our lives has expanded to levels and into areas of behavior few would have dreamed possible four decades ago.

TSA cannot even justify the SPOT program with evidence that it actually works. According to the federal government itself, the program does not work; at least in terms of identifying terrorists. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the program essentially worthless and in a 2013 study, suggested it be defunded. Like the good bureaucrats they are, top officials at TSA continue to defend it; and for reasons unclear, Congress has refused to specifically de-fund it. Thus, the silliness continues, and the cost mounts.

Could it get worse? Absolutely. In reaction to a pair of recent incidents involving violence at TSA checkpoints, the TSA union is renewing the call to create armed TSA officers, with the power to arrest. We removed such language in the initial legislation establishing TSA after 9-11, and it would be a far graver mistake to permit it now, after seeing what TSA has come up with after nearly 13 years in existence.

April 1, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

A President Wants War Powers. Will Congress Be Fooled Again?

by Liberty Guard Author February 23, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author

When the House and Senate reconvene this week following their Presidents Day recess, one of the hot topics of debate will be the request laid at their doorsteps earlier this month by President Obama, who wants the Congress to authorize him to go after ISIS.

Aside from the question of whether the president of the United States, who serves pursuant to the Constitution as commander i chief of the armed forces, even needs such authorization, there is every good reason for the Congress not to vote another Authorization for the Use of Military Force such as the one passed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

As my mom urged me more than once, in words that served me well during my years in the political arena: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Unfortunately, both houses of the Congress appear predisposed to be fooled once again.

In the days immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush asked Congress for authority to employ military “force” against those individuals and entities responsible for or complicit in that morning’s attacks on the American homeland. Congress quickly complied.

What the Bush administration asked for — and what I and other members of the Congress believed we were granting at the time — was a limited and straightforward authorization for the executive branch to employ military “force” to go after al-Qaida and whoever else was responsible for or complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Boy, were we fooled.

No sooner did the ink dry on the AUMF than the Bush-Cheney administration began using it to justify all manner of actions, most having nothing to do with military “force,” to carry out a far-reaching anti-terrorism program of action abroad and at home. The resolution quickly morphed into a justification for massive surreptitious eavesdropping on American citizens, using torture in contravention of U.S. law, and conducting open-ended military operations in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe.

The abuse of the 9/11 AUMF continued throughout the Bush administration, and into the Obama presidency with few adjustments. And now, they want another one.

The problem here at its most fundamental is why such a thing as a resolution authorizing a president to take military action against individuals or entities that have killed American citizens and are aiming to further harm American individuals and interests, is necessary in the first place.

More important still is the question of how did a simple joint resolution of the Congress become the justification whereby the government overrode civil liberties guaranteed against such actions by the Bill of Rights; and why would the Congress even consider allowing it to happen again?

In the case of the 2001 AUMF, it was sleight of hand by the Bush administration that led Congress into thinking it was merely authorizing what the resolution stated explicitly it was authorizing — the use of force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In fact, however, the resolution became the cover for the Bush administration to do whatever it wanted, wherever it wanted, and whenever it wanted, against whatever targets — domestic or foreign — the White House decided to label a “terrorist threat.”

The Bush administration correctly gambled that, once passed, Congress would not later limit the subsequent reach of the resolution for fear of being labeled “soft” on terrorism.

Today, more than 13 years later, there are those, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who advocate another broad, largely open-ended AUMF to fight ISIS wherever and whenever its elements may be found. While some members of Congress are raising concerns over such a decision, many are not; and even among those expressing reservations, most are focusing on the specific — and important — geographic and time parameters of the resolution, not on preventing the more important constitutional abuses lurking beneath the surface.

The Congress is being asked to leave in place the broad and constitutionally-problematic 2001 AUMF, even as it gives the executive branch additional powers. Recent history tells us this is a recipe for serious constitutional mischief.

Instead of toying with another joint resolution, why not look to the Constitution, which requires that Congress fund those specific military programs it deems appropriate, prohibit those it opposes, and requires the president to operate as commander in chief within the bounds of the Constitution? That course of action, of course, would force the Congress to carefully consider and debate not only military operations, costs and responsibilities; but to understand the Constitution and the limits it places on government action.

Simply passing a resolution telling the president to “go after the bad guys” and worrying about the problems such action might cause later on, if at all, is so much easier.

Attorney Bob Barr of Smyrna is a former U.S. Republican congressman.

February 23, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Liberty Updates

Liberty Update – Obama’s AUMF and Potential Repercussions

by Liberty Guard Author February 19, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author
February 19, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Liberty Updates

Liberty Update – National Security

by Liberty Guard Author February 1, 2015
written by Liberty Guard Author
February 1, 2015 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

Let Erik Prince And Blackwater Take On ISIS – To Kill Them, Not “Degrade” Them

by Liberty Guard Author October 29, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

Like many liberal criticisms of market-based solutions to public policy problems, the idea of privatized armies is likely to conjure images of rogue mercenaries advertising in the back of Soldier of Fortune magazine. However, many of today’s paid civilian soldiers are highly skilled and professional former Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and Marines. They often are employed by private contractors because of their effectiveness as support staff, training instructors, security personnel, and occasionally as combat-ready operators. They are trained and ready to kill the enemy, not “degrade” him.

Such contractors have been instrumental in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; filling key positions with the State Department, the CIA, private companies, and others that the U.S. military either cannot, or will not, supplement. Most recently, insofar as responding to the rise of ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere in the region presents policy, budgetary and other conflicts for the Obama Administration, there is a new focus on using paid military contractors (PMCs) to “finish the job.”

Such a move makes sense; just as it has in other times and conflicts, dating back centuries.

The fact is, the history of warfare is replete with examples of highly successful paid armies. From the “Ten Thousand” army in Ancient Greece, to the iconic shark-faced planes of the “Flying Tigers” early in the Second World War, nations have come to rely on irregular, private armies to supplement or replace official military units. Even the elite Swiss Guard units in Vatican City charged with protecting the Pope began their storied history as 15th Century mercenaries.

Since the dawn of war, governments have used paid, private armies to protect kingdoms, carry out dangerous missions, and vanquish enemies. This reality is reflected even in the Constitution of the United States, which provides that Congress has the power to issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” These devices are official governments licenses granted to private sailors to hunt down and attack enemy ships (Sen. Rand Paul’s father, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, asserted that this power should be used today to fight piracy off the east coast of Africa).

The use of private militaries and Letters of Marque make sense on today’s battlefields, where victory is not necessarily determined by the biggest army, the most sophisticated air support, or the heaviest artillery. The modern enemy often does not wear a uniform, nor does he always fight for a single country or even a country at all. Even with the most fearsome fighting force on the planet, accomplishing military objectives in such an environment is a daunting task, long before U.S. politicians become involved.

Regrettably, our military today is led by a Commander in Chief so paralyzed by political pressure, indecision and timidity that the response to terror attacks on American citizens, such as those by ISIS, have become a waiting game for international cooperation to build in hopes of “degrading” and “managing” the attacks. The situation presented by an indecisive commander-in-chief is made worse by the infusion of hyper-partisan politics into today’s political debates in Washington. This makes success harder to define and more elusive at any rate, even as it squanders billions of taxpayer dollars on military strategies dictated by political consultants rather than field-grade officers.

It is the resulting uncertainty, in which ISIS festers and grows, that has led former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince to conclude that, “If the Administration cannot rally the political nerve or funding to send adequate active duty ground forces to answer the call, let the private sector finish the job.”

Using all-volunteer PMCs could avoid much of Washington’s political wrangling, and allow highly skilled, highly effective operators to conduct missions to destroy — not simply “degrade” — threats to America and our interests around the globe. This could be accomplished largely without leaving a job unfinished as troops are pulled from combat to meet political promises, or not given the resources they need because of budgetary constraints.

The use of American PMCs is also far better for national security than the current strategy of sending arms and money to unreliable, un-vetted and untrained “rebel” groups, whose only claim to our money and arms often is nothing more than the fact that some Washington policy makers have deemed them to be “on our side.” Those same policy wonks then watch with shock and amazement as their “allies” quickly surrender, leaving US-supplied weapons and munitions to be expropriated and turned against us by enemy forces. If we are going to spend taxpayer dollars using outside forces to fight terrorism, we might as well use PMCs who we at least can be sure are fighting for the right side.

It is true that the use of PMCs in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been without valid criticism; there were plenty of mistakes made with bidding, oversight, and accountability for misconduct during the massive and often too-quick build-up of U.S. interests in Iraq following the 2003 invasion. However, the conviction of four former Blackwater guards last week in the deaths of 17 civilians in Iraq, shows us that military contractors can, and should, be punished for failing to follow the same laws as members of the Armed Forces with whom they are working. Furthermore, as contractors, PMCs would be accountable for conduct, costs, and mission effectiveness in order to retain contracts for work. As more and more PMC groups are employed to handle military operations, the competition increases the incentive to do the best job for the lowest cost.

Rather than wait for a vacillating Administration to build sufficient courage to “manage” a crisis and to “degrade” those who do us harm, we should send in trained and motivated, paid military contractors to do the job. I suspect they would rather kill than “degrade” our enemies; which is what most Americans would prefer they do.

October 29, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
From the Desk of Bob Barr

In Defeating ISIS, We Must Not Defeat Ourselves

by Liberty Guard Author September 17, 2014
written by Liberty Guard Author

“Terror is theater,” New York Times columnist Roger Cohen wrote on Monday. “Burning skyscrapers, severed heads: The terrorist takes movie images of unbearable lightness and gives them weight enough to embed themselves in the psyche.” Over the weekend, ISIS, the newest terror kid on the block, posted another one of its beheading videos to the Internet, marking the third hostage to die in the organization’s effort to send chills down the spine of the Western World.

And, once again, it worked.

Ask any American right now about the top issue facing the country, and his answer is likely not to be a still-struggling economy, a healthcare system crumbling under ObamaCare, a flood of illegal immigrants at the border and the unprecedented Executive action granting them amnesty, or any number of serious, domesticissues yet-to-be-solved by Congress or the President. Instead, most Americans would suggest the biggest, most direct problem facing the nation is a terror organization as to which our national intelligence agencies remain divided on what threat, if any, it poses to American interests outside of the region currently under its control in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, with each online video, or mysterious “note” left along a border fence, Americans predictably are succumbing to this “terror theater,” especially as ISIS gains traction in a ratings-hungry Mainstream Media. The effects of this fear mongering are already noticeable; a recent Pew poll found that 62 percent of Americans are “very concerned” about the rise of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. While that might not surprise given recent events, what is alarming is the shift of the population back to a post-9/11 mindset that government can, and should, do “whatever it takes” to protect the nation, regardless of constitutionality or actual effectiveness.

Thanks to the revelations last year by Edward Snowden, we know where this type of “Nanny State” mindset will lead. For years, privacy watchdogs suspected exactly what Snowden revealed: the U.S. government is actively collecting, analyzing, and storing the digital communications of hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens, with virtually no court oversight or suspicion of wrong doing on the part of these citizens. We now know also that the CIA has been illegally hacking into the computers of the U.S. Senate committee tasked with the oversight of intelligence agencies.

To top it all off, when questioned about these clear violations of the Constitution, the top brass of America’s intelligence communities perjured themselves in front of Congress.

As a result of these revelations, for a brief moment there seemed to be a real opportunity to win back some of the freedom lost during the post-9/11 terror hysteria, when fear enabled the creation of today’s surveillance Leviathan. Headlines detailing the extent to which the federal government shredded the Constitution in pursuit of “terrorists” led to what Pew described as the “first time in nearly a decade . . . that more [people] expressed concern over civil liberties than protection against terrorism.”

Sadly, in the end, all President Obama and the Congress had to do was wait for the headlines to shift to the next emergency du jour, and their shenanigans would once again fade from the public’s radar.

As I wrote last week, fear is a powerful tool, and one used often by the government following 9/11 to diminish individual liberty in exchange for the promise of security. Clearly, the more government officials fan the flames of terror hysteria, the more willing Americans became to surrender their freedom for this illusion, as the recent Pew poll demonstrates, and makes us less reluctant to put a stop to the unconstitutional behavior of our government.

In a 2003 interview, General Tommy Franks described his top concern for America not as being an act of terrorism, but a “massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world . . . that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event.” A decade later, we see it does not take an event as devastating as a mass-casualty attack to shake our understanding that protecting liberty, not achieving “security,” is the real responsibility of government.

Global terrorism may be a modern problem, but our Founding Fathers warned about the desire to trade freedom for security. They also knew that freedom, once relinquished, is rarely, if ever, returned to the people.

This is precisely why civil liberties deserve a consistent and high level of concern by the citizenry. Our basic freedoms are not commodities that can be pawned, or loaned, whenever the real world out there rears its ugly head and we need a little extra “security.”

How America responds to ISIS is not just a test of the President, but of America as well. We should, and will – if the proper mix of special ops actions and targeted military training and equipment is put in place — defeat ISIS; but in allowing the irrational fear of terrorism to penetrate our imagination and once again grant the government a blank check of power, we will ultimately defeat ourselves.

September 17, 2014 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

Keep in touch

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram

Search Archives

Recent Posts

  • Inflation Hits The Corporate Shakedown Market

    March 28, 2023
  • Bob Barr Joins Lars Larson

    March 23, 2023
  • ‘Climate Change’ Now Top Priority for US Navy

    March 23, 2023
  • Republicans Again Being Pulled Into the Mud With Support For Trump’s Fight Against Possible Indictment

    March 21, 2023
  • Plans, Reports, and Lies—Biden’s Latest Gun Control Gambit

    March 16, 2023

About Us

  • Liberty Guard
    2120 Powers Ferry Road
    Suite 125
    Atlanta, Georgia 30339
  • Email: [email protected]

From The Desk of Bob Barr

Inflation Hits The Corporate Shakedown Market
‘Climate Change’ Now Top Priority for US Navy
Republicans Again Being Pulled Into the Mud With Support For Trump’s Fight Against Possible Indictment

Latest Videos

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

Get Liberty Guard Email Updates




©2022 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.

Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Telegram
  • 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