by Bob Barr | Jan 26, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller. com“I hit Ali with everything and he said, ‘Is that all you got?” and I said, ‘Yeah, that’s pretty much it’”— George ForemanWhile it is never a good thing to be hit with a federal criminal indictment, Roger Stone, who was arrested early Friday morning based on just such an instrument, very well may be thinking, “Is that all you got?”A review of the 24-page document reveals little, if anything, not already in the public domain. The indictment reflects a case built almost entirely on piecing together numerous statements, e-mails, text messages and interviews by Stone over the past two years, then comparing some of those to testimony he reportedly gave before a House of Representatives committee in September 2017 and concluding — surprise! — that there appear to be conflicting statements. Newcomers to the rough-and-tumble world of American politics might be shocked to discover that candidates and campaign operatives make conflicting statements from time to time. Neophytes might also be dismayed to discover that elected officials occasionally cast votes inconsistent with earlier votes. And they also might be amazed that a candidate’s campaign would have an interest in negative information about an opponent’s campaign.But yes, in the real world, such things do take place.What truly should shock the conscience is that actions such as inconsistent political campaign statements, or a campaign expressing an interest in discovering an opponent’s weaknesses, have now become criminal offenses; at least in the opinion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.For all the Sturm und Drang surrounding the 19-month long investigation spearheaded by Mueller (supposedly to uncover “collusion” between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia), Friday’s...
by Bob Barr | Jan 23, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comWe live in the Age of the Lecture; an era in which virtually every forum or opportunity for communicating, becomes a vehicle from which to lecture us about something deemed important to those whose existence revolves around political correctness. Now, even an ad for something as mundane and apolitical as a shaving razor has become the means by which the PC crowd presses its worldview upon us. Politically correct lectures packaged as ads for toilet paper cannot be far behind.Recently, the iconic men’s grooming brand Gillette released an ad featuring not its latest advancement in shaving technology, but instead taking on the scourge of “toxic masculinity.” This transition from a product built on the masculine art of shaving one’s beard, to a campaign focusing on softness and goodwill, is odd in the extreme. It appears, however, that the public relations Brainiacs who dreamed up this campaign may have created more of a problem than a solution (to whatever the perceived problem might have been). At least those of us grown tired of politically correct subject matter being shoved at us via television ads, can hope it will backfire.Rather than striking a cord with its audience as a collective Kumbaya moment, Gillette’s latest ad appears to have struck a raw nerve with viewers. Ad Age, an advertising industry publication, reported that one marketing intelligence firm found 63 percent of social media’s reaction to the ad was negative, compared to just eight percent who viewed it positively.Does such responsive research mean that Gillette’s customer base is sexist, racist, or supportive of bullying? Hardly. It does suggest, however, that Gillette’s core demographic is men...
by Bob Barr | Jan 22, 2019 | Uncategorized |
On the surface, national crime statistics confirm that violent crime rates have decreased significantly from their peak in the early 1990s. The further reality, however, is that they remain troublingly high.As computed by both the FBI and non-government organizations such as the Pew Research Center, the past five years have witnessed a noted increase in violent crime. This particularly is the case with regard to homicide rates in major cities, such as St. Louis and Baltimore.The bulwark against criminals and their often extremely dangerous behavior is America’s sworn law enforcement community — the men and women “in blue.”Consistent with the basic structure of our Federal Republic, the vast majority of our country’s approximately 850,000 law enforcement officers are employed not by federal government agencies, but state and local police departments and sheriff’s offices.While the figure of 850,000 law enforcement officers may seem large to the average citizen, if you ask any officer “on the street,” regardless of whether he or she serves in an urban or rural area, they are almost certain to tell you that needs remain unmet, in both manpower and equipment.Unfortunately, the number of sworn law enforcement officers is decreasing, even as rates of violent crime are rising. The Pew Research Center calculates that in the past five years alone, “the total number of working sworn officers has fallen by about 23,000.”Pew calculates further that in the past two decades, the number of officers nationally per capita has dropped sharply — from 2.42 officers per 1,000 residents in 1997 to 2.17 per 1,000 population in 2016.The reasons for such decreases in sworn law enforcement officers are many. And certainly, the situation is not...
by Bob Barr | Jan 9, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comThere was a time long, long ago in which the national Democratic Party actually stood for something. Real ideas. Not necessarily good ideas, but substantive ideas nonetheless. The Party was led by men and women who actually articulated substantive programs. John Kennedy formulated meaningful tax policies, and launched America’s conquest of the Moon. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, proposed and pushed through the Congress massive and far-reaching federal support programs that still are costing us today. During the 1970s and into the 80s there were Democratic Members of the Congress who articulated well-considered social policies for welfare recipients and working families; New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan comes to mind.But no more. Today in the Democratic caucus, a substantive idea would land with an echoing thud on the floor and be quickly swept away; barely noticed amid the vitriol that consumes the nation’s senior national political party.While Democrats nowadays prefer the moniker “Progressive” to “Liberal” as a descriptor for their Party and its members, there is nothing remotely progressive about this once proud political movement. Today’s Democratic Party has become not only a hollowed-out shell of its former incarnation, but as revealed in just the past four months, now is a cartoon version of what it used to be.In what previous era in the real world, for example, would a Senator sitting on that body’s Judiciary Committee, label himself “Spartacus” after a movie character, when posing a question to a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States? New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker did precisely that; with a straight face, nonetheless. In this Democratic Bizarro World, that...
by Bob Barr | Jan 2, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comTwo hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.” Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch. This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire...
