by Bob Barr | Feb 23, 2023 | Townhall Article |
Townhall In a boon to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has afforded him exclusive access to tens of thousands of hours of heretofore unreleased Capitol Hill Police video of the turmoil surrounding and inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Pandora’s Box opened by this unusual move may not play out as smoothly as perhaps the Speaker hopes. McCarthy did indicate last month that he favored public release of the vast trove of video footage that had been provided to House Democrats previously by the Hill police. His decision this month, however, to grant access not to the media generally but to a single commentator, surprised many on Capitol Hill. House Democrats, especially those who served on the now-defunct January 6th Select Committee in the last Congress, have decried the Speaker’s decision as one that endangers congressional security. Crocodile tears in this regard – as shed for example by South Carolina Democrat Bennie Thompson who chaired the Select Committee – are misplaced. Thompson bemoaned the “significant security concerns” that will result from the Speaker’s actions, but provided no meaningful details to support those fears. The fact is that House Democrats maintained access to the 40,000-plus feet of the video footage for more than two years, while selectively releasing various portions during their extended and one-sided investigation. Claims that release of the entire video trove will enable would-be “insurrectionists” to better plan future attacks on the Capitol – a public building open to the public – are laughable. Such “security” concerns already had been rejected by at least one federal judge in 2021 in response to media demands, and portions of the otherwise...
by Bob Barr | Feb 21, 2023 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller British and American sensitivities were properly offended when, in 1989, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa or death sentence against author Salman Rushdie for the religious content of his novel, “The Satanic Verses.” Now, three decades later, British publisher Puffin Books has engaged in a similar, though less pernicious course of action against author Roald Dahl. Dahl’s sin, as it were, seems to be certain adverbs and adjectives used in his books, including “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” that in the woke publisher’s pinched perspective, might offend readers too immature to recognize the now-stricken words are simply descriptors in a work of fiction. For example, in a news account of this absurdity, the character named Augustus Gloop, has morphed from being “enormously fat” (Dahl’s words) into simply, “enormous” – “enormous” in what sense is left unanswered, but this omission apparently is deemed a worthy price to protect readers from the agony of learning that an individual in a fictional work was very “fat.” Authors employ words – especially adverbs and adjectives – to impart to the reader what they cannot see except in their mind’s eye, which is after all, the whole point of reading a book, as opposed to watching a film or a television show. One might, however, worry that in future films of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” Mr. Gloop will be photo-shopped into a more lithe, even perhaps dare I say, “skinny” character, in order to protect viewers being triggered by the sight of an “enormously fat” screen actor or cartoon character. Where, indeed, will this nonsense end? Consider, in the same vein as the de-fattening...
by Bob Barr | Feb 16, 2023 | Townhall Article |
Townhall For every patient tired of filling out repetitive and privacy-invasive forms every time they visit a doctor, a medical facility, or a hospital, here is a questionnaire those patients should present to their doctor for him or her to answer and return to them: Questionnaire To Be Filled Out By Physician and Returned To Patient* 1. Your intake form asked me about whether I feel “stress.” I sure do and I don’t think I’m alone in this sentiment. I also don’t consider that the fault is mine. Unwanted stress comes to me from all sides in our polarized society. I don’t know about you, Doc, but the loss of some of my longtime friends, simply because they see one another as too far left or too far to the right, is devastating. Is this of concern to you as a physician? 2. I and most patients are bothered that doctors and hospitals ask so many questions that seem like a waste of time to regular folks, and that they do this over and over again, as if each time is the very first time. Does this bother you as well? 3. Do they really think that they are going to get an honest and useful answer to “Do you feel safe at home?” or “Are there any firearms in your home?” or “Do you think often of suicide and have a plan on how you would accomplish that?” I’d like to know how many times you have received a truly honest “yes” answer to those questions, but more importantly, what do you do with such information and who...
by Bob Barr | Feb 9, 2023 | Townhall Article |
Townhall The Concise Oxford English Dictionary I keep by my desk defines “conniption” as “a fit of rage or hysterics.” To illustrate more clearly what a “conniption” means in modern parlance, a picture of Gavin Newsom, the Democrat Governor of California, should accompany the definition. It is he and his anti-Second Amendment colleagues in other deep blue states who are having recurring conniptions over the June 2022 Supreme Court decision commonly known as Bruen. That decision, which arose factually in New York but applies to the entire country, declared that the Second Amendment means what it says, and that it is to be interpreted according to the historical context in which it was written and ratified in the late 18th Century. What exactly is it that sends these public officials, who regularly profess devotion to other civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, up the wall? At its core, it’s all about control. Under the century-old New York “Sullivan Act” law that the six-member Bruen majority struck down last June, local officials had enjoyed virtually absolute control to decide which citizens were deemed worthy to be permitted to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. That power was deemed “arbitrary” by the High Court’s majority and therefore fatally defective as a limitation on an individual’s fundamental right to “keep and bear arms” expressly guaranteed by the Second Amendment against being thus “infringed.” For decades California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and a handful of other firearms-averse states had permitted officials to exercise similar control over citizens within their jurisdiction. Bruen swept away such noxious power and established – finally – what should have been obvious...
by Bob Barr | Feb 7, 2023 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller First things first. The Biden administration is weak, ineffective, and indecisive in its handling of America’s foreign and national security affairs. Based on its record so far, it would be easy, and likely accurate, to conclude that in handling the Great China Spy Balloon Caper of 2023, Team Biden showed itself to be weak, ineffective, and indecisive. Simply criticizing the administration for failing to shoot down the Chinese balloon earlier during the course of the wind-borne vehicle’s leisurely trek across America, however, misses important policy aspects of this episode. First, we do not know everything about the capabilities, intent, and purpose(s) behind either the Chinese operators of the clumsy balloon and its clunky cargo, or of precisely what our country’s capabilities were or are in defending against and neutralizing whatever threat it posed. Figuring out why China’s communist leaders do what they do, is no easier than deciphering decision-making inside the Kremlin, which, as Winston Churchill said, is “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Did Beijing send this almost amateurish balloon device cruising over our sovereign territory simply to see what we would do? Was it actually equipped with listening devices of sufficient capability to pick up communications that are not collectable by other means, notably, satellites? Was China’s President Xi Jinping hoping that the Americans would take action to neutralize its capabilities in order to gauge our jamming abilities? Was it a ploy to accomplish a diplomatic goal, having no real intelligence purpose at the outset? What actually did our defense and intelligence agencies know about the balloon, and what in fact did we do...
