by Bob Barr | Mar 11, 2020 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.comThe 2013 Edward Snowden leaks revealed for the first time the frightening extent to which post-9/11 national security powers had been expanded – and abused – in the decade thereafter. But it was not until the FBI’s partisan crusade against the Trump electoral victory, did we have a clear and vivid picture of the degree to which those powers could be abused in the hands of bitter and unaccountable intelligence officials. American citizens would finally come to realize that if it could happen to the President of the United States, it could happen to anyone. Ironically, it is because of this hubris deep inside America’s intelligence community that we are now closer than ever to reforming at least some of the abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. With certain provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) set to expire on Sunday – most notably the much-abused Section 215 — hope for restoration of at least some of America’s civil liberties is on the horizon (but not guaranteed).Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) once again are leading the fight to bring these expansive government surveillance powers back into line with the Fourth Amendment. It is unclear what will transpire over the next few days as party leaders seek to cobble together a majority of votes on one of the three possible outcomes; but also, to ensure the basic intelligence law remains on the books.The first is full reauthorization. And, if Rep. Adam Schiff and other surveillance hawks in Congress on both sides of the aisle have their way — with the full support of the Intelligence Community —...
by Bob Barr | Mar 9, 2020 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerInternet search engines have become the encyclopedias of the modern world, gathering and using vast amounts of information on billions of individuals for commercial and other purposes — and updating those databases continuously. With such technology to amass and disperse all manner of data being available, why then is it so difficult to obtain accurate information on just one category of information – crime data? It appears that some, perhaps many, law enforcement agencies may not want accurate and timely information on criminal activity within their jurisdictions available to the public.All of us – including the police — live in the age of the internet. People the world over query search engine behemoth Google constantly. Reliable estimates are that between seven and ten billion Google searches are made every day; trillions each year. Even with that unfathomable amount of information directed to and managed by Google, the company has the capability to disseminate amazingly detailed data on those many users to third parties willing to pay for it. In this, Google is not alone. Other, smaller competitors, along with social media giants like Facebook and YouTube, have developed their own ways of monetizing and reporting information they collect.But when it comes to crime data, we remain in the Dark Ages.Crime statistics are collected and distributed nationally according to a cataloging system developed when Herbert Hoover was our president. The basic tool used by the FBI since 1930 to gather and report statistical data on crimes in the United States is the Uniform Crime Reporting (“UCR”) system. The information made available publicly each year, however, relies on data...
by Bob Barr | Mar 6, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Daily Caller Editor’s note: We endeavor to bring you the top voices on current events representing a range of perspectives. Below is a column arguing that the possibility of Russian interference in the 2020 election is not a major concern. You can find a counterpoint here, where Charles Kolb argues that Russian interference is a real threat to American democracy.Long before modern Russia meddled in our 2016 presidential election, Winston Churchill – one of the 20th century’s preeminent statesmen – described the difficulty of deciphering Russian policies as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” Were Churchill with us today, he would know that the tools available to the Kremlin in this 21st century make that task far more difficult than in 1939 when he made his prescient declaration.Most important in this regard is the reality that agencies within the Russian government, including its still very effective intelligence services, are able to employ social media platforms and internet search engines, to both meddle in the affairs of other countries, including the United States, and to camouflage those efforts from detection.To evaluate what Russia has done, is doing, and will in the future attempt as part of its ongoing drive to interfere in electoral affairs of other countries, it is essential to understand one of the primary principles that drives Russia’s foreign policy – that forces outside its borders seek always to interfere in and weaken the country. Whether such a belief is founded on fact (which sometimes it has been) or fiction, it explains how its leaders – most notably the country’s current strongman, Vladimir Putin –...
by Bob Barr | Mar 4, 2020 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.com For nearly three-quarters of a century, America’s taxpayers have given tens of billions of dollars to an agency of the federal government charged expressly with identifying, controlling and preventing diseases. Yet, despite having faced numerous disease outbreaks in those decades – from malaria in the post-World War II southern states, to SARS, avian flu and Ebola outbreaks in recent years – the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appears to have been woefully unprepared to respond to the still-developing COVID-19, or “Coronavirus,” that sprang out of mainland China at the end of last year.Predictably, Democrats are almost gleefully pointing to President Trump’s departmental reorganization and funding cuts for the CDC in 2018 as the reason for the agency’s anemic response to COVID-19’s rapid spread. The root cause of the problems at CDC are not of Trump’s making, however, and go far deeper than any recent administrative changes or funding decisions. The CDC for years has suffered from a problem common to government agencies everywhere – “mission creep”; whereby an agency and congressional appropriators deliberately keep expanding its responsibilities in order to justify bigger and bigger budgets. In the case of CDC, this is reflected in the range of non-disease related responsibilities it has championed in recent years; everything from school bullying to workplace accidents and, most notably, gun control.Such institutional expansionism, however, comes at a price; and here it is a loss of focus and priority to what once was the core responsibility of the CDC – control and prevention of diseases.Trump’s three-year long effort to reform federal regulatory and policy functions across the vast horizon of...
by Bob Barr | Mar 2, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Daily Caller The list of problems caused or made worse by Obamacare continues to lengthen; higher health insurance premiums and loss of options for consumers top many of the lists of such ills compiled by health care experts. One of the lesser known problematic consequences of the former president’s prime legacy, however, has been thrust into both public policy and budget debates in this election year: “Surprise Medical Billing.”A “Surprise Medical Billing” is a charge for a medical procedure performed on a patient by a physician or other health care provider who happens not to be a member of the provider network covered by the patient’s insurance policy (in other words, the doctor is “out of network”). These medical procedures often are related to emergencies, in which the patient requires care but in circumstances in which he or she has no control over who actually performs the medical services. Because the physician is not “in-network” with the patient’s insurance plan, the fees for services are not covered by the insurance company, and the patient receives a bill — sometimes a very hefty bill that was not anticipated (hence, “surprise”).At its core, the problem of surprise medical billings results from the manner by which insurance companies define the “network” of health care facilities and providers which they will cover for individuals who are members of their plans. This necessarily directs individuals covered by a company’s plan to use the facilities and providers that are “in network,” so that the insurer pays for such charges (at rates they negotiated), and not the individual consumer. Such insurance gerrymandering is not really a...
