by Bob Barr | May 8, 2019 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.comRiley Howell was laid to rest Sunday in Waynesville, North Carolina, at a funeral service with full military honors. He was not killed in a Middle East war zone; he was not even an enlisted member of the Armed Services. Riley was a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who died rushing toward a person who entered his classroom with a pistol and began shooting. Riley’s parents say he was shot three times at close range as he charged forward, but still managed to take the shooter to the ground so hard that he whined to first responders of internal injuries. It happened in the blink of an eye, but Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney credits Riley with saving countless lives and giving police, who fortunately were nearby, time to get to the classroom and detain the shooter. “But for [Riley Howell’s] work, the assailant might not have been disarmed . . . his sacrifice saved lives,” Putney said. Indeed, Riley’s final act in life – saving others regardless of cost – was an ultimate expression of humanity, tragically juxtaposed to that of the extreme inhumanity exhibited by his killer. But, in leaving behind a legacy of heroism, he also offers an important lesson for us all.We are told by the Department of Homeland Security that the appropriate response to an active shooter situation is “run, hide, fight,” in descending order of priority. Though perhaps effective for self-preservation, such instructions reflect a disturbing truth that we have in many respects lost the collective courage of our forefathers; and have become in large measure a nation that encourages the role of the victim and the submissive, rather than encourage...
by Bob Barr | May 7, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerGeorge Soros, along with Michael Bloomberg, has become the man conservatives love to hate; and with good reason. He harbors extreme left-wing political views, he is fabulously wealthy, and he has long-exhibited a willingness to “put his money where his mouth is.”Perhaps even more important than his wealth, however, is the fact that Soros understands that to effect lasting and systemic societal change, requires a consistent focus on politics at the local level. In this, Soros shares an understanding with Bloomberg; but where the former New York Mayor continues to focus like a laser on one issue — gun control — Soros is intent on achieving a far broader goal – to alter the basic structure of our judicial system.Soros cleverly — and smartly — has concluded that one of the most effective vehicles through which to accomplish this ambitious goal, is to fund left-leaning candidates for the one elected office that perhaps more than any other is able to change the fundamental values by which communities function — the local district attorney or “D.A.” While Soros’ crusade to implement this plan has not met with success in every instance, his victories in just the past four years have been significant.Throughout our nation’s history, prosecutors have enjoyed significant power to decide which cases to investigate and prosecute. The principle of “prosecutorial discretion” inherited from British law, clothes prosecutors with immunity against being second-guessed in their decisions about which cases to pursue and which to leave aside — in other words, what values to prioritize by prosecuting which crimes.Thus, if a prosecutor determines that a potential case involving...
by Bob Barr | May 2, 2019 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.comIn the wake of last week’s tragic shooting at a Jewish temple outside San Diego, California, attention is once again focused largely on the instruments used in the murder, rather on the root causes of the incident; especially the depraved internet community in which this and other recent murderers live.Except for the victims of these murderous rampages and the brave public safety first responders, we citizens are largely insulated from the actual horrors of mass murder. We are spared the horrendous visuals of bodies torn apart from bombs and bullets; the stomach-churning screams of victims as they’re stalked and murdered at point blank range; the stench of death mixed with ammunition propellant. These details are far too unsettling for public consumption (properly so), which is why conventional wisdom leads many to believe such violence is more common than it really is; as if picking up a gun and shooting-up a church is as easy as playing a video game. It is not.The mass killings of strangers is not a normal act for a human being; even for most hardened criminals. We simply are not programed for emotionless, indiscriminate killing; that is, unless we cease to view other people as human. This is how the Holocaust occurred in a highly educated, industrialized nation; or how a 19-year-old from San Diego could walk into a synagogue with a single goal in mind – to kill other people.By focusing our emotional attention after such tragedies debating (as we do with excruciating predictability) the type of firearm used, or whether the First Amendment should protect hate speech, we fail to address the greatest danger of all, and the root cause...
by Bob Barr | Apr 29, 2019 | Townhall Article |
The Washington TimesThe world is changing, and in the “Internet Age” the pace of change is relentless. Examples abound of victims of such change.Kodak — the company that less than a generation ago was the world leader in providing film for the ubiquitous 35mm cameras around the necks of tourists from San Francisco to Cairo — is a pale shadow of its former self. Landline telephone companies that for over a century provided the primary communications link for families through two world wars, the Great Depression and the advent of the Space Age, is today a virtual technology dinosaur.The means by which virtually every American home receives television services is not immune from such change. The new kids on the block — streaming video services offered by Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Video, soon Disney, and many others — already are pulling serious numbers of customers from the established providers of paid TV services: Cable and satellite TV.Instead of letting this expanding market thrive, Congress is instead considering renewing a 30-year-old, outdated and totally unnecessary law offering unfair advantage to satellite providers.The initial legislative vehicle for this regulatory throwback was passed by Congress in 1988 as the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), and is now titled the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR). Thirty years ago, the World Wide Web had not even been formally developed and made available to individuals and companies around the globe for mass use. At the time, a perhaps credible argument could be made that then-upstart satellite TV service providers needed a degree of help in competing against then well-entrenched cable providers.In response, Congress passed legislation giving new satellite TV...
by Bob Barr | Apr 24, 2019 | Uncategorized |
FoxNews.comby Bob BarrSome House Democrats who are calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump on a charge of obstruction of justice claim that President Clinton was impeached in 1998 for far less serious misconduct. As a leader of the Clinton impeachment effort, I disagree.I still believe the Clinton impeachment was justified. But based on what is now in the public record, I don’t believe a Trump impeachment is warranted.Clinton, of course, remained in office after the House impeached him on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice because the Senate acquitted him in a trial. Even if the Democratic-controlled House impeached President Trump, he would also likely stay in office after a Senate trial.Impeachment simply means the House charges the president with serious misconduct it considers to be what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The phrase is not defined in the Constitution, and in a sense can mean whatever a simple majority in the House says it means.However, there are two instances in which sitting presidents have been impeached – Andrew Johnson and Clinton – and one in which President Nixon almost certainly would have been impeached had he not first resigned. Looking at these cases gives us clear guidance that there needs to be a very substantial and substantive basis set forth on the record in order for the impeachment process to have the credibility it merits.With Democrats in majority control of the House – holding 235 seats, compared to the 197 seats held by Republicans – odds are that the Democrats can impeach Trump if they want to.Congressional Democrats opposed to President Trump have every right to vote against...
