by Bob Barr | Jun 15, 2023 | Townhall Article |
TownhallShoplifting, including organized retail theft, has been surging in cities across America, and a new generation of woke CEOs and state legislators are implementing unusual methods of addressing the epidemic. Actually, they are coming up with ways not to deal with the problem. In 2022 alone, it is estimated that retail stores lost more than $94.5 billion to shoplifters. Retail industry analysts estimate that the average loss per shoplifting incident is $1,178.57; that was in 2021, which represented a 26.6% increase over 2020. Despite the prevalence of anti-theft technology and ubiquitous surveillance cameras supposed to stem the shoplifting tide, a mere 2% of shoplifters are caught and far fewer ever prosecuted. The CEO of one major retail company, Lululemon, has implemented a “zero tolerance” plan by which to deal with shoplifters. Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald’s company-wide “zero tolerance” policy, however, does not punish the shoplifters. Instead, it calls for firing any employee who tries to impede a shoplifter. Two employees (in woke speak, the company calls them “educators” rather than “employees”) recently were summarily fired from the Lululemon store where they worked in Peachtree Corners, Georgia, for no reason other than they confronted a couple of shoplifters and demanded they leave the store. Common sense actions as confronting shoplifters caught in the act of pilfering expensive clothing at a retail store in years past would be considered standard response to shoplifters caught in the act, and praised by management. Now, at least from the perspective of the highly educated and generously paid Calvin McDonald, the preferred way to protect the company and its shareholders, is to simply “step back, [and] let the theft occur.”Strange as Lululemon’s policy...
by Bob Barr | Jun 13, 2023 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily CallerWhen he is not wandering aimlessly across a stage, President Biden is leveling the most vile of curses in his vocabulary at news stories with which he disagrees – “Malarkey!” This was his retort last week to a reporter’s query about allegations that he corruptly profited to the tune of $5 million while serving as Barack Obama’s Vice President.Meanwhile, former President Trump has been relentlessly and, as always, loudly, insulting Special Counsel Jack Smith for bringing an indictment against him for unlawfully possessing and disclosing highly classified documents after his tenure as Commander in Chief expired. For good measure, the former president also has been insulting anyone, including the man he appointed as his last Attorney General, who fails to similarly discount the 37-count indictment filed against him last week in the U.S. District Court in Miami.Actually, both cases have merit, both raise extremely serious questions about the competency of each man to serve in such high office, and both matters should be pursued seriously.The case against Trump was laid bare in the 44-page indictment returned against him last Thursday. The document is resplendent with details, including photographs, demonstrating the cavalier, and certainly un-presidential manner with which the former president considered classified national security information.Trump’s supporters argue, with perhaps a degree of validity, that charging a former president with nothing more than mis-handling classified papers is, in the broad scheme of things, not among the more serious issues facing America at home and abroad right now. Trump defenders declare also — and with a degree of cogency — that charging him but not Hillary Clinton with such offenses...
by Bob Barr | Jun 1, 2023 | Townhall Article |
TownhallA surprisingly unanimous Supreme Court decision last week finally clipped the ever-expanding wings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For more than half a century, imperious regulators at the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, with which it shares regulatory jurisdiction over “wetlands” and “navigable waters of the United States,” have worked to prevent citizens and businesses from taking common sense steps to develop privately owned property in ways that benefit them and which have no significant negative impact on the environment. One ploy the EPA and the Army Corps often have used in their war on private property owners, is to assert expansive jurisdiction over small or occasional bodies of water and “wetlands” — claiming these constitute “navigable waters of the United States,” and are therefore subject to regulation under the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). This was the predicament in which Michael and Chantell Sackett found themselves in 2007, when the EPA moved to stop them from improving their small parcel of property near Priest Lake, Idaho. The Sacketts had, in the eyes of Uncle Sam’s regulators, committed an egregious offense by failing to first obtain a Corps of Engineers permit before taking preliminary steps to improve their property. The government claimed the property contained “wetlands” that in some way and at some point in time had a “nexus” to a navigable waterway of the United States.The Sacketts’ position was simple — property with no waterway at all, much less one that is “navigable,” does not transmogrify into “navigable water” simply because it is near such a waterway and might contain some occasional “wetlands.” Despite this common sense interpretation...
