by Bob Barr | Mar 18, 2020 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.com In his 2004 book, “Against Leviathan – Government Power and a Free Society,” Robert Higgs explains how our federal government has transformed from one of “defined and limited” powers as envisioned by our Founders, into one driven by a “Crisis Constitution.” As Higgs clearly establishes, we are living in “an age of permanent emergency.” The still-developing COVID-19 pandemic illustrates that this “emergency” mindset today is directing the hands of government leaders, not only in our nation’s capital, but in statehouses and city councils across the country. It is by now clear that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a serious health problem. At a minimum, individuals should be heeding common sense hygiene rules ranging from the personal – washing hands frequently – to the socially interactive – minimize contacts with high-risk populations such as the elderly and infirm. From a regulatory and resource management standpoint, President Trump and governors across the country are directing and implementing appropriate and much-needed measures to reduce red tape and make additional funds available, thereby helping government agencies and private businesses to better meet the challenges posed by this “novel” virus. Actions that bear a direct and reasonable relationship to the health crisis posed by the virus, and which are undertaken by government and private-sector entities in response thereto, make sense and are appropriate in current circumstances, even if they minimally or tangentially impact individual liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Beyond such steps – when we enter the realm of far-reaching and vague “emergency” declarations that go beyond any reasoned relationship to containing and defending against the virus – we find ourselves in the dangerous territory described...
by Bob Barr | Mar 11, 2020 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.com The 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...
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...
by Bob Barr | Jan 22, 2020 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.com The list of reasons Iran should not become a nuclear nation is lengthy; but recent events present the starkest reason yet why that must never happen. In the broadest sense, nuclear power should not belong to a nation that openly talks about eliminating an entire race of people from the planet. Rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, Iran’s theocratic regime clearly cannot be trusted to use such power only for deterrent purposes. The recent downing of a civilian aircraft by its military forces serves as a glaringly obvious, practical reason why Iran must never gain access to military nuclear technology — incompetence. Contrary to the visage of Iran as a mega-presence on the world stage (a view regularly promoted by the regime’s leaders), the country is not a formidable military presence by modern standards. Our Defense Intelligence Agency notes that the Iranian regime in recent years has emphasized military improvements to its forces. However, as a result of embargoes on foreign-produced technology, such improvements have been hamstrung by sanctions and internal financial troubles. Iran’s once modern air force now is comprised of aging fighter jets, and its ballistic missile arsenal – the backbone of its military power – includes many that the DIA believes to be old and inaccurate. As calculated by the military-tracking organization GlobalFirePower.com, Iran’s military power ranks 14th in the world, behind countries such as Egypt and Brazil. While the military threat posed by Iran is not one to be taken lightly, it is not one that warrants the same degree of concern as Russia’s or China’s. Iran’s offensive strength lies in its ability and predisposition to engage in asymmetrical warfare;...
by Bob Barr | Jan 6, 2020 | Townhall Article |
The Daily Caller You can hear it already — calls by congressional Democrats to declare that the manner by which President Trump, as our country’s commander in chief, approved a military strike against Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a known and active operational terrorist leader, should not only be condemned but possibly provide the basis for yet another article of impeachment. Yes, the partisan hatred of Trump by the Democratic Party, led by its crop of presidential wannabes, appears to be sinking to this level — that our country’s commander in chief was not only wrong in approving the drone strike against Iran’s top terrorist commander based on sound and timely intelligence, but that in so doing he may have committed acts constituting grounds for removal from office. While none of the Democratic presidential candidates has yet called openly and explicitly for an inquiry of impeachment based on last week’s military action against Soleimani, as a group they have pounced eagerly on the matter in public appearances and in social media statements, openly critical of the military act itself as well as the fact that Trump did not brief congressional Democratic leaders prior to the strike. The babbling by New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about the strike that killed Soleimani is easy to disregard; reflecting the ignorance of U.S. law and national security that has become the hallmark of her social media rants. The bloviating by presidential candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, however, are more troubling. Each of them, by virtue of their positions — a former vice president,...
by Bob Barr | Dec 4, 2019 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.com For the first time in nearly a decade, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case directly involving the Second Amendment. Not since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 has the High Court taken up a gun rights case, despite several opportunities to further clarify its landmark decisions in that case and the Heller opinion two years earlier. Conservatives, however, would be well advised to hold off uncorking the champagne bottles. While the case at hand, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, appears ripe for a favorable ruling especially as the Court has shifted to the right since 2010, such an outcome must first overcome several hurdles. Most important is the question of whether the Court will even issue a ruling now that New York has struck the offending law from the books, arguably making the case moot, and thereby sidestepping any strengthening of the McDonald and Heller rulings. Before the City’s clever move repealing the law, it prohibited licensed gun owners from transporting an unloaded and stowed firearm from the home to ranges or dwellings outside the city limits. Conservatives, however, point to troublesome remnants of the revamped ordinance as reasons for a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court. Also problematic is the fact that the City could reinstate the statute as quickly as it earlier repealed it. The nuanced and highly specific nature of the case also makes it less likely that the Court, even if it were to issue a ruling, would hand down the broad support for gun rights that Heller and McDonald failed to deliver. Instead, like those two cases, it is just as likely...
