by Bob Barr | Feb 5, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com As they say, “words have meaning”; even – rather, especially – words in the Constitution. Take the words found in Article 2, Section 4, which provide the only grounds on which a president can be impeached and removed from office: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Despite the interminable effort by Pelosi, Schiff and their merry band to ignore both these words and the historical context in which they were written, the President of the United States can be removed from office only if found to have committed a serious (“high”) crime. In a startling display of ignorance of history – which renowned historian David McCullough wrote recently is something that “keeps him up at night” – impeachment-focused Democrats appear to have forgotten our Founders established a government led by a “President” elected by the People, and not by a “Prime Minister” chosen by the legislative branch. The difference at the heart of the debate over how our country’s leader may be removed is more than semantic; it reflects clearly two of the principles – separation of powers and checks and balances – woven into the fabric of our constitutional republic. The President is elected by the People but can be removed by the Congress, that is, the legislative branch. In contrast, a British Prime Minister is chosen by and can be removed by the legislative branch in which he or she serves whenever that head of state loses the support of the Parliament, for whatever reason (including, for example, disreputable behavior or “maladministration”). While technically a prime minister can be removed by impeachment – an extreme procedure under old British law...
by Bob Barr | Feb 3, 2020 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller Sen. Elizabeth Warren declared at a campaign event last fall that for a person to be considered as her Secretary of Education if she were to be elected President, that candidate first would have to be interviewed and approved by a nine-year old transgendered student. Notwithstanding the sheer lunacy of such a declaration (made by the candidate with a straight face and to a round of applause from her audience), it got me thinking – applying such selection criteria to other positions, what might a Warren cabinet look like? For the post of attorney general, the candidate would be vetted by a panel of convicted felons. This would help guarantee President Warren’s “top cop” would possess extensive, first-hand knowledge of how the federal penal system operates. It also would essentially guarantee we would have an attorney general whose dislike for law enforcement would fit the mold that seems to be the litmus test for Democrat Party candidates – supporting prosecutors who see the police rather than criminals as the bad guys. Secretary of state candidates would have to pass muster by a panel limited to citizens of other countries — preferably countries whose leaders despise the United States and share the Obama administration’s “America last” world view. Advocates of this philosophy adhere to the mindset of today’s Democrat Party, which is that every serious problem facing the world in the 21st century has been caused by the United States. The only candidates who could be considered by Warren’s transition team for the post of secretary of commerce would be individuals who previously worked for the federal minimum hourly...
by Bob Barr | Jan 29, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com In years gone by there existed an understanding that one’s personal information surrendered to private companies was a voluntary choice – the “cost,” if you will, to obtaining the benefit of a company’s goods or services. Importantly – and constitutionally – such a “trade off” was far different from the government obtaining personal and private information by way of surveillance or other information-gathering actions undertaken without a warrant. There was a relatively clear line between private company collection of personal information voluntarily provided, and the government gathering such information without one’s knowledge or consent. Today, that “line” has been blurred to the point of near erasure. Government officials, of course, have never been short on creative ways to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on unreasonable and warrantless gathering of information. We all are familiar, for example, with the abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act procedures by previous administrations, whereby the federal government was able to unlawfully surveil U.S. citizens’ private communications. Some of us also may recall the FBI’s use of Best Buy’s “Geek Squad” technicians to browse computers for illegal content while on service calls. But with the digital age have come new opportunities for companies and government agencies alike to spy on citizens. The rise of social media and other technological advancements — geo-tracking and at-home DNA testing — have led to an explosion of highly personal information shared openly with third parties — and in turn, government agencies as well. Like throwing chum in the water to attract sharks, this treasure trove of data in the hands of private companies has caught the attention of...
by Bob Barr | Jan 27, 2020 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller In one of his more outlandish pronouncements during last week’s never-ending impeachment managers’ Opening Argument in the Senate trial of President Donald Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff declared it vital that the President be found guilty and removed from office right now, because he has shown himself to be an electoral “cheater.” As seen through the hate-colored lenses by which Schiff and his Democrat Party view the political landscape, if Trump remains in office November’s election results cannot possibly be trusted. While voters clearly have reason to be concerned about vote manipulation, it is not Donald Trump who should worry us; it is Google. “Search engine manipulation effect” (SEME) has been familiar to behavioralists for several years. It is the process of manipulating internet users’ preferences through deliberate but subtle – more precisely, surreptitious – algorithmic changes in search engine preference rankings. One way to achieve this is through the “autocomplete function” that search engine Google provides users to facilitate their searches; directing them based on secret algorithms and user history. The autocomplete function used by internet search engines completes a search term or phrase being entered by a user before the user deliberately completes it himself or herself. In this way, the search engine interposes its search preferences for those of the user, in such manner that the user is not consciously aware of such manipulation. While the vast majority of instances in which a search engine engages autocomplete are those in which the user is simply searching for a factual term or phrase (e.g., “the Bill of Rights was ratified in what year?”), there is...
by Bob Barr | Jan 21, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Daily Caller The House impeachment managers and the lawyers for President Donald Trump have both filed their memorandums for the Senate impeachment trial which gets underway in earnest today. While the two documents are nearly identical in length, the president’s is by far the stronger document. Neither memorandum breaks new legal, political or constitutional grounds, but there was no expectation they would. The only “new” evidence – if it can be characterized as such – is that the managers’ memorandum includes references to matters that came to light in the month since the two Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House. The managers discuss statements recently made by Ukraine-American operative Lev Parnas in television interviews and refer also to a Government Accountability Office memorandum released last week after being requested by Democratic Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen. The GAO report found fault with the grounds on which the Office of Management and Budget temporarily delayed the release of military assistance dollars to Ukraine last summer. Even if the Senate decides to consider this “new” evidence, however, it adds nothing to the underlying question confronting the upper chamber – whether President Trump is guilty of the offenses alleged against him by the Democrat majority in the House and should be removed from office. If the grounds on which this seminal question is to be answered are to be gleaned from these first filings, the answer is a resounding, “Not Guilty.” While the trial brief filed on the president’s behalf is over 100 pages long, the operative language, capturing the full essence of why the Senate trial should result in...
by Bob Barr | Jan 15, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com Virginia Democrats flexed their muscle in Richmond this week; passing four gun control bills through the Senate Judiciary Committee. This action had been promised by Gov. Ralph Northam since his Party gained majorities in both houses of the state legislature last November. As with other state governors who believe that the best way to stop criminals from committing murder is to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms, these measures will do just that – make it harder for law abiding citizens of Virginia to exercise their rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Northam-endorsed proposals will limit citizens to one handgun purchase a month, mandate universal background checks, and allow local governments to selectively ban firearms from public events. Most troubling, one measure authorizes law enforcement to preemptively seize firearms from individuals they deem to be a threat (a so-called “red flag” law). But there’s more. The “crown jewel” of Northam’s expansive gun control agenda is a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” This measure is expected to pass through committee this week, which then will trigger a long-anticipated showdown in the General Assembly. In a concession of sorts, Northam agreed to include in the gun ban a “grandfather” clause allowing individuals who currently own a to-be-banned firearm, to continue to do so without automatically violating the law. They would, however, be required to register their newly banned “assault weapon” with state authorities. This change illustrates the true fraud behind Northam’s gun control push – it was never really to address an “emergency” about public safety. Rather, it is a partisan...
