by Bob Barr | Feb 18, 2019 | Uncategorized |
5G Gets the ‘Slow Walk’ at Commerce Once again, a vital Trumpian goal is slowed down internally — much to China’s advantage.The American SpectatorBureaucracy is the death of any achievement. — Albert EinsteinAccording to the many websites by which the federal government describes its myriad agencies, offices, and departments, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) “manages federal spectrum use, makes grants to develop and deploy broadband internet, conducts telecommunications research, and advises the president on telecommunications and information policy issues.” Important responsibilities, to be sure.It appears, however, that NTIA’s parent agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce, is deliberately slowing down NTIA’s ability to carry out one of its primary responsibilities — issuing approval for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to begin implementing 5G technology. This “slow walk” has potential to harm not only America’s competitiveness in advancing wireless technology, but our national security as well.NTIA has for months failed to signal officially to the FCC that the latter may lawfully move forward with regulations by which the government and businesses can start to implement 5G technology. Responsibility for this bottleneck may reside in the office of the Commerce Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Policy, Earl Comstock who, according to an analysis by Politico published last May 11, is a fierce opponent of the decision by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai last year to roll back the Obama-era net neutrality rule. If so, Comstock is placing the United States at a serious commercial and national security disadvantage vis-à-vis China; which is rapidly moving ahead to ensure it and not the U.S. becomes the world leader in this next generation...
by Bob Barr | Feb 13, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller.comThey [the makers of the Constitution] conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” — Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928The era of “Prohibition,” which lasted from 1922 until 1930, primarily is remembered for the rise of bootleggers and notorious gangsters who grew immensely wealthy from the practice of distributing alcoholic products to millions of booze-thirsty Americans. Al Capone and “Dutch Schultz” are among the more notorious of these criminals; and numerous books have been written about their exploits, along with dozens of movies extolling their escapades and those of the lawmen who eventually reined them in.Few, if any students of that period of American history, however, will recognize the name of Roy Olmstead. Yet it was this man — the general manager of a lucrative Seattle, Washington bootlegging operation — whose name lives on in legal history even today, nearly a century after he was convicted of violating the National Prohibition Act in 1928. Roy Olmstead’s name has survived in legal lore, because it was the United States Supreme Court opinion affirming his conviction that gave birth to modern electronic surveillance law.In an unusual twist of legal fate, however, it was a dissenting opinion in Olmstead’s case, written by renowned Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, that often is cited by legal scholars and others even today, in support of an individual’s right to privacy as against the powers of surreptitious electronic surveillance.Communications technology has advanced phenomenally from the basic telephone by which, through a physical “wiretap,” federal agents were able to learn details of Olmstead’s...
by Bob Barr | Feb 6, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comYou could say Satanism has undergone a “rebranding” since the 1980s and 90s, when devil-worshipping occultists were supposedly to blame for a series of disturbing crimes – both real and imagined. Since then, in large part due to the founding of “The Satanic Temple” seven years ago in Salem, Massachusetts, Satanism has entered the mainstream of contemporary culture. The clever marketers of this movement have traded notions of goat sacrifices and Black Magic for feel-good sophistry about equality, social justice, and personal freedom. In fact, in a bizarre non sequitur The Satanic Temple claims its mission is not to worship the Devil. Instead, its self-proclaimed mission is merely “to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people.” If this rings somewhat contradictory, remember the Apostle Paul’s warning in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” The Temple’s strategy appears to be bearing fruit. Its enticing — almost reasonable – repackaging of Satanism has made it a seductive “philosophy” in today’s tumultuous society. If a Sundance Film Festival feature documentary on modern Satanists is any indication, Satanism 2.0 is on the rise, and even without the literal devil worship,this cleverly marketed ideology provides the perfect cover for the actual Satan to entrench himself deep within our society.All this should come as no surprise. America (indeed, much of the western world) today is fertile soil for such snake oil sales pitches. The modern church is constantly mocked and demonized in the media, with regular attendance down across the board (a situation not helped by the continuing and highly publicized revelations about pedophilia within the Catholic Church). The nuclear, two-parent family has become more...
by Bob Barr | Jan 30, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com It’s a universal law of politics – every president considers the powers he inherits from his predecessor as the “floor,” not the “ceiling,” for powers he will exercise; considering these to be the minimum powers on which he will build his administration, rather than a limitation thereon. This should be a cautionary rule for Republicans now urging President Donald Trump to declare a “national emergency” in order to construct a border wall without congressionally-approved funding.Following the government “shutdown” stalemate with House Democrats, wherein the President was not able to successfully negotiate funding for a border wall with Mexico, the Administration now is openly considering declaring a “national emergency” and making an end-run around the Congress. The primary vehicle for such a move would be the 1976 “National Emergencies Act.” While this broadly-worded Act arguably can be interpreted to permit such moves by the President, extreme caution, not abandon, should be the guide. The problems with such a strategy are — or should be – immediately apparent. First, it is unclear if ongoing issues at the border meet legal thresholds for declaring a national emergency. More concerning, however, would be the problem of limiting the ultimate reach of such a declaration; insofar as the declaration itself potentially triggers myriad other powers having nothing to do with immigration. And, of course, there is the over-arching concern with the long-term policy implications of such a declaration.A president certainly has the authority and responsibilityto respond to immediate crises, such as a military attack; and the Constitution provides him robust power to do so. But those clamoring for Trump to use such authority to construct a border...
by Bob Barr | Jan 26, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller. com“I hit Ali with everything and he said, ‘Is that all you got?” and I said, ‘Yeah, that’s pretty much it’”— George ForemanWhile it is never a good thing to be hit with a federal criminal indictment, Roger Stone, who was arrested early Friday morning based on just such an instrument, very well may be thinking, “Is that all you got?”A review of the 24-page document reveals little, if anything, not already in the public domain. The indictment reflects a case built almost entirely on piecing together numerous statements, e-mails, text messages and interviews by Stone over the past two years, then comparing some of those to testimony he reportedly gave before a House of Representatives committee in September 2017 and concluding — surprise! — that there appear to be conflicting statements. Newcomers to the rough-and-tumble world of American politics might be shocked to discover that candidates and campaign operatives make conflicting statements from time to time. Neophytes might also be dismayed to discover that elected officials occasionally cast votes inconsistent with earlier votes. And they also might be amazed that a candidate’s campaign would have an interest in negative information about an opponent’s campaign.But yes, in the real world, such things do take place.What truly should shock the conscience is that actions such as inconsistent political campaign statements, or a campaign expressing an interest in discovering an opponent’s weaknesses, have now become criminal offenses; at least in the opinion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.For all the Sturm und Drang surrounding the 19-month long investigation spearheaded by Mueller (supposedly to uncover “collusion” between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia), Friday’s...
by Bob Barr | Jan 23, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comWe live in the Age of the Lecture; an era in which virtually every forum or opportunity for communicating, becomes a vehicle from which to lecture us about something deemed important to those whose existence revolves around political correctness. Now, even an ad for something as mundane and apolitical as a shaving razor has become the means by which the PC crowd presses its worldview upon us. Politically correct lectures packaged as ads for toilet paper cannot be far behind.Recently, the iconic men’s grooming brand Gillette released an ad featuring not its latest advancement in shaving technology, but instead taking on the scourge of “toxic masculinity.” This transition from a product built on the masculine art of shaving one’s beard, to a campaign focusing on softness and goodwill, is odd in the extreme. It appears, however, that the public relations Brainiacs who dreamed up this campaign may have created more of a problem than a solution (to whatever the perceived problem might have been). At least those of us grown tired of politically correct subject matter being shoved at us via television ads, can hope it will backfire.Rather than striking a cord with its audience as a collective Kumbaya moment, Gillette’s latest ad appears to have struck a raw nerve with viewers. Ad Age, an advertising industry publication, reported that one marketing intelligence firm found 63 percent of social media’s reaction to the ad was negative, compared to just eight percent who viewed it positively.Does such responsive research mean that Gillette’s customer base is sexist, racist, or supportive of bullying? Hardly. It does suggest, however, that Gillette’s core demographic is men...
