©2022 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.
Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC
New York Is Changing The Law To Go After Trump
The Daily Caller
May 28, 2019
You can’t be tried twice for the same offense. The concept of being free from “double jeopardy” is a right that has been recognized in law for thousands of years. The ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish legal systems incorporated the principle of double jeopardy in their judicial codes.
So fundamental has this right been viewed, that it survived even the ravages visited upon the rule of law during the Dark Ages. The right of a person to be free from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” found its way into the core of our Bill of Rights.
Now, in the latest example of a liberal state government placing its hatred of President Trump above respect for long-standing legal tradition, the New York General Assembly has decided to weaken the protection against double jeopardy heretofore enjoyed by those within its borders.
First, a note of background.
In our federal system of governing, power is shared between the federal and the several state governments, with each constituting a separate and legal “sovereign” empowered and entitled to enforce its code of criminal law; even if doing so places an individual at risk of a successive prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding what appears on its face to be an exercise in “double jeopardy,” the U.S. Supreme Court has long permitted the practice (but a case currently before the High Court for decision could change that).
However, recognizing the fundamental unfairness resulting from this application of “dual sovereignty,” many states, including New York, have enacted laws that prevent state prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against a person if that individual had previously been convicted of the offense by the federal government. But last week, in a fit of partisan pique, New York’s heavily Democratic legislature decided to limit that protection by passing a measure that Gov. Andrew Cuomo – who wears his hatred of Trump like a red badge of courage – is certain to sign into law.
New York’s freshman Attorney General Letitia James, whose office helped draft the legislation, was quick to publicly praise the legislature’s action in passing this “exception” to the state’s double jeopardy protection law. So proud are Cuomo and company of taking this swipe at Trump, that they did not try in the slightest to disguise the animus underlying the measure.
Simply put, the legislation permits prosecutors in the Empire States to bring criminal charges against a person already convicted under federal law – but who otherwise would be shielded from state prosecution in New York – if President Trump had pardoned them for the offense or had commuted their sentence. Lest there be any misunderstanding the anti-Trump goal of the legislation, the bill’s title erases any possible confusion – “Previous Prosecution: Presidential Reprieve, Pardon, or Other Form of Clemency.”
Hateful as are the Empire State’s sentiments toward Donald Trump, they pale to at least a degree when compared to the view held by the state’s top law enforcement official toward the National Rifle Association. Shortly before her election as New York attorney general last November, Letitia James described the NRA in an interview as a “terrorist organization.” Such characterization is significant, considering the Association is legally chartered under New York law as a not-for-profit corporation. James’ office already has launched an investigation attacking the NRA’s corporate existence; even as Cuomo is directing that insurance companies and banks operating lawfully in New York back way from doing business with the NRA.
The lesson in all this is crystal clear. If you are a person or organization out of favor with those wielding power in New York, the government will employ every ounce of those powers to put you out of business. And, as seen now with regard to anyone who might in the future benefit by being forgiven by Donald Trump, New York will go so far as literally to change its laws in order to punish you.
Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.
Red Light Cameras Headed to the Graveyard of Bad Ideas
by Bob Barr
When America’s first red light camera system was installed in Jackson, Mississippi in 1992, it was hailed as the beginning of a program that would save lives, improve driving skills, and free police officers from having to monitor busy intersections. The devices sprang up at intersections in cities large and small across the country; fueled by the huge amount of money the devices generated for local governments (and for the private companies that actually owned and operated the cameras and the accompanying software).
Defense lawyers, civil libertarians and privacy experts raised serious concerns about the constitutionality of the devices and questioned the manner by which fines were being levied on owners of vehicles nabbed by the electronic cameras. Many complaints focused on the fact that the devices were designed more to generate revenue than for safety. Not surprisingly, however, when questioned about the propriety or legality of charging drivers with expensive traffic offenses, local officials would claim with straight faces that revenue was not the primary – or even a secondary – reason for installing and using the devices; and the money kept rolling in.
But something odd was happening at many of the intersections monitored by red light cameras. Even as the number of citations issued for running a red light at such locations increased dramatically, so too did accidents. Studies of this counter-intuitive phenomenon revealed that at camera-monitored intersections, accidents were occurring because drivers – fearful of being caught on camera slipping through a light just before it changed from yellow to red – were slamming on their brakes, and either rear-ending the vehicle in front of them, or being rear-ended themselves by the car following them.
Technology ostensibly employed to improve safety at intersections, actually was making the locations more dangerous. This was happening to the extent the problem could not be ignored, and even though jurisdictions using the cameras continued to reap significant cash reward by keeping the devices in place.
Notwithstanding these legal and practical problems, for two decades local and state governments continued to authorize use of red-light cameras. The love affair peaked in 2012, with devices deployed in some 530 communities in 23 states. Cities exhibited unusual degrees of ingenuity in efforts to maintain red-light camera programs despite growing public unease.
The City of Chicago, under former Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s leadership, actually tweaked the timing of yellow lights to shorten them by a fraction of a second, thereby generating an additional 77,000 tickets and an extra $8 million for the city. The ploy was suspended only after being exposed by the Chicago Tribune.
Other jurisdictions fought back against any attempts by private citizens to shed light publicly on the problematic systems. In what obviously was a retaliatory action against a driver who received a red-light camera ticket, a man in Oregon was fined $500 by the state licensing board for doing nothing more than describing himself as an “engineer” when he was researching the matter.
For most individuals who have received such a citation in the mail, simply paying the [often steep] fine outweighs the time and expense of fighting it; and this has been perfectly agreeable for the issuing jurisdictions and for the private companies benefiting financially therefrom.
Still, the weight of the legal challenges that have proceeded, and the continued citizen outcry against the underhanded manner by which the jurisdictions have been raising money through use of red-light cameras, has taken a justifiable toll. The practice appears headed for the graveyard of bad ideas that sounded good at the time.
In ten states, the use of red-light cameras is now banned outright; and, in Texas, a bill awaits the governor’s signature to add the Lone Star State to that list.
The reversal of a program that served as a virtual cash cow for so many local governments for so long, is astonishing. The episode presents a rare but welcome example, that if citizens exert continued legal and political pressure on governments against an inherently unfair and defective program, they can prevail. It doesn’t happen often enough, but it is sweet indeed when it does.
by Bob Barr
You can’t be tried twice for the same offense. The concept of being free from “double jeopardy” is a right that has been recognized in law for thousands of years. The ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish legal systems incorporated the principle of double jeopardy in their judicial codes.
So fundamental has this right been viewed, that it survived even the ravages visited upon the rule of law during the Dark Ages. The right of a person to be free from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” found its way into the core of our Bill of Rights.
Now, in the latest example of a liberal state government placing its hatred of President Trump above respect for long-standing legal tradition, the New York General Assembly has decided to weaken the protection against double jeopardy heretofore enjoyed by those within its borders.
First, a note of background.
In our federal system of governing, power is shared between the federal and the several state governments, with each constituting a separate and legal “sovereign” empowered and entitled to enforce its code of criminal law; even if doing so places an individual at risk of a successive prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding what appears on its face to be an exercise in “double jeopardy,” the U.S. Supreme Court has long permitted the practice (but a case currently before the High Court for decision could change that).
However, recognizing the fundamental unfairness resulting from this application of “dual sovereignty,” many states, including New York, have enacted laws that prevent state prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against a person if that individual had previously been convicted of the offense by the federal government. But last week, in a fit of partisan pique, New York’s heavily Democratic legislature decided to limit that protection by passing a measure that Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who wears his hatred of Trump like a red badge of courage — is certain to sign into law.
New York’s freshman Attorney General Letitia James, whose office helped draft the legislation, was quick to publicly praise the legislature’s action in passing this “exception” to the state’s double jeopardy protection law. So proud are Cuomo and company of taking this swipe at Trump, that they did not try in the slightest to disguise the animus underlying the measure.
Simply put, the legislation permits prosecutors in the Empire States to bring criminal charges against a person already convicted under federal law — but who otherwise would be shielded from state prosecution in New York — if President Trump had pardoned them for the offense or had commuted their sentence. Lest there be any misunderstanding the anti-Trump goal of the legislation, the bill’s title erases any possible confusion — “Previous Prosecution: Presidential Reprieve, Pardon, or Other Form of Clemency.”
Hateful as are the Empire State’s sentiments toward Donald Trump, they pale to at least a degree when compared to the view held by the state’s top law enforcement official toward the National Rifle Association. Shortly before her election as New York attorney general last November, Letitia James described the NRA in an interview as a “terrorist organization.” Such characterization is significant, considering the Association is legally chartered under New York law as a not-for-profit corporation. James’ office already has launched an investigation attacking the NRA’s corporate existence; even as Cuomo is directing that insurance companies and banks operating lawfully in New York back way from doing business with the NRA.
The lesson in all this is crystal clear. If you are a person or organization out of favor with those wielding power in New York, the government will employ every ounce of those powers to put you out of business. And, as seen now with regard to anyone who might in the future benefit by being forgiven by Donald Trump, New York will go so far as literally to change its laws in order to punish you.
Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.
BARR: TRUMP DRIVES A STAKE THROUGH UN GUN CONTROL TREATY
12:00 PM 05/16/2019 | OPINION
Former Rep. Bob Barr | Contributor
Late last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013.
With this action – “un-signing” a treaty document – Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!”
In signing this document, Trump drove a stake into the heart of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); and our Second Amendment is the stronger for that action.
Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was – as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.”
In fact, there was nothing “common sense” about this document and the ongoing process to make it the operative mechanism for international gun control.
Always seeking relevance and power since it was established in the immediate aftermath of WWII, the U.N. has worked for nearly two decades to shoehorn gun control into its “world peace” mission. In this, it has been strikingly successful, with some 130 countries signing the ATT and over 100 actually ratifying it and becoming thereby fully and legally bound by its terms. The U.N. even convinced the Obama Administration to sign onto it and submit it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, where it sat until Trump’s April 29 action pulling it back.
Despite the long-standing effort by ATT proponents to present the Treaty as a purely international instrument affecting only export and import of firearms, lurking within its broad parameters and underlying authorities is a catalog of gun control measures that each signing country (which had included the United States) commits to act consistent with. This list of what Menendez and Stohl (and others) describe as “common sense” measures includes, among others:
* Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”
* Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).
* Only persons licensed and periodically re-licensed by the national government could possess firearms.
* All firearms must be registered with the national government
* All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.
* All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”
* Only a pre-determined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.
* Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.
* No firearm could be possessed before at least a seven-day waiting period.
* No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless they first demonstrate a clear and convincing need.
* Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses
* In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”
These terms would not – unless the treaty was ratified by the Senate – be legal binding. However, the federal government’s commitment to act consistently with all explicit and underlying terms of the treaty would have provided easy opportunity for gun control advocates in any administration to take such steps and justify them by virtue of Kerry’s signature back in 2013.
At least with regard to the Arms Trade Treaty and its sneaky gun control agenda, Americans who understand and support the right to keep and bear arms, can heave a sigh of relief thanks to Trump’s action on April 29.
Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.
by Bob Barr
Since 1926, the SAT has served as the standard of scholastic assessment for college-bound students. Each year, some two million high school students pay at least $47.50 to take the exam, which is virtually mandatory for acceptance into any competitive college or university in the United States. Although never meant to be a perfect barometer of college success, the SAT has been a well-regarded instrument for helping to identify high achieving students for nearly a century. Until now.
Some Brainiac, or a committee thereof, has decided that in order to remain “relevant” (or something), the test must broaden its platform to calculate more than a student’s ability to master scholastic problems involving math, language and other subject areas heretofore considered a relevant measure of academic performance. It will now be designed to measure the “adversity” in which the test-taker lives or has lived. If that sounds nonsensical; it is.
The College Board, which is the private non-profit organization that developed the SAT and oversees its administration, announced it would be adding a special “bonus” score in addition to the standard scores for math and language; factors unrelated to the test taker’s raw test results. Resembling more an exercise in alchemy to divine a student’s true, intrinsic ability as distinct from their actual test results, the “adversity score” will be based on a concoction of circumstantial factors such as family income, neighborhood crime and poverty levels, and housing environments.
As Inside Higher Ed notes, this data will come from the College Board’s own databases containing information on U.S. high schools and surrounding areas; though it is problematically unclear from where the more personal information about a student’s home life will be gleaned. Many of these data points, it seems, will be extrapolated rather than scientifically derived.
In other words, for the College Board, the objective standard of academic achievement will now become un-objective. This bizarre result, however, appears to be entirely the point – to “level the playing field” so no one student has an “unfair” advantage over anyone else, and everyone is therefore “equal” in the eyes of the College Board overseers. Such will-o’-the-wisp hocus-pocus would be laughable but for the fact its perpetrators apparently are serious.
The opportunity for mischief in using such a brew of irrelevant factors to determine final test scores for the high school test-takers is obvious. Results can be skewed at the whim of the College Board’s algorithms to arrive at higher or lower scores depending, from year to year, on what type of students they decide are the more worthy to have an improved chance to be admitted into a college or university of their choice.
A student’s preparation, hard work and intelligence are now subject to being diluted because some of their peers might have street addresses placing them in neighborhoods deemed by the College Board to be more “adverse.”
The “law of unforeseen consequences” as applied to this new system of “adversity scores,” actually could wind up making things worse for hardship students. For one, the SAT’s reliance on high school and neighborhood statistics runs contrary to charter school programs and local government initiatives that try to send underprivileged students to higher-performing schools in more affluent neighborhoods. Now, these students will be penalized for not remaining at their lower-performing schools.
Additionally, adversity score metrics create more opportunities for ultra-wealthy families to game the SAT scoring system; as Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman demonstrated quite clearly the lengths determined parents with resources will go for their kids.
So, while the rich can afford expensive tutors and doctor-shopping for a note allowing for untimed testing, and at the other end of the spectrum students from lower-performing schools get a score bump thanks to the SAT’s recent changes, middle class students are left to wonder if studying and diligent homework completion are any longer sufficient to be competitive; or, if those scores are to mean anything anymore.
And, if SAT scores are dropping in relevance (as they likely will be after these updates), what is there to separate mediocre students destined for mediocre colleges, from advanced students who deserve to attend better schools where their talents would be best utilized? In fact, this may be the real goal in all this nonsense — accelerating the movement toward a system that debases and punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity.
In a sense, the College Board Brainiacs who concocted this scheme can be seen as simply riding the socialist wave that has virtually every Democratic presidential candidate calling for “free” college education for all comers. In such a society, tests will be considered inherently unfair and ultimately unnecessary.
Bob Barr
Late last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013.
With this action — “un-signing” a treaty document — Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!”
In signing this document, Trump drove a stake into the heart of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); and our Second Amendment is the stronger for that action.
Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was — as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.”
In fact, there was nothing “common sense” about this document and the ongoing process to make it the operative mechanism for international gun control.
Always seeking relevance and power since it was established in the immediate aftermath of WWII, the U.N. has worked for nearly two decades to shoehorn gun control into its “world peace” mission. In this, it has been strikingly successful, with some 130 countries signing the ATT and over 100 actually ratifying it and becoming thereby fully and legally bound by its terms. The U.N. even convinced the Obama Administration to sign onto it and submit it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, where it sat until Trump’s April 29 action pulling it back.
Despite the long-standing effort by ATT proponents to present the Treaty as a purely international instrument affecting only export and import of firearms, lurking within its broad parameters and underlying authorities is a catalog of gun control measures that each signing country (which had included the United States) commits to act consistent with. This list of what Menendez and Stohl (and others) describe as “common sense” measures includes, among others:
• Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”
• Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).
• Only persons licensed and periodically re-licensed by the national government could possess firearms.
• All firearms must be registered with the national government
• All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.
• All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”
• Only a pre-determined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.
• Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.
• No firearm could be possessed before at least a seven-day waiting period.
• No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless they first demonstrate a clear and convincing need.
• Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses
• In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”
These terms would not — unless the treaty was ratified by the Senate — be legal binding. However, the federal government’s commitment to act consistently with all explicit and underlying terms of the treaty would have provided easy opportunity for gun control advocates in any administration to take such steps and justify them by virtue of Kerry’s signature back in 2013.
At least with regard to the Arms Trade Treaty and its sneaky gun control agenda, Americans who understand and support the right to keep and bear arms, can heave a sigh of relief thanks to Trump’s action on April 29.
Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.
Bob Barr
Late last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013.
With this action — “un-signing” a treaty document — Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!”
In signing this document, Trump drove a stake into the heart of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); and our Second Amendment is the stronger for that action.
Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was — as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.”
In fact, there was nothing “common sense” about this document and the ongoing process to make it the operative mechanism for international gun control.
Always seeking relevance and power since it was established in the immediate aftermath of WWII, the U.N. has worked for nearly two decades to shoehorn gun control into its “world peace” mission. In this, it has been strikingly successful, with some 130 countries signing the ATT and over 100 actually ratifying it and becoming thereby fully and legally bound by its terms. The U.N. even convinced the Obama Administration to sign onto it and submit it to the U.S. Senate for ratification, where it sat until Trump’s April 29 action pulling it back.
Despite the long-standing effort by ATT proponents to present the Treaty as a purely international instrument affecting only export and import of firearms, lurking within its broad parameters and underlying authorities is a catalog of gun control measures that each signing country (which had included the United States) commits to act consistent with. This list of what Menendez and Stohl (and others) describe as “common sense” measures includes, among others:
• Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”
• Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).
• Only persons licensed and periodically re-licensed by the national government could possess firearms.
• All firearms must be registered with the national government
• All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.
• All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”
• Only a pre-determined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.
• Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.
• No firearm could be possessed before at least a seven-day waiting period.
• No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless they first demonstrate a clear and convincing need.
• Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses
• In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”
These terms would not — unless the treaty was ratified by the Senate — be legal binding. However, the federal government’s commitment to act consistently with all explicit and underlying terms of the treaty would have provided easy opportunity for gun control advocates in any administration to take such steps and justify them by virtue of Kerry’s signature back in 2013.
At least with regard to the Arms Trade Treaty and its sneaky gun control agenda, Americans who understand and support the right to keep and bear arms, can heave a sigh of relief thanks to Trump’s action on April 29.
Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.
In recent weeks, the once wide, online dominion of Right-leaning pot stirrers like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer, has shrunk considerably, as Facebook/Instagram, Google/YouTube, and Twitter have shut down their accounts, despite the large followings enjoyed by such individuals. “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,” Facebook piously declared earlier this month after booting a number of “far-right” individuals, including those above, from its platforms.
Necessarily, of course, decisions about what is “civil” and “safe” for users of social media are based not on the “likes” or “dislikes” of the individual consumers themselves, but on algorithms devised by employees of the social media companies.
What may be even more disturbing than the censorial actions by the social media platforms, is the sneaky role being played in all this by a new breed of liberal CEOs with billions in ad dollars as their weapon of choice – and when these “Mad Men” talk, social media listens.
Social media CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey may fancy themselves as the “good guys” in making the “hard decisions” like banning people on their platforms in pursuit of civility online, but it is advertising dollars that actually are at the core of their motivations. Therefore, when Marc Pritchard, the chief marketing officer of Procter & Gamble, a $66 billion company, makes pointed comments such as “we prefer to work with those who don’t allow anonymity to be a weapon,” or “while today everyone can have a microphone, it doesn’t mean every voice needs to be amplified” – it is hardly a coincidence when Facebook responds with the “ban hammer” shortly thereafter.
Neither is it a coincidence that such bans are taking place in the lead-up to an already-extremely polarized 2020 presidential election, in which Democrats will be digging deep into their bag of tricks to sabotage a Trump presidency that has, to their chagrin, remained popular with voters in spite of their best efforts to derail it. So, when the company behind Gillette’s insultingly moralizing anti-toxic masculinity campaign (among many of its other far-Left social activism ranging from global warming to gender issues) suddenly starts demanding “civility” and “transparency” in social media, the lords of Silicon Valley know that what is at risk for them is billions in advertising dollars if they fail to jump. Of course, the fact that the liberal undercurrent of such demands fits perfectly with their world view doesn’t hurt.
Although P&G appears to be leading the charge to demand “reforms” from social media companies in policing content and users, other major brands, such as Disney, are not far behind in the pack. Disney Chief Bob Iger commented just last month that “Hitler would have loved social media.” Recall that the ABC network, a Disney company, proactively cancelled the extremely popular Roseanne reboot after the show’s star was accused of tweeting “abhorrent” and “repugnant” comments about a former adviser to President Barack Obama. Elsewhere, both Starbucks and Southwest airlines have launched advertising campaigns specifically urging “civility.”
For this new breed of left-leaning CEO, the goal is not simply to sell products ranging from coffee to bathroom tissue. The challenge is to change not only the public’s buying habits, but its social — and ultimately, political — behavior as well. Social media’s popularity among large segments of the population makes it the perfect vehicle by which to accomplish this goal.
Just as George Soros is putting his money where his mouth is in an attempt to remake our legal system in his image, so are these liberal CEOs using other people’s money to change the social fabric of America in their image. Keep that in mind the next time you spring for a roll of Bounty paper towels.
In A Hero’s Funeral Is A Lesson For Us All
Townhall.com
By Bob Barr
Riley 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 proactive individual responsibility in defense of one’s life and values and the lives of others.
It is important to bear in mind also that such a passive mentality contradicts what little we actually know and have observed about the mindset of mass shooters.
Unlike traditional criminal activity involving firearms – which has been studied and researched at length by all manner of experts — we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the complexities of mass shootings; occurrences in which demographics, motives, planning, targets, and even firearms used, are characteristics that vary from one incident to another. However, one of the few, if perhaps only, common characteristics among most, if not all of these killers, is cowardice. These criminals tend to pick “soft” targets, in which victims are seen as unprotected and vulnerable; they then flee, surrender, or commit suicide at the onset of resistance or as soon as they perceive themselves to be in danger.
The evolution of law enforcement tactics for active shooter scenarios since the 1999 Columbine school shooting reflect this view. Officers now are trained to immediately seek and confront active shooters upon arriving at the scene, rather than spend precious minutes regrouping and waiting for additional tactical support.
Conversely – as witnessed in last year’s mass shooting at the high school in Parkland, Florida – where a law enforcement officer on the scene hesitates or hides, the tragedy is worsened considerably.
In the San Diego synagogue shooting two weeks ago, an unarmed Army veteran in the congregation who rushed and shouted at the shooter, was enough to send him scurrying to his car where he was quickly apprehended. When factoring in the number of incidents where armed citizens also played a role in prematurely ending active shooter situations before police arrive (documented excellently here), it becomes abundantly clear that the “run, hide, fight” prioritization of action is misplaced. Evil in whatever form is best met with immediate and assertive resistance
There is a reason why these cowards do not normally pick military or police targets for their sprees. The question is — or should be — what changes if suddenly “soft” targets were no longer declared to be safe havens for potential shooters; but instead seen as areas where students, teachers, congregants, clergy, mall shoppers, and everyone else were no longer willing to play the role of victim, but instead fight back with all the ferocity of those who value life and will protect it at all costs? What if we all found the courage, determination, and selflessness of Riley Howell?
A real willingness to change the passive mindset that now prevails in contemporary American culture, is a far better place from which to launch a national debate on how to deal with mass shooting situations, than is advocating for more “gun control” or for less First Amendment freedom. And doing so would more appropriately honor the sacrifice and heroism of Riley Howell.
©2022 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.
Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC