Like I told you before, any chance of the real criminals in government being prosecuted is simply not going to happen, and with the Senate's latest swamp creature being confirmed to the post of Attorney General, it only proves my point. Hillary Clinton will not be prosecuted as you were promised by President Donald Trump and on top of that, William Barr totally ignores your rights when it comes to guns, among many other things.
First, Fox News reports on Barr's confirmation on Thursday.
Attorney William Barr was confirmed Thursday to lead the Department of Justice once again.
Several Democrats -- Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Alabama Sen. Doug Jones and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin -- joined nearly all the Republicans in confirming Barr.
Barr, 68, served as attorney general under the late President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. A Republican, he is a lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.
Now, while Fox News promoted five things that I assume they believe will give you confidence in Barr. They listed:
- He already held the post in the first Bush administration
- He’s criticized the Mueller probe
- He opposed Roe v. Wade
- He worked for several corporations after his Justice Department career
- He worked in the CIA
I'm not really sure that much of that is an advantage to being attorney general. After all, shouldn't what we be looking at in Barr be whether or not he understand the Constitution, not case law, and whether or not he will apply what the Constitution states rather than coming up with his own brand of justice.
We know he was one who pushed for mass incarceration during his time at attorney general under Bush, and we know incarceration is not justice, but is now a for-profit scheme in the prison industrial complex.
Barr has historically supported mandatory minimum sentences and other tough-on-crime policies. But he may soften.
As attorney general, Barr released a report in 1992 called "The Case for More Incarceration" as a plan to control soaring crime rates. It became a template for policies that fed mass incarceration
Even as those views grew less popular, Barr held onto them.
In 2015, he joined dozens of former law enforcement officialsfighting a proposal that would have rolled back some mandatory-minimum sentences, among other reforms. By then, research had shown that punitive policies such as mandatory minimums tore families apart and left millions unable to get steady work, find housing or vote. But Barr and the other former officials said they worked. "Our system of justice is not broken," the former officials wrote.
Sessions held similar ideas about crime fighting. He resisted reforms and rescinded Obama administration memos that called for leniency for low-level drug offenders.
After Sessions resigned in November, Barr and two other former attorneys general wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post praising those moves and "a job well done."
A few weeks later, Congress passed — and Trump signed into law — the First Step Act, a criminal justice reform measure that eased harsh mandatory minimum sentences. At Barr's January confirmation hearing, senators questioned his commitment to upholding that law. Barr said that he still saw those earlier policies as effective, but he also indicated he was open to different approaches.
"I have no problem with the approach of reforming the sentencing structure and I will faithfully enforce that law," Barr said.
and reflected Barr's long-standing attitudes on law and order.
I'm all for prison reform, as it's unjust to both the one serving time, as well as those whose property they hold hostage to pay to feed, clothe and house these people. So, Trump is doing the right thing on that front.
However, it's not just this. Barr is an attacker of your rights to keep and bear arms.
As I reported back in January:
William Barr served previously as Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush from 1991-1993.
While hearings for the position took place in 1991, Barr said:
On the assault weapon front, the proposal before us is the DeConcini amendment. And I think … I would support both the Brady Bill waiting period and the DeConcini [semi-auto ban] amendment, provided that they were parts of a broader and more comprehensive crime bill that included … very tough provisions on the use of firearms in crimes and illegal purchase and trading in firearms…
Barr endorsed both the Brady Check portion of the Brady Bill and the semi-auto ban, although he did express a preference for magazine bans: “I would prefer a limitation on the clip [sic] size.”
And where does Barr get his authority for such things? I can tell you it isn’t in the US Constitution. He would usurp that authority.
Executive Director of Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt said:
I wouldn’t be surprised if, during the hearings, Barr defends his past support for gun control by reiterating what he said in 1991.
That is, he supported firearms restrictions as part of a grand bargain to get several “tough on crime” provisions.
But that excuse is not going to fly with the pro-gun community. Because our rights are protected by the Constitution and they can’t be bargained away or negotiated.
Barr might also say his support for gun control was “pre-Heller” — as if that really makes a difference.
If that is Barr’s excuse, then that just means Barr believes that outlawing a large category of firearms is “okey-dokey” if it’s alright with the Supreme Court.
Either way, these excuses won’t fly.
Look, I realize that someone’s views can change in 20-plus years.
Criminologists like Dr. Gary Kleck have changed their views on gun control.
So have judges like Sanford Levinson … law enforcement such as Officer John Cardillo and Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri … legislators like Rep. Ron Silver … media executives such as NPR CEO Ken Stern.
In other words, there are lots of people who eventually wise up and “see the light.”
As for Barr, we don’t have any recent statements from him on gun control (pro or con).
But unless Barr can publicly renounce his previous views on gun control and publicly oppose the positions advocated by his boss-to-be — by taking a firm and unequivocal stand against Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders — then we’re calling on the Senate to reject his nomination.
While I agree with Pratt that someone’s view can change, the fact of the matter is that if this guy’s view would have changed, we would have heard about it by now. Don’t be surprised if there is not another rope-a-dope with Barr to get “conservatives” to support him for some other reason other than he is constitutionally qualified, just like they did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
What does this mean for Americans? I can tell you that a perfect storm is setting itself up with Democrats wanting to advance criminally unconstitutional universal background checks, which are unenforceable without a national gun registry, and red flag laws that President Donald Trump supports, and now there is an AG in office who is more than willing to act like a good little brown shirt and "follow orders," but not follow the Constitution.
You've been warned.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.