Barr Condemns Government Plans for Domestic Troop Deployment

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr says government plans to deploy 20,000 uniformed soldiers inside the United States "ignores all the tragic lessons we have learned from using the U.S. military in domestic crises."

"When combat troops are used for domestic law enforcement, rights are inevitably violated and tragedies occur, such as when the military was improperly activated to assist in the tragedy at Waco, Texas in 1993. This domestic use of the military resulted in the loss of some 80 men, women and children," says Barr, the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee. "The government's plan to deploy initially 20,000 uniformed military personnel inside the United States goes against everything we have learned about using soldiers as police officers. Not only do these plans appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act—which forbids the use of the military in law enforcement on non-federal property—but it also opens up the American public to dangerous Constitutional violations."

Barr says his concerns are greatly heightened by the conclusion reached by the current Bush Administration in a classified 2001 Department of Justice memo. The memo stated that the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not apply to the U.S. military when it engages in “domestic” operations.

"When the military operates in the United States, as the federal government now intends it to do, it does so without respect or deference to the Constitution," says Barr. "The federal government plans to render every American citizen defenseless against government abuse during any crisis situation—be it a flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster—where U.S. military personnel will be used to supplement local law enforcement."

"We do not need to militarize Mayberry," says Barr.

"I fought against this type of gross expansion of government authority while I was in Congress," says Barr. "I called for a full investigation of the Waco Siege when it became clear that government used excessive force in their raid, which cost the lives of many innocent Americans. The 'culture of militarism' in the federal government turned Waco into an American tragedy. Should this trend of militarism be allowed to continue, it will only be a matter of time before we have another avoidable tragedy on our hands."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Bob Barr Says: Maintain Economic Growth, Find New Energy Sources, Confront Global Warming

Bob Barr, former Member of Congress from Georgia and Libertarian Party candidate for President, today issued the following statement on energy and global warming:

As America confronts a variety of domestic and foreign challenges in the future, it is essential that we preserve our prosperous, productive, and innovative economy. Without a strong economic foundation, it will be impossible for our nation to deal with the many serious financial, social, and environmental problems facing the U.S.

One of the most complicated and controversial issues facing America is global warming. Although temperatures have increased in recent decades, the scientific community has been unable to make definitive judgments as to the past cause or future course of climate change. Indeed, the models which predict problems in the future did not predict the lack of any temperature increase over the last decade. Unfortunately, many climate processes are not yet clearly understood.

Thus, we need to conduct more and better scientific research about climate change to assess likely problems in the future and develop appropriate solutions. More dialogue is key to understanding global warming and developing the best means of dealing with the important questions surrounding the phenomenon. This dialogue must include scientists from all sides of the issue, including those who are skeptical of the assertion that humans are primarily responsible for global temperature changes and that those changes pose a substantial danger to humanity.

Moreover, we must develop cost-effective policies which will not undermine the U.S. economy. So-called cap and trade legislation, recently rejected by the U.S. Senate, would do grievous damage to the American economy, threatening to create a permanent recession by reversing industrial growth and destroying millions of jobs. Attempting to adjust global temperatures by artificially cutting energy consumption would undermine the very prosperous and innovative market system upon which we must rely for answers to everything from health care to international poverty to environmental protection.

Our energy future must be built on a commitment to both find more conventional energy sources and expand use of alternative fuels. The U.S. has large deposits of petroleum, oil shale, and natural gas. Barriers to their development in the Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and other federal lands should be lowered or eliminated, which would provide Americans with a more secure source of energy over the short term and help bring down today’s high prices, which are causing such economic hardship to so many Americans. Such steps would also allow us to begin seriously considering and developing alternative sources of energy that will be essential in the long term.

The development of alternatives to fossil fuels would provide the country with many benefits, ranging from lower CO2 emissions to greater diversity of energy supplies. Given the failure of past government subsidy programs, this transformation can only be led by the private sector.

The government must remove regulatory barriers, which limit the development of alternative as well as conventional energy sources. Moreover, public officials should cease their demagogic attacks on the energy industry, which has made money only by finding, refining, and transporting gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil for the American people. Vote-minded legislators risk creating an environment in which companies are punished for doing good, which will only make them more reluctant to invest in all technologies and fuels, alternative as well as conventional.

Indeed, the challenge of promoting continuing energy innovation should cause us to reconsider other policies which discourage business investment and capital formation more generally. Americans for Tax Reform recently reported that the tax and regulatory burden rose at both the state and national level over the last year. America’s corporate income tax is one of the highest in the world, creating a self-inflicted economic wound. Congress now routinely votes for new spending programs for which we have no way to pay, putting our entire economic future at risk.

The challenges that we face are serious, but I am convinced we can find solutions. We are more likely to develop policies that simultaneously promote economic growth, expand energy supplies, and lessen any adverse effects of climate change, if we promote a genuine dialogue among contending factions. Although I do not agree with the tax and regulatory policies advanced by former Vice President Al Gore, I do believe his call for greater reliance on alternative energy could be given positive effect by American industry. Only the market economy can balance his passion with the reality of preserving the growing economy upon which our future—and that of our children and grandchildren—depends.

We must address the issue of climate change, but do so realistically, recognizing the importance of simultaneously expanding energy supplies and maintaining economic growth. Our greatest strength in confronting the problems of the future is our free market economy. Only by reducing government barriers to private research and development are we going to achieve the innovative, even transformational, changes necessary in the years and decades ahead.

Begin Constructive Moves with Iran, Barr Urges

“After emphasizing confrontation and thinly-veiled threats of war for many months, the Bush administration apparently may now be considering initiating some form of diplomatic relationship with Iran. Such a step is long overdue,” notes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. “An American diplomat attended talks recently between the European Union and Iran in Geneva. The U.S. should move forward and initiate direct discussions with Tehran. As famed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told us, ‘it is always better to ‘jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” noted Barr.

“There is no easy answer to the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, which would be enormously destabilizing,” explains Barr. But U.S. intelligence doubts the existence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program, let alone imminent development of a nuclear military device. “We have time to use diplomacy and work with allied nations to dissuade Tehran from taking this provocative step.”

“It is imperative to find a peaceful answer, since war with Iran would be disastrous for all concerned,” emphasizes Barr. “American troops in Iraq would be at risk. U.S. citizens would be targeted for terrorist acts. Tehran could retaliate against Israel. Oil shipments would be disrupted, causing energy prices to soar even higher. Allied states in the Persian Gulf would be vulnerable to attack. Chances for democratic change in Iran would be set back.”

“Military forces is sometimes necessary, but it always should be a last resort and based on true defensive necessity. Our best chance to avoid finding ourselves with no constructive options is to pursue a multi-pronged strategy that includes communication with other governments, including those of our adversaries,” noted Barr, who formerly worked for the CIA and had actually lived in Iran. Barr also notes that such a constructive and multi-faceted strategy is appropriate, since “many times, today’s adversaries wind up being tomorrow’s allies.”

“The U.S. government has an obligation to the American people to make every attempt to find peaceful solutions to even the most serious geopolitical problems,” the Libertarian Party nominee concluded.

Bob Barr Says Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, End Government Subsidies

The latest financial crisis involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee home mortgages, demonstrates yet again how government intervention in private markets almost always comes to grief. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are nominally private, but were created by Congress and enjoy significant advantages over truly private companies, including cheaper borrowing, lower capital requirements, and an implicit federal guarantee.

As a result, the two organizations behaved irresponsibly, confident that they were “too big to fail.” They own $5.1 trillion in mortgage debt, almost half of the nation’s total. With the sub-prime lending crisis in full swing, their losses are up, their capital is down, and their ability to borrow is falling. Immediate privatization is difficult because the markets doubt the organizations can survive without government support. Insolvency and a forced asset sale would roil both the housing and financial markets.

These problems are almost entirely the fault of the federal government. Congress created programs to artificially inflate the housing market, established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be exempt from normal scrutiny, oversight, and competition, and expanded their activities in response to the sub-prime lending meltdown. Government must get out of the mortgage business, but must do so in a way that least harms taxpayers and the economy.

In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility.

However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization—with both organizations turned into private companies, responsible for their loan portfolios, and without access to government guarantees or other forms of support. Government should not be in the business of creating multi-billion dollar enterprises to manipulate markets for the benefit of one group or another—in this case, in order to shave the interest rates for selected home buyers by a quarter or half percent.

Finally, we must learn the lesson that government subsidy programs almost always end up running out of control, causing financial disaster for taxpayers. A Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac collapse could cost most than $1 trillion. The U.S. already has a $14 trillion national debt. Far worse, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare top $100 trillion. American taxpayers cannot afford additional special interest subsidies and bail-outs.

Moreover, the entire economy suffers from the sort of market manipulation practiced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the multitude of direct housing subsidy programs. Indeed, the impact of the sub-prime lending crisis has gone far beyond the housing market. The largely unaccountable Federal Reserve has made many of these problems worse, by extending further bail-outs and creating additional taxpayer liabilities. Congress must limit the Fed’s activities as well, and force it to act with greater transparency and oversight.

Bob Barr Thanks Bush for Belatedly Supporting OCS Drilling: “Better Seven Years Late than Never”

“Why did President George W. Bush wait more than seven years to lift the executive order blocking Outer Continental Shelf energy development?”, asks Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “It’s a step forward, but OCS exploration will proceed only if Congress follows the president in lifting its statutory ban. Time is running out to get the job done this year, despite gasoline running over $4 a gallon.”

President George H.W. Bush issued the executive order prohibiting OCS development in 1990. Congress approved its ban in 1981. “The result has been to leave Americans dependent on foreign oil producers, including countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Russia, and Venezuela, which increasingly are unstable, hostile, or both,” notes Barr. “Congressional Democrats and some Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain, also have closed off access to other large domestic sources of energy, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and western lands filled with oil shale.”

President Bush may be sincere in his desire to expand U.S. oil production, but, says Barr, “he waited seven years too many to act. He should have started pressing for access to the OCS and other energy-rich territory immediately after taking office, given the price Americans paid for relying so heavily on foreign oil.”

“Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain is no better. He long supported the OCS ban, only recently changing his position, and even now he argues that states should be able to block exploration,” observes Barr. “Moreover, Sen. McCain continues to oppose allowing even environmentally sensitive energy exploration in ANWR. He obviously doesn’t understand the gravity of America’s ever-increasing reliance on more expensive and unstable sources of foreign oil. Unfortunately, the Democrats are even more oblivious to the imperative of expanding America’s energy options.”

America possesses hundreds of billions of barrels worth of oil. Yet “Washington continues to stand in the way of turning that oil into gasoline for Americans. President Bush has belatedly eliminated one barrier to energy development. Now it’s up to Congress to stop blocking Americans from developing America’s energy resources,” says Barr.

Bob Barr Says Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, End Government Subsidies

The latest financial crisis involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee home mortgages, demonstrates yet again how government intervention in private markets almost always comes to grief. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are nominally private, but were created by Congress and enjoy significant advantages over truly private companies, including cheaper borrowing, lower capital requirements, and an implicit federal guarantee.

As a result, the two organizations behaved irresponsibly, confident that they were “too big to fail.” They own $5.1 trillion in mortgage debt, almost half of the nation’s total. With the sub-prime lending crisis in full swing, their losses are up, their capital is down, and their ability to borrow is falling. Immediate privatization is difficult because the markets doubt the organizations can survive without government support. Insolvency and a forced asset sale would roil both the housing and financial markets.

These problems are almost entirely the fault of the federal government. Congress created programs to artificially inflate the housing market, established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be exempt from normal scrutiny, oversight, and competition, and expanded their activities in response to the sub-prime lending meltdown. Government must get out of the mortgage business, but must do so in a way that least harms taxpayers and the economy.

In the short-term, government has little choice but to provide an explicit but limited loan guarantee, thereby capping the public’s liability, now widely assumed to be without limit. At the same time, Congress must restrict the number and size of loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and set more substantial capital requirements, while authorizing greater Federal Reserve oversight of their operations. The organizations must begin downsizing their portfolios, reducing their risks, and reestablishing their financial credibility.

However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization—with both organizations turned into private companies, responsible for their loan portfolios, and with access to government guarantees or other forms of support. Government should not be in the business of creating multi-billion dollar enterprises to manipulate markets for the benefit of one group or another—in this case, in order to shave the interest rates for selected home buyers by a quarter or half percent.

Finally, we must learn the lesson that government subsidy programs almost always end up running out of control, causing financial disaster for taxpayers. A Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac collapse could cost most than $1 trillion. The U.S. already has a $14 trillion national debt. Far worse, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare top $100 trillion. American taxpayers cannot afford additional special interest subsidies and bail-outs.

Moreover, the entire economy suffers from the sort of market manipulation practiced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the multitude of direct housing subsidy programs. Indeed, the impact of the sub-prime lending crisis has gone far beyond the housing market. The largely unaccountable Federal Reserve has made many of these problems worse, by extending further bail-outs and creating additional taxpayer liabilities. Congress must limit the Fed’s activities as well, and force it to act with greater transparency and oversight.

Barr In Oklahoma City to Announce Ballot Access Lawsuit

Today (July 15, 2008) Bob Barr held a press conference at 2:30pm central in the Rotunda of the Oklahoma Capitol building to announce that he was filing a lawsuit to gain access challenge the Oklahoma ballot. He released the following statement:

One of the most essential components of democratic elections in the United States is the choice among a slate of candidates, which creates the competition among candidates for a political office. Without choice, voters are left with few--if any--options in selecting their political leaders. Unfortunately in Oklahoma, ballot access laws are so strict that it disallows many well-qualified candidates from participating in the elections. The end result is elections with little choice and little competition, chilling the democratic process and hurting the citizens of Oklahoma.

In 2004, the rigid ballot access laws in Oklahoma made it the only state in the nation with only two choices for president. If voters liked neither George Bush nor John Kerry, they had no other options from which to choose. This is not how democracy is supposed to work, and its impact resonates well beyond the borders of the state.

Should a state refuse a national candidate the right to be placed on the ballot, it artificially manipulates the candidate's election totals at a national level. This is not just a state issue, but an issue that affects voters across the nation. Every vote denied by a state is an assault on the very underpinnings of democracy in the United States.

Barr Expresses Condolences to Snow Family

Former Congressman and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr released the following statement upon hearing of the death of Tony Snow:

Jeri and I send our heartfelt prayers and condolences to Jill and the Snow children. Tony was the consummate, polished professional in each of his careers: political aide, broadcaster, journalist, spokesman and commentator. He was also a genuinely kind man; devoted to his family, blessed with many friendships and generous to all. May God bless his family and give them the strength to get through this difficult time.

No More Taxpayer Bail-Outs, Says Bob Barr

"The Senate is preparing to pass a $300 billion housing bail-out, and Sen. John McCain and others are talking about a separate rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have lost some $11 billion in recent months, and own or guarantee some $5 trillion in mortgage debt. Congress must say no to any new bail-outs," says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. "Washington politicians are creating a culture of fiscal irresponsibility that threatens to drown the American people."

The annual federal deficit runs more than $400 billion. The national debt is $9.5 trillion. The total unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare exceed $100 trillion. "We will begin to control federal spending only after Congress says no more," argues Barr.

The problem is more than creating a tidal wave of red ink. "Artificially pushing down interest rates and directing more money into the housing industry also risks further reducing the value of the dollar," notes Barr. "That makes everything we buy from overseas cost more, including oil. In fact, one of the reasons gasoline prices have risen so far so fast is because of the dramatic fall in the value of the dollar."

Moreover, "Congress is creating a bail-out culture, in which people assume that the government will cover their bad decisions," warns Barr. "Washington bailed out the savings and loans. It bailed out big banks that made bad loans to Third World countries. It is preparing to bail-out irresponsible home-owners, mortgage lenders, and investors."

"Capitalism cannot work if businesses collect any profits while taxpayers get stuck with any losses," Barr observes. "Cleaning up Uncle Sam's balance sheet won't be easy, but we must start by not adding any more red ink. And that means no more bail-outs."

"It is bad enough to waste our own money," says Barr. "But we have a special moral responsibility to stop burdening our children and grandchildren with trillions in debt. When it comes to new spending proposals and special interest bail-outs, Congress should just say no."

Where Does John McCain Stand on Cap and Trade, Asks Bob Barr

“Sen. John McCain has been one of the strongest Senate supporters of job-killing proposals for so-called cap and trade, which would dramatically cut American energy use, and thus economic growth. But some of his supporters say that he’s dropped the idea. Where does John McCain stand?”, asks Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.

Concerns over climate change have become an excuse for imposing draconian new regulations on the economy. “Until now Sen. John McCain has taken the lead, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman and others, in advancing legislation that would push the American economy into a permanent recession,” explains Barr. The most extreme proposals, rejected by the Senate, would cut American energy use by 70 percent by the year 2050. “Where does John McCain stand?”, asks Bob Barr.

“The science of climate change is extraordinarily complicated. Contrary to past predictions, average temperatures have not increased over the last decade,” explains Barr. “It makes far more sense to use American ingenuity and technology to adapt to future changes in the climate than to wreck the economy in order to prevent temperature increases that may never occur.”

In promoting cap and trade, Sen. McCain demonstrated that “he failed to understand that impoverishing America will actually make it harder to protect the environment,” notes Barr. “But perhaps he has rediscovered good old American common sense. Where does John McCain stand? The American people deserve to know.”

Follow the Constitution: Only Congress Can Declare War, Bob Barr Says

“Former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher have proposed a new statute to encourage the president and Congress to cooperate in going to war. But the Constitution already sets forth a clear rule: Congress, and only Congress, is tasked with declaring war,” explains Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. “Absent exigent circumstances, like defending against a surprise attack, only Congress has the authority to take America into a conflict.”

Secretaries Baker and Christopher understandably complain that the current system is broken and the 1973 War Powers Resolution has failed to ensure executive branch consultation with Congress. “But a new law won’t change anything unless future Congresses and presidents commit to follow the Constitution,” says Barr. “The present confusion reflects the fact that Congresses and presidents don’t understand or won’t follow the constitutional framework. The new law likely would just paper over existing problems, leading to even more confusion in the years ahead.”

First, “presidents must acknowledge that being military commander-in-chief does not entitle them to take the nation into war. Rather, they are to fight only conflicts authorized by Congress,” Barr observes. “At the same time, Congresses must be willing to confront tough issues, rather than leave them for the president. Legislators have no higher responsibility under the Constitution and to the voters than to decide when Americans must fight abroad.”

Sen. John McCain’s staff announced that he “would make consultations with Congress a priority,” but that’s not nearly enough, Barr explains. “The Constitution does not say Congress is to be consulted. Rather, the Constitution vests the power to decide on war in Congress alone.”

The problem is bipartisan. “Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both treated the Constitution’s war powers clause as an ancient relic,” notes Barr. “Sen. Barack Obama, a former law professor, has said nothing to suggest any difference from Sen. McCain.” Republicans and Democrats alike need to relearn their respect for the Constitution and take their cue from Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in World War II and later NATO commander, who explained: “When it comes to the matter of war, there is only one place that I would go, and that is to the Congress of the United States.”

“The Founders placed the power to decide on war in the Congress because they did not want to entrust that enormous authority to any one man or woman,” emphasizes Barr. “The world has changed, but not the need for checks and balances in government.” The Constitution is clear. “The power to decide on war is up to Congress alone, and as president I would not initiate conflict without congressional assent,” says Barr.

Bob Barr Criticizes Congress for Capitulating on Constitution by Approving FISA Amendments

“Nearly three years ago the American people became aware that the president was systematically breaking the law by spying on phone calls and emails without seeking a warrant under the Constitution or even the relaxed standards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead of holding the president and his aides accountable for violating the law, Congress has ratified his conduct by approving amendments which weaken FISA’s requirements,” notes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “Unfortunately, failing to uphold the law creates a golden invitation for future administrations to similarly take the law into their own hands.”

Advocates of the legislation, including presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama, claim that the amendments balance security and privacy. “To the contrary, the bill grants the government unprecedented power to surreptitiously spy on the phone calls and emails of American citizens in our own country, so long as the government claims to believe that they are communicating with someone not in the U.S.,” argues Barr. The measure “also grants immunity to telephone companies which aided the government’s law-breaking. So much for the rule of law,” Barr adds.

“The administration and its supporters have used the terrorist attacks of September 11 as an excuse for a host of power grabs, even though the government failed to protect Americans on that tragic day because it didn’t use the authority that it already had,” explains Barr. Warrants were virtually never refused under FISA, “yet rather than updating the law, the Democratic-controlled Congress decided to gut it.”

“Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can be trusted to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people,” says Barr. “As president, I would never forget that it is a free society which we must defend. We must never sacrifice the individual freedoms that make America so unique.”

U.S. Should Champion Religious Liberty as Essential Human Right Says Bob Barr

“Much in this great nation of ours is moving in the wrong direction, but America remains a beacon of liberty around the world, a city on the hill that provides hope and inspiration to oppressed peoples everywhere,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “While America cannot impose its freedom ideals by force, it can promote them by living up to its rhetoric and using its influence on behalf of human liberty.”

Of course, capitalism and democracy are essential freedoms. “But the first freedom, the most basic right of conscience, is religious liberty, the ability to worship God as one believes appropriate,” explains Barr. The American purpose is not to spread any particular faith, even Christianity. “But the U.S. should insist that protecting this most basic right is essential for any society which purports to be free and to represent its people.”

Tragically, “while Americans take religious liberty for granted, in many countries people are not free to worship freely,” notes Barr. He points to Iraq, “where the historic Christian community has been devastated by radical Islamic attacks, despite America’s military occupation. In Egypt, members of the ancient Coptic Christian Church are under constant attack by the government as well as violent Islamic extremists.” Christians also are persecuted in states ranging from Algeria to China to Saudi Arabia.

“But it is not only Christians who suffer,” observes Barr. Jews, Bahais, Hindus, and even Moslems are vulnerable to persecution in some countries. “America cannot stop such discrimination. But American leaders can speak out, holding up to the contempt of the world states that persecute. And where the U.S. has influence, as in Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere, it should press for respect for this essential human right.”

“We have much to be thankful for, despite problems that sometimes seem overwhelming,” says Barr. “To whom much is given, much is expected. We should help share our good fortune by speaking out for liberty around the world, including religious freedom.”

Bob Barr Criticizes Obama Proposal for Mandatory Service

“Americans are among the most generous people on the planet and excel at serving one another,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. “Unfortunately, Sen. Barack Obama wants to turn service into a government requirement” by forcing middle, high school, and college students to work in federally approved jobs. “But service must be an outgrowth of the heart to be life-changing for both parties. It isn’t possible to mandate generosity or coerce compassion,” Barr explains.

Moreover, “it certainly isn’t Washington’s responsibility to dictate to every middle school, high school, and college across America the sort of activities they should require of their students,” notes Barr. “If local school boards and college presidents believe mandatory service to be a good idea, they can—as many have done—make it a graduation requirement. There’s no justification for the federal government to set a national standard.”

Indeed, Barr observes, “the next president and Congress will have a lot of serious issues on their hands. Such as cutting the federal budget deficit. Restoring the Constitution’s protections for civil liberties. Withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Confronting the entitlements budget crisis. Dealing with high energy prices. Reforming taxes. The list goes on and on.”

These are the challenges that Americans expect their leaders to meet. “Washington politicians should not be telling schools across America how many hours their students should work, and in what kinds of jobs,” says Barr. “The Founders displayed great genius when the framed the Constitution, because they limited the federal government to national problems while preserving state and local authority over such issues as education, including youth service.”

“Everyone agrees that service is a wonderful gift from those with much to those with little. But we should not sacrifice the great value of voluntary service by turning it into a government requirement,” Barr concludes.

Barack Obama Should Defend Constitution, Lead Fight Against FISA, Says Bob Barr

“Sen. Barack Obama should lead the fight against legislation giving the president authority to bypass the Constitution in spying on Americans,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. “Without his leadership, the bill is certain to pass with Democratic as well as Republican support.” Unfortunately, notes Barr, “these days no one is surprised when Republican legislators refuse to support the Fourth Amendment, but many Democrats are no better, including the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.”

“Defending the Constitution is always important. That duty is even more vital today, when the president and top administration officials argue that the executive branch may break the law whenever the president deems it to be necessary in a time which he declares to be wartime,” explains Barr. “If Congress will not defend the law, why does it believe the administration will obey new rules after ignoring the already relaxed warrant standards of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act?” To surrender to the administration is irresponsible, “a violation of the oath to defend the Constitution taken by every member of the House and Senate.”

Sen. Obama claims to represent change. “I challenge Sen. Obama to represent real change by standing for the people’s liberties and against the administration’s unlawful surveillance program,” says Barr. “I call on Sen. Obama to oppose any measure that protects phone companies from liability for aiding illegal government spying. Those who violate the Constitution and the law, whether politicians or businessmen, should be held accountable for their actions.”

No wonder the American people believe the country is going in the wrong direction and are cynical about what to expect from Washington. “When it comes to protecting the people’s fundamental liberties, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum,” observes Barr. “If Sen. Obama will not confront the Bush administration over years of lawless conduct, why is he running for president?”

Balanced Budget Must Include Military Spending Cuts, Says Bob Barr

Sen. John McCain says he wants to balance the budget by 2013, “but that’s virtually impossible unless the U.S. exits Iraq and cuts unnecessary military spending,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “Next year the U.S. will spend more than $500 billion—the most, in real terms, since World War II—just on normal Pentagon operations. Including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan will push total annual military outlays to about $700 billion,” notes Barr.

“The U.S. already has spent more than $500 billion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and total costs, including care for wounded and disabled veterans, could hit $2 or $3 trillion. These expenses cannot be wished away,” Barr insists.

The U.S. currently accounts for about half of all military spending on earth, far more than necessary to defend America. “Thus, there is room in the defense budget for significant reductions,” notes Barr. “We should begin a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq—and establish no permanent bases,” he explains. “American combat forces are no longer needed to defend Europe, Japan, and South Korea, all of which are wealthy and populous.”

“The U.S. government’s most essential function is to defend America—our land, people, and constitutional system. But that is defend America. It is not America’s purpose to subsidize wealthy trade competitors and attempt to reconstruct failed nations,” he adds.

Balancing the budget will require that tough spending choices be made across-the-board. Both pork and corporate welfare must go. Programs without any constitutional basis must be ended. Entitlement outlays must be controlled.

“But the Pentagon should not be exempt from fiscal discipline. Much of what the military does today has little to do with America’s defense. It is time to put defense back into the Department of Defense. Then we can cut the military budget according,” says Barr.

Libertarian Party Offers Only Real Alternative in November, Says Bob Barr

“Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the direction their country is going and desperately want real change,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. “But real change will not come from the two major parties, with their well-established commitment to the status quo. It will only come from outside the current system—and through the Barr presidential campaign and the Libertarian Party.”

The American people have made their feelings known in the latest Zogby poll, which found that six percent of them favor Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr. “And that is without benefiting from all of the media attention paid to the primaries and the big advertising campaigns already initiated by the other parties,” notes Barr.

At six percent “we have more than three times the support of any other alternative party,” Barr explains. Seven percent of conservatives, 11 percent of independents, and 43 percent of libertarians said they backed the Barr campaign. Pollster John Zogby observed that “Bob Barr has some juice among conservatives... ”

With this level of support, “which will only grow as the Barr campaign’s message of limited government and individual liberty reaches more people, it is only fair for the American people to include the Libertarian Party nominee along with the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties in all public forums, from candidate town halls to national debates,” says Barr.

“The November election should be about issues, not personalities,” notes Barr. “The American people have suffered for too long from the big-spending policies and partisan antics of Republicans and Democrats alike in Washington.” The country desperately needs an alternative. “The latest poll demonstrates that the one real alternative is the Bob Barr campaign and the Libertarian Party,” Barr adds.

Libertarian Party Says Heller Ruling a 'Preservation of Liberty in the United States'

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis called the case a "landmark victory for the preservation of liberty in the United States."

The Libertarian Party was the only political party to file a brief in the case.

"Firearms are a distinct component of the American national character," says Davis. "The Libertarian Party is more than pleased to see that the Supreme Court recognizes this American tradition as an individual right, and seeks to protect it as such. Today's decision is a giant step forward in protecting the rights of millions of American gun owners."

In the brief written by Barr, who also serves on the board for the National Rifle Association, he stated the Libertarian Party "is an established political party dedicated to a strict adherence to the Constitution," which includes "the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in the defense of life, liberty and property."

The Heller decision is expected to be a major component of presidential politics in the upcoming election, and is an issue with which both presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama have struggled.

"Given that the NRA once called McCain one of the 'premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment,' it is clear which political party truly cares about the Second Amendment," says Davis. "The Bush administration has consistently tried to undermine the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and the GOP seems poised again to nominate a candidate for president with a horrible track record on gun rights."

Davis remarked that "Obama isn't any better than McCain" when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Give Parents a Choice in Education, Says Bob Barr

The federal Department of Education is spending almost $70 billion this year on a function not even mentioned in the Constitution. “The Department should be closed down and the money left with the American people to use for education at the family, local, and state levels,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee.

While spending so much money on programs that should not exist, in 2003 the Congress created a small voucher program started for students in Washington, D.C., which has some of the worst schools in the nation. Now the Democratic majority is planning on killing the initiative, putting nearly 2000 students back into the failed public school system. “The only federal education program Congress wants to get rid of is the one doing the most to help poor kids,” observes Barr.

But since education is not a federal responsibility, “a better way to promote educational opportunity is at the state level,” explains Barr. There are now 22 different choice programs in 14 states. Some of those initiatives provide vouchers; others create tax credits. “I commend Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue for recently signing into law legislation creating a state income tax credit for individuals and companies that donate to groups which provide private scholarships for students,” said Barr.

In fact, “private scholarships have become an increasingly important choice mechanism across the nation,” Barr notes. Examples range from the District of Columbia's Washington Scholarship Fund to Portland, Oregon’s Children’s Scholarship Fund. “In this way average people who want to improve education can avoid the political obstacles to reforming the public schools,” he adds.

America’s public educational monopoly is not working. “The failure to adequately educate our children to compete in the international marketplace and to be good citizens in a free society is truly scandalous,” says Barr. “The answers will not come from Washington. Instead, they will come from families across America as they educate their own children, put their children into private schools, and improve the public system,” Barr adds. We expect choice and competition throughout the economy. “It’s time to apply those same principles to education,” he insists.

Protect Private Property, Enforce the Fifth Amendment, Says Bob Barr

Three years ago today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, undercutting the Constitution’s protection against the unlawful taking of private property. “In Kelo the Supreme Court held that government could take private property to give away to private developers so government could collect more tax revenue,” explains Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “That allows governments across America to ignore the Fifth Amendment’s clear requirement that property be taken only for a ‘public use’,” Barr adds.

Many states responded to Kelo by restricting the use of eminent domain to conform to the Constitution’s language rather than to the Court’s interpretation. But abuses still occur. Thus, “the president should direct all federal departments and agencies to avoid the seizure of private property except as a last resort, and for a legitimate public purpose,” says Barr. Congress should similarly restrict any federal grant money to states and localities.

“Even though the Supreme Court has improperly minimized the scope of the Fifth Amendment, every public official who takes an oath to the Constitution has a responsibility to respect the nation’s fundamental law,” notes Barr. “The president and members of Congress should act only in accordance with the Constitution’s clear guarantee for the right to private property.”