Prelude To Detroit: Bill "Boo Boo" Barr Speaks Upon Stuff

Bill "Boo Boo" Barr

Bill "Boo Boo" Barr speaks upon stuff.

Yup.

Stuff.

An allegoric masterpiece, Barb!

It’s like appointing a psychiatrist to perform surgery. Impressive credentials, but not the right ones for the job. 

Barr’s spin on replacement for SDNY US Atty makes no sense. Jay Clayton is a mergers and acquisitions lawyer with no litigation experience. It’s like appointing a psychiatrist to perform surgery. Impressive credentials, but not the right ones for the job. https://t.co/GChVjcPjxG

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) June 26, 2020

Transcript: NPR's Full Interview With Attorney General William Barr

Attorney General William Barr poses for a portrait at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.
Eman Mohammed for NPR

In an interview with Morning Edition's Steve Inskeep, Attorney General William Barr denied that the Justice Department is continually upholding the interest of the president, dismissed concerns about the firing of federal prosecutor Geoffrey Berman and said he does not believe an election conducted mainly by mail can be secure.

Steve Inskeep: Thank you again for taking the time. I'm appreciative to have this opportunity.

Attorney General William Barr: Thank you.

I want to note that in the last few days, there have been three acts of yours that have made the news, sometimes not for the first time. The dismissal of the case against Michael Flynn, which, of course, an appeals court upheld; the Roger Stone case in which a whistleblower questioned the way that you changed the sentencing recommendation; and then the removal of Geoffrey Berman in New York. I want to ask about your underlying authority as you see it in cases like this. Does the president, acting through you, have the power, complete power, to use his authority in cases where he has an interest?

Well, this wasn't a case of the president acting. It was, these were cases of me acting [crosstalk].

Although you say your act as the president's hand. I mean, it's the president acting [crosstalk].

Well, the president ultimately has the authority as chief executive to, quote, see that the laws are faithfully executed against the attorney general who performs that function under the law. And so I will take them in any order you want.

Well, I see here in each case, you have someone who is the president's national security adviser and he'd spoken up publicly in defense of him. Someone who's a close personal friend of the president, who the president said was being unfairly treated. And Geoffrey Berman, a U.S. attorney, who is believed to be investigating cases involving friends of the president, among other matters of interest to the president. In every case, was it appropriate to intervene at the highest levels in what was being done and what personnel did it?

OK well, all cases in the Department of Justice are subject to the supervision of the attorney general. In fact, all the powers carried out by the department are vested in the attorney general and it's appropriate for the attorney general to exercise supervisory authority over cases. So starting with the Flynn case, Flynn was entered into a plea agreement before I arrived that had been there for a long time. And because of legal squabbling, the sentencing didn't come up until after I was attorney general. And he had a new lawyer and she raised a lot of claims. And, you know, we, number one, he was subject to the sentencing process. But before that occurred, the judge started taking up some orders. And we filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on information we had obtained from another U.S. attorney who I had asked to review the case. There were a lot of issues about that case and it was taking a lot of time to resolve them because the defendant had raised those issues, including misconduct by the government. So I brought in somebody who had been a former FBI agent for 10 years and a prosecutor for 10 years. And I asked him to take a look at it and he recommended that the charges be dismissed.

What I'm driving at is the underlying power here. There's nothing inappropriate about you getting so involved in a case involving a friend of the president. Is that your view of the law?

Well, what I'm saying is, well, Flynn was an appointee in the administration. I don't know whether I would refer to him as [crosstalk] a friend of any administration. But unless there's some conflict of interest that I have, it is appropriate for me to deal with it. And I've said publicly that in those cases, it's very important that the attorney general make sure that there's no political influence at stake involved in that, and there wasn't.

Is there no limit to what the president can do in exercising what you've described as a supervisory authority when it comes to law enforcement cases, even when he has an interest?

So, I testified about this a lot. I think at some point in certain circumstances, presidential action could amount to an abuse of his power. Yes.

Let's take a case that, according to a witness before Congress yesterday, sounded like an abuse of power. Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, who said he was a whistleblower, said that in the Roger Stone case, he received pressure to change the sentencing recommendation in a way that he considered inappropriate. And he said he was told by his supervisor that was because of political pressure, because of a fear that the president would be displeased if another course was taken.

Right. Well, the supervisors have said that much of what he said simply false. So, [crosstalk] and the statements he made, he said were, he admitted were double hearsay. He had no direct information. He had never talked to anyone involved in the decision, whereas I actually made the decision. I was the decision maker in that case because there was a dispute. And usually what happens is, disputes, especially in high profile cases, come up to the attorney general. It's not unusual for there to be a dispute in a high-profile case and for it to be resolved by the attorney general. And what actually happened in that case is that the four prosecutors who had prosecuted the case, the first line, they wanted to recommend a seven to nine year sentence on Stone, and the U.S. attorney felt that was too severe and was not justified under the circumstances. And what I said was set forth all the relevant information and leave it to the judge's discretion to select the right decision, which is also not uncommon in the department. And that judge actually gave the sentence that I thought was correct, which was half of what the line prosecutors were recommending. They could not point to any case even remotely close to the seven to nine year sentence. The cases were essentially centered on about two and a half to three years. The judge gave him three years and four months, which I thought was a fair sentence under the circumstances. And it was essentially what I was proposing, or thought was fair. And so the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I made that decision based on what I was felt was fair to that person. Never discussed sentencing with the president. And that decision was made well before the president's tweet about that case.

Now, [crosstalk] regardless of his relationship with the president, he doesn't he doesn't deserve a break, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be treated, and singled out, and treated more harshly than everyone else.

You have indicated that the appropriate limit on a president's power is the people, is the next election. That the president has supervisory authority over law enforcement, that he can involve himself in a case, even if he has an interest in the case, and the appropriate remedy is the people can vote him out or keep him. What do you say to voters thinking about how to vote this year, who see these cases and see a pattern of a president who continually wants to interfere and actually does appear to interfere in cases where he has an interest?

Well, I would say taking them one at a time. There was a lot of hinky stuff in the Flynn case. Everyone knew that. Everyone was wondering why was this case ever brought? We actually went back and found documents that showed that there were a lot of irregularities in what the FBI did. And in fact, when this case was being argued in the appellate court, the appeals panel pointed out, 'Hey, if there were irregularities here, it isn't what Justice Department is doing now, it's what they did when they indicted Flynn.' So I would say that justice was, is being done in that case. I would also say that the same is true in the other case you mentioned, the Stone case. He got the sentence that everyone else would have gotten for that conduct. That's justice. That's the rule of law, treating like people alike.

And just to go to the third case what was the reason for removing Geoffrey Berman?

[crosstalk] That's personnel action, which of course is different. You know, in the criminal justice process, as I've made clear, it's very important that politics be kept out of that. Now, in this other matter, which is a personnel appointment, obviously all U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and can be removed by the president. And, you know, that's been for as long as there have been U.S. attorneys. And New York is one of the preeminent offices in the Justice Department. The president had never made an appointment to that office. Geoffrey Berman was interim. He was appointed by the court as a temporary U.S. attorney holding the fort. He was living on borrowed time from the beginning. And when a really strong, powerful candidate raised his hand, that is Jay Clayton, currently the chairman of the S.E.C., a prominent New York lawyer from Sullivan and Cromwell, very well-known and highly regarded, an independent, and he said that he was prepared to leave the government, was going back up, wanted to go back up to New York but very much would desire this job, I view that as an opportunity to put in a very strong person as a presidential appointment to that office.

And there was no consideration, or let me ask it a different way. Did you consider the possibility that some might find that inappropriate, given the matters that Mr. Berman was investigating and the president's interest in those matters?

I certainly was aware that given the current environment, anytime you make a personnel move, you know, conspiracy theorists will suggest that there's something, there's some ulterior motive involved. But I felt this was actually a good time to do it because I was not aware of anything that should in reality, give rise to that.

And let me circle back to that big question. How do you answer a voter who sees a pattern here of continually upholding the personal interests of the president?

Well, I'd say that there is no such pattern. I would say that that is a media narrative that has been adhered to, where things that happen all the time in the Department of Justice are misrepresented to the public and cast is somehow suspicious. I mean, do you think someone, do you think a 68-year-old man, with no prior criminal history record, should have gone to prison for a decade for what happened? You know, for misleading Congress? Show me a case where that's even remotely close. As I've said, the judge herself said that the case closest was the Scooter Libby case, who got about three years, and she gave three years and four months. So that's justice. That's what we call justice. And there was a Democratic senator who said that, you know, part of the job of the attorney general or being the attorney general is like being a sheriff standing in front of the jail. There's always the mob. And these days, the media is very prominent among the mob, who either want someone hung or they want him sprung. And part of what the Department of Justice is about and the attorney general is about, is ignoring the mob and the calls and the false narratives, and doing in each case what they think is right. Right and just for the individual, that's what I'm doing and that's why I'll continue to do.

Because you mentioned equal justice. Can you name a case or two where you have intervened so dramatically where the person involved was not connected to the president?

Off the top of my head, I'm sure there were a number of cases since I've been here that I've done that

You can't think of one but...

Well, frequently, cases, you know, we don't go discussing who's under investigation at any given time.

OK, but you're saying there are other cases where you have personally involved yourself in...

Yes. When cases come up, who do you think they come to? And why do you think we have one attorney general? We have 93 United States attorney's offices and we have 50 states. We don't run a department to have 50 different rules of law. We run a department that looks across the whole country to make sure people are treated equally. You can only do that if you have one office that's responsible for that. And that's me.

I read with interest, Attorney General, a speech you gave at Notre Dame, some time ago, came to my home state and did that. Thank you very much. And you promoted the idea of religious education. You also offered a particular idea of the founders who wrote the Constitution. You said that by and large, the founding generation were Christians and they were imbued with those values, which you'd like to continue today.

That's not exactly true [crosstalk]. I was talking about religion generally. Now, they were Christians and so if you're talking about them, they were Christians. But I was talking about the role of religion.

You're talking about the role of religion today.And speaking of Christians, then. Christianity has a particular view of human nature. What does it teach you that [the] president would do with completely unchecked power, with absolute power?

The president doesn't have unchecked power. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Lord [John Dalberg-] Acton famously said. So that's why we have a Constitution. And that's why, as I've given speeches about the presidency, I've pointed out that the real miracle of our, in Philadelphia was actually Article 2 of the Constitution, because many people sort of that the Cliff Notes version of our founding was that we fought against a king, and therefore we have to be very suspicious of presidential power. But actually, what happened was, after the Articles of Confederation and almost losing the Revolutionary War, the framers decided to frame a limited office of president.

That was, what most experts on the Constitution would say, is that they, what was unusual is they actually created a very strong office, but they hedged it in with a lot of limitations. It's not a king. It's four years. It's the only office elected by all the people of the United States, not just by a congressional district, but by all the people. It has inherently limited powers. Congress has most of the powers in the federal government. The president can't raise money or anything like that. So all the limitations that the Whigs, the English Whigs, wanted to put on the king have been put on the office of [the] president, it's a limited office. But in emergencies such as war, it has broad powers. And I have to say, Steve, one of the things that perplexes me about all these people who challenged me on the idea of executive power and its nature, they seem perfectly content to sit back and let governors, who are executives and have constitutions, make the most sweeping decisions about people's livelihood. Basically, putting the entire population in home detention and telling people that they have to shut down their livelihood and their business. And they leave that to the discretionary decision of governors. And I haven't heard the media at all saying, 'Hmm this is a pretty broad use of power. Where does it say in the Constitution they have that power?'

I have heard you, or your department, raise that question, specifically involving the governor of Hawaii who has imposed certain limitations for people to quarantine themselves when coming to Hawaii from out of state. The Justice Department has weighed in on a lawsuit against that restriction. Is this something that is of personal interest to you? Did you take part in that decision?

Yes, I've taken part in a lot of those decisions, but actually, that particular decision did not go to the whether or not the governor had the power, whether that was part of the executive power. What that went to is whether or not that was permissible to put those kinds of limits on interstate travel, because that is a constitutional right. And whether that was a reasonable restriction on interstate travel. So we raised that question.

The governor of Florida at one point had restrictions on people coming from out of state. Now, as the cases have shifted, and Florida's gone up and New York has gone down in numbers of cases, New York is imposing restrictions on people coming from out of state. Would you oppose those restrictions as well?

There are different kinds of restrictions, and the question is whether they're reasonable under the circumstances. For example, requiring someone to stay in 14 days of quarantine versus having a test where the results come back quickly. There are different ways of doing it.

I want to ask, Attorney General, about the Durham investigation while we have a few moments. There is a longstanding practice in the Department of Justice against releasing politically sensitive information close to an election. We're getting closer and closer to an election. Is there still time before the election for the Durham report to be known?

All right. Well, as I've said a few times, no one under investigation in the Durham matter is running for president. And I've said publicly that neither President Obama or Vice President Biden are under investigation. And I've also said I'm committed to having the American people have a free choice in this election between the candidates and I don't want the Department of Justice to be interfering in that.

The Durham investigation is another matter where the president has expressed very strong opinions. Does the president have the power under the Constitution to tell you how the Durham investigation needs to come out?

No.

He has supervisory authority [crosstalk].

To tell us how the investigation comes out? [crosstalk] An investigation of facts is an investigation of facts. I mean, even the president can't change facts.

He can't tell you to have the report come out a certain way? Regardless of the facts?

No, I don't think he can. I mean, I think Durham is going to report the facts.

So there is a limit on the president's interference in law enforcement then [crosstalk]. Underlying facts is what the limit is.

Yeah, I have said that, for example, if the president directed an attorney general to indict somebody where there was no predicate, no probable cause and no basis for the indictment, that would be a grave abuse of presidential power. And no attorney general would carry that out and be worth their salt. And I've said this in my confirmation. The president tells you to do something that has no legal basis like that, can't be justified under the law, then the attorney general shouldn't do it. The attorney general's responsibility is to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed.

What instruction, if any, has the president given you about assuring a secure election in 2020?

About what?

About assuring a secure election in 2020?

Well, our main focus has been obviously trying to ensure against foreign influence. And so we have a very strong program, interagency program, trying to monitor efforts by foreign countries to influence the election. And, you know, we're committed to trying to prevent that or if we can't prevent it, at least alert the American people as to what's going on. Other than that, the Department of Justice always is concerned about election fraud. And on every election, we're very attentive to whether there's election fraud.

Some people noticed when you raised concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, as the president also has very loudly and said without evidence that there is a lot of fraud or can be a lot of fraud, you raised a specific concern about foreign entities counterfeiting ballots and mailing them in.

Well, I think there's a range of concerns about mail-in ballots. And let me just clarify here. I'm not talking about a mail-in ballot for a limited number of cases where somebody, you know, is going to be traveling around the world, and the way that the state has provided for that is, you mail in your ballot. I'm talking about a comprehensive rule where all the ballots are essentially mail-in, and there's so many occasions for fraud there that cannot be policed. I think it would be very bad. But one of the things I mentioned was the possibility of counterfeiting.

Did you have evidence to raise that specific concern?

No, it's obvious.

It's obvious that it can be done.

Of course, we got to a lot of, why do you think we go to the problems we do in crafting single dollar bills?

Sure.

Because, make it hard to counterfeit. Now--

Do they not also go through procedures like that with mail-in ballots?

You've seen them. They're pretty primitive.

Kim Wyman, the attorney general of Washington State, was on NPR and was told about your concern, and said, I wish Attorney General Barr would come out and see the security measures that we do have. She's a Republican.Would you take up that offer?

Well, I'm not sure I'm going to go out to Washington state [crosstalk] right now. Glad to call her up [crosstalk]. But, you know, I don't think Washington state has much experience dealing with our adversaries' intelligence services.

Are you able to share any evidence that intelligence agencies have gathered that any foreign entities have targeted this area?

I think foreign entities are — I have specific reason to believe that there are a number of foreign countries that do want to sow discord in the United States by undermining confidence in the results of the election. And I think if we do adopt programs of mail-in, that will be an area which they will exploit. And I think you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Do you believe that an election conducted mainly by mail can be secure?

Personally, no. I mean, we just mailed out checks under this program. And what is it? I heard something like 20 percent or something were misdirected.

You think the same thing could happen with millions of mail-in ballots?

I know things can happen like that. Because I know people move, a very high percentage in the United States, people move all the time. And I also know that you can easily take things out of mailboxes.

One other thing, Attorney General, regarding the recent protests. You made statements raising concerns about left-wing extremists in the protests and your named Antifa, specifically. One of our correspondents looked earlier this month. I believe it was June 9. And while a number of people have been arrested in connection with the protests, and a good number of crimes were committed, as a matter of fact, there was no record of someone connected with any Antifa organization, and it's not really an organization, who had been named up to that point in prosecutions. You did say around that time that there had been not public information regarding Antifa. Are you able to say now, a couple of weeks later, that anyone has been arrested in connection with that activity you named?

Yes, but...[crosstalk]

Someone with Antifa? Someone with some antifascist organization?

Yes, but when we arrest people and charge them at this stage anyway, we don't charge them for being a member of Antifa. We charge them for throwing a Molotov cocktail, or we charge them for possession of a gun, or possession of gasoline and things to make bombs with. Those are the kinds of charges that are filed. Even less sensational charges, such as battery. But we are building, we are obtaining information and intelligence about the operations of these people. Do you really? I mean, do watch the videotapes of these demonstrations?

I've watched the videotapes [crosstalk].

You don't see agitators in hoodies with earpieces, you know, distributing things to throw and things like that? You don't see that? You don't see people walking through districts with high-end stores, methodically breaking out the windows with sledgehammers or skateboards? Who are they?

Saw lots of break ins. Absolutely.

Not break-ins and looting. This was not looting. No, no. You obviously haven't been watching these videos as we have been watching them. [crosstalk]

I've been out on the streets. And there have been specific crimes that seem to have been committed under the cover of the protests, as well as any kind of engineered violence. But wouldn't you have, if you had somebody who was a member of an extremist group, wouldn't you have mentioned that, and your prosecutors would have mentioned that, in the bail hearing? Like there'd be a public record, that you had evidence of extremists?

Well, at this stage, being a member of a group, and Antifa is really sort of an umbrella term [crosstalk] used for a number of groups. There are a number of groups that have specific names that we're aware of that are Anti-- that's why I've said Antifa-type groups, that some of the people that have been arrested and some of the people that have been charged and some of the people that are under investigation, we have approximately 300 investigations right now, nationwide, do identify as Antifa. So I'm not sure, you know.

OK. Can I ask about one more thing that's on my mind? You were asked about systemic racism the other day in law enforcement, and you said, if I may summarize briefly, it's not really there. It was at one time. It was on the books. It was part of the law. The laws have been removed and there are still problems, but law enforcement is working on that. And I wonder...

I was talking about police departments.

Police departments are working on that. And I want to acknowledge that police departments and a lot of parts of the country do work on that. And yet, statistically, just to pick one statistic, a black man in the United States, statistically, is far more likely to be shot by a police officer than someone of a different race. Why do you think that is?

Well, there are 8,000 Blacks who are killed every year. Eighty-five percent of them are killed by gunshots. Virtually all of those are Blacks on Blacks. I think that there are a number of the statistics on police shootings of unarmed, unarmed individuals are not skewed toward the African American. There are many whites who are shot unarmed by police. Now, those numbers, as I said, have been going down in the past. Five years ago it was 38 African-Americans who were unarmed were shot by police. Thirty-eight in a year. This past year it was 10. Of those six were physically attacking the police when they were shot. So these are not events that happen every day. I know that the media is very interested them, as everyone is interested in them [crosstalk]. Well, everyone's interested in it. But I think the media is ignoring the fact that 8,000 African Americans are killed by crime in high-crime areas, and 10 were killed last year by police, six of whom were under attack when they shot. So you have to put it in perspective. And that's why, you know, I think it is wrong to demonize all the police and all the police departments, as you know, systemically racist and going out looking to shoot unarmed black men. I've seen some cases where it appeared gratuitous, and obviously, those are serious cases and are pursued by the Department of Justice's civil rights violations, which is the statute we have to address those issues. But some of them, while use of excessive force, you know ... during struggles and other things. So I think you have to put these in perspective.

I keep saying final question and it keeps not being true because I keep getting more I want to ask you. You have raised concerns about the direction of the country and the direction the government, the direction of presidential power over the last several decades. Now we're in this period of conflict and chaos, which can be fairly said, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, this is a, this is a disturbing time for many people. Do you look out at the country and see a country that is moving toward a better place in the right direction, now that some of these issues have been joined from your perspective?

Some of which issues?

Well, the issues that have been fought over in the last several years regarding race, regarding the economy, regarding presidential power, regarding everything else. Do you feel the conflicts of this time are working us toward a better country or not so?

I think, you know, I think America was making a lot of progress on race. I mean, we elected Barack Obama as president. I think the economy was becoming more inclusive. And I think Blacks were participating more in the economy and at record numbers. But I do think that there are some impediments to the advancement of African Americans in society. The principal, one of the principal ones, not the principal one, is that they are being deprived of equal opportunity to attend good schools. And that's, I think that's one of the civil rights issues of our time. I think that they should we should essentially give these inner-city families the buying power to send their kids wherever they want to send them.

I was thinking larger even than race, though. You've raised a question of a society that is in some kind of moral trouble, that is losing its bearings. Do you think that in the conflicts of these last few years, the society is beginning to regain its bearings as you would like them to be?

Yeah, I think I think under President Trump's leadership, with the growing opportunity and some of the stands that he's taken, have put us on a better track. Now, I think what's happened in the last few weeks is a combination of things. I think the people out committing the destruction and the chaos, as you say, they're actually a fairly small group. And I don't think they're representative of what America wants, what they think. I think it's a small group that's deliberately trying to create chaos. And I also think the morale of the country right now has been affected by the pandemic. And that's another factor there. But I do think that as we come out of the pandemic and our economy rebounds, that we do have a promising future.

Attorney General, thank you so much. Thank you.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Happy Pi Day! - Boo Boo Barr Trains His Minions To Take Over The U.S. By A Foreign Nation State Using RFRA - Parental Rights

Happy Pi Day!

Oh, Boo Boo Barr!

How many times do I have to tell you it is not good to let foreign nation states take over the U.S.?

Bad, Boo Boo Barr.

Very naughty.

Oh, Happy Pi Day!

Justice Dept. Religious Freedom Training Spurs Concern Among Lawyers

Some department lawyers expressed worries that the workshops were held to teach ways to limit civil rights protections for gay and transgender people.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department this week hosted training for its lawyers on religious liberty laws as part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s push to prioritize religious freedom cases, but the workshops prompted concern among some career lawyers that they were being educated on ways to blunt civil rights protections for gay and transgender people.

Lawyers who worked at the Justice Department during the past three administrations could not recall a similar week of training sessions on any topic.

The training week was part of an ongoing campaign at the department to bolster ​its work to​ protect religious freedom, which is regularly described by top leaders as the first right protected by the First Amendment​, a department official said in response to a request for comment. ​

In an email to employees sent on behalf of department leaders last weekend about the training, the department said that its leaders were proud of the work “done over the past year to promote religious freedom,” including prosecutions related to land use, education and employment.

Last month, the department filed a statement of interest in federal court in Kentucky that supported the right of a photographer not to work at same-sex weddings; she said it would violate her religious beliefs. And last fall the Justice Department supported an appeals case in Maine, saying that a state law banning religious schools from the state’s school tuition program was unconstitutional.

Both filings were a departure from the department’s positions under the Obama administration and have drawn criticism from gay rights activists as well as supporters of a sharp separation between church and state.

The training, the first of its kind, was voluntary. It was meant to improve employees’ understanding of their own free exercise ​of religious ​rights in the workplace​, as well as the department’s ​resources for protecting places of worship and individual religious rights, according to the department official.

But career lawyers said that they feared the department was working to further the use of religious freedom in ways that would push back efforts to protect gay and transgender people from discrimination, according to emails and messages reviewed by The New York Times.

Some lawyers cited the department’s support of the photographer in Kentucky and its support of a Colorado baker whose refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was upheld by the Supreme Court. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a Justice Department event to celebrate religious freedom that the baker, Jack Phillips, was courageous and that Western culture was increasingly “less hospitable to people of faith.”

Vanita Gupta, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, accused Mr. Barr of using the Justice Department to promote his religious beliefs.

“In speeches and statements, he says that civil society is being undermined by a move away from religiosity,” she said. “He wants to use civil rights statutes and the D.O.J. to redeem what he views as the corrupted soul of America.”

The department’s civil rights division has also undertaken work more in keeping with past administrations. In January, Mr. Barr also met with Jewish leaders in Brooklyn to discuss a nationwide rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes. Prosecutors also secured a guilty plea from a Louisiana man charged with intentionally setting fire to three black Baptist churches in violation of the Church Arson Prevention Act.

The training sessions focused on topics including protections for religious land use, the religious rights of prisoners, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, protecting places of worship, and the religious liberty rights of employees under federal law.

“Religious liberty is a core American value and a top priority for the department,” the department said in the email about the training.

“We pledge to protect the free exercise of religion when we take our oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution.’ We do so out of respect for the conscience of our fellow citizens and to preserve the civil society in which our liberal democracy can flourish.”

The email echoes remarks that Mr. Barr made last month at the National Religious Broadcasters’ annual convention, where he said that “Augustinian Christianity” is at the root of the our democracy, and that Americans “providentially enjoy its blessings today.”

“In my view, liberal democracy has reached its fullest expression in the Anglo-American political system,” Mr. Barr said. “The wellsprings of this system are found in Augustinian Christianity.”

Attendees said that no religion was prioritized over another during the training sessions, which were led by departments officials from the office of the principal deputy associate attorney general, Claire McCusker Murray; the Civil Rights Division; the Community Relations Service; and various U.S. attorneys’ offices.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

New York City Bar To Bar Bill Barr From The Bar For Promulgating The Trafficking Of Tiny Humans

Bill *Boo Boo* Barr
"Praise the tax exempt god."

Here is the speech that triggered the referral.

DOJ: Bill Barr Contemporaneously Advises & Advocates Foreign Corporate Parental Rights - Happy Trafficking Tiny Humans Month

I tried to tell Boo Boo Barr that is was not cool to promulgate the purveying and procuring of tiny humans, particularly by foreign corporations, but he did not want to listen to me.

Bill Barr Delivers Gerrymandering Conservation Speech To Federalist Society For Trafficking Tiny Humans Month

It really does not matter because Trump was never duly elected, which means his appointment and confirmation was illegitimate, but, hey, what do I know?

I know Boo Boo Barr lied to Uncle Chucky in a Senate Judiciary Hearing about the False Claims Act.

DOJ: Bill Barr Addresses The National Association of Attorneys General 2019 Capital Forum - No Mention Of Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare Or Parental Rights

Oh, well.

I really tried to tell him.

#maytheheavensfall

New York City Bar Association asks Congress to investigate Barr conduct

The New York City Bar Association is calling on congressional leaders to launch an investigation into Attorney General William Barr, saying his public remarks threaten "public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice."

“These public statements by Mr. Barr also contravene the norms applicable to his office and warrant further investigation by Congress as part of an inquiry into Mr. Barr’s conduct as Attorney General more generally,” the group wrote in a six-page letter sent Wednesday to the top Democrat and Republican in each chamber.

Among the examples cited by the bar association was an October speech at the University of Notre Dame, posted on the Justice Department website, in which the attorney general said “the founding generation … believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man” and that “Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.”

Other examples cited in the letter include a speech Barr gave at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention in November, when he allegedly “vilified progressives,” and an interview last month where he “rejected the inspector general’s findings, asserting instead that a separate ongoing investigation into the FBI’s actions that he personally had directed would likely reach a different conclusion.”

The Justice Department's inspector general released a report in December that found FBI agents were not motivated by political bias in opening investigations into associates of the Trump campaign in 2016. Barr later disputed some aspects of the report.

This is not the first time that the group has criticized Barr. In October, they called for Barr to recuse himself from a Justice Department review of the Trump administration's dealings with Ukraine.

Exercising Congressional Oversight AG Barr 1-8-2020 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

TRUMP Presents - The Judeo-Christian Evangelicals & The Industry Of Trafficking Tiny Humans

The heavens begin to fall as we descend into the darkest, deepest realms of spiritual implosion.

#maytheheavensfall

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Bill Barr Addresses The National Association of Attorneys General 2019 Capital Forum - No Mention Of Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare Or Parental Rights

Boo Boo Barr!

But, what about Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare?

What about the States Attorneys General Medicaid Fraud Control Units?

How about addressing Parental Rights, and not just corporate parental rights of foreign corporations?

We need to talk...

Remember this?

Michigan Medicaid Fraud To Be Discussed In Appropriations

I was watching this youtuber who goes by the name of John Oloughlin who mentioned that you were Opus Dei.

I figured that the only way he knew this was because he was also Opus Dei.

He went to the Red Mass of the John Caroll Society of the Archdiocese of Washington.

My Sweetie never went to that Mass.

https://web.archive.org/web/20151214055757/http://www.johncarrollsociety.org/jcs-membership/the-red-mass/index.aspx

This is about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops operating as a foreign corporation.

The Tale Of Burisma, Hunter Biden, Taggart Romney, Their Daddies, Deutsche Bank & Trafficking Tiny Human Trust Funds With Catholic Charities

This is about Catholic Charities where Hunter Biden seems to have an association when it comes to Foster Care and Adoption.

The John Caroll Society is not incorporated bu the OPUS Group, LLC is a business that seems to get lots and lots of federal contracts.

Opus Dei likes the tiny humans.

Opus Dei seems to be centered in Kiev, Ukraine.

There are lots of trafficking tiny human trust fund operations going on, over there, and in Detroit.

The Cathedral of St. Nicholas is glorious in Kiev and seems to have a strong presence in Michigan.

https://opusdei.org/uk-ua/

I just thought I would share.

I like to share.

Would you like me to share some more stuff?

Very well.....stop stealin' the children, land & votes.

Washington, DC

 ~

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Good afternoon.  Thank you General Landry for that kind introduction, and thank you to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) for inviting me to join you today.  It is an honor and privilege to be here with my fellow attorneys general.

Through the Executive Working Group and in various operations, we are working together on several important law enforcement priorities.  Elder Justice is a personal priority for me, and I know the State AGs have been leading the charge for many years.  Derrick Schmidt’s Presidential initiative highlighted the impact of this important issue.  Each year, over three billion dollars are stolen or defrauded from millions of America’s elderly through a variety of malicious scams.  The State AGs are on the front line in this fight to protect the elderly from being exploited, and I pledge the Department’s full support in that effort.     

Similarly, human trafficking is an extremely important law enforcement issue for both the DOJ and the States AGs.  Attorneys General Paxton, Healey, Bacerra, Reyes and many others have been leaders in this vital effort.  We worked together to take down backpage.com, and we continue to engage our state partners though our Human Trafficking Prosecutorial Unit.  We look forward to continuing that work with you to make more progress in the year ahead.  

In addition to these important priorities, another topic that involves almost every AG in this room and one that also benefits from close federal-state cooperation is the review into market-leading online platforms. 

I. Benefits of Broad State AG Support on Review of Market-Leading Online Platforms

In DC, it’s hard to find many things that everyone agrees on.  One thing that has found wide and bi-partisan support, however, is the government taking a closer look at the leading online platforms and the competitiveness of digital markets.

Online platforms play an important role in our economy and in Americans’ daily lives, often serving as gateways for how we access goods, services, information and even each other. 

A few digital platforms in particular have enjoyed significant growth over the past decade.  Consumers now depend on these platforms every day.  Their size and pervasiveness have led to public concerns about the competitive health of these digital markets. 

We’ve heard widespread concerns from consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs, including about stagnated innovation, high prices, lack of choice, privacy, transparency, and public safety.  In response, DOJ initiated a review into market-leading online platforms, which we announced publicly last July. 

Concerns about online platforms have come from a wide variety of stakeholders, across the political spectrum.  Indeed, almost every State AG is now participating in publicly announced antitrust investigations of Google and Facebook.  I’ve had the benefit of meeting with representatives of these groups at the Department, and believe we have a good cooperative relationship in these efforts.

This is not the first time that the Department of Justice has cooperated with a bi-partisan coalition of State AGs on an antitrust matter involving a digital platform.

When the Department of Justice litigated a case against Microsoft roughly 20 years ago for antitrust violations, it was joined by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia.  There are still those in the Department and State AG community, including my friend Tom Miller, who were closely involved and remember it well.

Today, the State AG coalitions investigating Google and Facebook are even bigger than in Microsoft, including almost every state and federal territory.  I think this demonstrates the importance of these issues to Americans across the country, regardless of location or political persuasion.

II. Benefits of a Broad, Holistic Perspective

The benefits of a broad approach to online platforms go beyond building a federal-state partnership.  A broader, holistic perspective is also important as we consider substantive issues raised by the digital economy, both within and outside of the arena of antitrust.

Let me start with antitrust.  Antitrust is a core focus of the Department’s review into market-leading platforms because, ultimately, fair competition can cure many of the ills we see.  In a functioning free market, consumers can demand alternatives that better address their preferences, including for greater privacy, more transparency, or increased safety.  For consumer choice and the free market to work, however, firms have to be playing by the established rules of competition. That’s where antitrust enforcement steps in.

Many online platforms are not only big, but also offer a wide breadth of products and services.  Antitrust enforcers therefore must take an equally broad view of these platforms’ offerings, and the relationships between different markets, products, and business practices.

Let me touch on a few examples of where a broader perspective is useful in an antitrust analysis.

First, a broader perspective requires understanding the characteristics of the market.  This includes looking at whether there are high barriers to entry that prevent or deter new competitors.  For example, digital platform markets are often characterized by economies of scale and scope, including direct and indirect network effects. 

Take, for example, direct network effects in social media.  The more users on the same social media platform, the more valuable that platform is overall.  There are benefits to consumers from being on the same network as their friends and family.  At the same time, the existence of such network effects can make it harder for a new platform to attract users.  

This positive feedback loop is also inherent in platforms that rely on data and machine-learning.  For example, generally speaking, the more data a search engine has, the better its algorithms for search results can be.  The better the algorithm, the more users it can attract, and with them comes even more data.  And the cycle starts anew. 

Digital platforms can also have indirect network effects, meaning the more users on one side of the platform increases the value to users on the other side of the platform. 

In Microsoft, for example, there were indirect network effects that created what the court described as an “applications barrier to entry.”  The more consumers that used the Microsoft operating system, the more attractive the platform was to application developers.  Conversely, the more applications that were on the Microsoft operating system, the more attractive the platform was for users.  These indirect network effects created a barrier to entry that helped protect Microsoft’s monopoly. 

Network effects are not inherently problematic.  However, where strong network effects create a significant barrier to entry, it can lead to increased market power, which in turn can be used in anticompetitive ways.  

Given these dynamics, antitrust enforcers must be particularly vigilant to police for agreements and conduct that harm the competitive process.

Similarly, market power is not itself wrongful.  As I’ve said before, big is not necessarily bad.  Healthy competition creates winners and losers, and the prospect of winning (and the profits that come with it) can drive innovation in the first place.  Success that comes from creating a better, more innovative product should be applauded.  The danger, however, is that a monopolist (even one who earned that status lawfully) can be tempted to use their power to engage in anticompetitive conduct to preserve their dominant position. 

Moreover, the existence of market power can change the competitive effects of a business practice.  Conduct that may be procompetitive for a new entrant can become anticompetitive if undertaken by the incumbent 800 pound gorilla.  

For example, exclusivity agreements by a new entrant can increase competition by enabling a competitor to attract users with unique offerings, even in markets with strong network effects.  At the same time, exclusive dealing by a monopolist could have the opposite effect by depriving rivals of the inputs or scale necessary to compete. 

Bundling, tying, predatory pricing, and certain refusals to deal are other examples of conduct that can become problematic when undertaken by a firm with market or monopoly power. 

As digital firms transition from being the disruptive new entrant into an established market leader, they should pay attention to the impact of their business practices.  So too should the antitrust enforcers.

Second, in addition to understanding the dynamics within a market, like barriers to entry and market power, we also need to look at relationships between markets.  This is especially important because today’s digital platforms frequently operate across multiple areas.  

A dominant firm may seek to leverage its monopoly power in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another.  In the Microsoft case, for example, a key concern was that Microsoft was abusing its dominant position in operating systems to foreclose competition in browsers. 

The relationships between markets can be even more complex in the digital age, with the emergence of new business models and an increasingly important role of data.  Law enforcers need to better understand how consumer data is collected, used, and shared within a firm and with third parties.  Such antitrust inquiries generally require a broader perspective and deeper understanding of how each of these markets function.

Third, taking a broader perspective is particularly important in the context of “free” online services.  Digital platforms are not charities.  When they offer services to consumers for “free,” that just means they are making money somewhere else, either through a different product, from different consumers, or at a different point in time. 

The increasing prevalence and complexity of “free” digital services may require a broader perspective.

For example, antitrust enforcers may need to look beyond the free service to better understand a firm’s monetization strategy and incentives.  Enforcers also may need to look more closely at non-price effects.  Fortunately, the long-standing consumer welfare standard enables us to analyze non-price effects on competition, including on quality, innovation, and consumer choice. 

A broader perspective also requires looking beyond antitrust.  As we listen to complaints from the public, industry, and experts, it has become clear that not every problem related to online platforms comes within the reach of antitrust law. 

Some have therefore proposed expanding the antitrust laws to reach other non-economic harms.  Drastically re-inventing the antitrust laws, however, is neither easy nor advisable.  The Sherman Act has been around for over a century and has proved flexible enough to adapt to a wide variety of industries, including digital platforms.  We are open to considering new tools and targeted modifications, but a wholesale departure from the antitrust laws’ focus on competition is unwarranted.

While we should not distort the antitrust laws, the Department of Justice also cannot ignore real harms to the American people.  Where there are non-competition harms, the Department will consider whether there are other tools – including other legal or policy frameworks – that can help.  We are thinking critically about how the Department, and our state and federal partners, can address other topics related to online platforms, such as privacy, transparency, consumer fraud, child exploitation, or public safety.

One example of a non-antitrust issue related to online platforms is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  Generally speaking, Section 230 provides immunity to interactive computer services for third-party content on their platforms. 

As this group well knows, there is currently a robust public debate over Section 230.  The NAAG sent a letter to Congress last May, proposing an amendment that would carve out U.S. state and territorial criminal law from the current scope of Section 230 immunity.  We, too, are studying Section 230 and its scope. 

The CDA was passed in 1996 in response to concerns about protecting children from sexually explicit content on the internet.  Section 230 was enacted primarily for two purposes.

The primary purpose of the amendment was to encourage platforms to self-regulate by granting immunity for blocking or filtering offensive material.  In particular, the amendment aimed to overrule a 1995 state court decision that treated an online message board as a publisher of third-party content, and thus liable for defamation, because the service restricted access to some, but not other, objectionable material.

Another purpose was to encourage the growth of online forums by immunizing platforms against liability for third party speech.  Section 230 was passed at a time where the internet was relatively new, and Congress wanted to protect the growth of online services and the ability for the internet to offer “a forum for true diversity of political discourse.” 

Section 230 has been interpreted quite broadly by the courts.  Today, many are concerned that Section 230 immunity has been extended far beyond what Congress originally intended.  Ironically, Section 230 has enabled platforms to absolve themselves completely of responsibility for policing their platforms, while blocking or removing third-party speech – including political speech – selectively, and with impunity. 

Some also question whether such a broad immunity is still necessary to protect online companies.  Indeed, ten years ago, a Ninth Circuit opinion denying Section 230 immunity in part remarked: “The Internet is no longer a fragile new means of communication that could easily be smothered in the cradle by overzealous enforcement of laws and regulations applicable to brick-and-mortar businesses.”  Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1164 n. 15 (9th Cir. 2008).  In other words, the opinion stated:  “the Internet has outgrown its swaddling clothes and no longer needs to be so gently coddled.”  Id. at 1175, n. 39.

The staggering breadth of Section 230 immunity, as construed by the courts, is evident in a recent Second Circuit opinion involving the Anti-Terrorism Act.  See Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019).  There, the court held that Facebook was immune under Section 230 for allegedly matching and facilitating communications between members of the terrorist group Hamas.  The court denied plaintiff’s argument that Facebook’s algorithms and friend-matching service rendered it a “non-publisher” outside the scope of Section 230.  Id. at 66.

Chief Judge Katzmann dissented in part, criticizing the virtually limitless scope of Section 230 immunity imposed by some courts.  He argued that providing immunity for the steps Facebook took to connect alleged terrorists through algorithm and friend suggestions was far removed from the original purpose of the CDA to protect children against obscene material online.  He called for Congress to revisit the CDA to “better calibrate the circumstances where such immunization is appropriate and inappropriate in light of congressional purposes.”  Id. at 77.

Chief Judge Katzmann is not alone in his calls for reform.  Section 230 has garnered significant attention from experts, consumer groups, and legislators.  Within DOJ, we also have started thinking critically this issue. 

The purpose of Section 230 was to protect the “good Samaritan” interactive computer service that takes affirmative steps to police its own platform for unlawful or harmful content.  Granting broad immunity to platforms that take no efforts to mitigate unlawful behavior or, worse, that purposefully blind themselves — and law enforcers — to illegal conduct occurring on, or facilitated by, the online spaces they create, is not consistent with that purpose. 

We want to engage further with experts, industry, and other government actors, including the NAAG, through informal discussions as well as a public workshop.

III. Coordination is Key

As we look at Section 230, antitrust, and other issues raised by the online platforms, it is important to take a coordinated approach. 

The issues raised by online platforms are interrelated, and we sometimes must weigh competing interests in forming positions related to the digital economy. 

Privacy is a good example.  Overbroad and overly burdensome privacy legislation could inhibit competition by entrenching monopolists with the resources to comply, while thwarting newer entrants who do not have those resources.

A single-minded focus on privacy, above all other values, also can impose significant costs, including costs to public safety.  I have, for example, spoken before about the dangers of warrant-proof encryption.  I won’t repeat myself here, but would simply reiterate that technological innovations that purport to protect privacy at all costs – while impeding sworn law enforcers’ ability to go after violent criminals, child predators, human traffickers, and terrorists, even once the enforcers satisfied the rigorous privacy protections built into the Fourth Amendment — may not be worth the trade-off.

High level coordination in our review of market-leading online platforms also helps avoid imposing conflicting obligations or inconsistent policy positions.  This requires coordination both within and outside DOJ. 

While we have some of the best and brightest at the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and across the Department working on these issues, we benefit from the perspective and support of our State AG, federal, and international partners.  We are also welcoming consumers, businesses, experts, and others to talk and work with us to address the challenges of the digital age.

***

The technology industry in America has brought great innovations to consumers in the US and around the world.  We must continue to encourage and incentivize innovation and economic growth.  This means not unfairly punishing innovators that have earned their success on the merits.  But it also means making sure markets are competitive and open to the next wave of technological change. 

As law enforcers, we also must keep up with technological advancements to best protect our citizens.  This is why we have made the review of market-leading online platforms a top priority of the Department. 

The State AG community plays a very important role in this endeavor.  On behalf of DOJ, I thank you all for your valuable partnership and look forward to our continued work together on this and many other initiatives.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DOJ: Bill Barr Contemporaneously Advises & Advocates Foreign Corporate Parental Rights - Happy Trafficking Tiny Humans Month

Uh...Bill...Precious....

It is legal to procure and purvey tiny humans under christian chattel law, but today we call it modern day human trafficking.

Bill...Baby....why are you advocating for these Catholic Archdioceses which are engaged in pending and ongoing state litigation?

Have you been talking to Maura Corrigan?

Why are you advocating children's trust funds for foreign corporations?

Why are you, in the same breath, advising for these christian children's trust funds, which just so happen to be foreign corporations?

You do know all these trafficking tiny human issues are before SCOTUS, right?

I thought you were supposed to be the U.S. Attorney General, so why are you advocating for the transfer of the right of due process of a civil society over to foreign corporations to possess the privatized parental rights over children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth)?

When a child is involuntarily placed under the auspices of a private, foreign corporation, to whom does a U.S. citizen file a grievance?

The Holy See?

Bill.....

          Bill.....

                     Bill....

Please stop promulgating the global industry of trafficking of tiny humans.

It is not cool to snatch and sell children, but it is even more uncooler when the U.S. Attorney General is advocating for a foreign corporation, called the Vatican.

And it is really, really not cool to defend the nasty things the nasty people in the christian-judeo community do, as Public Private Partnerships, cashing out those Social Impact Bonds through Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare.

Are you defending the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, because if you are, I strongly encourage you to check out their legal instruments of operation.

Of course, I know you are not preparing to defend the Archidiocese of Detroit stealin' the children, land and votes, because Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is approaching this subject matter.

Oh Bill....

The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is not pleased and is quite sure you have yet to read my book on Parental Rights.

Praise the lord for the heavens shall fall.

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame

South Bend, IN

 ~

Friday, October 11, 2019

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Tom, for your kind introduction. Bill and Roger, it’s great to be with you.

Thank you to the Notre Dame Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture for graciously extending an invitation to address you today. I’d also like to express gratitude to Tony de Nicola, whose generous support has shaped – and continues to shape – countless minds through examination of the Catholic moral and intellectual tradition.

Today, I would like to share some thoughts with you about religious liberty in America. It’s an important priority in this Administration and for this Department of Justice.

We have set up a task force within the Department with different components that have equities in this area, including the Solicitor General’s Office, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, and other offices. We have regular meetings. We keep an eye out for cases or events around the country where states are misapplying the Establishment Clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith, or cases where states adopt laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion.

From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before.

They crafted a magnificent charter of freedom – the United States Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.

This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.

In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.

There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.

That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.

But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.

The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society.

They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition.

These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.

Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.

Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their appetites.... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.

They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”

This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:

“Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but over time the harm is real.

Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules – its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.

I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack.

On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.

On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.

Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.

In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.

Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.

As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is more casualities in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.

I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.

Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But where is the progress?

We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can sustain human social life?

The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.

Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without religion.

We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?

What we call "values" today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.

Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has been shaken.

In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if things go too far.

The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.

This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the “pendulum will swing back.”

But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back.

First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.

Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.

Part of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our life have any meaning or purpose? But, as Blaise Pascal observed, instead of grappling with these questions, humans can be easily distracted from thinking about the “final things.”

Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.

There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.

In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.

But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad consequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.

So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.

The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.

The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on which we depend.

Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society.  It can be called the system of “macro-morality.”  It is in some ways an inversion of Christian morality.

Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation. 

The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. One’s morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather on their commitment to political causes and collective action to address social problems.

This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our private lives, while we find salvation on the picket-line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that.

Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these moral systems. I was attending Mass at a parish I did not usually go to in Washington, D.C.  At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee got up to give his report to the parish. He pointed to the growing homeless problem in D.C. and explained that more mobile soup kitchens were needed to feed them. This being a Catholic church, I expected him to call for volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the visits that the Committee had made to the D.C. government to lobby for higher taxes and more spending to fund mobile soup kitchen.

A third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.

Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.

First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then, the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on.

More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit - they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief. 

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice. 

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate. 

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty. 

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.  Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.  The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program.  And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.”  Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds.

The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.

A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’ teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarity between the sexes.

This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon dismiss the case. 

Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the State requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents. In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values; those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave. 

At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are starved of funds – students who would otherwise choose to attend them are told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere. 

Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort and, eventually, will undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation if they adhere to their religious character.  If these measures are successful, those with religious convictions will become still more marginalized. 

I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our country.

But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back toward sanity.

As Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made this country great.

And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal private lives.

We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world beyond ourselves.

This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of our church.

Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our children.

Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.

We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and Notre Dame.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©