MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Covid Anal Swab: Another Instrument of State Terror – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 3, 2021

Governments’ obvious objective of inflicting this abuse and humiliation upon their people is to make the populations completely docile and submissive.

This is what dystopia looks like.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/vasko-kohlmayer/the-covid-anal-swab-another-instrument-of-state-terror/

By Vasko Kohlmayer

If you ever needed any proof that this whole COVID pandemic is nothing more than an excuse for governments to subdue, control and screw over their populations, you need to look no further than the latest procedure that is coming your way.

It is called the COVID anal swab.

When I first heard of it, I thought it must have been some kind of joke or a meme. I did my research, however, and found out that it was indeed true. In China they are already merrily at it.

You can be sure it is only a matter of time before the anal swab makes an appearance within our shores.

The twisted absurdity of this testing protocol should be obvious at first sight. COVID-19 – they tell us – is a disease of the respiratory track caused by a strain of coronavirus. To test for the presence of organisms that cause respiratory illness, throat specimens are normally taken.

Why, then, do they now insert sticks two inches up people’s anuses to look for organisms that cause infection in the throat? As far as this writer knows, COVID-19 is the first respiratory disease for which diagnosis via anal route is sought.

The so-called “scientists” behind this travesty claim that the purpose of the test is to ensure that a person does not have COVID even when a deep nasopharyngeal swab yields no positives. Thus, even after the heavily pro-COVID skewed PCR testing of the nasopharyngeal specimen – which produces unduly large numbers of false positives – shows a person to be disease-free, they go on digging into people’s rear ends looking for the evidence of a virus whose existence they cannot even demonstrate. But what is the logic of doing this, given the fact that a person who has no coronavirus in the nose or throat cannot infect others through normal social contact?

They keep telling us that COVID-19 spreads through saliva, which is the very reason why we must wear masks. Per Wikipedia:

“COVID-19 spreads from person to person mainly through the respiratory route after an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks or breathes. A new infection occurs when virus-containing particles exhaled by an infected person, either respiratory droplets or aerosols, get into the mouth, nose, or eyes of other people who are in close contact with the infected person.”

If this is so, why are they swabbing the rectums of those whose saliva specimen clearly indicate the absence of this respiratory disease?

Yang Zhanqiu, the deputy director of the pathogen biology department at Wuhan University, pointed out the ludicrous nature of this testing regime. He told the Chinese publication The Global Times “that since the virus has been proven to be contracted via the upper respiratory tract rather than the digestive system, the most efficient tests are still nasal and throat swabs.”

Yes, exactly. Even a child can see this. And yet in China children are among the first targets of this gratuitous forced sodomization. According to WebMD:

“Some people who have been subjected to anal testing include passengers arriving in Beijing and a group of more than 1,000 schoolchildren and teachers who were thought to have been exposed to the virus.”

The purpose of this procedure is obviously not to trace the virus but to further demoralize, humiliate and break the populations.

First, governments told us we could not leave our homes, and if we truly needed to go out, we had to wear diapers over our faces. When many lost their jobs, businesses and livelihoods, they told them to keep their mouths shut. Then they began poking six-inch sticks into people’s nostrils in a procedure that many found highly unpleasant and traumatizing. Not surprisingly, this psychological, economic and medical terror left large portions of the population demoralized, desperate and depressed. Addictions skyrocketed and so did suicides.

Now, in the ultimate act of domination they will dispatch agents of the state to drive probes up the citizenry’s rear ends under the pretense of looking for a virus that causes disease in the throat and lungs. And they will order you to undergo this procedure if you want to go out for a walk or take public transport. This is as much an affront to common sense as it is an afront to human dignity.

Governments’ obvious objective of inflicting this abuse and humiliation upon their people is to make the populations completely docile and submissive.

This is what dystopia looks like.

It is time for people to rise up and say, “We’ve had enough! No more of this craziness. Put your anal swabs and all your COVID nonsense where they rightfully belong: up to your own backside.”

The Best of Vasko Kohlmayer Vasko Kohlmayer [email] was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Biden Seeks to Finish off Struggling Business Owners | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 3, 2021

Back in January of 2019, an article on the U.S. News website made this very point:

MORE THAN three-quarters of restaurants in New York City have reduced employee hours since the minimum wage was increased to $15 per hour.

In a survey by The NYC Hospitality Alliance, 76.5 percent of full-service restaurant respondents said they had to reduce employee hours and 36 percent said they eliminated jobs in 2018 in response to the mandated wage increase.

The minimum wage debate, although having been refuted time and time again, continues to be brought up by progressives and those who tend to lack a basic understanding of economics. While there’s nothing wrong about lacking any knowledge in economics, Rothbard put it best,

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.1

https://mises.org/wire/biden-seeks-finish-struggling-business-owners

David R. Iglesias

If business owners were hoping to catch a break in 2021 after having been completely victimized by government lockdown procedures and left-wing rioting, they may want to brace themselves for another turbulent year as the Biden administration begins its reign in the White House. While revealing his new $1.9 trillion plan for combatting covid-19, Biden included raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour—one of the oldest and most debated topics in the subject of economics.

The minimum wage debate, although having been refuted time and time again, continues to be brought up by progressives and those who tend to lack a basic understanding of economics. While there’s nothing wrong about lacking any knowledge in economics, Rothbard put it best,

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.1

It becomes even more irresponsible when we are talking about attempting to force business owners to raise their costs of production after having seen the enormous hit they took last year. The Washington Post reported that more than a hundred thousand small businesses closed forever back in May of 2020. In September, Yelp provided data showing that 60 percent of business closures were permanent—60 percent meaning 97,966 businesses. There’s no doubt that the remaining small businesses saw a major hit in both revenue and profits as they were forced by government officials to scale back operating capacity, increase costs for sanitization equipment, adapt to changes in consumer behavior during the covid-19 outbreak, or simply remain closed for extended periods of time. Now, many of those same politicians want to significantly raise the total cost of production for these struggling businesses by increasing their cost of labor to a minimum of $15 an hour.

Trust the Science

Even on its face, this is a bad idea. In fact, since everybody now believes in “following the science,” over 70 percent of economists surveyed in 2019 agreed that the federal minimum wage should not be raised to $15. Only 6 percent believe that “is a very efficient means to target individuals in poverty.” However, we don’t need to only rely on popular opinion to understand that this is a terrible idea. If one were to imagine a supply and demand curve, one could easily see that as the cost of labor increases, the quantity demanded decreases while the quantity supplied (or those seeking a job) increases. The equilibrium point is where the two curves cross. Placing a price floor doesn’t change the curves themselves but simply creates a new point at which the supply of labor does not meet the demand for labor: the gap between those points is the unemployment created by the wage policy. Anybody who has taken an econ 101 course has seen this.

It is frequently argued that minimum wage laws raise wages—this may be true for some, i.e., those who keep their jobs, but it is untrue for those who either become unemployed or are never able to be employed in the first place. In other words, the workers for whom the wage increase applies gain at the cost of those who lose out on their wages entirely. Another common scenario that the untrained eye misses is the change in hours that employees work. While they may get a raise in hourly wages, there is no guarantee that workers will still see an increase in total wages earned, i.e., in their actual paychecks. Back in January of 2019, an article on the U.S. News website made this very point:

MORE THAN three-quarters of restaurants in New York City have reduced employee hours since the minimum wage was increased to $15 per hour.

In a survey by The NYC Hospitality Alliance, 76.5 percent of full-service restaurant respondents said they had to reduce employee hours and 36 percent said they eliminated jobs in 2018 in response to the mandated wage increase.

People aren’t like blocks of wood that can simply be chipped away at by certain policies. They respond and react to situations as they happen. Whether the jobs become automated or hours are decreased, businesses will adapt so they can keep from operating at a loss and going under.

Biden’s plan to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 across the country is also treating the entire nation as if it were one homogenous entity. It treats states like California the same as states like Idaho. One-size-fits-all policies tend to be disastrous and dangerous, because they fail to take into account the countless factors that distinguish one individual or culture from another. Politicians in Washington, DC, are so disconnected with those living in states on the other side of the country. Trying to dictate how people do business with each other in a place that you spend little to no time in is absurd.

The Minimum Wage Law is Antithetical to Current Left-Wing Rhetoric

Additionally, the minimum wage law goes against some major points of concern that are found within current left-wing rhetoric. With the recent purging of Donald Trump along with many who fall even slightly to the right of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from social media, it’s become fashionable for progressives and left-wing types to argue that Facebook and Twitter are “private companies so they can do what they want” against those who have been outraged by such deplatforming. It’s safe to say that nobody should expect this newly adopted principle of private property to be truly embraced by the Left and those who are happy to see the silencing of their enemies. However, despite the insincerity of those who are wielding this point, it does stand true that if we really believe in private property and self-ownership, it must therefore be acceptable for business owners to set the wages and rules for employment with their businesses. Just like Facebook can remove somebody from their platform, an employer should be allowed to hire whomever at whatever wage they both agree to.

Another rhetorical point is that of institutional racism. Justification for the left-wing destruction of cities and private businesses came from it being an act of antiracism. If we want to really stamp out racism and racist policies set forth by the government, minimum wage laws have to go. Thanks to the work of two indispensable economists, Thomas Sowell and the late, great Walter E. Williams, minimum wage laws have been exposed as some of the most racist and sinister policies. A popular tool used by white labor unions, minimum wage laws once helped keep black laborers out of jobs, protecting white workers. Those who have been the most negatively impacted by minimum wage laws—whether unintentionally or not—are young black teens.

A third issue that is continually brought up by progressives is the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. It is constantly pointed out that wealth is being transferred from the working class to the power elites. Ironically, they miss who really stands to benefit from raising the minimum wage: big businesses like Amazon and Google who can afford to pay such high wages. Massively successful firms are oftentimes at a greater advantage over smaller ones, because they are more capable of paying higher wages or offering more benefits. If the government demands that all employees be legally guaranteed a $15 minimum wage, small businesses like restaurants are going to take more of a blow than corporations like Amazon. This will put small businesses out of the marketplace, leaving only the big corporations to reap all the profits. If Biden goes through with his plan to federally mandate a minimum wage of $15, he will be showing small business owners that he either doesn’t have the slightest idea how disastrous his policies will be for them or that he simply doesn’t care.

Author:

David R. Iglesias

David Iglesias is a writer and undergraduate student majoring in Economics in Utah.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Governments Sign Secret Vaccine Deals. Here’s What They Hide.

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

NYT!!!


Deadly storm continues to dump snow on Northeast Myanmar coup: Anger and anxiety after military seizes power and detains Aung… Governments Sign Secret Vaccine Deals. Here’s What They Hide.

BRUSSELS — When members of the European Parliament sat down this month to read the first publicly available contract for purchasing coronavirus vaccines, they noticed something missing. Actually, a lot missing.A health care worker administering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at a nursing home in Reims, France, earlier this month. © Andrea Mantovani for The New York Times A health care worker administering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at a nursing home in Reims, France, earlier this month.

The price per dose? Redacted. The rollout schedule? Redacted. The amount of money being paid up front? Redacted.

And that contract, between the German pharmaceutical company CureVac and the European Union, is considered one of the world’s most transparent.

Governments have poured billions of dollars into helping drug companies develop vaccines and are spending billions more to buy doses. But the details of those deals largely remain secret, with governments and public health organizations acquiescing to drug company demands for secrecy.a group of people standing in front of a crowd: Waiting in line to receive Moderna’s vaccine in San Diego. The company said its vaccination program was fully funded by the federal government. © Ariana Drehsler for The New York Times Waiting in line to receive Moderna’s vaccine in San Diego. The company said its vaccination program was fully funded by the federal government.

Just weeks into the vaccination campaign, that secrecy is already making accountability difficult. The drug companies Pfizer and AstraZeneca recently announced that they would miss their European delivery targets, causing widespread concern as dangerous virus variants spread. But the terms of their contracts remain closely guarded secrets, making it difficult to question company or government officials about either blame or recourse. https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3533

Available documents, however, suggest that drug companies demanded and received flexible delivery schedules, patent protection and immunity from liability if anything goes wrong. In some instances, countries are prohibited from donating or reselling doses, a ban that could hamper efforts to get vaccines to poor countries.

Governments are cutting at least three types of vaccine deals: Some are buying directly from pharmaceutical companies. Others are buying through regional bodies like the European Union or the African Union. Many will turn to the nonprofit Covax program, an alliance of more than 190 countries, which is buying from the drug makers with an eye toward making vaccines available worldwide, especially to poor countries free or at reduced cost. Some governments have signed deals with manufacturers and Covax alike.Administering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in France earlier this month. The European Union is paying much less than the United States for each dose of the shot. © Andrea Mantovani for The New York Times Administering the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in France earlier this month. The European Union is paying much less than the United States for each dose of the shot.

The United States has secured 400 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, enough for 200 million people, and is close to arranging 200 million additional doses by summer, with options to buy up to 500 million more. It also has advance purchase agreements for more than 1 billion doses from four other companies whose inoculations do not yet have U.S. regulatory approval.

The European Commission, the European Union’s executive branch negotiating on behalf of its 27 member states, has nearly 2.3 billion doses under contract and is negotiating for about 300 million more, according to data collected by UNICEF and Airfinity, a science analytics company.

Covax says it has agreements for just over 2 billion vaccine doses although it, too, is keeping its contracts secret. Only about a dozen of the 92 countries that qualify for vaccine subsidies under the alliance have managed to secure separate deals with individual companies, for a combined 500 million doses.

Despite the secrecy, government and regulatory documents, public statements, interviews and the occasional slip-up have revealed some key details about the vaccine deals. Here is what we learned.

Governments Helped Create Vaccines

Vaccine development is a risky venture. Companies rarely invest in manufacturing until they’re sure their vaccines are effective and can win government approval. That’s part of why it typically takes so long to develop and roll them out.

To speed up that process, governments — primarily the United States and Europe — and nonprofit groups like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, absorbed some or all of that risk.a group of people in a room: Packing boxes of Covishield, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, at an assembly line in Pune, India. © Atul Loke for The New York Times Packing boxes of Covishield, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, at an assembly line in Pune, India.

The United States, for example, committed up to $1.6 billion to help the Maryland-based company Novavax develop its coronavirus vaccine, according to regulatory filings. CEPI kicked in up to about $400 million in grants and no-interest loans.

Other companies have received even more help. The Massachusetts biotech company Moderna not only used government-developed technology as the foundation of its vaccine, it also received about $1 billion in government grants to develop the drug. In August, the government then placed an initial order for the vaccine for $1.5 billion. The company has said that the project was paid for entirely by the federal government.

These types of arrangements were designed to help companies jump-start manufacturing and cover costs such as clinical testing.

But Companies Keep the Patents

Despite the tremendous taxpayer investments, typically the drug companies fully own the patents. That means that companies can decide how and where the vaccines get manufactured and how much they cost. As the CureVac contract explains it, the company “shall be entitled to exclusively exploit any such” property rights.

This has been a matter of contention for months. A coalition of countries, led by India and South Africa, have petitioned the World Trade Organization to waive intellectual property rights so generic drug makers can begin producing the vaccines. The World Health Organization has endorsed the idea, but it is all but doomed by opposition from the United States and Europe, whose drug makers say patents, and the profits that flow from them, are the lifeblood of innovation.a group of people at a train station: Patients sitting in a waiting area after being vaccinated in Berlin last month. © Lena Mucha for The New York Times Patients sitting in a waiting area after being vaccinated in Berlin last month.

“Governments are creating artificial scarcity,” said Zain Rizvi of the watchdog group Public Citizen. “When the public funds knowledge that is required to end a pandemic, it shouldn’t be kept a secret.”

Prices Will Vary

One of the key terms of the vaccine contracts — the price per dose — is frequently redacted in the public versions of government contracts. The companies consider this a trade secret. Some drug companies have included clauses in their supply contracts that allow them to suspend deliveries if countries reveal the price.

By insisting that their pricing remains confidential, the drug makers have the upper hand over government negotiators who do not know what other countries are paying.

While governments accepted that provision, leaks and some official reports show some of the disparities. The European Commission paid $2.19 for every dose of the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, while South Africa paid more than twice as much, $5.25, according to media reports.

Drug companies did not respond to requests to view their unredacted contracts or explain why secrecy was necessary. A spokeswoman for Moderna pointed only to a regulatory document that said the contract “contains terms and conditions that are customary.”

That is why it caused such a stir last month when a Belgian official mistakenly revealed a price list, which showed that United States taxpayers were paying $19.50 per dose for the Pfizer vaccine, while Europeans paid $14.70.

Dag Inge Ulstein, Norway’s minister of international development, said countries and international organizations must do more to make contracts public. He also called on countries to share vaccine technology and said rich governments should donate vaccines to poor countries early — even while still vaccinating their own citizens, as Norway plans to do.

“There must be transparency related to the agreements on procurements,” he said in an interview. To that end, he shared with The New York Times his country’s purchase agreement with Covax. That organization has refused to make public its deals — either with the drug makers or with the countries it is selling to.

Covax contracts with countries assume a cost of $10.55 per dose but warn that the final cost could be higher after including an “access/speed premium,” which Covax said is used to help companies rush their vaccines to market.

Donations and Resales Are Restricted

Public health advocates have called on wealthy countries — which have all but cornered the market on the early doses — to donate or sell vaccines to poor countries. But contracts may restrict buyers’ ability to export doses, which could depress drug company sales.

The CureVac contract, for example, prohibits European countries from reselling, exporting or donating doses — including to Covax — without permission from the company. Some contracts in the United States have similar restrictions.

A spokesman for the European Commission has said the companies included that provision to guarantee that, wherever their drugs were used, they were covered by the same legal protections.

And governments are trying to find other ways to restrict exports.

On Tuesday, Germany lobbied the European Commission to allow its member states to block exports of vaccines to countries outside of the bloc after the stuttering start of vaccine distribution in Europe.

Vaccines Arrive When They Arrive

Delivery times are considered proprietary information, so there are no public benchmarks to measure a company against.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the European Union’s fight with AstraZeneca over the company’s announcement that it would not deliver the expected number of doses in the first quarter of this year. European officials say they received specific, contractual assurances for such deliveries. The company says it promised only to make its best efforts to hit those targets.

European officials, who initially agreed to keep the contract secret, have now asked the company to make it public. Unless that happens, there’s no way to assess who is responsible.

But there is no question that the drug makers have built themselves plenty of wiggle room for such an ambitious, complicated rollout. The CureVac contract says that the delivery dates (which are all redacted) should be considered estimates. “No product or only reduced volumes of the product may be available at the estimated delivery dates,” the contract reads. Similar provisions exist in other contracts.

Nearly every vaccine maker has similarly told investors that they might not hit their targets. “We may not be able to create or scale up manufacturing capacity on a timely basis,” Pfizer warned in a corporate filing last August.

That uncertainty has frustrated health officials. When Pfizer recently told Italy that it was temporarily cutting deliveries by 29 percent, the government said it was considering taking the company to court. That lawsuit, if it materializes, could make public some details of the European Union’s contract with Pfizer, which remains entirely secret.

“At one point they promised more vaccines or faster vaccines,” said Steven Van Gucht, the Belgian government’s top virologist. “And in the end they couldn’t deliver.”

Some Governments Are Profiting

Early in the pandemic, the European Investment Bank, the lending arm of the European Union, provided a $100 million loan to the German company BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer in producing a vaccine.

In addition to the interest on the loan, the European bank will receive up to $25 million in vaccine profits, according to a redacted version of the contract that BioNTech filed with securities regulators.

The bank said profit-sharing arrangements reflect the risk involved in early financing. Mr. Rizvi, of Public Citizen, argued that it puts governments on the same side as the drug makers and reduces any incentive to make drugs cheap and widely available.

Companies Get Liability Protection

In the United States, drug companies are shielded from nearly all liability if their vaccines don’t work or cause serious side effects. The government covered Covid-19 drug makers under the PREP Act, a 2005 law intended to speed up access to medicine during health emergencies.

That means that people cannot sue the companies, even in cases of negligence or recklessness. The only exceptions are cases of proven, “willful misconduct.”

Drug companies are seeking similar liability waivers in negotiations with other countries. European negotiators have balked at such requests. Covax also insists that countries accept all liability as part of its contracts.

The CureVac-E.U. contract does shield the company from significant liability, but with exceptions. Those exceptions are redacted.

Monika Pronczuk contributed reporting.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Biden Pick For Pentagon Mideast Desk Bragged That US “Owns” Syrian Oil Territory | ZeroHedge

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

At another think tank panel discussion in June of 2019, Stroul further advocated the war is about standing up to Russia in the Middle East:

“This isn’t just about a Syrian conflict, this is about great power competition and what we’re going to do about Russia and the foothold it’s been given in the Middle East,” she said.

Stroul’s appointment is as clear a sign as any that regime change targeting Assad is still on the table, and the US occupation of the country is not drawing down any time soon; instead it is only likely to expand in order to also “confront” Russia and Iran.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/biden-pick-pentagon-mideast-desk-bragged-us-owns-syrian-oil-territory

Tyler Durden's Photoby Tyler Durden

President Joe Biden recently tapped Dana Stroul to lead the Pentagon’s Middle East desk, according to Axios and other reports. She’ll serve as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the Middle East after a previous stint as a senior official on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as a longtime fellow at the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

She had also previously worked on Mideast policy at the Pentagon under the Obama administration. As we noted before, this and other appointments gives more alarming context to Biden’s constant message on the foreign policy front that “America is back” and is “ready to lead the world” once again.

Stroul was recently on record as touting that America “owns” one-third of Syrian territory, particularly the resource-rich northeast region. So much for the administration “distancing” itself from Trump policies… (given Trump was the first to repeatedly and bluntly state the US was there “securing” Syria’s oil).

At a US gov-funded think tank, this official who oversaw Congress’ Syria Study Group outlines the continued regime-change strategy.

She says the US military “owned” 1/3rd of Syrian territory, including its oil/wheat-rich region. And the US is trying to block reconstruction funds pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 5, 2019

Stroul made the comments during a televised think tank event in D.C. hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in October 2019.

“The United States still had compelling forms of leverage on the table to shape an outcome that was more conducive and protective of US interests,” she explained at the time. She had been co-chair of the Syria Study Group, previously described by journalist Ben Norton as a “bi-partisan working group appointed by Congress to draft a new US war plan for Syria.”

Here’s how the new Biden-appointed head of the Pentagon’s Middle East desk described the US occupation of Syria and Pentagon strategic objectives there:

“The first one was the one-third of Syrian territory that was owned via the US military with its local partner, the Syrian Democratic Forces. Now this was a light footprint on the US military, only about a thousand troops over the course of the Syria Study Group’s report; and then the tens of thousands of forces, both Kurdish and Arab, under the Syria Democratic Forces.

And that one-third of Syria is the resource-rich – it’s the economic powerhouse of Syria. So where the hydrocarbons are, which obviously is very much in the public debate here in Washington these days, as well as the agricultural powerhouse.”

“We argued that it wasn’t just about this one-third of Syrian territory that the US military and our military presence owned, both to fight ISIS (Daesh) and also as leverage for affecting the overall political process for the broader Syria conflict,” she added of her policy recommendations.

Look at those photos while you hear Biden’s pick to head Pentagon’s Middle East Desk, Dana Stroul, say the oil-rich territory is “owned” by the US military.

“Take the oil” is not just a Trump thing. pic.twitter.com/UqiN8VC7MU — Lina Arabi (@LinaArabii) January 29, 2021

This “leverage” which has included devastating sanctions is now driving Syria into economic collapse and with much of the population now unable to access food and fuel.

Biden’s newly appointed Mideast official was literally bragging about “owning” the “agricultural powerhouse” of Syria as ordinary Syrians starve. 

The Pentagon busy “spreading democracy” and plundering the oil in the process:

At another think tank panel discussion in June of 2019, Stroul further advocated the war is about standing up to Russia in the Middle East:

“This isn’t just about a Syrian conflict, this is about great power competition and what we’re going to do about Russia and the foothold it’s been given in the Middle East,” she said.

Stroul’s appointment is as clear a sign as any that regime change targeting Assad is still on the table, and the US occupation of the country is not drawing down any time soon; instead it is only likely to expand in order to also “confront” Russia and Iran.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Greta Thunberg Heaps Abuse on World Economic Forum Participants

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

Right out of the Edward Bernays’ playbook. Use a child, who will take orders and direction, as a prop to call for action on a vague and questionable threat to mankind.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2021/02/greta-thunberg-heaps-abuse-on-world.html

Greta Thunberg

In a video message last week to the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda of virtual meetings, Greta Thunberg accused political and business leaders of dragging their feet on tackling the “climate and ecological crisis.”

She read from a teleprompter and one wonders who wrote the script of absurd charges.

This is how her comments started:

My name is Greta Thunberg and I’m not here to make deals. You see, I don’t belong to any financial interest or political party. So I can’t bargain or negotiate. I am only here to once again remind you of the emergency we’re in. The crisis that you and your predecessors have created and inflicted upon us. The crisis that you continue to ignore.

Proposals to reverse global warming are “vague, insufficient, hypothetical targets way into the future”, she said in her vague speech which contained an undertone of a call for global authoritarian action.

Naturally, the globalist (in the worst sense of the word) World Economic Forum, of course, cheered on her call for global action.

WEF reported on her teleprompter reading this way:

  • Greta Thunberg has urged world leaders to take immediate steps to address the environmental crisis.
  • Activists from around the world share her concern that international and national climate commitments aren’t being translated quickly enough into sustainable action.
  • Greenpeace Executive Director says COVID-19 pandemic has shown that only a multilateral approach to tackling climate change will work.

We asked…activists, leaders and economists to respond to her speech. Here’s what they said…Greenpeace’s Executive Director said many people around the world agreed with the teenage activist’s call for immediate action.
The pandemic has “shown us where multilateralism can make a real difference in finding solutions. And these are valuable lessons as we turn to the bigger crisis upon us, the climate crisis”, she said.
“Globally, we need strong rules to counter the climate emergency and to fight inequality. Environmental and social bodies should be able to impose sanctions and fines.
“Corporate accountability and liability need to extend to all corporate impacts on people and the environment around the world. Tax rules, similarly, need to be revamped to put people and planet first.”…
The public policy and economics professor [Kenneth Rogoff] said Thunberg’s ability to rally young people would lead to change but “ultimately, politicians are the ones who need to be held accountable”.
He suggested ”a global compact” between business and governments was needed to translate sustainability pledges into action. Below is the full Thunberg call for globalist authoritarianism measures (5 minutes and 51 seconds):

“Right now more than ever we are desperate for hope. But what is hope?
For me, hope is the feeling that keeps you going, even though all odds may be against you. For me hope comes from action not just words. For me, hope is telling it like it is.”#wef2021 #DavosAgenda pic.twitter.com/Gt9PnRkcGm— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 26, 2021

Right out of the Edward Bernays’ playbook. Use a child, who will take orders and direction, as a prop to call for action on a vague and questionable threat to mankind –RW

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: More Evidence of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen as a Simple Political Lackey

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2021/02/more-evidence-of-treasury-secretary.html

Janet Yellen

Last week, during her confirmation hearing, to become Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen told the Senate Finance Committee that analysis of states that boosted the minimum wage showed that job losses are “minimal, if anything.”

“Very minimal,” Yellen added in reply to a question by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott

She knows better than this.

A Wall Street Journal editorial points out that during a Congressional hearing in 2014 when she was asked about Barack Obama’s proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10, she said, “I think almost all economists think that the minimum wage has two main effects.”

One, she pointed out, is increasing pay for some low-paid workers, and the second is “there would be some amount of negative impact on employment.” How much is a matter of “considerable debate,” she said, adding that she “wouldn’t argue” with the Congressional Budget Office estimate that Obama’s hike would cost 500,000 jobs.

Now, she thinks job losses would be minimal if anything, yeah right.

The Journal editorial nailed what is really going on:

Ms. Yellen no doubt feels she has to sell her new boss’s economic policies, and on Tuesday she also endorsed his gigantic Covid relief bill of $1.9 trillion. The huge increase in the federal debt held by the public, which is already about 100% of the economy and rising, is no longer of much concern to America’s political class. But the main message of Ms. Yellen’s testimony is that she is no longer speaking as an economist. She’s a politician.

The big problem with all this is that 2021 is destined to be a year with one economic storm after another. Biden has named two weak economic advisers, one at the National  Economic Council and one at the Council of Economic Advisers. They are very quickly going to be in way over their heads. 

The only individual in the room during a crisis with any sense of how the economy works will be Yellen, but if she plays the role of the spineless lackey, and yields to the ideas of Senile Joe and his political controls, the economy could be driven off a cliff to the degree that 2020 might end up looking like the roaring ’20s compared to 2021. 

–RW

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Presidents Are at Their Worst In War | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

Today’s “liberals” aren’t very liberal at all; they see actual liberal principles like due process and respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual as having been rendered obsolete by faith in science—tendentiously defined—and expertise. Those old liberal principles would just get in the way of the plans of the powerful who sit in the topmost quarters of the state-corporate nexus.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/presidents-are-at-their-worst-in-war/

by David D’Amato

Last week, as he began his administration, President Biden vowed to wage a “full-scale wartime effort” against Covid-19, signing several executive orders, including a new interstate travel mask mandate. That Joe Biden desires to be and sees himself as a wartime president offers hints as to his attitudes about the power of the presidency and government power more generally.

Today’s “liberals” aren’t very liberal at all; they see actual liberal principles like due process and respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual as having been rendered obsolete by faith in science—tendentiously defined—and expertise. Those old liberal principles would just get in the way of the plans of the powerful who sit in the topmost quarters of the state-corporate nexus. And there’s nothing secret or conspiratorial about this; it plays out in the open, for all to see.

We must ask what a “full-scale wartime effort” might look like as a practical matter; here, history may offer some lessons. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln infamously and unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and effectively substituted an arbitrary, dictatorial military government for a constitutional government—even threatening the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with arrest for opposing Lincoln’s usurpations of both congressional and judicial powers.

World War I witnessed the passage of the Sedition Act of 1918, among American history’s most shameless and egregious assaults on the freedom of speech, under which many opponents of the war were imprisoned for no more than sharing their sincerely-held opinions.

During World War II, the United States government forced over 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, most of whom were American citizens, into concentration camps. This heinous and racist violation of the most fundamental individual rights was accomplished outside the democratic process, by an order from the desk of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s successor distinguished himself by unleashing the terror of two atomic bombs, overseeing the establishment of the CIA, and attempting to seize private property during the Korean War. The mere invocation of wartime, it seems, suffices to immediately supplant the constitutional separation of powers, due process, and individual rights.

The aftermath of the September 11th attacks gave us an almost cartoonishly evil series of lies, civil liberties abuses, and foreign policy crimes completely beyond the reaches of the democratic process—indeed, our elected officials were lied to and spied on with total impunity. American citizens were extrajudicially murdered, the U.S. government maintained programs of torture and indefinite detention, and secret courts allowed extremely opaque national security agencies to spy on citizens. All of this was barely news, the national security and intelligence community being insulated from scrutiny by a media establishment that prefers to host the very worst actors in the above-listed episodes as vaunted guests.

Such policy abominations reflect our leaders’ philosophy of government, under which the individual is a mere subject, her rights entirely dependent on the arbitrary vagaries of a small power elite. This philosophy may be only tacit, learned and absorbed so thoroughly as to make it invisible to the one who holds it and acts on it. America’s political leaders (in both parties, I hasten to add) want to cultivate and create policy in an environment of permanent war and emergency, with citizens in a posture of fear and meek acceptance of “temporary” powers.

The pretext employed to effect such a fear-dominated environment isn’t important to politicians and bureaucrats. It could be the threat of global communism, or Islamic terrorists, or white supremacists, or a novel virus; as long as citizens can be cowed and controlled, the stated reason is only incidentally important. The idea of crisis is what’s ultimately important. This is hardly to argue that the threats to which politicians gesture are imagined or made up out of whole cloth—it is only to say that they are exaggerated and exploited cynically by people with their own designs.

As economic historian Robert Higgs argues, “Without popular fear, no government could endure more than twenty-four hours.” Higgs has long studied the politics of fear and the accretion of new government powers through what he has labeled “the ratchet effect:” these new powers, introduced as temporary and contingent, never actually go away when a crisis recedes, hence the continued ratcheting of state power.

In their book The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It, John Tierney and Roy F. Baumeister build on Higgs’s work, arguing “that the greatest problem in politics is what we call the Crisis Crisis—the never-ending series of crises, real or imagined, that are hyped by the media and lead to cures too often worse than the disease.”

A wartime president is exactly what we don’t need. We know how that story ends—dissent is branded “sedition” and forbidden, the enemies of tyranny are called “terrorists” and imprisoned indefinitely without due process, citizens are spied on and encouraged to inform against their neighbors, torture and other crimes against humanity become acceptable means, innocent people die needlessly.

Americans need a peacetime president, one who will promote public policies that respect individuals, their freely-made choices, and their property rights, allowing them to run their own lives in peace.

This article was originally featured at the American Institute for Economic Research

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Treason And Thoughtcrime Are Easier Than Ever In Biden’s America | The Daily Caller

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

In 1918, the Wilson administration responded to rising criticism of the U.S. role in World War One with a Sedition Act that “made virtually any criticism of the government or the war a criminal offense,” as historian Arthur Ekirch noted. Government propaganda fanned intolerance and torrents of informants. Congress repealed that Sedition Act at the end of 1920, but other Sedition Act provisions remain in place.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/29/treason-and-thoughtcrime-easy-joe-biden-america/

James Bovard Contributor

President Joe Biden is supplementing his calls for national unity with fervent denunciations of extremists, insurrectionists, and domestic terrorists, as well as comparing Senate opponents to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Biden is now in charge of the world’s largest law firm – the U.S. Justice Department – as well as armies of federal enforcement agents. Biden and his Democratic allies have the tools to assure a steady stream of denunciations and indictments in the coming years against Americans targeted for their political beliefs.

Democrats are already vastly expanding the only crime defined by the Constitution – treason. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that Republicans who signaled they would not ratify the Electoral College results earlier this month “gave aid and comfort to [protestors] with the idea that they were embracing a lie… that the election did not have legitimacy.”

As law professor Jonathan Turley noted, Pelosi’s use of “the treason language in the Constitution” suggests that Republican members were more than just politically at fault… they were traitors.” A court of law would never convict Republican members of treason, but Pelosi can convict them in the court of public opinion, thanks to the hanging judges at CNN and MSNBC.

Opposing Biden becomes the equivalent of opposing democracy, and fuels demands for expelling more than a hundred Republicans from Congress. (RELATED ‘The Enemy Is Within’: Pelosi Calls For More Security To Defend Against Members Who ‘Want To Bring Guns On The Floor’)

After the clash at the Capitol on January 6, President-elect Joe Biden declared that the action of the rioters “borders on sedition.” (Actually, Republican members of Congress who objected to the Electoral College verdict were being denounced as the “sedition caucus” even before January 6).

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin, who is handling the January 6 cases, said he has given other federal lawyers “marching orders… to build seditious and conspiracy charges” against the most abusive rioters. The federal Seditious Conspiracy statute declares that if two or more persons conspire to “oppose by force the authority [of the U.S. government], or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law… or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States… they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

This is a sweeping legal drift net that could spur 20-year prison sentences for anyone who helped the dude who proudly carried off Nancy Pelosi’s lectern. Many members of Congress want all of the 800 protestors harshly punished for “desecrating” the “temple” of democracy, their “hallowed halls,” and their “sacred space” — even though most of those present committed no violence and left peacefully of their own accord after a few hours.

There are ample federal laws to vigorously prosecute and harshly punish the people who violently attacked Capitol Police. But blanket charges of sedition against protestors who were guilty merely of unlawful entry would mean scourging them as if they were political heretics.

While it is unclear how many protestors will be charged with sedition, reliance on that legal penalty blew up prior administrations. The Sedition Act of 1798 briefly helped President John Adams persecute newspaper editors who criticized his policies, but outrageous prosecutions helped Thomas Jefferson defeat Adams in the 1800 election.

In 1918, the Wilson administration responded to rising criticism of the U.S. role in World War One with a Sedition Act that “made virtually any criticism of the government or the war a criminal offense,” as historian Arthur Ekirch noted. Government propaganda fanned intolerance and torrents of informants. Congress repealed that Sedition Act at the end of 1920, but other Sedition Act provisions remain in place.

On Inauguration Day, former CIA chief John Brennan declared on MSNBC that “Biden team” members “are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements… an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians.”

Americans who hold ideas that politicians associate with any of those groups could be in the cross-hairs of federal investigators in the coming years, according to Brennan’s warning. Beyond treason and sedition, more than 4000 federal criminal laws provide ample opportunities to hammer potential or actual government opponents. (RELATED: ‘QAnon Shaman’ Prepared To Testify In Trump’s Impeachment Trial)

Will Biden’s denunciation of protestors as “domestic terrorists” spur a bureaucratic stampede to “round up the usual suspects?” Prosecutors will find a ready tool in the Patriot Act’s provision that defined “domestic terrorism” as violent or threatening private actions intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

A few scuffles at a rally can transform a protest group into a terrorist entity. If the violence at a rally is done by a government agent provocateur – as happened at 1960s antiwar protests – the government could still treat all the group’s members as terrorists. “Material support of terrorism” is also broadly defined, which could allow the feds to drop the hammer on anyone who donated to protest groups capriciously designated as terrorist entities.

Federal agents have a long record of creating the crimes that politicians rush to exploit. The FBI admits that it formally entitles its army of informants to commit more than 5000 crimes a year. FBI crime sprees have been propelled by decades of Supreme Court decisions that effectively defined entrapment out of existence.

Almost anything that an undercover government agent can do to induce someone to violate the law is fair play. Federal judges have even countenanced undercover agents who enticed their targets into sexual affairs to lure them to their legal doom.

In the coming months and years, many people will likely be convicted not for violent acts against the government but for unwise or reckless words that they uttered in proximity to government informants – regardless of whether they were coaxed into saying things for which they could be legally impaled.

Critics of the Biden administration may suffer the same law enforcement abuses that Muslims suffered after the 9/11 attacks. The vast majority of people charged with international terrorism offenses in the first decade after 9/11 were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest, according to Trevor Aaronson, author of “The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism.”

Federal agents targeted numerous young Muslims who were mentally feeble or psychologically disabled in order to pad their conviction counts, thereby helping score bigger budgets from Congress.

The American media mostly ignored the due process travesties that occurred in post-9/11 terrorism prosecutions. Considering the histrionic effort by pundits and Democrats to portray the January 6 Capitol clash as the equivalent of the 9/11 attacks, we can expect similar media nonchalance over federal abuses targeting Biden’s enemies.’

Targeting individuals for entrapment and prosecution based on their political beliefs and associations will help tarnish Biden’s political opponents across the board. CNN’s Don Lemon recently denounced all Trump voters as guilty of siding with Nazis and the Klan, and prosecutions of anti-Biden activists could help tar any Biden critic as a potentially dangerous zealot.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a warning on Wednesday that “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives” pose a threat to public safety. Once politicians establish that extremism is intolerable, the definition of extremism will be consistently expanded to justify outlawing more ideas.

The FBI could become the 800-pound gorilla in efforts to police thoughts. The FBI brazenly violated federal surveillance laws in recent years but suffered no real punishment from the courts, Congress, or various administrations.

Many liberal Democrats are grateful to the FBI for its role in hobbling the Trump administration, making it less likely that the Biden team would leash the agency.

From 1956 through 1971, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program conducted thousands of covert operations to incite street warfare between violent groups, to get people fired, to portray innocent people as government informants, to destroy marriages, and to cripple or destroy leftist, black, white racist, and anti-war organizations. A 1976 Senate report explained that the FBI targeted and harassed vast numbers of peaceful protesters because of its “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of an act which might be criminal.”

That report concluded: “The American people need to be assured that never again will an agency of the government be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order.” But legal restrictions on FBI operations are mostly a mirage at this point and the agency operates with near-total impunity. (RELATED: Ex-FBI Lawyer Receives Probation For Altering Email About Carter Page)

Don’t expect an official Federal Register notice if the FBI decides to revive its persecution of dissent. The original COINTELPRO was kept secret for 15 years until a group of patriotic citizens burglarized an FBI office in a Pennsylvania suburb on the night of the first Ali-Frazier fight. They sent newspapers copies of the damning files they seized, spurring J. Edgar Hoover to shut down the program.

If the FBI revives its COINTELPRO-style targeting and mass subversion, would Americans have to wait until 2036 to learn of the scandal?

Power-hungry presidents have perennially portrayed their critics as public nuisances, but the Biden administration seems hellbent on doing far more than finger-wagging. Perhaps the feds will overreach and finally awaken more Americans to the peril of letting their rulers judge their thoughts.

In the meantime, prudent dissidents and wily cynics will avoid writing anything in an email that they don’t want to hear read out loud in federal court.

James Bovard is the author of “Attention Deficit Democracy,” “The Bush Betrayal,” “Terrorism and Tyranny,” and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Libertarian Terrorists?

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2021

The idea that libertarianism creates terrorists is absurd. Libertarians support the non-aggression principle, so they reject using force to advance their political goals. They rely instead on peaceful persuasion.

Libertarianism is being attacked because it does not support just reforming a few government policies. Instead, it presents a formidable intellectual challenge to the entire welfare-warfare state.

The ultimate goal of those pushing for a crackdown on “domestic terrorism” is to make people unwilling to even consider “radical” ideas — to make people so afraid of certain ideas that they refuse to even give those ideas a fair hearing.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/february/01/libertarian-terrorists/?mc_cid=1b5a6b8739

Written by Ron Paul

The Department of Homeland Security issued on Wednesday a nationwide terror alert lasting until April 30. The alert warns of potential terrorist attacks from Americans who are “ideologically motivated” and have “objections to the exercise of government authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”

The language used in this alert suggests that millions of Americans are potential terrorists. Second Amendment supporting, antiwar, anti-tax, anti-politics, anti-militarization, pro-life, and anti-Federal Reserve activists certainly have “objections to the exercise of government authority.” They are certainly viewed by the political class and its handmaidens in big tech and the mainstream media as ideological extremists. Anyone who gets his news from sources other than mainstream media or big tech, or who uses certain “unapproved” social media platforms, is considered to have had his grievances “fueled by false narratives.” For something to be considered a false narrative, it need only contradict the “official” narrative.

The “domestic terrorist” alert is the latest sign that activities on January 6 on Capitol Hill, like the attacks of September 11, 2001, are being used to advance a long-standing anti-liberty agenda. Legislation expanding the federal government’s authority to use its surveillance and other unconstitutional powers against “domestic terrorists” is likely to soon be considered by Congress. Just as the PATRIOT Act was written years before 2001, this legislation was written long before January 6. The bill’s proponents are simply taking advantage of the hysteria following the so-called insurrection to push the bill onto the congressional agenda.

Former CIA Director John Brennan recently singled out libertarians as among the people the government should go after. This is not the first time libertarians have been smeared. In 2009, a federally-funded fusion center identified people who supported my presidential campaign, my Campaign for Liberty, or certain Libertarian and Constitution parties candidates as potentially violent extremists.

The idea that libertarianism creates terrorists is absurd. Libertarians support the non-aggression principle, so they reject using force to advance their political goals. They rely instead on peaceful persuasion.

Libertarianism is being attacked because it does not support just reforming a few government policies. Instead, it presents a formidable intellectual challenge to the entire welfare-warfare state.

The ultimate goal of those pushing for a crackdown on “domestic terrorism” is to make people unwilling to even consider “radical” ideas — to make people so afraid of certain ideas that they refuse to even give those ideas a fair hearing.

Progressives who are tempted to support what is being promoted as a crackdown on right-wing violence should consider the history of government harassment of progressive movements and leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. What do they think a future right-wing authoritarian would do if given power to go after “ideological extremists”?

All Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights should come together to stop this latest crackdown on liberty. My Campaign for Liberty will be mobilizing Americans to stop passage of any domestic terrorism legislation, while my Institute for Peace and Prosperity and my Liberty Report will provide Americans with the most up-to-date information about the continuing attempts to smear those who speak the truth about government lies.

(You can watch the Ron Paul Liberty Report live on YouTube Monday-Friday at noon, eastern time.)


Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Wave of Abusive Federal Prosecutions Is Coming | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2021

To be depressingly honest, the only barrier to the Biden administration’s launching of an American version of the Stasi against dissenters on the right would be the individual consciences of those in charge of the spying and making arrests. Much of the Democratic Party and most of mainstream journalists seem to have no problem with criminalizing speech and launching a regime of mass arrest and imprisonment.

This situation is different because those who were the gatekeepers of liberty now have decided that liberty itself is a threat to our well-being. When the New York Times comes out against free speech and when journalists call for the power of the state to be used against other journalists they don’t like, we have turned the corner and are headed for the abyss.

https://mises.org/wire/wave-abusive-federal-prosecutions-coming

William L. Anderson

The violent protest at the US Capitol on January 6 has long been over, but the upcoming Biden administration’s response to it is likely to do greater violence to the US Constitution and the rule of law than anything the worst of the protesters could have accomplished. Thanks to the response of the George W. Bush administration and Congress to the 9/11 attacks almost two decades ago, Joe Biden’s prosecutors will have plenty of legal ammunition to go after their political enemies. It won’t stop with prosecuting people who broke into the Capitol.

J.D. Tuccille writes:

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, horrified Americans were ready to embrace virtually any proposal that promised to keep them safe. Government officials, for their part, were eager to curry favor with the fearful public and saw an opportunity to promote legislation and policies that had failed to win support in the past. The result was a surge of authoritarianism from which the U.S. has yet to recover. Now—with the public understandably concerned after the January 6 storming of the Capitol—we should brace ourselves for another wave of political responses that would, again, erode our liberty.

We are in very uncertain and certainly perilous waters. In the post-Trump era, Democrats want revenge and they want it now. I fear for my friends that worked in the Trump government, with Democrats calling for them to be blacklisted, harassed, and ultimately “canceled.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who continues to shed any perception that she wants anything less than a soft totalitarian country, has publicly called for a “media literacy” initiative that reminds one of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

In an interview with MSNBC (surprised?), former CIA head John Brennan declared that the Biden administration agencies

“are moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about” the pro-Trump “insurgency” that harbors “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.”

Not surprisingly, there was zero pushback on his statement from the mainstream media, and one suspects that probably most mainstream journalists today would not mind seeing large numbers of people they dislike being hauled off to prison or just plain disappearing at the hands of the authorities.

For that matter, the Trump presidency was hardly the Libertarian Moment, and Trump gave one the sense that if he could control the flow of news, he would gladly do so. Whether or not one believes he was cheated out of office in the last election, for him to claim he “won in a landslide” and to call for official election results to be overturned can hardly leave one surprised that the DC “rally” turned into an out-and-out donnybrook.

Unfortunately, the violence that followed has given the Biden people the fig leaf they need to move against the Constitution and rule of law on many fronts—all the while claiming they are “restoring democracy.” The United States could well be at a tipping point at which whatever pretenses we had toward constitutional government are cast aside for a “pragmatic” state that addresses the so-called needs at hand and is not bound by legal niceties. For now, my guess is that Biden will unleash federal prosecutors who will face no constraints whatsoever, and that means a lot of innocent people are going to have their lives ruined.

Before going into more detail, I explain why the Bush administration nearly twenty years ago made Biden’s job much easier for him than it ever should be under the rule of law. In the early 2000s, I began to write about the abuses that accompanied the expansion of federal criminal law and published (often with Candice E. Jackson) in a number of outlets including Regulation,Reason, the Independent Review,and the Mises page. Because of what Jackson and I called the “highly derivative” nature of federal criminal law (the actual charges are compiled from actions that usually are only prosecuted under state law), it is easy for federal prosecutors to draw up a list of charges that are hard to fight, have draconian penalties, but often involve criminalizing actions that harmed no one, and certainly did not do harm that is up to standards of criminal conduct.

In the hysterical aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Congress rushed through the PATRIOT Act (which Joe Biden claimed to have written almost single-handedly—probably an exaggeration), a law that even at the time legal experts doubted would be effective in preventing acts of political terrorism but that allowed federal prosecutors to throw other “crimes” under the umbrella of “terrorism,” thus permitting them to box in defendants and force them to plead out to lesser charges and receive substantial prison time.

At the time, civil liberties groups like the American Civil Liberties Union along with media entities such as the New York Times served at least a semieffective role in blunting the more outrageous attempts by prosecutors to expand their powers. (The NYT had not shown the same restraint during the 1980s when Rudy Giuliani abused his powers in the infamous Wall Street prosecutions, instead allowing Giuliani to break numerous federal statutes in the paper’s crusade to “fight capitalism.”)

This time, however, it is highly doubtful that either the ACLU or the media will do anything but be cheerleaders for the Biden DOJ, given that the government says it will specifically target what it sees as threats from the right, something the NYT recently praised. A couple of recent incidents regarding the media and the so-called conservative threat are instructive.

Shortly after the January 6 Capitol riots, a number of mainstream news outlets breathlessly reported that the leaders of the protests actually were planning on kidnapping and assassinating a number of political figures. Not one mainstream news outlet questioned the feds’ claims. Shortly thereafter, however, CNN (which gave the original charges massive coverage) reported that the Department of Justice was walking back its original statements.

Not to be outdone, the Associated Press on January 11 presented the specter of armed uprisings all over the country:

The FBI is warning of plans for armed protests at all 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C., in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, stoking fears of more bloodshed after last week’s deadly siege at the U.S. Capitol.

The dispatch continues:

An internal FBI bulletin warned, as of Sunday, that the nationwide protests may start later this week and extend through Biden’s Jan. 20 inauguration, according to two law enforcement officials who read details of the memo to The Associated Press. Investigators believe some of the people are members of extremist groups, the officials said.

As we know, there were no armed uprisings, no right-wing armed mobs storming capitols and no massive protests. Now, on Inauguration Day, there was mob political violence and lots of it, but the mobs were leftist and the cities were Portland and Seattle and the national media saw little reason to publicize the protests, as they did not fit The Narrative.

Even the January 6 riots, as bad as they were, did not fall into the category of a coup, no matter what journalists and other political pundits were claiming. David French went even so far as to claim it was a “Christian insurrection” because some of the protesters said they were Christians and someone played Christian music on a loudspeaker. While it was an ugly scene nonetheless, does anyone (at least besides David French) really believe that the vast government regime known as The United States of America was in danger of being overthrown by a mob led by someone in a buffalo costume?

Yet, the same journalistic and political elites who excoriated Donald Trump for sending some agents to protect the federal courthouses in Seattle and Portland from Antifa mobs apparently had no problem with Biden dispatching thousands of federal troops to turn Washington, DC, into an armed camp. It is the same kind of overreaction that leads the media and political elites to demand that the government engage in massive surveillance of half the country.

Not all who are considered to be on the left are good with Biden’s internal spying plan, including Tulsi Gabbard, the former member of Congress who angered fellow Democrats with her appeals to civil liberties during her appearance in the presidential primary last year. National Review reports:

“What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this?” Gabbard said.

She said the proposed legislation could create “a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”

“You start looking at obviously, have to be a white person, obviously likely male, libertarians, anyone who loves freedom, liberty, maybe has an American flag outside their house, or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally,” Gabbard said.

Even more eye-opening is the missive that the hard-left publication Jacobin has launched against this round of surveillance. Now, the publication that is openly nostalgic about the former East Germany hardly is going to champion civil liberties or even basic freedoms, but the people there are politically astute enough to know that a government with vast surveillance powers isn’t going to stop at going after political conservatives:

However such legislation may be justified with liberal-sounding language, there’s absolutely no reason to believe authorities wouldn’t use new powers to target groups that have nothing to do with Donald Trump or Trumpism. Police almost certainly infiltrated Black Lives Matter protests last summer, and American law enforcement has a long and ignominious history of targeting progressive groups—not to mention socialists, trade unions, and civil rights activists. As this history suggests, the premise behind any new anti-terrorism law will also be wrong on its face: the American state hardly faces excessive restrictions on its capacity to surveil, discipline, and punish. (The FBI, to take an obvious example, already possesses considerable power to investigate groups suspected of extremist activity.)

The problem is that the traditional gatekeepers of civil liberties that we once had in the media and in political and academic circles has disappeared into the maw of political tribalism. Matt Taibbi, a former writer for Rolling Stone and now an independent journalist, sees mainstream journalism as little more than an echo chamber for progressive politicians in which journalists seem to pretend they are players in a version of The West Wing:

West Wing was General Hospital for rich white liberals, a seven-season love letter to the enlightened attitudes of the Bobo-in-Paradise demographic. If that’s the self-image of the national press, it’s no wonder they make people want to vomit. The coverage of Biden’s inauguration, another celebration of those attitudes, was an almost perfect mathematical inverse of late-stage Trump reporting, a monument to groveling sycophancy.

John Heileman at MSNBC compared Biden’s speech to Abe Lincoln’s second inaugural, and suggested that the sight of “the Clintons, the Bushes, and the Obamas” gathered for the event was like “the Marvel superheroes all back in one place” (this was not the first post-election Avengers comparison to be heard on cable). Rachel Maddow talked about going through “half a box of Kleenex” as she watched the proceedings. Chris Wallace on Fox said Biden’s lumbering speech was “the best inaugural address I ever heard,” John Kennedy’s “Ask Not” speech included. The joyful tone was set the night before by CNN’s David Challen, who said lights along the Washington Mall were like “extensions of Joe Biden’s arms embracing America.”

Journalists who are going to claim that a bunch of lights in paper bags symbolize a Joe Biden group hug are not going to be intellectually or professionally capable of taking a hard look at the government’s attempt to arrest and imprison political and religious conservatives and libertarians, since they already have convinced themselves that these people constitute a dire threat to what is left of the republic. They more likely will serve as the publicity arm for the DOJ—as long as prosecutors stick to going after men in buffalo suits waving Trump flags.

To be depressingly honest, the only barrier to the Biden administration’s launching of an American version of the Stasi against dissenters on the right would be the individual consciences of those in charge of the spying and making arrests. Much of the Democratic Party and most of mainstream journalists seem to have no problem with criminalizing speech and launching a regime of mass arrest and imprisonment.

As I see it, we no longer are looking at threats to our liberty in the abstract. For years, I have launched missive after missive at federal (and sometimes state) prosecutors and not feared for my own safety and liberty, save a few death threats I received when I aggressively wrote against Michael Nifong, the dishonest prosecutor in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, and I didn’t take those seriously.

This situation is different because those who were the gatekeepers of liberty now have decided that liberty itself is a threat to our well-being. When the New York Times comes out against free speech and when journalists call for the power of the state to be used against other journalists they don’t like, we have turned the corner and are headed for the abyss.

No, I don’t expect to be hauled off to a concentration camp because I have written articles critical of federal prosecutors, but this country now is building a critical mass of journalists, college professors and administrators, and political figures that well might see concentration camps and other “reeducation” devices as being legitimate political tools. We are not as far away from such a dystopian future as one might think.

Federal criminal law provides these antiliberty groups the kinds of devices that can be used to criminalize speech and turn garden-variety dissenters into criminals. We should not be surprised if ambitious US attorneys in the Biden administration, cheered on by the likes of the New York Times and MSNBC, decide it is time to do just that. Author:

Contact William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »