MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Best 10 books for the free-spirited child (stuck at home) | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/best-10-books-for-the-free-spirited-child-stuck-at-home/

By Sarah Surette

My family first chose to “deschool” our children because it encourages children to use their natural curiosity to direct their own learning.

Of course, as a parent, it is still my responsibility to provide opportunities to learn. But what can you do for a free-spirited child who might not find a typical book exciting?

These books fit perfectly with the child-directed model of education because they give your child the freedom to explore knowledge AND the expanses of their own imagination. While many other books follow the usual format, these books offer 10 opportunities to turn reading into an exploration– or even a life-changing experience.

What Do You Do With an Idea? By Kobi Yamada

Have you ever had an idea that started out small then grew into something amazing? Inversely, have you ever had an idea that fizzled out because you lost interest or lacked the confidence to see it through?

In this book, a child gets an idea. He cares for it, feeds it and gives it lots of attention. The child recognizes that others may not understand his idea but also that it doesn’t matter because it is his idea and no one else’s.

This book is a valuable lesson for children about self-reliance and perseverance.

 Big Book of the Body By Mina Lacey

This visually engaging fold-out book is full of awesome facts and fantastic functions all about the complex machine that is the human body. Whether your child wants to take a trip through the digestive tract or learn about how the body communicates with the brain, Big Book of the Body is sure to capture and hold their interest.

Curiositree: Human World: A Visual History of Humankind by Aj Wood and Mike Jolley

Starting from the beginning, this book takes a visually appealing, interactive approach to learning all about the human race. Following different paths set out, a child can take a unique journey through time, every time they open the book.

 Curiositree: Natural World: A Visual Compendium of Wonders from Nature by Aj Wood and Mike Jolley

Much  like the Curiositree book above, this book is interactive. A child can learn all about what characteristics all living things possess, different habitats, the food chain and so much more. If they find something wildly interesting, chances are, there is more information about it somewhere else in the book.

 

How Nearly Everything Was Invented by the Brainwaves by Jilly MacLeod

Open this fold-out book to find what mankind has invented and why they did it. Meet inventors who changed the world with their amazing ideas. Watch the ripple effect that their inventions had and what advancements were made because of those ripples.

 Under Water, Under Earth by Aleksandra Mizielinska and Daniel Mizielinski

What is in the ground under our feet and in our oceans? Satisfy curiosity and engage a young mind with a window into the unseen. Learn about sinkholes, diving apparatuses, archeological digs, volcanos, coral reefs, water pressure and so much more. This book offers an in-depth (literally) look at the world below us and how everything works together to impact the world around us.

Suffragette: The Battle for Equality by David Roberts

Use history to inspire the next generation. Teach them to stand up for equality and the power of change. Read all about the campaign for women’s suffrage and what women overcame to gain the right to vote and achieve equal footing to men. Thanks to the determination of the women and men who participated in the movement for women’s suffrage, women today have the same rights as men both inside the voting booth and out.

 When the Stars Come Out by Nicola Edwards

What habitats, plants and animals are nocturnal? What is the history behind the constellations? Why do we have an innate fear of the dark? Open this book to answer these questions and many others about nighttime and the night sky. Every page will captivate the young mind with descriptive language and beautiful illustration.

 

 

Journey, Quest, and Return by Aaron Becker

This wordless trilogy follows a lonely child and her red crayon. She creates worlds, escapes danger and discovers freedom and contentment. Your child can tap into their creative mind and narrate as they go, discovering new adventures on every beautifully illustrated page.

Just Because by Mac Barnett

Just Because  is a great book for children and adults alike. It reminds adults of the curious minds of children and provides children with simple, sometimes silly, answers to some of their most common questions. Endless questions can be tiring, especially at bedtime, but they are a vital part of growing up and forming a love of learning that will serve them for a lifetime.

This post contains Amazon affiliate links

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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

The Real Coronavirus Threat Everyone Is Missing | The National Interest

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

Depending on the jurisdiction, the threshold ranged from 250 to 1,000—and in one case, 2,500–with little or no explanation or justification from authorities for choosing a particular number. Worse, in most cases, event sponsors or other affected parties had no recourse to appeal the decision.  In some cases, they did not even have an opportunity for input regarding the restriction or ban.

The pervasive assumption is that the coronavirus outbreak is a temporary menace that will be overcome in the next few weeks or months, the current restrictions will be lifted, and life in America will return to normal.  But what if that assumption is wrong? 

I am from the government. We don’t know what we are doing but if you don’t do as you are told you’re gonna die!

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/real-coronavirus-threat-everyone-missing-133002

by Ted Galen Carpenter

Worries about the threat the coronavirus posed to public health are entirely understandable. The disease spreads easily and has a disturbingly high mortality rate among its victims (especially the elderly).  Nevertheless, some important and potentially dangerous policy precedents are being set without much consideration or reflection. That approach is unwise, since many of the measures being taken to combat the coronavirus epidemic entail major restrictions on liberties that Americans take for granted. A sober discussion of those precedents is needed, or they may come back to haunt our country.

The original reaction in the United States to the corona outbreak was surprisingly casual, but the prevailing attitude and the resulting policy responses in both the private and governmental sectors have changed dramatically over the past two weeks. A deluge of announcements cancelling or postponing major public events, including concerts, plays, the “March Madness” NCAA basketball tournament, and the Masters tournament, has now occurred. Even when there is no outright cancellations or indefinite postponements, barring the public from attending events, such as the scheduled primary debate between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and upcoming NASCAR races, is increasingly the norm. Schools and businesses around the country are shutting their doors, likely for weeks, with employees and students expected to work or study from home. The economic and social impact of such dislocations is certain to be enormous.

Many of those decisions were by private organizations that concluded that having large numbers of people congregate posed an unacceptable risk of the corona pandemic becoming even more widespread.  However, other closings occurred because of government edicts—including some that seemed highly arbitrary.  Local authorities in Austin, Texas, for example, cancelled the annual South by Southwest music festival at the last minute, blindsiding the festival’s organizers.  Government orders banning “large gatherings” reflected great imprecision about what constituted “large.”  Depending on the jurisdiction, the threshold ranged from 250 to 1,000—and in one case, 2,500–with little or no explanation or justification from authorities for choosing a particular number. Worse, in most cases, event sponsors or other affected parties had no recourse to appeal the decision.  In some cases, they did not even have an opportunity for input regarding the restriction or ban.

The scope of governmental restraints is growing steadily as well.  In late February, President Trump barred entry of foreign travelers coming from China, and he gradually expanded that restriction to other countries, culminating in his March 11 announcement barring non-American travelers from most European nations for 30 days. Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on March 13 gave him extensive additional powers.

Even well-established political rights are now conditional and at potential risk.  On March 13, the Louisiana Secretary of State postponed the state’s April 4 presidential primary election. The Louisiana move is especially troubling.  There have been only a handful of postponed elections in the United States since the end of the Civil War.  A rare recent case was the primary election in New York, which was supposed to be held on September 11, 2001.  The 9-11 terrorist attacks were such a disruptive event that there was little choice but to reschedule the balloting.  But deciding to postpone an election scheduled for three weeks later because of professed fears about a public health issue is far more questionable. That decision illustrates the potential for diktats made in response to the coronavirus outbreak to set worrisome precedents and create opportunities for abuse in less dire situations.

Therein lies a serious concern and the need for a comprehensive public discussion about policies going forward.  It’s a universal truth that governmental power always expands during periods of perceived crisis.  It also is a universal truth that politicians and bureaucrats seize opportunities to expand their missions and power.  We must keep those dynamics in mind when evaluating government actions with respect to the coronavirus threat.

The pervasive assumption is that the coronavirus outbreak is a temporary menace that will be overcome in the next few weeks or months, the current restrictions will be lifted, and life in America will return to normal.  But what if that assumption is wrong?  What do we do if this lethal virus (or one like it) becomes a feature of the annual flu season?  Do we (indeed, can we) lock down the country under such repeated “crisis” conditions?  The economic disruption and damage alone would likely preclude such a response; it doesn’t seem possible to operate a modern economy in a bunkered society.  Taking draconian steps in reaction to a public health problem less severe than the current epidemic would be needlessly destructive to both the economy and to America’s system of liberty.

It’s not too soon for sober reflection and debate about such matters. Unfortunately, the current atmosphere increasingly exhibits the characteristics of a collective panic—and that is always a poor basis for intelligent policy decisions.  Americans must not passively accept government edicts and restrictions without raising pertinent questions, and when necessary, voicing objections.

 

 

 

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

Rigged US primaries aren’t the problem – the rigged election system is — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

But the dirty secret is that international observers, even if allowed at the primaries, would have no standing to prevent parties from rigging their internal elections as much as they want. The real problem in the United States is not rigged primaries, it’s a rigged electoral system that prevents multi-party competition.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/482966-primaries-rigged-election-system/

Activists are calling for international observers for US primaries, claiming they’re rigged. The thing is, observers aren’t mandated to watch internal party processes – but the real problem lies in multi-party competition, anyway.

With hashtags such as #RiggedDNC and #RiggedPrimary trending, there has been a flurry of calls for outside monitors on social media and by activists, who cite a series of voter-suppression acts and possibly rigged voting machines.

CODEPINK and the Grayzone Project staged a demonstration Tuesday outside of the Organization of American States (OAS) headquarters, calling on the intergovernmental body to dispatch “emergency international election observers” to the US Democratic presidential primary, noting that the contest has “been the scene of severe discrimination against minority, poor and elderly voters.”

But the dirty secret is that international observers, even if allowed at the primaries, would have no standing to prevent parties from rigging their internal elections as much as they want. The real problem in the United States is not rigged primaries, it’s a rigged electoral system that prevents multi-party competition.

 

Working as intended

Deploying for a primary process falls outside of observers’ mandates to begin with. While the United States is obligated under international agreements to issue invitations to observe its elections, it is under no obligation to invite observers to monitor how political parties select their leaders.

The criteria that observers use to assess elections include international agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the OAS 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter, which include no provisions for how political parties conduct their internal business.

The OAS Charter provides for the “holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage” and a “pluralistic system of political parties and organizations.” Article 5 of the Charter identifies “the strengthening of political parties and other political organizations [as] a priority for democracy.” While it notes that attention should be paid to campaign financing, it does not address issues of party procedures for selecting leaders.

Criteria used by another international body, which has regularly observed elections in the United States since 2004, also provides no basis for observing political parties. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which counts the United States as one of its 57 members, uses criteria outlined in the Copenhagen Document, which set out principles for free elections in 1990.

The Copenhagen Document requires that individuals are guaranteed the right “to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties.” Governments must “provide such political parties and organizations with the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities.”

‘As intended’ doesn’t mean ‘fair’

As the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights elaborates in its election observation handbook, a free election must respect basic fundamental freedoms such as “the right to freely establish political parties and compete for public office on a level playing field.”

This is actually where the United States falls short of its international obligations. There is little respect for the rights of independents and third parties and no real opportunity for them to compete within the US’ rigidly enforced two-party system. Indeed, as the OSCE noted in its assessment of the 2016 election, the undue obstacles faced by minor parties and independents trying to attain ballot access across the country could constitute a breach of democratic commitments.

“The number of signatures required and the signature submission deadlines vary from state to state, which made it cumbersome for third party or independent candidates to register across all states for presidential elections,” the OSCE pointed out. “Both the Green Party and Libertarian Party challenged ballot access requirements in several states, with success in a few instances.”

The OAS noted the obstacles third parties face in gaining access to the media and specifically the practice of excluding them from televised debates. “Due to the high threshold required for candidates to participate in these debates, in 2016 only the Democratic and Republican candidates qualified for them, which resulted in complaints from the independent and third party candidates,” the OAS observed. OAS monitors said that this “may serve to reinforce the two-party system.”

This is the real issue when it comes to democratic shortcomings in the United States. While primaries might feel like an integral part of the electoral process to the typical American voter, they are not elections and are not covered under international election-related obligations.

What is covered quite clearly is the requirement to provide a level playing field for all political parties that seek to compete. So, rather than focusing on ensuring fair primary elections in the United States, democracy activists might be better off highlighting the shortcomings of the two-party system itself.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Since When Is Joe Biden a ‘Moderate’? – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/since_when_is_joe_biden_a_moderate.html

By Paul Gottfried

In an exultant commentary on Joe Biden’s victory on Super Tuesday, New York Post-syndicated columnist Salena Zito tells us: “The Dems’ silent majority, which doesn’t tweet, is finally crying out for moderation from the party.” Zito also quotes Dave Saunders, “a legendary Democratic strategist in Virginia,” who “finds it ‘ironic’ that southern voters are often criticized by the national party for being too moderate, but they’re the ones who saved the party from a left-wing candidate like Sanders.” Presumably Biden is the personification of “moderation,” as I’m reminded whenever I hear the Fox News All-stars praise him, while attacking the evil Bernie as a commie-loving radical. It’s been Joe’s accomplishment to rescue his party and nation from the “leftist demagogue” who is running against him. He is helping to return the country to “moderate” government, which presumably is not something that Trump has been doing because of his divisive personality.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that Biden will be practicing any kind of “moderation” if elected. For one thing, depictions of him as a moderate overlook the inconvenient fact that he is running well to the left of former president Obama, who was our most leftist chief executive up until his election in 2008. Candidate Obama publicly opposed gay marriage, favored strict border controls, and would never have announced, in contrast to Biden, that he wished to provide medical assistance and public benefits to those who were here illegally. On just about every social issue, Biden the “moderate” has positioned himself well to the left of Obama. On immigration and advancing the LGBT, feminist, and Black Lives Matter agendas, I don’t find any distance between Joe and Bernie.  Certainly not enough to justify the exaggerated contrasts between the “moderate” Biden and the “radical” Sanders.

Second, in assessing how Biden would govern this country, we should consider his continuing gaffes on the stump. Why are we supposed to think that Biden’s stumbling for words, incoherent outbursts, and inability to recognize what day of the week it is or what state he is in tell us nothing about how he would govern? Biden may well be in mental decline, and if that is the case, there are lots of people out there waiting to take advantage of his presidency. We might start the list with the Secret Service officials who have been in trouble because of their felonious misdeeds and rank partisanship. But perhaps we should look for Biden’s beneficiaries in public administration more generally. Federal employees are overwhelmingly Democrats and would be delighted with a presidency that allowed them to have their way. However ineptly Trump has called out his bureaucratically entrenched enemies, he has correctly observed where they are. Biden is also indebted to the media for methodically covering up his ridiculous statements and his fits of anger when encountering unwanted questions. He also owes the media big time for their steady recent attacks on Sanders, which helped cleared the way for Biden’s nomination. Such unfailing support may come at a high price, if Biden is elected. And let’s not forget those black leaders like Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who have vigorously campaigned for Joe. What exactly will a President Biden owe such leaders for gaining him the overwhelming support of black Democrats? One can only imagine. Of course, Biden’s helpers were right to pick him over the principled socialist Sanders. Joe is not likely to refuse favors and he does have a proven record of corruption, and very corrupt relatives whose corruption he’s facilitated.

There are also neocons and #NeverTrumpers ready to pile on to the gravy train. Bill Kristol has talked up  Biden on his website The Bulwark as the candidate for “normal Americans, who don’t care to choose between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.” From Bill’s standpoint, Joe is “the simple answer” for those who wish to avoid extremism.  According to this endorsement: “if you’re inclined toward American constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and a free economic order — as well as a liberal world order anchored by the United States — it’s Joe Biden. And if you’re not, then it’s Bernie Sanders.”  Allow me to place the emphasis here exactly where Kristol and his anti-Trump friends would want it to go, namely on “a liberal world order anchored by the United States.” That signifies continuing confrontation with those countries that Bill and his friends don’t like; and this happy dream might become reality under President Biden, who would be aided in his protection of our democracy by neocon advisers.

We have not yet reached, however, the ultimate beneficiary of a Biden presidency, the person whom he chooses to be his running mate. Since “I’m an old guy,” as Joe recently admitted, he will need a “vice-president capable of being president.” In December he mentioned as possible picks certain left-leaning women, including the “woman who should have been governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams.” Assuming Joe wins in November but his mental acuity continues to decline, a leftist woman possibly of color may be our next de facto president.

Be seeing you

You Can't Un-See Joe Biden Rambling About His Leg Hairs ...

 

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

Dr Brownstein | Coronavirus IX: What to Avoid–Ibuprofen–And What to Take

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

I have discussed what our CDC did in previous blog posts. They refused test kits from the WHO, developed their own faulty kits and refused private labs from testing sick individuals. The postmortem on this story will be ugly for the CDC. We are in a mess now with COVID-19 spreading across the country.

But, all is not lost. As I have detailed in other posts, there are many things you can do to improve your immune system and help you avoid COVID-19 problems:

https://www.drbrownstein.com/coronavirus-ix:-what-to-avoid%e2%80%93ibuprofen%e2%80%93and-what-to-take/

Dr B’s blog

Coronavirus IX: What to Avoid–Ibuprofen–And What to Take

Our misery continues! Today, I went to buy my mother toilet paper at 6am and the local grocery store shelves were emptied. Do not fear, as I found it later at a different store. Later today, mom tasked me with finding eggs. That took two different stores as well before I found them!  But, this is a time NOT to panic.  It is a time to pull together and support each other.   Many are recovering uneventfully–we just don’t hear about it.  I have seen numerous patients over the past month that may have had it.  I couldn’t test them because of a lack of kits, but they all recovered.  Of course some are very sick and dying.  Overall, I believe we will come through this with a death rate similar or slightly higher than the rate for the common flu. But, we will never know the true numbers because of a lack of test kits.  I do not think this crisis will persist into the summer months. As we begin to test more patients, we will see the mortality rate decline.  Of course, those are only my predictions, as we know that viruses can mutate.  This virus is very contagious but it is a flu-like illness for most who get it.  That must be kept in mind. And, eating a healthy diet and maintaining optimal hydration can help dramatically. More about that later.

We are in this mess due to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If the CDC had done their job, COVID-19 would be contained and manageable. The Powers-That-Be at the CDC failed miserably compared to other countries. My recent blog post “Coronavirus VIII: Why Does S. Korea Have Lower Death Rate Compared to US?” was about the success in S. Korea at fighting COVID-19. Taiwan is another example for the US CDC to learn from. As of March 13, Taiwan has 50 COVID-19 cases and 1 death. (1) Keep in mind that Taiwan is 81 miles from mainland China and has 24 million citizens. A March 3, 2020 JAMA article detailed the rapid and complete response the Taiwanese health authorities implemented at the beginning of this crisis.

December 31, 2019 was the day Chinese officials notified the WHO that Chinese citizens were suffering unusually severe cases of pneumonia. That same day Taiwan began monitoring all passengers who arrived from Wuhan. A few days later, they started monitoring all people who had travelled to Wuhan since December 20. They increased their surveillance and testing and the rest is history; 50 cases and 1 death as of March 13, 2020.

I have discussed what our CDC did in previous blog posts. They refused test kits from the WHO, developed their own faulty kits and refused private labs from testing sick individuals. The postmortem on this story will be ugly for the CDC. We are in a mess now with COVID-19 spreading across the country.

But, all is not lost. As I have detailed in other posts, there are many things you can do to improve your immune system and help you avoid COVID-19 problems:

– Eat a healthy diet FREE OF REFINED SUGAR! It should also be free of all refined food sources including salt, flour, and oils. Remember, refined sugar paralyzes the ability of white blood cells to perform their duties for hours.

– Make sure you always STAY WELL HYDRATED with clean water. Take your weight in pounds, divide the  number by 2 and the resultant number is the minimum amount of water in ounces to drink per day.

– NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS can help to improve the immune system’s ability to fight off an infection and to help it kill an active infection. I have over 25 years of practicing holistic medicine to back that statement up. I have seen it work. My partners have seen it work. My patients have seen it work.  We have used this approach successfully for many viral infections.  I have no doubt it will work for COVID-19 as well.

In my blog post “Coronavirus Part Vl: Why COVID-19 Is More Deadly to the Chinese” (3) I told you why COVID-19 was more deadly to younger Chinese males. Most Chinese men smoke cigarettes. Smoking increases ACE2 receptors in the lungs where COVID-19 has been shown to bind to. Similarly, ibuprofen has been shown to increase ACE 2 expression. (4) Ibuprofen should be avoided as it may enhance the infectious capabilities of COVID-19. Ibuprofen also causes problems for the kidneys and the GI tract. It is best to let the body utilize its innate abilities to fight an infection. One of the body’s main ways to do this is by mounting a fever. The increased body temperature is a way to mobilize the immune system into action as well as to enhance the killing effect of a foreign invader. Fevers can often be managed by tepid baths, lots of hydration and rest. It is important to maintain electrolyte balance with any infection but particularly when there is fever involved. Supplementing with unrefined salt is crucial here. It can be added to each glass of water. Again, it is best to work with a knowledgeable health care provider before doing any of the suggestions I have written about.

Acetaminophen should also be avoided for fevers.  It depletes a crucial antioxidant–glutathione.  In fact, acetaminophen should be severely limited for any condition.  It has a poor safety profile.

Dr. B’s antiviral protocol for his patients during acute illness or exposure to someone ill:

Vitamin A (NOT beta carotene)

– Adults: 100,000 IU/day for four days for adults (not pregnant or breast-feeding women)
– Children 25-50 pounds: 20,000 IU/day for four days
– Children 50-100 pounds: 50,000 IU/day for four days

Vitamin D3
– Adults: —50,000 IU/day for four days
– Children 25-50 pounds: 10,000 IU/day
– Children: 50-100 pounds: 25,000 IU/day

(Note: Both Vitamin A and D are fat-soluble vitamins. They can build up in the body. These doses are NOT meant to be taken for longer than four days at time. If you need to repeat the doses, seek advice from your physician.)

Vitamin C: 5-10,000 mg/day.  If you can take more, do it.  If you get loose stools, lower it.

Iodine: 25-100 mg/day and more if ill.  Kids can take lower doses.

-Children:  A useful number is to use 0.08mg/pound.

Don’t forget intravenous nutrient therapies are essential for helping the immune system in a time of crises.  A holistic doctor skilled in nutrient IV therapy can help guide you.  I have found IV hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and vitamin C wonderful treatments for my patients.  We would have a lot less death and misery from COVID-19 if these life-saving therapies were taught in medical schools and utilized in hospitals.

Final Thoughts:
This crises will pass. When it does, we need new leadership at CDC, FDA, and HHS. They have all failed us. You don’t have to wait for the Government to come to your rescue. You can take matters into your own hands. Find a holistic doctor who can help you achieve your optimal health. We are ready at the Center for Holistic Medicine to begin the journey with you.

To All Our Health,
~DrB

Be seeing you

 

 

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

PETER HITCHENS: Yes, coronavirus poses a risk – but our response to it is not intelligent or useful. Britain is infected… by a bad case of madness – Mail Online – Peter Hitchens blog

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

I must ask them: are you really worried about our health, or are you just afraid of being blamed for a small number of the deaths that your policies are causing? 

Governments distil fear into power. In a way, they are right to do so. We fear foreign invasion. The State builds a navy to protect us. We fear crime and disorder. 

The State hires police and builds prisons. But they have become less and less good at these basic tasks, and perhaps they now seek other fields, where they can show how much we need them. 

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/03/peter-hitchens-yes-coronavirus-poses-a-risk-but-our-response-to-it-is-not-intelligent-or-useful-brit.html

PETER HITCHENS: Yes, coronavirus poses a risk – but our response to it is not intelligent or useful. Britain is infected… by a bad case of madness

CAPTION

This is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column

Yes, you are right. We have gone quite mad. I know that many people are thinking this, but dare not say so.

I will be accused of all kinds of terrible things for taking this view – but that is another aspect of how crazy things are.

Yes, coronavirus poses a risk. No, our response to it is not intelligent or useful. In fact, I think it is increasingly damaging and will soon become more so.

The key word here is proportion. There is nothing wrong with simple, practical precautions.

I have for many years believed that door handles pose one of the greatest threats to health, and try never to touch them with the naked hand. I was taught from my earliest years to wash my hands before eating.

I am a health faddist. I work at a standing desk. For many years I have walked and bicycled wherever I can. I often take the stairs rather than the lift. I can’t understand how anyone in my generation or younger can smoke, given what we know about it.

I regard sugar as a delicious poison to be avoided as much as possible. I drink little. I get up early and go to bed early. I believe cars are heart-attack machines, noisy, smelly, ugly devices, which depreciate in the gutter while they are not stopping us from exercising and wrecking our lower backs.

Yet our country is so badly planned that few families can manage without them nowadays.

For these reasons, I reckon that my risk from coronavirus is quite small. If I catch it, and I quite possibly will, I doubt it will trouble me all that much.

The truth is, people with what are called ‘underlying conditions’, many of which follow decades without exercise, are in danger not just from coronavirus but from almost everything.

If the Government is so worried about them, why has it followed transport and housing policies that have made it hard and dangerous to walk or bicycle, and so devastated the health of the people?

Why is the sale and possession of cigarettes still even legal? I wouldn’t normally raise these questions quite so fiercely, but the ever-increasing panicky bossiness of the authorities is annoying me.

I must ask them: are you really worried about our health, or are you just afraid of being blamed for a small number of the deaths that your policies are causing?

And are you just anxious to try to demonstrate how good you are? In such matters, we fuss where we do not need to, and do nothing where urgent action is required.

If a train crashed tomorrow and ten people died, it would be huge headlines for days, even though railways are, in fact, extremely safe. An inquiry would be held.

But each year more than 1,700 people die in road crashes, and another 25,000 are seriously injured, and it barely registers, because their lives are ended or ruined in ones and twos.

Governments distil fear into power. In a way, they are right to do so. We fear foreign invasion. The State builds a navy to protect us. We fear crime and disorder.

The State hires police and builds prisons. But they have become less and less good at these basic tasks, and perhaps they now seek other fields, where they can show how much we need them.

I have serious doubts about whether our Government has any idea how to slow the spread of this virus. I suspect it quietly reached these shores long before anyone noticed.

But I am quite sure that many of the current panic measures do far more harm than good. They create the idea that we are in the midst of a terrifying plague that will kill us all, when the truth – though disturbing – is far less frightening.

Their worst effect is to savage the economy by scaring people away from normal activities.

I went to the cinema last Sunday evening and there were six people in the theatre for what ought to be a successful film.

A florist known to me has just lost hundreds of pounds in business from cancelled events this weekend.

We have all seen the staggering, tottering behaviour of the stock markets, possibly triggered and certainly worsened by virus frenzy.

No doubt it will soon become impossible, under some frantic Emergency Powers Regime, to make this point.

I’ll be accused of giving aid and comfort to the virus, or of spreading Alarm and Despondency.

But before the roadblocks go up, and you need a pass to go to work, I thought I’d say it anyway.

Moving reminder of a pointless war

Normally, I might be a bit cool about a movie such as Military Wives, which dramatises the foundation and success of a choir of women worrying at home, as their soldier husbands face danger far away in Afghanistan.

It barely brushes against the other problem – that it was very hard to work out what those soldiers were risking their lives for.

But the film – pictured above – moved me because it reminded me very strongly of that stupid, utterly pointless war whose victims often returned home in their flag-wrapped coffins, along a road not far from where I live.

I went, whenever possible, to stand with my head bowed as they went past, while silently cursing the governments that had sent them there.

I notice that a group of senior officers and MPs have recently written to The Times daftly attacking the new peace deal in Afghanistan – which might at last get Western troops out of a place they should never have entered.

In some way, apparently, the deal will tarnish the memories of the British dead.

Idiotically, they wrote: ‘These hasty negotiations may compromise the Afghan people and the gains that they have made in the past 19 years. They do not want to surrender women’s rights, freedom of speech and their democratic institutions.’

Well, do you know what? I don’t care. If anyone really wants to impose third-wave feminism on Afghanistan, let them get up an international brigade of volunteers and see how they get on.

Our soldiers, who joined to serve Queen and Country, went because they were ordered to.

The real problem with the planned deal is that it exposes the stupidity and vanity of the politicians who sent troops to Afghanistan, and never should have done.

End this wicked trap

I learned last week that a large group of military widows have been caught in a stupid legal trap.

Because they have remarried, they have lost pensions, under former strict rules.

These rules were abolished in 2014 for those bereaved in later years, but the change does not apply to 300 women, widowed by long-ago conflicts such as the Falklands.

According to Julian Lewis MP, these 300 can get the money they are entitled to only if they divorce, and then marry again. This is obviously absurd.

Can Mr Johnson please put it right?

I remember being told in 2010 that I should support David Cameron’s Tories because ‘we must get Gordon Brown out’. Since Wednesday’s terrifying spendthrift Budget could have been written and delivered by Mr Brown, as could most of the government’s other policies, I don’t think that plan worked out very well.

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

March Madness – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

One of the more annoying narratives going viral is the notion that we’re all a bunch of imbeciles and without the authorities herding us around we’d die by the hundreds of thousands.  The assumption is that in times of crisis, central control is superior to letting people fend for themselves.

So why are cruise operators mothballing ships at immense cost when they could be offering cheap rates that would give many young adults the opportunity of a lifetime to travel the world?  Part of the reason is that the government is wielding a big stick...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/kevin-duffy/march-madness/

College students are on spring break and the cruise ships have plenty of idle capacity.  While the coronavirus rightly keeps seniors away, the risks to young people are probably not much greater than getting on an airplane.  Fuel costs plunged last week as the Saudis and Russians engage in a price war, putting even more downward pressure on costs.  Amid this free market match made in heaven, the cruise operators are suspending operations for a month.

Wait, what?

One of the more annoying narratives going viral is the notion that we’re all a bunch of imbeciles and without the authorities herding us around we’d die by the hundreds of thousands.  The assumption is that in times of crisis, central control is superior to letting people fend for themselves.  A tiny minority, among them AIER’s Jeffrey Tucker, say the conventional wisdom has it backwards:

I don’t know what should and shouldn’t be shut down.  But neither does the government have some special magical access to information on risk probabilities and the proper way forward. In fact, government is the last institution that should be making this judgment. Government acts out of self-interest; enterprise acts in the public interest. The obvious answer here is to leave the decision to private actors who are in the best position to make a good judgment on what should shut and what should open.

So why are cruise operators mothballing ships at immense cost when they could be offering cheap rates that would give many young adults the opportunity of a lifetime to travel the world?  Part of the reason is that the government is wielding a big stick, interfering in international travel and pushing people into semi-isolation.  The cruise operators also expanded too rapidly, took on debt and left themselves with little margin of safety, another consequence of the 2008 financial bailouts and a decade of ultra-cheap credit.  When the coronavirus first appeared in China, they remained complacent, maintaining dividends and reassuring investors that the outlook was bright.  Rather than take responsibility, pick a fight with the government, and try to claw their way back, they’ve decided to toss in the towel and get in line for potential future bailouts.

Who can blame them?

Barron’s – March 16, 2020

The financial press is back begging for bailouts, just as they did when the first cracks in the credit bubble appeared in 2007, well over a year before the 2008 meltdown.  The weekend issue of Barron’s shamelessly promotes a massive government response to fight the coronavirus and its spillover effects:

This isn’t 2008, when deep problems were rooted in the financial system.  Covid-19 is a health crisis, an economic crisis, and a financial crisis rolled into one – and policy makers will need to get creative to keep panic at bay…  [P]oliticians from both sides of the aisle must find a way to work together – or risk something worse than the financial crisis.

Investors are like spoiled children who go crying to daddy every time they get into trouble.  After decades of moral hazard conditioned a whole host of economic actors to believe any downturn would be painless and brief, they’ve become devoid of critical thinking and prone to emotional reactions.  Since stocks peaked February 14, the S&P 500 has dropped 20%, yet Treasury bonds have been the safe haven of choice – with the “TLT” up 7% – while gold has actually fallen 4%.  Early last week, the yield on 30-year T-bonds hit an all-time low and now stands at 1.55%.

Anyone who would loan money to the U.S. government at 1.55% for the next 30 years needs to have their head examined.

It is $23 trillion in debt.  Its economy is heading into recession.  It is about to take out the bazooka and go on a spending and money printing spree.  As a friend warned me after the 2016 presidential election, “If you are a creditor, the last person you want to see on the other side of the table is Donald Trump.”

Will the confidence game work again?  Will panicked moviegoers rush back into a burning theater?  Don’t bet against it.  Of course, that won’t extinguish the fire.

Most analysts believe the cruise ship industry can survive the coronavirus pandemic as long as it doesn’t last more than a few quarters.  Even so, these companies will be forced to tap into credit lines, making them more vulnerable to the next shock.  Meanwhile, the large banks which provide these loans will become more fragile as well.  The government, too, will become more leveraged (just as the Boomers are set to swamp entitlement programs).  Just as the system’s defenses are dilapidated, a severe economic storm is bearing down.

After decades of lifeboats showing up on cue, there are no more rescues.  Investors and businessmen, you’re on your own.

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

The Real Crisis Starts Now in Europe

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

The lockdown of Italy isn’t a temporary thing. Oh, the suspension of free movement is temporary, but it portends something far bigger.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/03/14/real-crisis-starts-now-europe/

I think it’s safe to say the new crisis just killed the Schengen Treaty. That ridiculous document which guaranteed freedom of movement across the European Union finally hit something it couldn’t bully, COVID-19.

Regardless of whether you believe the pandemic is real or not, the reaction to it is real and is having real consequence far beyond the latest print of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The lockdown of Italy isn’t a temporary thing. Oh, the suspension of free movement is temporary, but it portends something far bigger.

It’s the beginning of the real political balkanization that’s coming to the European Union over the next few years. Old enmities and prejudices have not been stamped out under the boot heel of oppressive legislation coming from a bunch of disconnected technocrats in Brussels.

They have only been suppressed.

Because when there are existential threats there’s no time or desire to virtue signal about how we’re all one big happy dysfunctional family.

For decades Germany refused to lighten up on its fiscal inflexibility believing, rightly, that it shouldn’t subsidize profligacy in places like Italy, Spain and Greece if it didn’t want to.

At the same time, however, Germany transmitted those rules to the single currency regime of the euro. That was the price they forced on the rest of Europe.

This ensured that eventually they would have to do exactly that, subsidize or bailout debts, as the mispricing of labor and capital efficiency inherent in the any single currency applied over multiple economies drove capital to Germany and out from those countries.

Now Germans face the existential threat of COVID-19 imported into Europe mostly through Wuhan textiles workers in Milan’s leather shops/ Their leaders will force them to accept looser spending rules.

And do you think this will engender an outpouring of love and affection towards Italians?

If you do you might be delusional or an open-borders libertarian… but I repeat myself.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has signaled for months she would spend more to satisfy the rising Greens on Germany’s political left.

Her finance minister, Olaf Scholz, unleashed the full force of Germany’s sovereign wealth fund to offer unlimited support to German businesses facing troubles because of this virus.

This is as good a cover story for the gargantuan holes in the balance sheets of zombie German banks as they were likely ever going to get folks.

ECB President Christine Lagarde was brought in to ram through the political changes needed to loosen Germany’s tie. She knew the only way the EU would survive the growing crisis within its non-functional sovereign debt market was to print money to the high heavens.

Or allow the union to break up. But, there is no Door #2 in Europe. All doors lead to Brussels.

Germany stood in the way of that while at the same time Merkel ruthlessly enforced Schengen. She weakened the political center in Germany and inflamed memories of a Germany which rampaged across Europe militarily in the 20th century through enforced austerity hollowing out less-efficient euro-zone economies.

So in the midst of this mess comes COVID-19 and the uncoordinated and inept response to it from the political center of Europe to date. Only now are they coming to the conclusion they need to restrict travel, after sitting on their hands for a few weeks while Italians died by the hundreds.

And do you think that’s engendering waves of love and affection among Italians towards Germans?

If you do then you don’t know Italians… at all.

And this is your signal that this is the beginning of the real crisis. Because while COVID-19 may have been the catalyst for the breakdown of capital markets, capital markets were simply waiting for that spark to occur.

Any other type of spark, a bank failure from a run of bad loans, could have been handled and absorbed. There was no Credit Anstalt the central planners weren’t prepared for.

They’ve been able to keep Deutsche Bank operational for the past few years, for pity’s sake, they could have handled any other single bank failure.

But with COVID-19 being the ultimate form of exogenous shock to the global economy there is no containing the financial contagion. And that’s why we saw a strong unwind of U.S. equities and a sharp rise in both the Japanese yen and the euro when this thing began.

Part of what had been pushing U.S. equities higher was the capital flow from Europe and Japan into the U.S. That reversed for short time as the eurodollar markets seized up and the demand for cash locally rose sharply.

It’s no different than what is happening here.

I went to my bank yesterday to grab some cash and finish our self-quarantine prep (we’d bought extra toilet paper weeks ago). The teller told me she’d moved out a lot more cash than normal and it wasn’t even the end of lunch hour.

Then I told her the bank run on corporate credit began earlier in the week as companies like Boeing maxed their credit revolvers to front run the bank pulling it.

That got her attention.

The same thing on a larger scale was happening in Europe until Lagarde told the world that she wasn’t done blackmailing Germany to loosening its stance on fiscal rules at her presser on Thursday.

And the rally in the euro, which was already sick, died.

Annnnd…. it’s gone!

What we saw to end this week was an epic reversal of that capital outflow as the USDX and U.S. equities rallied while the euro crashed back to $1.11. And now that it’s started I don’t expect it to stop.

The Fed fired major blanks at the dollar-funding crisis in the credit markets this week. What is the ECB going to do to stop rates from rising in Europe as money flees their incompetence?

Fairy dust springs to mind, honestly. But, more likely there will be a very quick move to close the banks and cancel the use of cash while new rules are adopted and Lagarde turns to the IMF to bailout the ECB which can very easily go bankrupt here.

The weakest banking system in Europe serves a country on lockdown over this virus.

So, it doesn’t matter now that Germany has acquiesced, pledging its own savings and lifting fiscal restraints of euro-zone members. All the printing will does is feed the vortex of unpayable debt that is far bigger than their prodigious piggy bank.

The next stage of the crisis is here with the focus finally turning to Europe. The U.S., for all of its faults, is one nation with a unified debt market and an executive who can and has exercise powers necessary to keep the wheels from completely falling off the U.S. economy.

Will Trump spend money he doesn’t actually have? Yes. So what?

That money will go into a logistical pipeline that far outstrips Europe’s to combat a disease over a smaller population spread across larger distances. That limits the damage to the U.S. It ensures political stability that the EU cannot hope to compete with for the trust of spooked capital.

Add the global economy grinding to a halt. We’ll see the crisis emerge in Europe to feed a widening gyre of debt servicing that will look like a global bank run on dollar liquidity.

It will force fundamental reform of the euro and the ECB. They are necessary for the EU to survive this crisis in anything close to its current form.

I’m not laying odds that will work. Instead I expect Schengen’s suspension to hold and more countries go the way of the Brits by exiting the EU itself.

While this crisis is tailor-made to shove the federalization of Europe down the throats of what’s left of the German middle class, I don’t think it succeeds.

Until Germany is willing to bail out Italian banks, there is no solution to this.

And while I think Merkel is willing to fall on her sword to get this done, It may still not work.

How convenient it is that Merkel’s CDU just cancelled their April 22nd leadership vote because of this crisis. This forestalls any possibility of Merkel losing control of her party until after Germany begins its EU Commission Presidency.

Whatever she has planned she has to do soon. Her political capital is just about spent.

There will be no change of leadership during a crisis like this. She’s almost done completing the sell out of Germany to the EU begun by Helmut Kohl.

Just in time for the whole experiment to come crashing down.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

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

War on China? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

As David Stockman has observed, “Indeed, the entire intellectual property theft meme is just a scam under which the business lobbies have enlisted the FBI and other law enforcement branches to function as taxpayer-financed patent attorneys and litigants.

Provoking war with China is an incredibly dangerous policy. Eric S. Margolis, an experienced foreign policy expert, has noted: “But in a US-China war, the Chinese would be fighting almost at home.  The US would have to sustain a major conflict many thousands of miles from its home ports.  America is the world’s genius when it comes to logistics and mass operations, but even so great distances are punishing.  It would prove a bridge too far.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/lew-rockwell/war-on-china/

People are understandably upset about the coronavirus epidemic, but if we’re not careful, an even greater danger lies ahead. Sinister forces in American political life are using the crisis to incite war with China and to stir up bad feelings towards the Chinese people. The Chinese people are in fact heroic. They are our friends, not our enemies. But the forces of evil want you to think otherwise.

Concerning the coronavirus, the key fact to remember is that we know very little about it. The worst mistake we could make is to become jittery and panicked. As Bill Sardi, an outstanding expert on health issues, has pointed out, “There are two hotspots in the world for coronavirus infections: Wuhan, China (Hubei Province) and Italy.  Both of these geographic areas were grappling with tuberculosis outbreaks prior to the eruption of the mutated COVID-19 coronavirus.  Strangely, coronavirus appears to spread to the rest of the world from these hotspots via airplane travel.  But the infection remains in those infected and may spread within a household, but not into the community.  Other geographical outbreaks must be questioned as there are too many false positive tests to confirm COVID-19 coronavirus, which at this point in time may be nothing more than a passenger virus that accompanies tubercular infections.” If Sardi is right, the main thing we can do to keep safe is to close our borders to immigrants.

Unfortunately, people are using the epidemic to stir up bad feelings toward the Chinese people, because the epidemic began in Wuhan Province there. Ironically, there is evidence the virus was really sent to China from the US. Larry Romanoff, whose “Global Research” column often uncovers items others miss, says: “Not only did the virus not originate at the seafood market, it did not originate in Wuhan at all, and it has now been proven that it did not originate in China but was brought to China from another country. Part of the proof of this assertion is that the genome varieties of the virus in Iran and Italy have been sequenced and declared to have no part of the variety that infected China and must, by definition, have originated elsewhere.

It would seem the only possibility for origination is the US because only that country has the “tree trunk” of all the varieties. And it may therefore be true that the original source of the COVID-19 virus was the US military bio-warfare lab at Fort Detrick. This would not be a surprise, given that the CDC completely shut down Fort Detrick, but also because, as I related in an earlier article, between 2005 and 2012 the US had experienced 1,059 events where pathogens had been either stolen or escaped from American bio-labs during the prior ten years – an average of one every three days.”

But even if Romanoff is wrong, the epidemic was not the fault of the Chinese people. Rather, the responsibility lies with the Chinese government, which suppressed warnings by local doctors. Had these warnings been heeded, the disease could have been contained with little trouble.

Hate directed against the Chinese blocks efforts in the US to deal with the coronavirus problem. Chinese scientists have developed an efficient way to test for the virus that can process 40 people in 130 minutes, instead of the 2-3 day wait for results from US tests. The US government has made no effort to get this test but instead keeps it out of the news. Instead, we hear ridiculous talk about supporting US pharmaceuticals instead of Chinese pharmaceuticals. We should be supporting free trade, so that we can get cheap drugs to US consumers. We should not help Big Pharma exploit American consumers.

Because the epidemic started in China and spread from there, hostility toward Chinese people living in the US has gone up. Chinese-owned stores have been threatened, and gun sales to Chinese who fear attacks have soared. Chinese restaurants are nearly empty.

The President’s talk about the “Chinese virus” fans the flame of ill-feelings, and some fear that the government may provoke a war with China in order to distract attention from a tanking US economy. US government propaganda has spread false claims about predatory Chinese trade practices to get the American people ready for hostile action toward China. As David Stockman has observed, “Indeed, the entire intellectual property theft meme is just a scam under which the business lobbies have enlisted the FBI and other law enforcement branches to function as taxpayer-financed patent attorneys and litigants.

But that’s not the state’s job at all: Enforcement of intellectual property rights is a cost of doing business that should be borne by patent owners; and not, again, by the proverbial bus driver shopping at Walmart’s and finding the cost of his tariffed necessities rising because some company in China is allegedly stealing trade secrets. Of course, the ultimate case of Trade Nannyism is the perennial whining by the K-Street lobbies that nefarious trade abusers like China “subsidize” their exports.

Why, yes, they surely do…..send foreign aid to American consumers, that is!

To the contrary, if you want to level the playing field for American producers and manufacturers, instruct the Fed to stop targeting 2% inflation, and, in fact, to get out of the way entirely so that the domestic economy can deflate its high prices, wages and costs and thereby become more competitive on the global markets.”

Provoking war with China is an incredibly dangerous policy. Eric S. Margolis, an experienced foreign policy expert, has noted: “But in a US-China war, the Chinese would be fighting almost at home.  The US would have to sustain a major conflict many thousands of miles from its home ports.  America is the world’s genius when it comes to logistics and mass operations, but even so great distances are punishing.  It would prove a bridge too far.” The U.S. would be the aggressor in a war with China. The South China Sea belongs to them, not to us, yet we send our ships there and insist we have a right to control what happens there. Also, a great deal of China’s industry and agriculture is privately owned, so an attack on China would be an attack on private property. Both the neocons and the nationalist “Right” want war with China. We should aim at peace instead, as Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul have taught us.

If we ignore propaganda and look at the facts, we should recognize that the Chinese people are heroes. It’s a scandal, in fact, that few Westerners are even aware, or, if they are aware, they are not conscious, of the bloody reality that prevailed in China between the years 1949 and 1976, the years of rule by Mao Zedong

How many died as a result of persecutions and the communist policies of Mao? Perhaps you care to guess? Many people over the years have attempted to guess. But they have always underestimated. As more data rolled in during the 1980s and 1990s, and specialists have devoted themselves to investigations and estimates, the figures have become ever more reliable. And yet they remain imprecise. What kind of error term are we talking about? It could be as low as 40 million. It could be as high as 100 million — or more. In the Great Leap Forward from 1959 to 1961 alone, figures range between 20 million to 75 million. In the period before, 20 million. In the period after, tens of millions more.

As scholars in the area of mass death point out, most of us can’t imagine 100 dead or 1000. Above that, we are just talking about statistics: they have no conceptual meaning for us. And there is only so much ghastly information that our brains can absorb, only so much blood we can imagine. And yet there is more to why China’s communist experiment remains a hidden fact: it makes a decisive case against government power, one even more compelling than the cases of Russia or Germany in the 20th century. Finally in 1976, Mao died. Within a few months, his closest advisers were all imprisoned. And the reform began slowly at first and then at breakneck speed. Civil liberties were restored (comparatively) and the rehabilitations began. Torturers were prosecuted. Economic controls were gradually relaxed. The economy, by virtue of human and private economic initiative, was transformed.

Having read the above, you are now in a tiny elite of people who know anything about the greatest death camp in the history of the world that China became between 1949 and 1976, an experiment in total control unlike anything other in history. Many more people today know more about China’s exploding cell-phone batteries than the hundred million dead and the untold amount of suffering that occurred under communism.

When you hear complaints about the “Chinese virus” today, imagine millions in famine, with parents swapping children to eat in order to stay alive. Let’s have peace with China, not war, and let’s admire the hardworking, productive, and wonderful Chinese people.

 

 

 

 

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

Erie Times E-Edition Article-How US surveillance nabs more than spies

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2020

And tramples your Constitution in the process

Follow the link below to view the article.

http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=0966ace49

WASHINGTON — The case against Nassif Sami Daher and Kamel Mohammad Rammal, two Michigan men accused of food stamp fraud, hardly seemed exceptional. But the tool that agents used to investigate them was extraordinary: a secretive surveillance process intended to identify potential spies and terrorists.

It meant that the men, unlike most criminal defendants, were never shown the evidence authorities used to begin investigating them or the information that the Justice Department presented to obtain the original warrant.

The case is among recent Justice Department prosecutions that relied on the same surveillance powers, known by the acronym FISA, that law enforcement officials acknowledge were misused in the Russia investigation. Those errors have prompted a reckoning inside the FBI and debate in Congress about new privacy safeguards. The attention given to FISA has also cast a spotlight on cases such as the Michigan one, where surveillance tools used to investigate foreign intelligence threats end up leading to prosecutions for commonplace, domestic crimes.

The department says it can’t turn a blind eye to crimes it uncovers when scrutinizing someone for national security purposes, even if those offenses weren’t the initial basis of the investigation. In recent years, inquiries that began with FISA warrants have yielded charges including child pornography and bank and wire fraud.

Current and former officials say just because a FISA warrant produces charges other than national security ones doesn’t mean the target is no longer considered a national security threat. Sometimes, particularly when disrupting a terrorism plot, prosecutors may charge other crimes they find evidence of for fear of tipping the target’s conspirators to the investigation’s actual purpose.

But critics say building routine cases on evidence derived from FISA warrants undermines constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. And if the original surveillance application is riddled with errors or omissions, they say, any resulting prosecution is tainted. Though some judges have raised concerns, no court has prohibited the practice, and the Supreme Court has never directly confronted the specific issue.

Patrick Toomey, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union national security project, noted that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to describe the type of criminal evidence it’s seeking before conducting a search.

“Our view is that the types of broad searches for foreign intelligence information flips the Fourth Amendment on its head when the government repurposes those searches for domestic criminal prosecutions,” Toomey said .

That’s what happened with Daher and Rammal. They were charged in August 2018 with defrauding the food stamp program in a scheme that investigators say was based at a Detroit service station.

The next month, prosecutors told them that the government intended to use information collected under a warrant approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes law enforcement to eavesdrop on people it has probable cause to believe are agents of a foreign power.

That meant that while Daher and Rammal could see government evidence about the fraud allegations, they were denied details about the reasons for the national security surveillance.

Though the Justice Department has refused to disclose the application it submitted to the court, its filings make clear the case was part of a broader terrorism-related inquiry. Prosecutors produced a statement from Attorney General William Barr saying the FISA materials held classified information about counterterrorism investigations and that disclosing them would harm national security.

Rammal, who was raised in Lebanon, has since pleaded guilty to fraud. Daher has fought unsuccessfully to see the FISA information and is awaiting trial. His lawyers contend Daher, a Muslim, was targeted in a post-Sept. 11 “mob mentality” Neither men faced terrorist-related charges.

“Sami is a nerd with a big ego and imagination, but, he is not a terrorist or a National Security threat,” Daher’s lawyers wrote.

The Justice Department says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act explicitly permits law enforcement to use evidence from FISA warrants for domestic criminal prosecutions and that it makes obvious sense to do so.

“Congress intended that you not ignore evidence of another crime while you’re doing foreign intelligence surveillance, and FISA itself reflects this,” Assistant Attorney General John Demers, the department’s top national security official, said in a statement. “It’s nonsensical to ignore evidence of a crime that we’ve lawfully gathered.”

Nonetheless, defense lawyers see the department as straying beyond FISA’s original intent.

Critics have long complained about the one-sided nature of the process. Targets of the surveillance, for instance, are consistently denied copies of FISA applications, making it hard for them to know the accuracy of the information given to the court, to learn why precisely prosecutors considered them a national security concern and to contest the legitimacy of the search.

In the Russia case, details of the FISA warrant used on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page became known only because of the highly partisan congressional fight over special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Later, the Justice Department inspector general found that the FBI omitted from its applications key information that should have been presented to the court.

The FBI has since announced steps aimed at ensuring that its wiretap applications are more accurate. The House passed legislation Wednesday containing new privacy protections. The Senate left for the week without approving it, allowing certain FISA provision s to temporarily expire.

Most FISA warrants don’t result in criminal prosecution. Page, for instance, has denied wrongdoing and was never charged. Those that do generally involve national security crimes, such as the recent espionage case against a military contractor accused of disclosing classified information.

But other recent FISA warrants have been incorporated into prosecutions with no national security charges.

In California, Abdallah Osseily, a naturalized citizen from Lebanon, was charged by national security prosecutors in 2018 with lying in bank documents and on his naturalization petition.

Prosecutors disclosed surveillance recordings that defense lawyers say did not come from conventional criminal wiretaps, though the government has refused to confirm or deny if it obtained a FISA warrant. The Justice Department says none of the evidence it’s using at trial derived from FISA. Defense lawyers have nonetheless fought to see the original application.

Be seeing you

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