MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘patriot act’

The Restrict Act Is The Patriot Act on Steroids

Posted by M. C. on March 29, 2023

https://rumble.com/v2f78es-the-restrict-act-is-the-patriot-act-on-steroids.html

Be seeing you

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

The Patriot Act on steroids: D.C. Uniparty wants to use anti-TikTok legislation as Trojan horse for censorship and surveillance

Posted by M. C. on March 29, 2023

Beltway lawmakers are setting up a smokescreen to curtail rights.

Unfortunately, the ongoing TikTok hearings in D.C. have very little to do with protecting the rights of Americans from potential Chinese Communist Party data harvesting, and lots to do with protecting the Uniparty’s dominance over the communications and surveillance space.

https://open.substack.com/pub/dossier/p/the-patriot-act-on-steroids-dc-uniparty?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android

Jordan Schachtel

TikTok is indeed a pestilence upon our society.

But there are right ways to go about minimizing this “digital opium” and its impact on our lives, and other means that will allow the American government to leverage the situation to further curtail our individual rights.

And unsurprisingly, the latter idea is making lawmakers in the beltway beyond giddy this week.

The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

TikTok is indeed a pestilence upon our society.

But there are right ways to go about minimizing this “digital opium” and its impact on our lives, and other means that will allow the American government to leverage the situation to further curtail our individual rights.

And unsurprisingly, the latter idea is making lawmakers in the beltway beyond giddy this week.

The Dossier is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Subscribe

The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act (S.686), which was introduced in the Senate earlier this month, would do much more than just ban TikTok.

This bill is no mere “TikTok ban,” it is a mechanism for a massive, sweeping surveillance and censorship overhaul.  

The RESTRICT Act goes far, far beyond potentially banning TikTok. It gives the government virtual unchecked authority over the U.S. communications infrastructure. The incredibly broad language includes the ability to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to “national security” today and in any “potential future transaction.”

The Senate legislation currently has 19 cosponsors, all of whom are Uniparty members in good standing. It is fully “bipartisan,” consisting of 9 democrats and 10 republicans. 

Darin Feinstein @DarinFeinstein

TikTok is bad, but the Restrict Act could be worse “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain TRANSACTIONS between persons in the USA and foreign adversaries, AND for other purposes(?)” Overly Broad Language = Future Abuse congress.gov/bill/118th-con…

7:05 PM ∙ Mar 27, 2023


9Likes4Retweets

Timcast’s Ian Crossland fittingly described the legislation as The Patriot Act for technology.

Human Events @HumanEvents

On Timcast, @IanCrossland suggests the Restrict Act, which was introduced to ban TikTok, could set a dangerous precedent: “It gives you carte blanche to just start ending networks … this is like the Patriot Act for technology.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The FBI and Personal Liberty – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 19, 2023

The FBI admission that it uses the CIA and the NSA to spy for it came in the form of a 906-page FBI rulebook written during the Trump administration, disseminated to federal agents in 2021 and made known to Congress last week.

Needless to say, the CIA and the NSA cannot be pleased. The CIA charter prohibits its employees from engaging in domestic surveillance and law enforcement. Yet, we know the CIA is present physically or virtually in all of the 50 U.S. statehouses.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01/andrew-p-napolitano/the-fbi-and-personal-liberty/

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Among the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The wall was intended to prevent law enforcement from accessing and using data gathered by America’s domestic spying agencies.

Those of us who monitor the government’s destruction of personal liberties have been warning for a generation that government spying is rampant in the U.S., and the feds regularly engage in it as part of law enforcement’s well-known antipathy to the Fourth Amendment. Last week, the FBI admitted as much.

Here is the backstory.

After President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress investigated his abuse of the FBI and CIA as domestic spying agencies. Some of the spying was on political dissenters and some on political opponents. None of it was lawful.

What is lawful spying? The modern Supreme Court has made it clear that domestic spying is a “search” and the acquisition of data from a search is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime presented under oath to the judge for a search or seizure to be lawful. The amendment also requires that all search warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

The language in the Fourth Amendment is the most precise in the Constitution because of the colonial disgust with British general warrants. A general warrant was issued to British agents by a secret court in London. General warrants did not require probable cause, only “governmental needs.” That, of course, was no standard whatsoever, as whatever the government wants it will claim that it needs.

General warrants, as well, did not specify what was to be searched or seized. Rather, they authorized government agents to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found; stated differently, to engage in fishing expeditions.

When Congress learned of Nixon’s excesses, it enacted FISA, which required that all domestic spying be authorized by the new and secret FISA Court. Congress then lowered the probable cause of crime standard for the FISA Court to probable cause of being a foreign agent, and it permitted the FISA Court to issue general warrants.

How can Congress, which is itself a creature of the Constitution, change standards established by the Constitution? Answer: It cannot legally or constitutionally do so. But it did so nevertheless.

Yet, the FISA compromise that was engineered in order to attract congressional votes was the wall. The wall consisted of regulatory language reflecting that whatever data was acquired from surveillance conducted pursuant to a FISA warrant could not be shared with law enforcement.

So, if a janitor in the Russian embassy was really a KGB agent who was distributing illegal drugs as lures to get Americans to spy for him, and all this was learned via a FISA warrant that authorized listening to phone calls from the embassy, the telephonic evidence of his drug dealing could not be given to the FBI.

The purpose of the wall was not to protect foreign agents from domestic criminal prosecutions; it was to prevent American law enforcement from violating personal privacy by spying on Americans without search warrants.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

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

The Covid Stimulus Isn’t Like Other Stimulus. It’s Much Bigger. | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 27, 2021

The US was running budget surpluses in the late forties and through much of the fifties. Americans were young, and there were far more workers producing than collecting government Social Security welfare checks.

Those days are gone, and although American workers continue to be highly productive, the burden each worker must bear to pay for the elderly and the unproductive continues to grow. 

What we have now is a country heavily dependent on ever-larger amounts of government spending and monetary expansion.

https://mises.org/wire/covid-stimulus-isnt-other-stimulus-its-much-bigger

Ryan McMaken

When it comes to policy debates, it’s now pretty clear that if you’d like to sound very quaint and old fashioned, be sure to express some concerns over the size of the federal budget and deficit spending.

Such concerns are now taken about as seriously by the average politician in Washington as is the constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act. Virtually no one cares.

Admittedly, the lack of interest in spending was already largely in place before the covid crisis began. During the Trump administration, reckless federal spending was the norm, and inflation-adjusted federal spending surged even past spending in 2009, when the federal government was panicking over the financial crisis and the Great Recession. In other words, the Trump administration gave us crisis-level spending when there wasn’t even a crisis.

Not surprisingly, deficit spending was also remarkably high under Trump—precovid—as well. By 2019, Trump had signed off on a trillion-dollar deficit, something many thought to be outlandish during a nonrecessionary period before that.

spe

But those numbers—including the numbers from the Great Recession bailout years—all look modest compared to the surge in spending that occurred with the covid panic of 2020 and 2021.

Let’s compare spending in the two periods. For example, from 2019 to 2020, federal spending rose 54 percent—from $4.5 trillion to $6.5 trillion, respectively—as Congress and the White House poured money into bailouts and stimulus. On the other hand, in the wake of the financial crisis, from 2008 to 2009, spending “only” increased 14 percent, from $3.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion.

spending

On a per capita basis, the numbers were similar. Per capital federal spending rose 13 percent from 2008 to 2009, rising from $12,000 to $13,700 for each American. But from 2019 to 2020, per capita spending rose 44 percent, from $13,600 to $19,700. (These numbers are all in constant 2020 dollars.)

Spending Levels Similar to World War II

At this point, defenders of runaway spending will often suggest that what really matters is spending compared to gross domestic product (GDP). 

So let’s look at that measure. In 2020, federal outlays as a percentage of the nation’s GDP surged to 31 percent, the highest number seen since 1945.

gdp

Similarly, the federal deficit as a percentage of GDP surged to nearly 15 percent in 2020. Again, this is the highest number seen of this measure since 1945.

gdp

(Proportional comparisons of this sort tend to understate the extent to which debt and spending is growing compared to the overall GDP. This is because government spending is itself a component of GDP, and since GDP is measured in dollars, monetary expansion—even without true growth in economic activity—can fuel GDP expansion as well.)

Also of political significance is the fact that while federal spending was taking off over the past eighteen months, growth in state and local spending nearly flatlined, dropping to 0.38 percent growth over the previous year. That’s the lowest growth rate in state and local spending since 2011, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Yet, at the same time, federal spending increased by 25 percent—the largest year-over-year increase in federal spending since the Korean War.

All combined, this means federal spending surged to comprise more than two-thirds of all government spending in the US during 2020. We’d have to go back to the dark days of the Cold War and the Vietnam War to find the last time federal spending so dominated government spending in America.

fed

This all reflects the fact that state and local governments are actually affected by economic crises. That is, when incomes and economic activity fall, state and local revenues—and spending—fall. Not so with the federal government, which, thanks to the central bank’s willingness to buy up US debt, can much more easily engage in large amounts of deficit spending than can state and local governments.

See the rest here

Author:

Contact Ryan McMaken

Ryan McMaken is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and Power&Market, but read article guidelines first. 

Be seeing you

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

Let’s stop the next Patriot Act

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2021

https://mailchi.mp/dd511ff39bc2/the-us-celebrates-30-years-of-bombing-iraq-4195689?e=de2d0eded6

You can be prepared for the next 9/11.Last time we were caught completely by surprise. We won’t let that happen again.The American people were naive about U.S. foreign policy. They thought the 1990s were peacetime. On 9/11, the planes appeared to come out of the clear blue sky.This left us open false explanations.
We won’t let that happen again. We will stay informed, and we will inform others. So when someone asks, “why do they hate us,” you can explain what the United States government has done to their country.In Chapter 4 of Gus Cantavero’s video adaptation of Scott’s new book Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism,Scott delves into the George W. Bush years including the decision to let bin Laden go as an excuse to start and continue more wars.
Arm yourself with knowledge so you can fight for peace. Buy Scott’s new book, Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Prepare for the new “Domestic Terrorism Bill” – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2021

Joe Biden has claimed multiple times to be the author of the original Patriot Act, saying it was based entirely on a bill he proposed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

Well now he has a chance to work on the reboot too, and they are always so much better when you can get the original creative team back together.

What will “Domestic Terrorism” mean in this law? The answer to that is pretty much always “whatever they want it to mean.”

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/08/prepare-for-the-new-domestic-terrorism-bill/

Kit Knightly

It’s not been often, in the five years OffG has existed, that we’ve had to cop to missing something important within 24 hours of publishing an article – but this is one of those times.

In my article yesterday – “The Storming of the Capitol”: America’s Reichstag Fire? – I said this [my emphasis]:

Although there is not yet any talk of legislation [in response to the Capitol Hill riots], it’s certainly true there are whispers of purges and other measures to “protect the constitution”.

That quote did not age well, indeed it was wrong from the moment it went to print. Because, as it turns out, there has actually been “talk of legislation” for weeks – even months. Soon-to-be-President Joe Biden promised a new “domestic terrorism bill” back in November, according to the Wall Street Journal.

That is why you’re seeing so much usage of the phrase “domestic terrorism” in the last couple of days. It’s the meme-phrase. The primary talking point for this whole exercise. It was underlined in all the memos sent out to all the media outlets.

That’s why Joe Biden went to such lengths to distinguish “domestic terrorists” from “protesters” in his speech following the riots.

That’s why the Council on Foreign Relations had an interview with a “counter-terrorism and national security expert” published within 24 hours of the incident, in which he spends 4 paragraphs arguing that the people who “stormed the capitol” were domestic terrorists.

That’s why the Washington Post has got an article dedicated to “lawmakers and experts” arguing that the Capitol Hill protest was an act of “domestic terrorism”. And so have Vox. And Mother Jones.

That’s why ABC had an article about how “domestic terrorism and hate crimes” were a growing problem in America…a week before the riot took place.

And that’s why #TrumpisaDomesticTerrorist is trending on Twitter.

Georgetown University, a well-known spook college, published a paper in September 2020 titled the “The Need for a Specific Law Against Domestic Terrorism”, and op-ed pieces bemoaning the lack of such a law have been dotted through the press going back to last summer and even late 2019.

There was one published yesterday, in which a “senior FBI official” says “more could have been done” if there had been a “specific law outlawing” domestic terrorism.

“Domestic Terrorism” is clearly where it’s at in early 2021, so we can expect a brand new law regarding it…probably by March, at the latest.

What will “Domestic Terrorism” mean in this law? The answer to that is pretty much always “whatever they want it to mean.”

Certainly, it will include “incitement” and “hate speech”, I would expect “denialism” to make an appearance, and be downright shocked if “spreading misinformation” doesn’t get a mention. Don’t be surprised if “questioning elections” or “bringing democracy into disrepute” is made an outright crime.

It will probably be tied into the Covid “pandemic” in some way, too. After all, what is discouraging people from taking vaccines if not the very definition of “terrorism”, right? It’s possible that even climate change will get a mention as well. They like to slide that into every issue these days.

Joe Biden has claimed multiple times to be the author of the original Patriot Act, saying it was based entirely on a bill he proposed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

Well now he has a chance to work on the reboot too, and they are always so much better when you can get the original creative team back together.

Be seeing you

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

The Best 5 Minutes on the Internet – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 14, 2020

The face of the Covid response, if not the true power behind it, is of
course Tony Fauci. His decades burrowed into the federal bureaucracy has
given him a scientific power base using influence, money and bullying
to control the public health response to infectious disease. The putrid
undergrowth of his career as described by Judy Mikovits and others makes him the J. Edgar Hoover of public health.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/ira-katz/the-best-5-minutes-on-the-internet/

By

The Covid debate about the lockdown is often posed as a choice between the economy (wealth, money) and lives. There are many with whom I agree with that turn this debate into lives versus lives, as the health cost of the lockdown is already enormous for many reasons. For example, in the short term the mental health of people in isolation will deteriorate potentially leading to suicide. All other healthcare is being ignored. An old student of mine who runs an emergency unit in a hospital told me the patient load is about 5% of normal. Were all of those strokes and heart attacks fake?

In the medium term, a country racked by an economic depression will not have the same healthcare system as a prosperous one. As Robert Wenzel reports, the rising food costs will really hurt social security recipients.  Stopping production across the country while creating trillions in new dollars is a recipe for economic disaster that has never been witnessed in the United States.

But let’s consider in the long term a different aspect to this Covid response that has nothing to do with data or modelling. That is the unprecedented restrictions on the population. The rule of law, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, the freedom to work and use property (closing of businesses) have devastated the last vestiges of our constitutional order. If we understand the ratchet effect as developed by Robert Higgs, the freedom lost in this debacle will never be fully recovered short of a revolution. From September 11th we still have the Patriot Act, the TSA, and forever wars. Now the choice between lives and freedom is often put forward by our fearless leaders in Washington who fight behind computer screens. They gladly sacrifice thousands of soldiers and millions in civilian collateral damage as a necessary cost for our freedom. What is coming in forced vaccination and tracking of the population is truly frightening. And yet now, most people meekly accept this legal and moral travesty to protect lives.

The face of the Covid response, if not the true power behind it, is of course Tony Fauci. His decades burrowed into the federal bureaucracy has given him a scientific power base using influence, money and bullying to control the public health response to infectious disease. The putrid undergrowth of his career as described by Judy Mikovits and others makes him the J. Edgar Hoover of public health. His insistence on vaccine, vaccine, vaccine as the only viable response to Covid, as Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams described in his Senate testimony, could be a turning point because it is so ridiculous. He says we must wait at least another year to restart normal life. Imagine a whole year of school missed over the whole country. Will Tony isolate seniors for a whole year with no visitors. You might as well shoot them now. People must recognize that this is madness.

From a philosophical point of view, this Covid response places one aspect of health as the highest priority (a false idol) above all else. Afterall, the churches (and all other religious gatherings) are closed. This point was made in a wonderful way in a discussion that I think is the best 5 minutes I have seen on the internet in a long time. There is a little corner of the internet that I came to know through Jordan Peterson that is an in-depth discussion of the Meaning Crisis (see my description here). Now I want to mention again the YouTube channel A Quality Existence created by Sevilla King, who delves into the philosophy and literature of Robert Pirsig (e.g., Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). She recently posted a discussion with Christopher Mastropietro. He works with John Vervaeke, a professor in the Psychology Department at the University of Toronto, who has created a project called Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Mastropietro is a young man who speaks spontaneously in beautiful poetic phrases about philosophy. King as well has a soothing mellifluous voice (she is a practicing therapist). Together they discuss among other things the Covid situation. They make the point that life always consists of risk-benefit tradeoffs. A proper balance is essential. Starting about minute 49 Mastropietro illustrates this point with the example of smoking. Can you imagine the beauty of smoking! I have never inhaled myself, though I often thought of taking up the habit as solidarity to the truly oppressed class called smokers.

I recommend watching the whole conversation, but you must see the 5 minutes about smoking starting at about 49:00. It is wonderful.

Be seeing you

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

Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2020

People and governments always invoke the safety and security of the majority when they are taking away rights for “our own good,” just like the Patriot Act did. It’s an old playbook, joined in this century by our First Amendment nannies on social media, who electronically block efforts to organize.

The public beach versus public transportation debate came as a new study showed that NYC’s “multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection,” seeding the virus throughout the city.

A Stanford doctor nails it: “Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals, and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.”

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/lockdown-wars-debating-pandemic-measures-in-a-failed-state/

Home/Articles/Politics/Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State

Lockdown Wars: Debating Pandemic Measures in a Failed State

If you thought COVID-19 wouldn’t get political, think again.

 

If America has a fast forward button on it, someone should push it ahead to November. We won’t be done with the virus until we’re done with the election. Between prudence and overreaction lies politics.

We bleat about wanting decisions to be based on science, then we do the same dumb red-blue thing, even counting the corona dead differently (nothing left certain but taxes now) to make the numbers seem better or worse depending on shifty politics. Something that should not be about Trump at all is All About Trump.

It’s killing us. There is no other country in the world so driven by a politics so devoid of science. Other countries have good leaders, some not so good. But look at us. Our nation is held hostage to protests and counter-protests, lockdowns and open bowling alleys. There is no other nation where so many are convinced their leader is actively trying to kill them, even imagining he wants them to drink bleach.

The MSM portrays protesters against government restrictions as Trump death cultists who’d rather end up in an ICU than skip a haircut. Such flippancy insults the righteous anger over lost livelihoods. It is an echo of the things that lost 2016 for the Democrats. The people don’t want haircuts. They want to feed their families. They want thought-out targeted restrictions instead of politically driven overreaction and fearmongering. It’s about deep emotional waters, sense of self, a whole lot more than just how the economy will help Trump win or lose. Many also are concerned that their rights, including to assemble, to worship, and to protest, are being controlled by leaders they don’t trust while a media they abandoned years ago mocks them. Beachgoers in a red state are #FloridaMorons; in a blue state it’s #SurfsUp.

But they see this time the Brooklyn elites are going a step further, beyond the deplorable label, to wishing them to catch the virus, figuring the infection will teach them a lesson before they vote wrong again. Wishing death on people you disagree with.

Elsewhere, medical professionals say the protesters have no right to put others’ lives at risk, and think it’s more than OK to physically stop the rallies. That’s called “the heckler’s veto” by the Supreme Court and is not allowed under the First Amendment, whether you’re a hero ER nurse or an abortion protester blocking the door to a clinic. Stopping someone from protesting by shouting them down, driving a car into their crowd, or otherwise trying to interfere with them exercising their rights (including the right to hold a dumb opinion or one you disagree with) is disdainful and unconstitutional.

The medical professionals and their Muppet chorus of journalists sound like some soldiers who felt their sacrifice was made cheap by people who protested the war. Thank you for your service. It does not, however, allow you to choose which people can exercise their rights. When you choose to serve you serve those you don’t define as worthy as well as those you do. It’s bigger than you, doc.

People and governments always invoke the safety and security of the majority when they are taking away rights for “our own good,” just like the Patriot Act did. It’s an old playbook, joined in this century by our First Amendment nannies on social media, who electronically block efforts to organize. If you’re screeching about how rights don’t matter when lives are at stake, you’ve got company. The KKK used that argument to block black people from marching, claiming it was a safety issue. Yet California will no longer issue permits for anti-lockdown protests at any state properties, including the Capitol.

Agree? Just remember what you’re saying now about these redneck inbred gun nuts the next time someone claims a march permit can’t be issued in the interest of public safety to a group you support. It’s the same thing, rights are rights. Because you know what else can spread rapidly if “left unchecked?” Tyranny. Justice Louis Brandeis held free speech is not an abstract virtue but a key element of a democratic society. He ruled even speech likely to result in “violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression.” In braver times when Americans challenged the safety vs. liberty argument, the Supreme Court consistently ruled in favor of free speech, reminding us democracy comes with risk. But that was another world ago, before we measured human worth in RTs.

There is science which should be informing decisions. But while claiming a small rally in Denver will cost lives, or Florida will kill people by opening its beaches, the same voices remain silent as NYC keeps its subway running 24/7. The public beach versus public transportation debate came as a new study showed that NYC’s “multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator—if not the principal transmission vehicle—of coronavirus infection,” seeding the virus throughout the city. Without a superspreader like the subway it can be contained locally. It is tragic when the virus rips through a nursing home or meatpacking plant (it is a virus after all, it will go viral), but all of those together barely touch a week’s body count in New York. Shut down mass transport.

We can put most people back to work with limited risk; the protesters are right. The virus kills a very specific patient. About half the dead are over age 65. Less than one percent of deaths are under age 44. Almost 94 percent of the dead in any age group had serious underlying medical issues (about half had hypertension and/or were obese, a third had lung problems). The death toll in NY/NJ under total lockdown: over 27,000. Death toll in much more densely populated Tokyo with “smart” lockdown: 98.

About 22 percent of New Yorkers already have the virus antibody and thus expected immunity. One logical implication of this—that large numbers already have or had the virus, and that it is harmless to them—is simply ignored. Quarantine/social distancing should be for those most vulnerable so we can stop wrecking all of society with cruder measures. Hospitals should separate patients by age. No need to keep kids from school, especially if that means isolating them inside a multigenerational household. Let them wear soggy paper masks to class, even tin foil on their heads, if it makes things easier. Online classes are lame and America doesn’t need a new generation dumber than the current one.

The New York-New Jersey area, with roughly half the dead for the entire nation, practices full-on social distancing while Georgia was one of the last states to implement a weaker stay-at-home policy. Yet as Georgia re-opens, the NY/NJ death count is over 27,000. Georgia is 892. NYC alone continues adding around 500 bodies to the pile every day, even with its bowling alleys closed.

We judge risk versus gain for every other cause of death. We wear condoms. We watch our diets. Time to do the same for the virus. As for lockdowns, we may not even be judging them accurately. Some 22 states have had fewer than 100 deaths. Only 15 states had total deaths for the entire duration of the crisis higher than NYC’s current 500 a day. The original goal of lockdowns, to buy time for the health care system (and most resources were never needed due to over-estimates of the viral impact), has passed. If the new goal is Virus Zero it will never come. If the real goal is to harm Trump we’ll have to put up with this without serious discussion until November.

A Stanford doctor nails it: “Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals, and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation.”

We are fretting and frittering away our national muscle watching TV about a bigamous tiger keeper. There are too many who want this isolation to continue indefinitely, a pathetic nation whose primary industries for its young people are camming and GoFundMe. Politics focuses on viral deaths, but the Reaper keeps a more accurate tally: deaths from despair, from hunger (two million new people became food insecure in NYC since the virus), financial losses (26 million Americans have filed for unemployment), mental health issues, and abuse (domestic murders during the viral months in NYC  outstripped the total from 2019). In some ultimate irony, parents are postponing standard childhood vaccinations for fear of bringing their kids to medical facilities.

It is the reaction to the pandemic that exhausts us, not the pandemic itself. So when someone claims it is Money vs. Life they miss the real answer: It’s both. It should not be taboo to discuss this.

Be seeing you

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

Impeach Brett Kavanaugh – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 22, 2020

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 which created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was supposed to be limited to intelligence gathering of “foreigners.” Thanks to judges of the ilk of Brett Kavanaugh, it has been expanded to cover U.S. citizens.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/walter-e-block/impeach-brett-kavanaugh/

By

Brett Kavanaugh does not deserve a place on the United States Supreme Court and should be impeached.

Why? No, not those sexual allegations; unproven. She said, he said.

Why then? In a word: privacy.

Our bedrock Constitutional protection from unwarranted invasions in this regard is the Fourth Amendment. It reads as follows:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In what way does Judge Kavanaugh fall foul of this eminently reasonable public security blanket? He supports the Patriot Act. And what manner of beast is that, pray tell? Its full title is: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” The bottom line on this is that it gives the Federal Government tools that are incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. To wit, it short circuits the “no Warrants” safeguard. Specifically, this Act greatly enhanced the ability of the Federales to interdict citizens’ communication, while undermining the ability of the latter to engage in court challenges of these expansions.

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) was the only Republican member of the House of Representatives to oppose this nomination of President Trump’s. He stated “Privacy advocates must fight. There are many potential nominees with a conservative record on abortion, guns, and regulations. The only question is will the Senate confirm one who is really bad on the #4thAmendment, when so much is at stake in upcoming digital privacy battles.”

True, Mr. Amash cannot vote on this matter since he is not a member of the Senate. But, enquiring minds want to know if this stance of his will affect the position of his libertarian soldier-in-arms, Senator Ron Paul (R-KY). Hint, hint!

Judge Andrew Napolitano, no pinko, he, either, points out that the Patriot Act allows two members of the FBI to authorize a warrant without any by-your-leave from a judge. The government may also demand that you not reveal to anyone else that your home and effects have been searched, not only violating the Fourth Amendment, but the First one too.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 which created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was supposed to be limited to intelligence gathering of “foreigners.” Thanks to judges of the ilk of Brett Kavanaugh, it has been expanded to cover U.S. citizens.

A word about privacy, if you please. The Fourth Amendment, properly interpreted, limits the government, not anyone else, from invading privacy. Individuals may still “assault” each other’s privacy. If we could not, then the entire profession of detectives would be per se illegal. There go Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, Raymond Chandler’s Philip Marlowe, Robert B. Parker’s Spenser, Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot, Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe and Robert Crais’ Elvis Cole and all real world counterparts. We could not so much as look at each other without undermining privacy. (When my kids were young they would complain “he’s looking at me; “she’s looking at me; my wife and I tried to assure them that this was not a rights violation).

This privacy business is akin to censorship. Only the government can do this. If a private concern does this (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater), they are not censoring you; they are only insisting on upholding their private property and contractual rights. Similarly for electronic platforms such as Google, Facebook, Amazon. They are not censoring the likes of Alex Jones, merely refusing to associate with him. Similarly, there are no privacy “rights” we can hold against other private citizens. The Fourth Amendment protects us only against governmental incursions.

With Mr. Brett Kavanaugh on the high court, these rights will be undermined.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

 

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Like Freedom? Then You Won’t Like the FREEDOM Act

Posted by M. C. on March 24, 2020

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/march/23/like-freedom-then-you-won-t-like-the-freedom-act/

Written by Ron Paul

Last Monday, a bipartisan group of Senators and a coalition including libertarian and progressive activists thwarted a scheme to ram through the Senate legislation renewing three provisions of the USA FREEDOM Act (previously known as the USA PATRIOT Act). The bill had already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and most expected it to sail through the Senate. But, instead, Senate leadership had to settle for a 77-day extension.

Senate leadership was also forced to allow consideration of several amendments at a later date. Included is Sen. Rand Paul’s amendment that would forbid the FISA court from issuing warrants targeting American citizens.

Deep state supporters claim the expiring business records provision (which authorizes the collection of our communications and was at the center of Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations), lone wolf provision (which allows government to subject an individual with no known ties to terrorists to warrantless surveillance), and roving wiretaps provision (which allows government to monitor communications on any device that may be used by a targeted individual) are necessary to keep Americans safe. But, since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act almost 20 years ago, mass surveillance, warrantless wiretapping, and bulk data collection have not stopped a single terrorist attack.

The legislation does have “reforms” aimed at protecting civil liberties, but these new protections contain loopholes that render the protections meaningless. For example, the bill requires those targeted for surveillance to be notified that the government spied on them. However, this requirement can be waived if the government simply claims — not proves but just clams — that notifying the target would harm “national security.”

The notice provision also only applies to the target of an investigations. So, if you were caught up in a federal investigation because a coworker is being targeted and you shared an office computer, or if a store clerk reported to the government you and others bought pressure cookers, the government could collect your phone records, texts, and social media posts without giving you the chance to challenge the government’s actions.

The bill also makes some reforms to the special FISA court, which serves as a rubber stamp for the intelligence community. These reforms are mainly aimed at protecting political campaigns and candidates. They would not stop the FISA court from rubber-stamping surveillance on organizations that oppose the welfare-warfare-surveillance-fiat money status quo.

Anything limiting warrantless wiretapping and mass surveillance should be supported. However, nothing short of repeal of the USA FREEDOM Act will restore respect for our right to live our lives free of the fear that Big Brother is watching. The path to liberty, peace, and prosperity starts with eliminating all unconstitutional laws and returning to a system of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, sound money, and a foreign policy that seeks peaceful commerce and friendship with all instead of seeking new monsters to destroy.


Copyright © 2020 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 »