In Which No Such Agency Collects It All and Congress Is Okay With That.

FOR AS LONG AS I REMEMBER, since the Snowden disclosures of 2013, I’ve been railing against the unaptly named Patriot Act, that P.O.S. legislation designed to allow the agency with the mission to “collect it all” to spy and surveil Americans secretly and with impunity. That agency, the N.S.A., a/k/a ‘No Such Agency,’ has managed to expand its authority over the years despite Americans largely being opposed to its ever-expansive powers.

According to N.S.A. whistleblower Edward Snowden, the N.S.A. will again be granted a ‘massive expansion of its surveillance powers’ in a matter of days.  On April 15th, he posted on X a thread begun by Elizabeth Goitein, the co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Her post cautioned about the contents of a new bill amplifying the government’s surveillance powers through the extension of Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Specifically, she warned:

“If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored—such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc.”

As the law currently exists, the N.S.A. can demand internet service providers like Google or Verizon to turn over sensitive data about any N.S.A. targets. However, the new version of the law makes a barely noticeable change to the definition of “electronic communications surveillance provider.” That change means the N.S.A. can co-opt and make the same demands of any company, or individual, that provides any internet-related service at all. The scope of N.S.A. ‘partners’ is mind-blowing:

“That sweeps in an enormous range of U.S. businesses that provide wifi to their customers and therefore have access to equipment on which communications transit. Barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, hardware stores, dentist’s offices.”

And naturally, there is no apparent means to obtain a waiver or to register a complaint. Companies and individuals so co-opted by the N.S.A. are legally prohibited from discussing their involvement and should they fail to obey, would be subject to hefty fines.

The expanded authority has barely been noticed by the MSM despite having received some heavy blowback from certain privacy advocates. Remarkably and disturbingly, it passed the House of Representatives on April 13th. The expansion was cloaked by an agreement to expand the authority for ‘only’ two years instead of the original five. 

The usual bipartisan suspects will fight the final passage of the bill—like Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Wyden—but it is slated for a vote on Friday, April 19th. It appears likely to pass amidst chaos in D.C.

A Decade Later…

A WEB SEARCH indicates the U.S. has no day to honor press freedom. The world does, though. It’s on May 3rd and is called, cleverly enough, World Press Freedom Day. Of all people, Biden issued a statement about it.

On May 3rd, businesses are all open, including banks. So are government facilities and post offices. Schools aren’t recessed. No one takes a long weekend to celebrate it. Hardly anyone even knows about it even though it was first celebrated a little over thirty years ago. It’s just as opaque as the newly minted ‘woke’ holiday of ‘Juneteenth,’ which no one can clearly or consistently explain. Press Freedom? That’s easy and important. I’d propose that we declare our own national version of the international one established by the United Nations all those decades ago. 

And what better time to do it? According to a Pew Research Center survey of almost 12,000 U.S.-based journalists, a majority are highly concerned about potential restraints on press freedoms at home, with 33% being “extremely” so; 24% “very,” and 23% “somewhat.” Eleven percent were concerned “a little,” with a mere nine percent, “not at all.” The concerns are supported by the fact the U.S. ranks only 42 worldwide for press freedom per Reporters Without Borders.

We could select June 5th as the day the U.S. celebrates press freedom. The day marks the anniversary of whistleblower (and Freedom of the Press Foundation board member) Edward Snowden’s astonishing revelations of likely unconstitutional warrantless indiscriminate mass surveillance of innocent Americans by the unrestrained National Security Agency. (This year was the tenth anniversary of the revelations.) It was the press that Snowden sought to help blow the whistle, most specifically, The Guardian and The Washington Post. Their journalists did their jobs judiciously and fervently, leaving Americans stunned. 

These newspapers have since changed editorially and Americans have seemingly forgotten about N.S.A. transgressions. New laws have barely scratched the surface in establishing any limiting principles on these unwarranted warrantless searches that sound an awful lot like strictly unconstitutional general warrants. How quickly we forget! How surely we shouldn’t ever forget. To that end, the government must declassify much more than it does, repeal Sec. 702 of FISA, enact the PRESS Act, and designate a day to honor and promote elusive press freedom here at home.

Swimming Upstream to Find Standing and Justiciability

DESPITE WHAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, the U.S. does not have three co-equal branches of government.That is misinformation. The Constitution was misprinted. The judiciary is the least equal, as the U.S. Supreme Court informed us last week, when it declined to review the 4th Circuit’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Wikimedia Foundation against the National Security Agency involving one of its surveillance programs. It declined review because of  N.S.A.’s claim to “state secrets privilege,” which barred the litigation.” (PDF here.)

The surveillance program was called “Upstream,” and under it, the agency was—and is—systematically searching the contents of any internet traffic coming into or going out of the U.S., including Americans’ private emails, messages, and other web communications, including communications about a foreign target. The N.S.A. says it is authorized by Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  The agency even concedes that this broad authorization frequently, and often deliberately, scoops up personal information involving Americans. It is one of the surveillance programs N.S.A. whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed a decade ago. Since 2013, Snowden has effectively been a fugitive, left stranded in Russia, where he now lives with his family.

Technically, the Court was (sort of) correct to the extent there are sometimes valid reasons for a state to hold its secrets, and that there is a privilege in place to do so. However, the Court fails to recognize the abuse of such sweeping programs by government; the violations of Fourth Amendment rights of citizens; and the circularity of judicial doctrines it rests so many non-decisions on. Litigants fighting these massive programs cannot even meet requirements for standing or justiciability. Standing is denied since one cannot prove they are adversely affected by a program the N.S.A. refuses to acknowledge exists. Even if the program is deemed to exist, a litigant cannot prove they have been, or soon will be, adversely affected because it’s a state secret who the N.S.A. has been, or is, targeting. There is no case or controversy as required by Art. III of the Constitution. It’s not ripe.

Sec. 702 is up for reauthorization in Congress in 2023, and this is supposedly our remedy. However, some (but not all) in Congress (and the Executive) abuse the classification system and state secrets privilege, too. At a minimum, a warrant would help protect all parties. Obtaining one prevents it all looking like a cover-up.

Checking In on Snowden and Assange

TWO PEOPLE AT THE FOREFRONT of disclosures of American transgressions await unenviable fates. One is former N.S.A. whistleblower, Edward Snowden, who disclosed the secret surveillance apparatus of the U.S. government, remains in Russia with his wife and children. He has been granted citizenship there, and appears to have accepted his life in exile for having being courageous enough to reveal the clearly unconstitutional machinations of the U.S. intelligence community, especially as against American citizens. 

Today Snowden writes on Substack, among other things, and appeared on RonPaulLibertyReport recently, opining on what he calls the “balloon wars,” designed to frighten Americans’ attention away from the Seymour Hersh investigative report which detailed how the American regime secretly blew up the Nord Stream pipelines in an act of terrorism against Russia and Germany outside the purview of Congress. (View here.) Who would imagine Snowden and conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck would agree on this? It also now appears that three other balloons, appearing after the first Chinese spy balloon, were private hobby balloons set aloft for perfectly innocent reasons. It also seems the U.S. had been observing the Chinese balloon a lot longer than admitted.

As for WikiLeaks and its founder and publisher, Julian Assange, Feb. 18th, marked the 2010 anniversary of Chelsea Manning‘s leaked documents. WikiLeaks was relatively obscure then, but the disclosure helped catapult the transparency-advocating website into infamy, revealing almost 750,000 sensitive documents from Manning alone.These documents revealed embarrassing realities relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. She was a ‘he’ then, and then-Bradley Manning got WikiLeaks to publish them. Manning was sentenced to 35 years for it, until her sentence was commuted by Barack Obama in 2017. 

Fast forward to today, where Julian Assange currently waits in a high-security London prison for a final decision as to whether Britain will extradite him to the U.S. to face trial for conspiracy to commit computer fraud. WikiLeaks’ Joseph Farrell, from 3/24 to 4/08, plans to showcase original leaked documents in a collaboration with U.K. art collective a/political, and the Wau Holland Foundation, along with works by others. The dox have been on WikiLeaks since 2010, but viewing hard copies may put visitors at risk of prosecution for what Assange faces.

After a Decade: Russia +1, America -0-

DONALD TRUMP SHOULD HAVE pardoned N.S.A. whistleblower Edward Snowden before the 2020 election was stolen from him. But he didn’t, so Snowden, now 39, is a Russian citizen. What else could possibly happen under the circumstances?  He’s been exiled in Russia for almost a decade.

I would presume Snowden would prefer to be home in the U.S.A. and raise his children here, but at this point, Russia is the only country his sons have known, and undoubtedly, Snowden himself has forged a reconciliation to his fate there. And ironically, his freedom is less at stake in Russia than the U.S.A. Funny how that turned out.

On Friday, Snowden’s lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, said his client had received his Russian citizenship after swearing an oath of allegiance to the Russian Federation in September, and now sports a Russian passport. Under the Russian constitution, Snowden cannot now be extradited to any foreign country, including the United States. Given N.S.A. omnipresence and surveillance practices, Snowden would be well advised to not venture too far with the passport, however, lest he fly home in a bodybag in a chartered plane’s luggage compartment. 

Snowden’s wife, Lindsay Mills, is reportedly going through the citizenship process, as well. The children will likely attend Russian schools and Snowden has learned Russian, though he’s not completely fluent.  His citizenship ceremony was with 71 other foreigners, by decree of Vladimir Putin. Putin had said of Snowden that he wasn’t a traitor, because “he did not betray the interests of his country.”  

The question remains as to Snowden’s draft status It was originally believed he would be exempt from having to serve in the military action against Ukraine since only men with military experience were being called up, but that has apparently changed. It would seem doubtful he’d be forced to serve, though, despite his oath of allegiance, because he represents an intelligence coup to Putin. But who knows. As we’ve seen with the N.S.A., Russia, and Trump, anything is possible even if it’s not probable.

Betrayal: A Two-Edged Sword

THERE HAVE SUPPOSEDLY BEEN TWO MORE LEAKS this past week that essentially corroborate the first leak two weeks ago of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case expected to overturn the seminal case, Roe v. Wade (and progeny). Many have begrudged the original leak, not the least of whom sit on the Court. Freedom of the Press, however, begs to differ in its article (here) penned by Parker Higgins, “The Supreme Court leaks keep coming — and that’s good.”

The gist of Higgins’ position is that reporters who use leaks from reliable sources are performing “a critical public service,” as presumably, are the leakers themselves. He then quotes MSM accounts of how this leaker committed, among other nefarious things, “the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”  Others he quotes take a different stance, viewing any absence of leaks the “veil of secrecy.” He also observes leaks at the Court aren’t unprecedented, as has been inaccurately reported.

Higgins also notes this isn’t a whodunnit, and the leaker’s identity shouldn’t detract from the larger story which is, of course, the uncommon occurrence of the Court overruling an important precedent, and one that is emotionally charged at that. He concludes, “Ultimately, the story has informed the public of a consequential government decision of historic importance. That is what journalism is supposed to do.” Of course he’s correct — as far as he goes.

What Higgins is missing is the story from the Court’s perspective. Most justices care deeply and sincerely about the legacy of the judiciary and understand their solemn duties within their institution. To these people, the leak was a betrayal. They do not know who to trust in what is perceived by most to be the most trustworthy and honorable branch of government. Justice Clarence Thomas appears to be the most distraught over this breach of trust. Who the leaker is is important to him and his brethren so they can resume the collegiality that is paramount to the justices fulfilling their responsibilities to the Court and the American people.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Higgins that leakers and reporters are simply doing their jobs in ensuring an informed public, so too do I agree with the Court’s sense of betrayal. I’m American. And I know about betrayal and the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts appoints judges to the FISA Court that usurps my and my fellow citizens’ rights or reasonable expectations of privacy since before 2013.

“Don’t Panic! Make Molotov Cocktails!

VLADIMIR PUTIN INVADED UKRAINE on Wednesday, to the surprise of many. It may have even surprised the Russian president himself that it all came to that. (Interestingly, perhaps, was that Edward Snowden, having lived in Russia for years at this point, hadn’t seen it coming, either, and thought the continual refrain about such an invasion could escalate into a crisis.) It didn’t surprise Putin’s counterpart a half a world away, however; Joe Biden had been like a little boy, telling anyone who would listen. Thing was, like a little boy, Biden was clearly not competent to report facts, so most thought he was just crying “wolf” like he did when he slanderously accused 45th President Donald Trump of being in bed with Putin in Russia.

On Thursday, Biden had to admit to reporters that he really had no idea if Putin would nuke the U.S., nor did he care to discuss China’s potential meddling in what was quickly escalating into a regional war. That he knew nothing now despite being so smart as to know what Putin would do last month when no one else on the planet did (except maybe Putin himself) was hardly reassuring. That Ukrainian President Zelensky told European leaders on this day that it “might be the last day you see me alive” didn’t play much better.

The China meddling story kept coming up, and since it appeared in The New York Times, it was certified “woke.” Apparently, Biden had intelligence that Russia was planning to invade its neighbor months beforehand. In a move so utterly characteristic of the incompetent regime, Biden decided to tell China in hopes that Xi would get Putin to refrain from bothering Ukraine. Biden had no excuse to not know China and Russia had been becoming closer with time, so needless to say, Xi used the information from the U.S. as leverage with Putin, who surely appreciated being tipped off. Apparently, Biden’s friends in high places in China didn’t pay off as he hoped. He should’ve treated his dogs better so he’d have friends in D.C. at least.

By Friday, Biden had a burst of energy and nerve to announce his SCOTUS pick. It was a pleasant change of pace from the war raging on TV, although given how dishonest government is, who even knew if it was all psyops: crisis actors on a stage of deep fakes. It was a good change of narrative, regardless, and must’ve instilled a sense of security in the senile old coot such that he could go home to Delaware for warm milk and a diaper change (both bottom and face) in his beloved basement. Finally on Friday, Biden sought $2.9 billion more for military and humanitarian aid for his son’s sponsors and their corrupt government in Ukraine with more money tossed at European allies to increase security, and an extra $3.5 billion to the Pentagon’s budget, which may be used, in part, to give Ukraine some Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Some body armor and other wartime material will be donated from the Department of Defenses’ inventory stockpiles, too.

Ukraine, in fact, has received over $650 million in military aid and $52 million in humanitarian assistance over the past year from the United States. It almost seems as though not being a part of NATO got Ukraine more American aid, at least at this early stage in the game. It was a good thing though because by Friday, Russia had advanced as far as the capital city of Kiev, home to some 3 million, and things were not looking good. Biden also launched additional sanctions on Putin and some Russian oligarchs, but had been on record as saying sanctions don’t work, so why he even bothered looked intentionally impotent.

By Saturday, the situation had deteriorated sufficiently for Germany to have an about-face. It will join other nations in providing weapons to the cause. Germany had been a hold-out given it relied so heavily on Russia to supply it with much-needed fuel. (The oil issue resonated in the U.S., too, given Biden had turned us from an oil-exporter to an importer after nixing the Keystone Pipeline on Day 1 of his illegal regime.)

On Saturday came another startling discovery, to wit, that the same U.S. intelligence that learned Russia planned to invade Ukraine had actually baited Russia in December by telling China that Ukraine would be joining NATO, knowing, obviously, Putin would be told on the q.t. and object and respond accordingly by invading its neighbor. Suddenly, Biden’s excited utterances made more sense; the senile old coot was simply saying the quiet parts out loud. It also makes sense that the NYT was simply trying to aid in the Deep State narrative. That narrative is consistent with America stoking regional tension since at least Obama.

What is less clear is the motive as to why Biden and his regime would want to bait Putin. It’s been suggested it was to distract a worried nation from the regime’s failings or that it might advance some domestic policy objectives, such as the “Green New Deal” or “Build Back Better,” that have not managed to gain much traction to the chagrin of the woke and the restless who feel entitled to “the great reset.” More likely, perhaps, is it’s to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony about the virtues of NATO in contravention of the Trump principle of America First.

I would posit something else. While these results would certainly be happy accidents, Biden simply isn’t that selfless, assuming without deciding that a Green New Deal and Build Back Better are selfless and laudable goals. Biden wants and needs Ukraine, notoriously corrupt for so long, to remain so to pay his son lavishly as a thank you to the “Big Guy.” Or alternatively, to punish Ukraine for cutting him off. And to distract from Biden corruption long enough to hide/destroy the evidence.

Why would the Deep State keep quiet, given the huge costs to Americans? Who knows: the same reason it’s silent about the Ukrainian Connection under Obama. A big plus would be, of course, a distraction from ongoing Hunter probes. Then again, maybe the senile imposter is just obeying orders from Deep State handlers. Or C.C.P. puppet-masters. Maybe it’s meant to feign how adeptly Biden can solve a world crisis? (One hopes to live long enough to see how historians explain it.)

Saturday was a busy news cycle. Shortly before 45th President Trump was to speak before CPAC in Orlando, he did a Q&A with the press where he brought up the nuclear financial option of cutting off Russia from the SWIFT banking system as a sanction for invading Ukraine. The option had been talked about by others, but Biden didn’t announce it until Germany’s big about-face. That he didn’t act unilaterally was good; that it took him so long to get allies aboard wasn’t. All told, the E.U., U.K., Canada, and U.S. all sanctioned Russian banks selectively.

At CPAC, Trump said a Russian invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t have happened on his watch. His Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed that sentiment. (A majority of Americans agree, as Biden’s poll numbers falter further into the depths of Democrat despair.) Trump said Vlad knew better than to anger the U.S. and that Xi and he got along well (until Covid-19) and he would’ve been able to get China to play ball even if they couldn’t run an Olympics worth shit, or words to that effect.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), arguably the most powerful woman in the world, actually had the nuts (in her head, not her pantsuit) to equate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to G.O.P. “assaults on our democracy in our own country.” Predictably, Hillary Clinton, not as irrelevant as she ought to be, as rumors resurface she’ll try to get into the White House again even if she has to break in like a Jan. 6th “terrorist,” blamed Trump for the Ukraine-Russia events. This is how desperately the woke cling to their Russian fallacies so they always have a bogeyman to conspire those wily and dangerous Republicans. It’s worked since the days of Joseph McCarthy, so why not? The Ukrainians were beatified in the American press; the Russians, demonized.

The fairly fast and consistent response of the world clearly favors the little guy on the block, Ukrainian President Zelensky. This, naturally, makes Russia even more nervous. Putin allegedly threatened Finland and Sweden with “serious military-political repercussions” should they join NATO. It’s really between the NATO nations and Finland and Sweden, of course, and not Russia, but one cannot objectively blame Putin for not wanting NATO surrounding them or controlling the Black Sea so it’s clear such an act would be perceived as highly provocative.

Former Communications Director for President Ronald Reagan and paleoconservative political commentator Pat Buchanan had a fascinating take on this. After Biden made it clear America would not fight Russia in Ukraine, even to protect U.S. troops., diplomats, or citizens, Buchanan wondered, why would America even ever seriously consider Ukraine for NATO membership? After all, if you attack one, you attack all is the motto and obligation, and clearly that wouldn’t be in the cards here. Given Putin has made clear his principle goal is that Ukraine never be a NATO member, Buchanan asks, hasn’t Putin already won? The analysis works. Add the notion that Putin must’ve gotten a bum tip that NATO membership might be forthcoming and believed it, hence his incursion.

For Russia, the Ukrainian adventure may be a miscalculation. Ukraine was more prepared and resolved than was probably anticipated. Despite being offered an airlift out of danger, Zelensky stayed in Kiev, claiming, “I am ‘Target Number One’,” and publicly telling Biden, “I need ammo, not a ride!” No one should panic, he told his fellow compatriots, “Make Molotov cocktails,” referring to the improvised incendiary bombs named after an infamous Russian of U.S.S.R. yesteryear. Unlike his American counterpart, Zelensky rose to the occasion. So Ukraine is in a favorable position, though victory is hardly a sure thing.

Given the world’s acknowledgement, even if tacit, that America isn’t the great superpower it once was not so long ago, it’s an open and public question as to what might happen next with Biden hiding in his basement bunker.

As goes Ukraine, so goes Taiwan, perhaps?

Occupying Main Street, I.R.S.-Style?

BACK WHEN “OCCUPY WALL STREET” was a thing, around 2011, if I recall, I headed downtown to see the spectacle with my own two eyes because, you know, fake news and all. This was pre-Trump. “Fake news” wasn’t really a thing back then, but shadows of a secretive Deep State had emerged in the public consciousness. This was post-Snowden. I wanted to reach my own conclusions.

For a motley mass of degenerates, the occupiers were pretty organized. The sub-groups, of which there were many (ranging from the truly apolitical to Paulist libertarianism to LaRouchite dirigisme to Marxist socialism) seemed to take shifts to talk to the curiosity-seekers. They didn’t proselytize, they just complained about pet issues. They even had a community newspaper which they disseminated if they thought you’d bother to look at it. I kept mine as a collector’s item. I wonder if it’ll ever be worth anything?

When I was observing, asking questions, and reaching my own conclusions, an uneasiness surfaced. I had noticed, not just the NYPD communications van conspicuously monitoring everything, but some vehicles cruising around that were marked “Federal Reserve Police.” I had never heard of such a thing. Not that I would have. And not that it might not make sense to have police protect all the gold we supposedly have — I say “supposedly” because although I recall seeing bars of bullion through glass and iron bars in a field trip to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York on a college field trip for the Business/Economics Club, memory can be a funny thing. Maybe I just thought I saw it. Maybe it was decoy-gold. Who knows? What made me vaguely anxious was why the Federal Reserve Police were there at all. Someone ‘wanded’ me and my club members in college prior to entry, but I really don’t remember if they were even police. I seem to think they were unarmed civilians back then.

Yes, the streets the Occupiers took over in Zuccotti Park were close to the gold, fake or real as it may be, but did anyone believe these rag-a-tags posed any risk to the gold reserves? Maybe they had intelligence, maybe it was an abundance of caution, but stranger things have happened. Just how many police, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies do we need, anyway? Especially when they are secretive, unknown, or extrajudicial. Anyway, that was my biggest takeaway from my Occupy Wall Street foray that day. (I had just learned about so-called fusion centers, so expansive surveillance in the name of ‘security’ was on my mind.) Having thus buried my lede through my reminiscences, I’ll get to my point: I had that same uneasiness reading today about the I.R.S.’s supply of arms and munitions, especially under the illegitimate Biden regime. Americans for Tax Reform published a story reporting that the I.R.S. had stockpiled close to 5,000 guns and a staggering five million rounds of ammo as of 2019. Their information came from a 2020 report from OpenTheBooks, a nonprofit seeking to bring transparency to government spending. A.T.R. wonders how this will work with the Biden regime’s hiring of another 87,000 more agents, noting that the increase in the size and power of the agency has “significant criminal justice and basic due process ramifications.” Even without the proposed $80 billion increase in its budget, the I.R.S. Criminal Investigation Division is already very heavily armed. The Government Accountability Office reports the firearms breakdown thusly: 539 long-barrel rifles and 15 sub-machine guns. For ammo, there are 3,151,500 pistol and revolver rounds; 1,472,050 rifle rounds; 367,750 shotgun rounds; and 56,000 fully automatic firearm rounds. (And to think, despite the Second Amendment, Americans fear losing their rights to own weapons as the latest case is argued in the U.S. Supreme Court.)

A.T.F. cites seven reasons to be concerned about the I.R.S. gaining more power and weapons just in case someone might be at a loss to make educated guesses. First, the I.R.S. doesn’t give agents mandatory firearms training. Second, I.R.S. agents accidentally fire their weapons more frequently than they intentionally do. Third, The I.R.S. hides accidental discharge information. Fourth, agents sometimes don’t undergo remedial training after negligent discharges. Fifth, the I.R.S. has a tendency of violating due process rights of taxpayers. Sixth, the I.R.S. reportedly has extremely poor habits when it comes to storing critical evidence. And lastly, The agency has conducted an inordinate number of armed raids on innocent Americans. Remember Loretta Lynch? Remember the weaponization of the I.R.S. under Obama?

It all seems to me to add up to the unequivocal conclusion that federal income taxation should be abolished in favor of a so-called fair or flat tax, one that requires virtually no enforcement mechanisms at all. It’s safer and cheaper. As for the Federal Reserve Police? It’s a Patriot Act creation, so it was probably opportunistic and therefore unnecessary.

Time to FOIA Congress

THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION, formed in 2012, offers much for journalists who are not simply propagandists for the far left or right in the Deep State. Currently, this non-government organization has Edward Snowden on its Board of Directors (since 2014) and as President (since 2016). It publishes news itself on the state of press freedom throughout the world.

The Foundation published one of only two articles in my fairly extensive RSS newsfeed on an interesting new legal case concerning legislative record transparency. Whereas the Freedom of Information Act can be used to bring public scrutiny to the executive branch, no such statute exists for the legislative branch. Indeed, why enact laws for me when you can for thee, and thee alone? (Well, that pesky Speech or Debate Clause…)

A lawsuit ensued over video records from the events of Jan. 6th at the Capitol, where a D.C. Circuit Court judge referred to a “common law right” of public access to government records, including Congressional. That case was brought by Judicial Watch, which sued for access to the subpoenas the House Intelligence Committee had issued in its “impeachment inquiry” of 45th President Donald Trump. The case was dismissed, but Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote a concurrence that said: “I believe, in the right case, the application of the Speech or Debate Clause to a common law right of access claim would require careful balancing.” The opinion can be read here.

Then, last month, a journalist named Shawn Musgrave, sued for the release of the video, citing as authority the “common law right of access.” That right could lead to about 14,000 hours of surveillance footage from the Capitol on that fateful day. His Complaint can be viewed here.

The Foundation article makes the cogent point that the Speech or Debate Clause is a “woefully underutilized” opportunity for lawmakers to highlight government wrongdoing without the “draconian consequences” facing whistleblowers,” something Snowden knows in spades. Hopefully, Musgrave will prevail.

Remember That Proscription Against General Warrants? They’re Ba-ack!

ACTUALLY, THEY NEVER WENT AWAY. They’re supposed to be unconstitutional, however, which is why Sen. Ron Wyden is unhappy about recently learning that the pentagon may be surveilling unsuspecting Americans without a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (There are exceptions to the warrant requirement not applicable here.) 

And in an astonishingly rare bipartisan move, legislators on both sides of the aisle are sponsoring a bill optimistically titled “The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.”  The list of sponsors is impressive, here.

The measure is a result of a report published last November by Motherboard concerning special forces buying publicly available location data. At the time, Sen. Wyden drafted a missive to the Department of Defense, including several military and intelligence agencies asking about the specifics of the purchasing practices.  That letter can be read here. 

The response from the DoD was partly classified, but Wyden wasn’t buying it. Classification wasn’t appropriate, he maintained, since it wouldn’t cause damage to national security. He kept asking, Recall he is well-versed in these matters after his involvement in the Snowden Revelations of 2013. 

The New York Times reported Wyden’s work yielded a D.I.A. memo confirming searches of commercial smartphone location data databases in at least five cases in the past 2.5 years. The D.I.A. does not believe it needs a warrant to search commercially available locations. The fact the data is public and commercially available is a legitimate, good-faith argument. However, the underlying problem is that today, virtually all data is available as such, effectively rendering all data indistinguishably in the public domain. Surely this was never contemplated and is being exploited as technology ‘improves.’

This legislation, as welcome as it is, is insufficient to remedy the scope of the surveillance problem.  We must deem all of a person’s data as owned by them and not allow its transference or sale without its owner’s express written consent and consideration (or with the aforementioned warrant). If data must be paid for, it will be more judicially utilized.