Mediaboss Marketing

Before I dig in, allow me a personal note: If you put me in a philosophy class, I am a pretty radical libertarian, but if you ask me how I want the government of these United States of America to conduct its business in the real-world here-and-now, Im an Eisenhower Republican. I dont love the debt-ceiling gamesmanshipI didnt love it when Democrats, including Joe Biden, were doing it, and I resent that Im apparently expected to forget that ever happenedand, in general, I prefer orderliness in administration and predictability in policy. I would prefer a politics of consensus to our current politics of apocalyptic imbecility.

All that being stipulated, the direness of the debt ceiling is in some ways exaggerated and in many ways misunderstood. Three ways of looking at it.

First, the math: Almost all of our media conversation about the debt ceiling is presented as though it were a foregone conclusionand an economic necessitythat the federal government would default on its debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. There isnt any reason for that to happen: We have something like $11 in tax revenue coming in for every $1 in debt service going out of the Treasury doors. Congress declining to raise the debt ceiling would not change that. The federal government does not have to borrow money to have enough to keep current on its obligations to bondholdersin fact, when you are obliged to borrow money to make good on current debt obligations, thats when you really are in a debt crisis, and we are not there. (Yet.) It is the case that the federal government would not have enough money to pay for all authorized spending (that is why we borrow in the first place) but there is no financial reason that should mean defaulting on the debt rather than suspending or deferring some other spending.

Owing at least in some part to what looks suspiciously like an intentional campaign of obfuscation to me, much of the media has taken to use the word default in such a way as to blur the distinction between a debt defaultwhich would be economically catastrophicand deferring or forgoing other congressionally authorized spending. The latter would not be a great outcome, for all sorts of reasons, but it is not the same thing as a debt default and nowhere near occupying the same height of seriousness.

Start a Free Trial

Here is the original post:
Three Ways of Looking at the Debt Ceiling - The Dispatch

Images are unavailable offline.

Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino speaks to reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Dec. 14, 2022, regarding Bill C-21.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

Re Scrubbed out words. Banned books. Stop the assault on reading, from the left and right (Editorial, May 5): The problem with censorship is that once you begin to bowdlerize, deciding when or where to stop can be difficult. As witnessed in many repressive regimes around the world, it may be more efficient just to eliminate the source of the offending words, for as George Bernard Shaw cheekily observed Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.

Paul Thiessen Vancouver

Banning words is a slippery slope that eventually leads to the censorship and removal of entire books, as we are seeing in Republican-led states to our south. Publishers should accept that readers are intelligent enough to discern that different times had different words. Leave books alone.

Story continues below advertisement

Frank Malone Aurora, Ont.

People want to ban and censor books? Please, not Captain Underpants! I cant be the only father of boys that owes his sons literacy to this series of books.

Wayne Nickoli London, Ont.

Re Fair play? (Letters, May 5): Fellow Canadians and hockey lovers, stop whining about American dominance of the NHL. Forget about the NHL; lets form our own league with Canadas top teams playing the NHL (American) and European champions.

Story continues below advertisement

Ed Janicki Victoria

I applaud the letter writer calling out the NHL and Commissioner Gary Bettman on their anti-Canadian stance. This has been demonstrated time and time again in addition to the scheduling bias of the Toronto-Florida series. Under Mr. Bettman, the NHL has shown no interest in placing another team (or two) in Canada. He is most interested in expanding in the U.S., especially in the south where Houston is waiting in the wings for a franchise. Both Quebec and Hamilton have been rebuffed in their attempts to have a franchise (in Quebecs case trying to get theirs back). The reasons for rejection are dubious. Consider Mr. Bettmans unapologetic support for the Phoenix Coyotes: They will never leave Arizona, even though they are in financial trouble and play in a somewhat temporary shabby arena. Im sure Quebeckers are not amused.

Another indication that Canada is out, is talk of expanding the NHL to Europe and even Australia. Whither Canada and our most cherished sport?

Robert Milan Victoria

Story continues below advertisement

Re Why we need prizes for women and non-binary authors (April 29): Thanks to Susan Swan and her colleagues for establishing the Carol Shields Prize for Fiction, rewarding women writers for their splendid contributions to literature. Im a 74-year-old geezer who discovered the power of womens stories three or four decades ago reading Gabrielle Burtons Heartbreak Hotel. I continue to read a bunch of guys (just recently catching up with Ian McEwans excellent tales) but toss a new Miriam Toews, an Emma Donoghue, a Kate Atkinson, maybe an old one of our Margarets, or, indeed, a Carol Shields on to my stack of books and Im a happy old guy.

Glenn Allen Rockingham, Ont.

Re Chanel No. 5 is introduced (Moment in Time, May 5): A century has passed since the launch of Chanel No. 5 and 78 years since the end of the Holocaust. That is not enough time to forget or pardon Coco Chanels virulent antisemitism and collaboration with Nazis. Celebrate Chanel as you wish but do not omit the context of her success and its cost in human suffering and death. Let readers choose whether her fashion designs are of greater importance than her human-rights abuses.

Moses Shuldiner Toronto

Story continues below advertisement

Re The Liberal gun bill with a glaring hole at its centre (May 4): All this back and forth over assault guns and hunting guns seems to overly complicate the issue. Hunters can ask for larger-calibre centrefire rifles for hunting deer, moose, bears, coyotes and wolves. Waterfowl and game birds are hunted with shotguns that have a range of no more than 200 metres. Assault-style, large-magazine guns dont fit either of these needs so ban them, buy them back, get rid of them. Its that simple.

Martin Pick Cavan, Ont.

The Liberals, and the majority of the country, want to ban assault-style firearms that are regularly used in crimes and murders. But they dont want to to upset the (small but very vocal) hunting community, some of whom, for some reason, feel the need to use such lethal weapons to kill animals and birds.

Can I point out that, for the vast majority of these hunters, this is just a hobby, like marathon running, sports betting, or bowling? So, a widely popular ban on lethal weapons is being shelved in deference to a hobby?

Can these people not be persuaded to take up a less violent hobby, say mah-jong or even paintball if they really need to shoot something?

Story continues below advertisement

Luke Mastin Toronto

I have to shake my head at all the talk of guns to be banned. This is to make it illegal to possess certain weapons with the understanding that those who would use them to do harm to other people, will refrain from doing so. Those people dont obey the current gun laws, so what on Earth would lead one to believe they will magically obey the new ones? This is simply making it harder for law-abiding hunters and target shooters, all of whom have undergone training and police clearance, to enjoy their sport, and have zero impact on reducing violent gun crime. Talk about a shot in the dark.

Don Bowes Burlington

Re Who owns Teck its shareholders, or the government? (Opinion, May 3): Canadas federal government must ensure that Teck Resources remains Canadian controlled and headquartered. The loss of true Canadian headquarters (not the temporary nominal headquarters offered by a foreign acquirer) would mean the loss of the following: executive decision-making, grooming of Canadian executive talent, research/development/design, legal and accounting business etc.

In the past 17 years, Canadas metal and mining sectors have lost the ownership control of Stelco, Dofasco, Alcan, Inco and Falconbridge. In contrast, Potash Corp. was saved from a foreign takeover by the Conservative Harper government in 2010. In 2018, Potash Corp and Agrium merged and created the Canadian-based world-leading Nutrien Ltd.

Story continues below advertisement

We need strategic long-term vision and backbone. Keep Teck Resources Canadian.

Scott Kerr Mississauga, Ont.

Glencore has been convicted of bribery on an unbelievably huge scale. The company is reported to be delivering Russian aluminum to the London Metal Exchange now. Discussions will presumably be held with Ottawa to find out what promises are required to make Glencores acquisition of Teck acceptable. One hopes that Ottawa understands what and also whom they are dealing with.

Ian Robinson Toronto

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

See original here:
Letters to the editor: 'Banning words is a slippery slope that ... - The Globe and Mail

The FBI is facing scrutiny regarding its use of a controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) after they queried for communications of and about a Member of Congress without a warrant. The Bureau is defending its actions and arguing it should be able to conduct warrantless defensive searches that attempt to root out foreign influence or other nefarious actions targeting the person being queried. Thats an audacious demand because defensive surveillance is precisely the excuse the government has used to justify some of its most egregious political spying over the past 60 years.

Right now, Section 702 of FISA lets the government engage in warrantless surveillance of foreigners abroad, including all the communications they have with Americans. The FBI goes to that stockpile of private conversations and deliberately seeks out Americans emails and text messages, bypassing the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement entirely. After years of compliance violations and abuse, Congress may be poised to close this backdoor search loophole.

But now the FBI is pushing for a huge exception, arguing it should be allowed to keep the current warrantless system for defensive searches, such as the recently revealed case where they queried communications of and about U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood because they believed he was the target of foreign espionage and influence operations.

But history is filled with chilling examples of how easily the notion of conducting defensive surveillance to protect Americans from foreign influence can be a pretense for politically motivated surveillance abuse. For example, J. Edgar Hoover authorized the monitoring of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ostensibly to defend against alleged communist influence efforts aimed at King and other civil rights leaders. In reality, it was motivated by Hoovers racism and hatred of the civil rights movement.

Detecting and defending against purported foreign influence and subversion was a frequent excuse for monitoring political dissidentssuch as the antiwar movement, Black activists, students, and other left-leaning groupsthroughout the 1960s and 70s for the abusive COINTELPRO surveillance system. The FBI even described the notion of defensive surveillance as something that offers us a fertile field to develop valuable intelligence on leftist political groups despite a lack of evidence of actual foreign danger.

Justifying spying on vulnerable communities and dissidents as a defensive measure to protect against foreign actors has continued into the 21st century. After the September 11 attacks, the New York Police Department, with federal support, engaged in mass surveillance of Muslim communities. They justified monitoring mosques, community centers, student groups, and the daily lives of average Americansactions with serious harmsas necessary to guard against influence and infiltration by foreign actors like al Qaeda. Even more recently, the FBI and DHS have raised the idea of foreign influence as a basis for monitoring Black Lives Matter activists. In 2020, then President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill pushed the notion that potential foreign subversion through Antifa justified broad surveillance and police action against protesters.

These examples also show the dangers of a split warrant standard for sensitive queries, as Privacy and Civil Liberties Board Member Beth Williams proposed at a Congressional hearing last week. Her proposal would keep warrantless queries as a general practice but add heightened protections for certain queries, such as those involving elected officials, members of the media, and religious figures. The types of surveillance abuse weve seen from the 1960s to the past decade are replete with examples of the government targeting individuals who do not fall into any of these categories, and are simply normal people. Past compliance reports have clearly demonstrated how problematic US person queries can target such a broad range of individualsrelatives of FBI personnel, crime victims, political commentators, students, law enforcement sources, and business leadersthat no such sensitive queries rule could shield all those in need of protection.

The decades-long pattern shows that a blank check for warrantless defensive searches of Americans communications collected pursuant to Section 702 could be abused for political or other purposes. To be sure, there are certain to be many genuine situations where the FBI and other intelligence agencies want to investigate and root out foreign influence efforts or other nefarious actions by foreign actors targeting Americans. The government should be able to pursue those investigations through its broad arsenal of lawful investigative tools, including appropriately predicated and judicially authorized searches of communications.

But theres a reason the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit unreasonable offensive search and seizuresno matter what the governments motive is or claims to be, we need a strong and consistent shield to protect our citizens and our democracy. Before searching for an Americans private communications, get a warrant.

More here:
There Is No Defensive Search Exception to the Fourth Amendment ... - Center for Democracy and Technology

Last week, FBI officials boasted that in 2022 their agents had spied on only 120,000 Americans without search warrants! Under the Constitution, that number should be ZERO.

This revelation is supposed to give members of Congress comfort that the folks we have hired to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution are in fact doing so. In reality, the FBI and their cousins at the National Security Agency continue to assault and violate a core freedom protected by the Constitution the right to be left alone.

The reason for the FBI revelation last week is the pending expiration of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the bipartisan animosity toward its extension.

Section 702 is unconstitutional on its face as it directly contradicts the core language of the Fourth Amendment. On its face, it permits the feds to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreign persons who are either physically or digitally present in the United States and all with whom they communicate American or foreign who are located here.

Thus, for example, if you call or text or email an art dealer in Florence, Italy, from your home in New Jersey or your cousin in Geneva, Switzerland, calls or texts or emails you at your home in California, the FBI can monitor all those communications without a search warrant. And then the feds can monitor the future calls you make and texts and emails you send. And then they can monitor all the communications of the persons you reached and all the persons they reach. As this expands on and on to the sixth degree, the numbers grow exponentially to hundreds of millions.

The reason for the search warrant requirement is to prevent a repeat of what British agents did to the American colonists before the Revolutionary War. Then, secret British courts in London issued general warrants to British agents in America, which authorized the bearer to search wherever he wished and seize whatever he found.

When the British used their general warrants to search colonial homes ostensibly looking for tax stamps in compliance with the Stamp Act, they were really attempting to predict who among the colonists entertained revolutionary ideas that might lead to a revolt against the king.

The existence and the enforcement of the Stamp Act proved so unpopular that Parliament rescinded it after just one year. But the former bond between colonials and their king had been irreparably breached and a sea change in colonial thinking pervaded the land. The core of that sea change was not taxation without representation; it was "freedom."

To the colonial mindset, freedom had one universal meaning. It meant freedom from the government from king and Parliament.

The sea change in colonial thinking resulted in an ideological welcome mat for the Declaration of Independence. When Thomas Jefferson was holed up in a Philadelphia rooming house for five days in June 1776 writing and revising the Declaration, he thought he was crafting the ideological fountainhead of a minority of landowners who despised the king's autocracy. Yet, within a year, farmers and laborers joined the popular and bloody revolt that ended in 1783 with freedom from England.

What about freedom from the new government here?

When the Constitution was ratified six years later, it had no amendments and made no mention of personal liberty. Five of the ratifying states had insisted upon the promise of the addition of a Bill of Rights as a pre-condition to ratification.

And so, the first task of the new Congress was to comply with that promise and craft a Bill of Rights, lest these five states secede from the new union. What became the Fourth Amendment protected the quintessentially American right to be left alone.

It states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" shall be secure and may be violated by the government only pursuant to a search warrant issued by a neutral judge and based on probable cause of crime and the warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized.

There is no exception in the amendment for foreign people, bad people, dangerous people, violent people, people the government hates or fears. By the plain meaning of its English words, the amendment protects ALL people. There is no limitation in the amendment to government personnel engaged in law enforcement. The amendment restrains ALL government. The very purpose of the amendment is to present an obstacle to all government because the amendment protects the natural human right to personal privacy.

James Madison and his colleagues who drafted the amendment made a value judgment consistent with their Judeo-Christian-informed morality namely, that natural rights trump governmental needs.

The violation of privacy is a form of government aggression. Madison knew the tendencies of government toward aggression. The Fourth Amendment was to be the bulwark against it. The people could protect themselves against private aggressors, but they'd need a clause in the supreme law of the land and independent judges to restrain government aggressors.

After 50 years of studying, teaching, writing about, judging, interpreting and just plain explaining the Constitution, I am convinced that those in government don't believe its words or accept its values. They don't feel bound by it.

They have crafted mechanisms of all sorts like Section 702 to evade and avoid it. They will claim that it impairs their duties. Yes, it does intentionally so, and in the name of personal liberty. Today, liberty is impaired for foreign persons, an immutable characteristic. Tomorrow it could be impaired for any other immutable trait. Of what value is a Constitution with congressionally crafted, politically based exceptions? None.

Channeling Justice George Sutherland, if the provisions of the Constitution are not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.

Andrew P. Napolitano's column is distributed by Creators.

See the original post:
Napolitano: Does government believe in the Constitution ... - The Winchester Star

OPINION:

Last week, FBI officials boasted that in 2022, their agents had spied on only 120,000 Americans without search warrants. Under the Constitution, that number should be zero.

This revelation is supposed to give members of Congress comfort that the people we have hired to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution are in fact doing so. In reality, the FBI and their cousins at the National Security Agency continue to assault and violate a core freedom protected by the Constitution the right to be left alone.

The reason for this revelation is the pending expiration of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the bipartisan opposition to its extension.

Section 702 is unconstitutional on its face as it directly contradicts the core language of the Fourth Amendment. On its face, it permits the feds to conduct warrantless surveillance on foreigners who are either physically or digitally present in the United States and all with whom they communicate American or foreign who are here.

Thus, for example, if you call or text or email an art dealer in Florence, Italy, from your home in New Jersey, or your cousin in Switzerland calls or texts or emails you at your home in California, the FBI can monitor all those communications without a search warrant.

And then the feds can monitor the future calls you make and texts and emails you send. And then they can monitor all the communications of the people you reached and all the people they reach. As this expands on and on to the sixth degree, the numbers grow exponentially to hundreds of millions.

The reason for the search warrant requirement is to prevent a repeat of what British agents did to the American colonists before the Revolutionary War. Then, secret British courts in London issued general warrants to British agents in America, which authorized the bearer to search wherever he wished and seize whatever he found.

When the British used their general warrants to search Colonial homes ostensibly looking for tax stamps in compliance with the Stamp Act, they were really attempting to predict who among the colonists entertained revolutionary ideas that might lead to a revolt against the king.

The existence and the enforcement of the Stamp Act proved so unpopular that Parliament rescinded it after just one year. But the former bond between the colonists and their king had been irreparably breached and a sea change in Colonial thinking pervaded the land. The core of that sea change was not taxation without representation; it was freedom.

To the Colonial mindset, freedom had one universal meaning. It meant freedom from the government from king and Parliament.

The sea change in Colonial thinking resulted in an ideological welcome mat for the Declaration of Independence. When Thomas Jefferson was holed up in a Philadelphia rooming house for five days in June 1776 writing and revising the Declaration, he thought he was crafting the ideological fountainhead of a minority of landowners who despised the kings autocracy.

Yet within a year, farmers and laborers joined the popular and bloody revolt that ended in 1783 with freedom from England.

What about freedom from the new government here?

When the Constitution was ratified six years later, it had no amendments and made no mention of personal liberty. Five of the ratifying states had insisted upon the promise of the addition of a Bill of Rights as a precondition to ratification.

And so the first task of the new Congress was to comply with that promise and craft a Bill of Rights, lest these five states secede from the new union. What became the Fourth Amendment protected the quintessentially American right to be left alone.

It states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects shall be secure and may be violated by the government pursuant only to a search warrant issued by a neutral judge and based on probable cause of crime and the warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched or the people or things to be seized.

There is no exception in the amendment for foreign people, bad people, dangerous people, violent people, or people the government hates or fears. By the plain meaning of its English words, the amendment protects all people. There is no limitation in the amendment to government personnel engaged in law enforcement. The amendment restrains all government. The very purpose of the amendment is to present an obstacle to all government because the amendment protects the natural human right to privacy.

James Madison and his colleagues who drafted the amendment made a value judgment consistent with their Judeo-Christian morality namely, that natural rights trump governmental needs.

The violation of privacy is a form of government aggression. Madison knew the tendencies of government toward aggression. The Fourth Amendment was to be the bulwark against it. The people could protect themselves against private aggressors, but theyd need a clause in the supreme law of the land and independent judges to restrain government aggressors.

After 50 years of studying, teaching, judging, interpreting, writing about, and just plain explaining the Constitution, I am convinced that those in government dont believe its words or accept its values. They dont feel bound by the law of the land.

They have crafted mechanisms of all sorts like Section 702 to evade and avoid it. They will claim that it impairs their duties. Yes, it does intentionally so, and in the name of personal liberty. Today, liberty is impaired for foreign people, an immutable characteristic. Tomorrow it could be impaired for any other immutable trait. Of what value is a Constitution with congressionally crafted, politically based exceptions? None.

Channeling Justice George Sutherland, if the provisions of the Constitution are not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned.

Andrew P. Napolitano is a former professor of law and judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey who has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Visit link:
Constitution might as well be abandoned if amendments are not ... - Washington Times