Henry Kissinger and Michael Daniel on how to be a cyber czar

Our interview in this episode is with Michael Daniel, formerly the top cybersecurity adviser in the Obama NSC and currently the CEO of the Cyber Threat Alliance.  Michael lays out CTA’s mission. Along the way he also offers advice to the Biden cyber team – drawing in part on the wisdom of Henry Kissinger.

In the news roundup, Michael joins Jamil Jaffer and Nate Jones to mull the significance of Bruce Reed’s appointment to coordinate technology issues in the Biden White House.  Reed’s tough take on Silicon Valley companies and section 230 may form the basis of a small-ball deal with Republicans on things like child sex abuse material, but none of us thinks a broader reconciliation on content moderating obligations is in the offing.

When it comes to regulating the tech sector, Brussels is a fount of proposals. The latest, unpacked by Jamil and Maury Shenk, is intended to build on the dubious success of GDPR in jumpstarting the EU’s technology industry. If it reminds you of the brilliant success of European regulation in creating a large certification authority industry, you won’t be far wrong.

Maury and I puzzle over exactly how a Russian divorcee won a court order allowing access to her estranged son’s Gmail account. Our guess: the court stretched a point to conclude that the son had consented.

Another day, another China-punishing measure from the Trump administration: Jamil explains the administration’s vision of a bloc of countries that will unite in resistance to China’s punitive trade retaliation against inconvenient Western countries, most notably Australia, now getting hit hard by China.

Meanwhile, Maury reports that the administration has identified nearly 90 Chinese companies that are closely tied to the Chinese military for purposes of export control licenses. The only good news for US exporters is that the list eliminates some ambiguity about the status of some companies.

Maury also gives an overview of what most of us think is an oxymoron: Privacy in China. In fact, there is growing attention to protecting privacy at least from commercial companies. But harsh penalties, as always, are going to make observers wonder “who did that company piss off?” before they wonder “what did that company do wrong?”

Maury also reports on the effort to revive Privacy Shield – and on just how little the negotiators have to work with.

Jamil comments on the ever-rising cost of cybersecurity, and the possible implications for bank consolidation.

Nate reviews privacy and security doubts about Amazon’s Sidewalk feature, which turns Alexa devices into neighborhood WiFi networks.

Maury and I note that the deadline for a TikTok sale is a week away and maybe always will be.

Jamil wonders why ZTE asked the FCC to reconsider its exclusion of the company from the US telecoms infrastructure. The FCC order denying the request was not exactly a marketing triumph.

Jamil and I have fun asking how much snooping will go on in a proposed new fiber-optic network linking Saudi Arabia and Israel. Biggest loser? Egypt.

Nate is not surprised that France is pushing its tax for the (US) tech sector, but we debate whether the timing will turn out to be good for France or bad. I claim that White House ADHD will be France’s best friend.

Maury and I try to figure out whether there’s a public policy case in favor of the Rivada plan to take over a bunch of DoD spectrum and rent out whatever is excess to DoD needs. Maybe there is, but we can’t find it.

Download the 340th Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36mqkh6
via IFTTT

The Pardon Power May Be Broad, But that Does Not Mean a Self-Pardon Would Be Legit

Last week, a lame-duck President pardoned a turkey, as is traditional for the Thanksgiving holiday, and then pardoned a former agent of Turkey, which is not. Could the most untraditional of pardons—a self-pardon—be next? If so, then what?

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This power, the pardon power, is among the broadest and least constrained of presidential powers. It has been described as “plenary,” and faces no real limits other than those indicated in the text: It only applies to federal crimes (“offenses against the United States”) and may not be used to overturn an impeachment conviction. Further, pardons must be for acts already committed–that is, the “offense” must have occurred–but it need not have been investigated or previously disclosed, let alone charged. (For those interested, here’s a good CRS report on the pardon power.)

The President may offer a pardon to whomever the President wants, and for whatever reason. This is one reason the inclusion of a pardon power was controversial at the founding, and why some Anti-Federalists, such as George Mason, were upset about it (and why some folks, like my co-blogger Keith Whittington have urged its reform). Fortunately, throughout the nation’s history the pardon power is relatively rarely used to excuse corruption or protect a President’s cronies. Those few instances–such as President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich–are controversial precisely because they have been the exception, rather than the rule.

Some have urged Congress to enact legislation to curb the pardon power, but I doubt such legislation would be constitutional. The pardon power is the President’s alone, and Congress lacks the power to constrain it. Congress might have the authority to require federal agencies that assist with the administration and execution of pardons and clemency to disclose information, but it is unlikely such legislative oversight could reach the President himself. As the Supreme Court made clear in Trump v. Mazars, Congress does not have free-standing authority to investigate the President for potential wrong-doing, and in the absence of any power to enact substantive legislation concerning the use of the pardon power, it is not clear what legitimate constitutional purpose legislative oversight or mandated disclosure concerning the President’s use of the pardon power would serve.

President Trump has (thus far) been particularly stingy in his issuance of pardons. He has also been particularly self-interested, granting pardons and commutations to his political allies. Thus the pardon of Michael Flynn may have departed from historical practice, but it was not much of a surprise. Recall that President Bush did not pardon Scooter Libby (though Trump did). Some commentators have tried to argue that self-serving pardons of presidential allies and cronies are somehow constitutionally suspect, but I do not think these claims hold water. Dicta in lower court opinions noting the potential for constitutional constraints on the pardon power’s use concerned conditions placed on offers of clemency, and should not be taken to signify a broader anti-corruption limit on how the pardon power may be used or abused.

Given the number of investigations into Trump’s financial and other dealings, there is widespread speculation that the President might try to pardon himself. But can he do that? He thinks so. Most academic commentators and (more importantly) the Department of Justice disagree. A 1974 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum concluded that self-pardons were not within the pardon power because it is inappropriate for the President to be a judge in his own case. The memo is thin, but represents the official position of the Department of Justice. In my view, Brian Kalt makes a more persuasive case against the legitimacy of self-pardons (and at greater length here). Tim Sandefur offers a contrary view, but I am not convinced by it. As I see it, the language, history, usage and understanding of the nature of a pardon all point in the opposite direction. [For more, see this “smorgasbord of views on self-pardoning” collected by Jack Goldsmith.]

While I believe a self-pardon would not actually be a pardon and would be invalid, my opinion is unlikely to hold sway at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So what happens if the President were to try and issue a self-pardon? It is an interesting question.

Recall that the power only extends to federal crimes, so a self-pardon would not have any effect on potential state proceedings against Donald Trump once he leaves office. If Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance is inclined to pursue charges against Trump (or any of his relatives or associates, for that matter), a federal pardon will not stand in the way.

As for federal crimes, note that the initial opportunity to weight the self-pardon’s validity would fall to the Department of Justice in weighing whether to bring federal criminal charges in the first place. As already noted, DOJ does not believe self-pardons are valid, and it is inconceivable that the Biden Administration would revise this view. So if the Justice Department were to conclude that Donald Trump committed federal offenses worthy of prosecution, the existence of an attempted “self-pardon” would not stand in the way of an indictment.

No doubt any federal indictment would be met with an effort to dismiss the charges on the grounds that Trump was pardoned. Trump’s attorneys would no doubt raise this claim at the earliest opportunity. I suspect this claim would be met with skepticism, however, as it would contradict the longstanding and well-established view of the Justice Department. While OLC opinions are not binding on federal courts, they are taken seriously, and particularly so where (as here) they run counter the executive branch’s interests. OLC opinions typically embrace robust conceptions of executive power. Thus an OLC opinion counseling restraint is more notable, and is likely to get extra consideration as a result. [As an aside, it is still possible that OLC could reverse its position between now and January 20. Were that to occur, I suspect any resulting memo would be recognized as a last ditch effort to shore up the President’s position, and not a neutral, dispassionate analysis worthy of judicial respect, but that could depend on what any such memo says.]

This is a long way of saying that if Trump tries to pardon himself, he could have a hard time making the pardon stick. It is certainly possible the Justice Department may have no interest in pursuing the former President, whether because it concludes there are no offenses worth pursuing, a sense of political comity, or a prudential judgment that state courts should get the first shot. But should there be such a prosecution, I doubt a self-pardon will offer ex-President Trump much protection in federal court.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fQPAzc
via IFTTT

Henry Kissinger and Michael Daniel on how to be a cyber czar

Our interview in this episode is with Michael Daniel, formerly the top cybersecurity adviser in the Obama NSC and currently the CEO of the Cyber Threat Alliance.  Michael lays out CTA’s mission. Along the way he also offers advice to the Biden cyber team – drawing in part on the wisdom of Henry Kissinger.

In the news roundup, Michael joins Jamil Jaffer and Nate Jones to mull the significance of Bruce Reed’s appointment to coordinate technology issues in the Biden White House.  Reed’s tough take on Silicon Valley companies and section 230 may form the basis of a small-ball deal with Republicans on things like child sex abuse material, but none of us thinks a broader reconciliation on content moderating obligations is in the offing.

When it comes to regulating the tech sector, Brussels is a fount of proposals. The latest, unpacked by Jamil and Maury Shenk, is intended to build on the dubious success of GDPR in jumpstarting the EU’s technology industry. If it reminds you of the brilliant success of European regulation in creating a large certification authority industry, you won’t be far wrong.

Maury and I puzzle over exactly how a Russian divorcee won a court order allowing access to her estranged son’s Gmail account. Our guess: the court stretched a point to conclude that the son had consented.

Another day, another China-punishing measure from the Trump administration: Jamil explains the administration’s vision of a bloc of countries that will unite in resistance to China’s punitive trade retaliation against inconvenient Western countries, most notably Australia, now getting hit hard by China.

Meanwhile, Maury reports that the administration has identified nearly 90 Chinese companies that are closely tied to the Chinese military for purposes of export control licenses. The only good news for US exporters is that the list eliminates some ambiguity about the status of some companies.

Maury also gives an overview of what most of us think is an oxymoron: Privacy in China. In fact, there is growing attention to protecting privacy at least from commercial companies. But harsh penalties, as always, are going to make observers wonder “who did that company piss off?” before they wonder “what did that company do wrong?”

Maury also reports on the effort to revive Privacy Shield – and on just how little the negotiators have to work with.

Jamil comments on the ever-rising cost of cybersecurity, and the possible implications for bank consolidation.

Nate reviews privacy and security doubts about Amazon’s Sidewalk feature, which turns Alexa devices into neighborhood WiFi networks.

Maury and I note that the deadline for a TikTok sale is a week away and maybe always will be.

Jamil wonders why ZTE asked the FCC to reconsider its exclusion of the company from the US telecoms infrastructure. The FCC order denying the request was not exactly a marketing triumph.

Jamil and I have fun asking how much snooping will go on in a proposed new fiber-optic network linking Saudi Arabia and Israel. Biggest loser? Egypt.

Nate is not surprised that France is pushing its tax for the (US) tech sector, but we debate whether the timing will turn out to be good for France or bad. I claim that White House ADHD will be France’s best friend.

Maury and I try to figure out whether there’s a public policy case in favor of the Rivada plan to take over a bunch of DoD spectrum and rent out whatever is excess to DoD needs. Maybe there is, but we can’t find it.

Download the 340th Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36mqkh6
via IFTTT

US Billionaires Have Gained $1 Trillion Since The Pandemic Started

US Billionaires Have Gained $1 Trillion Since The Pandemic Started

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 20:10

American billionaires haven’t been just immune to the pandemic, they have been thriving in it, drastically increasing their collective wealth. An analysis by Chuck Collins at the Institute for Policy Studies found that American billionaires have been their wealth grow by $1 trillion since March of this year – more than 34 percent. That was not the case during the 2008 financial crisis when it took Forbes’ 400 richest people three years to recoup their losses from the Great Recession. Collins’ findings highlight a wealth gain by a mere 650 individuals that, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, seems obscene at a time when nearly 7 million Americans are at risk of eviction when moratoriums expire at the end of the year.

Infographic: U.S. Billionaires Gained $1 Trillion Since The Pandemic Started | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

There are 650 billionaires on the list, out of which 47 are new arrivals with 11 dropping out due to death or financial decline. There were numerous impressive financial gains among notable billionaires on the lit with Jeff Bezos growing his fortune by $69.4 billion between March 17 and November 24. The Amazon boss and richest man on the planet is now with $182.4 billion. The most impressive gain on the list was recorded by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk who has seen his fortune experience a meteoric rise. In the above period, his weath surged a whopping 414 percent, climbing from “just” $24.6 billion to $126.2 billion, making him the world’s second richest man after Bezos.

Illustrating the gulf in financial inequality in the U.S. today, the analysis states that U.S. billionaires own $4 trillion, 3.5 percent of all privately held wealth in the country. Billionaire wealth is now twice the amount of wealth held by the bottom 50 percent of all American households combined, approximately 160 million people.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lnw7az Tyler Durden

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Formally Introduce Resolution To Dispute 2020 Elections Results

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Formally Introduce Resolution To Dispute 2020 Elections Results

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 19:50

Just as we previewed over the weekend, Republican state lawmakers in Pennsylvania on Monday introduced a resolution to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

As The Epoch Times’ Ivan Pentchoukov reports, the text of the resolution, first previewed in a memo on Nov. 27, states that the executive and judicial branches of the Keystone State’s government usurped the legislature’s constitutional power to set the rules of the election.

“Officials in the Executive and Judicial Branches of the Commonwealth infringed upon the General Assembly’s authority under the Constitution of the United States by unlawfully changing the rules governing the November 3, 2020, election in the Commonwealth,” the resolution (pdf) states.

The resolution calls on the secretary of the Commonwealth to withdraw the “premature certification” of the presidential election and delay certifying other races, declares the 2020 election to be in dispute, and urges the U.S. Congress “to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute.”

Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly said in a statement, “A number of compromises of Pennsylvania’s election laws took place during the 2020 General Election. The documented irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing have undermined our elector process and, as a result, we cannot accept certification of the results in statewide races.”

They added, “We believe this moment is pivotal and important enough that the General Assembly needs to take extraordinary measures to answer these extraordinary questions. We also believe our representative oversight duty as Pennsylvania’s legislative branch of government demands us to re-assume our constitutional authority and take immediate action.”

The proposed text lists three steps taken by the judicial and executive branches to change the rules of the election.

First, on Sept. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “unlawfully and unilaterally” extended the deadline by which mail ballots could be received, mandated that ballots without a postmark would be treated as timely, and allowed for ballots without a verified voter signature to be accepted, the resolution says.

Second, on Oct. 23, upon a petition from the secretary of the commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that signatures on mail-in ballots need not be authenticated.

And third, on Nov. 2, the secretary of the commonwealth “encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects,” the resolution says.

All of the changes are contrary to the Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires mail-in ballots to be received at 8 p.m. on Election Day, mandates that signatures on the mail-in ballots be authenticated, and forbids the counting of defective mail-in ballots.

The resolution also lists a variety of election irregularities and potential fraud, including the issues brought up by witnesses during the hearing before the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee on Nov. 25.

“On November 24, 2020, the Secretary of the Commonwealth unilaterally and prematurely certified results of the November 3, 2020 election regarding presidential electors despite ongoing litigation,” the resolution states.

“The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of this Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to the law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately.”

Pennsylvania State Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Republican, said Friday that the GOP-controlled state legislature will make a bid to reclaim its power to appoint the state’s electors to the Electoral College, saying they could start the process on Nov. 30.

“So, we’re gonna do a resolution between the House and Senate, hopefully today,” he told Steve Bannon’s War Room on Friday.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33ys7On Tyler Durden

Beijing “Unexpectedly” Injects $30 Billion Into Financial System, Sparking Doubts About True State Of China’s Economy

Beijing “Unexpectedly” Injects $30 Billion Into Financial System, Sparking Doubts About True State Of China’s Economy

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 19:30

Back in late 2019, we were frequently greeted by headlines such as this, indicating that PBOC was periodically making “unexpected” liquidity injections, which made sense in light of China’s ongoing economic slowdown:

… and:

Fast forward one year, when China’s economy is supposedly growing at a blistering pace thanks the massive credit injections following the covid pandemic – or so Beijing and various PMI surveys would would indicate, with the November NBS manufacturing PMI overnight rising to 52.1 from 51.4 in October (all sub-indexes in the NBS manufacturing PMI survey implied stronger growth momentum in November) while the NBS non-manufacturing PMI rising further to 56.4 from 56.2 in October on the back of stronger services and construction PMIs….

… and yet the same telltale signs that not all is well with China’s economy are back, with Bloomberg posting a deja vu report this morning that China “unexpectedly” – there’s that word again – added yet another injection in the form of medium-term funding to the financial system on Monday “as the central bank sought to ease liquidity tightness in the final weeks of the year.” Perhaps China’s economy is not nearly as strong as the “pristine” indicators would make us believe?

Specifically, the People’s Bank of China offered 200 billion yuan ($30 billion) of the medium-term lending facility at an unchanged rate of 2.95%, according to a statement Monday at the same time that Beijing reported the latest blistering PMI numbers.

The latest injection came just two weeks after the central bank offered 800 billion yuan of the funds, which were already more than enough to offset the 600 billion yuan that were due this month.

“The MLF injection is a surprise,” said Zhaopeng Xing, a markets economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group. “It shows the central bank aims to ensure liquidity without using broader easing measures like a reserve-ratio cut, when the demand for medium-term cash surged.”

Curiously, even as Chinese post-pandemic economic recovery is blowing away expectations, widespread concerns over tighter cash supply have sent China’s benchmark sovereign yield to its highest level since May 2019 earlier in November…

… resulting in record wide spreads between US and Chinese 10Y yields.

The latest MLF injection came as the PBOC also added 150 billion yuan of 7-day reverse repurchase agreements on Monday.

Even more curious is the consensus explanation for the sharp rise in Chinese yields: according to Bloomberg, “the central bank’s drip-feed approach to offering funding has compounded” the lack of liquidity “indicating Beijing wouldn’t want to loosen monetary policy much more amid a growth rebound.”

But if the economy is so strong, which does China even need more liquidity: after all, the 10Y yield is – in theory – rising because of higher inflation expectations over the horizon, and yet the PBOC feels compelled to enter the market “unexpectedly” every other week to prevent sentiment from turning sour.

Maybe what’s going on is that the liquidity squeeze is the real story, and the so-called economic recovery is the latest goalseeked lie out of Beijing.

Recall that China is already facing a major funding squeeze, with the nation’s banks grappling with a $900 billion funding gap this month and next because of a need to repay at least 3.7 trillion yuan of short-term interbank debt and purchase 1 trillion yuan of newly issued government bonds. Also, 600 billion yuan of previously offered MLF loans will mature in December. The recent “unexpected” default of several SOE companies has added to the stress, with non-bank financial institutions finding it hard to fund themselves in the interbank market.

Rabobank’s Michael Every put it best when discussing the quantum states of the global newslow (China’s economy surging in one collapse of the wave function; China’s economy desperate for liquidity in the other), writing the following:

China’s economy continues to power ahead, with bumper net exports and capital inflows and industrial profits all being recorded: and yet the PBOC just had to inject CNY200bn (USD30bn) in MLF a month ahead of the end of the year to ease liquidity tightness, and that on the back of CNY800bn two weeks ago. Yes, this is gross not net: but why the need for so much PBOC help when everything is going so well? Perhaps because Chinese banks are still trying to repay CNY3.7 trillion of short-term interbank debt and purchase CNY1 trillion of government bonds and repay maturing MLF injections,…and are worrying about SOE bond defaults.

As Every rhetorically summarizes “everything is going so well though: there just isn’t any cash as a result” and concludes with a bad quantum physics pun: “Isn’t the most dangerous part of the Heisenberg below the water?

How much longer can Beijing pretend that the economy is remarkably strong… if only there was a few hundred billion more in liquidity sloshing around. Probably at least until the January inauguration event. After that, non-quantum reality may finally have to reassert itself.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39vWhp9 Tyler Durden

Trump COVID Advisor Dr. Scott Atlas Resigns From White House

Trump COVID Advisor Dr. Scott Atlas Resigns From White House

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 19:23

With Joe Biden and Kamala Harris having already assembled their own parallel White House coronavirus task force staffed almost entirely with Obama Administration vets, Dr. Scott Atlas, the so-called “anti-Fauci” who has reportedly become President Trump’s go-to advisor on all coronavirus-related topics, has decided to resign.

According to Fox News, Dr. Atlas has resigned from his post Monday evening. The move comes as Gov Gavin Newsom warns of “dramatic, arguably drastic” new lockdown-like restrictions coming to the Golden State (which represents one-fifth of the American economy, and roughly 1/8th of the US population).

Fox News exclusively obtained a copy of Dr. Atlas’s resignation letter, which was dated Dec. 1. In the letter, Dr. Atlas touted the Trump administration’s work on the coronavirus pandemic, while wishing “all the best” to Biden and his team.

“I am writing to resign from my position as Special Advisor to the President of the United States,” Atlas said, thanking him for “the honor and privilege to serve on behalf of the American people.” “I worked hard with a singular focus—to save lives and help Americans through this pandemic,” Atlas wrote, adding that he “always relied on the latest science and evidence, without any political consideration or influence.”

“As time went on, like all scientists and health policy scholars, I learned new information and synthesized the latest data from around the world, all in an effort to provide you with the best information to serve the greater public good,” Atlas wrote. “But, perhaps more than anything, my advice was always focused on minimizing all the harms from both the pandemic and the structural policies themselves, especially to the working class and the poor.”

Atlas, who had been criticized for opposing lockdowns in defiance of “science” (Dr. Robert Redfield once warned that “everything he says is false”), warned in his letter that “although some may disagree with those recommendations, it is the free exchange of ideas that lead to scientific truths, which are the very foundation of a civilized society.” “Indeed, I cannot think of a time where safeguarding science and the scientific debate is more urgent,” he said.

Before his arrival, “that expertise had not been present”, Dr. Atlas added.

Atlas, who spoke with the president on Monday, joined the administration in August, and was considered a Special Government Employee serving on a 130-day detail. That detail is set to expire this week, and it’s probably safe to say that Biden hasn’t invited Dr. Atlas back to serve in his administration.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2I05XNC Tyler Durden

America’s New Normal – Silent, Obedient Consent

America’s New Normal – Silent, Obedient Consent

Tyler Durden

Mon, 11/30/2020 – 19:10

Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

Yesterday we took advantage of another beautiful Fall day in Cape May. We decided to check out the Cape May Lighthouse State Park. It is at the very end of Cape May. It is an example of what the government can do right – Preserve a natural habitat without glitz or commercialization. It is just miles of wetlands and walking trails. The lighthouse, built in 1859 by the U.S. Army is still functioning today. Two previous lighthouses succumbed to the sea. It is a majestic structure, reaching 157 feet into the sky

On the beach, not far from the lighthouse, is Battery 223. It is a crumbling concrete structure from World War II which was designed to protect against invasion by German forces. The structure was built with six-foot thick reinforced concrete walls and a thick blast proof roof; the entire building was covered with earth. The 6-inch guns had a nine-mile range. It is an interesting relic from our past. The dilapidated condition struck me as symbolic of our crumbling empire.

Once you walked into the nature preserve, a feeling of calm and peacefulness overwhelms you. Swans and ducks glide across the salt water ponds enjoying a feast of minnows. It’s nature at its most pristine. Just quiet and beauty.

The walking trails wind throughout the nature preserve. They are well maintained and pristine. No trash. No beer bottles strewn about. Visitors are respectful of this place. A feeling of calm engulfs you as you venture along the trails.

But, alas, I couldn’t write a post without acknowledging the human reality I witnessed walking along these trails on a stunningly beautiful sunny 58 degree day in late November. The four of us were unmasked, because masks don’t work and certainly aren’t necessary outside while walking.

As we were driving to the park, I noticed a few bike riders on the side of the road wearing masks while biking. I thought to myself – WTF. That is completely idiotic. Then we began walking along the miles of trails. The park was moderately busy, but you passed someone every few minutes.

Sadly, I would estimate that 80% of the people we passed on the trails were masked and fearful of us unmasked hooligans. I can only imagine their thoughts as they wondered why we were risking their lives by being so careless.

I was disgusted by the lack of critical thought exhibited by these people. I might have understood if it was only people over 70 years old wearing the masks, but most of these people were young. They have virtually a zero risk of dying from this flu. They have virtually a zero risk of catching it on a walking trail at a State park. But, they obediently and silently do as they are told by their overlords.

I am saddened by how easily the totalitarians have been able to use fear, propaganda, lies and misinformation to turn the vast majority of Americans into compliant sheep. It is so clear to me that this engineered flu panic is nothing more than another chapter in the scheme to enslave global populations under the thumb of global elitist billionaires who want to control us and enrich themselves.

V’s speech to the citizens of London captures the essence of what is happening and will happen unless the masses come to their senses.

“Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told…if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War. Terror. Disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and in your panic, you turned to the now High Chancellor Adam Sutler. He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

 V speech to London, V for Vendetta

These thoughts did not ruin my day, but they are constantly bubbling below the surface as I observe the downward spiral of this country. Hopefully, the Cape May Lighthouse beacon will represent the shining light of truth that will help us avert a historical shipwreck of epic proportions.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VniWf8 Tyler Durden