Podcasts about usa patriot act

Send me feedback!Today, I dive into a rare treat—legislation that actually aligns with libertarian principles! From repealing the USA PATRIOT Act to dismantling the Department of Education, free silencers from taxes, and exiting the WTO, these bills spark hope for a freer future. Join me as I break down why these proposals deserve applause.SUPPORT THE SHOWLocals for $5/monthRumble Rants: Click green dollar sign during the showRumble Subscription: Click subscribe $5/monthHOW AM I DOING?Email: libertydadpod@gmail.comSHOW NOTESHJ Res 93 (World Trade Organization)HR 899 (Abolish Dept of Education)HR 3245 (Repeal PATRIOT Act)Rep Anna Paulina LunaHR 3228 (Silencers)Rep Andrew ClydeColion NoirWait Song: Smoke RisingMusic by: CreatorMix.comVideo

Tom Bodrovics welcomes back former congressman Dr. Ron Paul from Texas and Liberty Report host to discuss the link between liberty and the economy. Dr. Paul insists that freer societies are more prosperous, advocating for a sound monetary policy as crucial for economic health. He condemns interventionist policies and criticizes the Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates, citing 1921 as evidence of a hands-off approach leading to a better recovery from an economic downturn. During the conversation, Dr. Paul expresses his aspiration to terminate the Federal Reserve and proposes steps towards accomplishing this goal, including repealing the Federal Reserve Act and enforcing the Constitution. Although he acknowledges that the process might not be easy due to the nation's addiction to low-interest rates and easy money, he emphasizes the importance of recognizing inflation as a tax on people's money and advocates for Fed auditing as a path to transparency. Dr. Paul supports gold-backed bonds as a means of promoting fiscal restraint and offering individuals a valuable savings opportunity. He denounces tariffs as an ill-conceived solution for economic matters, suggesting instead the elimination of burdensome business regulations. Furthermore, Dr. Paul expresses concerns about government information's lack of transparency and encourages citizens to educate themselves on constitutional principles in order to safeguard individual liberties. Dr. Paul concludes by urging listeners to act upon their convictions and principles, underlining the significance of education in history and economics. He also presents his homeschooling curriculum as a substantial contribution to fostering individual liberty and countering excessive government control over education and healthcare. Ultimately, Dr. Paul underscores the importance of personal accountability and the risks of government intervention in diverse areas. Time Stamp References:0:00 - Introduction0:36 - Economics of Liberty3:24 - Government Efficiency5:00 - Audit & End The Fed12:58 - Shelton & Gold Bonds14:36 - Tariffs & Regulations23:12 - Accurate Information?25:36 - What Should We Do?27:29 - Wrap Up Guest LinksTwitter: https://x.com/ronpaulWebsite: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/Website: http:///ronpaulinstitute.org Ron Paul is an American author, physician, and former politician. He was the U.S. Representative for Texas' 14th and 22nd congressional districts. Ron represented the 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977 and from 1979 to 1985 and then represented the 14th congressional district, which included Galveston, from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the United States presidency: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012. Paul is a critic of the federal government's fiscal policies, especially the Federal Reserve and the tax policy, as well as the military-industrial complex and the War on Drugs. Paul has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs. Paul was the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy and has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement. A native of the Pittsburgh suburb of Green Tree, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. In addition, Ron worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s. He became the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a son or daughter in the Senate when his son, Rand Paul, was elected to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in 2010. Paul is a Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute and has been an active writer, publishing on the topics of political and economic theory and publicizing the ideas of econ...

Ep #54 With David Caruso, Dominion Advisory Group In this episode of Regulatory Ramblings, David Caruso, a former U.S. Secret Service agent turned global financial crime fighter, shares insights from his 30-year journey in AML and financial crime compliance. With an impressive career, including time as chief compliance officer at Riggs Bank, David recounts his pivotal role in uncovering corruption scandals involving Equatorial Guinea and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. These investigations sparked significant U.S. regulatory and legal actions, influencing AML enforcement on a global scale. David reflects on the evolution of financial crime compliance, pointing to key regulations like the Bank Secrecy Act, USA PATRIOT Act, and FATCA. He critiques how the increasingly regulatory-driven focus has distracted AML teams from their primary mission. He also shares his concerns about international policy-setting bodies, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), questioning whether new rules are truly effective in preventing financial crime or unintentionally stifling economic growth. The discussion wraps up with David's views on the limited success of sanctions against Russia, the potential of AI in AML/KYC compliance, and his policy recommendations moving forward. David Caruso is the founder and managing director of Dominion Advisory Group, helping banks across the U.S., Europe, and Asia navigate financial crime risk and compliance. With a background as a U.S. Secret Service agent and a degree from George Washington University, he has been at the forefront of shaping financial crime compliance since 1996, advising global institutions and building AML programs at major banks. For more details about the contents of this podcast, please visit: www.hkufintech.com/regulatoryramblingsHKU FinTech is the leading fintech research and education in Asia. Learn more at www.hkufintech.com.

Get ready to rethink everything you know about the Democratic Party! In this explosive episode of Connecting the Dots, I sit down with historian and author Jeremy Kuzmarov to reveal how the party's messaging has quietly embraced militarism—and what it means for America's future. This isn't just another political chat; we're diving deep into the hidden history behind today's headlines, exposing the bipartisan grip of the military-industrial complex on both parties. Jeremy and I break down how Democrats have shaped U.S. foreign policy, fueling wars and global interventions that have real-world impacts on immigration and international relations. If you're ready for a raw, eye-opening conversation on how our political system prioritizes power over peace, you won't want to miss this! Tune in for insights that challenge the status quo and uncover the urgent need for a more balanced, humane approach to politics, both at home and abroad. Watch or Listen now to join the conversation! Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey! Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): Hey, here are a couple questions. Has the messaging from the Democrats changed over the past few years? Is the messaging more jingoistic, more saber rattling, have they become the party of militarism? Let's find out Announcer (00:00:22): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:30): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before is militarism and messaging. My guest is a man who holds a PhD in American history from Brandeis University. He's the managing editor of Covert Action Magazine. He's the author of five books on US Foreign Policy. He's the author of a piece at Covert Action entitled DNC Convention Features former CIA director who was in charge of drone programs that killed thousands. He is Dr. Jeremy Komaroff. Jeremy, welcome to the show. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:01:39): Thanks so much for having me. Great to be with you. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:01:41): You open your peace in covert action as follows, Leon Panetta was drowned out by anti-war activists when he spoke at the 2016 convention, but not this time. Former CIA director, Leon Panetta, who was the director from 2009 to 2011, was among the featured speakers on the final day of the DNC in Chicago on August 22nd when Kamala Harris accepted the party's nomination as its presidential candidate. Jeremy, does this represent just a shift in rhetoric, or is this a shift in policy and a shift in direction? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:02:25): Well, I think we see a lot of continuity. I mean, Panetta was there in 2016. He's giving the same kind of speech eight years later. In 2016, he was really promoting these anti-Russia themes, anti Putin. This was the forerunner of the Russia gate. They were already attacking Donald Trump as a Russian agents. And his speech in 2024 was the same kind of thing. It was really very jingoistic militaristic in that speech. He was invoking the glory of the Obama administration assassination of Osama Bin Laden or alleged assassination because there are a lot of different theories about what really might've gone on there. And the official story was shown to be a lie. Seymour Hirsch had a piece that was very good, and he compared it to Alice Wonderland, and their rhetoric was so far out there as to what really is known to have happened. And yeah, there are a lot of question mark or they dumped the body at sea, so there are no autopsy and some question if that was even Bin Laden. (00:03:31): Some people believe he died years earlier from renal failure. But in any event, that's the kind of thing they were doing just touting the War on terror. The US military Panetta said something that America made mistake of trying to be isolationist in the 1930s. And there's this kind of insinuation, you can't appease Putin as if he the new Hitler and America was not really isolationist. It was a global empire starting the late 19th century when it acquired the Philippines and Puerto Rico and Cuba and function as a global empire from that time period. So it never really isolationist. And FDR had this major naval buildup in the Asia Pacific that essentially provoked the Pacific War. It was a horrific war. So I mean, he obviously doesn't know his history that well, but this is just theater. Yeah, it's a very hawkish theme. He's a dancing and his speech echoed Kamala Harris' speech, anti-Russia themes, pro-military themes. (00:04:36): So that's what you get nowadays out of the Democratic party. And yeah, I mean there were booze of Panetta in 2016, but it was quiet this time around. It seems that people are just trying to mobilize around Harris and the EM of the anti-war movement. I mean, there were protestors outside of the convention. A lot of that centered exclusively on Israel Palestine. So I don't know. I mean, I think the protestors in 2016 were part of the Bernie Sanders faction. Maybe they had some hope in the party then, but now I think anti-war people have no hope in the Democratic Party. So they left or somewhere outside protesting. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:05:21): Well, in fact, that was really the crux of my question, Panda's rhetoric versus the convention's response. And does the convention's response, or some might say lack of response, indicate that there's a serious shift in the party, particularly as we look at how easily war mongering legislation gets passed through Congress, through the democratic elements of Congress as it relates to funding for Ukraine and funding for Gaza and more jingoistic rhetoric as it relates towards China? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:06:01): Absolutely, and I think it's telling that Robert Kennedy and Tulsa Gabbard are considered more peace candidates and they've made a lot of statements critical of US foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine. Less so for Kennedy, and I think also Gabbard, Israel, Gaza, but definitely Ukraine. They've both been very critical and called for easing of relation with Russia. And they've warned about the threat of nuclear war and that we're in an era and new Cuban missile crisis, they've compared it to, and they were booted out of the party. I mean, Tulsa, they were treated horribly beyond just debate. I mean, Gabbard, she was in one of the CNN debates or televised debates in 2020 as she was running in the primary. And she was viciously attacked by Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris and others who dominate the party in kind of Neo McCarthy I term, and they called her a Putin stooge. (00:07:01): And a Bashir saw theologist because she wanted to, she was against the covert operations in Syria and the escalation of conflict. And somehow they called her all these kind of names and really treated her in the way that Joseph McCarthy would recognize or victim of McCarthyism with reminiscence of that. So she was totally driven out of the party. Now you find they're more on Fox News. I mean, I think the Republican, they're trying to capitalize on the disinfection of many pacifists and peace oriented people with the Democrats, and they're trying to recruit them and draw them into the fold. And that's why they brought in Kennedy and gather. But personally, I think that they're just, they're very cynical operative and their Republican party are just trying to get that vote. But they're not really peace oriented party either. And Trump's foreign policy was very bellicose and aggressive in many ways, certainly toward Latin America. (00:08:00): The drone war, Trump escalated the drone war, escalated war in Somalia, and he's very aggressive and very xenophobic and threatens a major escalation, I think with China. So I think it's just a cynical ploy by the GOP to try and get these disaffected people are disaffected with the Democrats and by recruiting Kennedy and Gabbard to create this persona as a new peace party. But I don't think they really are a peace party. And so those of us who are really committed to pacifism, anti imperialistic politics really have nowhere in the mainstream American politics, and I think we should work on developing our own independent parties. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:08:47): Before I get back to your piece, you mentioned in your earlier answer a reference to people trying to compare former President Trump to Hitler. And I was at the RNC when JD Vance was, his name was placed in nomination and he accepted the nomination. And I was doing my standup after the nomination. And I was saying as I was closing my analysis, I said, I find it very interesting, if not ironic, that a guy who just a couple of years ago was comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is now his vice presidential nominee, and we'll be standing next to him on stage. I said, how does that happen? And when I said that, there was a guy standing next to me who turned to my cameraman and said, you guys have to leave. You have to leave right now. He was allowing us to use his space, so he was able to tell us that. But my point is, as soon as I said that, you guys got to go, you got to go right now. Explain that because I find it amazing. And only now would something like that happen in our politics. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:10:11): Yeah, well, I think it is increasingly out of the Twilight Zone. I mean, well, firstly, I think a lot of the rather is a bit overblown. I mean, I think Trump, there are a certain fascist theme in the GOP and there are concern about ascendant fascism and authoritarianism both among both parties. I mean the scapegoating of immigrants in the GOP, the extreme nationalism, ultra militarism like veneration of the military, that bears fear that the GOP leaning the fascist direction. I mean, I think some of the rhetoric about Hitler may be overblown, but yeah, it's totally ironic that he was calling him Hitler, as you say, and then he's the nominee. So that's just insane. But why did they kick you out? I mean, you were just repeating a fact that is known to be a fact, and that goes to the growing authoritarianism we see that can't, the kind of conversations we're having are not tolerated in the mainstream. And just a journalist doing his job and just reporting on something is being removed that Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:11:22): And can get you arrested and detained in airports and have your home raided by the FBI, as with Scott Ritter and O'Malley Yella and the three, Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:11:37): Yes, this is, yeah, I think what we're seeing is, yeah, more overt form of authoritarianism. And I think it's showing the flaw of American democracy. I mean, on paper there has been a democracy, but in reality for years and generation dissidents have been ostracized and marginalized and faced a lot of persecution, maybe not physical violence, although I mean under FBI Cual Pro, there were a lot of victims of state repression, people who were unjustly incarcerated sometime for decades, there were people killed. I mean the FBI infiltrated leftists in radical groups with the goal of destroying them and creating divisions. And in the Black Panther, they orchestrated murders. So I mean, there very violent, undersized underbelly of American politics. And that's coming more to the surface more and more. And I mean, you see, look, mark Zuckerberg said that Biden administration told him to censor Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:12:45): The Hunter Biden laptop story. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:12:47): Yeah, well, the hunter bought laptop and relate to COVID-19. And without your view on that, people should have a right to express it, but Zuckerman was told to censor viewed that criticized the government position. And then yeah, you have these raids going on Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:13:04): A minute, a minute, a minute because it's important. I think that people really clearly understand that the point that you just made about Zuckerberg, that's not your opinion. He stated that in a letter that he wrote to Congressman Jim Jordan. And so those who want to wait a minute, what is Jeremy talking about? Right? Google it. You can read the letter for yourselves. It was sent last week and Zuckerberg made those very clear statements and was apologetic for having done what he did in censoring those stories on Facebook because he has since come to understand that contrary to, as he was told, those were not Russian propagandist talking points. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:13:56): Exactly. Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. And another fact is that Tim Waltz made statements supporting censorship if it was related to misinformation, and that seems to be the line in the Democratic Party, but they use misinformation. Could be anybody who's simply critical of the government. They call it somebody who criticizes government policy in Ukraine or vis-a-vis Russia. They say he's promoting misinformation or Russian propaganda, or the same for the Covid narrative. They question the dominant narrative. And I found the review of waltz's statements. He promoted misinformation. So for instance, he claimed that carried out chemical attacks on his own people, and that was refuted by scientists like Theor Postal did a very detailed scientific study, and I did an article and I interviewed postal and he showed me his data and this guy, the top flight MIT scientist, and he repu these claims, his analysis, and he was very neutral. (00:15:02): He wasn't really on any side of the war, and he wasn't even particularly political. It was a very objective scientific study that based on the angles, those attacks had to have occurred from certain areas that were controlled by the rebels, not the Assad government. And that other attacks didn't think that there were chemical attacks, one of those bombing of a fertilizer plant. In other case, some stuff may have been planted like dead animals to make it look like an attack because people would've been dead. He said, he showed me photos and he had images of photos where people who were on the scene would've immediately been killed if there was actually a chemical weapon attack the way they described it, and they weren't affected or sick in any way. So in any event, that's just an example of waltz can be seen to have promoted misinformation. (00:15:57): So based on his own statements, he should censor himself. But the broader point is the American constitution and the American Republic was founded on the deal to free speech, and that's what we should have. And this cancel culture. I think too often on the left, people support censorship under the GU of a cancel culture. And I think that's very dangerous, and I think people are smart enough to see which ideas are good or bad for themselves. They don't need to have this censorship. It serves no purpose, even for somebody who is promoting bad things or false information, you don't have to censor because people are smart enough to see there's no evidence behind what he's saying, which is often true, sadly, of the US government, and that's why they lose credibility. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:16:45): I've asked this question of a number of guests, Caleb Moin and I think Dr. Gerald Horn and a few others that talking about censorship in the United States, engagement in censorship, that if you look over history, particularly since World War I, this whole idea of censorship really comes to a height when the United States feels threatened. And then once the perceived enemy is vanquished, then the whole focus on censorship tends to wane if not go away. And so I'm wondering if now because we're seeing heightened censorship, if that's an indication to you how threatened the United States empire feels? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:17:34): I think so. Yeah. Censorship goes hand in hand with war. War is the enemy really of democracy. And we've been in a state of permanent war since nine 11, and I think they've manufactured this new Cold War for sustaining the military complex police state, which has to go hand in hand with censorship. And we've seen more authoritarian forms of government, even toward the domestic population, heightened militarized policing in inner cities. We've seen the government stripping funding from vital social programs, and that's automatically going to generate more and more dissent and dissatisfaction with the government and living conditions. So they have to ratchet up censorship and more authoritarian, greater authoritarianism, and that's the only way they could sustain their power, and they've really lost their governing legitimacy. People, if you talk to people from all walks of life, whether in liberal areas, conservative, you find almost universally people distrust the government and they're not happy with the direction of the country, and more and more are speaking out. So they have to censor them and try and control the media and channel any descent they want to channel it and co-opt it. And that's why a lot of the media has been co-opted their CIA or FBI, infiltrators and media, even alternative media. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:19:06): In fact, to your point about people being dissatisfied with the direction of the country, if you go to real clear politics, those polled 26.9% believe the country's heading in the right direction. 63.4 believe that the country's on the wrong track. So again, I try my best to give as much data as I can to support the positions that are being stated so the people can understand that this is substantive analysis that we're providing because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here. Let's go back to your piece you write, Panetta said that Harris would fit the bill as a tough commander in chief to defend the USA against tyrants and terrorists, according to Panetta. Harris knows a tyrant when she sees one and will stand up to them, unlike Donald Trump, who Panetta suggested had coddled dictators such as Putin and effectively told them they could do whatever they want. Why is that exchange or that recounting by Panetta troublesome to you? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:20:18): Well, firstly, yeah, and the statistics you're citing indicate that many Americans are increasingly seeing their own government as tyrannical. And this is the kind of tired rhetoric we've seen over and over to justify these foreign adventures and unjust and unnecessary wars that further divert our treasury away from actually solving the problem in our society. And yeah, we see, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:20:45): Wait a minute, and many will tell you, because I've been having this conversation for at least eight years, that that's the intent, that the objective has always been to heighten the sense of insecurity within the country so that social program funding social safety net funding could be shifted away from the public to the private military industrial complex. And they talked about this when Obama came into office, they talked about this, I know I have it backwards. When Clinton came into office, they talked about this when Biden came into office, they said the narrative is more subtle with the Democrats, but the objective is still the same. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:21:32): And the rhetoric, as you see, they're really attacking Trump from the right and they're positioning themselves as more hawkish. And that's why a lot of the neoconservatives have moved into the Democratic party. And William Christol, who this neo-conservative, intellectual, and a great cheerleader for the Iraq war, he sent out a tweet, Leon Panetta quoting Ronald Reagan at the Democratic Convention. This is my Democratic convention or a CIA director quoting Ronald Reagan. And yeah, you see from that statement you read, Trump is somehow soft on the Russian, but if you actually look at Trump's policy toward Russia, he pulled out of the INF treaty, which is a very good arms limitation treaty. He ratcheted up these sanctions from hell on Russia. He ratcheted up arm sales to Ukraine, for instance. He sold javelin anti-tank missiles, which Obama had up to that point hadn't sold. So he would not soft at all. (00:22:31): And he was plotting regime change. I mean, there's a lot of continuity in foreign policy. You see a lot of continuity among administration. So Trump's approach really was not very different from Obama. He's just kind of expanding on things Obama was doing. And then Biden takes it to a further level of provoking all out war and attacking Russia directly. So the rhetoric is meaningless, but yeah, it's designed to inculcate fear. I agree with your analysis that they just try and make us fearful and on edge whether it's of the next disease pandemic or the next threat. I mean, they're always playing up the threat of North Korea or Iran. I mean, look at North Korea. I mean North Korea was bombed back to the Stone Aid by the United States during the Korean War and the US pumps South Korea with weaponry and stores nuclear weapons there. I mean, obviously North Korea is going to respond. (00:23:27): I mean, developing a nuclear weapon is their only way to save their country and survive as a nation. I mean, they see what happened to Libya, but our media doesn't present it in that way, or our political elites, they present it like North Korea as some major threat to us led by this crazy dictator. But they give no context for why North Korea would invest in nuclear weapons or missiles and how a lot of their weapon development is just designed to protect themselves from the threat of renewed invasion and being destroyed again, that they were in the Korean War, but they never give the history of the context. So the public who believes that rhetoric as in fear of North Korea one day, Iran, another day, Putin is presented in the most demonized way, conceivable a totally kind of cartoonish way as this evil Hitler type figure. So we're supposed to fear him one day, and that's how they do it, and that's how they justify this huge military budget that's approaching a trillion dollars now. And yeah, I mean the government spends a pittance on social welfare programs and education and healthcare infrastructure. I mean, that's what the government should be doing, should be helping to create a better society, better living conditions here at home. But instead, they spend a trillion on weapons. And that comes back. And now you have the law like the USA Patriot Act and 1290 D program where all that Pentagon weaponry gets put into our police forces who become more like occupying armies in inner cities and their mistreatment minority groups. So it's an ugly picture. Yeah. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:25:13): You mentioned Libya, and I think we can tie this to your piece. You mentioned Libya, and people need to remember that the execution of Libby and leader Muammar Kadafi took place under the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of state, and it was Hillary Clinton, and I believe Samantha Power that convinced then President Obama to execute Kadafi. And so if we understand a lineage of thought from Hillary Clinton, her predecessor Madeline Albright, she was a student of Brzezinski who was a Russia phobe. And so there's a lineage of thought within the State Department, and now we have to understand that Vice President Harris is an acolyte of Hillary Clinton. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:26:18): And Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous figure. And I wrote a book on Bill Clinton and I did a lot of research on their career bill's career as the governor of Arkansas. So I learned a lot about Hillary, and even from that time, she's very corrupt individual. Clinton was tied with the national security establishment. He oversaw a major covert operation in Arkansas to the Nicaragua and Counter-revolutionaries, and they laundered a lot of money through illicit Proceed, and they were bringing back drugs as part of these arm smuggling operations. And Hillary worked for the Rose law firm and was representing clients who were involved in money laundering in Arkansas banks. And she was always known as a hawk. So she very unprincipled corrupt person who was involved in also all kinds of shems to raise money for Clinton's campaigns that should have put her in prison. (00:27:16): And then she was always known as a warhawk. She evolved into a major warhawk. There was a very good article in the New York Times, the Rare Good article, New York Times magazine called Hillary the Hawk, and it surveyed her career going back to the Kosovo War. She was a big proponent of the bombing there. She supported the Iraq war, every war she supported, and her hawkishness came out on Libya where she was gloating after Kadafi was lynched. She gloated, we saw he died and she was so happy about it and giggling. And I mean that was a disgrace comparable to Iraq. I mean, Libya was a well-functioning country under CA's rule. I mean, he may have had certain authoritarian features, but he used Libya's oil resources to develop their economy to invest in education. I met a number of Libyans who were able to get free education abroad that Libyan government paid for their education abroad, and they came back to work to develop their country. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:20): Wait a minute, wait a minute. To that point, I was teaching at Howard University at the time, and I came across some Libyan students and I asked them who was paying their tuition and they didn't understand the concept of tuition. They were saying, well, wait a minute. Why would you pay to go to college? Help us understand. They could not put their head around Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:28:50): Paying Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:51): For tuition. And I believe, I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that at the time that Kadafi was the leader of Libya, that Libya was the most one of, if not the most stable country on the continent. It had one of the strongest economies on the continent. And Kadafi was developing his country, developing his agriculture. He was, as they called it, greening the desert. Libya had some of the purest water in the world, some of the deepest water, the water table. And one of the big issues was he saw himself as an African, not an Arab. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:29:36): And I visited Zambia, my ex-wife was from Zambia, and I visited there in 2007 and Kadafi came during my visit and he was greeted as a hero because he was using Libby as well, resources to promote development projects across the African continent. And he was seen as somebody who stood up for African and was carrying on the tradition of Pan-Africanism figures who revered in Africa like Kwame Nama and Nelson Mandela. And he was seen an heir to that tradition. And then he was overthrown and treated worse than a dog. And Libya has now seen the return of slavery, violent extremism has come into the country, just pure chaos. And a lot of Libyan have had to flee to Europe and then the European under perilous conditions in these boats. And then Europeans complain about immigration. I mean, they turn Libyan to a hellhole and the cost in lives, and it's just sickening. (00:30:38): And Clinton was just laughing all about it and thought it was funny. And I think Kamala Harris seems to be on that intellectual level. She laughs at inappropriate moments. I've seen her. She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of world affairs, and she's close with some terrible leaders around the world, like the Washington Post report that she has developed as vice president, an unusually close relationship with Ferdinand Marcos Jr. And he's the son of one of the worst dictator of the US support in the Cold War Fernan Marco Sr. Who looted the Filipino treasury and killed who knows how many dissidents. And his son seems to be picking up where the father left off. He jailed Walden Bellow, who's a great intellectual in the Philippines, who is running for an opposition party, and they're building up US military bases in Philippines to confront China. And Harris went to ink some base deal a couple of years ago, and there were a lot of protesters for her visit. But yeah, this is one of the dictators she's very close with. So she's following this imperialistic tradition, and yeah, there should be, well, again, a lot of people have left the Democratic party. They see no hope in it, but it's troubling when this is supposedly the more liberal and humane party and this is what they're doing. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:32:07): And folks, we're connecting the dots here. That's the purpose of this podcast, is connecting, linking dots, linking historic events so that you can see the trend, you can see the pattern, you can understand what's really going on behind the scenes. Let's go to Vice President Harris's speech at the convention. She says, as commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, and I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families. She'll always honor their sacrifice as she should, but the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world that now Jeremy seems to be really throwing good money after bad because the issue now, at least in terms of the geopolitical landscape, is economic. It's not militarism. It's the United States that seems to be using militarism as its only weapon. And I use that euphemistically against this unipolar to multipolar shift with the rise of bricks and the Chinese cooperation organization, their fighting an economic war with militarism. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:33:40): Yeah, and actually it was ironic that she made those statements and that week the New Yorker published these photos from 2006 Haditha Massacre where the US military massacre, all these Iraqi civilian, and there were these horrible photos you may have seen of children who had been shot by us Marines or soldiers. So having the most lethal military force in the world, what does that mean? You go into a country like Iraq and shoot up women and children. I mean, is this something to strive for? And then as you say, this military force is getting us nowhere. I mean, it's just causing backlash against the United States. I mean, yeah, look, in Africa, all these new governments have come in and they're kicking out the US military. They don't want the bases in their country. Like in Niger, for example, a huge drone base that was removed. And I mean Ukraine Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:34:40): Just recently, a couple of soldiers within the last couple of days were harassed Incaa. And Dr. Horn was saying that this is not an isolated incident, that when you see something like this happening on the streets of tur or as many still know it as Turkey, that this is an indication that the people are rising up, not the leadership, the people. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:35:08): Absolutely. And we see, yeah, the United States is a paper tiger. I mean, look at Ukraine, billion and billion, the weaponry and Russians are gaining more and more territory every day. It's reported that even as Ukraine is taking the war into Russia, Russia's taking more territory in Eastern Ukraine every day than they were before. Israel is doing nothing in Gaza. They just leveled the place killed. According to the Lancet report, now it's about a month ago, 186,000 civilians. Now they're attacking people in the West Bank, but they've achieved nothing militarily and the United States wars were all failure in the last generation. You have Libya. I mean, they turn countries into chaos, but it's ultimately they don't achieve the broader goal they set out. I mean, look at Afghanistan 20 years and they achieved nothing, and the Taliban came back in and it's just Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:04): Money. Well, Lockheed Martin and McDonald Douglas made a hell of a lot of money in Afghanistan. They achieved something. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:10): Yeah, that's all they Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:11): Achieved. Stock value went pretty high. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:15): And I think the public needs to channel their revolt against those company in the military industrial complex. Their hard-earned taxpayer dollar. They're getting absolutely nothing for it. People are getting killed around the world that weaponry has coming, being sent to us police forces after the military used equipment. It's creating a more authoritarian environment here. And a few fat cats, what they used to call merchants of death are getting rich. And there should be a revolt against those people because they've grown rich off the misery and death of other humans. And it's not a way to run an economy or society rooted in violence and just the wealth of tiny number off the misery of everybody else. And horrific weapon we've never seen in human history, the kind of horrific weapon they're developing now. It's unfit for humanity, and there is movements to try and get universal bans on certain kinds of weapons, and that should certainly be supported as well Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:37:17): In her speech. She also said, let me say, I know there are people of various political views watching tonight, and I know you know, I promise. Oh no. And I want you to know, I promise to be president for all Americans. You can always trust me to put country above party and self to hold sacred America's fundamental principles from the rule of law to free and fair elections to the peaceful of power. Well, when you look at the data and you look at the polling, an overwhelming majority of Americans, even Jewish Americans, want an end to the United States involvement in the genocide in Gaza. Now, she's saying that she promises to be the president of all Americans, but she and I put this on her because this was her convention, would not allow a Palestinian spokesperson, a representative of that position on the stage. Is that tone deaf or is it evidence that she's a Zionist and she's down with the, Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:38:37): Or both? Well, I think it's an illusion. They were trying to claim at the convention that she was working tirelessly for a ceasefire and for peace in the Middle East. And that's simply a lie the Biden administration has. It's been a joint US Israeli operation in Gaza. And we should recognize that Israel is basically a proxy of the United States empire in the Middle East that the US has used Israel. The reason they've given all those weapons to the Israelis over years now is that Israel has served the key function for the US Empire in the Middle East and accessing Middle East oil. Israel provides US military bases, and it does a lot of the dirty work for the US Empire going back years. For instance, in the six day war, the Israelis humiliated the US nemesis, Kamala del Nassar, who was like Kadafi, started as a pan arabist, and he was in the mold of Nassar who had moved to nationalize the Suez Canal and nationalize the oil resources and was forged alliances with Syria and forged the United Arab Republic with Syria and was promoting Arab unity so the Arab states could go strong in the face of Western imperialism and reclaim control of their chief natural resource oil. (00:39:58): And obviously the CIA tried to overthrow Nassar. They even sent in Kermit Roosevelt, a coup master who had been in Iran, but he failed. But Israel did the job in the sixth day war. They humiliated Nassar. And by that point, Israel was getting a lot of the US weapons already starred in the Kennedy administration where he basically opened the spigots. And Johnson was a huge supporter militarily of Israel. And Israel also carried a lot of covert operations in Africa that have served US interests, including countries like in Congo where they help access the mineral wealth of the Congo. So Israel has gone after the Assad dynasty was an enemy of the United States and West because they were more alive with Nassar in whose day and the Soviet Union, and they're more nationalistic so that the regime the US doesn't like and they've used Israel to Israel has been bombing Syria for a long time now and has tried to gone after Asad. (00:40:57): So these are just examples of how Israel does some of the dirty work of the United States and functions as a proxy of the United States. So the country basically are arm in arm together, and they may pay for public relations purposes. If Netanya has seen a bit extreme among some of their base or among some of the electorate, they may try and take a public distance or say they're trying to moderate his behavior, but I think that's more for public relations. They continue to provide him the weapons he needs, and they're not going to do anything. The last president who had a kind of even handed approach in the Middle East was to some extent with Dwight Eisenhower, who when Israel and Britain and France invaded Egypt, and after Nassar nationalized the Suez Canal, Eisenhower imposed sanctions on Israel and threatened why their embargo and even to punish Israel and the United Nations, but they would never do that today. (00:41:55): They're just giving cover and the weapons and diplomatic support in the UN for Israel's conduct and ethnic cleansing or genocide, whatever you want to call it. And I think they support the US imperialists support the project of a greater Israel, the Israeli far right that their goal is to expand the Israeli polity to basically remove the Palestinian and to use their land for broader projects, canal building to increase the water resource in Israel, access offshore oil. And the US supports that. Could they want a stronger Israel because that's their proxy in the Middle East and the US wants to dominate the Middle East and its oil resources for the next several generations, and they need Israel for that. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:42:46): We could spend a whole nother hour on this next question, but if you could just clarify a point that you made that you just made. You mentioned Kermit Roosevelt, you mentioned the United States going in and overthrowing Nassar, and you said they failed in, oh, you said they failed in Iran. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:09): Sorry. They failed in Egypt. They succeeded in Iran. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:43:12): See, okay, see that. Okay. Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwartzkoff Sr went in and overthrew Muhammad Ek and installed the S Shah. That's why I wanted clarification. I thought you said, and I could have misunderstood you. I thought you said they failed in Iran. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:32): No, and my point was they succeed in Iran, Kermit Roosevelt with a coup master. Then they sent him to Egypt to get rid of that thorn in their side, Albu master, because his pan-Arabism. But there he failed. Nassar was very popular, and he couldn't work the same magic, or they didn't have the right people to get rid of him. So that's when Israel stepped in and it was beefed up by us armed supplies. And in six days, they humiliated him and they provoked that war. It's been admitted by top Israeli leader than generals that they provoked that war. They humiliated Nassar, and three years later he died. And he was replaced by Anmar Sadat, who was much more west and abandoned his Pan Arab ideology. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:44:16): And also, again, this could be a whole nother show, but just quickly, you were talking about Israel being a US proxy, and you've mentioned this before, but I think it's folks, we're connecting the dots here, pay attention. We're connecting the dots. Ukraine is operating in a similar fashion as a US proxy in that part of the world as Israel is acting in the Middle East. And so because look, folks, the Ukraine war is lost. It's lost. And people say to me, Wilmer, you said that the war would be over in two years. And I was right as Putin wound up negotiating with, I'm drawing a blank on the Ukrainian president's name, Zelensky, vmi Zelensky. And he holds up the paper and says, we negotiated a settlement. The US sends in Boris Johnson to say, we're not going to accept this. The West will not. Hence the war is ongoing. Ukraine has no tanks of its own. They're now having to go into their prisons and empty their prisons to send convicted murderers to the frontline. They don't have an army of their own anymore. They don't have artillery of their own anymore. They don't have jets of their own anymore. Everything they're using comes from NATO and comes from the West. And it's a very same situation in Israel. Again, that could be a whole show of itself, but I just wanted to quickly connect the dots between the proxies in Israel and the proxies in Ukraine. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:46:05): And I would add the point that the United States and the people of those countries should understand, and I think this is American Jews should understand that the United States doesn't care about the people. They're using them for their own agenda. And look, Ukrainian has suffered terribly through their lines with the United States. They never would've gone to war with Russia, Ukraine and Russia got along. They had some issues, but they resolved it. And maybe the Ukrainian felt slight in some way toward the Russians, but they weren't stupid enough to take up arms against the Russians and annihilate themselves. But they thought because they had the United States and all these weapons that they could take on the Russians, and they made the same mistake as Napoleon or Hitler. I mean, the Russians are, I spent time in Russia. They're very patriotic people, and they will defend their country. (00:46:58): And this was a war provoked by the United States that basically used, and the Russians know this, that the US was using Ukraine, a battering ram against Russia, and they're going to defend themselves. And the Israeli case, look, the Israelis Israeli security has suffered tremendously. Now they're inviting attacks from all their enemies and they've shed so much blood, they're going to invite vengeance and retaliation against them, the security situation, very poor in Israel. I would not want to live in Israel, and they could invite one day their own destruction. Already, they've compromised the moral of their society. Israel was founded as a haven for Jewish people, and a lot of the very idealistic people were part of the original Zionist movement. I mean, the kibbutz was a concept of a cooperative model of an economy. But look at Israel today. It's this armed military state that is pariah around the world because of the atrocity that's carried out with support by the United States doing the United States dirty work. (00:48:05): And it's eviscerated its own democracy. I mean, it's become very repressive there. Journalists who are trying to report on what's going on in Gaza have been, I don't know. I think they've been certainly blacklist, if not jailed or shot. I mean, it's just a evolved, a violent authoritarian state. That's king of assassination. Mossad carries out assassinations around the world. It's hate and fear. It has an extreme right-wing government, this is not the ideal of a lot of the original Zionists. And a lot of American Jews are very uncomfortable the direction of that society they should be, and it could invite their own destruction one day. So I mean, that's a lesson you can take. If you lie with the empire, they'll use you for their own purpose and ultimately they'll spit you out. I mean, ask the Kurds, ask the Hmong and Lao, they've used proxies in other countries, and those proxies got totally destroyed like the Hmong and Laos or the Kurd, and they'll abandon them when it doesn't suit their agenda. They may find somebody else. And Ukrainian society has been destroyed. 500,000 youth have been killed. They don't even have enough people. How are they going to run their economy when all the youth of the country have been killed? Others had to flee. They don't want to fight the front lines. Yeah, they've sacrificed them as ponds in this war. It's sad. And Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:49:29): Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham goes to Ukraine and encourages the Ukrainians to fight and to continue to fight. And let me just give you a quick analogy. Imagine a boxing match, and one of the cornermen is getting paid not for the win, but for the number of rounds his fighter engages in. And so that's Lindsey Graham, he's the corner man, his guy. Both of his eyes are damn near shut. He can't breathe. His lips are swollen. His head has all kinds of knots on it, and he keeps sending his guy out there to get slaughtered because he gets paid by the round instead of the knockout. Is that a fair analogy? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:50:20): Absolutely. Yeah. And I studied the history of the Vietnam War, and one thing I remember and I used to show students the TV history of the Vietnam War, and they had one, it was made in the eighties. They had one segment on the Secret War in Laos, like what I was saying with the Hmong who they used to fight the left-wing, Beth Lao and William Colby came on, was interviewed some years later. He was the CIA director. And he said, oh, well, that was a great project for us. The Hmong lasted 10 years is exactly what you're saying. Yeah, they lasted 10 round, but then they got killed. All of them. The Hmong were decimated, and they had to send, that's what the Ukrainians are doing, the hm. Had to send 14 year olds to the front lines. And a sea operative said, started to feel bad. (00:51:06): He is like, we're sending these 14 year olds on these planes to be killed, and I know they'll be killed. And I'm telling their parents, I'm patting them on the back and they'll be killed next week. And that's what's happening with Ukraine. And Graham won't send his own kids. I mean, if they're the real reading the fight, fight a war, you have to fight. If you're a real man, you'll fight it because there's a real reason your community's under attack or there's a real threat of Hitler. But instead they manufacture these wars and cowardly send and manipulate other people to fight and die. And that's the worst form of cowardice and manipulation I could think of in human society Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:45): As we wrap this up and folks we're connecting dots. And if you don't like what we're saying, if what we're saying makes you angry, as Malcolm said, if my telling you the truth makes you angry, don't get angry at me. Get angry at the truth. And you can look all of this up. I want to get back to your piece you quoted, and you mentioned this earlier, but Panetta quotes Ronald Reagan at a speech at the DNC, and he emphasized the isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to government. You write, Panetta ended his speech by highlighting that Harris was a good choice to reinvigorate American world leadership as she worked with 150 foreign leaders as vice president served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, worked closely with VMI Zelensky of Ukraine to fight against Russia. And you go on a number of things. You say that Panetta provided a litany, my word, not yours, of misinformation and disinformation in that part of his speech. How so? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:53:00): Well, I mean, the whole speech is disinformation because he has this mythical, romantic view of the killing of bin Laden that's not rooted in the reality. And then, yeah, he's claiming the US was an isolationist in the thirties, but the US was a global empire starting the late 19th century. And in the 30, the FDR had been the head of the secretary. I forget his position, but it was with the Navy, and he headed the Navy and he was a big naval enthusiast, and he initiated a massive naval buildup in the Asia Pacific. And then he historian believed that the key factor that provoked a Japanese counter response and led to the Pacific War. So where's the isolationism? I mean, it's not the accurate history, but I mean these conventions just about political theater. But I mean, yeah, quoting Reagan. I mean, Reagan is the icon of the Republican. That's not even your party. So what is he doing quoting Reagan? Reagan? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:04): Well, he's Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:05): The thing that bar a right wing extremist. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:07): Barack Obama said that Reagan was his favorite Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:09): President. I know. And it shows how far to the right the whole American spectrum has been because Reagan, when he came up in the sixties, was viewed as a right wing extremist, certainly by people in the anti-war and countercultural movement. And his whole theme was to attack the mess at Berkeley. And the student, how dare they question the Vietnam War. And then when he came in, he veered American politics sharply to the right. He cut the corporate tax rate and he ramped up us militarism in Central America, and he wanted to avenge the Vietnam War. They call them Rambo Reagan. And you can't get, this is like an icon of militarism and fascism, and they're quoting him. So I mean, what kind of party is this? And we have two right-wing parties in our country. The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, and it's created dystopia. (00:55:04): We're discussing here where we invest trillion dollars on warfare, these morally bankrupt wars. And our own societies is filled with pathologies and majors, social ills, and we never address them. So they grow worse and worse. And we're not investing in our youth and education. I mean, where I live, the teachers are so poorly paid, it is just a disgrace. And you have third world conditions like the schools. They were protests in my state a few years ago, and I covered those protests for local newspaper. And there were people showing me on their phone who taught in schools in rural areas. I traveled in Africa and third world country. Then what they're showing me is from a third world country. There were no proper sanitation in their school. There were not enough seats for the students. And these are high school teachers trying to keep them in school. So I mean, the government is failing its citizens, and this is Reaganomics 1 0 1, so we've got to get beyond that. But they're touting this guy as a hero. That's terrible. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:56:06): And again, I think this will be the final question, but the longer we talk, the more questions because of your insight, you mentioned that we're dealing with two right wing parties. Are we dealing with two right wing parties that are representing different interests of the right winging elite? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:56:30): Yes, absolutely. The GOP has always been rooted in the oil industry, the extractive industry, because their environmental policy is very favorable to big business and extractive industries and big oil. I think the military industry that hedged their bets now with both parties traditionally, like in the Reagan era, the Republican and the Reagan Republican got a lot of support in states that had big military industry. Like California used to be a center of the Republican domination and states like Arizona and the Southwest. But I think the Democrats under Clinton started courting the military contractors, and now they hedge their bets on both parties. I mean, there are a certain cultural issue, the right wing, the evangelical churches who were very gung-ho about things like against abortion. That's a certain spectrum that supports the Republican party. The Democrats go for this diversity, and they court the African-American vote, but they do so really based more on symbolism than actually delivering for the black population. (00:57:45): I think something that the black population, I think we'll see more and more than maybe leaving the Democrat. They're not getting anything. They're just getting the symbolism of some black elected officials, but they're not getting benefits to their communities. And there have been studies about this, and I heard Michael Eric Dyson, who was it? Yeah, it was Michael Eric Dyson came to where I live, and he gave a talk. He had done a study, it was him, it was, sorry, TVIs Smiley who used to work for PBS. He did a big study on black America in the state of black America, and he found it got worse under Obama, a certain core thing like income and business ownership and education because the Democrat weren't delivering on concrete social program that would benefit their community. So it's more of the symbolism and that's how they get votes. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:58:38): And as we get out, I want to read this quickly because again, folks here on connecting the dots, we connect the dots, we provide data to support statements made. You talked about the defense industry funding both parties and Dave Calhoun, who was the CEO of Boeing. When asked in July of 2020 who Boeing would prefer Trump or Biden Boeing, and this is from CNBC, Boeing CEO. Dave Calhoun said that he was confident that whoever wins the White House in November, whether it's Donald Trump or Vice President Biden will continue supporting the defense industry. I think both candidates, at least in my view, appear globally oriented and interested in the defense of our country. And I believe they will support the industries. They'll do it in different ways and they'll have different terms, different teams for sure. But I don't think we're going to take a position on one being better than the other. And Dr. Jeremy Komarov, that I think is clear evidence of the points you made that we're dealing with two wings on the same bird. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:59:56): Absolutely. And viewers can go to open secrets.com and look at, well-known politician where they get their money. I mean, look up Joe Biden because I've done it. You'll see he gets a ton of money from Lockheed Martin. And yeah, the Democrats in some, I think they're getting more, Democrats now are getting more from the military contractor because they're even more hawkish, especially on Ukraine. That's been a big boon for a company like Boeing and Lockheed and surveillance industry. So I think they like Democrats even more now. And Democrats are positioning themselves to the right and more hawkish on foreign policy and even the border. I have an article next week on the border issue. Democrats are more to the right than Republican as far as spending on border surveillance. And that's a big, big industry, border surveillance drones, and that's part of the military industrial complex. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:00:53): So I said, this was the last question. This is the last question, and you can just answer this, yes or no, all this conflation of the border, whether you're Donald Trump or whether you're Kamala Harris, whether you're Joe Biden or whoever, all of this talk about the border building, the wall security systems, drones a lot of money on the border. They don't talk about the US foreign policy that is driving people from Columbia, from Guatemala, from Mexico to the border because the United States policy is decimating their economies. And quick point people, you can look this up. About three weeks ago, Chiquita Brands was convicted in federal court in Florida of sponsoring death squads in Columbia. And now Chiquita Brands has to pay millions of dollars in reparations and damages to these victimized families in Columbia. Kamala Harris isn't talking about that. Donald Trump is, you want to deal with the border, deal with the decimation of these. Why are, ask the question, why are Haitians coming here? Because the United States is trying to rein, invade Haiti again, Jeremy, that in and of itself is another show. 30 seconds, am I right? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:02:16): Yeah, absolutely. And there's no debate about that, and it's been a bipartisan in foreign policy that caused that vast immigration. And also you have to look, that caused the wreckage in those economies and societies, and you have to look at the free trade agreement. The Clinton administration promoted the nafta, and that helped decimate Mexican agriculture and forced a lot of the Mexicans to come to the United States. So nobody questioned the free trade laws. That's a big factor inducing immigration, including, especially from Mexico. So they ought to address revising those laws and creating a fairer world economy, but that might erode us primacy and the primacy of dollar, and they don't want that. So it's better to beef up the border, boost the coffer, the Lockheed Martin, instead of doing that, Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:10): Dr. Jeremy Komarov. In fact, here's one of the books. War Monger. I got it. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:17): Oh, great. Thank Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:17): You. Oh, hey, man. Great. Great work. Great, great work. Dr. Jeremy Kumar, thank you so much for joining me today. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:25): Thank you. Great conversation. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:28): Hey folks. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talks without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wimer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out Announcer (01:04:11): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

More than 20 years ago, a law that the United States would eventually use to justify the warrantless collection of Americans' phone call records actually started out as a warning sign against an entirely different target: Libraries.Not two months after terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, Congress responded with the passage of The USA Patriot Act. Originally championed as a tool to fight terrorism, The Patriot Act, as introduced, allowed the FBI to request “any tangible things” from businesses, organizations, and people during investigations into alleged terrorist activity. Those “tangible things,” the law said, included “books, records, papers, documents, and other items.”Or, to put it a different way: things you'd find in a library and records of the things you'd check out from a library. The concern around this language was so strong that this section of the USA Patriot Act got a new moniker amongst the public: “The library provision.”The Patriot Act passed, and years later, the public was told that, all along, the US government wasn't interested in library records.But those government assurances are old.What remains true is that libraries and librarians want to maintain the privacy of your records. And what also remains true is that the government looks anywhere it can for information to aid investigations into national security, terrorism, human trafficking, illegal immigration, and more.What's changed, however, is that companies that libraries have relied on for published materials and collections—Thomson Reuters, Reed Elsevier, Lexis Nexis—have reimagined themselves as big data companies. And they've lined up to provide newly collected data to the government, particularly to agencies like Immigrations and Customers Enforcement, or ICE.There are many layers to this data web, and libraries are seemingly stuck in the middle.Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host Davd Ruiz, we speak with Sarah Lamdan, deputy director Office of Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association, about library privacy in the digital age, whether police are legitimately interested in what the public is reading, and how a small number of major publishing companies suddenly started aiding the work of government surveillance:“Because to me, these companies were information providers. These companies were library vendors. They're companies that we work with because they published science journals and they published court reporters. I did not know them as surveillance companies.”Tune in today.You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts, plus whatever preferred podcast platform you use.For all our cybersecurity coverage, visit Malwarebytes Labs at malwarebytes.com/blog.Show notes and credits:Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn't just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your...

Background on the Attack CDK Global, the leading provider of dealership management systems and digital retailing solutions, said cybersecurity breaches began on Tuesday. By Wednesday afternoon, CDK's core systems were restored, only to be shuttered on Thursday after a second hack attack. This has made it nearly impossible for thousands of dealers to buy and sell vehicles this week. "We cannot process paperwork. Everything is frozen, everything is tied up — we cannot move money back and forth to pay off cars, to finance our customers' transactions," Tom Maioli, who owns Celebrity Motor Car Company with dealerships across  York and New Jersey, told CBS MoneyWatch (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdk-cyber-attack-outage-update-2024/) He said his business is "completely shut down." https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/everything-frozen-third-day-cyberattack-leaves-15000-auto-dealerships-crippled This shut down was a Real event, but done by the Deep State NWO / One World Order Crowd.. We know the gov is allowing China Soldiers in.  We know the parasite elite are depleting our military with Ukraine War and destroying our food supply.   This is a playbook to bring in the beast system.   To get you used to cyber attacks to be for a solution. Five Reasons the Elite / WEF boys want to go after Cars 1 Destroy the USA Economy:  Combined, the automotive ecosystem drives more than $1 trillion into the U.S. economy each year – 4.9 percent of GDP.  There are 6 million jobs coast to coast supported by the auto industry. Motor vehicles and parts were the second largest U.S. export in 2021 — more than $105 billion in goods.  Think of all the people that could not work – car fixed   Priming for a Boogie Man: – Watch, will Russia be blamed for the attack to bring on Seal 4 Gov Internet Surveillance and overreach: –Surveillance: Increased surveillance could be used to monitor the activities of citizens, potentially stifling dissent and enabling the manipulation of public opinion. Never let a good crisis go to waste.   Like after 911 with the NDAA that destroyed the Constitution, will there be legislation to watch and surveil the internet more? You'll see some sort of deep state surveillance program.  Post 9/11 Legislation: After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government enacted several pieces of legislation and executive orders aimed at preventing future attacks. The most notable of these is the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded the government's surveillance and investigative powers. Critics argue that these measures infringe on civil liberties, particularly rights to privacy and due process.   Bring on ID2020 as more digital plandemics happen: Cyber Attacks: These could be used to disrupt infrastructure, sow chaos, or steal sensitive information. This could  create a perceived need for increased security and control.  Digital ID Systems: By implementing a digital ID system, the Ai government could monitor and control access to various online services. This could potentially lead to a situation where access to essential services is contingent on compliance with certain rules or behaviors. “Our digital activity increasingly parallels our real-world activity. Participation in the modern economy, the ability to buy and sell, attain employment, healthcare, social services and more are virtually impossible without a digital identity. In May of 2016, at the United Nations Headquarters in NY, ID2020, an alliance of governments, non-profits, academia, over 150 private sector companies and 11 United Nations agencies collaborated on how to provide a unique digital identity to everyone on the planet.”  Source: https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-universal-digital-identification-and-you Destroy your freedom to travel and maybe link to CO2 less emissions during the lack of new cars on the road. Have no Fear God is in Control:  Daniel 2:21 in the King James Version (KJV), reads as follows: “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.”  You must endure to the end..  

Associated Links: Support unbanked/underbanked regions of the world by joining the "at home in my head" Kiva team at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.kiva.org/team/at_home_in_my_head⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Blog Link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://harrisees.wordpress.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Youtube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoS6H2R1Or4MtabrkofdOMw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Mastodon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://universeodon.com/@athomeinmyhead⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Paypal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://paypal.me/athomeinmyhead⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Citations for this Episode: Wikipedia - Operation Northwoods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods Brennan Center - Why Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Programs Are Bad Policy: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/why-countering-violent-extremism-programs-are-bad-policy Brennan Center - Ending the 'National Security' Excuse for Racial and Religious Profiling: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ending-national-security-excuse-racial-and-religious-profiling Time - Who Else is Spying on Me?: https://time.com/6097712/muslim-american-surveillance-supreme-court-sept-11/ Berkley Political Review - Twenty Years After 9/11: https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2022/04/02/twenty-years-after-9-11-fbi-surveillance-still-haunts-muslim-american-life/ PBS - Post 9/11 surveillance has left a generation of Muslim Americans in a shadow of distrust and fear: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/post-9-11-surveillance-has-left-a-generation-of-muslim-americans-in-a-shadow-of-distrust-and-fear NBC NY - NYPD Monitored Muslim Students All Over Northeast: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/muslim-nypd-secret-surveillance-monitor-police-document-cia-spy-student/1972162/ Business Insider - 'Textbook anti-Semitism: American Jews condemn Trump for repeatedly telling them that Israel is 'your country': https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/muslim-nypd-secret-surveillance-monitor-police-document-cia-spy-student/1972162/ Aljazeera - US Supreme Court rules in favor of FBI in Muslim spying case: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/4/us-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-fbi-in-muslim-spying-case The Nation - Where's the Outrage When the FBI Targets Muslims?: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wheres-outrage-when-fbi-targets-muslims/ NPR - How Surveillance Programs Developed After 9/11 - And How Those Targeted Pushed Back: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1036039849/how-surveillance-programs-developed-after-9-11-and-how-those-targeted-pushed-bac PBS - American Muslims remember how 9/11 changed America as they knew it: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-muslims-remember-how-9-11-changed-america-as-they-knew-it AP - New York police disband unit that spied on Muslims: https://apnews.com/article/60436ca8a7c446ce9a767aa13590fdb6 ACLU - Factsheet: The NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program: https://www.aclu.org/documents/factsheet-nypd-muslim-surveillance-program ACLU - How the FBI Spied on Orange County Muslims and Attempted to Get Away With It: https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-the-fbi-spied-on-orange-county-muslims-and-attempted-to-get-away-with-it USA PATRIOT Act: https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/usa-patriot-act Attorney General 2002 Surveillance Guidelines: https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/guidelines.pdf Attorney General 2008 Surveillance Guidelines: https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29/fbi-domestic-investigations-and-operations-guide-diog-2008-version/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29%20Part%201%20of%205/view Bonus Content: || Fahrenheit 9/11 - Free Stream on TubiTV: https://tubitv.com/movies/579647/fahrenheit-9-11 || Chris Hedges interviews Kevin Bevins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JothTrXIzRs Music Credits: “Wishful Thinking” – Dan Lebowitz:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOg3zLw7St5V4N7O8HSoQRA⁠⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tracie-harris/support

War Powers and National Security. Constitutional Framework The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President, creating a system of shared authority designed to prevent unilateral military action. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and regulate the military. The President, as commander-in-chief, directs the military and conducts foreign affairs. Historical Context and Legal Debates. Throughout American history, these powers have led to significant legal and political debates, particularly regarding the scope of the President's authority to engage in military actions without explicit Congressional authorization. Conflicts like the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recent engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have tested these constitutional boundaries. Key Cases and Doctrines. The Prize Cases (1863): The Supreme Court held that the President has the authority to act in the absence of Congressional declaration of war if the United States is already under attack or facing an imminent threat. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): This case limited presidential power by ruling that President Truman could not seize steel mills during the Korean War without Congressional authorization. War Powers Resolution (1973): Passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, this act seeks to limit the President's ability to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without Congress's consent. Its effectiveness and constitutionality, however, have been subjects of ongoing debate. Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties. Balancing Act. In times of crisis, such as war, natural disasters, or public health emergencies, the government often invokes emergency powers to address the situation. While these powers are necessary for effective response, they sometimes conflict with individual rights and civil liberties, requiring a delicate balance. Historical Examples. Civil War: President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was a controversial exercise of emergency powers, later examined and circumscribed by the Supreme Court. World War II: The internment of Japanese Americans, authorized by Executive Order 9066, stands as a stark example of civil liberties being curtailed in the name of national security. Post-9/11: The USA PATRIOT Act and other measures enacted in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks raised significant concerns regarding surveillance, due process, and privacy. Judicial Oversight. The role of the judiciary in reviewing and sometimes curtailing the use of emergency powers is a critical aspect of maintaining the constitutional balance. Cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) reflect the courts' ongoing engagement with these issues, emphasizing the need for due process and legal safeguards even in times of national emergency. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Title 31 refers to a section of the United States Code, which contains various federal laws related to money and finance. These laws primarily deal with regulating and governing financial institutions, transactions, and reporting requirements to combat financial crimes and ensure the integrity of the U.S. financial system. Here's a summary of some key aspects covered under Title 31 laws:Anti-Money Laundering (AML): Title 31 contains provisions to prevent money laundering, which is the process of concealing the origins of illegally obtained funds to make them appear legitimate. It requires financial institutions, such as banks and other businesses, to establish robust AML programs, conduct customer due diligence, and report suspicious transactions to the appropriate authorities.Bank Secrecy Act (BSA): The BSA is a critical component of Title 31, requiring financial institutions to maintain records of certain transactions and report large cash transactions and suspicious activities to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). These reports help law enforcement agencies track potential illegal activities.Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act: This law, often referred to as the "Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR)" requirement, mandates that U.S. citizens and residents report their foreign financial accounts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if the aggregate value exceeds a certain threshold.USA PATRIOT Act: Title 31 laws were significantly expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Act aims to enhance national security by bolstering AML and counter-terrorism financing efforts.Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Regulations: Title 31 includes provisions related to economic sanctions administered by the OFAC. These regulations prohibit transactions and dealings with individuals, entities, and countries subject to sanctions by the U.S. government.Structuring and Smurfing Laws: Title 31 addresses structuring, which involves breaking up large cash deposits or withdrawals into smaller, less conspicuous amounts to evade reporting requirements. Smurfing refers to the practice of using multiple individuals to conduct transactions to avoid detection. These practices are illegal under Title 31.(commercial at 14:16)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/brutal-rebuke-of-deutsche-bank-raises-serious-questions-about-one-of-jeffrey-epsteins-lawyers/This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

Here are some notable events in world history that happened on November 10:1775 - The United States Marine Corps was established by the Continental Congress.1871 - Journalist and explorer Henry Morton Stanley located missing Scottish missionary and explorer David Livingstone in Ujiji, near Lake Tanganyika, famously greeting him with the words, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"1917 - The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia began when the Red Guards, led by the Bolshevik Party, seized government buildings in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). This marked the start of the Russian Civil War and eventually led to the establishment of the Soviet Union.1951 - Direct-dial long-distance telephone service was introduced in the United States.1975 - The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism. The resolution was later repealed in 1991.1989 - The Berlin Wall, which had separated East and West Berlin since 1961, was breached by East Germans, leading to the reunification of Germany.1995 - Ken Saro-Wiwa, a Nigerian writer and environmental activist, and eight other Ogoni leaders were executed by the Nigerian government, sparking international outrage.2001 - The U.S. House of Representatives passed the USA PATRIOT Act in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, granting the government expanded surveillance and investigative powers.2006 - The Great British financial institution, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), announced the acquisition of Dutch bank ABN AMRO in a deal that would later contribute to the global financial crisis of 2008.2019 - Bolivia's President Evo Morales resigned amid allegations of electoral fraud and widespread protests. He sought asylum in Mexico.These are just a few significant historical events that occurred on November 10. There are many more events that have shaped the course of history on this date throughout the years.Podcast Website:https://atozenglishpodcast.com/a-to-z-this-day-in-history-november-10th/Social Media:Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/671098974684413/Tik Tok:@atozenglish1Instagram:@atozenglish22Twitter:@atozenglish22A to Z Facebook Page:https://www.facebook.com/theatozenglishpodcastCheck out our You Tube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCds7JR-5dbarBfas4Ve4h8ADonate to the show: https://app.redcircle.com/shows/9472af5c-8580-45e1-b0dd-ff211db08a90/donationsRobin and Jack started a new You Tube channel called English Word Master. You can check it out here:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2aXaXaMY4P2VhVaEre5w7ABecome a member of Podchaser and leave a positive review!https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-a-to-z-english-podcast-4779670Join our Whatsapp group: https://forms.gle/zKCS8y1t9jwv2KTn7Intro/Outro Music: Daybird by Broke for Freehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/Broke_For_Free/Directionless_EP/Broke_For_Free_-_Directionless_EP_-_03_Day_Bird/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcodehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/eaters/simian-samba/audrey-horne/https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Joplin/Piano_Rolls_from_archiveorg/ScottJoplin-RagtimeDance1906/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-a-to-z-english-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Title 31 refers to a section of the United States Code, which contains various federal laws related to money and finance. These laws primarily deal with regulating and governing financial institutions, transactions, and reporting requirements to combat financial crimes and ensure the integrity of the U.S. financial system. Here's a summary of some key aspects covered under Title 31 laws:Anti-Money Laundering (AML): Title 31 contains provisions to prevent money laundering, which is the process of concealing the origins of illegally obtained funds to make them appear legitimate. It requires financial institutions, such as banks and other businesses, to establish robust AML programs, conduct customer due diligence, and report suspicious transactions to the appropriate authorities.Bank Secrecy Act (BSA): The BSA is a critical component of Title 31, requiring financial institutions to maintain records of certain transactions and report large cash transactions and suspicious activities to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). These reports help law enforcement agencies track potential illegal activities.Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act: This law, often referred to as the "Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR)" requirement, mandates that U.S. citizens and residents report their foreign financial accounts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if the aggregate value exceeds a certain threshold.USA PATRIOT Act: Title 31 laws were significantly expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Act aims to enhance national security by bolstering AML and counter-terrorism financing efforts.Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Regulations: Title 31 includes provisions related to economic sanctions administered by the OFAC. These regulations prohibit transactions and dealings with individuals, entities, and countries subject to sanctions by the U.S. government.Structuring and Smurfing Laws: Title 31 addresses structuring, which involves breaking up large cash deposits or withdrawals into smaller, less conspicuous amounts to evade reporting requirements. Smurfing refers to the practice of using multiple individuals to conduct transactions to avoid detection. These practices are illegal under Title 31.(commercial at 14:16)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/brutal-rebuke-of-deutsche-bank-raises-serious-questions-about-one-of-jeffrey-epsteins-lawyers/This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

Create your SURVIVAL 4Patriots Food KIT>> https://4patriots.com/ Get 10% off 1st order by using code “LT” ————————————— Protect your investments with And We Know http://andweknow.com/gold Or call 720-605-3900, Tell them “LT” sent you. ————————————————————— *At SEA with LT Aug. 11-18, 2024 - https://www.inspirationtravel.com/LTA *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ *BOWLING BROS: Sons Bowling channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Bowling_Bros/videos ————————————————— Remnant Revolution Tour https://remnantrevolutiontour.com/ From “Struck & The Truth Twins” www.truthtwins.com “We attended @Banners4Freedom's beautiful #RemnantRevolutionTour https://t.me/Banners4Freedom/1109 A special message from the The Man, The Myth, The Legend, Trey Smith Godinanutshell.com at "7" Falls in Colorado Springs. Love this guy! https://t.me/Banners4Freedom/1110 Ready to do the Happy Dance? 24 @andweknow billboards up across Colorado. Here are 8 in Denver @StruckandTruthTwins filmed for us.  See all locations at: https://www.banners4freedom.com/map-quick-list/ It has been revealed that the world's largest electric vehicle charging station, Tesla's Harris Ranch site in California, is powered by diesel generators—as detailed in a new report by the Epoch Times. https://t.me/conservativejblQck1776/127214 Pains Angels message https://t.me/conservativejblQck1776/127259

Early this year, an uncrewed Chinese-operated high-altitude balloon floated across U.S. airspace, stoking anxiety and fascination among Americans, who assumed it was spying on them, and ultimately provoking President Biden to order the Pentagon to shoot it down. Just as alarming as foreign espionage, though, is the fear of information-gathering turned inward. American anxieties around the “surveillance state” have only grown since the Watergate scandal; with the post-9/11 passage of the USA PATRIOT Act; and with revelations that federal agencies sift through ordinary Americans' phone and email communications, financial information, and Internet usage. Add in the rise of artificial intelligence, and our addictions to smartphones and sharing personal data, and pressing questions arise: Is Big Brother watching, and do we like it? What is the role of surveillance in our democracy, and to what ends do government and business use it? Does being watched keep us safe, or are we being snookered into becoming our own unwitting informants? What standards for digital privacy do we even want? ArtCenter College of Design art and tech scholar Mashinka Firunts Hakopian, Brennan Center government surveillance expert Faiza Patel, and ACLU SoCal attorney Mohammad Tajsar—experts working in and thinking deeply about surveillance and what it means for our 21st-century public and private lives—visit Zócalo for a timely discussion moderated by Ramesh Srinavasan, tech and society scholar at UCLA and director of the UC Digital Cultures Lab. This discussion was co-presented by Zócalo Public Square, ACLU of Southern California, and The Progress Network.

It was a day of tragedy 22 years ago on Sept. 11; 2,977 people were killed, and 3,000 children were left without parents. Some of the best people in the nation—first responders—lost their lives trying to save the lives of others. And in the wars that followed, America lost some of its finest young men and women. But something else happened on 9/11. Americans were forced to surrender some of their basic rights. Facing the threat of terror attacks, and amid the 2001 anthrax attacks, President George Bush passed the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” The PATRIOT Act raised the question of whether Americans should sacrifice their constitutional rights in exchange for safety. And now, there's a broader social debate on whether an emergency order can override the rights of Americans under the Constitution.   ⭕️

Title 31 refers to a section of the United States Code, which contains various federal laws related to money and finance. These laws primarily deal with regulating and governing financial institutions, transactions, and reporting requirements to combat financial crimes and ensure the integrity of the U.S. financial system. Here's a summary of some key aspects covered under Title 31 laws:Anti-Money Laundering (AML): Title 31 contains provisions to prevent money laundering, which is the process of concealing the origins of illegally obtained funds to make them appear legitimate. It requires financial institutions, such as banks and other businesses, to establish robust AML programs, conduct customer due diligence, and report suspicious transactions to the appropriate authorities.Bank Secrecy Act (BSA): The BSA is a critical component of Title 31, requiring financial institutions to maintain records of certain transactions and report large cash transactions and suspicious activities to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). These reports help law enforcement agencies track potential illegal activities.Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act: This law, often referred to as the "Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR)" requirement, mandates that U.S. citizens and residents report their foreign financial accounts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if the aggregate value exceeds a certain threshold.USA PATRIOT Act: Title 31 laws were significantly expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Act aims to enhance national security by bolstering AML and counter-terrorism financing efforts.Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Regulations: Title 31 includes provisions related to economic sanctions administered by the OFAC. These regulations prohibit transactions and dealings with individuals, entities, and countries subject to sanctions by the U.S. government.Structuring and Smurfing Laws: Title 31 addresses structuring, which involves breaking up large cash deposits or withdrawals into smaller, less conspicuous amounts to evade reporting requirements. Smurfing refers to the practice of using multiple individuals to conduct transactions to avoid detection. These practices are illegal under Title 31.(commercial at 14:16)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/brutal-rebuke-of-deutsche-bank-raises-serious-questions-about-one-of-jeffrey-epsteins-lawyers/This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

Title 31 refers to a section of the United States Code, which contains various federal laws related to money and finance. These laws primarily deal with regulating and governing financial institutions, transactions, and reporting requirements to combat financial crimes and ensure the integrity of the U.S. financial system. Here's a summary of some key aspects covered under Title 31 laws:Anti-Money Laundering (AML): Title 31 contains provisions to prevent money laundering, which is the process of concealing the origins of illegally obtained funds to make them appear legitimate. It requires financial institutions, such as banks and other businesses, to establish robust AML programs, conduct customer due diligence, and report suspicious transactions to the appropriate authorities.Bank Secrecy Act (BSA): The BSA is a critical component of Title 31, requiring financial institutions to maintain records of certain transactions and report large cash transactions and suspicious activities to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). These reports help law enforcement agencies track potential illegal activities.Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act: This law, often referred to as the "Foreign Bank Account Reporting (FBAR)" requirement, mandates that U.S. citizens and residents report their foreign financial accounts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) if the aggregate value exceeds a certain threshold.USA PATRIOT Act: Title 31 laws were significantly expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Act aims to enhance national security by bolstering AML and counter-terrorism financing efforts.Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Regulations: Title 31 includes provisions related to economic sanctions administered by the OFAC. These regulations prohibit transactions and dealings with individuals, entities, and countries subject to sanctions by the U.S. government.Structuring and Smurfing Laws: Title 31 addresses structuring, which involves breaking up large cash deposits or withdrawals into smaller, less conspicuous amounts to evade reporting requirements. Smurfing refers to the practice of using multiple individuals to conduct transactions to avoid detection. These practices are illegal under Title 31.(commercial at 14:16)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/brutal-rebuke-of-deutsche-bank-raises-serious-questions-about-one-of-jeffrey-epsteins-lawyers/This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

Michael Chertoff is an American attorney who was the second United States Secretary of Homeland Security to serve under President George W. Bush. He was the co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act. Chertoff previously served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as a federal prosecutor, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney General. He succeeded Tom Ridge as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security on February 15, 2005. Since leaving government service, Chertoff has worked as senior of counsel at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling. He also co-founded the Chertoff Group, a risk-management and security consulting company.For links to the 9/11 episodes Josh references in the interview, see below:Dave Paventi - https://rb.gy/hjoncTom Wilson - https://rb.gy/gzvywMichael O'Connor - https://rb.gy/wdrdzIvonne Sanchez - https://rb.gy/1haxtThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5351305/advertisement

Federal laws with acronyms are usually bad news. (Think the USA PATRIOT Act.) The RESTRICT Act is yet another Orwellian proposal in which the federal government assumes ignorance is strength. Original Article: "Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act"

Federal laws with acronyms are usually bad news. (Think the USA PATRIOT Act.) The RESTRICT Act is yet another Orwellian proposal in which the federal government assumes ignorance is strength. Original Article: "Disinformation and the State: The Aptly Named RESTRICT Act"

Become an exclusive member to get ad-free and bonus episodes at https://tmgstudios.tv Bummer… banning TikTok would have been funny, but there's a hidden agenda behind the TikTok ban also known as the RESTRICT Act. This week Ben and Emil give their thoughts on the bill that might be worse than the USA PATRIOT Act. A return to crypto corner and the crime potential of CashApp that Hindenburg seeks to unravel. Go to https://public.com/trill to unlock 5.3% APY Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://rocketmoney.com/trill For a limited time, try Notion AI for free when you go to https://notion.com/trill Get the only digital wallets with real cash access, activated by MoneyGram. Learn more at https://moneygram.com/stellarwallets Check out our channel page on Apple Podcasts, go to: https://apple.co/trillionaire SUBSCRIBE to Trillionaire Mindset at https://www.youtube.com/trillionairemindset Want to subscribe to our newsletter? http://bit.ly/3k4Nfar Trillionaire Highlights Channel: https://www.youtube.com/TrillionaireMindsetHighlights Trillionaire IG: https://www.instagram.com/trillionairepod Trillionaire Twitter: https://twitter.com/trillionairepod TMG Studios YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/tinymeatgang BEN https://www.instagram.com/bencahn/ https://twitter.com/Buncahn EMIL https://www.instagram.com/emilderosa/ https://twitter.com/emilderosa *DISCLOSURE: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS VIDEO ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED. THESE OPINIONS DO NOT REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF ANYONE ELSE. THIS IS NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE. THE VIEWER OF THE VIDEO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSIDERING ANY INFORMATION CAREFULLY AND MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS TO BUY OR SELL OR HOLD ANY INVESTMENT. SOME OF THE CONTENT OF THIS VIDEO IS CONSIDERED TO BE SATIRE AND MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FACTUAL AND SHOULD BE TAKEN IN SUCH LIGHT. THE COMMENTS MADE IN THIS VIDEO ARE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.* Chapters: 0:00 This week! 1:07 Yeeeew! Bruce Springy 3:27 Housekeeping 5:30 The Airpods Thief 8:00 The TikTok Ban 10:35 Thanks to Public! 11:58 RESTRICT Act Facade 14:44 The Patriot Act of the Internet 18:00 Jesse Watters' Coverage 21:50 CFIUS' Power & China 23:50 Thanks to Rocket Money! 25:50 The Bans on China 27:45 Arms War  31:20 New Spending on Defense 37:40 Thanks to Notion! 39:40 Crypto Corner 42:40 Crime Riddled Binance 44:30 CFTC Lawsuit 45:30 The Spirit of Crypto 48:15 Crypto as Securities 49:20 Thanks to Moneygram! 50:20 Hindenburg Short Sells Block 52:00 Cash App Promoting Crime? 55:20 Ben's Date 57:50 AI Luddites 59:20 Calling for AI Pause 1:02:45 AI Movie Images 1:05:40 Wrapping Up

In this special episode of EXPRESSIONS Ciara will explore, define, and analyze the contents of the Patriot Act Section 215 and explain how this is the foundation to circumvent many of the amendments of the United States Constitution thus depriving Americans of our rights and freedoms conflated with the FISA Section 702. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ciaratavares-reyes/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ciaratavares-reyes/support

Sam Bankman-Fried was a mega-donor to both Democrats and Republicans. FTX's bankruptcy sent shock waves through the crypto markets.To access our premium content, subscribe to the Trends Journal: https://trendsresearch.com/subscribe Follow Gerald Celente on Twitter: http://twitter.com/geraldcelente Follow Gerald Celente on Facebook: http://facebook.com/gcelente Follow Gerald Celente on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/geraldcelentetrends Follow Gerald Celente on Gab: http://gab.com/geraldcelente Copyright © 2022 Trends Research Institute. All rights reserved.

Michael Chertoff is an American attorney who was the second United States Secretary of Homeland Security to serve under President George W. Bush. Chertoff also served for one additional day under President Barack Obama. He was the co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act. Chertoff previously served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as a federal prosecutor, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney General. He succeeded Tom Ridge as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security on February 15, 2005.

On this episode of Pilsners and Politics Podcast, Benjamin discusses the history of the FBI, how and why it was formed. Benjamin then begins to discuss the direction the FBI took as a domestic intelligence gathering agency.  Congress may have created the monster its become by passing the USA Patriot Act after the wake of the 9/11 suicide attacks. Since the FBIs inception its been embroiled in controversy and corruption. Can you name a few?Help Support the Podcast, Shop Pilsners Swag: https://www.etsy.com/shop/PilsnersandPolitics?ref=simple-shop-header-name&listing_id=1196821452

The presence of the US Constitution is the root of all evil. The absence of the US Constitution is the root of all evil. The US Constitution shrugged. Works Used In The Making of This Episode: NSA Warrantless Searches. Wikipedia. Reality Winner. Wikipedia. FISA. Wikipedia. "Limiting no-knock warrants is not enough. The Breonna Taylor tragedy leaves no doubt." The Editorial Board, USA TODAY. July 19, 2021. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/19/breonna-taylor-limiting-no-knock-warrants-isnt-enough/7937814002/. "Detention Short of Arrest: Stop and Frisk." Justia US Law. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/14-detention-short-of-arrest-stop-and-frisk.html "The No-Knock Warrant for Breonna Taylor was Illegal." Radley Balko, Washington Post. June 3, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/. "Surveillance Under the USA Patriot Act." https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act. "The FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump's Florida residence." https://www.vox.com/23302249/fbi-search-mar-a-lago-former-president-donald-trump-florida-doj LawByMike on TikTok. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

We explore the cultural perspective of extremism that appears to be increasing. We explore the USA Patriot Act and the FBI definition of terrorism as well as how extremes are managed in clinical work. This may point to a possible solution to some of the challenges we face as couples, families and in our culture.  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf Www.healthy-perspectives.com  

Brittany Klein and I both began on the left but spent the last 10 years identified with conservatives because of our stance on social issues. What happened during our “ten years on the right” is a complex story which we will tell one day. We compiled a book together, Jephthah's Daughters, which laid out the case for a child's right to a mother and father. That book came out in 2015 and got us labeled as right-wing fanatics. But for March 15, 2022, we busied ourselves with the task of diagnosing the left, the political camp where both of us began our political consciousness.Two major defections from the left stand out as prompts for the discussion: Glenn Greenwald, whose Twitter and substack feeds attest to his conviction that the political left has lost itself in crass authoritarianism; and Bill Maher, whose famous takedowns of conservatives have not died but have come to coexist in his HBO soliloquies with increasingly bitter lamentations about the left's growing extremism. There are many, however, who seem to be J-K-Rowling their way, if not to the right, at least away from the safe compounds of leftist orthodoxy.Perhaps these are isolated anecdotes. But perhaps they are not. If we are witnessing a deeper trend, it will signify a massive, perhaps twice or thrice in a lifetime, political realignment.When Brittany and I talk about our youths on the left, we can't help but feel nostalgic. There was something valuable about belonging to the political camp that championed free speech, opposed repressive puritanism, checked the power of corporations, and critiqued the sins of the military-industrial complex. We can even appreciate that once upon a time the left bore the classy honor of championing racial minorities and sexual misfits who were mistreated or devalued by mainstream society.The war in Ukraine has perhaps brought into clearer focus what we already witnessed about the left's degeneration. Or maybe it's just that now many people are realizing that something has gone terribly wrong with the left. Certainly the vibrancy of the antiwar movement in 2002 makes for a stark and sobering contrast against the left's reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I will never forget the adrenaline of twenty years ago, when Colin Powell was appearing before the United Nations making the case for the United States to invade Iraq. Two girls named Rebecca, both white liberal undergrads, crossed my path at SUNY Buffalo back then. They were idealistic and convicted that they might be able to change something for the better. The three of us got together and planned a Books Not Bombs conference on the university campus. We had modules in different classrooms and held a rally in the main plaza by Capen Hall.My wife and I worked with a host of other people to raise money for buses to New York City and Washington to march against the war, on February 15 and March 15 of 2003. The energy in our camp was utopian. We marched through shoulder-to-shoulder clouds to shout for peace, never imagining a time when all the comrades around us would, twenty years later, be calling for anyone who doubted the Biden administration's position on Ukraine to be investigated, placed on trial for treason, and arrested.But here we are.Historians may argue the point but I believe quite strongly that the antiwar movement made Barack Obama's presidency possible. Ergo, it was the reaction to the invasion of Iraq that carved out the political left we know today. No other issue felt as compelling and invigorating during the 2000s as resistance to a war that we knew was pure human tragedy. While there was no Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok or Instagram then, we had many mainstream liberal sites that provided consistent news to undercut the warmongering on mainstream media channels like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.There was Democracy Now! We had Mother Jones, Salon, Atlantic Monthly, as well as countless primordial but still readable blogs in those early days. I was editor in chief of the graduate students' newspaper and ran countless editorials critiquing the Bush administration's rush to war. As the war dragged on and Americans saw the horrors of Abu Ghraib, then slowly realized that there were no WMDs, everyone who withstood peer pressure to oppose the war in 2002 became a hero by 2006. In this turbulent time were born the big careers of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Cenk Uygur, and countless other commentators. Most importantly, Moveon.org, a website that I knew foremost as an organizing hub for people to oppose the wars in the Middle East, transitioned at some point to a Democratic Party operation headquarters. Barack Obama gained the upper hand against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in the 2008 Democratic primaries largely because of the Moveon constituency. That base threw their weight to Obama for one standout reason. Obama claimed to have given a speech opposing the war in Iraq. Clinton and Biden, both senators in 2002, voted to authorize the invasion.The importance of the antiwar movement to the formation of today's world cannot be over-emphasized. I stepped away from the left with the rise of Barack Obama because I did not like his choice of Biden as a running mate. It appeared likely that Obama was going to favor the identity politics of the Democratic Party for cynical reasons, at the expense of the Party's base of antiwar and pro-worker policies. My gut instincts at the time were vindicated quickly as Obama did everything possible to advance abortion, the LGBT lobby, and superficial racial pep talks, while feeding the war machine with his escalation in Afghanistan and NATO's war in North Africa, combined with Obama's unseemly alliance with corporate America on Obamacare and in the rotten stimulus of 2009.By the time of Romney's race against Obama, I was already a committed Republican and writing for American Thinker. There was nothing wrong with being part of the GOP because the Ron Paul wing had taken antiwar activism away from the left. Obama's selling out to corporations showed me that the Democrats were no longer the antiwar party and were never going to be the worker's party again, so the only real distinction between Democrats and Republicans rested on the social issues: faith, religious liberty, sexuality, gender, and abortion. Those issues mattered to me more and more because I was now a middle-aged father trying to bring my wife and children to the Lord, and I felt God calling me to bear witness for His laws on personal conduct in the public square. That's why I ended up Republican and labeled “conservative” by 2012. In reality nothing had changed about my beliefs except their position relative to the unraveling left.While Bill Maher has a point that the left has gotten extreme and crazy – it really has – the story of the left's evolution is, of course, much more complicated. Today's Democrats came to power based on the specific stances of the antiwar movement of 2002. We were against the USA Patriot Act, against the encroachment on civil liberties, against questioning people's patriotism based on differences, against ethnic demonization, against warmongering, against crippling other countries' citizens through sanctions, against economic imperialism, against war profiteering, against corporate collusion, and against, of course, using our military might to escalate wars overseas. If not for these specific positions of the antiwar left of the early 2000s, the Democrats would have never gained the traction necessary to win back Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Nothing of the Obama era, including the unlikely ascendancy of Joe Biden, would have ever happened.And now, firmly seated in power, the left has completely betrayed every single one of those positions. So-called “liberals” are demanding that the government monitor citizens and work with tech companies to de-platform and bar them from the public square. Now some liberals are even calling for dissidents like Tulsi Gabbard, a fellow Democrat, to be investigated, dispossessed, and possibly arrested, for being a “Russian asset.”Now the left is throwing around the ugly terms “treason,” “traitor,” and “un-American,” as if liberal Hollywood has not billed fifties McCarthyism (a walk in the park compared to today's cancel culture) as a world-historical trauma en par with the Inquisition or sack of Carthage.The left's lockstep demonization of Russia has reached new heights. I had an early taste of the anti-Russian fervor of the Obama era left in 2014, when the Human Rights Campaign sent a press release to over a million members highlighting my name and insinuating that I was involved with anti-homosexual hate groups in Russia. This was right about when Russia passed a law banning the promotion of homosexuality to minors, something that in retrospect should not have seemed so terrible given that Western liberals were pushing to criminalize the promotion of heterosexuality to minors via “conversion therapy.” It was frightening back then to be labeled as a pro-Russian “exporter of hate,” especially because the anti-Russian rhetoric kept escalating into the 2020s.Bobby Lopez's upcoming book Cancel-Proof Christianity is now available for pre-orders. This book focuses on exactly how Christians can create a separate eco-system to ensure that we can never be cancelled by the Left. Place your order at https://www.gatekeepersonline.com/product-page/cancel-proof-christianity-by-robert-lopez-phd using code BOBBY for 10% off.

The Patriot Act: A law that is still governing us after 20 years despite being almost universally hated. In this episode, we take a close look at the lesser known parts of the Patriot Act that became permanent immediately, examine the status of the few provisions that had to be reauthorized over the years, find out how the law was crafted in the first place, and see what happened to the members of Congress who voted for this rights-destroying legislation. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD235: The Safe Haven of Sanctions Evaders CD160: Equifax Breach CD105: Anthrax CD098: USA Freedom Act: Privatization of the Patriot Act CD048: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Patriot Act Overviews Charles Doyle. April 18, 2002. The USA PATRIOT Act: A Sketch, RS21203.” Congressional Research Service. Charles Doyle. December 10, 2001. Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act, RL31200. Congressional Research Service. Indefinite Detention Anna Mulrine Grobe. October 7, 2021. “Guantanamo: A former prosecutor's solution to an ‘unsolvable problem.'” The Christian Science Monitor. Jessica Corbett. July 22, 2020. “ACLU Says Release of Adham Hassoun Confirms US Government Lacks Power to 'Lock Someone Up Without Due Process.'” Common Dreams. Carol Rosenberg. June 29, 2020. “Judge Rejects U.S. Effort to Hold Palestinian Man After Prison Term.” The New York Times. Nino Guruli. February 24, 2020. “The Unreasonableness of the Citizenship Distinction: Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Lessons from Abroad.” The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia. March 14, 2016. Wartime Detention Provisions in Recent Defense Authorization Legislation, R42143 Congressional Research Service. ACLU. December 31, 2011. “President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law.” ACLU. October 23, 2001. “How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants.” Credit Reporting Agencies Ken Sweet. October 6, 2017. “Equifax Collects Your Data, and Then Sells It.” Inc. “Experian Revenue.” Craft. “Equifax Revenue 2006-2021| EFX.” Macrotrends. “TransUnion Revenue 2011-2021 | TRU” Macrotrends. 15 U.S. Code § 1681v - Disclosures to governmental agencies for counterterrorism purposes. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Reauthorizations and Expirations Charlie Savage. August 14, 2020. “McConnell Appears Set to Quietly Suffocate Long-Debated F.B.I. Surveillance Bill.” The New York Times. India McKinney and Andrew Crocker. April 16, 2020. “Yes, Section 215 Expired. Now What?” EFF. Charlie Savage. March 27, 2020. “House Departs Without Vote to Extend Expired F.B.I. Spy Tools” The New York Times. Office of the Press Secretary. March 9, 2006. “President Signs USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act.” The White House. Steven M. Martinez. April 21, 2005. “Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.” archives.fbi.gov Brain Duignan. “USA PATRIOT Act: Reauthorizations.” Britannica. ACLU. “The Sun Also Sets: Understanding the Patriot Act ‘Sunsets.'” Surveillance Charlie Savage. January 22, 2021. “Intelligence Analysts Use U.S. Smartphone Location Data Without Warrants, Memo Says” The New York Times. Charlie Savage. December 3, 2020. “U.S. Used Patriot Act to Gather Logs of Website Visitors” The New Times. Charlie Savage. March 31, 2020. “Problems in F.B.I. Wiretap Applications Go Beyond Trump Aide Surveillance, Review Finds.” The New York Times. Byron Tau and Michelle Hackman. February 7, 2020. “Federal Agencies Use Cellphone Location Data for Immigration Enforcement.” The Wall Street Journal. Charlie Savage. December 11, 2019. “We Just Got a Rare Look at National Security Surveillance. It Was Ugly.” The New York Times. Sharon Bradford Franklin. July 25, 2018. “Carpenter and the End of Bulk Surveillance of Americans.” Lawfare. Adam Liptak. June 22, 2018. “In Ruling on Cellphone Location Data, Supreme Court Makes Statement on Digital Privacy.” The New York Times. International Impact Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe Bill Weinberg. June 15, 2018. “USA PATRIOT Act Threatens Uruguay Banks Over Legal Cannabis System.” Cannabis Now. Bills and Laws The Patriot Act United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) of 2001 House Vote Senate Vote Law Outline TITLE I: ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM Sec. 106: Presidential Authority Expanded the authority of the President to "investigate, regulate, or prohibit" financial transactions to include "any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Expanded the authority of the President to block transactions and property of "any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" "during the pendency of an investigation". Expands the authority of the President to confiscate property "of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country" when the US has been "attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals" and the President can then decide what to do with that property "for the benefit of the United States." These provisions remain in current law as of 10/18/21 TITLE II: ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES Sec. 201: Authority to Intercept Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Relating to Terrorism Expands the list of suspected actions that can justify the Attorney General and some subordinates obtaining judicial permission for wiretaps (a list that has since been expanded further) to include terrorism related crimes. Sec. 203: Authority to Share Criminal Investigate Information Allows grand jury information to be shared with "any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official" if the matter involves "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence" The government official who receives the information has to notify the court that it got the information, but that notification can be in secret and they have to submit it "within a reasonable time after such disclosure", which is not defined. The government official who receives the information is authorized to share it with "any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official" if it includes "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence" The procedures for sharing the information was left up to the Attorney General to decide. Sec. 205: Employment of Translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Authorizes the FBI to speed up the hiring of translators Sec. 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 If a person is a "foreign power or an agent of a foreign power", the government can authorize wiretapping a "common carrier, landlord, custodian, or other specified person" if the court finds that the target is using communications that "may have the effect of thwarting the identification" of the target. Sec. 207: Duration of FISA Surveillance of Non-United States Persons Who Are Agents of a Foreign Power The warrants can be issued for up to 120 days fi they are for targeting individuals and can be for up to a year if targeting a "foreign power" Sec. 209: Seizure of Voicemail Messages Pursuant to Warrants Allows the government to seize the contents of voicemails using a warrant instead of a surveillance order, which is a faster method for authorization. Sec. 210: Scope of Subpoenas For Records of Electronic Communications Expands the information that can be subpoenaed from telecom companies to include connection records, records of call times and duration, types of services used, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and method of payments included credit card or bank account numbers. This provision had no sunset. Sec. 212: Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications to Protect Life and Limb Allows the telecom companies to provide customer data to the government if it "reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serous physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information with delay" Allows the telecom companies to provide customer data "to any person other than a governmental entity" Allows the government to require a telecom company to disclose customer records, which was previously an option decided by the telecoms. Sec. 213: Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant Allows the government to delay notifying their target about a warrant if they court finds that the notification "may have an adverse result" such as an individual fleeing prosecution, endangerment of someone's life, tampering with evidence, witness intimidation, or jeopardizing the investigation. This provision allowed "sneak and peek" warrants, which allowed the government to secretly enter - physically or electronically - a target's property to search, take pictures, copy documents, download files, etc. as long as they didn't take any property with them. This provision had no sunset. Sec. 214: Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority Under FISA Eliminates the requirements that trace devices only be applied to devices and facilities used by foreign persons, so that now they can be used on devices belonging to US citizens so long as the devices are likely to provide information related to a foreign intelligence investigation. Sec. 215: Access to Records and Other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Authorizes the FBI to order "the production of any tangible items" for their investigations into international terrorism, as long as the investigation of a US citizen or company is "not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." The entity turning over the property can not tell anyone that they gave the FBI whatever they requested or tell anyone about the investigation's existence, and in return, the entity that produced the items "shall not be liable to any other person for such production." Sec. 216: Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices Requires that the court "shall" authorize the installation of trace devices "anywhere within the United States" if the court finds that the government has shown that the information likely obtained from the devices "is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." The order "shall apply to any personal or entity providing wire or electronic communication services in the United states" A record must be kept of which officers installed the device, the date and time it was installed and uninstalled, the date, times, and durations that the device is accessed for information, and the information collected from the device. The record must be provided to the court "under seal" within 30 days "after termination of the order". There was no sunset for this provision. Sec. 217: Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications Allows companies to voluntarily request law enforcement monitoring of intruders on their networks and authorizes the government to intercept information transmitted by a "computer trespasser" Sec. 219: Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants for Terrorism Allows judges to issue search warrants outside of the districts where the property to be searched is located. There was no sunset for this provision. Sec. 222: Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies Requires that companies that help the government install tracing devices authorized by Section 216 on their network be "reasonably compensated for such reasonable expenditures incurred in providing such facilities or assistance." Sec. 223: Civil Liability for Certain Unauthorized Disclosures If a court finds that an employee of the United States has disclosed information collected improperly, the government has to conduct a proceeding to determine if discipline is warranted. Damages can be awarded of at least $10,000 plus litigation costs. Sec. 224: Sunset Sets an expiration date of December 31, 2005 for Sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222. Sec. 225: Immunity for Compliance with FISA Wiretap Provides immunity to anyone who complies with a FISA wiretap, including private and government persons. TITLE III: INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING ABATEMENT AND ANTITERRORIST FINANCING ACT OF 2001 Subtitle A - International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures Sec. 311: Special Measures for Jurisdictions, Financial Institutions, or International Transactions of Primary Money Laundering Concern Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to require domestic financial institutions to maintain records and file reports, including personally identifiable information, about transactions in a location outside the United States or between foreign financial institutions. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prohibit or impose conditions upon accounts being opened in domestic financial institutions by people from foreign jurisdictions. Sec. 312: Special Due Diligence for Correspondent Accounts and Private Banking Accounts Requires banks that open accounts for non-US citizens to investigate the background of the account opener or owner for money laundering red flags. Sec. 313: Prohibition on United States Correspondent Accounts With Foreign Shell Banks Prohibits domestic financial institutions from opening or maintaining accounts for a foreign bank that doesn't have a physical presence in any country. Sec. 314: Cooperative Efforts to Deter Money Laundering Orders the Secretary of the Treasury to write regulations that encourage law enforcement and financial institutions to share information about individuals, entities, and organizations, with a specific focus on charitable organizations, non-profit organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. A financial institution that shares information that "may involve terrorist acts or money laundering activities" can not be held liable "under any law or regulation of the United States" or of any state or contract and they can not be held liable for failing to inform their customer that their information was shared. Sec. 315: Inclusion of Foreign Corruption Offenses as Money Laundering Crimes Expands what qualifies as "money laundering" to include "bribery of a public official, or the misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by or for the benefit of public official" and some smuggling and firearm offenses. Sec. 316: Anti-Terrorist Forfeiture Protection An owner of property that is confiscated under US laws that allow the seizure of assets of suspected international terrorists can contest that confiscation, but the government can use evidence against them to justify the confiscation that is "otherwise inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence" if it finds that "compliance with the Federal Rules of Evidence may jeopardize the national security interests of the United States." Sec. 319: Forfeiture of Funds in United States Interbank Accounts If funds are deposited by suspect into an account at a foreign bank that has an account in the United States, the money in that bank's account -up to the amount deposited in the target's account - can be held or seized from the bank's account. If a foreign bank doesn't terminate their relationship with the suspect, that foreign bank can be fined up to $10,000 per day until that relationship is terminated. If a convicted criminal hides their property, the court "shall" order other property up to the value of the missing property to be seized. Sec. 320: Proceeds of Foreign Crimes Expands the government's power to seize property held inside the United States if the property was obtained via felony drug offenses if the offense would be punishable by death or more than one year in prison under the foreign nation's or the US's laws. Sec. 323: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The government can apply for and the courts can grant restraining orders to hold property that is the subject of investigations being conducted by foreign governments as long as the offense would have been illegal if committed in the United States. No one can object to the restraining order. The defendant is no longer required to have received notice of the proceedings in time to act but instead the foreign court has to "take steps" to notify the defendant. Sec. 326: Verification of Identification The Secretary of the Treasury has to write regulations that require banks to verify the identity of their customers and check a list of suspected terrorists to make sure that those people are not trying to open accounts at their bank. Sec. 328: Criminal Penalties Any official or employee of the US Federal Government, or any one who helps them, commit fraud on the United States "shall be fined in an amount not more than 3 times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. Subtitle B - Bank Secrecy Act Amendments and Related Improvements Sec. 351: Amendments Relating to Reporting of Suspicious Activities Provides immunity to "any financial institution" that makes a voluntary disclosure of a possible violation of law to a government agency Prohibits the financial institution or anyone in it and the officers and employees of the Federal Government from notifying the customer that their suspicious transaction has been reported to the government. Sec. 355: Authorization to Include Suspicions of Illegal Activity in Written Employment References Authorizes employees of "any insured depository institution" (which includes "any uninsured branch or agency of a foreign bank") to "disclose in any written employment reference" of a current or former employee information about "the possible involvement" of that person in "potentially unlawful activity." If the information is shared "with malicious intent", the institution sharing the information can be sued. Sec. 358: Bank Secrecy Provisions and Activities of United States Intelligence Agencies to Fight International Terrorism Consumer reporting agencies "shall furnish a consumer report of a consumer and all other information in a consumer's file to a government agency authorized to conduct investigations of, or intelligence or counterintelligence activities or analysis related to, international terrorism when presented with a written certification by such government agency that such information is necessary" for the agency's investigation. The consumer reporting agency is not allowed to tell the consumer that the government requested the information or that the government received it. Provides immunity for a consumer reporting agency that complies with the government request. Sec. 361: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Transforms the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) into a bureau in the Department of the Treasury. Sec. 363: Increase in Civil and Criminal Penalties for Money Laundering The Secretary of the Treasury may impose civil money penalties equal to or more than 2 times the amount of the transaction but not more than $1 million on any financial institution that violates the money laundering laws and special measures. Sec. 365: Reports Relating to Coins and Currency Received in Non-Financial Trade or Business Requires that any coin or currency transaction that is over $10,000 be reported to FinCEN. The reports must include the name and address of the recipient, the amount, the date and nature of the transaction, and the name of the person filing the report. This does not apply to any transaction if the entire transaction occurs outside of the United States. Subtitle C - Currency Crimes and Protection Sec. 371: Bulk Cash Smuggling Into or Out of the United States Creates the crime of "currency smuggling", which is when someone knowingly conceals more than $10,000 in currency or other monetary instruments on themselves or in their luggage or containers and transports it, or attempts to transport it, into or out of the United States. Punishment: Up to 5 years in prison and forfeiture of the money involved in the smuggling, or an equal amount from the suspect's personal belongings. Sec. 373: Illegal Money Transmitting Businesses Anyone who "knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business" can be imprisoned for 5 years, fined, or both. Sec. 374: Counterfeiting Domestic Currency and Obligations Expands the definition and punishments for counterfeiting to include analog, digital, and electronic images. Lengthens prison sentences for a range of counterfeiting offenses. Sec. 375: Counterfeiting Foreign Currency and Obligations Dramatically expands prison sentences for counterfeiting foreign currencies from single digit year sentences to 20-25 years. Sec. 376: Laundering the Proceeds of Terrorism Expands the applicability of computer fraud offenses committed outside the United States if they involve devices issued by a company inside the United States, like a credit card, or if the defendant used any property within the United States to commit the crime. TITLE IV: PROTECTING THE BORDER Subtitle A - Protecting the Northern Border Sec. 402: Northern Border Personnel Authorizes unlimited funds to triple the number of border patrol agents, customs agents, and INS inspectors on our northern border along with an additional $50 million to update technology. Sec. 403: Access by the Department of State and the INS to Certain Identifying Information in the Criminal History Records of Visa Applicants and Applicants For Admission to the United States The Attorney General and the FBI will provide criminal history records to the State Department Subtitle B - Enhanced Immigration Provisions Sec. 411: Definitions Relating to Terrorism Adds being a representative of a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Secretary of State or being a representative of an organization that publicly endorses terrorist activity to the grounds to denial of entry into the United States. If the endorsement of terrorist activity has occurred in the last five years, that person's spouse and children are also barred from entering the United States (this can be waived by the Attorney General if it can be proved that the spouse/children didn't know or has renounced the behavior). Defines "terrorist activity" "To commit or to incite to commit under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury To gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity To solicit funds or other things of value for a terrorist activity, a terrorist organization (unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity). To solicit any individual to engage in terrorist activity or membership in a terrorist organization (unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity). To commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training for the commission of a terrorist activity, to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity, or to a terrorist organization (unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization's terrorist activity.) Defines a "terrorist organization" A group designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in "terrorist activity" or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity A group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in "terrorist activity" Sec. 412: Mandatory Detention of Suspected Terrorists; Habeas Corpus; Judicial Review The Attorney General "may" certify that an "alien" is "engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States" An alien who is certified "shall" be taken into custody by the Attorney General "The Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States... such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified" If the alien is finally determined to not be removable, detention "shall terminate" but an alien who has not been removed "and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person." Judicial review of "any action or decision" relating to this section ("including judicial review of the merits of a determination") is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings. Outside of that, "no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision." The habeas corpus proceedings that are allowed may be initiated only by an application filed with the Supreme Court, any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, or "any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it." The final order "shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals." Section 413: Multilateral Cooperation Against Terrorists Allows the Secretary of State to share information with other countries about "individual aliens" for the "purpose of preventing, investigating, or punishing acts that would constitute a crime in the United States" Subtitle C - Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of Terrorism Sections 421-428: Provide leniency to immigrants who were either direct victims of 9/11 or whose US citizen spouse or parent died on 9/11. TITLE V: REMOVING OBSTACLES TO INVESTIGATING TERRORISM Sec. 501: Attorney General's Authority to Pay Rewards to Combat Terrorism Allows the Attorney General to offer rewards via public advertisements for assisting the Justice Department to "defend the Nation against terrorist acts" The money can come from "any executive agency or military department" "Neither the failure to of the Attorney General to authorize a payment nor the amount authorized shall be subject to judicial review" Sec. 502: Secretary of State's Authority to Pay Rewards Allows the Secretary of State to pay rewards - including rewards over $5 million - for "the identification or location of an individual who holds a key leadership position in a terrorist organization" The reward limit has since been increased to $25 million, but higher amounts can be personally authorized by the Secretary of State Rewards up to $100,000 do not need to be approved by the Secretary of State Current law: "A determination made by the Secretary under this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to judicial review" Sec. 504: Coordination With Law Enforcement Allows Federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance or physical searches to coordinate with Federal law enforcement officers to "investigate or protect against" actual or potential attacks, sabotage, or clandestine intelligence activities by agents of a foreign power. Sec. 505: Miscellaneous National Security Authorities Authorizes FBI investigators to collect the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records of telephone, financial records, and consumer reports of US citizens as long as the investigation is "not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Allows the FBI to obtain records faster using National Security Letters instead of the previous process where they had to document specific and facts showing that the person is an agent of a foreign power Sec. 507: Disclosure of Educational Records Allows the Attorney General (or high ranking designee) to request a court order for educational records that are relevant to investigations into "an act of domestic or international terrorism" The application to the court "shall certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe" that the records will likely contain information related to their terrorism investigation. Provides immunity to educational agencies and institutions that comply with the court orders TITLE VI: PROVIDING FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES Subtitle A - Aid to Families of Public Safety Officers Sec. 613: Public Safety Officers Benefit Program Payment Increase Increases the death or severe disability payment amount from $100,000 to $250,000 Subtitle B - Amendments to the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 Sec. 621: Crime Victims Fund Allocates money specifically to 9/11 victims and ensures that the payments do not count as income in order to reduce any government assistance that victim receives. TITLE VII: INCREASED INFORMATION SHARING FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION Sec. 701: Expansion of Regional Information Sharing System to Facilitate Federal-State-Local Law Enforcement Response Related to Terrorist Attacks Funds new information sharing networks TITLE VIII: STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM Sec. 801: Terrorist Attacks and Other Acts of Violence Against Mass Transportation Systems Sets penalties for attacking mass transportation systems For attacks or plots that don't kill anyone or have passengers on board: Fines and up to 20 years in prison For attacks on vessels carrying at least one passenger or that result in "the death of any person", fines and up to life in prison. Sec. 802: Definition of Domestic Terrorism "The term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Current law maintains this definition Sec. 803: Prohibition Against Harboring Terrorists Establishes punishments for anyone who "harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit" a list of terrorism related crimes. They can be fined, sent to prison for up to 10 years, or both. Any Federal judicial district court can prosecuted these offenses. Sec. 804: Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed at U.S. Facilities Abroad Gives the Federal Government jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Americans that take place on property used - not necessarily owned - by the United States in foreign countries and in the residences used by United States personnel assigned to foreign missions. Sec. 806: Assets of Terrorist Organizations Subjects to civil forfeiture "all assets, foreign and domestic of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization; acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism... or derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism..." The language 'any act of domestic or international terrorism' has since be changed to 'any Federal crime of terrorism' Sec. 809: No Statute of Limitation for Certain Terrorism Offenses Exempts terrorism crimes that result in or created a forseeable risk of death or serious bodily injury from an 8 year statute of limitations. Sec. 810: Alternate Maximum Penalties for Terrorism Offenses Increases penalties for crimes Arson prison sentences increase from a maximum of 20 years to a maximum of life Destruction of energy facilities increase from a maximum of 10 years to a maximum of 20 years Arson or energy facility destruction crimes that result in a death can be given life sentences Material support to terrorists and terrorist organization prison sentences increased from a maximum of 10 years to 15 years Material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations that result in a death can be given life sentences Destruction of national defense material crimes and sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel prison sentences increased from a maximum of 10 years to 20 years Destruction of national defense material crimes and sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel that result in a death can be given life sentences Damaging or destroying an interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility crimes prison sentences increased from a maximum 15 years to 20 years Damaging or destroying an interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility crimes that result in a death can be given life sentences Sec. 811: Penalties for Terrorist Conspiracies Adds people who conspire to commit crimes including arson, killings in Federal facilities, destruction of communications lines, stations, or systems, wrecking trains, material support to terrorists, torture, conspiracy, sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel, interference with flight crew members and attendants, damaging or destroying an interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility, and a few others to the list of those who can be punished with fines and prison sentences. Sec. 814: Deterrence and Prevention of Cyberterrorism Increases the penalty for intentionally damaging a federal computer from up to 5 years in prison to up to 10 years in prison (up to 20 years for a repeat offender). Sec. 817: Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute Establishes a maximum 10 year prison sentence and a fine for anyone who "knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity... that is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose." TITLE IX: IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE Sec. 901: Responsibilities of Director of Central Intelligence Regarding Foreign Intelligence Collected Under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Because only the President and Attorney General are able to initiate a FISA surveillance order, this provision facilitates information sharing from the Attorney General to the CIA in a way that ensures that the CIA "Director shall have no authority to direct, manage, or undertake electronic surveillance or physical search operations." Sec. 905: Disclosure to Director of Central Intelligence of Foreign Intelligence-Related Information With Respect to Criminal Investigations The Attorney General or the head of "any other department or agency of the Federal Government" with law enforcement responsibilities "shall expeditiously disclose" to the Director of Central Intelligence foreign intelligence gotten in the course of a criminal investigation. TITLE X: MISCELLANEOUS Sec. 1005: First Responders Assistance Act Creates a grant program where the Attorney General will fund States and local governments for hiring additional law enforcement personal dedicated to "intelligence gathering", purchasing spying equipment such as wire-tap, pen links, cameras, and computer hardware/software, protective equipment for patrol officers, and communications operations for improved interoperability among surrounding jurisdictions. Sec. 1007: Authorization of Funds for DEA Police Training in South and Central Asia Authorizes $5 million for fiscal year 2002 for "regional antidrug training in the Republic of Turkey" by the DEA for police and "increased precursor chemical control efforts in the South and Central Asia region." Sec. 1010: Temporary Authority to Contract with Local and State Governments for Performance of Security Functions at United States Military Installations "During the period of time that United States armed forces are engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom and for the period of 180 days thereafter", the Department of Defense is allowed to use their money to contract out security at their military bases in the United States to local and State governments. Sec. 1012: Limitation on Issuance of Hazmat Licenses The Attorney General will complete background checks at the request of the States on people applying for a license to transport hazardous material Sec. 1016: Critical Infrastructure Protection Creates the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) Hearings House Session - October 23, 2001 Sound Clip Transcripts 1:26:29 Rep. Bobby Scott: First of all, I think it's appropriate to comment on the process by which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported and deliberated on in the Judiciary Committee. It came to us late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the bill to see what's in it since we've been out of our offices. The report has just come to us. And it would be helpful if we'd wait for some period of time so that we can at least review what we're voting on. But I guess that's not gonna stop us. So here we go. 1:27:26 Rep. Bobby Scott: This bill makes three significant changes. One, it reduces s+tandards for getting a foreign intelligence wiretap from one where it is the reason you're getting it, to it is a significant reason for getting the wiretap, much less. Then you wonder, well, if it's not the primary reason, why are you getting the wiretap? Second, it allows the roving wiretap so once you find a target, if he's using cell phones, for example, you can go and find them wherever he is. And third, you can use the information in a criminal investigation and the combination gives you the situation where there's very little standard, and you can essentially conduct a criminal investigation without probable cause. If you have, for example, a target, who is using cell phones, you get the the wiretap, he uses a payphone, you can listen to anybody using the payphone. If he's in a club or organization, in a business, you can go on you tap the phones there, if he's visiting the democratic national headquarters, maybe you can tap all the phones there. 1:29:47 Rep. Bobby Scott: There are provisions that allow attention under certain circumstances that may be indefinite, we expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches and so called sneak and peek where you don't tell people they're even being investigated. And you can start targeting domestic organizations, designated domestic groups, as terrorist groups and you can start getting the CIA into designating these groups as targets for criminal investigations. There's a lot in this bill that we have not appropriately considered. And that's why we need more time to think of it because it goes way past terrorism. This is the way you're going to be conducting criminal investigations and therefore the bill ought to be defeated. 1:39:09 Rep. Spencer Bachus: You know, we may not have understood and appreciated the word “terrorism” and what terrorists were before September 11. We certainly do today. We know who they are. We know what they're capable of. We may not have appreciated the need for this legislation before September 11, but surely today, we appreciate the need for this legislation and the urgency of such legislation. 1:44:04 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: I'm concerned that the legislation still permits the Attorney General indefinitely to incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion and to deny readmission to the United States of such non-citizens. I'm also concerned that the AG and the Secretary of State have the power to designate domestic terrorists. You might simply be paying dues and be declared part of a terrorist organization. It has widespread investigation of Americans just on the basis of intelligence purposes. It allows searches of highly personal financial records, and allows student records to be searched. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, let us show America's character and bring forth a bill that all of us will find a good balance. We'll review this bill but I hope that we'll vote on a good bill and provide the leadership that we need to lead. 1:46:41 Rep. Marge Roukema: I would like to say to some of the naysayers that complain about the provisions, the question as to whether or not they deny due process or whatever. The question has been asked, Are we endangering the rights and privacy of innocent Americans? The answer is no. But it does give our law enforcement officials the requirements that they need for their careful investigation. It gives our regulators and law enforcement officials what they need to get the job done. 1:52:25 Rep. Zoe Lofgren: I would also like to note, however, that there's been a lot of loose language among people who oppose this bill, and people are perfectly free to disagree with it, but it's important that we not be incorrect about what's actually in the bill. I actually heard someone say that the bill would provide for indefinite incarceration on a mere suspicion by the Attorney General, that's simply not the case. The Attorney General may detain persons but he has to certify and he has to have reasonable reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals have involved in terrorism and that decision is reviewable by a court. So that is really the to say it's a mere suspicion and indefinite is certainly not the case. 2:07:48 Rep. Mel Watt: Some groups in our country have had their rights violated, trampled on, by the law enforcement authorities in this country and so we don't have the luxury of being able to just sit back and give authority, more authority, than is warranted, the authority possibly to abuse due process, to law enforcement, even in the context of what we're going through now. This is a very difficult time. I acknowledge that it is. But I think we are giving the government and law enforcement too much authority in this bill. 2:18:15 Rep. Barney Frank: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I'm gonna vote on this bill yet, because I have this notion that in a bill of this weight, I ought to read it. So what I want to talk about now is my deep disappointment at the procedure. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the chair of the committee, has fought hard for a fair chance for the members to look at things. But on the whole, his efforts have not been honored. We now, for the second time, are debating on the floor a bill of very profound significance for the constitutional structure and security of our country and in neither case has any member been allowed to offer a single amendment. At no point in the debate in this very profound set of issues, have we had a procedure whereby the most democratic institution in our government, the House of Representatives, engages in democracy. Who decided that to defend democracy we had to degrade it? Who decided that the very openness and participation and debate and weighing of issues, who decided that was a defect at a time of crisis? This is a chance for us to show the world that democracy is a source of strength, that with our military strength and our determination and our unity of purpose goes to continued respect for the profound way in which our democracy functions. And this bill ironically, this bill which has been given all these high flying acronyms, it's the Patriot bill, it's the USA bill, it's that stand up and sing the Star Spangled Banner bill, has been debated in the most undemocratic way possible. And that's not worthy of this institution. 2:21:13 Rep. John Conyers: The members of the judiciary committee, who had a free and open debate, and then we came to a bill that even though imperfect, was unanimously agreed on. That was removed from us and we're now debating at this hour of the night, with only two copies of the bill that we're being asked to vote on available to the members on this side of the aisle. 2:22:18 Rep. John Conyers: Although I like the the money laundering provisions in the bill, I detest the work product that bears the name of my committee on it that has now been joined with this bill. And for this reason, as we close this debate, my inclination is not to support the bill. 2:23:12 Rep. James Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, this is the latest step in a long process to attempt to pass a bill and send to the president that is vitally needed. It is vitally needed by our law enforcement officials, who are fighting the battle at home. We don't know how this battle will be fought. We don't know what tactics the enemy will take. We don't know what agents the enemy will use. And what we need is we need to get the intelligence necessary to protect the people of the United States of America from whatever the enemy has planned up its sleeve. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

The twenty years since 9/11 have seen the growth of the "Surveillance State," with the proliferation of government surveillance following the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act. On this episode, Debra Perlin is joined by Hasan Ali from Microsoft and Greg Nojeim from the Center for Democracy and Technology to discuss how increased surveillance has changed the way Americans think about privacy. They will also take a step back and ask not if we need more surveillance to deal with rising threats of domestic terrorism and public health crises, but if perhaps we already have too much. ----------------- Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Program at ACS Guest: Hasan Ali, Assistant General Counsel for Cloud and AI Projects at Microsoft Guest: Greg Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Co-Director of the Security and Surveillance Project Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2021.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Only one member of Congress voted against it, Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Join Russ Feingold, the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, for his interview with Congresswoman Lee about what happened behind the scenes in the lead up to the AUMF and what it is like to be a dissenter in Congress. Together, they discuss the legacy of the AUMF and what Congress should do moving forward to implement the lessons learned from giving the executive branch a "blank check" authorization for military force. ----------------- Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Russ Feingold, President of ACS Guest: Congresswoman Barbara Lee of the U.S. House of Representatives Link: Russ's article, "It's Time to Tear Up the Executive Branch's Blank Check" Link: Congresswoman Lee's article, "Ending the Post 9/11 Forever Wars" Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2021.

    20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny: The Rise of the Security-Industrial Complex from 9/11 to COVID-19   By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead September 7, 2021 “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN What a strange and harrowing road we've walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.   Our losses are mounting with every passing day.   What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act  has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.   The citizenry's unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.   Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.   The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.   Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government's war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.   Indeed, since the towers fell on 9/11, the U.S. government has posed a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.     While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations (which too often fall into the hands of terrorists), and foment civil unrest in order to keep the security industrial complex gainfully employed.   The American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.   In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, pandemic lockdowns and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.   Consider that the government's answer to every problem has been moregovernment—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.   Every crisis—manufactured or otherwise—since the nation's early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic.   Viewed in this light, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. Or, to put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.   This is how the emergency state operates, after all, and we should know: after all, we have spent the past 20 years in a state of emergency.   From 9/11 to COVID-19, “we the people” have acted the part of the helpless, gullible victims desperately in need of the government to save us from whatever danger threatens. In turn, the government has been all too accommodating and eager while also expanding its power and authority in the so-called name of national security.   This is a government that has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).   What this really amounts to is a war on the American people, fought on American soil, funded with taxpayer dollars, and waged with a single-minded determination to use national crises, manufactured or otherwise, in order to transform the American homeland into a battlefield.   Indeed, the government's (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before. According to the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression.”   Clearly, this is not a government that is a friend to freedom.   Rather, this is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold and traded.   This is a government that spies on and treats its people as if they have no right to privacy, especially in their own homes while the freedom to be human is being erased.   This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public's biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors. Incredibly, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon's research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.   This is a government that routinely engages in taxation without representation, whose elected officials lobby for our votes only to ignore us once elected.   This is a government comprised of petty bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, and faceless technicians.   This is a government that railroads taxpayers into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.   This is a government—a warring empire—that forces its taxpayers to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military industrial complex.   This is a government that subjects its people to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.   This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry's movements, record their conversations, and catalogue their transactions.   This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.   This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights, and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government's plans for this country.   This is a government that uses free speech zones, roving bubble zones and trespass laws to silence, censor and marginalize Americans and restrict their First Amendment right to speak truth to power.   This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely based on the say-so of the government.   This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.   This is a government that, in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country, has allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a standing army by way of programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police.   This is a government that has militarized American's domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; a million hollow-point bullets; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.   This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer's mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.   This is a government that has created a Constitution-free zone within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States, paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people's homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant. Nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within that 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.   This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.   This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it's spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation's sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.   This is a government that has empowered police departments to make a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, and red light cameras.   This is a government whose gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.   This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.   This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.   This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.   This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.   This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.   This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises and national emergencies.   This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country's most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world's largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.   This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.   This is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, eviscerating individual freedoms so that its own powers can be expanded.   This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.

Executive producer Robyn Thirkill Instagram:@Flossies_Farmstead LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robyn-thirkill-701689212/ Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD235: The Safe Haven of Sanctions Evaders CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump CD224: Social Media Censorship Domestic Terrorism Policy and Strategy U.S. Department of Homeland Security. August 13, 2021. “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin”. U.S. National Security Council. June 2021. National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. The White House. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. May 11, 2021. “DHS Creates New Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships and Additional Efforts to Comprehensively Combat Domestic Violent Extremism”. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. September 19, 2019. "Fusion Centers." "John D. Cohen: Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security." No date. U.S. House of Representatives Document Repository. John Cohen LinkedIn profile U.S. Department of Defense Security Cooperation Agency. No date. "Humanitarian Assistance". Perspectives on the "Domestic War on Terror" Branko Marcetic. July 28, 2021. “The FBI's Domestic 'War on Terror' Is an Authoritarian Power Grab.” Jacobin. Ken Bensinger and Jessica Garrison. July 20, 2021. "Watching the Watchmen." BuzzFeed News. Harsha Panduranga. June 21, 2021. “Why Biden's Strategy for Preventing Domestic Terrorism Could Do More Harm Than Good.” Los Angeles Times. Glenn Greenwald. June 2, 2021. “The New Domestic War on Terror Has Already Begun -- Even Without the New Laws Biden Wants.” Glenn Greenwald Substack. Faiza Patel. February 16, 2021. "We Don't Need More Terrorism Laws After the Capitol Riot. Just Look At Our 9/11 Mistakes." Brennan Center for Justice. January 6 Capitol Riot Aftermath Natalia Gurevich. August 24, 2021. “After Jan. 6 attack, US Capitol Police choose San Francisco for new field office.” KCBS Radio. Barbara Sprunt. July 27, 2021. “Here Are The 9 Lawmakers Investigating The Jan. 6 Capitol Attack.” NPR. Glenn Greenwald. July 8, 2021. "The Capitol Police, Armed With $2 Billion in New Funding, Expanding Operations Outside of D.C." Glenn Greenwald Substack. United States Capitol Police. July 6, 2021. “After the Attack: The Future of the U.S. Capitol Police.” Lexi Lonas. June 30, 2021. "Nearly 70 House lawmakers ask leadership to reimburse National Guard for Jan. 6 response.” The Hill. Jacob Pramuk. May 20, 2021. "House passes $1.9 billion Capitol security bill that faces Senate roadblocks." CNBC. Corporate and Government Partnerships Rachael Levy. August 15, 2021. “Homeland Security Considers Outside Firms to Analyze Social Media After Jan. 6 Failure." Anti-Defamation League. July 26, 2021. “PayPal Partners with ADL to Fight Extremism and Protect Marginalized Communities.” Danny O'Brien and Rainey Reitman. December 14, 2020. “Visa and Mastercard are Trying to Dictate What You Can Watch on Pornhub.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. Gillian Friedman. December 10, 2020. “Mastercard and Visa stop allowing their cards to be used on Pornhub.” New York Times. Shannon Souza. October 12, 2020. “Credit and Debit Card Market Share by Network and Issuer.” The Ascent: A Motley Fool Service. New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Christchurch Call. “Anti-Defamation League.” Last edited March 30, 2012. SourceWatch. Valens Global. "Who We Are." Laws H.R. 3237: Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (Capitol Police Funding) Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 May 20 House Vote Breakdown Congressional Budget Office Score Law Outline TITLE I: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Emergency funding appropriated... $600 million for the National Guard $500 million for the "Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid" account TITLE II: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Emergency funding appropriated... $25 million for Refugee and Entrant Assistance for Afghans TITLE III: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Emergency funding appropriated... $11.6 million for the House of Representatives for coronavirus related expenses. $ 8 million for the Senate Sergeant at Arms for coronavirus related expenses $346 thousand for the families of late members of Congress Ronald Wright and Alcee Hastings. CAPITOL POLICE Emergency funding appropriated... $37.5 million for "Salaries" account for January 6 related expenses $3.6 million is for retention bonuses $6.9 million for hazard pay $1.4 million for a wellness program for the Capitol Police officers $33 million for "General Expenses" account for January 6 related expenses At least $5 million must be spent on "reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies" At least $4.8 million for protective details for Congress $2.6 million for physical protection barriers and other civil disturbance unit equipment $2.5 million to the US Marshalls Service for providing counseling to Capitol Police officers. $800,000 for coronavirus expenses $35.4 million for mutual aid and training $9 million for payments to other local law enforcement partners who responded on January 6 Leaves $25 million for Capitol Police training ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL Emergency funding appropriated... $22 million for coronavirus expenses CAPITOL POLICE BUILDINGS, GROUNDS AND SECURITY Emergency funding appropriated to the Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol Police... $300 million to repair January 6th damage $281 million for windows, doors, and enhances physical security $17 million for security cameras GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 310: No Permanent Fencing No funds now or in the future can be used to install "permanent, above ground fencing around the perimeter, or any portion thereof, of the United States Capitol Grounds. TITLE IV: BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE Emergency funding appropriated... $100 million for "humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees" $500 million for the "United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund" GENERAL PROVISIONS Extension and Modification of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program (See episode CD238) TITLE V: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE Emergency funding appropriated... $1.1 million for reimbursements for protecting Joe Biden between his election and inauguration USA PATRIOT Act Sponsor: James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI) Status: Signed into law, 2001 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). August 24, 2021. “FinCEN's 314(a) Fact Sheet.” United States Department of the Treasury. FinCEN. December 2020. “314(b) Fact Sheet.” United States Department of the Treasury. United States Department of the Treasury. February 10, 2011. "Fact Sheet: Overview of Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act" Douglas N. Greenburg, John Roth, and Katherine A. Sawyer. June 2007. “Special Measures Under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act.” Review of Banking and Financial Services Bills S. 1896: Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act Sponsor: Doris Matsui (D-CA) Status: Introduced, May 28, 2021 S. 937: COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act Sponsor: Mazie Hirono (D-HI) Status: Enacted, March 23, 2021 H.Res. 272: Calling for the designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization Sponsor: Lauren Boebert (R-CO) Status: Introduced to the House, March 26, 2021 S. 963: Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act Sponsor: Richard Durbin (D-IL) Status: Sent to the Senate for consideration March 25, 2021 S. 964: Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 Sponsor: Richard Durbin (D-IL) Status: Introduced, March 24, 2021 H.R. 657: District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act Sponsor: Eleanor Norton (D-DC) Status: Introduced, February 1, 2021 S. 130: District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act Sponsor: Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Status: Introduced January 28, 2021 H.R. 350: Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 Sponsor: Brad Schneider (D-IL) Status: Introduced January 19, 2021 H.R. 4192: Confronting the Threat of Domestic Terrorism Act Sponsor: Adam Schiff (D-CA) Status: Died in 116th Congress The Hearings Resources and Authorities Needed to Protect and Secure the Homeland Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs July 27, 2021 Testimony heard from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security 37:00 DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: Domestic terrorism is the most lethal and persistent terrorism related threat to the United States today. That is why we are requesting $131 million to support innovative methods to prevent domestic terrorism, while respecting privacy, civil rights and civil liberties. 2:27:00 Sen. Jon Ossoff (GA): According to DHS, FBI data from 2015 to 2019, 65 Americans were tragically killed in domestic terrorist attacks. And I want to put that in context by referring to CDC homicide data over the same period of 2015 to 2019. 94,636 Americans killed by homicide over that same period. 2:27:15 Sen. Jon Ossoff (GA): What leads you to the conclusion that the level of threat from domestic violent extremists and the level of threat posed by potential domestic terrorists has risen to the extent that it justifies this bureaucratic focus and this budgetary focus you've requested, for example, resources to establish a new dedicated domestic terrorism branch within DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 2:28:00 DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: What we see is an increasing amount of social media traffic that is based on ideologies of hate, and extremism, false narratives, and an increasing connectivity to violence - intention to commit violent acts. And so that is what causes us to conclude that this is the greatest terrorist related threat that we face in our homeland today. 2:28:15 DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: What we seek to do is more effectively disseminate what we learn about those trends - mindful of rights of privacy and civil rights and civil liberties - disseminate that information to our state, local, tribal, territorial partners on the one hand, and importantly, to equip local communities, to empower them to address the threat in their own neighborhoods. Terrorism and Digital Financing: How Technology is Changing the Threat House Committee on Homeland Security: Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism July 22, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Department of Homeland Security officials: Stephanie Dobitsch, Deputy Undersecretary, Office of Intelligence and Analysis Previously served as former Vice President Mike Pence's special adviser for the Middle East and North Africa Jeremy Sheridan, Assistant Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. Secret Service; and John Eisert, Assistant Director, Investigative Programs, Homeland Security Investigations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 3:15 Rep. Elise Slotkin (MI): Some of the online platforms and online tech allow easy access for thousands, if not millions of users to donate money through online campaigns. For example, crowdfunding through PayPal, GoFundMe, and Amazon have become popular ways in recent years for extremist groups to raise money. To put this in context, according to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, from about 2005 to 2015, just about every extremist group they tracked featured a PayPal button on their website. Now, even though PayPal and other payment processing platforms became aware of the issue and began to ban extremists from their flat platforms, which is a great first step, these groups have persevered and maintained a strong online presence. 5:00 Rep. Elise Slotkin (MI): But just as nefarious groups have changed their fundraising tactics after crackdowns by payment processors like PayPal, when law enforcement begins following and cracking down on illicit Bitcoin use, terrorist fundraisers advise supporters to use other cryptocurrencies to avoid detection. This was the case of a pro ISIS website that requested its supporters send money via Monero, another cryptocurrency instead of Bitcoin because of its privacy and safety features. 6:00 Rep. Elise Slotkin (MI): But we know we have an uphill battle. Our subcommittee really stands ready to help the department with what you need. If you need changes to legislation, if you need resources, we want to hear more from you, not less. 56:55 Rep. Tom Malinowski (NJ): I hear the phrase that it enables the democratization of currency. And every time someone says we're democratizing something, it kind of ends the conversation. That's sort of good. I don't really understand what that means in this context. I think it's an abstraction, whereas ransomware attacks are not an abstraction. They're hurting people, every single day. So I'm not sure if I see it. And I think we do need to expand this conversation to ask that fundamental question, whether the challenges that you are facing - that we are asking you to deal with - in protecting us against all of these social ills, are challenges that are necessary, inescapable and inevitable. And I think we have to ask, what is the good? What is the positive social value of this phenomenon that is also creating all of this harm? And you know, I think when you look at the history of how we built modern economies in the United States and around the world, we started three or 400 years ago with multiple currencies that were unregulated and not controlled by governments and in every modern economy, we built what we have today when government decided no, we're going to have one currency that is issued and regulated by government. And I think I could ask you - we don't have time - how we can better regulate cryptocurrency, but I think if we regulated it, it wouldn't be crypto anymore. And so what would be the point? So I come back to the question, should this be allowed? Thank you. I yield back. Examining the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, Part II Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration March 3, 2021 Hearing on C-SPAN Day II, Part I Hearing on C-SPAN Day II, Part II Testimony was heard from: Robert Salesses, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security at the U.S. Department of Defense Major General William Walker, Commanding General of the DC National Guard Jill Sanborn, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice 06:42 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): But the January 6 attack must mark a turning point. There can be no question that the domestic terrorist threat and concluding violence driven by white supremacy and anti-government groups is the gravest terrorist threat to our homeland security. Moving forward, the FBI, which is tasked with leading our counterterrorism efforts, and the Department of Homeland Security, which ensures that state and local law enforcement understands the threats that American communities face must address this deadly threat with the same focus and resources and analytical rigor that they apply to foreign threats such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. State and Local Responses to Domestic Terrorism: The Attack on the U.S. Capitol and Beyond House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism March 24, 2021 Testimony was heard from: Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Michigan Aaron Ford, Attorney General, Nevada John Chisholm, District Attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 07:19 Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI): The post 9/11 era of security where the threats come from abroad is over. In the 20 years of the post 9/11 era, they came to an end on January 6th, the new reality is that we have to come to terms with is that it's our extremists here at home, seeking to explain internal divisions that pose the greatest threat. Dollars Against Democracy: Domestic Terrorist Financing in the Aftermath of Insurrection House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and Monetary Policy February 25, 2021 Testimony was heard from: Iman Boukadoum, Senior Manager, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Lecia Brooks, Executive Director, Southern Poverty Law Center Daniel Glaser Global Head Jurisdictional Services and Head of Washington, DC Office at K2 Integrity Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Board member at the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Daniel Rogers Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer at Global Disinformation Index Daveed Gertenstein-Ross, CEO of Valens Global 03:28 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, we recast the entire federal government and worked feverishly to defund terrorist streams. To effectively disrupt domestic extremist groups, we need to better understand their financing. 23:11 Daniel Glaser: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about how the US government can employ similar tools and strategies against white nationalists and other domestic terrorist groups as it has employed against global jihadist groups over the past two decades. 27:42 Daniel Glaser: Potential measures in Treasury's toolbox include the issuance of guidance to financial institutions on financial type policies, methodologies and red flags, the establishment of public private partnerships, the use of information sharing authorities, and the use of geographic targeting orders. Taken together these measures will strengthen the ability of financial institutions to identify, report and impede the financial activity of domestic extremist groups and will ensure that the US financial system is a hostile environment for these groups. 30:10 Daniel Rogers: These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy for the term q anon to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popularize the domestic violent extremist threat. Images from that fateful day last month are rife with sweatshirts that say, Camp Auschwitz that until recently were for sale on websites like Teespring and cafe press. As we speak at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, including eight members of the proud boys have used crowdfunding site gifts and go to raise nearly a quarter million dollars in donations. And it's not just about the money. This merchandise acts as a sort of team jersey that helps these groups recruit new members and foment further hatred towards their targets. We analyze the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites, and 225 social media accounts and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms and five different cryptocurrencies, ultimately finding 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms, such as Stripe or Shopify crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payments facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services, such as YouTube, super chats, and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, gab, picshoot and others. The sheer number of companies I just mentioned, is the first clue to the scale and the scope of the problem. 43:25 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Mr. Glaser, you you, though suggested something new that I'd like to give you a maybe 30 seconds, 42 seconds I have left to elaborate on you said you were taught you were hopeful for sanctions like authorities against domestic actors. You did nod to constitutional civil liberties concerns. But give us another 30 seconds on exactly what you mean. And perhaps most importantly, what sort of fourth amendment overlay should accompany such authority? 43:52 Daniel Glaser: Well, thank you, thank you for the question. The fact is, the Treasury Department really does not have a lot of authority to go after purely domestic groups in the way that it goes after global terrorist organizations that simply doesn't have that authority. You could imagine an authority that does allow for the designation of domestic organizations, it would have to take into account that, the constitutional restrictions. When you look when you read the a lot of the court decisions, there's concerns could be addressed in the statute, there's concerns. A lot of the scrutiny is heightened because sanctions are usually accompanied with acid freezes. But you could imagine sanctions that don't involve asset freezes that involve transaction bounds that involve regulatory type of requirements that you see in Section 311 of the Patriot Act. So there's a variety of ways that both the due process standards could be raised from what we see in the global context. 48:21 Rep. French Hill (AZ): On 314 in the Patriot Act, is that a place where we could, in a protected appropriate way make a change that relates to this domestic issue? Or is that, in your view, too challenging? Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: No, I think it's a place where you could definitely make a change. The 314-A process allows an investigator to canvass financial institutions for potential lead information that might otherwise never be uncovered. It's designed to allow disparate pieces of information to be identified, centralized and evaluated. So when law enforcement submits a request to FinCEN, to get information from financial institutions, it has to submit a written certification that each individual or entity about which the information is sought is engaged in or reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist activity or money laundering. I think that in some cases 314-A, may already be usable, but I think it's worth looking at the 314-A process to see if in this particular context, when you're looking at domestic violent extremism, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there are some tweaks that would provide ability to get leads in this manner. 1:15:04 Iman Boukadoum: What we submit is that the material support for terrorism statute, as we know, there are two of them. There's one with an international Nexus that is required. And there's one that allows for investigating material support for terrorism, domestic terrorism, in particular, as defined in the patriot act with underlying statutes that allows for any crimes that take place within the United States that have no international nexus. And we believe that that second piece of material support for terrorism statute has been neglected and can be nicely used with the domestic terrorism definition as laid out in the Patriot Act. And we hope that statutory framework will be used to actually go after violent white nationalists and others. The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions (Part II) House Committee on Oversight and Reform June 15, 2021 Testimony was heard from: General Charles E. Flynn, Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific Lieutenant General Walter E. Piatt, Director of the Army Staff, U.S. Army Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation 2:51:19 Chris Wray: Among the things that we've taken away from this experience are a few. One, as you heard me say in response to an earlier question, we need to develop better human sources, right, because if we can get better human sources, then we can better separate the wheat from the chaff in social media. Two, we need better data analytics. The volume, as you said, the volume of this stuff is, is just massive, and the ability to have the right tools to get through it and sift through it in a way that is, again, separating the wheat from the chaff is key. And then the third point that I would make is we are rapidly having to contend with the issue of encryption. So what I mean by that is, yes, there might be chatter on social media. But then what we have found and this is true in relation to January 6th, in spades, but it was also true over the summer in some of the violence that occurred there. Individuals will switch over to encrypted platforms for the really significant, really revealing communications. And so we've got to figure out a way to get into those communications or we're going to be constantly playing catch up in our effort to separate as I said, the wheat from the chaff on social media. 3:16:54 Chris Wray: As for social media, I think there's, there's it's understandable that there's a lot of confusion on this subject we do not we have very specific policies that Ben at the Department for a long time that govern our ability to use social media and when we have an authorized purpose and proper predication, there's a lot of things we can do on social media. And we do do and we aggressively do but what we can't do, what we can't do on social media is without proper predication, and an authorized purpose, just monitor, just in case on social media. Now, if the policies should be changed to reflect that, that might be one of the important lessons learned coming out of this whole experience. But that's not something that that currently the FBI has the either the authority or certainly the resources frankly, to do. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Did the US government create a surveillance state in its response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Liberal democracies around the world have protections for free speech, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or, more famously, the US First Amendment. Many of the free speech activities that are protected by law, such as the right to organize and protest, have moved onto social media platforms. But, as we have seen, the power of social media to amplify content can have disastrous impacts. Nations looking to reform and enact online protection regulations to address issues of terrorism, human trafficking and hate speech, among others, are experiencing pushback from those who fear they will infringe on civil liberties. In this episode of Big Tech, Taylor Owen speaks with Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Previously, Jaffer served as deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, where he was involved in several monumental cases, including a challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, a lawsuit against the National Security Agency and access to information requests on secret torture and drone programs.

Congress has conducted at least eleven bipartisan hearings to investigate the security failures that permitted a mob of American citizens to riot inside the Capitol Building and successfully disrupt Congress while they certified the 2020 election results on January 6, 2021. In this episode, hear key highlights pulled from over 30 hours of testimony to understand exactly what happened that day. Executive Producer: Forrest Pttman Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Q: Into the Storm, HBO CD226: Lame Duck Bills H.R.1090 - District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act S.964 - Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 H.R.4192 - Confronting the Threat of Domestic Terrorism Act S.2043 - Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act H.R.4187 - Domestic Terrorism Penalties Act of 2019 Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act U.S. Department of the Treasury Articles/Documents Article: 587 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all. by Madison Hall, Skye Gould, Rebecca Harrington, Jacob Shamsian, Azmi Haroun, Taylor Ardrey, and Erin Snodgrass, Insider, July 23, 2021 Article: Tampa man, 20, admits intending to block Congress with Oath Keepers in new Capitol riot guilty plea by The Washington Post, July 20, 2021 Article: Tampa man, 20, admits intending to block Congress with Oath Keepers in new Capitol riot guilty plea by The Washington Post, July 19, 2021 Article: What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6? by The Washington Post, July 19, 2021 Article: “You're Gonna Have a Fucking War”: Mark Milley's Fight to Stop Trump from Striking Iran by Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker, July 15, 2021 Article: To Trump's hard-core supporters, his rallies weren't politics. They were life. by The Washington Post, July 15, 2021 Article: Michael Flynn posts video featuring QAnon slogans By Marshall Cohen, CNN, July 7, 2021 Article: Latest alleged Oath Keeper arrested in Capitol riot turned over body armor and firearm by The Washington Post, July 2, 2021 Article: ‘Zip Tie Guy' and His Mother Plead Not Guilty to New Charges in U.S. Capitol Siege by Aaron Keller, Law & Crime, June 23, 2021 Article: Man charged with bringing molotov cocktails to Capitol on Jan. 6 has Texas militia ties, contacted Ted Cruz's office, court papers allege by The Washington Post, May 24, 2021 Article: Maryland man, indicted for bringing gun to Capitol riot, could face decades in prison by Jordan Fischer, Eric Flack, Stephanie Wilson, WUSA9, May 18, 2021 Article: DC medical examiner confirms causes of death of 4 who died in Jan. 6 Capitol riot By Kelli Dugan, Cox Media Group National Content Desk, 11NEWS, April 7, 2021 Article: The lawyer for the 'QAnon Shaman' wants to use Trump's speech before the insurrection as part of his defense by Jacob Shamsian, Insider, March 1, 2021 Two Members of the Proud Boys Indicted for Conspiracy, Other Charges Related to the Jan. 6 Riots By United States Department of Justice, January 29, 2021 Article: Former Army captain arrested after live-streaming Capitol riot By Kyle Rempfer, AirForceTimes, January 22, 2021 Article: 'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters. By Teri Kanefield and Mark Reichel, The Washington Post, January 11, 2021 Article: Did 5 People Die During Jan. 6 Capitol Riot? by Alex Kasprak, Snopes, January 7, 2021 Article: FBI focuses on whether some Capitol rioters intended to harm lawmakers or take hostages by The Washington Post, January 7, 2021 Article: Trump's supporters think they're being patriotic. And that's the problem. by Christine Adams, The Washington Post, January 7, 2021 Article: Capitol riot: Army vet who tended bar accused by FBI of conspiring in insurrection  by AMSNBS, 2021 Article: All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory by The Washington Post, January 3, 2021 Article: 'I just want to find 11,780 votes': In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor by The Washington Post, January 3, 2021 Article: Capitol riots by The Washington Post, 2021 Article: Another MAGA Rally To Take Place In D.C. On The Day Congress Declares Election Results by Matt Blitz, WAMU 88.5, November 27, 2020 Article: Trump's Election Attack Ends December 14—Whether He Knows It or Not by Lily Hay Newman, Wired, November 27, 2020 Additional Resources U.S.A. v. Mark Grods U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, June 28, 2021 Defense Timeline for January 6th Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack: A Review of the Security, Planning and Response Failures on January 6 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee on Rules and Administration U.S.A. v. Christopher Alberts U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 27, 2021 U.S.A. v. Lonnie Leroy Coffman U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 11, 2021 U.S.A. v. Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Charles Donohue U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 8, 2021 Video: Seeking Information: Pipe Bombs in Washington, D.C. F.B.I., January 5, 2021 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: USCP OVERSIGHT FOLLOWING JANUARY 6 ATTACK, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, June 16, 2021 Watch on C-SPAN Witnesses: Michael Bolton Inspector General of the US Capitol Police Transcript: 36:40 Michael Bolton: To me the biggest failure is that because we have allowed certain elements within the Capitol Police to be autonomous, they conduct their own training, okay? That's the issue. Whereas you if you have a Training Services Bureau and let's call it an office of training that is fully incorporated, they handle all the training they conducted. They make sure you get the training, they hold your officials accountable, your people doing your training, guess what, we're sending a letter to the chief and they can no longer work until they get required or what have you. Hearing: The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions (Part II), House Committee on Oversight and Reform, June 15, 2021 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Lt. General Walter Piatt Director of the Army Staff General Charles Flynn Commanding General of the US Army Pacific Chris Wray FBI Director Transcript: 30:41 Lt. General Walter Piatt: My involvement with our response to this emergency began shortly after entering the Secretary of the Army's office at 2:20pm to provide a report of a suspicious package. While I was there, a panic call came in reporting several explosions in the city. To understand the situation, to indentify, what was needed from the army Secretary McCarthy convened a conference call. During this call DC and Capitol authorities frantically requested urgent and immediate support to the Capitol. We all immediately understood the gravity of the situation. Secretary McCarthy went down the hall to seek approval from the Acting Secretary of Defense. Before departing, she directed me to have the staff prepare a response. I communicated this on the conference call. But those are more and more convinced that I was denying their request, which I did not have the authority to do. Despite clearly stating three times that we are not denying your request, we need to prepare a plan for when the Secretary of the Army gains approval. 1:46:02 General Charles Flynn: There's four things in planning that we could have done. And we should have done. The first one there should have been clearly a lead federal agency designated. The second one is we should have had an integrated security plan. The third one is and much of this has been talked about already is information and intelligence sharing on criminal activities before the sixth of January. And then the fourth one would have been, we should have pre-federalized certain National Guard forces so that they could have immediately been moved to the Capitol and had those authorities in place before this happened. 2:09:30 Rep. Kweisi Mfume (MD): So that's what we are trying to do, keep our republic and to keep it from those who tried to overthrow this government who wanted to kill members of Congress, who wanted to hang Mike Pence. 2:43:37 Rep. Michael Cloud (TX): You mentioned domestic terrorism that this would qualify as that, would the riots that we saw across the cities for nights and nights and weeks and weeks on even months on end, qualify as domestic terrorism as well? Chris Wray: We've been treating both as domestic terrorism and investigating both through our Joint Terrorism Task Force. 2:51:19 Chris Wray: Among the things that we've taken away from this experience are a few. One, as you heard me say in response to an earlier question, we need to develop better human sources, right, because if we can get better human sources, then we can better separate the wheat from the chaff in social media. Two, we need better data analytics. The volume, as you said, the volume of this stuff is, is just massive, and the ability to have the right tools to get through it and sift through it in a way that is, again, separating the wheat from the chaff is key. And then the third point that I would make is we are rapidly having to contend with the issue of encryption. So what I mean by that is, yes, there might be chatter on social media. But then what we have found and this is true in relation to January 6th, in spades, but it was also true over the summer in some of the violence that occurred there. Individuals will switch over to encrypted platforms for the really significant, really revealing communications. And so we've got to figure out a way to get into those communications or we're going to be constantly playing catch up in our effort to separate as I said, the wheat from the chaff on social media. 3:01:00 Chris Wray: We consider the attack on capital on January 6 to be a form of domestic terrorism. 3:16:00 Chris Wray: As for social media, I think there's, there's it's understandable that there's a lot of confusion on this subject we do not we have very specific policies that Ben at the Department for a long time that govern our ability to use social media and when we have an authorized purpose and proper predication, there's a lot of things we can do on social media. And we do do and we aggressively do but what we can't do, what we can't do on social media is without proper predication, and an authorized purpose, just monitor, just in case on social media. Now, if the policies should be changed to reflect that, that might be one of the important lessons learned coming out of this whole experience. But that's not something that that currently the FBI has the either the authority or certainly the resources frankly, to do. 4:06:00 Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Has anyone been charged with inciting an insurrection? Chris Wray: I think I responded to an earlier question. I don't believe that that has been one of the charges us so far. But again, with that many cases, I want to build a little room for the fact that I might not know all the cases. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): So right as of right now, the answer would be no, fair to say? Chris Wray: That's my understanding. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay. Has anybody been charged with sedition to your knowledge? Chris Wray: Same answer. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay. No, again, Has anybody been charged with treason? Chris Wray: I don't believe so. Rep. Pat Fallon (TX): Okay, has anyone been charged with illegal possession of a firearm inside the Capitol? On that day? Chris Wray: I believe there has been at least one instance of someone arrested with a firearm in the Capitol. And there have been a number of arrests of individuals either en route to the Capitol or near the Capitol for the for the siege. 4:11:00 Rep. James Comer (KY): On December 31, Mayor browser requested DC National Guard assistance with the planned protest for January fifth and sixth, correct? Lt. General Walter Piatt: Correct, sir. Rep. James Comer (KY):And was that request for assistant ultimately approved by the Secretary of Army? Lt. General Walter Piatt: It was approved by the Acting Secretary of Defense as well. Rep. James Comer (KY):Were restrictions placed on that authority upon the request of Mayor browser and if so, what were those restrictions? Lt. General Walter Piatt: She had requested that they be unarmed and it did not take a place in any law enforcement activities. Hearing: The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions, Committee on Oversight and Reform, May 12, 2021 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Chris Miller Former Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Contee Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department Transcript: 00:22 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Today the committee will examine one of the darkest days in our nation's history. The January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. On that day, a violent mob incited by shameless lies told by a defeated president launched the worst attack on our republic since the Civil War. 00:42 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): We watched as the temple of our democracy, a building whereas familiar with as our own homes, was overrun by a mob bent on murdering the Vice President and members of Congress. 21:21 Chris Miller: I want to remind you and the American public that during that time, there was irresponsible commentary by the media about a possible military coup or that advisors the president were advocating the declaration of martial law. I was also very cognizant of the fears and concerns about the prior use of the military in June 2020 response to protests in the White House. And just before the electoral college certification 10 former Secretaries of Defense signed an op-ed published in The Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing inappropriately using the military. No such thing was going to occur and my watch, but these concerns and hysteria about them nonetheless factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our armed forces to support civilian law enforcement during the electoral college certification. My obligation to the nation was to prevent a constitutional crisis. Historically, military responses to domestic protests have resulted in violations of American civil rights and even in the case the Kent State protests of the Vietnam War, tragic deaths. In short, I fervently believe the military should not be utilized in such scenarios, other than as a last resort, and only when all other assets had been expended. 26:02 Chris Miller: I stand by every decision I made on January 6th and the following days. I want to emphasize that our nation's armed forces are to be deployed for domestic law enforcement only when all civilian assets are expended and only as the absolute last resort. To use them for domestic law enforcement in any other manner is contrary to the constitution and a threat to the Republic. I ask you this consider what the response in Congress in the media had been if I had unilaterally deployed 1000s of troops into Washington DC that morning against the Express wishes of the Mayor and the Capitol Police who indicated they were prepared. 40:52 Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on January 6th, did President Trump as the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces call you during the January 6 attack to ensure the capital was being secured? Mr. Miller? Chris Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the president to fulfill my constitutional duties. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Did you speak with President Trump at all as the attack was unfolding? Chris Miller: On January 6th? yes. Chris Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to I had all the authority I needed and knew what had to happen. I knew what had to happen. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): Did you speak with Vice President Pence during the attack? Yes or no? Chris Miller: Yes. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY): According to a defense department timeline, it was Vice President Pence and not President Trump, who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure. And to give you the direction to quote, 'clear the Capitol.' What specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day? Chris Miller: Vice President's not in the chain of command, he did not direct me to clear the capital. I discussed very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was being fully mobilized and was in coordination with local and federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol. 1:05:28 Chris Miller: I think I'd like to modify my original assessment. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Why am I not surprised about that? Chris Miller: Based on as Chief Contee said, we are getting more information by the day by the minute about what happened and the highlight some other observations that were made. It's clear now that there were organized... Although we're going to find out through the Department of Justice process in the law, and the legal system, it seems clear that there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault the Capitol that day. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Reclaiming my time, I'm just asking you the same question you've answered before. Did did the President's remarks incite members to march, the people in the crowd to march on the Capitol, or did they not? Chris Miller: Well, he clearly said offered that they should march on the Capitol. So it goes without saying that his statement resulted in that... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): Reclaiming my time. Let me just share with the committee what you have said before. This is your quote. This is your quote. What anyone? Would anybody have marched on the Capitol and tried to overrun the Capitol without the president speech? I think it's pretty much definitive. That would not have happened. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I think now, I would say that this is not the unitary factor at all. What's that? Chris Miller: I would like to offer I have reassessed. It was not the unitary factor at all. There was no...it's seems clear there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In your testimony for today. Reclaiming my time again, for your written testimony for today. For today, this morning, you stated the following about the President's quote, I personally believe his comments encouraged the protesters that day. So this is that this is that there's a very recent reversal of your of your testimony. Chris Miller: Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): You're ridiculous. Chris Miller: Thank you for your, your thoughts. I also want to highlight... Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): No wait a minute, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. 2:06:30 Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI): Has there been any progress made it all on on? Who would have put these bombs there? Robert Contee: No arrests have been made no suspects identified, working without partners on the federal side. There's been surveillance videos that have been released publicly showing that individual placing the pipe bombs, but no arrests have been made at this point. 3:01:05 Rep. Andrew Clyde (GA): Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit. 3:12:18 Sen. Hank Johnson (GA): Were you ordered to delay deployment of troops? Chris Miller: 110% Absolutely not. No, that is not the case. 4:41:42 Chris Miller: If we had a valid request and a necessary requests from your body, I guarantee you that the Department of Defense would have been there in strength as required. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): So when you would acknowledge we lost the battle we lost for the first time since 1814... Chris Miller: Horrifying. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL): And it was everybody else's fault but DoD. Chris Miller: I absolutely disagree with the statement that it was... Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) I'm paraphrasing you the only way that makes sense when you say 'you wouldn't do anything differently, you wouldn't do anything differently.' Okay, that implies what I'm saying that it was everybody else's fault in your mind, because it was a catastrophic failure. Chris Miller: And I just had an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and guarantee that the armed forces were used appropriately, and not in a manner that would be seen as extraconstitutional. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) Look, the Constitution is not a treaty of surrender. It affords you the opportunity to do what's necessary to defend the people in the democracy of the United States. I mean, if looked upon the destruction afterwards, looking back, you say, 'well, at least I defended the Constitution' is another perverse way of looking at this. Nothing was DoDs fault. And at least you did, in your own mind, defend what you thought was right for the Constitution. Never mind how many people got hurt and how much damage was done to our government in the meantime. Chris Miller: I will absolutely take that on and take that as a compliment. Because the armed forces of the United States was completely prepared and ready to respond to any valid request from any department or agency or local or federal law enforcement office. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) You lost and you don't have the Intellectual fortitude to own up to your part of the responsibility. And I get it, a lot of people screwed up, you're one of them. I yield scaled back. Madam Chairman. Chris Miller: I respectfully disagree in that. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL) I was in the room, you weren't. Hearing: State and Local Responses to Domestic Terrorism: The Attack on the U.S. Capitol and Beyond, House Committee on Homeland Security: Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism, March 24, 2021 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Dana Nessel Attorney General, Michigan Aaron Ford Attorney General, Nevada John Chisholm District Attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Transcript: 07:19 Rep. Elissa Slotkin (MI): The post 9/11 era of security where the threats come from abroad is over. In the 20 years of the post 9/11 era, they came to an end on January 6th, the new reality is that we have to come to terms with is that it's our extremists here at home, seeking to explain internal divisions that pose the greatest threat. Hearing: JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration, March 3, 2021 Day 2 (March 3, 2021) Day 2, Part 2 (March 3, 2021) Witnesses: Robert Salesses Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense and Global Security at the U.S. Department of Defense Major General William Walker Commanding General of the DC National Guard Jill Sanborn Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Transcript: 06:42 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): But the January 6 attack must mark a turning point. There can be no question that the domestic terrorist threat and cluding violence driven by white supremacy and anti government groups is the gravest terrorist threat to our homeland security. Moving forward, the FBI, which is tasked with leading our counterterrorism efforts, and the Department of Homeland Security, which ensures that state and local law enforcement understands the threats that American communities face must address this deadly threat with the same focus and resources and analytical rigor that they apply to foreign threats such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. 30:19 Robert Salesses: Over the weekend of January 2nd and third, my staff contacted the Secret Service, the Park Police, the marshal service, the FBI, the Capitol Police to determine if they planned to request DoD assistance. None of these law enforcement agencies indicated a need for DoD or DC National Guard Support. 30:45 Robert Salesses: After consultation with the Department of Justice, the Acting Secretary of Defense approved the DC government request for National Guard personnel to support 30 traffic control points and six metro stations from January 5th to the sixth. The Acting Secretary also authorized a 40 person quick reaction force to be readied at Joint Base Andrews. 31:17 Robert Salesses: On January 5, the Acting Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army received a letter from the mayor of DC, stating MPD is prepared and coordinated with its federal partners, namely the Park Police, the Capitol Police and the Secret Service. Based on these communications with federal and local civilian authorities DoD determined that no additional military support was required on January 5th, and 6th. 32:20 Robert Salesses: At approximately 2:30pm, the Secretary of the Army met with the Acting Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders of the Defense Department. After this meeting, the Acting Secretary of Defense determined that all available forces of the DC National Guard were required to reinforce the DC Metropolitan Police and the US Capitol Police and ordered the full mobilization of the DC National Guard at 3:04pm. 33:08 Robert Salesses: After reviewing the DC National Guard's missions, equipping and responsibilities to be performed at the Capitol Complex and supported the Metropolitan Police and Capitol Police, and conferring with the DC Metropolitan Police at their headquarters, at 4:10pm, the Secretary of the Army received the Acting Secretary of Defense's approval at 4:32 and ordered the DC National Guard forces to depart the armory for the Capitol Complex 49:59 Major General William Walker: The District of Columbia National Guard provides support to the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Park Police, the United States Secret Service, and other federal and district law enforcement agencies in response to planned rallies, marches, protest, and other large scale first amendment activity on a routine basis. The standard component of such support is the stand up of a off site quick reaction for us, an element of guardsmen held in reserve with civil disturbance response equipment, helmets, shields, battons, etc. They are postured to quickly respond to an urgent and immediate need for assistance by civil authorities. The Secretary of the Army's January 5th letter to me withheld that authority for me to employ a quick reaction force. Additionally, the Secretary of the Army's memorandum to me required that a concept of operation be submitted to him before the employment of a quick reaction force. I found that requirement to be unusual, as was the requirement to seek approval to move guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another. 54:50 Major General William Walker: So the memo was unusual in that it required me to seek authorization from the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense, to essentially even protect my guardsmen. So no civil disturbance equipment could be authorized, unless it was came from the Secretary of Defense, now the Secretary of the Army, to his credit, did tell me that I could have force protection equipment with the guardsmen. So we do have helmets. shin guards, vest, we did have that with us. But that came from the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of Defense told me I needed his permission to to escalate to have that kind of protection. 55:50 Major General William Walker: What it says, without my personal authorization, the District of Columbia National Guard has not authorized the following to be issued weapons, ammunition bayonets, batons or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets and body armor. Now, again, to be clear, the Secretary of the Army told me to go ahead and issue that equipment. So we never were going to have weapons or ammunition and we no longer have bayonets. But we do have ballistic protection equipment, helmets body armor, and so I did have that with each guardsmen. 57:02 Major General William Walker: And at that time, Chief Conte and Chief Soon passionately pleaded for District of Columbia National Guard to get to the Capitol with all deliberate speed. So the Army senior leaders did not think that it'd look good. It would be a good optic, they further stated that it could incite the crowd. So their best military advice would be to the Secretary of the Army who could not get on the call. So we wanted the Secretary of the Army to join the call, but he was not available. We were told that he was with the Secretary of Defense and not available. But the Army Senior leadership, expressed to Chief Conte, Chief Sohn, Dr. Mitchell, the deputy mayor and others on the call, that it would not be their best military advice to have uniform guardsmen on the Capitol. 58:26 Sen. Gary Peters (MI): General Walker was the issue of optics ever brought up by army leadership when the DC National Guard was deployed during the summer of 2020. Was that discussed? Major General William Walker: It was never discussed. The week of June it was never discussed July 4, when we were supporting the city was never discussed August 28th when we supported the city. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): Did you think that was unusual? Major General William Walker: I did. 1:00:32 Major General William Walker: So I had them ready to go shortly after the phone call. So I brought, at 1500, I directed that the quick reaction for us that was based at Andrews Air Force Base, leave the base, get to the armory at all deliberate speed. I had a police escort bring them to the armory. They returned to the Armory in about 20 minutes. So we had them sitting there waiting. And then, in anticipation of a green light, a go, we put guardsmen on buses, we brought them inside the armory, so nobody would see them putting on the equipment and getting on the buses, and then we just waited to get the approval. And that's why we were able to get to the Capitol in about 18 minutes. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): What time were they on the buses Ready to go? Do you recall? Major General William Walker: By five o'clock, but at five o'clock, I decided, hey, you know, there's got to be an approval coming. So get on the buses, get the equipment on, get on the buses and just wait. And then a few minutes after that we did get the approval. I was on a secure video conference when the army leadership conveyed to me that the Secretary of Defense had authorized the employment of the National Guard at the Capitol. So my timeline has 1708, 5:08pm is when is when we wrote down that we had approval and read was about eight people in the office with me when I got that. Sen. Gary Peters (MI): How many guardsmen were ready. You said write a video earlier and they have gotten 155. So you could have sent 155 much, much earlier, what would have been the impact of sending those 155 right around that two o'clock timeframe? Major General William Walker: Well, based on my experience with the summer and I have 19 years, I have 39 years in the National Guard, and I was in the Florida guard Hurricane Andrew I've been involved in civil disturbances. So I believe that number could have made a difference. We could have helped extend the perimeter and help push back the crowd. 1:13:49 Robert Salesses: The only decision makers on the sixth of January were the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy. There was a chain of command from the Secretary of Defense, to Secretary McCarthy to General Walker. That was the chain of command. 1:15:39 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): This morning, you have testified that you received this letter from our secretary McCarthy on January 5, so just the day before the attack on the Capitol. In that letter, did Secretary McCarthy prohibit you from employing the National Guard's quick reaction force without his authorization? Major General William Walker: So I have the letter in front of me, and his letter does not but it is the Secretary of Defense says that I have to use it as a last resort. But the Secretary of the Army told me and it's, I have the letter that I couldn't not use the quick reaction force. It would it would he with I'll just read it. Yeah, 'I withhold authority to approve employment of the District of Columbia National Guard quick reaction force, and will do so only as a last resort, in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing employment of a civil- of a quick reaction for it. 1:16:05 *Major General William Walker:** Now a quick reaction force normally is a command was tool to go help either a civilian agency, but more typically to help the National Guardsmen who are out there in need, need assistance. 1:16:58 Major General William Walker: Just to be clear, the Secretary of Defense said I could use it as a last resort, right. But the Secretary of the Army says that I could only use it after he gave me permission. And only then after a concept of operation. Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Right, and we talked about the chain of command earlier, so your chain of command is both of these gentlemen. In other words, you you didn't have the authority to deploy that quick reaction force based on either the letter or the earlier memo that went from the Secretary of Defense, Acting Secretary defense to the Secretary of the Army. Is that correct? Major General William Walker: Yes, sir. 1:17:23 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): Yeah, I also thought it was odd and I think you said was unusual and very prescriptive that the January 5th letter required the Secretary of the Army to approve the movement of deployed guardsmen from one traffic control point to another. Did you find that unusual? Major General William Walker: In 19 years I never had that before happened. So on that day, the Metropolitan Police as they would any other day requested that a traffic control point move one block, one block over. No traffic was where they were. So they wanted the traffic control point to move one block. I had to get permission. I told him, I'll get back to you. I contacted Lieutenant General Piatt, who contacted Secretary of the Army, I had to explain where that contractor control point was in relationship to the Capitol. And only then did I get permission to move the three national guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan... Sen. Rob Portman (OH): These are three unarmed National Guardsmen who are helping with traffic control in parts of that Metropolitan Police can do other things. And they were not permitted to move a block away without getting permission from the Secretary of the Army. Is that true? Major General William Walker: That's correct. Yeah. 1:18:52 Sen. Rob Portman (OH): That January 4th memorandum from Acting Secretary Miller to the Army Secretary required the personal approval of the Secretary of Defense for the National Guard to be issued riot gear. Is that correct? Major General William Walker: That's correct. But but the secretary army told me to go ahead and put it into vehicles. So I give him credit for that. 1:19:08 Major General William Walker: Normally for a safety and force protection matter, a commander would would be able to authorize his guardsmen to protect themselves with helmet and protective equipment. 1:25:57 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): General Walker if the restrictions on your authorities hadn't been put in place by DoD, what would you have done when Chief Sund called you at 1:49 on January 6, with an urgent request for National Guards assistance? Major General William Walker: I would have immediately pulled all the guardsmen that were supporting the Metropolitan Police Department. They had the gear in the vehicles, I would have had them assemble in the armory, and then get on buses and go straight to the armory and report to the most ranking Capitol Police Officer they saw and take direction. And just let me add this, so one of my Lieutenant Colonel's on his own initiative, went to the Capitol, anticipating that we were going to be called, so he would have been there and he met with Deputy Chief Carroll of the Metropolitan Police Department who asked them, where is the National Guard? How come they're not here? And this Colonel said, Well, I'm sure they're coming. And I'm here to scout out where they're going to be when they get here. So that was the plan. I would have sent them there immediately. As soon as I hung up, my next call would have been to my subordinate commanders, get every single guardsman in this building, and everybody that's helping the Metropolitan Police. We mission them to the Capitol without delay. 1:32:11 Robert Salesses: That's when the Secretary of Defense made the decision at 4:32. As general Walker has pointed out, because I've seen all the timelines, he was not told that till 5:08 that's what Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): How's that possible? Mr. Salesses, do you think that the decision in the moment we were in was made at 4:32 and the person that had to be told, wasn't told for more than half an hour after the decision was made? Robert Salesses: Senator, I think that's that's an issue. 1:37:13 Sen. Maggie Hassann (NH): Looking back now, what might have made a difference in being able to move against some of those individuals sooner? Jill Sanborn: Yeah, I think that's great question. I think it's twofold. So it's the complexity of trying to gather the right intelligence that helps us predict indicators and warnings. And I spoke earlier about while there's a volume out there of rhetoric, trying to figure out that intent is very challenging for us in the intel community because it happens on private comms and encryption. So that's one aspect. And then the other aspect is of the people that we were investigating. So predicated investigations, we don't necessarily have the ability to mitigate the threat they might pose by travel if we don't have a charge. And so I think you're tracking that we were aware of some of our subjects that intended to come here. We took over action by going and talking them and trying to get them to not come and that worked in the majority of our already predicated cases. 1:49:46 To review the timeline at 1:49 Chief Sund contacted you. At 2:15 the capital was breached. I think in your testimony you said you had available 340 DC National Guard troops Is that correct? Major General William Walker: Sir, it was actually half of that. So, so half were on the streets helping the Metropolitan Police Department. The other half would have came in to relieve them, but we would have called them in to come in. 1:50:33 Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): How quickly could have you gotten? How many people to the Capitol? Major General William Walker: 20 minutes? Sen. Ron Johnson (WI): How many people? Major General William Walker: 150 1:56:47 Jill Sanborn: We're seeing people that got caught up in the moment got caught up in the sort of the energy etc. and made their way into the captain on those are probably the ones that you're seeing the charges simply of trespassing and then we're definitely seeing that portion that you're pointing out which is small groups and cells now being charged with conspiracy that coalesced either on site or even days or weeks prior and had sort of an intent that day and they to probably caught people up in the energy. PART 2 23:00 Jill Sanborn: The piece of information we received, again, was a non attributable posting to a message board. And so very raw, very unvetted, we actually didn't receive that information until late, very late in the afternoon on the fifth and almost into the evening. And because of our emphasis on we need any intelligence, even though it was raw and attributed, and unvetted, the Norfolk office quickly wrote that up specifically in a document following our processes to disseminate that. So a situation information report is for the intentional purpose of sharing that with state and local partners. Not only did they write that up, because they knew how important that was to get that information out into the hands of folks that might need it, our state and local partners, within 40 minutes, they sent an email to the Washington field office with that information and Washington Field Office also then followed up with an email to all Task Force officers. And so several different mechanisms were happened here. And you know, we'd like to use the phrase 'belt and suspenders' we didn't want to make sure that one method of communication failed. So we wrote it up in the document for dissemination. We sent it in an email to all taskforce officers in the National Capitol Region, and that does include Washington Metro as well as Capitol. But again, not wanting to rely on those two mechanisms only it was then briefed verbally in a command post and interagency command post that we were doing briefings every couple of hours, though, that every agency in that command post have what we call a common operating picture. Knowing what all of us knew at any given time, it was briefed at 8pm on the evening of the fifth, and then taking it one step further, because we didn't want to limit our aperture to just the National Capital Region, because there's collection opportunity out there for all state and local partners and federal partners to help us, we loaded that suspicious information report into what we call the Leap Portal. And that is accessible by all state and local partners. So we really tried in various ways to make sure that we did not rely on one communication mechanism and really tried to rely on several so that the information would get to the right people. 34:46 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): We can talk all we want about January sixth, but really it's the decision making leading up to that. Someone made a bad judgment call and we need to be better prepared. If we're gonna fix this in the future, it isn't about calling the National Guard out quicker. It's about having 1000 people standing there before the riot happens to the riot doesn't happen. Hearing: U.S. Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms, Security Failures on January 6, House Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, February 25, 2021 Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Timothy Blodgett Acting Sergeant at Arms; U.S. House of Representatives Yogananda D. Pittman, Acting Chief of Police, U.S. Capitol Police. Transcript: 09:11 ** Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (CA):** The United States Capitol Police Force is not meant to be an army, expecting 1600 officers to hold back an unruly mob of eight to 10,000 people, many of whom were armed and had their own homemade explosive devices or had came with or weaponized, everyday items. It's not a position we should ever have to be in. 20:51 Yogananda D. Pittman: There's evidence that some of those who stormed the Capitol were organized. But there's also evidence that a large number were everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality because they were angry and desperate. It is the conduct of this latter group that the department was not prepared for. Hearing: Dollars Against Democracy: Domestic Terrorist Financing in the Aftermath of Insurrection, Committee on Financial Services, February 25, 2021 Watch on YouTube Witnesses Iman Boukadoum Senior Manager, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Lecia Brooks Executive Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Daniel Glaser Global Head Jurisdictional Services and Head of Washington, DC Office at K2 Integrity Senior Advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies Board member at the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Daniel Rogers Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer at Global Disinformation Index Daveed Gertenstein-Ross CEO of Valens Global Transcript: 03:28 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, we recast the entire federal government and worked feverishly to defund terrorist streams. To effectively disrupt domestic extremist groups, we need to better understand their financing. 03:54 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Unlike ISIS, for example, these organizations are not pyramid shaped where funding comes from a handful of easily disruptable areas. An online fundraising drive for a legitimate charity, and one that helps support an extremist group can look very similar. 04:57 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): We need to conscientiously be mindful of the civil liberties concerns at play here. Unlike international extremist groups, law enforcement is constrained by the Constitution when dealing with domestic extremists, balancing the desire to give law enforcement the tools necessary to disrupt these groups with the need to respect the rights of all Americans and the Constitution to which we have all pledged an oath is essential. 05:36 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): While we all live through a brutal event on January 6th, undertaken by right wing extremists, no location on the political spectrum has a monopoly on extremism or violence. 10:08 Rep. Maxine Waters (CA): We're here against the backdrop of the January 6th insurrection. A deplorable yet predictable display of white supremacists such as the Proud Boys, the oathkeepers QAnon and others and nationalist violence incited by President Trump against the members of this body and against democracy itself. 12:51 Iman Boukadoum: Last month violent insurrection heavily fueled by white supremacy and white nationalism shocked the world. 13:52 Iman Boukadoum: We know, however, that even well intentioned national security laws are invariably weaponized against black, brown and Muslim communities. And that white nationalist violence is not prioritized making that policy failure the fundamental reason for what transpired on January 6th, not lack of legal authority. For this reason we oppose any legislation that would create new charges for domestic terrorism or any enhanced or additional criminal penalties. The federal government, including the Treasury Department, has many tools at its disposal to investigate. And also the FBI and DOJ have 50 statutes, at least 50 statutes and over a dozen criminal statutes, 50 terrorism related statutes, excuse me and over a dozen criminal statutes that they can use. They just need to use them to target white nationalist violence. 19:33 Lecia Brooks: Today, some white nationalist groups and personalities are raising funds through the distribution of propaganda itself. In November SPLC researchers reported that dozens of extremist groups were earning 1000s of dollars per month on a popular live streaming platform called D-Live. 20:21 Lecia Brooks: Crowdfunding is also being exploited by hate groups to earn money in this new decentralized landscape. Crowdfunding sites played a critical role in the capital insurrection, providing monetary support that allowed people to travel to Washington DC. They've also played a crucial role in raising hundreds of 1000s of dollars in legal fees for extremists. 20:43 Lecia Brooks: The violent insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6 should serve as a wake up call for Congress, the Biden administration, Internet companies, law enforcement and public officials at every level. 23:11 Daniel Glaser: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about how the US government can employ similar tools and strategies against white nationalists and other domestic terrorist groups as it has employed against global jihadist groups over the past two decades. 23:33 Daniel Glaser: During my time at the Treasury Department, I fought to cut off funding to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and Hezbollah, as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bush Administration, and eventually as the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing in the Obama Administration. My primary responsibility was to lead the design and implementation of strategies to attack the financial networks of these groups and other threats to our country's national security. And while we should never let down our guard with respect to those still potent terrorist organizations, it has become tragically clear that there are domestic extremist groups that in some ways present an even greater threat to our ideals and our democracy. We have the responsibility to target those groups with the same determination, creativity and sense of purpose that we displayed in the years following 9/11. 27:42 Daniel Glaser: Potential measures in Treasury's toolbox include the issuance of guidance to financial institutions on financial type policies, methodologies and red flags, the establishment of public private partnerships the use of information sharing authorities and the use of geographic targeting orders. Taken together these measures will strengthen the ability of financial institutions to identify, report and impede the financial activity of domestic extremist groups and will ensure that the US financial system is a hostile environment for these groups. 30:10 Daniel Rogers: These groups leverage the Internet as a primary means of disseminating their toxic ideologies and soliciting funds. One only needs to search Amazon or Etsy for the term q anon to uncover shirts, hats, mugs, books and other paraphernalia that both monetize and further popular popularized the domestic violent extremist threat. Images from that fateful day last month are rife with sweatshirts that say, Camp outfits that until recently were for sale on websites like Teespring and cafe press. As we speak at least 24 individuals indicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, including eight members of the proud boys have used crowdfunding site gifts and go to raise nearly a quarter million dollars in donations. And it's not just about the money. This merchandise acts as a sort of team jersey that helps these groups recruit new members and form further hatred towards their targets. We analyze the digital footprints of 73 groups across 60 websites, and 225 social media accounts and their use of 54 different online fundraising mechanisms, including 47 payment platforms and five different cryptocurrencies, ultimately finding 191 instances of hate groups using online fundraising services to support their activities. The funding mechanisms including included both primary platforms like Amazon, intermediary platforms, such as Stripe or Shopify crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe, payments facilitators like PayPal, monetized content streaming services, such as YouTube, super chats, and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. All of these payment mechanisms were linked to websites or social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, telegram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, gab, picshoot and others. The sheer number of companies I just mentioned, is the first clue to the scale and the scope of the problem. 31:40 Daniel Rogers: We also found that a large fraction of the groups we studied have a tax exempt status with the IRS, a full 100% of anti muslim groups. 75% of anti-immigrant groups, and 70% of anti LGBTQ groups have 501-C-3 or 501-C-4 status. Over 1/3 of the militia groups that we identified, including the oathkeepers, whose leadership was recently indicted on charges related to January 6, have tax exempt status. This status gives them access to a whole spectrum of charity fundraising tools, from Facebook donations to amazon smile, to the point where most of the most common fundraising platform we identified across all of our data was Charity Navigator. 32:30 Daniel Glaser: I think it's important to remember that if you want to be able to use a cryptocurrency in the real economy, to any scale, it at some point doesn't need to be converted into actual fiat currency into dollars. That's the place where the Treasury Department does regulate cryptocurrencies. 42:10 Daniel Glaser: Cryptocurrency exchanges are regarded as money service businesses. They have full customer due diligence requirements. They have full money laundering program requirements, they have reporting requirements. The US Treasury Department just last month, issued a proposed rule relating to unhosted wallets of cryptocurrencies. And that's out for notice and comment. Right now. It addresses the particular issue of, of wallets that are not hosted on a particular exchange. And I think it's an important rule that's out there and I do encourage people to take a look at it, the comment period closes in May, and then hopefully, Treasury will be able to take regulatory action to close that particular vulnerability. 42:46 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Mr. Glaser, you you, though suggested something new that I'd like to give you a maybe 30 seconds, 42 seconds I have left to elaborate on you said you were taught you were hopeful for sanctions like authorities against domestic actors. You did not to constitutional civil liberties concerns. But give us another 30 seconds on exactly what you mean. And perhaps most importantly, what sort of fourth amendment overlay should accompany such authority? Daniel Glaser: Well, thank you, thank you for the question. The fact is, the Treasury Department really does not have a lot of authority to go after purely domestic groups in the way that it goes after global terrorist organizations that simply doesn't have that authority. You could imagine an authority that does allow for the designation of domestic organizations, it would have to take into account that, the constitutional restrictions. When you look when you read the a lot of the court decisions, there's concerns could be addressed in the statute, there's concerns. A lot of the scrutiny is heightened because sanctions are usually accompanied with acid freezes. But you could imagine sanctions that don't involve asset freezes that involve transaction bounds that involve regulatory type of requirements that you see in Section 311 of the Patriot Act. So there's a variety of ways that both the due process standards could be raised from what we see in the global context. 44:37 Daniel Rogers: The days leading up to the insurrection, the oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes appeared on a podcast and solicited charitable donations to the oathkeepers Educational Fund. It can only be presumed that these funds which listeners were notably able to deduct from their federal taxes, went to transporting and lodging members of the group slated to participate in the ensuing riots. 46:06 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: In looking at the draft legislation that the majority noticed with this hearing, one bill stuck out to me and I think it's a good follow up for your from your most recent exchange. It seeks to amend title 31 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to allow designated employees of financial institutions to access classified information related to terrorism, sedition, and insurrection. Now, over the past three congresses, we've talked about the concept of a fusion center, not unlike we do in monitoring cyber risk and cyber crimes for this terror finance arena. We've never been able to come ashore on it legislatively. So I found that interesting. However, I'm concerned that when you deputize bank employees without any oversight, as to how the information would be protected or if there's really even a need for that. 46:53 Rep. French Hill (AZ): Could you describe how banks share information with law enforcement today and how they provide feedback on how we might change these protocols or if they're if that protocol change is necessary. Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: Thank you ranking member, there are four primary ways that banks share information now. The first is suspicious activity reports or the SAR. Financial institutions have to file these documents with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or FinCEN. When there's a suspected case of money laundering or fraud, the star is designed to monitor activity and finance related industries that are out of the ordinary are a precursor to illegal activity, or can threaten public safety. Second, there's law enforcement's 314 a power under the Patriot Act, in which obtains potential lead information from financial institutions via fincen. Third, law enforcement can use its subpoena power, if a court issues a subpoena pursuant to an investigation, or to an administrative proceeding and forth where there are blocked assets pursuant to OFAC authorities, sanctions or otherwise, banks are required to report block assets back to OFAC. The information sharing in my view is currently quite effective. Treasury in particular has a very strong relationship with the US financial institutions. 48:24 Rep. French Hill (AZ): On 314 in the Patriot Act, is that a place where we could, in a protected appropriate way make a change that relates to this domestic issue? Or is that, in your view, too challenging? Daveed Gertenstein-Ross: No, I think it's a place where you could definitely make a change. The 314-A process allows an investigator to canvass financial institutions for potential lead information that might otherwise never be uncovered. It's designed to allow disparate pieces of information to be identified, centralized and evaluated. So when law enforcement submits a request to Finicen, to get information from financial institutions, it has to submit a written certification that each individual or entity about which the information is sought is engaged in or reasonably suspected of engaging in terrorist activity or money laundering. I think that in some cases 314-A, may already be usable, but I think it's worth looking at the 314-A process to see if in this particular context, when you're looking at domestic violent extremism, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, there are some tweaks that would provide ability to get leads in this manner. 1:15:15 Iman Boukadoum: What we submit is that the material support for terrorism statute, as we know, there are two of them. There's one with an international Nexus that is required. And there's one that allows for investigating material support for terrorism, domestic terrorism, in particular, as defined in the patriot act with underlying statutes that allows for any crimes that take place within the United States that have no international nexus. And we believe that that second piece of material support for terrorism statute has been neglected and can be nicely used with the domestic terrorism definition as laid out in the Patriot Act. And we hope that statutory framework will be used to actually go after violent white nationalists and others. 1:50:25 Daniel Rogers: I think there are a number of regulatory fronts that all kind of go to the general problem of disinformation as a whole. And I don't know that we have the time to get into all of them here, but I think they, they certainly fall into three three big categories, with the one most relevant to today's discussion being this idea of platform government and platform liability, that, you know, our data is showing how what a key role, these sorts of platforms play in facilitating the activities of these groups. And the fact that the liability is so nebulous or non existent through things like Section 230 and whatnot, which what we found is that there's there's already policies in place against all of these hate and extremist groups, but they're just simply not enforced. And so updating that kind of platform liability to help drive enforcement I think is one of the key areas that that that we can focus on. Hearing: JANUARY 6 ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Committee on Rules and Administration, February 23, 2021 Day 1 C-SPAN Witnesses Captain Carneysha Mendoza Field Commander of the United States Capitol Police Special Operations Division Robert Contee Acting Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department Paul Irving Former Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives Michael Stenger Former Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate Transcript: 27:11 Captain Carneysha Mendoza: On January 6th, we anticipated an event similar to the million MAGA March that took place on November 14th, where we would likely face groups fighting among one another. 39:21 Robert Contee: MPD is prohibited by federal law from entering the Capitol or its grounds to patrol, make arrests or served warrants without the consent request of the Capitol Police board. 39:32 Robert Contee: The President of the United States not the Mayor of the District of Columbia controls the DC National Guard. 39:57 Robert Contee: Since Mayor Bowser declared a public health emergency last March, the district has not issued permits for any large gatherings. Although the district and MPD take pride in facilitating the exercise of first amendment rights by all groups, regardless of their beliefs. None of the public gatherings on January 5th and sixth were issued permits by the city. 47:13 Steven Sund: The intelligence that we based our planning on indicated that the January six protests were expected to be similar to the previous MAGA rallies in 2020, which drew 10s of 1000s of participants. 55:33 Paul Irving: We began planning for the protests of January 6th in December 2020. The planning relied on what we understood to be credible intelligence provided by various state and federal agencies, including a special event assessment issued by the Capitol Police on January 3rd. The January 3rd assessment forecast at the pros tests were ‘expected to be similar to the previous million MAGA March rallies that had taken place in November and December 2020.' Every Capitol Police daily intelligence report between January 4 and January 6, including on January 6th forecast the chance of civil disobedience or arrest during the protests as remote to improbable. 56:29 Paul Irving: The Chiefs plan took on an all hands on deck approach whereby every available sworn Capitol Police employee with police powers was assigned to work on January 6th. That meant approximately 1200 Capitol Police officers were on site, including civil disturbance units and other tactical teams. I also understood that 125 National Guard troops were on notice to be standing by for a quick response. The Metropolitan Police Department was also on 12 hour shifts, with no officers on day off or leave. And they staged officers just north of the Capitol to provide immediate assistance if required. The plan was brief to multiple law enforcement partners. Based on the intelligence we all believed that the plan met the threat. 1:00:57 Steven Sund: I actually just in the last 24 hours, was informed by the department that they actually had received that report. It was received by what we call, it's one of our sworn members that's assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is a task force with the FBI. They received it the evening of the fifth, reviewed it and then forwarded over to an official at the Intelligence Division over at the US Capitol Police Headquarters. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): And so you hadn't seen it yourself? Steven Sund: No, ma'am. It did not go any further than that. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay. And then was it sent to the House and Senate Sergeant in Arms? I don't believe that went any farther than from over to the sergeant at the intelligence. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): And Mr. Irving. Mr. Stanger, Do you did you get that report beforehand? Mr. Stanger, Did you get the report? Michael Stenger: No. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay, Mr. Irving? Paul Irving: I did not Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN): Okay. 1:05:36 Sen. Klobuchar: Mr. Sund, you stated in your written testimony that you first made a request for the Capitol Police board to declare an emergency and authorized National Guard support on Monday January 4th, and that request was not granted. Steven Sund: That is correct, ma'am. 1:05:47 Sen. Klobuchar: Your testimony makes clear that the current structure of the Capitol Police corps resulted in delays in bringing in assistance from the National Guard. Would you agree with that? That's one of the things we want to look at. Steven Sund: Yes, ma'am. 1:06:02 Sen. Klobuchar: Do you think that changes are needed to make clear that the Capitol Police Chief has the authority to call in the National Guard? Steven Sund: I certainly do. I think in an exigent circumstances, there needs to be a streamlined process for the Capitol Chief of Police for the Capitol Police to have authority. 1:07:23 Sen. Klobuchar: Mr. Sund your written testimony states that you had no authority to request t

Tom welcomes the legendary Dr. Ron Paul to the show. Ron discusses the need to reduce the size and scope of government. People today rely on the government too much, and politicians can't resist taking advantage of this dependence. It's like an addiction, and stopping it is a problem. The plunge protection team has done a miraculous job of propping up the market. But, unfortunately, the dollar will continue to decline, and inflation will result in the prices of everything going up. Ron considers inflation to be the increase in money supply and credit. Inflation in the 1970s was due to the money supply, and they continued to print until Volcker raised rates. Various metrics only see the effects of inflation, not the root causes. The Fed creates inflation. The average person only understands that they don't have enough money. Inflation is a direct theft of wealth and is a hidden form of tax on the public. The Fed will try to control prices with policies, but wage and price controls never work. The problem is not with prices but with the system itself. That is treating the symptoms while completely ignoring the root problems. The Fed needs to be audited, so its lack of transparency can be demonstrated to the world. Ultimately the Fed needs to go because we need accountability. People need to take responsibility and make their own decisions and not rely on the government. Don't give up your rights and responsibilities to authority figures. Everything should be voluntary through consent. But, unfortunately, today, we don't have an actual free-market economy. Dr. Paul expects a panic out of the dollar and an economic collapse. The result will be higher and higher prices and runaway inflation until most things become unaffordable. It will be very bad and chaotic. Everything is fragile today, and nothing is stable. It might be like that apartment complex in Florida where there were major problems with its foundations. Liberty is the solution, and there is a natural tendency for people to choose freedom when given a choice. The ideas of Liberty are alive and well, and we should each encourage and teach others these ideas. Time Stamp References:0:00 - Introduction0:35 - Bad Habits & Gov't8:28 - Defining Inflation12:00 - Fed & Rate Control17:46 - Power & Wokeness19:07 - Auditing The Fed23:16 - Personal Responsibility28:38 - Fed Endgame & Chaos34:44 - U.S. Gold Reserves?37:10 - Confiscation?42:14 - Protecting Wealth44:15 - Fixing The System47:40 - Morality & Sound Money48:37 - Optimism & Liberty55:09 - Concluding Thoughts Talking Points From This Episode The root causes of problems in our society.Defining inflation as an increase in the money supply.Holding the Fed and government to account.Economic Collapse and the necessity of personal responsibility Guest LinksTwitter: https://twitter.com/ronpaulWebsite: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/Website: http:///ronpaulinstitute.org Ron Paul is an American author, physician, and former politician. He was the U.S. Representative for Texas' 14th and 22nd congressional districts. Ron represented the 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977 and from 1979 to 1985 and then represented the 14th congressional district, which included Galveston, from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the United States presidency: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012. Paul is a critic of the federal government's fiscal policies, especially the Federal Reserve and the tax policy, as well as the military-industrial complex and the War on Drugs. Paul has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs. Paul was the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy and has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement. A native of the Pittsburgh suburb of Green Tree, Pennsylvania,

Let's talk about the USA Patriot Act! Sources https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/usa-patriot-act https://quizlet.com/239767074/us-patriot-act-outline-flash-cards/ https://www.csiweb.com/how-we-help/risk-management-services/regulatory-compliance/federal-regulations/usa-patriot-act-regulations/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlRxbs--l80&ab_channel=JohnBohannon --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mortgagelenderdiary/support

On today's episode of the Resistance Library Podcast Dave and Sam discuss the USA PATRIOT Act.    The USA PATRIOT Act provides a textbook example of how the United States federal government expands its power. An emergency happens, legitimate or otherwise. The media, playing its dutiful role as goad for greater government oversight, demands "something must be done." Government power is massively expanded, with little regard for whether or not what is being done is efficacious, to say nothing of the overall impact on our nation's civil liberties.   No goals are posted, because if targets are hit, this would necessitate the ending or scaling back of the program. Instead, the program becomes normalized. There are no questions asked about whether the program is accomplishing what it set out to do. It is now simply a part of American life and there is no going back.   The American public largely accepts the USA PATRIOT Act as a part of civic life as immutable, perhaps even more so than the Bill of Rights. However, this act – passed in the dead of night, with little to no oversight, in a panic after the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor – is not only novel, it is also fundamentally opposed to virtually every principle on which the United States of America was founded. It might not be going anywhere anytime soon, but patriots, liberty lovers and defenders of Constitutional government should nonetheless familiarize themselves with the onerous provisions of this law, which is nothing short of a full-throttle attack on the American republic.   You can read the full article “The USA PATRIOT Act: The Story of an Impulsive Bill that Eviscerated America's Civil Liberties” at Ammo.com.   For $20 off your $200 purchase, go to https://ammo.com/podcast (a special deal for our listeners).   Follow Sam Jacobs on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SamJacobs45   And check out our sponsor, Libertas Bella, for all of your favorite Libertarian shirts at LibertasBella.com.   Helpful Links:  The USA PATRIOT Act: The Story of an Impulsive Bill that Eviscerated America's Civil Liberties The 9/11 Attacks: Understanding Al-Qaeda and the Domestic Fall-Out from America's Secret War The TSA and Security Theater: Understanding American Airport Security Following 9/11 Resistance Library  Sam Jacobs

As encryption and other privacy-enhancing tech is increasingly used, government agencies are seeking new ways to access communications & other data that is also being increasingly generated by new computing devices, apps and websites. Methods currently used include government hacking & vulnerabilities exploitation, and pursuing access through such legal paths as Title III & the USA Patriot Act. • What actually is government hacking & what tools are used? • What are the risks for putting backdoors in encryption that governments around the world are still pursuing? • What is US Title III as it relates to government surveillance? • How are data from CCTVs, license plate readers, phone and smart devices being accessed by government agencies? Tune in to hear Michelle Richardson, Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology's Privacy and Data Project, discuss these & many more related topics with Rebecca. #Privacy #Surveillance #PatriotAct #TitleIII #Government #Hacking

Nem todos os devoradores de almas são nossos inimigos, pois até nossos inimigos supostamente também possuem almas. Alguns psicófagos são o resultado do processo de ter sua alma devorada, deixando-o sem rosto e apenas com um desejo: a Vingança. E esses monstros estão à nossa volta o tempo todo e sendo criados por nós a todo momento. Quem será que somos nós? Duração: 29 minutos Caso você tenha algum relato, comentário ou feedback, mande-o para contato@mitografias.com.br. Este projeto só é possível graças aos Padrinhos Lendários do Mitografias. Ele será lançado nos períodos de férias do Papo Lendário. Porém, com a contribuição dos padrinhos, poderemos melhorar a frequência de produção e lançamento. Caso você goste deste podcast e queira ouvir mais, confira o nosso projeto de financiamento e colabore com o que puder. E caso não possa colaborar financeiramente, ajude divulgando este projeto para mais pessoas. Acesse mitografias.com.br/padrim para mais informações. Esta é uma obra de ficção baseada em relatos que podem ser encontrados online e não pretende ser um compendio de fatos verídicos. A fantasia realmente é aterrorizante, por mais que a realidade possa ser muito pior. Marcações [00:00] Vanguarda [02:45] Vilões [09:15] Valores [15:00] Violência [23:00] Verdade [27:00] Vulto final Livros e Filmes V de Vingança (graphic novel) -  https://www.livrariacultura.com.br/p/livros/hqs/quadrinhos/v-de-vinganca-19018432?id_link=8820 V de Vingança (BluRay) - https://www.livrariacultura.com.br/p/filmes/filmes/acao/aventura/v-de-vinganca-blu-ray-30366706?id_link=8820 Referências https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLIRsP5s4NU http://followingthescript.blogspot.com.br/2007/07/v-de-vingana.html http://www.planocritico.com/critica-v-de-vinganca-2005/ http://procopioo.blogspot.com.br/2014/03/v-de-vinganca-alan-moore-roteiro.html https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lawyer-of-guantanamo-detainee-donald-rumsfeld-should-be-charged-with-conspiracy-to-torture-9988897.html https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/31/theresa-may-inequality-margaret-thatcher-resolution-foundation http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90 http://www.politize.com.br/direitos-humanos-o-que-sao/ http://justificando.com/2014/10/22/direitos-humanos-para-quem-e-por-que/ https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-hotel-cdc-banned-words-lgbt-fetus-science-evidence-a8121311.html

Nem todos os devoradores de almas são nossos inimigos, pois até nossos inimigos supostamente também possuem almas. Alguns psicófagos são o resultado do processo de ter sua alma devorada, deixando-o sem rosto e apenas com um desejo: a Vingança. E esses monstros estão à nossa volta o tempo todo e sendo criados por nós a todo momento. Quem será que somos nós? Duração: 29 minutos Caso você tenha algum relato, comentário ou feedback, mande-o para contato@mitografias.com.br. Este projeto só é possível graças aos Padrinhos Lendários do Mitografias. Ele será lançado nos períodos de férias do Papo Lendário. Porém, com a contribuição dos padrinhos, poderemos melhorar a frequência de produção e lançamento. Caso você goste deste podcast e queira ouvir mais, confira o nosso projeto de financiamento e colabore com o que puder. E caso não possa colaborar financeiramente, ajude divulgando este projeto para mais pessoas. Acesse mitografias.com.br/padrim para mais informações. Esta é uma obra de ficção baseada em relatos que podem ser encontrados online e não pretende ser um compendio de fatos verídicos. A fantasia realmente é aterrorizante, por mais que a realidade possa ser muito pior. Marcações [00:00] Vanguarda [02:45] Vilões [09:15] Valores [15:00] Violência [23:00] Verdade [27:00] Vulto final Livros e Filmes V de Vingança (graphic novel) -  https://www.livrariacultura.com.br/p/livros/hqs/quadrinhos/v-de-vinganca-19018432?id_link=8820 V de Vingança (BluRay) - https://www.livrariacultura.com.br/p/filmes/filmes/acao/aventura/v-de-vinganca-blu-ray-30366706?id_link=8820 Referências https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLIRsP5s4NU http://followingthescript.blogspot.com.br/2007/07/v-de-vingana.html http://www.planocritico.com/critica-v-de-vinganca-2005/ http://procopioo.blogspot.com.br/2014/03/v-de-vinganca-alan-moore-roteiro.html https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/lawyer-of-guantanamo-detainee-donald-rumsfeld-should-be-charged-with-conspiracy-to-torture-9988897.html https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/31/theresa-may-inequality-margaret-thatcher-resolution-foundation http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90 http://www.politize.com.br/direitos-humanos-o-que-sao/ http://justificando.com/2014/10/22/direitos-humanos-para-quem-e-por-que/ https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-hotel-cdc-banned-words-lgbt-fetus-science-evidence-a8121311.html

2018's Meet the Masters event was already packed with great speakers like Jason Hartman, Garrett Sutton, Brian Smith, Danielle DiMartino-Booth, John Burns, and more. Today, Jason Hartman is proud to announce that former Congressman (and America's foremost advocate for libery) Ron Paul will be joining the fold to headline the event. Ron Paul was most recently a Republican candidate for President in 2008 and 2012, and served in the US House of Representatives for Texas for more than 25 years in all. He is a critic of policies like the USA Patriot Act and has criticized the federal governments fiscal policies a multitude of times. He's also outspoken against Federal Reserve, and the US tax code. Website: www.JasonHartman.com/Masters www.CampaignForLiberty.org

2018's Meet the Masters event was already packed with great speakers like Jason Hartman, Garrett Sutton, Brian Smith, Danielle DiMartino-Booth, John Burns, and more. Today, Jason Hartman is proud to announce that former Congressman (and America's foremost advocate for libery) Ron Paul will be joining the fold to headline the event. Ron Paul was most recently a Republican candidate for President in 2008 and 2012, and served in the US House of Representatives for Texas for more than 25 years in all. He is a critic of policies like the USA Patriot Act and has criticized the federal governments fiscal policies a multitude of times. He's also outspoken against Federal Reserve, and the US tax code. Website: www.JasonHartman.com/Masters www.CampaignForLiberty.org

2018's Meet the Masters event was already packed with great speakers like Jason Hartman, Garrett Sutton, Brian Smith, Danielle DiMartino-Booth, John Burns, and more. Today, Jason Hartman is proud to announce that former Congressman (and America's foremost advocate for libery) Ron Paul will be joining the fold to headline the event. Ron Paul was most recently a Republican candidate for President in 2008 and 2012, and served in the US House of Representatives for Texas for more than 25 years in all. He is a critic of policies like the USA Patriot Act and has criticized the federal governments fiscal policies a multitude of times. He's also outspoken against Federal Reserve, and the US tax code. Website: www.JasonHartman.com/Masters www.CampaignForLiberty.org

2018's Meet the Masters event was already packed with great speakers like Jason Hartman, Garrett Sutton, Brian Smith, Danielle DiMartino-Booth, John Burns, and more. Today, Jason Hartman is proud to announce that former Congressman (and America's foremost advocate for liberyt) Ron Paul will be joining the fold to headline the event. Ron Paul was most recently a Republican candidate for President in 2008 and 2012, and served in the US House of Representatives for Texas for more than 25 years in all. He is a critic of policies like the USA Patriot Act and has criticized the federal governments fiscal policies a multitude of times. He's also outspoken against Federal Reserve, and the US tax code. Website: www.JasonHartman.com/Masters www.CampaignForLiberty.org

2018's Meet the Masters event was already packed with great speakers like Jason Hartman, Garrett Sutton, Brian Smith, Danielle DiMartino-Booth, John Burns, and more. Today, Jason Hartman is proud to announce that former Congressman (and America's foremost advocate for liberyt) Ron Paul will be joining the fold to headline the event. Ron Paul was most recently a Republican candidate for President in 2008 and 2012, and served in the US House of Representatives for Texas for more than 25 years in all. He is a critic of policies like the USA Patriot Act and has criticized the federal governments fiscal policies a multitude of times. He's also outspoken against Federal Reserve, and the US tax code. Website: www.JasonHartman.com/Masters www.CampaignForLiberty.org

David centers this episode on analyzing three recent school safety mass media articles to reveal how sensationalized headings fail to match the content of the articles, thus creating a disservice to readers and further eroding public trust in the mainstream media's ability to accurately report safety news. Dr. Perrodin identifies the authors' biases and specifically exposes their attempts to deploy fear narratives to persuade the public toward accepting rhetoric that schools are in a default status of “unsafe” and the antidotes are in the forms of legislation, obscure software or genetically modifying humans to be stress-resistant flesh machines shielded from the horrors of trauma. HEADLINE #1: Representative Massive (R-Ky.) Wants to Repeal Gun-Free School Zones Act by Brian Doherty [reason.com/blog] (January 5, 2017). “Gun-Free School Zones” signs grow in the boulevards of every school in America. Invasive - and impervious to weed wackers! They've been stoutly rooted since 1990. The article states (per quote from Rep. Massie): “Gun-free school zones are ineffective.” Yeah, I agree. Everyone agrees. The bill doesn't deter school shooters, much like a non-smoking sign won't discourage an arsonist. The bill was a paper tiger and it's not like we don't have laws against committing homicide. So yes, by all means, trash the GFSZA! However, Rep. Massie goes on to make a statement that simply isn't true. “They [GFSZA] make people less safe by inviting criminals into target rich, no-risk environments and prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.” Yikes. No, Rep. Massie. Repealing the bill won't be like Gotham welcoming back Batman. Nothing will change except it will be easier to mow the school boulevard. HEADLINE #2: D.C. online watchdog group spots Wisconsin school threat on Twitter by Savanna Tomei [WKOW 27] (January 14, 2017). This is a terrific example of an advertisement pretending to be an article. You'll be amazed at what I uncovered after exploring “The Tactical Institute” website – the self-funded “group” (schools must pay for its services) that, per its website “monitors the entire Web for threats to our clients", including something referred to as “The Dark Web” which apparently is so secretive that is undetectable by search engines. FYI - "Dark" is a persuasion word - it is intended to frighten you. Per its website, TI appears to have a knack for facilitating inter-agency networking – even though, as I clarify, such provisions are already provided to law enforcement agencies via the ‘The USA PATRIOT ACT' (which I talk about). HEADLINE #3: Preventing Mental Illness With a Stress Vaccine by Danielle Elliot [The Atlantic] (November 26, 2016). The headline's claim is absurd and a complete mismatch from the article which unfortunately bends immune system research being conducted, in part, by Dr. Rebecca Brachman. Dr. Brachman was a student at Columbine High School during the infamous 1999 shooting. She has devoted her life toward better understanding stress, the immune system and mental health. The deductions penned by the article's author are beyond sensationalism – they are hurtful to persons suffering from PTSD, such as rescue workers and soldiers, as it is implied that one day a simple vaccine will create an “ideal world” where people would be immune from debilitating trauma-induced mental health conditions. Did I mention that current clinical trials involve 12 mice? OTHER FORMATS: You can also view this podcast on YouTube https://youtu.be/EN8FYPemsiQ or listen on The 405 Media http://the405media.com/the-safety-doc/ FOLLOW ME: On Twitter @SafetyPhD and subscribe to The Safety Doc YouTube channel and the SoundCloud RSS feed. DR. PERRODIN'S SAFETY BLOG: https://crisisprepconsulting.wordpress.com/ SAFETY DOC WEBSITE: www.safetyphd.com I will respond to discussion thread comments or questions & also to emails.

Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are set to expire at midnight on May 31st. Will Congress act to save the surveillance...and will the NSA stop spying on us if they don't?

Hudson Institute hosted Representative Mike Pompeo of Kansas, a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for a conversation on the enduring relevance of the USA PATRIOT Act intelligence programs.

This week we are joined by Dr. Graeme MacQueen, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies, for an in-depth discussion on his important new book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception : The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. Shortly after 9/11, the US was once again gripped by fear as letters containing anthrax were sent through the post to news media offices and two US Senators, killing five and infecting perhaps dozens of others. Initially widely-blamed on Al Qaeda and Iraq, the attacks were used to jusify and accelerate the USA PATRIOT Act. But as evidence grew that the anthrax spores had originated in laboratories embedded in the US military-industrial complex, attention was diverted to looking for the "lone nut"; a quest that ended with a convenient suicide. But what, asks Dr. MacQueen, should we conclude from all the "intelligence" that supposedly pointed towards Al Qaeda and Iraq in the first place? Was it all error? Or was it, as he persuasively argues, a nexus of "faulty" intelligence, "prescient" media reports, "tips", and astonishing "coincidences" that inescapably points towards a group of insiders within the US state appartus itself? And if so, argues Dr. MacQueen, the evidence heavily suggests that this group was also responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks. (For show notes please visit http://themindrenewed.com)