Liberty Blitzkrieg on Social Media Censorship

While the title of the article is Zerohedge’s Twitter Account is Permanently Banished this article by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg is more about why censorship, especially a lifetime ban, is egregious for any social media platform. Today Twitter also suspended conservative journalist James O’Keefe for reporting on some Bernie Sanders campaign supporters.

This post will cover three main issues. First, the fact that Twitter and other social media companies have essentially created a caste system when it comes to engagement on their platforms. Second, the question of whether or not a lifetime ban from social media platforms is an ethical concept. Third, the dangers of Twitter essentially throwing the entire timeline of a banished account into the memory hole.

As the internet and social media started gaining traction, the idea of the “citizen journalist” grew increasingly popular and the public discovered how all sorts of previously unknown people can bring a great deal of hidden information and interesting perspectives to the table. This led to competing narratives on all sorts of topics, and we all basically agreed it’s best to treat people like adults and let them sort things out for themselves. That is, until Hillary Clinton lost an election.

At that point, a certain segment of the population went completely mental and started demanding social media companies fight and censor “fake news.” This anti-liberal perspective, largely promoted by self-proclaimed liberals, deeply affected how social media executives think about and treat platform content in the subsequent years. The result has been that Twitter and other tech giants have effectively created a caste system on their platforms. Though they won’t explicitly admit it, the executives at these companies now seem to believe certain people and organizations should be given priority to shape the national narrative, while others should be diminished. While they tolerate the latter group until they become too influential and disruptive, the former class exists at a level entirely above Twitter’s terms of service. Certain people and organizations are permitted to do whatever they like on the platform, while others are subject to increasingly arbitrary and subjective bans. It’s rapidly becoming an intentionally rigged system designed to reallocate narrative control in a certain direction.

Ask yourself, do you think there’s anything CNN could do to get banned from Twitter for life? I don’t. I genuinely think the news organization CNN can do absolutely anything it wants on or off Twitter and never be considered for a lifetime ban. Why? It’s a protected organization. CNN is above the Twitter law, and as such exists at the very top of the social media caste system. It’s not just CNN of course, there are many individuals and organizations simply not subject to Twitter’s terms of service in the way you or I are. A politician calling for mass government violence abroad (war) is another example. This sort of thing happens regularly without any consequences. Why? Twitter has determined advocating for preemptive government violence is considered reasonable. They’ve determined advocating for one form of violence (war) is fine, but advocating for other kinds of violence is not. Nobody asked for any of this, but here we are.

The next thing I want to discuss is the entire concept of a lifetime ban from a dominant social media company like Twitter. The more I think about it, the more ethically indefensible this practice appears to be. Just as we shouldn’t jail a person for life except under the most extreme circumstances, we shouldn’t be comfortable flippantly banning people forever on large social media platforms. Such action assumes people can’t and don’t change, but Twitter doesn’t seem to be looking at the enforcement of its terms of service from a fundamentally fair or ethical point of view. Executives are increasingly utilizing this most extreme form of punishment, the lifetime ban, at the drop of a hat for minor or misunderstood violations. There are many other ways Twitter could deal with what it deems to be serious violations. You can have three month, six month or even year long bans, but a lifetime banishment is an extreme and indefensible position in almost all cases I’ve observed in recent months.

As such, it’s become clear to me Twitter isn’t using this tool in order to enforce its terms of service, but rather its terms of service exist to provide an excuse to eliminate anyone or any account executives or Brooklyn-based corporate bloggers deem unpalatable…

Click here to read the entire article at Liberty Blitzkrieg.

Seattle Times: Dems Introduce Bill Banning Firearms on Capitol Campus

This Seattle Times story incorrectly states that the protestors were on the Capitol campus for a rally for Rep. Matt Shea, when they were actually there for the Rally 4 Ur Rights, gun rights rally at which Shea was a speaker. Rep. JT Wilcox is the alleged Republican representative who suspended Rep. Matt Shea after a Democrat hit piece was distributed in the guise of a report. Wilcox enjoys a good relationship with house Democrats because he is so compromising and attentive to their wishes.

Washington state Rep. Tana Senn, D-Mercer Island, on Monday introduced a bill  to ban firearms on the Capitol campus after lawmakers and staff were left shaken Friday when more than 100 armed demonstrators showed up to apparently protest the treatment of Rep. Matt Shea.

The protesters, some carrying long guns and tactical gear, did not have a permit to demonstrate on the site. They were there attempting to speak with House Minority Leader J.T. Wilcox, R-Yelm, according to House officials…

Friday’s demonstration is not the first to included armed protesters rallying at the Capitol for Shea — and denouncing Wilcox. The Washington State Patrol began investigating potential online threats made against Wilcox in the run-up to a gun-rights rally last month where Shea spoke.

On Friday, Wilcox was away, but the demonstrators allegedly berated his legislative aide, using profanity.

“Obviously we’re concerned about what happened,” said House Chief Clerk Bernard Dean. “They were here specifically for Shea and they verbally abused Rep. Wilcox’s legislative assistant…”

The appearance of armed demonstrators at the Capitol building and another legislative building used for House hearings upset children and staffers, according to Senn…

He said he doesn’t agree with Senn’s House Bill 2925 to ban firearms at the campus, saying, “We’ve had decades of peaceful Second Amendment rallies” at the Capitol.

 

Amateur Radio Technician License Class, 2/22 & 3/7

An amateur radio technician license exam preparation class will be held in the boardroom of the Benton REA, Prosser building at 402 7th St (entrance at the rear of the building). The class will take two full days to present and will be held on the Saturdays of Feb. 22nd, 2020 and March 7th, 2020 from 8:30 am until 5:00 pm each Saturday. There is no fee for taking the class. While we do not currently plan to hold a test session on the last day of class, there is an exam session being held by the Tri-Cities Amateur Radio Club on March 15th at the Boy Scouts office on 8478 W Gage Blvd, in Kennewick at 1:45 pm.

If you have questions about the class, you can send email to lyvarc@gmail.com.

Colion Noir: Bloomberg Says Ban Guns Holding More than 3 Rounds

Billionaire Tyrant Mike Bloomberg
Billionaire Tyrant Mike Bloomberg

This will come as no surprise to local readers, but presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is a tyrannical idiot. In the video below, vlogger Colion Noir comments on clips from a recent interview given by Bloomberg in which the candidate shows that he knows nothing about 1) the second amendment, 2) the 1994 assault weapons ban, 3) hunting, nor 4) firearms. But he’s super excited to legislate on an issue on which he is clueless. Bloomberg gives a vague definition of assault weapons which he would ban: “if it can fire a lot of bullets very quickly.” When pressed to give a better definition he says if you can’t hit the deer in three shots you’re a lousy shot and you don’t need more.

Forward Observer: An Introduction to the Area Study

The intelligence guys at Forward Observer have an introduction to the area study posted. Having knowledge of your area is critical in any emergency situation. Being familiar with your area is more than just knowing a few streets along your normal routes. If you’re worried about a pandemic, some questions you may have might include: how many doctors are in my area; where are all of the medical facilities near my home/work; who will enforce a mandatory quarantine in my area; does my work/city/county have a pandemic response/preparedness plan;can you continue to work if you are quarantined to your home? If you wanted to be ready for political civil unrest, you may have an entirely different set of questions for your area study.

Chances are good that you and I have a lot in common.

We’re both concerned about the future of this country. Natural disasters, a financial crisis, economic decline, disruption to the power grid, a pandemic, political violence, a full-on Boogaloo… the list goes on and on.

From a risk and intelligence perspective, all of these are very valid concerns.

Americans purchase and acquire a lot of things in order to prepare for these events, but information is often overlooked as a critical component of preparedness.

I’m here right now to convince you of one thing: the absolute need for localized intelligence when any of these events occur.

The stuff you own isn’t going to produce intelligence for you.

No amount of beans, bullets, and band-aids will allow you to collect real-time intelligence during an emergency.

No amount of beans, bullets, and band-aids will reduce your uncertainty about what happens in the future.

No amount of beans, bullets, and band-aids can drive your decision-making during an emergency.

Only intelligence can do that.

Only intelligence can give you a more accurate picture of what’s happening now and a more accurate expectation of what could happen in the future.

And when we have accurate expectations of the future, we can be better prepared.

So what’s the best way to get started with local intelligence?

The Area Study.

During an emergency, we’re going to have blind spots. Another term for blind spot is an “intelligence gap,” or something that we don’t know but need to know. You are going to have lots of intelligence gaps.

One of the best things about doing an Area Study is that we can identify these intelligence gaps before an emergency event happens…

Click here to read the entire article at Forward Observer.

FO: How to Build an Area Study for Emergencies and Community Security

FO: The Area Study: Disaster Intelligence (Part One)

 

ABC Australia: Amateur Radio Skills Prove Useful During Bushfire Emergencies

From ABC Australia, this article details how amateur radio operators have provided communications in areas where the local communication infrastructure has been damaged by fires.

Amateur radio enthusiasts have proved themselves useful during the recent bushfires after traditional telecommunication channels broke down.

Amateur radio, also known as ham radio, is a skill and international hobby whereby enthusiasts use specific radio frequencies to communicate with each other.

In Australia, users must complete an exam to obtain a license through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

It was volunteers with these skills who were called in to assist during the recent New South Wales bushfires.

Neil Fallshaw is vice-president of WICEN NSW Communications, a group of volunteers with amateur radio licenses who can help in emergency situations.

He said about 30 members provided a temporary radio system in the Bega, Cobargo, Narooma, and Bermagui areas after some of the local radio infrastructure was damaged or had lost power.

A man sits at a desk operating a radio
Photo: Neil Fallshaw says radio operators were able to step in when mobile phones went down. (Supplied: Neil Fallshaw)

“We deployed one of our radio repeaters on the mountains. We put a radio repeater system on that mountain to cover a portion of the south coast,” Mr Fallshaw said.

He said that radio system assisted the NSW Volunteer Rescue Association and Bega Valley Shire Council staff to communicate from bushfire-affected towns like Bermagui and Cobargo.

“They normally use just mobile phones, but the mobile phones in the area were down because of fire damage,” Mr Fallshaw said.

Members of WICEN NSW also provided support operating regular radios at fire control centres in towns like Glen Innes, Port Macquarie, and Kempsey.

“They needed people who would be able to operate the radios in a communications environment which can get pretty hectic,” Mr Fallshaw said…

Tony Falla, an amateur radio user in central Victoria, said ham radio skills could be particularly useful when there were significant power outages.

For example, like that on the NSW south coast on New Year’s Eve when mobile coverage, the national broadband network, and the local ABC radio transmitter all dropped out.

“What I think amateur radio people have going for them is their ability to contact people outside the threatened area when there’s no contact inside the threatened area and pass on messages of a health and welfare nature,” Mr Falla said…

Mr Falla believes amateur radio skills could become more useful with the increased likelihood of extreme weather events leading to power outages.

“Amateur radio is considered old fashioned; why would you want a radio when you’ve got the internet?” he said.

“We have proved this year that the situations in place right now aren’t adequate in the extreme.”

Three people on the phone in a call centre.
Photo: WICEN operators also help with answering calls at the RFS headquarters in Sydney. (Supplied: Neil Fallshaw)

Mr Morley said there were some within emergency services in Victoria who were unaware of the skills amateur radio enthusiasts could provide.

“You have a lot of different staff coming in during emergencies, and while some people know what WICEN can do, probably many don’t,” he said.

Mr Gibson said the small size of WICEN NSW limited their ability to assist, but the work they had been doing was excellent.

“Since November 9, the WICEN group has completed 2,900 hours of radio communications, and that was only done by 30 members,” Mr Gibson said.

“WICEN, as a communications network, you won’t get any better.”

EFF: Dangers to Privacy in EARN IT Act

The EARN IT Act introduced by Senator Lindsay Graham purports to be for the prevention of online child exploitation “and other purposes.” It’s those other purposes that we need to watch. The EFF, an organization fighting for your digital civil liberties, writes the article Congress Must Stop the Graham-Blumenthal Anti-Security Bill, expounding upon the many dangers lurking inside this bill.

There’s a new and serious threat to both free speech and security online. Under a draft bill that Bloomberg recently leaked, the Attorney General could unilaterally dictate how online platforms and services must operate. If those companies don’t follow the Attorney General’s rules, they could be on the hook for millions of dollars in civil damages and even state criminal penalties.

The bill, known as the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act, grants sweeping powers to the Executive Branch. It opens the door for the government to require new measures to screen users’ speech and even backdoors to read your private communications—a stated goal of one of the bill’s authors.

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have been quietly circulating a draft version of EARN IT. Congress must forcefully reject this dangerous bill before it is introduced.

EARN IT Is an Attack on Speech

EARN IT undermines Section 230, the most important law protecting free speech online. Section 230 enforces the common-sense principle that if you say something illegal online, you should be the one held responsible, not the website or platform where you said it (with some important exceptions)…

EARN IT is a direct threat to constitutional protections for free speech and expression. To pass constitutional muster, a law that regulates the content of speech must be as narrowly tailored as possible so as not to chill legitimate, lawful speech. Rather than being narrowly tailored, EARN IT is absurdly broad: under EARN IT, the Commission would effectively have the power to change and broaden the law however it saw fit, as long as it could claim that its recommendations somehow aided in the prevention of child exploitation. Those laws could change and expand unpredictably, especially after changes in the presidential administration…

Throughout his term as Attorney General, William Barr has frequently and vocally demanded “lawful access” to encrypted communications, ignoring the bedrock technical consensus that it is impossible to build a backdoor that is only available to law enforcement. Barr is far from the first administration official to make impossible demands of encryption providers: he joins a long history of government officials from both parties demanding that encryption providers compromise their users’ security.

We know how Barr is going to use his power on the “best practices” panel: to break encryption. He’s said, over and over, that he thinks the “best practice” is to always give law enforcement extraordinary access. So it’s easy to predict that Barr would use EARN IT to demand that providers of end-to-end encrypted communication give law enforcement officers a way to access users’ encrypted messages. This could take the form of straight-up mandated backdoors, or subtler but no less dangerous “solutions” such as client-side scanning. These demands would put encryption providers like WhatsApp and Signal in an awful conundrum: either face the possibility of losing everything in a single lawsuit or knowingly undermine their own users’ security, making all of us more vulnerable to criminals…

Weakening Section 230 makes it much more difficult for a startup to compete with the likes of Facebook or Google. Giving platforms a legal requirement to screen or filter users’ posts makes it extremely difficult for a platform without the resources of the big five tech companies to grow its user base (and of course, if a startup can’t grow its user base, it can’t get the investment necessary to compete)…

Click here to read the entire article at EFF

 

Townhall: Democracy and Tyranny

In his essay Democracy and Tyranny, author Walter Williams echoes some of the danger of the popular vote that we discussed in the earlier article on the three dangers to liberty.

During President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial, we’ll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing. One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy. If we’ve become a democracy, it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders, who saw democracy as another form of tyranny. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation’s two most fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our founders held for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Alexander Hamilton agreed, saying: “We are now forming a republican government. (Liberty) is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

John Adams reminded us: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

John Marshall, the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

Thomas Paine said, “A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is.”

The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections. That means heavily populated states can’t run roughshod over small, less-populated states.

Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states, namely California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41% of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7% of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government “of the people.” Instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states. It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared.

It’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress “shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.” When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we’re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn’t be trusted.

The Trumpet: America Has Been ‘Fundamentally Transformed’

The following article from The Trumpet and pastor Gerald Flurry of the Philadelphia Church of God makes the claim that there is deliberate effort being made to move the US away from being a constitutional republic toward being only a mob-rule democracy. The opening of the article is below, but it is quite a bit longer through the link.

America’s government has been embroiled in a shameful impeachment charade for months now. The Democrats are demonstrating that there is virtually no limit to what they are willing to do to attack the president and undermine the last election—and the next one. Meanwhile, revelations continue to emerge about their abuse of the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, even the president himself.

People need to understand what a dangerous threat this is to the very foundation of this nation!

What is happening in the Democratic Party is an extension of and intensification of a process started by the previous president.

When Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally change America” during his 2008 presidential run, few people knew what he really meant. Now that he is out of office, it is becoming clearer all the time that the change he was talking about was something far more dangerous than many people assumed.

He meant changing America from a constitutional republic. And what we are witnessing in the country today shows that, to an alarming degree, he succeeded!

In an address to Democratic donors this past November, Mr. Obama said that if Democrats want to be elected, they need to conceal their radical views. “This is still a country that is less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement,” he said. “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality. The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it” (emphasis mine throughout).

The average American doesn’t think that, but he does, and these donors do! And he wasn’t telling them to abandon that goal—only to be more underhanded about it!

Mr. Obama is contemptuously and openly discussing what he meant by fundamentally transforming America. Now that he is out of office, he tells us what his real goal was and still is—“to completely tear down the system and remake it”!

In the past, such revolutions usually caused millions of people to spill their blood.

If you think my view is unreal, consider this: Never have we seen a more bitterly divided America, and this man who fundamentally transformed America caused much of this division. He almost destroyed America’s constitutional republic. Never have we seen such hatred between American people.

All this ought to terrify every American. Many revolutions end in a civil war filled with suffering and death.

In America’s civil war, neither side will win. Bible prophecy thunders a deadly message that an enemy nation will conquer us. We must wake up and repent for God to save us this time…

Click here to read the entire article at The Trumpet.

WA-GOAL Legislative Update 2020-4

From the Washington Gun Owners Action League:

GOAL Post 2020-4
Legislative Update from Olympia 31 January 2020

ANOTHER 2019 BILL RESURRECTED
PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED
BILLS MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
DIRECT ACCESS FOR BILL COMMENTS
POLICY COMMITTEE CUT-OFF 7 FEBRUARY
WAC SEEKS VOLUNTEERS

SB 5434 (Wilson, C. D-30, bans guns in parks and day cares) was a 2019 bill that didn’t make it through last year. It was pulled up this week and sent straight to Senate Rules for a floor vote.

Public hearings are scheduled on several gun bills next week. Senate Law & Justice will take public testimony on 3 February at 10:00 am on SBs 6289 (Dhingra D-45, restoration of firearm rights) and 6584 (Zeiger R-25, unlawful purchase of a firearm) In House Civil Rights & Judiciary at 10:00 am on 4 February on HBs 2767 (Blake D-19, recreational shooting on public lands) and 2820 (Klippert R-8, firearms forfeiture DV court order). Also on 4 February I n House Public Safety, at 3:30 pm, HBs 2569 (Wylie D-49, pre-trial detention for certain firearm offenses) and HJR 4210

(HJR 4210 is a House and Senate joint resolution that if passed would be put up for a public vote. Sort of a legislative initiative to the people. HJR 4210 authorizes pre-trial detention for any individual found in violation of a firearm while subject to certain court/restraining orders. Is pre-trial detention constitutional? Just like “red flag” protection orders?)

Executive sessions were conducted on several gun bills this week and (several) passed out of committee. See “Bill Status” below. Executive sessions will be held next week on bills 2305, 2622, 2623, 2767, 2820, 6289, 6584.

Keep in mind you can attend executive sessions (sit in the hearing room) but there is no public input allowed. It’s sometimes instructive to listen to the legislators talk about the bills before they vote on them.

You can’t comment in executive session, but you CAN submit comments on-line on bills of interest. See next item.

Can’t make it to Olympia? You can go to the following web site to submit your comments directly for any given bill. Just add the four-digit bill number (four numerals only, not HB or SB) right after …bill/ I can’t promise the comments will be read, but it’s YOUR opportunity to be heard. Be polite, be brief.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/xxxx

Next Friday, 7 February, is the first policy committee cut-off date, the day by which all bills must pass out of their original policy committee (Senate Law & Justice, House Civil Rights & Judiciary or Public Safety for gun bills) or (technically) be considered dead for the session.

The Washington Arms Collectors is seeking volunteers to work the voter registration table at the gun shows in Puyallup and Monroe. If you have the time, please see Jane Milhans or George Kelley at the shows. The 2020 elections, at all levels, are the elections of a lifetime. Please do your part. Think of your grandson sitting on your lap in 20-30 years, asking, “What did you do in the big gun war, Gramps?”

BILL STATUS/GOAL POSITION:

HB 1010 WSP destruction of firearms Senn (D-41) S. L&J OPPOSE
HB 1068 Magazine restrictions Valdez (D-43) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 1315 CPL training requirement Lovick (D-44) H. Rules OPPOSE
HB 1374 Repeals state preemption of gun laws Macri (D-43) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 1671 Confiscation of firearms Dolan (D-22) H. Rules NEUTRAL
HB 2196 Raise standard for issue of a “red flag” order Walsh (R-19) HG. CR&J SUPPORT
HB 2202 Exempts law enforcement from a/w training Klippert (R-8) H.PubSaf OPPOSE
HB 2240 Bans high capacity magazines Valdez (D-43) H. Rules OPPOSE
HB 2241 Bans assault weapons and magazines Peterson (D-21) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2305 Expands firearm prohibition re: protection orders Doglio (D-22) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2467 Centralized firearm background checks Hansen (D-23) H. Aprop NEUTRAL
HB 2519 Ammunition background checks Walen (D-48) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2555 Background checks for “other” firearms Goodman (D-45) H. Rules OPPOSE
HB 2569 Pre-trial detention for certain firearm offenses Wylie (D-49) H. PubSaf OPPOSE
HB 2622 Court order non-compliance, firearm surrender Kilduff (D-28) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2623 Firearm prohibition, certain offenses Walen (D-48) H. CR&J OPPOSE
HB 2767 Recreation shooting areas on public lands Blake (D-19) H. CR&J SUPPORT
HB 2820 Firearms forfeiture/DV court order (correction) Klippert (R-8) H. CR&J NEUTRAL
HJR 4210 Pretrial detention for certain firearm offenses Wylie (D-49) H. Pub Saf OPPOSE

SB 5434 Expands gun free zones to parks and day cares Wilson, C (D-30) S. Rules OPPOSE
SB 6076 Bans assault weapons and hi cap magazines Kuderer (D-48) S. L&J OPPOSE
SB 6077 Bans high capacity magazines Kuderer (D-48) S. Rules OPPOSE
SB 6161 Excise tax on ammunition Dhingra (D-45) S. L&J OPPOSE
SB 6163 Unlawful possession BEFORE conviction Dhingra (D-45) S.Rules OPPOSE
SB 6288 Office of firearm violence prevention Dhingra (D-45) S. W&M OPPOSE
SB 6289 Restoration of firearm rights Dhingra (D-45) S. L&J OPPOSE
SB 6294 CPL training requirement Saloman (D-32) S. Rules OPPOSE
SB 6347 CPL validity seven years with training Wagoner (R-39) S. L&J SUPPORT
SB 6402 Use of a stolen firearm Rivers (R-18) S.Rules SUPPORT
SB 6406 Concerning firearms Wilson, L (R-17) S. Rules SUPPORT
SB 6584 Unlawful purchase of a firearm Zeiger (R-25) S. L&J SUPPORT

HB = House bill, SB = Senate bill. L&J = Law & Justice, CR&J = Civil Rights & Judiciary, PubSaf = Public Safety, HC = Health Care, H. K-12 = House Early education, Aprop = Appropriations, Fin = Finance, W&M = Ways & Means “S” before a bill number indicates Substitute (amended).

PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED:

3 Feb Senate Law & Justice Committee, Senate Hearing Room “1,” JAC Bldg
10:00 am SBs 6289 and 6584

4 Feb House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, House Hearing Room “A,” JLO Bldg
10:00 am HBs 2767 and 2820

4 Feb House Public Safety Committee, House Hearing Room “D,”, JLO Bldg.
3:30 pm HB 2569 and HJR 4210

LEGISLATIVE HOT LINE: You may reach your Representatives and Senator by calling the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000. Toll free!!! The hearing impaired may obtain TDD access at 1-800-635-9993. Also toll free!!!

1-800-562-6000 TDD 1-800-635-9993

OTHER DATA: Copies of pending legislation (bills), legislative schedules and other information are available on the legislature’s web site at “www.leg.wa.gov”. Bills are available in Acrobat (.pdf) format. You may download a free version of Adobe Acrobat Reader from Adobe’s web site (http://www.adobe.com). You may also obtain hard copy bills, initiatives, etc, in the mail from the Legislative Bill Room FREE OF CHARGE by calling 1-360-786-7573. Copies of bills may also be ordered toll free by calling the Legislative Hotline at (800) 562-6000. You may also hear floor and committee hearing action live at http://www.tvw.org/ (you need “RealAudio” to do this, available free at the TVW web site).

By reading the House and Senate “bill reports” (hbr, sbr) for each bill, you can see how individual committee members voted. By reading the “roll call” for each bill, you can see how the entire House or Senate voted on any bill. The beauty of the web site is that ALL this information is available, on line, to any citizen.

Upcoming WAC gun show(s):
Puyallup 01-02 February
Monroe 28-29 March

GOAL Post 2020-4 in pdf for easy printing

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Article 1, Section 24
Constitution of the State of Washington

Redoubt News: Confronting the WA State GOP

An article from Redoubt news on precinct committee member Meg Harrison who dove into the Rampart Report, interviewing witnesses and participants and coming to a much different conclusion than what has been told by the press or within the GOP party.

Confronting the Washington State GOP

An elected precinct Committee-person from Pierce County, Washington has sent a letter to Republicans in Olympia and around the state, questioning why they threw their elected colleague under the bus.

Meg Harrison was shocked when she read the Rampart Report concerning Rep. Matt Shea. She spent the next couple of weeks tracking down and interviewing witnesses and participants, and got a very different version of events than what the House Leadership has shown the public.

The letter questions the leadership more than the investigation, calling them out for “the apparent unscrupulous methods in which our legislature feels entitled to conduct themselves.”

Harrison states that she spent time over the past few weeks easily disproving the Rampart Report through interviews and documents that were readily obtained. She shows disturbing evidence that the leadership of the State GOP accepted, without verification, this “untrue political hit-piece full of libel.”

She continues on in the 6 page letter, “The most prevalent question has been, “If I can so easily find this information, speak to these candid witnesses who were literally at the sites of these three events, find court documents and other material facts – how is it that Rampart Group failed to find any of the same information with their vast resources or even pick up the phone to call any of the ‘actual’ witnesses who were present?”

A very disturbing section of the letter highlights how the Rampart group, headed by Kathy Leodler, were to label political opponents with threat levels for the purpose of allowing the Democrat Party to target and penalize any Conservatives.

The Rampart Group has also been tasked by the House of Representatives (on our dime,by the way) in politically targeting Conservatives in Washington state in what looks like the assemblage of a ‘list of political opponents and assigning citizens a threat level assessment’ in which the Democratic party would be more than capable of targeting and penalizing without due process any Conservative who does not agree with their political ideology.

Redoubt News obtained a copy of the letter, sent today, in which Harrison states that she has seen the “documentation that proves the Rampart Report as such a falsification that I was dumb-founded that anyone would even hold it up in part, or its entirety, as anything even remotely resembling truth.“

Harrison also questions why the membership of the “Executive Rules Committee” was kept secret from the citizenry, yet available to “an Arizona woman of questionable psychological stability.” Apparently this same woman, who is also known for engaging in “extremely dangerous and volatile firearms behavior” has publicly listed the “Executive Rules Committee” to include: Mr. John Lovick, Mr. Pat Sullivan, Mr. Eric Pettigrew, Mr. J.T. Wilcox, Mr. Joel Kretz and Ms. Laurie Jinkins.

She then asks a series of questions which touch on each of the events in question.

Harrison questions why the Rampart group did not even mention the “Wooten Memo“, where this whistleblower outlined atrocities committed by the government, including the “Kill Book” kept by Daniel Love.

She questions why Kathy Leodler and her group did not even try to call Bonner County Idaho Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who was Sheriff at the time of the John Arnold ‘Advocacy Rally’, and is still Sheriff today. (They could have asked him why he attended the event, and how his office classified the rally attendees, and numerous other questions to shed proper light on this event, from a law enforcement perspective.)

Why did they omit the fact that Representative Shea worked with the FBI to negotiate a de-escalation at the Malheur Refuge? Why didn’t they include the recordings from the court cases in their evidence? Could it be because the recordings prove that Rep. Shea was not a party to planning any of the mentioned events?

She also questions “Under what authority does the Republican Party give permission in the House of Representatives to sign a ‘Personal Services Contract” with a private investigation firm [Rampart Group] for work that includes:

“Assess the level of threat of political violence posed by these individuals and groups” i.e. Washington state citizens and Republican Party Constituents.

This was ordered by the House of Representatives without warrant, cause or any due process on behalf of the citizens that they are instructing Rampart Group to investigate and ‘assess.’

The entire letter can be read with the article at Redoubt News.

NRA-ILA: WA House Committee Passes Standard Cap. Mag Ban & CPL Restriction

From the NRA-ILA:

On January 31st, the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee voted to pass bills to ban most standard capacity magazines and make it more difficult to obtain a CPL. These bills will now go to the Rules Committee awaiting being pulled to the House floor. Please contact your state Representative and ask them to OPPOSE House Bills 2240 and 1315.

House Bill 2240, as passed out of committee, bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc. of magazines that hold more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This measure is strongly supported by the Governor and the Attorney General. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. These magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense.

House Bill 1315 requires onerous government red tape and further training to obtain a Concealed Pistol License. Mandatory training requirements are yet another cost prohibitive measure intended to ensure that lower income Americans are barred from defending themselves.

Again, please contact your state Representative and ask them to OPPOSE House Bills 2240 and 1315.

US Declares a Public Health Emergency

One day after the World Health Organization declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, the United States has declared a nationwide Public Health Emergency.

As a result of confirmed cases of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), on this date and after consultation with public health officials as necessary, I, Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to the authority vested in me under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, do hereby determine that a public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide.

01/31/2020
_____________________________
Date
/s/
_____________________________
Alex M. Azar II

Continue reading “US Declares a Public Health Emergency” →

FFF: The Three Dangers to Liberty

In this essay at The Future of Freedom Foundation, Professor Richard Ebeling discusses John Stuart Mills 1859 essay On Liberty which discusses his three dangers to liberty: the tyranny of the minority, the tyranny of the majority, and social pressure to conform. Our US government was designed with the intent to mitigate both the first and second tyrannies. The executive branch would be balanced by the judicial and legislative branches. In the legislative branch itself, there would be both a Congress whose membership would be based on the population of a state which allows for a tyranny of the majority, but this would be balanced by the Senate whose membership would be equal regardless of the population. Likewise, the electoral college was created as a compromise between the danger of a tyranny of the majority that would be created by a straight popular vote and the danger of corrupted electors if the Congress were to select the president. In our current times there are people calling for both the destruction of the electoral college and changes to the Senate composition in order to make both more reflective of population which would directly reinstate these dangers of tyranny by the majority.

JOHN STUART MILL’S 1859 ESSAY “On Liberty” is one of the most enduring and powerful defenses of individual freedom ever penned. Both advocates and enemies of personal freedom have challenged either the premises or the logic in Mill’s argument. They have pointed out inconsistencies or incompleteness in his reasoning. But the fact remains that after almost 150 years, few essays continue to justify being read and pondered with the same care and attention as “On Liberty…”

But within the context of his own premises, Mill was a fairly strong advocate of much of what today we usually call civil liberties. Thus, for example, he opposed the attempt by some to prohibit the consumption of alcohol by others, insisting that it was an inappropriate restraint on individual freedom of choice.

Men of the most honest intentions and goodwill may reason with their fellow human beings and offer their own lives as examples of better ways of living.

But it would be an unjustifiable violation of another’s personal freedom to coercively attempt to prevent him from ingesting some substance that he — however wrong-headedly from the critic’s perspective — finds desirable, useful, or pleasurable.

But Mill, unfortunately, conceded to the government as necessary responsibilities far more powers of intervention into social and economic affairs than most modern classical liberals and libertarians consider justifiable.

Three forms of tyranny

And this gets to the issue of what can stifle or prevent an individual from exercising his personal freedom in the manner he wants. Mill argued that there were, historically, three forms of tyranny which have endangered liberty through the ages.

The oldest was the tyranny of the one or the few over the many. A single dictator or an oligarchy imposed prohibitions on or commanded certain forms of behavior over the majority of the society. The spontaneous individualism and individuality of each person was denied. The one or the few determined how others might live and what they might say and do and, therefore, in what forms their human potential would be allowed to develop.

The newer form of tyranny, Mill said, was the rule of the many over the one. The revolt against the tyranny of the one or the few resulted in the growing idea that the people should rule themselves. And since the people, surely, could not tyrannize themselves, the unrestrained will of the people became the ideal of those who advocated unlimited democracy.

But in practice this inevitably became the rule of the majority over the minority. Individual freedom was denied purely on the basis of numbers, that is, on the basis of which group or coalition of groups formed that larger number of people dominating the political process. Their ideas, ideals, and values were to be imposed on all those representing less than 50 percent of the electorate.

But whether it was the tyranny of the few over the many or the many over the few, the source of their tyrannical power was the control and use of political coercion. State power is what enabled some to deny liberty to others. The threat or the use of force by government is what enabled freedom to be taken away from individuals who believed in ideas, ideals, or values different from those holding the reins of political power.

The “tyranny” of custom and tradition

Mill also said that there was a third source of tyranny over the individual in society, and this was the tyranny of custom and tradition. He argued:

The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement, being in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to aim at something better than the customary, which is called, according to circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of progress or improvement…. Custom is there, in all things, the final appeal; justice and right mean conformity to custom…. All deviations … come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature.

Mill argued with great passion that societal customs and traditions could, indeed, very often be the worst tyranny of all. They were binding rules on conduct and belief that owed their force not to coercion but to their being the shared ideas of the right and proper held by the vast majority in the society. They represent what the ancient Greek Pericles referred to as “that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.”

Customs and traditions weigh down on the individual, they stifle his sense and desire to be different, to experiment with the new, to creatively design ways of doing things that have not been tried before, and to break out of the confinement of conformity. Custom and tradition can be the straitjacket that restricts a person’s cry for his peaceful and nonviolent individuality…

The danger to liberty arises when those who resent breaches of tradition cry for coercion to be used to impose obedience to custom. Only then does the tyranny of custom, as understood by Mill, become the coercion of the many over the few. Only then is freedom denied, indeed suffocated, by politically enforced conformity.

It is the misuse and abuse of political power — the threat or the application of legitimized force by a government within a geographical area — that always has been the greatest threat to liberty. All tyranny, whether it be the few over the many or the many over the few, results from the use of force to make others conform to the conduct desired by the rulers, even when those being coerced have done nothing to violate the rights of others…

Click here to read the entire essay at FFF.org.

Imprimis: Why the US Needs a Space Force

In this speech, retired Air Force General Steven Kwast discusses why the United States needs a Space Force. Congress recently authorized a limited Space Force, but it is one that will fail to deliver the sort of Space Force that the US needs to counter rising powers like China. When airplanes were first used in war they were a part of the army partly because leaders at that time failed to realize their potential. Eventually, a true and separate Air Force branch was created, which lead to advances in the use and development of aircraft. Of course, this has a downside as well, as the Air Force sometimes forgets the importance of supporting ground troops because it requires different and, to them, less sexy aircraft for that role.

…oday, while America is building lighthouses and listening stations that can see and hear what is happening in space, China is building battleships and destroyers that can move fast and strike hard—the equivalent of a Navy in space. China is winning the space race not because it makes better equipment, but because it has a superior strategy. The Chinese are open about their plan to become the dominant power in space by 2049, the centennial of the end of the Communist Chinese Revolution and of the founding of the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong.

If China stays on its current path, it will deploy nuclear propulsion technology and solar power stations in space within ten years. This will give it the ability to beam clean energy to anyone on Earth—and the power to disable any portion of the American power grid and paralyze our military anywhere on the planet. America is developing no tools to defeat such a strategy, despite the fact that we are spending billions of dollars on exquisite 20th century military equipment.

Over the past two centuries, we have seen that technology drives economic prosperity and that economic prosperity is essential to sustaining national security. China’s plan is to profit from the multi-trillion dollar space marketplace while simultaneously acquiring global domination. We are capable of forestalling China’s plan, but only if we begin to build a Space Force soon and on the right plan. To do this, we must first understand China’s strategic goal, which is to dominate the sectors of economic growth that historically have held the key to world power: transportation, energy, information, and manufacturing.

Space presents unique economic opportunities because space technology operates on network principles. A network can deliver power, information, or goods from one node to many nodes at a fraction of the increase in cost per customer, as compared to the linear system on which most of our land-based economies are modeled. Compare the cost of sending 100 letters to the cost of sending 100 emails. A space infrastructure, by its nature, is a network system—and these types of systems will always translate to economic advantage. The first nation to build such an infrastructure will dominate the global economy of the 21st century and beyond.

China is developing the kind of technologies required to do so: hypersonic missiles and aircraft, 5G telecommunications, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, quantum computing, and robotics. Last January, China landed the Chang’e 4 spacecraft on the far side of the Moon. The mission provided valuable knowledge in terms of commercial and military applications. At one time this sort of mission was not beyond U.S. capabilities, but it is today, and it shows a commitment to space that we lack. To be sure, China has yet to achieve the ability to launch a manned spacecraft, but this is also a capability that we no longer possess—the U.S. relies on Russian rocketry to man and resupply the International Space Station...

Click here to read the entire speech at Imprimis.