Thought Police

What You Really Pay for In College: Credentials, not Education | Mises Wire

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

In Episode 4, Season 3 of “Last Chance U,” Coach Jason Brown told his players, “Ignorance is life threatening, man.” The Independence Juco coach said, “Eighty-nine percent of NFL and NBA players are bankrupt three years after retirement.”
— Read on mises.org/wire/what-you-really-pay-college-credentials-not-education

Well articulated

Left & Right Clash Violently in Chemnitz, Germany | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

Violent protests by thousands of right and left political persuasions in downtown Chemnitz, Germany have resulted in at least two people being injured Monday night. For two days now a spontaneous demonstration after the deadly stab wounds on a 35-year-old German at the Chemnitz City Festival was done by migrants. The frustration over the Refugee Crisis in Europe will manifest into major civil unrest. This is standard and should be expected especially when the economy is in question. Police have said that the protestors were outright hunting for migrants. What has emerged has been two groups of protestors now left v right. Far-right activists are now in confrontation with Anti-Nazi activists who have rallied in support of the migrants, accusing the far right of using the stabbing death for political ends. Everyone can yell and shout as much as they like, but the plain and simple truth is that any violence carried out by even one migrant will result in a clash against all. This is precisely the way things evolved in the USA during the 1840s against the Irish. In fact, the term for someone who is violent to this day is called a “hooligan” that is typically defined as a young unruly person. That is actually a derivative of a common Irish name – Hooligan. This is a common development whereby the name of some group becomes fixed with a violent act. Rome was invaded by the Vandals who were a “barbarian” Germanic people who sacked Rome. They established their kingdom in North Africa that flourished for about a century until it succumbed to an invasion force from the Byzantine Empire in 534AD. To this day, the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455AD has produced the terms “vandalism” which was coined by that event. They stole everything and even ripped the copper off the roofs of buildings. This term has been handed down for more than 1500 years because of everything they did during the sack of Rome. Ripping the copper off the top of the buildings was showing there was nothing they would not do. They took all metal and melted it down including all bronze statues. They did not issue their own coinage, but instead, they imitated the coins of Byzantium, which was one of the reasons they eventually invade North Africa and wiped them out.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/left-right-clash-violently-in-chemnitz-germany/

When free speech and open debate is not the norm, this is the outcome

The European Union Comes Up With aWay to Censor You and Make Money at the Same Time

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

While in the US some people have discovered that running a YouTube Channel can get you in trouble with the law. One many found himself in Georgia with being charged with running a business without a license even though he was not selling anything just offering his opinion. Of course, there are two licensing options provided by YouTube for content uploaded to its service and suggest an additional third option for users wanting more flexibility for their content and their rules and regulations. The world of information is changing rapidly. There is now radio and TV stations available on the internet expanding the availability of audiovisual content overall. But such broadcasters are regulated and require a license. The traditional reasons for requiring regulation/intervention in broadcast, cable system and satellite system markets, was the scarcity of frequencies, diversity, and localism. With the advent of the internet, certainly scarcity of available frequencies does not apply. These reasons are still used to justify governments’ intervention in media markets which were never supposed to be about stopping free speech. Moreover, media convergence has certainly blurred traditional distinctions between media providers in the various mediums now available. Print media now also offers on-demand videos and other audiovisual content on their websites blurring the old traditional distinction between print, radio, and TV. Likewise, TV broadcasters and radio stations also publish newspaper-like content on their websites. There is the growing problem that regulation seems to have been left in the Dark Ages. Regulators still operate under the license regimes and impose their ownership limits to prevent monopolies. They also impose behavioral restraints and they have rules governing things that they must carry. Naturally, channel position privileges are also decided by regulators. Rupert Murdock had to be approved to buy media companies in the USA. The FCC once upon a time had the Fairness Doctrine, but abandoning that has produced Fake News where broadcasters no longer have to provide a balance to both sides. This has ushered in the age of Propaganda. These regulations have been deemed as NECESSARY yet remain highly disputed among scholars. Such intervention into media has always been dancing on the edge of infringements of First Amendment rights of Free Speech. However, with the new age of the internet, the old interventionist tools really no longer apply as markets converge. Therein lies the problem. Regulators are feeling that they have lost power and politicians have been using the whole Russian conspiracy as a justification to expand regulation that may completely kill free speech. The jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is limited to broadcast, cable and satellite – not the internet or print media. It lacks the power to regulate the audiovisual media industry as a whole. With the rise of the internet, people can create their own broadcast companies like InfoWars. I have reported that the new European regulations are actually having an impact globally. Alex Jones’ InfoWars has been banned by Apple’s decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website. Other companies have rushed to join including Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify. The general reason is Jones’s podcasts are viewed as “hate content” which can subject them to heavy fines in Europe. In the USA, the FCC has been weakened with its ability to regulate. It can no longer prevent the emergence of a new market structure in audiovisual media. On December 11, 2007, the European Union adopted an overhauled regulatory framework on audiovisual media, which entered into force on December 19, 2007. The new framework sharply contrasts the FCC’s approach. Not only does the European Union regulate ALL audiovisual media providers, regardless of whether they use airwaves or the internet to convey their content, but it ALSO regulates on-demand offers of audiovisual content. Now the EU has imposed regulation of on-demand offers and that actually opens the door for member states to regulate services like YouTube or Tudou (The China clone in Shanghai). It is the European Union’s intention to cover only mass media which impacts on a significant proportion of the public, or so they say. Barack Obama’ used the internet to win the election publishing his speeches on YouTube. They have alleged that the Russians helped Trump get elected also by using the internet. The internet has created the ability to have a broadcaster-like service and this is driving the local regulators in Europe absolutely insane. They do not have a First Amendment so if the speech content is against what they want to see in the public, they can just shut it down constitutionally applying hate-speech being their favorite label. This actually forced these internet companies to shut-down InfoWars. They fines and damages can be completely insane in Europe. Germany has already taken steps that the FCC and the EU are looking at very closely. The German regulator says Twitch and YouTube streams are considered broadcasts, must apply for a broadcasting license. Germany has already taken that step requiring a radio broadcast license for Twitch. Germany under Merkel is deeply concerned about her negative press. They are starting to regulate and shut down free speech under the pretend of hate speech to protect the public. Germany is deliberately applying regulations that define a broadcaster to YouTube channels. The fee they want runs €1,000 to €10,000 or even more depending upon the viewership. The politicians did not make a new law, it is the regulator applying it and they suddenly discovered that a YouTube Channel is like a TV station. So everyone is watching to see if they get away with it. The EU’s regulation on the internet has been a smashing success and it has forced changes in the USA. The EU can impose regulations to impose must-carry obligations for local channels on worldwide operating TV gateways on the internet or block them from Europe. What has been emerging in Europe is already becoming a major impediment to new forms of audiovisual media and to new ways of producing and conveying content. It is forcing people outside of Europe to comply with foreign laws or face huge fines that would be ruinous in Europe. The FCC, as well as the Supreme Court, are still locked into the old reasons for regulation. The European Union’s approach seems to intentionally force convergence to their desires upon the entire world. They are deliberately trying to fundamentally change the way broadcast-like services are provided. Already, there are whispers in Brussels that to even have a YouTube Channel will require more than a YouTube license from them. The thinking in Brussels is turning to consider a YouTube Channel to have a broadcaster license. Meanwhile, the FCC sits quietly waiting for Brussels to make the first move. Our sources are deep on this issue. We shall see how far they rise to the surface. We are looking at the most direct assault upon the free speech which is all part of the cycle when governments are fighting to keep power. If every country adopts this same policy of Germany, they will succeed in completely eliminating free speech which seems to be the real objective here. If someone wanted to do a YouTube Channel in the EU and had to pay €10,000 annually to 28 members, that would be €280,000 per year. That should shut down just about any independent voices. Yet once again, the fact that Germany gets to do this demonstrates why the EU is a failure when any state can act arbitrarily.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/eu-considering-requiring-a-broadcaster-license-to-have-youtube-

Discretion in the Hands of Every Government Agent = Tyranny | Armstrong Economics

Posted on by johnbarleycorn12

There has been an interesting case of an American Muslim woman who had her phone seized by border guards as she returned home to the United States from a trip to Switzerland. The guards just seized her phone and she had to file a lawsuit to get it returned after 120 days. Meanwhile, they refuse to confirm or deny that a copy of her phone was made and shared with any other agency. This is part of the problem with the rule of law – there is none! Government agents can do whatever they desire and it is always your burden to hopefully find a judge who will at least acknowledge you have any rights at all. Most people will think of various crimes by the British that led to the American Revolution. Then there was the No Taxation Without Representation slogan. But the act that perhaps began the Revolution was illegal search and seizure. The legal case that became the seminal beginning of the American Revolution was Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King’s Messengers, reported at length in 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029. This case was the start of the American Revolution and was also based upon an abuse of the king’s agents. The action, dated November 1762, was for trespassing and interfering with the plaintiff’s dwelling by breaking open his desks and boxes and searching and examining his papers. George III (b 1738; 1760-1820) became king in 1760. In February 1761, Parliament enacted the Writs of Assistance that was challenged in court in Boston, Massachusetts. These were writs that empowered, are no different today when agents can act at their discretion. The Writs of Assistance allowed the king’s agents to search anything they suspected. The defending lawyer James Otis (1725-1783) pronounced these writs were “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.” Otis warned that the king placed discretion in the hands of every agent to act as he desired. Nothing has changed for the government can do whatever it desires today and it is always the burden of the citizen to prove he has any rights whatsoever. John Adams (1735–1826; 2nd President 1797–1801) was there in the audience at that hearing that day. Adams was so moved by the four- hour speech of James Otis that he declared: “Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child independence was born.” While I was in New Jersey, twice going to work in the morning the road was blocked and the police were looking at every car. At first, you would think they were searching for a terrorist or a missing person or something you see on a TV show. No, the police of Marlton, New Jersey were arbitrarily stopping every car during rush hour and demanded your papers and identification. If you had then, including your insurance card, then you passed. If you were missing anything, they sent you to another line where they were writing tickets. This was an outright violation of the Fourth Amendment. An illegal search without probable cause. Being stopped during rush hour once was bad enough. They did it a second time. Marlton, New Jersey had the reputation for the worst police in the state. They wrote more ticket than any town and it was one giant money grab. A friend’s wife looked at her phone for Google Maps while at a red light. The cop waited for her to turn on the highway that they designated as a “safe corridor” which meant fines were doubled. She went to court to show she was not talking or texting. The corrupt judge found her guilty and said she was not allowed to even look at her phone. So the same thing on a piece of paper is ok. If on your phone its a $500 fine. What they do is outright illegals, but it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars to claim you have any rights at all. This is our real crisis. There is no rule of law. They get to do whatever they want and we have the burden to argue what they did violates the law. This is why rarely will a cop ever be found guilty of even murder when killing someone. Judges will routinely argue they were justified because they THOUGHT their life was in danger. Twice I went to the airport to pick up non-Americans coming in. One was picking up a friend daughter from Quebec. Because I was picking her and her friend up and taking them to the hotel her father booked, they did not know the address where they were staying. They spoke primarily French. She was just 16 and traveling to see the history in Philadelphia. She handed her phone to the agent who then called me and asked if I was there to pick them up. He then asked if I spoke French because how would I communicate. I responded in French and asked him if he spoke the language. He said OK. I asked what is the problem. They were Canadian. His response was – “They are still aliens!” Another time I went to pick up an employee coming in from Ukraine. I was there for more than an hour. Everyone else had passed. Finally, a border guard brought them out and wanted to see me. I asked what is the problem? I thought they were concerned about people who did not leave? They had a 5-year business visa and came here frequently. He was just nasty but released them. When I asked what happened, I was told they searched everything and when they could find nothing, they called another agent and said here, maybe you can find something. There is really nothing you can do. The circle is complete. We have returned to the same position that started the whole thing and we once more face “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.”As the Writs of Assistance in the Entick case, because government agents can do whatever they desire and it is our burden to claim we had any right, the Constitution has been completely nullified. It exists only if we have the MONEY to hire lawyers who price themselves way too high and that ensures people are not defended. Otis warned that the king placed discretion in the hands of every agent to act as he desired.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/discretion-in-the-hands-of-every-government-agent-tyranny/