Welcome to June. Uncle Sam Isn't Watching. Let Your Metadata Go Wild This Morning! Welcome to a Patriot Act–less world: The National Security Agency officially shut down the bulk metadata collection program officially at 7:44 p.m. Sunday night, a senior government official told CNN's Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown. Officials had previously indicated they would shut the program down around 8 p.m. to ensure all procedures were in place before the midnight deadline. The biggest and most controversial is the government's sweeping powers under Section 215 that allow the NSA to collect telephone metadata on millions of Americans and store that data for five years. That is, for the time being, gone. Law enforcement officials also won't be allowed to get a roving wiretap to track terror suspects who frequently change communications devices, like phones. Instead, they will need to get individual warrants for each new device. And third, the government loses a legal provision allowing it to use national security tools against "lone wolf" terror suspects if officials can't find a connection to a foreign terror group such as ISIS, for example. But that provision has never been used, the Justice Department confirmed. But it won't last: In truth, Mr. Paul's stand only delayed passage of the USA Freedom Act, which would curtail the government's dragnet authority, however insufficiently from Mr. Paul's perspective. A single senator's objection can stretch out the parliamentary hurdles faced by legislation but, with enough time, cannot derail it. This debate just wouldn't be complete without an accusation of sinister motives, now would it? "People here in town think I'm making a huge mistake. Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me," Rand Paul said, casting himself as a victim of the political elites. How far does that apple fall from the tree again? Having said that, I keep hearing defenders of the NSA program say it's never been abused, and that simply isn't true. CIA director John Brennan, yesterday: "These are very important authorities that have not been abused by the government." That is just not true, and it's unnerving that these guys conveniently forget the instances of abuse, even if they're isolated cases or considered "small time": The National Security Agency's internal watchdog detailed a dozen instances in the past decade in which its employees intentionally misused the agency's surveillance power, in some cases to snoop on their love interests. A letter from the NSA's inspector general responding to a request by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, lists the dozen incidents where the NSA's foreign intelligence collection systems were abused. The letter also says there are two additional incidents now under investigation and another allegation pending that may require an investigation. Back on May 27, I pointed out how Rand Paul moved from filibustering on an issue that united the GOP to filibustering on an issue that divides the GOP -- and how that leaves him standing alone in the Republican field on this issue. Trimmed from that piece for space: Robert Deitz, who served as general counsel at the NSA from 1998 to 2006, contends that Paul's stance -- contending the Patriot Act and NSA programs offer no significant security benefit -- vastly oversimplifies the issue and may ultimately harm the cause he seeks to defend. "What concerns me is not the end of bulk collection, per se. What concerns me is that if our defenses are weakened and something bad occurs, then I fear the inevitable over-reaction," Deitz says. "One sometimes hears politicians -- including President Obama and others like the ACLU -- say that there is no trade-off between security and civil liberties. Bulls***. Of course there is." A recent op-ed by Paul was titled, "The Patriot Act provides no security at the cost of our liberty." "The issue is NOT whether there is a trade-off," Deitz continues. "The question that we must ask -- and every generation must decide this for itself -- is where on the spectrum one wants to be." The Clintons as 'an Existential Challenge to the Progressive Faith' Let's examine two good points in the comments section following Friday's Jolt discussing the Clinton Foundation and the broader national trend of nonprofit executives making salaries that are, if not Fortune 500 CEO level, then Fortune 500 upper-management level: First from Epistime: It's incredibly strange sometimes operating in the small-nonprofit sector, giving how the large-nonprofit sector has transformed itself so dramatically and altered what the word "nonprofit" means to folks. I'm used to the issues of local museums of church-based groups, where most of the staff is volunteer (I've been known, while a grad student, to finagle a few internships-for-credit out what "should" be volunteer roles and have gauged that a victory) because most money coming in is paying overhead – executives aren't getting $7M at that level, they're only getting $50-70K (but it's for doing something you love, being able to contribute something important, and have a position of meaning). Yes, support foundations play a role and have always done so in the nonprofit ecosystem, but somewhere along the line they stopped being the "silent partners" who had Old Money and became whatever the Clintons are, abusing nonprofit terminology to enrich themselves and in doing so make everyone else look bad. As a conservative journey-manning around the museum field for want of a real permanent position, I always see the debate (in the field and in broader culture) of supporting the arts via taxes, donations, or profits. As a mediating field, we're never going to be really profitable (especially in the historical museums where I work), and I also don't want to be subsumed directly in government largess beyond aid in preservation. That means a strong third-party donation economy and social ecology, one that's being spoiled by the likes of Clinton Foundation (the most visible, but far from only, example), without realizing (or caring) what their behavior does to the larger field of nonprofits and thus the matters for which nonprofits (as what Yuval Levin and others call mediating institutions) care for in our broader non-governmental society. Nonprofits get tax benefits, and considerable social capital, because their primary focus is a good cause -- or at least that's what it's supposed to be. Charity Navigator formed in 2001 because there was a painfully obvious need for it; their annual report on CEO compensation is also equally needed. The 2014 report showed a median nonprofit CEO salary of $120,000. But they also found that out of the 3,929 charities included in the study, twelve rewarded their top executive with $1 million or more in compensation (including one-time payouts). The study also revealed that 67 charities paid their CEOs between $500,000 and $1 million. Separately, they found 43 organizations that compensate at least one of the CEO's relatives, with that relative earning over $100,000. Again, it's not like there was a broad national public debate about what kind of salary is appropriate for a talented manager running a nonprofit, or whether it's okay to hire relatives for jobs with big salaries. Somewhere along the line, a certain number of people running nonprofits just decided that high six-figures or even seven figures was justified or necessary -- and while they would disclose the salary as required in the IRS Form 990, they weren't going to advertise it to donors. "Hi, I'm Good Cause Chief Executive Joe Schmo, and your donations helped play for my salary of more than a half million dollars last year. Please give so we can help the children, the endangered species, the earth, and veterans." Then, the ZMan observed: I prefer to look at the Clintons as an existential challenge to the American political class and the Progressive faith specifically. In the general sense, the ruling class's inability to police itself is why the Clintons exist. A political class with a moral grounding would have cut off these two long before they made it to national politics. Instead, winning trumped ethics and these two were able to lever that to the top of the system. The central issue is that Progressives lack the ability to police their ranks, other than the hunting of heretics. They are good at chasing off a guy like Juan Williams for apostasy, but they can't figure out how to police common criminals like the Clintons. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? If Progressives actually stood for what they claim to stand for, they would be a lot less insufferable; or if they felt the effects of the rules they want enforced against themselves, they might be less eager to create those rules. If "speech codes" and prosecution for "hate speech" consistently punished them for speaking their mind, they would suddenly find a newfound appreciation for the First Amendment. They call for higher taxes, then neglect to pay five-figure tax bills; if they feared the IRS as confusing, unfair, and punitive the way we did, there might be a broader consensus on taxation. They're great at denouncing somebody else's greed, but feel a sense of entitlement at their own. Unions demand a higher minimum wage, then demand an exemption from it under a collective-bargaining agreement. Vehement opponents of voucher programs refuse to send their kids to the local public schools. They reflexively denounce "wealthy elites" without ever acknowledging the fact that they're wealthier and better-connected than most of the people they're criticizing. There's a hollowness in the heart of modern progressivism, because the gap between the way they expect others to live and the way they live themselves is broad and only widening -- and few within their ranks really want to confront it or discuss it openly. The Strange Relationship between Hugh Hewitt and Hillary Clinton I don't know if you're ready for Hugh Hewitt's new book, The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second 'Clinton Era.' As you can guess from the title, it's a critical book . . . but Hugh openly writes blunt advice to Hillary. He offers a her policy agenda that conservatives would loathe and love: a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college, a Constitutional amendment abolishing presidential term limits, a Constitutional amendment mandating 5 percent of GDP be defense spending, an "ironclad commitment to massive development of our own energy resources" and a near-complete amnesty for illegal immigrants, coupled with construction of a new border fence along half the U.S.-Mexico border. I write it in such a way to maximize any help it might give to your GOP opponent, but also in such a way as to help you govern should you somehow win, as you are clearly not ready to govern . . . Then you start wondering if it's a poison pill, advice meant to lead her astray… and then Hugh openly addresses the question of whether it's meant to lead her astray . . . If you read this, it will be because it made a stir by its title and its reception, its promotion, and because we share a best friend in common, who may or may not give it to you with his genuine assurance that, while I am wrong, I am not rotten . . . People whom you know will vouch for me. For whatever reason, you will read it. And then there's another level of the book, meant to play to Hillary's ego . . . I suspect you harbor contempt and envy, bordering on hatred, for President Obama -- something like the searing contempt your husband feels for him detailed in Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. You two don't think him very smart, do you? You suspect it but cannot say it, and you tried to get to his college and law school transcripts for that reason: to show the world he had been lifted up, not clawed his way up as you and Bill have. . . . and then there's another level, where you start wondering if Hugh sees Hillary as a useful tool to un-do Obama's legacy . . . It must gall you still that he beat you. It must motivate you to run to replace him and then snub him, make his people crawl. To erase his victory. To use the greatest microphone in the world to announce to the world that Chance the Gardner has left the building. Not too quickly, of course. Slowly, carefully. A thorough erasing takes time and must be done gently or you'll tear the paper. . . . and then somewhere around the fourth level, you start to feel like you're in the dream levels of Inception. Maybe that's what's going on here -- maybe Hugh's actually trying to plant an idea deep within Hillary's mind!
BRRRRRRRAAAAAWWWWRWRRRMRMRMMRMRMMMMM!!! ADDENDA: Remember, in about a week, you can see me speak at the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley -- Tuesday, June 9, 7 p.m. local time, a mere $15 for non-members or just $5 if it's your first time attending one of this group's events. Bring a copy of The Weed Agency or, presuming you can find one, Voting to Kill -- a mere penny from some sellers! -- and I'll happily sign it. | 
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥 vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
No comments: