
George Orwell tried to warn us…


If Vice President Joe Biden decides to enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, his past positions — including on trade bills, the Iraq War, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and changes to welfare — are sure to draw the ire of the party’s liberal base.
Much has already been made about Biden’s instrumental role as a senator pushing through the 1994 crime bill — “a bill that made the problem worse” according to former President Bill Clinton, who signed it into law.
Another potential sticking point for liberals: Biden not only voted for the 2001 Patriot Act, he, on many occasions, claimed credit for writing it.
“I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing,” Biden was quoted as saying by the New Republic in 2001.
“And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,” Biden continued, referring to the Patriot Act. The act broadened the surveillance capabilities of U.S. law enforcement agencies as it relates to identifying potential terrorists, and many of its provisions have been opposed by liberal Democrats and civil libertarians.
As the Free Thought Project reported this week, mainstream media outlets ran with headlines that police at the Capitol building were caught off guard and didn’t expect people to breach a series of fences leading up to the building. However, these protests were planned for weeks with Trump acting as the ring leader, instructing his followers to march on the capitol, carrying out plans that were publicly available on social media for weeks. Despite many on the right claiming Antifa was behind the violence, we are now learning something far more sinister was afoot.
It is now widely known that police officers removed the barricades after video emerged showing them removing barricades and allowing the rioters in to continue to the capitol steps.

A nine-month investigation by the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office released last Thursday concluded that the March 12, 2020 police killing of Maryland resident Duncan Lemp during an early morning SWAT raid was justified.
According to the report, which differs significantly from the original police narrative of the killing, a SWAT officer standing outside of Lemp’s bedroom window shot the 21-year-old Lemp five times after he grabbed a rifle and ignored commands to drop it. The report says police recovered three rifles, two “ghost” guns, numerous magazines and boxes of ammunition, an illegal silencer, a bulletproof vest, and a shotgun shell rigged as a booby trap on Lemp’s bedroom door.
The Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) obtained a no-knock search warrant to raid Lemp’s house on suspicion that he owned several guns despite being “red-flagged” and prohibited from possessing any due to a juvenile offense, the details of which have not been made public. Lemp’s family, through their attorney, dispute both the justification for the raid and the police narrative surrounding the shooting. Lemp’s family said the search warrant was based on flimsy evidence and that Lemp was shot while asleep in bed. The case has been clouded by the conflicting accounts and the lack of video evidence.
Since Lemp’s death, his name has been frequently invoked by “boogaloo boys,” a loose, heavily armed, and very online anti-government movement. (“Boogaloo” refers to a second civil war or armed conflict between citizens and the government.) The report also cites Lemp’s ideology and connections to the militia movement as the impetus for the violent nighttime raid.
“The reasons for the ‘no-knock’ provision was due to Lemp being ‘anti-government,’ ‘anti-police,’ currently in possession of body armor, and an active member of the Three Percenters,” the report says. “Additionally, police had viewed several videos showing Lemp handling and shooting firearms. The police felt that knocking and announcing their presence would put the officers in serious danger if Lemp decided to resist his arrest.”

In the coming days and weeks we are likely to see pundits and lawmakers call for things like passing a new domestic terrorism law, expanding mass surveillance programs, increasing funding for the FBI and law enforcement, installing backdoors in encrypted messaging apps, and arming police with more technology like facial recognition and social media monitoring software. We’re also likely to see renewed attempts by the government to curtail freedom of expression, including misguided attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. Expanding the U.S. government’s already bloated surveillance state will only bring more terror and harm to the same communities that Trump targeted with his racist policies and rhetoric. More money, weapons, and technology in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security—an agency complicit in human rights abuses long before Trump took office—won’t stop the rising threat of right-wing violence. Instead it will be used to suppress legitimate dissent, and disproportionately target Black and brown activists, Muslims, immigrant communities, and social movements that effectively challenge systemic injustice and corporate power.
The government should toughen the lockdown by giving officers the right to force entry into homes of suspected law breakers, a policing leader has said.
David Jamieson, the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands police, England’s second biggest force, said: “For the small minority of people who refuse entry to police officers and obstruct their work, the power of entry would seem to be a useful tool.
“I have raised this issue with the policing minister previously and clarity on the power of entry would help police officers enforce the new Covid regulations more easily.”
As the third lockdown comes into force in England at midnight on Wednesday, the rising infection rate is also causing increasing absences from the ranks of officers needed to help enforce the lockdown.
New York lawmakers are mulling a bill that would allow the state to detain anyone carrying or suspected of carrying a contagious disease that makes them a “significant threat to public health.”
Democratic Assemblyman N. Nick Perry of New York’s 58th District spearheaded Bill A416, which holds that the government may “order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons” in a “medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee.” A confirmed carrier would be released only after he or she is no longer contagious, and a suspected carrier could be set free only when the government proves that he or she “is not infected with or has not been exposed to such a disease.”
Those who may have been in contact with the alleged carriers may also be detained and released when they test negative for the malady in question, or if the suspected carrier with whom they interacted is deemed to be negative.
What could go wrong?

You must be logged in to post a comment.