Land of Taxes

New York City is suffering from loss of reduction in tax revenue as a result of the city’s and the State’s economic shutdown by government fiat during the Wuhan Virus situation.

One 49-year-old tech entrepreneur told The Wall Street Journal he and his family have moved permanently to their second home in the Hudson Valley from Manhattan. …
For tax purposes, he says, he and his peers are aware that if their children still attend school in the city, it is hard to argue the family has left. The man is considering pulling his children from the city’s elite private schools and is looking at public and private schools in the suburbs. He estimates that if he can persuade the city he is no longer a resident he will save more than $100,000 a year in city taxes alone.

This guy, to be sure, is one of the Evil 1%, so he lives more expensively than the rest of us. Even so, that city tax bill says all there is to say about progressivism in America. His bill compares with a national median income of $63,700 and a New York State median income of $82,200 in 2019.

Joe Biden Has Become Clear

A host on The Breakfast Club, interviewing Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden, said at the end of the interview,

Listen, you gotta come see us when you come to New York, VP Biden, it’s a long way until November, we got more questions—

At which point Biden interrupted:

You have more questions, but I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump then you ain’t black.

This is the pinnacle of the Progressive-Democratic Party telling a black man that if he doesn’t think properly, he’s not a black man.

Party says blacks can only think one way—the Progressive way.

This is the Party of soft bigotry of low expectations.

This is the Party of the segregation of identity politics.

This is the Party of Woodrow Wilson’s insistence that blacks should be grateful for the protections of segregation.

This is the Party of “affirmative action” because, its members insist, blacks (and women) can’t keep up without the favors of special treatment.

This is the Party that wants to rule over our nation.

We don’t need racism in the White House.

I notice that Biden’s campaign adviser, Symone Sanders—after the Interwebs exploded over Biden’s clarified racism—”clarified” his remark: he was joking. Making a racist joke, though, might even have been worse.

Biden also says now that he “shouldn’t have been so cavalier.” The problem with this, though, is that when Biden made his…remark…he was speaking in the flow of the moment and so straight from his remark. Now he’s just speaking politically to cover his behind.

Fly-Over Country

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is being picked over by Progressive-Democrats because he recommended the firing of a misbehaving Department Inspector General. On that excuse, Pompeo’s private dinners are being looked into, in particular, one in which he hosted a collection of Kansas folks, including the retiring Kansas Senator Pat Roberts (R) and a few other State dignitaries.

Senator Bob Menendez (D, NJ), in particular, has taken notice.

What type of foreign-affairs work goes on in Kansas?

There’s that utter contempt for middle-America citizens that Progressive-Democrats have.

Is this dismissal of millions of Americans as beneath notice what we need running our nation?

Limit FISA Surveillance?

Certainly, the process is beset with vast, and serious, problems.

Mr [DoJ Inspector General] Horowitz’s staff reviewed a sample from a recent five-year period, October 2014 to September 2019, during which the eight FBI field offices applied for more than 700 surveillance warrants on US persons. Each of the reviewed files contained errors, inconsistencies and omissions. After reviewing the report, the FISA court’s Chief Judge James E Boasberg issued a rare public order. He told the government to undertake steps to ensure the accuracy of FISA applications. Yet inaccuracy isn’t the only problem. The use of FISA against a US citizen presents a fundamental threat to civil liberties. It essentially suspends the Constitution.

The problems, though, aren’t limited to FBI misbehaviors, the FBI being the proximate target of Boasberg’s order. The existence of these errors and the long-time existence of this sort of error each and together demonstrate that men of government, when able to exercise their power in the darkness of secrecy, cannot be trusted to stay true to the straight and narrow, to the strictures of integrity.

After FISA was enacted in 1978, FBI Director William Webster set the standards for its use.

And those standards have been violated.

Over the years FISA has been amended to allow for the surveillance of Americans. But there were safeguards.

Even with that legislative drift, the evolving safeguards have been violated.

It’s enough.

Limiting FISA surveillance must begin with eliminating the Star Chamber that is the FISA Court. That court is lawless enough already, as its ready and unquestioning acceptance of false warrant applications demonstrates. Its secret proceedings, along with that history, lend no credibility to the premise that, were its approvals limited by statute to foreign nationals, that it would honor those limits any more than have the men coming before it with applications to spy on American citizens foreign nationals who happen to be corresponding with American citizens.

Nor has that secret court ever been necessary, even did it behave properly. It exists to facilitate secret surveillances supported by secret warrants. Our Article III courts, and our State courts, have long been checked out on sealing—keeping secret—warrants, and subpoenas, until it comes time actually to serve them. Our courts, and our States’ state-level and local police departments, have long been checked out on conducting quiet surveillance—while under the careful eye of our public courts and of us citizens of the United States and of the State wherein [we] reside.

The existence of this Star Chamber is at the heart of the suspension of our Constitution about which Baker wrote at the link.

An Expansionist Germany

Not military expansion, but a more insidious one: legal expansion.

The German government must come up with a new law regulating its secret services, after the country’s highest court [Federal Constitutional Court] ruled that the current practice of monitoring telecommunications of foreign citizens at will violates constitutionally-enshrined press freedoms and the privacy of communications.

And:

The key legal question was whether foreign nationals in other countries were covered by Germany’s constitution….

Why, yes, yes they are. Because German sovereignty reaches deep inside other nations’ borders, other nations’ legal and political jurisdictions, overrides those nations’ own sovereignty. Germany’s laws not only apply outside German borders, they apply inside other nations’ borders.

The Court’s judges’ hearts may have been in the right place, but this sets an ugly precedent regarding the allegedly inherent superiority of German sovereignty.