The House Passed the Secure the Border Act of 2023

The Secure the Border Act of 2023 is a comprehensive bill that encompasses various changes to immigration law and border security measures. 

Divided into different sections, the bill primarily focuses on enhancing border security, reforming asylum processes, preventing uncontrolled migration flows, addressing issues related to children and families at the border, implementing visa overstay penalties, and establishing a strict framework for employment eligibility verification. 

The bill aims to strengthen border security, reform asylum processes, address migration challenges, protect families and children at the border, impose penalties for visa violations, and implement stringent measures for employment eligibility verification across all industries. 

These measures seek to create a more controlled and regulated immigration system while reinforcing the security of the United States' borders. 

Yet, Chuck Schumer, a Democratic Party Member, is an American politician serving as Senate Majority Leader since 2021 and the senior United States senator from New York since 1999, will not allow this legislation to be voted on in the Senate, WHY?

Key provisions of the bill include: 

Division A: Border Security Resumption and Expansion of border wall construction: Mandates the construction of a border wall along at least 900 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border and requires waivers of certain legal requirements for expeditious construction. 

Investment in border security technology: Requires a strategic technology plan, upgrades to surveillance programs, communication devices for officers, and eradicating plant growth impeding border security operations. 

Division B: Immigration Enforcement and Foreign Affairs 

Title I: Asylum Reform and Border Protection Toughened asylum eligibility criteria: Limits asylum eligibility, imposes stricter standards for credible fear of persecution, and restricts asylum applications for those who travel through third countries. 

Title II: Border Safety and Migrant Protection Expanding expedited removal: Widens the category of non-U.S. nationals subject to expedited removal and mandates detention for certain individuals awaiting asylum consideration. 

Title III: Preventing Uncontrolled Migration Flows in the Western Hemisphere Negotiating agreements with Western Hemisphere countries: Requires the State Department to negotiate agreements on asylum seekers and immigration issues. 

Title IV: Ensuring United Families at the Border Detention policies: Establishes rules regarding the detention of alien children for immigration purposes and limits state licensing requirements for immigration detention facilities. 

Title V: Protection of Children Handling unaccompanied alien children: Modifies procedures for handling unaccompanied alien children, tightens requirements for Special Immigrant Juvenile visas, and establishes deadlines for handling cases. 

Title VI: Visa Overstays Penalties Penalties for overstaying visas: Increases civil and criminal penalties for visa overstays and unlawful entry into the U.S. 

Title VII: Immigration Parole Reform Limitations on parole authority: Restricts DHS authority to grant parole for humanitarian reasons or public benefit, limiting such grants to specific cases. 

Title VIII: Legal Workforce Employment eligibility verification: Mandates the use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system by all employers, imposes penalties for non-compliance, and preempts state laws on employment verification. 

 Other Significant Points Nullification of certain Department of Labor rules related to H-2A visas. Establishment of pilot programs for different technologies for employment eligibility verification.

Campus Rage World Wide Fueled by Middle Eastern Money - By Bari Weiss

You can bet your last dollar that this is NOT only happening in USA Universities and Colleges but rather going on around the globe in Canada, England, France, Spain, Germany, Greece Italy etc.

According to a new report, at least 200 American colleges and universities illegally withheld information on approximately $13 billion in undisclosed contributions from foreign regimes.

Since Hamas’s October 7 massacre, it has been hard to miss the explosion of antisemitic hate that has gripped college campuses across the country. At Cornell, a student posted a call “to follow [Jews] home and slit their throats,” and a professor said the terror attack “energized” and “exhilarated” him. At Harvard, a mob of students besieged an Israeli student, surrounding him as they bellowed “shame, shame, shame.” 

At dozens of other campuses, students gathered to celebrate Hamas. 

The response from school administrations has been alarming. With few exceptions, in the immediate aftermath of October 7, university presidents issued equivocal statements about the initial attack. Some professors even celebrated it. And the focus on the part of administration bureaucrats has been on protecting the students tearing down posters and being shamed for doing so.

Where did all of this hatred come from is a question worth pondering. As Rachel Fish and others have documented, for several decades a toxic worldview—morally relativist, anti-Israel, and anti-American—has been incubating in “area studies” departments and social theory programs at elite universities. 

Whole narratives have been constructed to dehumanize Israelis and brand Israel as a “white, colonial project” to be “resisted.” The students you see in the videos circulating online have been marinating in this ideology, which can be defined best by what it’s against: 

everything Western.

Many are rightly questioning how it got this bad. How did university leaders come to eulogize, rather than put a stop to, campus hate rallies and antisemitic intimidation? Why are campus leaders now papering over antisemitism? How could institutions supposedly committed to liberal values be such hotbeds of antisemitism and anti-Israel activism?

In large part, it is a story of the power of ideas—in this case, terrible ones—and how rapidly they can spread. But it is also a story of an influence campaign by actors far outside of the university campus aimed at pouring fuel on a fire already raging inside.

We’ve known for some time about the links between anti-Israel campus agitators, like Students for Justice in Palestine, and shady off-campus anti-Israel activist networks. 

But thanks to the work of the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), a nonprofit research center, we now have a clearer picture of the financial forces at play at a higher, institutional level.

Today, after months of research, the NCRI released a report (comprising four separate studies) following the money. The report finds that at least 200 American colleges and universities illegally withheld information on approximately $13 billion in undisclosed contributions from foreign regimes, many of which are authoritarian.

Moreover, while correlation is not causation, they found that the number of reported antisemitic incidents on a given campus has a meaningful relationship to whether that university has received funding (disclosed and undisclosed) from regimes, or entities tied to regimes, in the Middle East. 

Overall, authors of the report write, “a massive influx of foreign, concealed donations to American institutions of higher learning, much of it from authoritarian regimes with notable support from Middle Eastern sources, reflects or supports heightened levels of intolerance towards Jews, open inquiry and free expression.”

The NCRI report found that:

• 
  

• From 2015–2020, institutions that accepted money from Middle Eastern donors had, on average, 300 percent more antisemitic incidents than those institutions that did not. 

• 
  

• From 2015–2020, institutions that accepted undisclosed funds from authoritarian donors had, on average, 250 percent more antisemitic incidents than those institutions that did not.

• 
  

• At least 200 American colleges and universities illegally withheld information on approximately $13 billion in undocumented contributions from foreign regimes, many of which are authoritarian. 

• 
  

• Campuses that accept undisclosed money are on average ~85 percent more likely to see campaigns “targeting academic scholars for sanction, including campaigns to investigate, censor, demote, suspend, or terminate.”

This chart from NCRI captures the relationship between concealed foreign donations and antisemitism on campus:

So who’s doing this concealed funding? Qatar, the country where Hamas’s leadership currently resides, is far and away the largest foreign donor to American universities, as Eli Lake recently documented in these pages:

Of course, correlation is not causation. Still, the NCRI report found that a reliable predictor of the intensity of campus antisemitism was the amount of undisclosed money a given university received from Middle Eastern regimes.

Former Harvard University president Larry Summers told me that he believes “donors and certainly authoritarian leaders who donate to universities may be looking to bolster their image or perception of legitimacy.” But he also said he doubts that “they are looking to or could succeed in changing attitudes or specific policies on campuses.”

“I’m cynical. I usually think things are about money. But I don’t think this is about money. Or at least not primarily,” a former president of a prominent liberal arts college told me. “If you look at the college professors signing on to these various statements, I don’t think it’s because those people got money in any significant way from a country like Qatar. It’s people who are ideologically part of a movement—whether you call it postcolonial or anticolonial—that is deeply opposed to Israel.”

There are other possibilities that may explain the NCRI’s findings. A fairly obvious one could be that Middle Eastern regimes are sponsoring professorships held by, or programs run by, professors or administrators who hold anti-Israel views and use their platform to spread them. This fact, itself, wouldn’t be news.

Another possibility is that universities, eager to attract and retain Middle Eastern funding, promote positions that they think will please the sensibilities of Middle Eastern regimes. Or maybe it is that universities that are indifferent to the atrocities committed or condoned by some of their largest funders are also indifferent to rising antisemitism on campus, allowing it to thrive. The same would hold true for freedom of expression and academic freedom. 

At the very least, the NCRI’s findings may explain why university presidents, whose main job is fundraising, may have been so slow to respond in the wake of the October 7 massacre, and when they did, they for the most part released weak statements. 

One thing I have a hard time believing is that these countries give nine- and ten-figure gifts to universities expecting nothing in return.

Sources: 

https://www.thefp.com/p/campus-rage-middle-eastern-roots-qatar

https://networkcontagion.us/reports/11-6-23-the-corruption-of-the-american-mind/

Radical Palestinian Muslims and a Condoning Media/Academia Support of Terrorism

Gaza has been governed for the past 17 years, by the Radical Palestinian Muslims, who call themselves Hamas, which is a terrorist organization funded and directed by Iran, the world’s leading financier and supporter of acts of international terrorism.

Therefore, the fact is that any preserved humanitarian crisis caused in Gaza is and has been because of the elected self-governing body in Gaza namely the Radical Palestinian Muslims, who call themselves Hamas. Instead of helping the Palestinian Muslims, these Hamas Palestinian Radical Muslims have for more than 20 years continually sent bombs, rockets, and missiles of mass destruction indiscriminately against Israeli civilians, hospitals, shops, houses, babies and women and children with no regard for the laws of war or the laws of civil societies worldwide.

It is apparent that these Gaza Radical Palestinian Muslims, who call themselves Hamas and have governed Gaza, for the past 20 years have clearly shown that they Do NOT represent any semblance of a healthy just society of Muslim Palestine's respect for the rule of law, with clear and transparent justice which is a fair and independent process with safeguards to ensure that everyone is treated equally before international laws.

They (Hamas) are barbaric terrorists who on October 7, 2023, slaughtered and mutilated babies, women, children, and young adults then kidnapped over 200 innocent babies, women, children, and men and herded them back to Gaza, while the mainstream media to this day remains silent and with no demands for their release. 

These journalists; reporters have in many cases become conspiracy theorists and propaganda artists for Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist groups who also have remained silent and are as guilty as the barbarian Palestine Muslims called Hamas who killed, raped, and mutilated babies, women, and kids and burned to death in front of others for no other reason than their hatred for all non-Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike.

Further, Academia and these so-called professors have been spewing, to students at universities and colleges for decades, a cultural Marxism with anti-Semitic twists found in Communist Marxist ideologies that want to distort historical facts and destroy Western civilization and the USA as a country from within, in my view. 

Their phrase “political correctness” is a covert assault on Christianity and the American way of life, and they continue with their attempts to jazz up political correctness and repackage it as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews and all non-Muslims as nefarious communist and Marxism destroyers. 

These professors, academia and news media journalists and reporters seem intent on making democracies like the USA and Israel feel guilty and thus they are subverting the values of Christianity and its culture.

For example, in 1962, the American communist C. Wright Mills who openly stated, “I have been studying for several years now, the cultural apparatus (within academia) as a possible, immediate radical agency of change.”

And today we again witness the silence from all media outlets and these so-called free press reporters and journalists who are NOT demanding or calling for the immediate release of all the babies, women, young individuals and seniors brutally kidnapped by these barbaric Muslim Palestine terrorists who call themselves Hamas. These media types and their journalist and reporters are all accomplices to the barbaric atrocities of these Hamas Palestine Muslims, and they too must be held accountable for their support of such terrorist groups, in my view.

The media who have and continue to support the barbaric Muslim Palestine Hamas who kidnapped babies, children, women, and the elderly from Israel must pay the price for such support of terrorists.  

They have shown themselves not to represent a free imperial media and like the barbaric Palestine Muslim Hamas Do Not, as journalists or reporters represent any semblance of a healthy just society that respects the rule of law, with clear and transparent justice which is a fair and independent process with safeguards to ensure that everyone is treated equally before international laws.  

Shame on the Western media and its biased corrupt journalists and reporters, in my view.

Iran is the sponsor and financier of Hamas and Hezbollah

It is time to immediately exclude ALL Iranian banks and businesses from Swift, the international payment system used by thousands of financial institutions.
It comes after the EU and its allies suspended seven institutions from the system in March.
 
This move aims to hit the country's banking network and its access to funds via Swift, which is pivotal for the smooth transaction of money worldwide.

Hamas is a terrorist organization funded by Iran and they attacked, shot and mutilated women, children and families inside their homes today in Israel, so when is the world and the USA going to wake up to the facts?

These barbaric Hamas terrorists and its leaders and financiers all must be tracked down by the eyes in the sky satellites and then missiled to their respective places in the earth of dust to dust and ashes to ashes.

Those who are responsible for the beheading of babies, children and killing of pregnant women and the slaughtering of innocent kids at a music festival are not human and do not belong on this planet, in my view.

Here you all can educate yourselves and read the charter and manifesto of the terrorist group Hamas. Here is a portion of its sick charter:

https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cttPabH1zrc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3H2oIgRgCY

 https://www.firstpost.com/world/watch-dont-send-kids-here-cant-protect-them-from-pro-terror-students-columbia-prof-appeals-to-parents-13276312.html

What is the law for material support of terrorism?

Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Why has the Biden administration FAILED to apply this immediately to the government of IRAN?

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defence, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §  1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250.

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1496/252519/20230118160125873_2023%2001%2018%20Taamneh%20Amicus%20Brief%20Natl%20Security%20FINAL.pdf

"The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek

Throughout history, orators and poets have extolled liberty, yet no one has told us why liberty is so important. 

Our attitude to such matters should depend on whether we consider civilization as fixed or as advancing. 

In an advancing society, any restriction on liberty reduces the number of things tried and so reduces the rate of progress. 

In such a society freedom of action is granted to the individual, not because it gives him/her greater satisfaction but because if allowed to go her/his own way he/she will on average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give 

H.B. PHILLIPS 

"The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek serves as a foundational text for understanding the importance of individual liberty, the rule of law, and the role of government in maintaining a free and prosperous society. 

Whether one fully agrees with his perspectives or not, the book remains a significant contribution to the ongoing debates about the proper balance between individual freedom and the necessary functions of the state. This influential work explores the principles and importance of individual liberty and the rule of law in a free society. Hayek argues that a constitution, as a set of rules and norms, is crucial for protecting individual freedoms and preventing the arbitrary use of power by the government. 

Summary: 

Hayek begins by emphasizing the importance of freedom and individual rights in a prosperous and just society. He argues that the market economy and the decentralization of decision-making are essential for promoting both economic and personal freedom. 

Hayek asserts that a spontaneous order emerges from individual actions in a free market and attempts to centrally plan society are doomed to fail due to the complexity of human interactions. He then delves into the concept of the rule of law, suggesting that laws should be general and predictable, applying equally to all individuals. 

He warns against the dangers of discretion in law enforcement and the potential for abuse of power. Hayek also addresses the idea of social justice, asserting that it is not a matter of redistributing wealth but rather of creating a fair process that allows individuals to pursue their own goals. 

Hayek further discusses the role of government, advocating for limited intervention to maintain a framework that enables individual liberty. He argues that the government should provide a legal framework, enforce property rights, and prevent coercion, but it should avoid trying to control economic outcomes or social values. 

Hayek is critical of collectivist ideologies and central planning, which he believes erodes individual freedom and leads to inefficiency. 

"The Constitution of Liberty" presents a comprehensive defense of principles, which prioritize individual freedom, limited government, and the rule of law. 

Hayek's arguments are grounded in his belief that individuals possess local knowledge and expertise that cannot be fully grasped by central authorities, making decentralized decision-making superior in managing complex systems. 

The book's ideas have had a lasting impact on political and economic discourse. Hayek's defence of spontaneous order and his critiques of central planning contributed to the decline of Keynesianism and the re-emergence of market-oriented policies in the latter half of the 20th century. 

His emphasis on individual rights and the dangers of unchecked government power also resonates with proponents of civil liberties and limited government. Critics of Hayek's work argue that his laissez-faire approach might not adequately address issues of inequality or externalities that can arise in unregulated markets. They also contend that some level of government intervention might be necessary to correct market failures and provide essential public goods. 

Please take the time to read @ https://www.mises.at/static/literatur/Buch/hayek-the-constitution-of-liberty.pdf

In a Democracy Should Politicians Appoint Judges or We The People Elect them?

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the appointment or election of judges involves balancing the principles of democracy, independence of the judiciary, and the need for qualified and impartial judges. 

Different legal systems and societies may adopt different methods based on their specific values and goals. 

Yet what is the fairest, most honest and for the people in a democracy that constantly sermonizes "A Just Society"?

Keeping in mind that A "Just Society" is a term frequently used by politicians and their respective political party affiliates to describe an ideal state of affairs where fairness, equality, and social justice are prioritized and upheld. 

Thus the specific interpretation of a Just Society may vary depending on the political ideology and the context in which it is discussed.

For example, in Canada’s supreme court judges are appointed by the political party in power at any given time and thus in reality are beholding NOT to the electorate yet rather to the political party that appointed them. 

So, it is conceivable that some become political activist judges on behalf of a political party’s ideology and NOT the law or the constitution.

When laws are changed, many diverse, and sometimes unexpected, interests are affected.

Those who are responsible for the change must be alive to these ramifications. Since the interests in question are best understood and explained by those who are affected or would be affected themselves. 

Thus, in my view, would it not be desirable that courts involved in the reform of the law permit the representatives of affected interests to participate in the litigation.

For example, most Canadian courts, at least those of civil jurisdiction, are empowered to permit such participation, whether as a party, intervenor, or amicus curiae. For the most part, however, the procedural rules that grant this power do so in discretionary terms.

There are many examples, especially in the constitutional context, of the generous exercise of this discretion. There have been, on the other hand, some disturbing recent instances of courts refusing to allow important interests to be represented in cases involving novel matters.

Judges are not, for the most part, the initiators of legal ideas. Unless of course, they espouse the ideologies of the political masters that appointed them as Judges! Most judicial innovations are conceived in barristers' craniums (often after intercourse with academic publications).

Procedural practices which deprive the courts of exposure to the ideas of counsel representing all significant points of view with respect to a proposed legal change create a risk of ill-advised reform.

Would it not then be prudent to minimize this risk, by ensuring that the rules of standing should ALWAYS be generous, both as to their terms and as to their application of the laws, not ideologies or opinions.

Directly electing federal and state judges has both pros and cons. 

Here are some points to consider:

Pros:

Accountability to the public: Elected judges are directly accountable to the voters. This can promote transparency and responsiveness to public interests since judges may be more inclined to rule in accordance with the will of the people to maintain their positions.

Representation and diversity: Direct elections may lead to more diverse benches, as candidates from different backgrounds and perspectives can campaign for judgeships. This could improve the representation of the broader population within the judiciary.

Reduced political bias: Since judges are not appointed by politicians, there may be a lower risk of political bias influencing the selection process. This could potentially lead to fairer decisions and reduced partisanship in the judiciary.

Greater public engagement: Judicial elections can increase public engagement with the legal system, as voters become more invested in understanding the qualifications and positions of the candidates.

Checks on judicial power: Elected judges may be less insulated from public scrutiny, which could serve as a check on the judiciary's power, preventing potential abuses.

Cons:

Competence and qualifications: Judicial elections may prioritize popularity over qualifications, leading to less experienced or unqualified candidates winning elections. This could result in less competent judges on the bench.

Influence of money and special interests: Judicial campaigns can be expensive, and candidates may rely on donations from individuals or groups with vested interests in the legal system. This may raise concerns about undue influence and corruption.

The politicization of the judiciary: Elections can lead to judicial candidates making campaign promises or catering to popular opinions, which could compromise the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Short-term focus: Elected judges may be inclined to make decisions to please their base and secure re-election, potentially sacrificing long-term justice and the protection of minority rights.

Lack of public awareness: Many voters may not be well-informed about judicial candidates and their qualifications, leading to decisions based on name recognition or other superficial factors.

Implications for unpopular decisions: Judges might be reluctant to make unpopular but necessary decisions if they fear losing their position in the next election.

You decide!

 

Individual Freedom and Security

Individual freedom and Security are not so much the objective security of a Country's Constitution, or even the justice system but rather a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves.

While constitutions and justice systems play crucial roles in safeguarding rights and maintaining order, as prescripted by governments and then interpreted by the courts, the true sense of confidence in one's ability to take care of oneself and feel secure often goes beyond legal frameworks alone.

The concept of individual freedom involves the absence of coercion or undue constraints on personal choices and actions. When people feel free to make decisions that align with their values and beliefs without fear of oppression or discrimination, they have and thus experience a greater sense of freedom.

On the other hand, security encompasses protection from harm, both physical and psychological. It is not just limited to protection from external threats, such as crime or invasion, but also extends to economic security, social security, and a sense of overall well-being.

The sense of confidence in taking care of oneself is a crucial aspect of freedom and security. It goes beyond relying solely on the formal institutions and systems established by the constitution or justice system of governments be they a Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Aristocracy or Dictatorship.

All peoples of the world, as individuals, have lives, relationships, families, and the inherent right to reject or accept social trends and have that right and freedom to free speech and make choices without being bullied, coerced, intimidated, or cancelled or censored by either side of an issue?

Nor censored and silenced by social media or mainstream media outlets of any kind.

As a true democracy doesn’t need fact-blockers or politically biased fact-checkers, no matter if they are from the government, agencies of the government or private corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. We need more freedom to speak and discuss opinions on all sides of any issue, not less.

Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, and Yahoo are the next few Teck corporations that require new owners who support open and free dialogue NOT censorship based on a particular political ideology.

Every individual has the right to define oneself and should others agree with your self-definition or not is another matter entirely.

Unfortunately, it seems obvious that the goal of the mainstream gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender community is to force its ideals onto all citizens in their attempt to reduce individual rights by creating a society that must conform to only one viewpoint?

And when one does not conform you are instantly labelled a homophobic or a Trans phobia person!

Also, we have permitted non-elected bureaucrats and technocrats to be appointed into positions of setting policy based on their reasons and speech, without any directly elected accountability or authority from the citizens at large.

Their policies have revolved around deciding for us the cradle-to-grave decisions that once were democratically reserved solely for families and individuals, NOT the ideologies of only one political party.

Throughout the world, we witness progressive liberal socialists deeply involved emotionally in attacks on truth, reality, free speech, banking, and property rights while ignoring the laws of the land, through the weaponization of the legal systems, the courts etc. in my opinion.

“Freedom” means the opportunity to go through life, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, like the media, and without interference, manipulation, or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization or government.

Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter, and defence against whatever threats, real or conceived there may be in one’s environment.

Freedom means having power; not the power to control, or mandate other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life.

One does not have judicial freedom if anyone else (especially the government or a large organization or media) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.

It is important not to confuse freedom or justice with mere permissiveness and inducement by uncontrolled media reporters or journalists. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, yet they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of judicial freedom.

Freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he/she has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media or have it un-ceremonially cancelled by the social media Teck giants, hence it will have no practical effect.

To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups in today's so-called democracies worldwide.

Freedom without the individual being in a legal position to protect oneself, then there is no security for the individual or the security of a family.

Politicians say, "Public safety is our top priority.”

Yet, why is it that they do not enforce all the laws and bylaws currently on the books?

Further, why do they not demand that prosecutors, judges, the laws, and sentencing be used to protect public safety as a top priority and for the victims and innocent citizens who pay the price for crimes committed by criminal elements within society?

To solve the problem of crime the laws must be enforced, prosecutors must demand the maximum sentencing and judges must sentence all criminals, regardless of age, based on the laws for crimes of adults under the criminal code NOT under The Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Further, our laws must be updated relating to sentencing i.e., crimes committee on public transit of any kind must be considered as a domestic terrorist act and upon conviction of the first offence, with or without a weapon, the minimum sentence must be one of 15 years without parole of any kind and the first ten years of the sentence must be served in a jail NOT any other institution like a halfway house etc.

And prosecutors or judges all of whom are not elected officials who do not adhere to these new regulations must be FIRED and prohibited from ever holding or working for any government position or within any government agency for life. Plus receive a fine, a minimum fine of $1 MILLION for not protecting the victims and innocent citizens worldwide.

A great read @ https://www.mises.at/static/literatur/Buch/hayek-the-constitution-of-liberty.pdf

 https://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Hayek%27s%20Constitution%20of%20Liberty.pdf