Monday, May 17, 2021

SCOTUS rules against warrantless seizure of guns while man is in hospital for suicide evaluation

 


Article by Debra Cassens Weiss in ABAJournal

 

SCOTUS rules against warrantless seizure of guns while man is in hospital for suicide evaluation

In a unanimous opinion Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against police who seized a man’s guns without a warrant while he was in the hospital for a suicide evaluation.

Police cannot justify the warrantless search and seizure based on the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the high court.

The Supreme Court had recognized the exception in a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which police searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after a crash.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a challenge by Edward Caniglia, who retrieved an unloaded gun during an argument with his wife, put it on the table and said, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery.”

Caniglia’s wife ended up spending the night at a motel. When she called her husband the next day, the wife was unable to reach him. She called police in Cranston, Rhode Island, for a wellness check.

Caniglia agreed to go to the hospital but only after police allegedly promised that they wouldn’t confiscate his firearms. Police entered Caniglia’s home and took two guns.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had ruled against Caniglia, ruling that the community caretaking exception applies to homes and cars. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The 1st Circuit’s community caretaking rule “goes beyond anything this court has recognized,” Thomas wrote. “What is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes. Cady acknowledged as much.”

In a concurrence, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the decision Monday implicates but does not address “red flag” laws that allow police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent harm to oneself or others.

Alito also mentioned another category of cases involving warrantless searches of a home to ascertain whether a resident is in urgent need of medical attention and can’t summon help. Current precedent does not address that kind of situation, he said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh mentioned similar situations in concurrences. Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined Roberts’ concurrence.

“The court’s decision does not prevent police officers from taking reasonable steps to assist those who are inside a home and in need of aid,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The case is Caniglia v. Strom.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme-court-rules-against-warrantless-seizure-of-guns-while-man-is-in-hospital-for-suicide-evaluation 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Media still won't confront intel officials who told them the Biden laptop was 'Russian disinformation'



The former intelligence officials who couldn’t shut up during the Trump years have gone oddly silent over their baseless election-year allegation that the Hunter Biden laptop story was likely "Russian disinformation."

They sure picked a weird time to go quiet.

There were 50 former intelligence officials who signed a letter last year claiming, without evidence, that Russia was likely behind the laptop story. Now, they largely refuse to explain why they alleged such a thing right before the 2020 election, the Washington Examiner’s Jerry Dunleavy reports.

“Among those to sign their name to the letter were Obama CIA Director John Brennan, Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former George W. Bush CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Obama CIA Director Leon Panetta, and former Obama acting CIA Director Mike Morell,” Dunleavy writes, “none of whom responded to the Washington Examiner's questions.”

He adds, “Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel, declined to comment. The vast majority of the other signatories did not provide on-the-record responses.”

Of those who did respond to the Washington Examiner’s requests for comment, most did so only to defend the joint statement, coming as near as possible to saying “close enough” without saying “close enough.”

Never forget that their baseless accusation, which made its way into an actual presidential debate, was amplified and parroted last year without question by a more-than-eager news

Then-Politico reporter Natasha Bertrand, ever the faithful servant of the intelligence community, authored a report titled “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

The letter didn’t even say that. Its signatories said they suspected the laptop story was "Russian disinformation."

The Politico article’s third paragraph states: “While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them ‘deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case' and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work.”

Contrary to popular media opinion, "fake but accurate" is not a good editorial standard.

The New York Post published a scoop in October 2020 revealing the existence of a laptop reportedly belonging to Hunter Biden. The computer's contents allegedly came into the possession of then-President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, after the younger Biden apparently abandoned several electronic devices at a repair shop in Delaware in 2019. The computer repairman, John Paul Mac Isaac, claims he made a copy of the laptop, which he eventually gave to Giuliani.

Federal officials confirmed for the New York Times that the FBI "seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation."

Giuliani then gave “a hard drive or a laptop or something to that effect” to law enforcement officials in Delaware, according to a spokesperson for Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings. Delaware officials said they likewise turned everything over to the FBI.

The New York Post’s exclusive coverage included the publication of some of the computer's alleged contents, including emails purporting to show Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President  Joe Biden, “to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company.”

Federal law enforcement officials and other government officials have confirmed the authenticity of the documents reportedly retrieved from the laptop.

Infuriatingly enough, after doing its part to dismiss the entire story as "Russian disinformation," Politico published a follow-up report after Election Day titled “How 'Obamagate' and Hunter’s 'laptop from hell' fizzled.”

National Public Radio News Managing Editor Terence Samuel said shortly after the New York Post published its scoop that his newsroom would not “waste” its “time on stories that are not really stories.”

“We don't want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” he said.

NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride said in her daily newsletter, “There are many, many red flags ... Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight.”

CNN, meanwhile, attacked the New York Post, calling its coverage “dubious."

The Washington Post even published a report with the totally unintelligible headline, “Biden relies on pattern of activity to blame Russia for release of data from what is said to be his son’s laptop.”

“Trump embraces reported Russian anti-Biden disinfo campaign,” MSNBC declared in a headline.

The media were far less interested when the "disinformation" narrative was disputed. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said later that the information contained on the laptop, including potentially damning emails, “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.” The Justice Department and the FBI concurred with Ratcliffe’s assessment.

Yet, months after current members of the intelligence community vouched for the authenticity of the laptop and its contents, members of the press continued to peddle the letter’s "Russian disinformation" theory.

In March, for example, certain journalists intent on proving the letter correct reported inaccurately that a newly declassified report proves the Hunter Biden laptop story was indeed “Russian disinformation.”

The declassified report said nothing of the sort.

“The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations,” NPR alleged in a since-amended news report in April.

Imagine being in the journalism business and uncritically repeating an evidence-free allegation that not even the former spooks who produced it will defend.





Ex-Cops Warn France on the Brink of Collapse FRANCE

 France has “fragmented into enclaves” thanks to rampant criminality & unintegrated migrants, warn ex-cops in open letter to Macron.

 


 

Video Shows U.S. Capitol Police Gave Protesters OK to Enter


A newly-obtained video shows United States Capitol Police officers speaking with several January 6 protestors—including Jacob Chansley, the so-called “Q shaman”—inside the Capitol that afternoon.

One officer, identified in the video and confirmed by charging documents as Officer Keith Robishaw, appears to tell Chansely’s group they won’t stop them from entering the building. “We’re not against . . . you need to show us . . . no attacking, no assault, remain calm,” Robishaw warns. Chansley and another protestor instruct the crowd to act peacefully. “This has to be peaceful,” Chansley yelled. “We have the right to peacefully assemble.”

Watch:

The video directly contradicts what government prosecutors allege in a complaint filed January 8 against Chansley: “Robishaw and other officers calmed the protestors somewhat and directed them to leave the area from the same way they had entered. Chansley approached Officer Robishaw and screamed, among other things, that this was their house, and that they were there to take the Capitol, and to get Congressional leaders.”

Chansley later is seen entering the Senate chambers with a police officer behind him; he led several protesters in prayer and sat in Vice President Mike Pence’s chair. (The man in the yellow sweatshirt is William Watson, a drug dealer out on bond. He was arrested in January.)

Chansley is not charged with assaulting an officer; he faces several counts for trespassing and disorderly conduct. He has been incarcerated since January, denied bail awaiting trial. He has no criminal record. 

American Greatness obtained the video from RMG News. The 44-second clip is reportedly part of a much longer video that has yet to be released.


How to Ensure a Middle East War in Five Easy Steps

The new American Middle East policy is an extension of the new American domestic policy.


More than 2,500 rockets have landed in Israel over the past week. Some Arab Israeli citizens are terrorizing Jewish Israelis. Apparently, as the rockets fall, these citizens are to be Arab Islamic nationalists first, and Israelis last—even if they wisely prefer to live on the Israeli rather than the Palestinian side of Israel’s hated wall.

The usual Hamas sympathizers are promising death to the Jews on social media (so much for the idea that Twitter and Facebook are “shocked, shocked” by impolite expressions of the Trumpian sort). 

Iran is always Iran—hubristic and chest-thumping that an obsequious United States will ease sanctions, allowing billions of dollars into the country, and thus empowering Iran to revive former levels of funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, to restructure the terrorist weaponry pipeline to Yemen, and to sanctify the Iran-deal trajectory to an Iranian bomb. Tehran just issued a third-rate video of the Republican Guard destroying the U.S. Capitol, apparently to show the world how it plans to humiliate an appeasing Biden State Department.

But why all this violence now? Of course, experts say the pretexts are cancellations of elections in the West Bank. And there is the need for the corrupt Palestinian Authority to find an enemy to scapegoat other than corrupt rival Hamas. Of course, they say, the Jews are—for the 1,000th time—“desecrating” the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and that the Israeli government is in a mess of disunity, without a unified majority voice. Of course, they say, there is the pretext of a court case over former pre-1947 property in Jerusalem—a bitter, but nevertheless still mostly private matter handled by the courts for years without an intifada.  

Yet between 2017 and 2021 there was relatively little violence in Israel and on the West Bank. Whatever our ideologies and politics, we all know the one reason why there is chaos now and not then. And that constant in itself is a primer on the Middle East. 

Trump Provoked Peace 

The Trump Administration assumed that whenever there is perceived distance between the United States and democratic Israel, then unsavory players exploit the void and try things they otherwise would not. Israel’s enemies and even neutrals in the area see such a reset as encouragement to move in, on the assumption (correctly held) that American tensions with Israel always reflect weakness and hesitancy to be exploited.  

For such a supposedly provocative Trump Administration, peace, not war, followed from its initiatives. It cut off the cash flow to the radical Palestinians, funneled through an anti-American U.N. “refugee” commission. 

(Are East Prussians who were thrown out of their homes in Poland not long before the creation of Israel still considered“refugees,” and thus still talk of a “right of return” to “Danzig”? Do the descendants of nearly 1 million Jews ethnically cleansed from the Middle East still shake the keys of their ancestral homes in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt to cameras? And do the Uighurs have their own U.N. pipeline of financial aid? Answer those questions and you can decide whether anti-Israelism is anti-Semitism.)

The Trump Administration also had warned Iran that if the regime survived internal tensions, a collapsed economy, falling oil prices, sanctions, and constant intelligence efforts to disrupt its nuclear industries, it nevertheless would never get a bomb. 

Arab regimes knew the dangerous messianic strains of Persian Shiite Khomeinism far better than those in the West. Yet it was oddly a surprise to the West that they were naturally more fearful of Tehran than of Tel Aviv. Or that these regimes were at least eager to use Israel either to destroy the Iranian bomb program or at least to divert Iranian attention to Jews.  

In short, the Trump Administration, under the guidance of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, had begun to craft an effective deterrent Mideast foreign policy of calibrated realism without nation-building interventionism. If Russian mercenaries in Syria moved on U.S. troops, then they were obliterated

Trump really did lead efforts to “bomb the sh-t” out of ISIS. If Iranian General Qasem Soleimani boldly traveled about Iraq as he was coordinating terrorist cliques in the Middle East, then the United States took him out. At some point, Iran, and its appendages such as Hamas and Hezbollah, were either too broke and weak to sustain their aggressions, or knew they had zero support in Washington, or they feared that they had no idea what the Americans might do on any given day in reaction to their terrorism.  

It was within such a four-year matrix that terrorists thought it was better not to attack Israel. But if we were looking to achieve the exact opposite, then calm can become war in five easy steps:

1) Revive Iran. Revive the visions of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and former Vice President Joe Biden. That is, integrate the Khomeinist revolutionary theocracy in Tehran into the family of nations so that it can achieve a “legitimate” regional preeminence in the Middle East. Just as the old Nixon-Kissinger agenda was to see the Shah as the useful Western balancer in the region, so the American Left sees Iran in the same role—but this time around as a revolutionary chaotic regime to check the  “right-wing” Israelis and Arab “moderates”, a fact known to Iran.  

Promise to lift sanctions that will revive Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. Assume that Persian Shiite Iran is an oppressed Other, unfairly ostracized largely by democratic Israel and rich Sunni Arab Gulf regimes. 

In the new global era of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, Iran also deserves inclusion and equity. Act as if the hazing of American ships in the Persian Gulf, smuggling arms to Yemen, and assassinating Tehran’s enemies inside Iraq are all simply cries from an oppressed heart that need to be contextualized rather than deterred through a disproportionate reaction. 

In other words, convince Iran that the United States needs an Iran deal more than does Tehran. Signal there will be a reluctant, though fated pathway to a Shiite bomb, that the Straits of Hormuz will fall under natural Iranian control, and that its Russian and Chinese patrons will inevitably partner to recalibrate Middle East affairs in their own interests. 

The goal again is a reassurance to Iran there are few consequences to its aggression because either it is mere anemic belligerence hardly proportionate to any Israeli counterresponse, or perhaps even a righteous reaction to prior oppression. 

In sum, Americans are supposed to envision Iran and its West Bank terrorists as a sort of Middle East version of BLM fighting off the systemic racism, colonialism, and imperialism of the Israelis—predictably playing their accustomed role of the Minneapolis police department. 

2) Discourage Arab moderates. Ignore or deprecate moderate Arab states that recognize or support, even if stealthily, Israel’s legitimate existence. Undermine the Abraham Accords. “Wink and nod” that those regimes that recognize Israel are—or should be—somehow less authentically Islamic or Arabic in the eyes of the Middle East community. In the American leftist mind, they are “Uncle Anwars.”

With more winks and nods, suggest to Gulf regimes that if they really are worried about their security, they should reach out to Iran in anti-Abraham Accords fashion, as in the old enemy (Iran) of my old/new enemy (Israel) is now my new friend—all in the spirit, of course, of Islamic ecumenism and brotherhood.  

Assume that Arab reconciliation with Israel screws up boilerplate leftist theories of pan-Islamic solidarity. Such an intersectional anomaly endangers the foundations of 70 years of the U.S. brokered “peace process” and “multiparty talks.”  

In sum, bilateral calm must be much worse than multilateral chaos. 

3) Reboot corrupt Palestinian dictatorships. Resuscitate the corrupt Palestinian Authority and Hamas as the “keys” to peace, on the rationale that 5 million Palestinians should have veto power over the foreign policy views of 500 million of the greater Arab Middle East. Return to the idea of the Palestinians as perpetual victims. If not for Israeli oppression, they could foster a prosperous and viable West Bank and Gazan society. Convince the world that Arab Israelis are fourth-class citizens, trapped from their brothers by an earlier version of Trump’s border wall. 

Assume that Palestinians alone can enjoy democratic government without the ossified concept of having to hold scheduled elections. Contextualize and thus excuse terrorism, rocket attacks, and assassinations as reactions to systemic racism, prejudice, and bigotry.  

Send signals from the American Left and its new congressional heartthrobs that the Palestinians are the natural twins of the woke identity movement at home. Renewed anti-Semitism can be rebooted for the nth time as legitimate anti-Israelism. 

Again, the message to the Palestinians is that America sympathizes when you are “forced” to strike back against the aggressor’s “systemic racism.” 

4) Adopt globalist moral equivalence. Seek solidarity with the United Nations, the European Union, and the “global community.” Condemn Israel for shooting down rockets and trying to destroy those who are launching them. Such asymmetrical responses are no different, and sometimes morally worse, than sending rockets in the first place. Cannot Israel let just a few rockets fall into downtown Tel-Aviv on the principle of “proportionality”? Why doesn’t the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense system protect the Palestinians from their own malfunctioning and boomeranging missiles?

If a rocket reverses course and falls back on its launchers, then the culprit is Israel for inciting the launchers in the first place. Virtue signal to the international community that the new America of the squad, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders is one with the values of the General Assembly and the Palestinian Street.  

Start then with the premise that Israel is, in truth, just a white, Western, rich, wall-building, neocolonialist, neoimperialist, and apartheid state that it is in dire need of cancel culture, deplatforming, international ostracism, and military comeuppance.  Just as systemic white supremacy is blamed when racist African-Americans males commit anti-Asian hate crimes, so too Zionism is at fault for the deaths of Palestinians, when recklessly launched rockets boomerang on them or they are callously used as human shields by Hamas. 

5) Do the exact opposite of the Trump Administration. In Pavlovian fashion, if Trump was evil and coarse, then erase all his evil and coarse policies without exception. Just as border walls, fracking, pipelines, low inflation, and low unemployment are now inherently bad, so too are all of Trump’s policies in the Middle East. 

So if the Middle East was “calm,” then ensure it will be the opposite of calm on the principle that NeverTrump is always good. Assume Biden’s asleep-at-the-wheel indifference to tensions and violence are preferable to Trump’s “false” peaceful hiatus. If Trump was fond of the Netanyahu government, then work to ensure that it is out of power and stays so.  

Adhere to all five steps and we will likely see a major Middle East war that has started with Hamas rockets, and will accelerate to internal terrorist attacks against Israel, intensifying with Hezbollah launching rockets from Lebanon and Syria, peaking with Iranian missile attacks and global terrorist missions—all sanctioned by Russian and Chinese propaganda as the United States goes mute—and ending when Israel goes medieval on Iran to ensure its own existence.

Is such a scenario alarmist or fantastical? 

No more than concluding that printing $5 trillion in new money, while discouraging employment and production, is inflationary. 

No more than assuming that halting the southern border wall, rendering immigration law inert, and stopping border enforcement all encourage illegal immigration. 

No more than believing that canceling pipelines, stopping new oil and gas leases on federal lands, promising to end fossil fuels in 20 years, and warning of new taxes and regulations, discourages oil producers from gearing up to meet demand, while encouraging foreign criminal hackers to take out our ability to deliver fossil fuels. 

And no more than thinking that defunding the police and skipping arrests and indictments empower the lawbreakers and spike crime.

Historians will later calibrate whether in all these policies their authors were simply incompetent, misguided, and naïve, or else nihilists who equated ensuing chaos and pain as precursors to long-overdue equity and social justice.

The new American Middle East policy is an extension of the new American domestic policy. In both cases, malign naïveté leads to clueless hubris that ends in catastrophe.


Pandemics Aren’t Worth It: End Gain-of-Function Experiments

 


Article by Micah Meadowcroft in The American Conservative


Pandemics Aren’t Worth It: End Gain-of-Function Experiments

COVID, whatever its origins, presents an opportunity to talk about risks and benefits in scientific experiments.

In theory, gain-of-function research prevents pandemics. Scientists subject pathogens to adaptive pressures, novel environments, animal experiments, protein modifications, and the like to see in action how they go about becoming dangerous to human beings. It’s supposed to keep us one step ahead of the enemy, knowing their tricks before they can use them, seeing mutations before they’ve happened, so that we prevent those conditions from occurring in the wild and can rapidly develop vaccines and treatments for viruses we’ve never seen before. It’s heroic “blue sky” research, the kind you do just because of what it might produce.

In practice, gain-of-function experiments are an established, sexy-sounding way to use a lab. You’re dealing with live pathogens, so it’s obviously dangerous, which means you need to use the best equipment and best practices that make the highest biosafety levels. You need funding. You’re a research scientist and want to get published, and producing and observing a potential pandemic virus is a sure way for you to have something to write about. The more it could kill, the cooler, right? Bet the money and recognition will come pouring in. Scientists are only human.

In theoretical practice, gain-of-function research is something you do as a matter of course, wherever they’ll let you do it, as long as there’s funding. Maintaining the highest standards for biosafety levels is hard, and since you would never be so stupid as to make a mistake, you can cut some corners. Besides, suiting up is not only annoying and uncomfortable; it makes it actually more difficult to conduct the experiments. That’s where the error will come from, right? You’re actually doing better, even safer science, skipping some steps. Yes, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a global leader in research on coronaviruses, has a biosafety level four lab, but its labs also mostly operate at a comfortable and efficient biosafety level two. 

I said theoretical practice, because we don’t know. But leading scientists, and science journalists, and your smart friends, all think it’s worth investigating whether the long-named thing we call COVID-19 here leaked from a Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory. “The science” on this is decidedly not settled. That was the point 18 virologists, epidemiologists, and the like made in a letter in Science journal Thursday, writing, “Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.” That was the point former NYT science writer Nicholas Wade made in a must-read survey of what we do know about the origins of this pandemic for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

That’s an important point to make, but when it comes to gain-of-function research it’s not even the important question. The question is not, should we continue to allow and even fund with taxpayer money this sort of gain-of-function research if it led to COVID-19? That was the question Sen. Rand Paul was asking Anthony Fauci in a recent hearing—both doctors sounding more like lawyers. No, the question is, should we fund and allow gain-of-function research when the whole point is to produce more deadly pathogens and we have always known a lab escape is possible? After all, scientists are only human. 

In 2014 the Obama administration decided the answer was probably no, and banned such funding while a review was conducted. In the words of the NIH announcing the end of that moratorium in 2017, “On October 17, 2014, the U.S. Government announced that it would be instituting a funding pause on gain-of-function research projects that could be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the resulting virus has enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility (via the respiratory route) in mammals.” Since that’s the sort of thing “gain-of-function” research usually refers to, the ban was a big deal and plenty of people (Fauci included, reportedly) worked hard for its eventual removal.  

Marc Lipsitch, on the other hand, has been ringing the alarm on the dangers of gain-of-function research for years. The professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is currently working on modeling COVID transmission, but in 2014 he was Nature’s go-to for support of the moratorium on gain-of-function research, and in 2017 Nature quoted him again cautioning against the experiments, arguing they do not yield enough useful information to warrant the risk of a pandemic. Lipsitch is also a signatory of Thursday’s Science letter, requesting further investigation of the lab-leak hypothesis. He was kind enough to give me an interview. 

Lipsitch’s primary point is one of protest, and he hopes everyone will join him; the gain-of-function research of the kind temporarily defunded from 2014 to 2017 is just not worth it. “The risks are substantial and the benefits to public health are small to nonexistent,” he said. His concern is that public health authorities and scientists are simply not asking the very basic relevant risk-benefit question when considering this sort of research, which is: Will the knowledge derived from such experiments be “worth the risk of releasing a pathogen that’s more dangerous than what we already have”? It doesn’t really matter how improbable that release is; it’s too catastrophic to allow.

Lipsitch described a simple grid we can think about in conducting what should be indeed a basic bit of analysis. On one axis is “safe” and “not safe,” and on another is “worthwhile” and “not worthwhile.” In considering funding or advisability, you can place a given research project on that grid. Safe and worthwhile? Of course! Unsafe and worthwhile? Now that is a conversation to be had. What does worthwhile mean? A major part of this discussion should be about comparing benefits, deciding if a safer project can provide enough of the expected results of a more dangerous one. “Compared to doing another scientific experiment that’s safe, is the risk of creating a pandemic worth the benefit to preventing or dealing with a pandemic?” 

Lipsitch said there are cases where experiments and techniques that resemble the gain-of-function research he objects to can pass that simple test. Work with “humanized” mice or “mousified” human pathogens (I recommend reading the Wade piece for answers to any technical questions you might have) can create the conditions for a more contagious strain to emerge. But when there is not intent or effort to produce such a strain, compared to working with an existing pathogen this sort of research might be a safer way to develop and test vaccines, and thus save lives. Part of the key here is keeping the work tied to specifics, specific real-world circumstances and specific real-world needs, so real risk analysis can be done. “I believe in blue sky science,” Lipsitch said. “But I don’t believe that every type of blue sky science experiment has a direct path to saving lives.” 

According to Lipsitch, governments and scientific institutions need to have “an open and transparent process” where they ask and answer these sorts of risk-benefit questions in an accountable manner when they consider funding research. Right now, he said, funding processes are not transparent, with claims about researchers’ rights and ability to speak freely acting as a cover for concerns about intellectual property and publishing. But, “IP is not a value; it’s a means to an end,” Lipsitch said. Being first to publish or patent may be valuable for particular scientists, but it’s not valuable for everyone else. It’s not about public health, when it produces the risk of a pandemic; you can’t consent to a pandemic. Lipsitch is hopeful that no matter what is concluded about COVID-19’s origins, the public-health rationale for scientific research has become more apparent to everyone—the public, lawmakers, and scientists. 

In practical theory, then, it’s time for us, the public, to remember that questions such as “What are scientific experiments for?” and “Are they worth the risk?” are not questions science can answer. Those are, in the broad and classical sense, political questions, and, especially when dealing with government funding, we all deserve answers and a chance to answer. After all, scientists are only human. 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/pandemics-arent-worth-it-end-gain-of-function-experiments/ 

 





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Eight Warning Signs You Might Be Sharing Office Space With Terrorists


It's all too common in corporate America: you're hanging out by the water cooler and you suddenly think to yourself, "Hey, wait a minute -- is that guy over there with the AK-47 part of a violent insurgent group internationally recognized as terrorists? I think he just might be!" Yep -- accidentally sharing office space with terrorists is a real problem. 

Make sure your building doesn't get leveled by a retaliatory airstrike by checking your office space for these eight signs that you might be sharing the building with terrorists:

1. You notice suicide vests hanging on the coat rack. - This could be a hint.

2. The tenants upstairs are constantly disrupting things with their loud footsteps and their rocket launches off the roof. - Upstairs tenants are the worst!

3. You hear cries of "ALLAHU AKBAR!" whenever someone empties the coffee pot and doesn't bother to make another batch. - Accompanied by firing an AK-47 into the air.

4. The office Christmas party gets awkward when the other tenants bring IEDs for the gift exchange. - This could get weird!

5. They only play CNN in the lobby. - The surest sign something is up.

6. Discussion around the water cooler centers on sports, TV shows, and cleansing the region of those who would oppose Allah. - When the other tenants start talking about pushing Israel into the sea, you should probably start wondering if your officemates aren't who you thought they were.

7. The other tenants are always reserving the conference room to film hostage videos. - Companies sharing space with one another can often result in scheduling conflicts.

8. You get notified by the IDF that you are sharing office space with terrorists and your building is leveled shortly after. - A sure sign that perhaps those guys upstairs were actually Hamas.

Welp, best get to searching for a new office to lease! Just keep an eye out for any of these warning signs so it doesn't happen to you again!


Dr. Strawman, Or How I Learned To Stop Loving The FBI And Start Worrying

 

Note to Feds: Arrest ALL "antifa" and  "BLM" members for interrogation or risk being closed down


Article by John Simpson in The American Thinker


Dr. Strawman, Or How I Learned To Stop Loving The FBI And Start Worrying

For those of you old enough to remember, one of ABC’s most popular television series of all time was The FBI, starring Efram Zimbalist, Jr., which showed 241 episodes from 1965 to 1974. Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover served as a consultant to the series until his death in 1972. Hoover’s second-in-command Clyde Tolson vetted every draft episode of the series, and even vetted the actors playing FBI agents and other characters so that “no Communists, subversives or criminals” were associated with the show.

Millions of Americans sat riveted as Inspector Louis Erskine (Zimbalist) and his fellow FBI agents tracked down America’s most dangerous criminals and fugitives. At each episode’s end, Zimbalist hosted a “Most Wanted” bit, profiling actual FBI Most Wanted Criminals. The FBI even aired one on April 28, 1968, as the FBI investigated James Earl Ray following MLK’s assassination.

America’s love for our then-Knights in Shining Armor FBI extended beyond that TV series. Who in America does not know who the real Melvin Purvis, G-Man or fictional Clarice Starling are? I never considered a career in the FBI, but I read every book I could find on the subject.

I was especially intrigued by the technical methods the FBI incorporated to bring down John Gotti and former Boston Underboss Genarro “Gerry” Anguilo on RICO charges. The FBI used sophisticated bugging techniques that followed years of failure in trying to place surveillance devices in areas the mobs tightly controlled.

My respect for the FBI goes far beyond watching TV shows or reading about their successes. From 2012 to 2017, I worked for a major defense contractor that produced and serviced tactical communications systems and concealment devices for hundreds of federal, state, and local LEOS, including the FBI, DEA, ATF and the Secret Service.

My overarching point is that, until recently, I both revered and have been fascinated by the bravery, technical prowess, and clever talents for deception one sees in the rough men and women of the FBI who work tirelessly to capture the worst criminals in America and neutralize terrorist threats. That reverence is now dwindling at an accelerating pace given current events. Radical left-wing Democrats in the White House and Congress are rapidly steering the DoJ and FBI away from their core missions of law enforcement to conducting politically motivated investigations more worthy of the KGB and the Stasi, using the pretext of the Capitol riots as an American Reichstag Fire.

Don’t take my word for it. If you search for Antifa at the FBI’s website, you get one result! Now check out the MOST WANTED/CAPITOL VIOLENCE page header. It goes on endlessly. Page after page of images captured of anyone in the Capitol on January 6th. FBI Director Wray insists that the FBI did not use geotracking to locate anyone to the right of Mao who was in the Capitol that day. Having worked in Telecom for twenty years, and having been involved in the incorporation of the Enhanced 911 Systems that allow police to use cell towers and GPS to track emergency cellphone calls to their exact location, I know Wray is lying. How else did he get the information in any legal fashion?

I can stand politicians lying to me. I’ve witnessed that my entire life. But for the Director of the FBI to lie to the American people in such a low fashion, one more characteristic of John Brennan and James Clapper is a bridge too far. Add to that the embarrassing raid on Marylin Hueper in Alaska based on a selfie. That’s not an investigation unless they have evidence I don’t know about. It was a politically motivated botch that completely disrupted the lives of two innocent Americans. Conversely, DoJ and the FBI seem determined to whitewash, equivocate, and dismiss any concerns about Antifa and BLM, whose members have caused over two billion dollars in damage and destroyed countless businesses and lives.

Yet AG Merrick Garland stated on Wednesday that white supremacy is the top domestic terror threat. Not Islamic jihadism or left-wing mayhem and murder. White supremacists, in particular those involving racial bias and anti-government sentiment. AG Garland also stated that the definitions of said domestic terrorists must by its nature be overly broad, which indeed it must be since racialist “experts” go so far as to attribute the success of Asian college students to white supremacy. This is the same kind of broad national security canard the ChiComs are using to commit genocide of the Uighurs, and which Stalin had used to rid the Soviet Union of millions of counterrevolutionaries.

I don’t know where this is all going, but with each day that passes I am growing more deeply concerned that the FBI in general, and DoJ in particular, are abdicating their sworn duties to enforce the law in order to pursue purely political objectives. It’s very dangerous place to be, being perceived by a large swath of the population that federal LEO agencies are not only derelict in their duty to protect the public but are being directed against them personally for no good legal reason.

I conclude this opinion piece with a warning to the DoJ, FBI and all LEOs nationwide, most of whom I still respect and support with every fiber of my being. The warning is not from myself, but from American history. Most of you have seen the viral video of Plano, Texas, cops standing by while Antifa and BLM agitators block an intersection and disrupt civil order. The only man to be charged in that event was a rather large fellow who stepped out of his truck and confronted the Marxist morons like the cops should have. That is not justice, and it is only one similar incident of many.

What our history tells us in this regard is this: Where law enforcement leaves a void, criminality, and chaos fill it until vigilantism rears its ugly head. From the pre-Revolutionary War South Carolina backcountry to Gold Rush San Francisco to Bannack, Montana to Bernie Goetz, when citizens feel that law enforcement is abandoning them to the wolves, leaving them with no real avenues of redress for heinous wrongs committed against them, they take the law into their own hands. In those moments in history, what the marauding cutthroats discovered murderous vigilantes violently dispatched them from this life, is that the police are there not only to protect citizens from the criminals, but to protect criminals from the citizens.

Words to the wise. This sickening and infuriating injustice cannot and will not stand for long. Every social crisis of this nature reaches a breaking point. I say all of what I have said as a six-year Navy Veteran who has honorably served and deeply loves my country, my fellow Americans, and LEOs nationwide, many of whom I know personally and have supported materially and technically. The path this nation is going down in these respects will not end well, and I fear for those dedicated FBI agents and LEOs nationwide who would be on the front lines of such a bloody national Apocalypse Now.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/dr_strawman_or_how_i_learned_to_stop_loving_the_fbi_and_start_worrying.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage