New York Ruling Class Says It Can Now Quarantine People Against Their Will
by Mac Slavo | Nov 29, 2023 |
The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division has overturned a decision in a lawsuit over the state’s unreasonable COVID-19 quarantine regulations in a move that could pave the way for quarantine camps in New York. The ruling class thinks it has ultimate power over the slave class, and until we stand up and disobey together, we are stuck being slaves.
The Path To Freedom & Abolishing Slavery
At the heart of the case is Rule 2.13 of New York’s public health law, which gives state health officials the power to order anyone who is suspected of having a communicable disease like COVID-19 to be placed in temporary housing against their will. It allows them to issue isolation or quarantine orders without any proof of an individual being infected. The rule also allows them to force individuals to stay in their homes or go to other locations that public health authorities consider appropriate. It gives authorities the power to hold people for as long as they wish. –Natural News
The ruling means that the New York Commissioner of Health can now issue quarantine orders to control diseases despite the plaintiffs’ argument that the regulations impede individual liberty and majorly overstep the separation of powers.
The Appellate Division court is claiming that by reversing the lower court decision and then dismissing this case for “lack of standing,” they believe that Senator George Borrello, Assemblyman Chris Tague, Congressman Mike Lawler, and the citizens’ group Uniting NYS did not have the right to bring this lawsuit last year against the Governor and her Department of Health for their heinous “Isolation and Quarantine Procedures” regulation. According to the court, the plaintiffs were not “harmed” by the quarantine policies, only those forcibly locked in their homes.
For more information, please read the following article by The Brownstone Institute:
The problem isn’t that New York gave itself power. It has no power to give itself power unless the public believes in the throne.
Many have been able to recognize and oppose specific acts of tyranny by specific regimes, but very few have recognized that the underlying problem is not who sits on the throne; the problem is that there is a throne to sit on. -Larken Rose
I don’t care if there’s one looney with a stupid mustache. He’s not a threat if the people do not believe in “authority”. -Larken Rose
We need to stop begging these rulers to be free. We already know that it is not in the best interests of any master to allow a slave to go free.
Grid Operator Sounds Alarm As Coal Plant Shutdown Threatens Power for Millions
by Nicholas Dolinger November 23, 2023
A major power grid operator serving millions in the mid-Atlantic region, PJM Interconnection, has raised concerns about the impending shutdown of the Brandon Shores coal power plant near Baltimore, known as “Charm City” for its colorful personalities and rich local culture.
This closure, planned for June 2025 by the plant’s operator, Texas-based Talen Energy, is part of a settlement with the Sierra Club. PJM Interconnection, which oversees electricity movement in parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia, warns that this shutdown could severely disrupt the reliability of the region’s power grid.
Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, expressed concerns about the accelerated timeline for exiting coal-fired power plants in the state of Maryland, known for its blue-shelled crabs and visually appealing state flag.
“There has been a strong push for quite some time to get coal power out of Maryland,” Summers said in an interview with Fox News Digital. “In this accelerated timeline of exiting from coal-fired power plants in the coming 12 to 24 months, I think it’s going to create a major reliability concern for the state.”
“The loss of power poses a real danger to the well-being and livelihoods of Maryland families and businesses,” Summers said. “Until these current risks to our grid are fully dealt with, it’s a mistake to close reliable, baseload power plants too soon. That should be a concern to consumers in Maryland and businesses in Maryland that rely on dependable power.”
In 2020, Talen Energy agreed with the Sierra Club to close Brandon Shores and two other major coal plants in the region, aiming to avoid future litigation or permit disputes. Ralph Alexander, then-CEO of Talen Energy, described the move as part of the company’s transition to green energy and its broader environmental, social and governance (ESG)-focused future.
However, PJM Interconnection has indicated that the premature closure of Brandon Shores, which has a capacity of 1,295 megawatts, enough to power over a million homes, would create an imbalance in the grid. Jeff Shields, a spokesperson for PJM Interconnection, detailed the severe voltage drop and thermal violations across seven PJM zones that could result from the plant’s deactivation, leading to widespread reliability risks in Baltimore and surrounding areas.
“The PJM region and the state of Maryland are facing future reliability challenges as a result of the announced retirement of the Brandon Shores units,” Jeff Shields, a spokesperson for PJM Interconnection, told Fox News Digital. “Specifically, PJM analyses showed that the deactivation of the Brandon Shores units would cause severe voltage drop and thermal violations across seven PJM zones, which could lead to a widespread reliability risks in Baltimore and the immediate surrounding areas.
“Therefore, there is an urgent need to upgrade the transmission system in order to maintain reliability and the flow of power to the 65 million people we serve,” Shields said. “The chosen transmission solutions include in-service estimates in the 2027-2028 timeframe.”
Talen Energy and PJM are currently in discussions with the Sierra Club and Maryland state officials to find a solution. Taryne Williams, a spokesperson for Talen Energy, confirmed these ongoing discussions, emphasizing Talen’s awareness of regional electric system reliability. Maryland Public Service Commission spokesperson Tori Leonard also acknowledged PJM’s responsibility for reliably operating the regional transmission grid.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently approved PJM’s nearly $800 million emergency plan for transmission upgrades to mitigate the impact of the Brandon Shores closure. FERC Commissioner Mark Christie warned of the potential for severe voltage collapse in Baltimore and surrounding zones, including Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia, Delaware and southeastern Pennsylvania, describing such a scenario as potentially catastrophic.
Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland’s sole Republican congressional delegate, criticized the decision to close Brandon Shores.
“Closing an efficient, low-cost energy producing plant like Brandon Shores is just one more way America is surrendering our energy advantage to China and Russia,” he said. Harris also pointed out the likely outcome of more expensive electricity bills for Maryland families.
Maryland has set ambitious clean energy goals, including achieving a state-level “net zero” greenhouse emissions mandate by 2045. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who took office in January, aims for the state’s power grid to be entirely powered by green energy by 2035. Carter Elliott, a spokesperson for Moore, highlighted the governor’s commitment to 100% clean energy, which includes significant investments in wind and solar developments. Elliott declined to comment on the Brandon Shores closure.
he Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is facing scrutiny due to a report from The Wall Street Journal detailing a “party culture” within the agency.
The report includes incidents of inappropriate behavior, such as supervisors inviting employees to strip clubs, sexual misconduct, and lewd photos.
The FDIC’s heavy drinking culture, centered around an 11-story hotel, has been a significant issue.
The agency has also faced criticism for its handling of financial institutions that failed this year, and the FDIC’s vice chairman acknowledged the agency’s slow response in setting up a platform for potential bidders to examine a bank’s finances.
“A male Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. supervisor in San Francisco invited employees to a strip club,” The Wall Street Journal reported in an article titled “Strip Clubs, Lewd Photos and a Boozy Hotel: The Toxic Atmosphere at Bank Regulator FDIC.”
“A supervisor in Denver had sex with his employee, told other employees about it and pressed her to drink whiskey during work,” the report continued.
“Senior bank examiners texted female employees photos of their penises. The agency tolerated a heavy drinking culture.”
The FDIC has responded, stating that harassment goes against its values and that it has programs in place to create a safe and equitable workplace.
The report continued: “The FDIC spent more than $100 million in the 1980s to build a training complex in Arlington, Va., that included a hotel for agency staff with more than 350 rooms, an outdoor pool and a rooftop patio. The FDIC said the hotel and training complex save the agency money.”
“It was just an accepted part of the culture,” Lauren Lemmer, a former examiner-in-training, said.
Lemmer “quit her job in 2013 after three years in which she said she was denied opportunities to advance, followed back to her Dallas hotel room by a male colleague during training, invited to a strip club in Seattle by other bank examiners and sent an unsolicited naked photo by a colleague.”
An FDIC spokesman said, “Harassment in any form is contrary to the FDIC’s values and our deep commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace. We have various training, reporting, and oversight programs that endeavor to create a safe and equitable environment where all employees can feel valued and respected.”
“When we identify misconduct, we investigate and take appropriate action. In addition, we continually seek employee feedback and input on ways to promote and improve the culture through our Workplace Excellence Councils, Employee Resource Groups, and other means. To ensure we are living up to our values, we will continue to conduct periodic reviews of our programs and policies,” the spokesman said.
There is an ongoing political debate about the appropriate extent of Western aid to Ukraine in resisting Russian aggression. How much cost is it worthwhile for Western taxpayers to bear? Whatever, the answer, the burden can be greatly reduced by confiscating Russian government assets in the West, and using them to fund Ukraine's defense.
There is a staggering $300 billion in frozen Russian state assets located in Western nations backing Ukraine. Most of this wealth is located in European Union nations. But about $5 billion is in the US. To put this figure in perspective, it's worth noting that the total amount of US aid to Ukraine from February 2022 through July 31, 2023 was about $77 billion. The European Union, individual European states, and Canada, gave approximately $165 billion during the same period (I converted Euro figures to dollars at the current exchange rate). The $300 billion in frozen assets is equal to some two years of total Western assistance to Ukraine at the current pace of spending!
There is a strong moral and pragmatic case for seizing Russian state assets and using them to fund Ukraine's defense. Michael McFaul, a leading expert on Russian politics and foreign policy, summarizes some key points in a recent Washington Post article:
Since the war began, a broad coalition of countries has joined together to confiscate billions in Russian assets. Some of these assets belong to oligarchs who have propped up Putin's system; by far the largest amount, though, is sitting in frozen accounts held by the Russian Central Bank. These funds amount to some $300 billion, of which the largest share has been seized by the Europeans. These funds should be deployed as soon as possible to help bring the war to an end and finance Ukraine's reconstruction. Considering that Russia's unprovoked war has inflicted hundreds of billions of dollars of damage on the Ukrainian economy, it's only just that the international community should impose some of these costs on the Russian state itself….
[S]ome experts worry that transfer of these funds will set a negative precedent for global financial institutions. I disagree. Seizing assets of the Russian state after Putin invaded and annexed Ukraine sets a positive, deterrent precedent to other world leaders thinking about using military force to annex territory. And we should not want criminals to do their banking in the democratic world.
A recent Renew Democracy Initiative analysis by a team of lawyers led by Harvard law Prof. Laurence Tribe does a thorough job of addressing a variety of possible legal objections to such a step. But scholars such as Lee Buchheit and Paul Stephan, and Yale Law School Prof. Oona Hathaway have raised a variety of objections and reservations.
I won't try to go over all the law and policy issues here, and some are outside my areas of expertise. But I will cover some points that are within my competence, most notably those relating to property rights.
The most obvious moral objection is that the property in question ultimately belongs to the Russian people, and cannot legitimately be taken away from them by foreign powers. While the Putin regime is to blame for the war and resulting atrocities, most ordinary Russians are not. This objection might carry some weight if it were at all likely that Putin's government would use this property for purposes that benefit the Russian people. But given the nature of his authoritarian state, that is highly unlikely. If the present Russian government regains control of these assets, it is more likely to use them to further oppress Russians and Ukrainians like.
Using the assets to help Ukraine defeat Russia increases the likelihood of regime change in the latter state, or at least of some degree of liberalization. And that is the best hope for a Russian government that actually serves the interests of its people, or is at least less awful than the present regime. For that reason, we should not be deterred by fear of unjustly harming ordinary Russians. To the contrary, using Russian state assets to help Ukraine defeat Putin might actually benefit them.
There are also slippery slope objections to consider. If Western nations confiscate Russian state assets today, might they not confiscate other foreign property tomorrow, perhaps with far less justification? The answer to this objection is that legislation authorizing confiscation should be narrowly focused on Russian property, and possibly that of other states waging unjust wars of aggression and committing enormous human rights violations.
In addition, in the US the private property of foreigners is protected against confiscation by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay "just compensation" if it takes "private property." Most European nations have similar constitutional protections for private property rights, as does the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the Fifth Amendment and its European analogues do not offer the same kind of blanket protection to the property of foreign governments. This distinction undermines claims by some critics that uncompensated seizure of Russian state assets would violate the Takings Clause and similar constitutional guarantees in Europe. It also mitigates concerns that confiscating Russian government assets would create a dangerous slippery slope. Private property rights of foreigners would remain protected by constitutional guarantees.
There could still be a slippery slope with respect to property owned by foreign governments. But that is mitigated by the strong incentives governments have to maintain good relations with allies and trading partners. It's unlikely that Western nations will start systematically confiscating foreign states' assets outside of extreme cases like that posed by Russia's horrific assault on Ukraine. To the extent that confiscation of Russian assets leads other authoritarian rulers to think twice about imitating Putin's actions, or prevents them from investing in the West, slippery slope possibilities might even be a feature, rather than a bug.
What is true of property rights protections is also true of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and other similar procedural guarantees against seizure of property. The Due Process Clause and other such provisions are meant to protect private individuals and organizations against deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process. They don't offer comparable protection to foreign governments. Indeed, it would be perverse to use laws intended to protect individuals against arbitrary state oppression to instead protect a mass-murdering oppressive state from having its assets seized for the purposes of using them to resist its aggression and massive human rights violations.
Oona Hathaway argues that confiscating Russian state assets would violate sovereign immunity. I think the Tribe report offers compelling responses to this argument (pp 60-64).
In addition, I am not convinced that sovereign immunity is actually a just principle that we have a duty to obey. It is in fact a perversion of justice, enabling rulers to escape accountability for violating human rights and other injustices they perpetrate. It was a mistake to read it into the US Constitution. It is equally a mistake to allow it to be a principle of international law. Some laws are so deeply unjust that we have no duty to obey them. The law of sovereign immunity is one such case.
At the very least, sovereign immunity should not be permitted to shield authoritarian states like Putin's regime from having their assets confiscated in order to combat their wars of aggression, mass murder of civilians, and other large-scale human rights violations. Such rulers no more deserve sovereign immunity than Mafia bosses. Indeed, they are far worse than Mafia bosses.
If necessary, the US and European nations should enact legislation stripping the Russian state of all sovereign immunity. Any possible violation of international law here is well-justified.
There is a pragmatic concern that, absent sovereign immunity, authoritarian rulers will confiscate the property of Western governments. But authoritarian states have vastly more assets invested in the West than vice versa. Moreover, many of them have strong incentives to stay on the good side of the US and its allies. Confiscating Russian assets might even strengthen those incentives. They might think twice about imitating Russian actions if doing so leads to the confiscation of assets they have stashed in the West.
The above analysis assumes that Ukrainian resistance to Russia is a just cause worth supporting. If not, there is no reason to assist it. I won't go through all the moral and pragmatic reasons why supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. But I have previously covered many of them here, here, and here.
I also won't respond in detail to those who argue the West should force Ukraine to make peace. I will merely point out that such a step would embolden further aggression by Putin and other authoritarians, and consign hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to horrific occupation. Anne Applebaum makes many additional relevant points in a recent Atlantic article critiquing the case for giving up on Ukraine.