Home Search
Search results for

"police"

BlogIn the Media

Ars Technica: Court upholds “First Amendment” right to film police

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Ruling is one of many nationwide supporting right to record police.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the public has the right to film cops in public and has reinstated a lawsuit against a local New Hampshire police department brought by a woman arrested for filming a traffic stop.

The plaintiff in the case, Carla Gericke, was arrested on wiretapping allegations in 2010 for filming her friend being pulled over by the Weare Police Department during a late-night traffic stop. Although Gericke was never brought to trial, she sued, alleging that her arrest constituted retaliatory prosecution in breach of her constitutional rights.

Read the article at Ars Technica…

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

The Legal Landscape of Vaccines: Terrifying Legal Record of Your Bodily Enslavement Masquerading as “Public Health”

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Reminder, these AI&I exercises serve as basic learning experiences for me, and hopefully for you, which is why I post them “as is” with my questions included instead of acting like a cheating-influencer. That said, in the interest of full disclosure, I am antivax from a RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE perspective (i.e. the school of thought called: I am free to believe whatever the fuck I want and there is nothing you can do about it). I believe the words PUBLIC HEALTH and GREATER GOOD are devil spells incanted to make you forget who you are: an INDIVIDUAL, free to do whatever YOU want with YOUR BODY but YOU are solely responsible for those choices.

Read more about my stances on X (and throw me a follow, please and thank you!): Psst: There Is No Such Thing As “Public Health” and Imagine Calling Your Friend “Non-Essential”.

Now, herewith, some case law surrounding vaccinations, bodily autonomy, right of conscience, and how the government has slowly over the past 150 years, claimed they own your body, and no one, but a select few of us, seem to know or care.

List and summarize the facts and conclusions all US supreme court cases that deal with the subject of “right of conscience”

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The “right of conscience” refers to an individual’s freedom to hold personal beliefs and act according to them, particularly in matters of religion and moral conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed this right in several landmark cases:

  1. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940):
    • Facts: Newton Cantwell, a Jehovah’s Witness, was arrested for soliciting without a license and inciting a breach of the peace while proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood.
    • Conclusion: The Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It ruled that requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes was unconstitutional, as it allowed the state to determine what constitutes a religious cause, thereby infringing on religious freedom. Wikipedia
  2. United States v. Seeger (1965):
    • Facts: Daniel Seeger sought exemption from military service as a conscientious objector, citing a personal belief in a Supreme Being but not adhering to traditional religious doctrines.
    • Conclusion: The Court broadened the interpretation of “religious training and belief” under the Universal Military Training and Service Act to include sincere and meaningful beliefs that occupy a place in the life of the possessor parallel to that filled by God, even if not based on traditional religious concepts. Supreme Court of the United States
  3. Gillette v. United States (1971):
    • Facts: Guy Gillette opposed participation in the Vietnam War on moral grounds but was not opposed to all wars. He sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft.
    • Conclusion: The Court ruled that conscientious objector status under the Selective Service Act applies only to those who oppose participation in all wars, not just specific conflicts. First Amendment Center
  4. United States v. Lee (1982):
    • Facts: An Amish employer objected to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds, arguing that participation in governmental support systems violated his faith.
    • Conclusion: The Court held that while the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, it does not exempt individuals from compliance with valid, neutral laws of general applicability, such as the payment of Social Security taxes. Wikipedia
  5. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014):
    • Facts: The owners of Hobby Lobby, a closely held for-profit corporation, objected on religious grounds to providing certain contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act.
    • Conclusion: The Court ruled that closely held corporations could be exempt from regulations that violate their owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs if there is a less restrictive means of achieving the regulation’s goal, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Wikipedia
  6. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022):
    • Facts: A high school football coach was suspended for praying on the field after games, which the school district argued violated the Establishment Clause.
    • Conclusion: The Court held that the coach’s prayer was a form of private speech protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, and that the school district’s actions were not justified by concerns over violating the Establishment Clause. Wikipedia

These cases collectively underscore the Supreme Court’s role in delineating the boundaries between individual rights of conscience and governmental interests, balancing personal freedoms with societal obligations.

You said:

Please find me the cases that predate 1940

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Prior to 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the “right of conscience”—the freedom to hold personal beliefs and act according to them, especially in religious contexts—in several notable cases:

  1. Reynolds v. United States (1879):
    • Facts: George Reynolds, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was convicted of bigamy under federal law. He argued that his religious duty to practice polygamy should exempt him from the law.
    • Conclusion: The Court held that while religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, religious practices that are judged to be criminal (such as bigamy) are not. This case established the principle that the government can regulate actions, even if they are religiously motivated, if they violate social duties or subvert good order. Wikipedia
  2. Davis v. Beason (1890):
    • Facts: Samuel D. Davis was convicted under an Idaho law that required voters to swear they were not members of any organization that practiced polygamy. Davis, a member of the LDS Church, challenged the law, claiming it infringed upon his religious rights.
    • Conclusion: The Court upheld the law, stating that polygamy was “a crime by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries,” and that religious practices that violate social duties or subvert good order are not protected by the First Amendment.
  3. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905):
    • Facts: Henning Jacobson refused mandatory smallpox vaccination, citing personal health concerns and his right to care for his own body.
    • Conclusion: The Court upheld the state’s authority to mandate vaccinations, asserting that individual liberties may be overridden when necessary to protect public health and safety.
  4. Selective Draft Law Cases (1918):
    • Facts: Several individuals challenged the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act of 1917, arguing that compulsory military service violated their rights, including religious objections to war.
    • Conclusion: The Court unanimously upheld the draft, stating that the government’s authority to raise and support armies was paramount, and that individual objections, even on religious grounds, did not exempt one from military service. Wikipedia

These cases illustrate the Court’s early efforts to balance individual rights of conscience with societal interests and legal obligations.

You said:

In the case of Jacobson, please provide the decision verbatim

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

In the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. Justice John Marshall Harlan, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated:

“The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.”

The Court concluded that:

“Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

Therefore, the Court held that the Massachusetts law mandating smallpox vaccination was a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power to protect public health and safety.

Supreme Court of the United States

You said:

Find the top 20 most cited US cases relating to vaccinations

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The following are some of the most frequently cited U.S. court cases related to vaccination laws and mandates:

  1. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): The Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws, establishing a precedent for public health interventions.
  2. Zucht v. King (1922): The Court ruled that school systems could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students, reinforcing the principle that individual rights may be subordinated to public health needs.
  3. Prince v. Massachusetts (1944): This case affirmed that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children, including mandating vaccinations, even when such regulations conflict with parental religious beliefs.
  4. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC (2011): The Supreme Court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs seeking compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects.
  5. Phillips v. City of New York (2nd Cir. 2015): The Second Circuit upheld New York’s mandatory vaccination requirements for schoolchildren, stating that religious exemptions are not constitutionally required.
  6. Workman v. Mingo County Board of Education (4th Cir. 2011): The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging West Virginia’s mandatory vaccination law, holding that the state’s interest in preventing disease outweighed individual religious objections.
  7. Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools (2nd Cir. 2012): The court upheld the denial of a religious exemption to mandatory vaccination, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination.
  8. F.F. v. State of New York (N.Y. App. Div. 2019): The court upheld the state’s repeal of religious exemptions to vaccination requirements, emphasizing the state’s interest in protecting public health.
  9. Doe v. San Diego Unified School District (9th Cir. 2021): The Ninth Circuit denied an emergency injunction against a school district’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, finding that the mandate was likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
  10. Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University (7th Cir. 2021): The Seventh Circuit upheld the university’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement for students, citing the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
  11. Whitlow v. California Department of Education (S.D. Cal. 2016): The court upheld California’s elimination of personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements for schoolchildren.
  12. Nikolao v. Lyon (6th Cir. 2018): The Sixth Circuit dismissed a challenge to Michigan’s vaccination waiver procedure, finding no violation of the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
  13. Brown v. Smith (Cal. Ct. App. 2018): The California Court of Appeal upheld the state’s elimination of personal belief exemptions to vaccination requirements, affirming the state’s authority to mandate vaccinations for school attendance.
  14. W.D. v. Rockland County (S.D.N.Y. 2019): The court upheld a county’s emergency declaration barring unvaccinated children from public places during a measles outbreak.
  15. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York (2020): While primarily a Second Amendment case, the Court referenced Jacobson v. Massachusetts in discussing the balance between individual rights and public safety.
  16. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020): The Court cited Jacobson in upholding California’s restrictions on religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  17. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020): The Court distinguished Jacobson in striking down New York’s restrictions on religious services during the pandemic.
  18. Does v. Mills (2021): The Supreme Court declined to block Maine’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers, referencing Jacobson in the context of public health measures.
  19. Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital (S.D. Tex. 2021): The court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, citing Jacobson in its reasoning.
  20. Kane v. De Blasio (2nd Cir. 2021): The Second Circuit upheld New York City’s vaccine mandate for public school employees, referencing Jacobson in its analysis.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with public health imperatives, often referencing the foundational principles established in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Relating only to Covid 19 cases, make a two column list one for “Pro-Mandatory Vaccine Cases” and “Pro Right of Conscience Cases,” and then add the names and brief facts of each case that has been decided since mandatory Covid shots

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The legal landscape surrounding COVID-19 vaccination mandates has seen a variety of court decisions, reflecting the balance between public health measures and individual rights of conscience. Below is a categorized list of notable cases:

Pro-Mandatory Vaccine Cases

  1. Klaassen v. Trustees of Indiana University (2021)
    • Facts: Indiana University implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for students. A group of students challenged the mandate, arguing it violated their constitutional rights.
    • Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the university’s mandate, referencing Jacobson v. Massachusetts to support the institution’s authority to require vaccinations for public health reasons.
  2. Doe v. San Diego Unified School District (2021)
    • Facts: The San Diego Unified School District required students aged 16 and older to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to attend in-person classes. A student challenged the mandate on religious grounds.
    • Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied an emergency injunction against the mandate, indicating that the policy was likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
  3. Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital (2021)
    • Facts: Houston Methodist Hospital mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees. A group of employees sued, claiming the mandate was unlawful.
    • Outcome: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the hospital’s requirement was consistent with public policy and did not violate any laws.

Pro Right of Conscience Cases

  1. Dahl v. Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University (2021)
    • Facts: Western Michigan University required student-athletes to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Several athletes sought religious exemptions, which were denied, leading to their exclusion from team activities.
    • Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted an injunction, allowing the athletes to participate without vaccination, citing potential violations of their First Amendment rights.
  2. Dr. A. v. Hochul (2021)
    • Facts: New York State issued a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers without providing for religious exemptions. A group of healthcare workers challenged the mandate.
    • Outcome: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction against the mandate, emphasizing the need to accommodate religious beliefs.
  3. Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc. (2022)
    • Facts: United Airlines implemented a vaccine mandate for employees, offering limited exemptions. Employees who were granted religious or medical exemptions were placed on unpaid leave.
    • Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the lawsuit to proceed, indicating that placing employees on indefinite unpaid leave could constitute irreparable harm.

These cases illustrate the ongoing judicial efforts to balance public health imperatives with individual rights of conscience in the context of COVID-19 vaccination mandates.

Sources

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogElection 2024

11 Things Thinking Americans Might Not Like About Tim Walz

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Based on questions I asked AI generators, I have compiled the following list of criticisms to Veep pick Tim Walz:

  1. Socialist Economic Policies: Walz’s support for increasing the minimum wage and expanding government spending on social programs contributes to higher taxes and increased government intervention in the economy, resulting in increased poverty over time.
  2. Strict COVID-19 Lockdowns: Walz’s implementation of strict lockdowns and public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic harmed businesses and individual freedoms (including retarding childhood development).
  3. Anti-Police Policies: Walz’s advocacy for police reform and measures addressing “systemic racism,” particularly in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, was ineffective. He should have implemented real police reforms, which would include things like ending Qualified Immunity and requiring police to carry personal liability insurance.
  4. Climate Meddling: Walz’s stance on environmental issues and climate change legislation will lead to job losses and has significant economic drawbacks.
  5. Strict Gun Control: Walz’s support for stricter gun control measures, including background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms, is likely to be opposed by all who prioritize our Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights.
  6. Socialized Medicine: Walz’s efforts to expand healthcare access, including support for government-funded healthcare options (for things like abortions and gender reassignment surgery) will be criticized by those who prefer market-based solutions and understand that increased government involvement in healthcare reduces healthy outcomes.
  7. Raising Taxes: Walz’s policies involve raising taxes to fund public services and social programs. These are generally opposed by all who advocate for lower taxes and reduced government spending. (Those who understand the magnitude of government waste and want to keep more of their own money to spend as they see fit.)
  8. Against Education Reform: Walz’s push for increased funding for public schools aligns him with teachers’ unions, thereby stifling education reform and school choice initiatives, which most parents support. (More choices, more better.)
  9. Immigration Stance: Walz’s support for open immigration policies, including protections for undocumented immigrants and supporting refugee resettlement programs, are opposed by Americans who favor the crazy notion that only Americans should vote in our elections.
  10. Negative Job Creation: Walz’s strong support for labor unions and workers’ rights, including advocating for collective bargaining and opposing right-to-work laws, hinder economic growth and job creation, leading to more unemployment.
  11. Responsible for Significant Increases in Violent Crime: Under Tim Walz’s governorship, crime rates in Minnesota experienced a notable increase. Here are some key points regarding the rise in crime during his tenure:

a. Violent Crime Spike: From 2019 to 2021, Minnesota saw a sharp rise in violent crime, reaching its highest level in more than a decade. This includes significant increases in murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and human trafficking​ (Minnesota Compass)​ (Alpha News).

b. Record Homicides: The state set all-time records for homicides in consecutive years, with 201 homicides in 2021, a substantial increase from 104 in 2018, the year before Walz took office​ (Alpha News).

c. Aggravated Assaults and Carjackings: Aggravated assaults rose by 33.7% from 2020 to 2021, and for the first time, the state tracked carjackings, reporting 779 incidents statewide in 2021​ (Alpha News).

d. Increased Crime in Metro Areas: The increase in violent crime was particularly pronounced in the seven-county metro area, where it rose by 23.9%, compared to a 16% increase in Greater Minnesota​ (Alpha News).

e. Criticism of Public Safety Policies: Critics argue that Walz’s public safety policies, including judicial appointments and sentencing guidelines, have contributed to the rise in crime. They claim these policies have been lenient on violent offenders, leading to a perception of reduced accountability​ (Star Tribune).

This lead me to this, just FYI:

Tell me more about the news source “alpha news”… when did it start, who are the funders, etc., giving a comprehensive summary

ChatGPT

Searched 6 sites

Alpha News is a Minnesota-based online news network that launched in 2015. The platform primarily covers state and local government issues, with a strong emphasis on topics favored by the political right. It was initially promoted by the Minnesota Tea Party Alliance, reflecting its conservative leanings.

Alpha News is known for its right-leaning bias and has been categorized as a questionable source by Media Bias/Fact Check due to poor sourcing, promotion of conspiracy theories, and a lack of transparency regarding ownership and funding. The platform relies on revenue from advertising and private donors, although specific funders are not disclosed publicly​ (Media Bias/Fact Check)​ (InfluenceWatch)​ (Star Tribune).

The content on Alpha News often includes stories that are critical of progressive policies and public figures, and it has been criticized for spreading misinformation and engaging in Islamophobic rhetoric. The site has a small team of journalists, including notable figures like Liz Collin, a former WCCO-TV reporter who has won multiple Emmy Awards​ (A Better Minnesota)​ (Alpha News).

For more detailed information, you can visit their official website or refer to comprehensive reviews on platforms like Media Bias/Fact Check and Influence Watch.

do the same analysis for Media Bias/Fact CheckChatGPT

Searched 5 sites

Overview of Media Bias/Fact Check

History and Purpose: Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) was founded in 2015 by Dave Van Zandt. The website aims to educate the public on media bias and deceptive news practices, striving to promote straightforward news reporting and combat misinformation. MBFC evaluates the political bias and factual accuracy of news sources using a combination of objective measures and subjective analysis.

Methodology: MBFC follows a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources, which involves examining article content, language, and the presence of partisan bias. They classify sources into categories such as “Left,” “Left-Center,” “Least Biased,” “Right-Center,” and “Right.” The assessments are carried out by a team led by Van Zandt, with support from volunteers who assist in research and evaluations.

Funding: The website is funded through reader donations, third-party advertising, and membership subscriptions. The use of third-party advertising is intended to prevent bias by not selecting specific ads, although it can result in politically biased ads appearing based on users’ browsing history and site content.

Content and Services: MBFC provides several services, including:

  • Fact-checks of news stories from around the world.
  • Original articles on media bias and important news stories, particularly in U.S. politics.
  • A searchable database of media sources with bias and credibility ratings.

Criticism and Challenges: Despite its mission, MBFC has faced criticism regarding its methodologies and the subjective nature of bias classification. Some argue that its ratings can oversimplify complex biases present in media sources. Additionally, the site’s reliance on advertising has led to occasional criticism about the types of ads displayed.

For more information, you can visit the Media Bias/Fact Check website or check out their methodology and funding details.

Sources:

DISCLAIMER: I don’t trust the AI generators, and neither should you, but I want to capture this information for posterity.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogElection 2024

AI&I: Grok vs. ChatGPT on Walz

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

As I sometimes do, I wanted to see what in the world the AIs have been programmed to say about Commie Kamala’s Veep pick. Below is the question I asked, and the answers I got. As always, please note my disclaimer at the bottom.

write a critical analysis of Walz’s career, including things like whether he completed his military training, his ties to China, and what happened to MN under his governorship

GROK

Tim Walz has a diverse background, having served in the military, worked in education, and held political office. However, his career has not been without controversy.

Regarding his military service, there have been questions raised about his record. Some have accused him of embellishing or selectively omitting facts about his service. Specifically, it has been claimed that he quit his military service when he found out his unit would be sent to Iraq. It’s also been reported that he failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy and did not serve for two years following completion of the course.

Walz’s ties to China have also been a point of contention. He spent several years teaching in China, which is unusual for someone from a rural area in Nebraska who was also serving in the Army National Guard. This has led some to question his loyalty and suggest that he may have ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

As for his governorship of Minnesota, Walz has implemented a number of liberal policies, including free college tuition for low-income students, free meals for schoolchildren, legal recreational marijuana, and protections for transgender people. He has also signed a bill guaranteeing Minnesotans a “fundamental right to make autonomous decisions” about reproductive health care. However, his administration has not been without criticism. Some have accused him of fueling BLM riots in 2020, which led to looting and destruction in Minneapolis. There have also been calls to change the Minnesota state flag to resemble Somalia’s, and he has been criticized for pushing a “radical” agenda.

In summary, Tim Walz’s career has been marked by controversy and criticism. His military service, ties to China, and governorship of Minnesota have all been sources of contention. While he has implemented a number of liberal policies as governor, his administration has faced criticism from both the left and the right.

Chat GPT

write a critical analysis of Walz’s career, including things like whether he completed his military training, his ties to China, and what happened to MN under his governorship

ChatGPT

Critical Analysis of Tim Walz’s Career

Military Background

Tim Walz served in the National Guard for 24 years, achieving the rank of Command Sergeant Major. His military career is notable for its length and the leadership roles he assumed. However, there has been scrutiny regarding the specifics of his military training and deployment. Critics have questioned whether he completed certain advanced training programs typically expected of someone in his rank. Despite this, Walz’s military service has been a significant part of his public persona, often emphasizing his commitment to service and leadership.

Ties to China

Throughout his political career, Walz has been involved in discussions and decisions regarding international trade, including relations with China. As a U.S. Congressman, he supported policies that aimed to strengthen trade relations with China, which some critics argue has contributed to economic challenges faced by American workers due to outsourcing and trade imbalances. However, supporters of Walz argue that fostering strong international trade relationships is crucial for economic growth and competitiveness.

Governorship of Minnesota

Tim Walz was elected as the Governor of Minnesota in 2018, succeeding Mark Dayton. His tenure as governor has been marked by several significant events and policy decisions:

  1. COVID-19 Pandemic Response:
    • Strengths: Walz took decisive action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, implementing lockdowns and public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of the virus. He prioritized the safety of Minnesotans and worked to secure federal aid and resources.
    • Criticisms: His handling of the pandemic has faced criticism, particularly from business owners and some political opponents who argued that the restrictions were too severe and economically damaging. The state saw significant economic strain, with small businesses particularly hard-hit by the prolonged restrictions.
  2. Social Unrest and Police Reform:
    • Strengths: Walz’s administration was at the forefront during the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis. He called for significant police reforms and worked with the legislature to pass measures aimed at addressing police accountability and systemic racism.
    • Criticisms: Despite these efforts, some activists and community leaders feel that the reforms did not go far enough. Additionally, the state experienced extensive social unrest and violence, which some critics attribute to a lack of immediate, effective response from the governor’s office.
  3. Economic Policies:
    • Strengths: Walz has advocated for progressive economic policies, including increasing the minimum wage and investing in infrastructure and education. He has worked to expand healthcare access and support for working families.
    • Criticisms: Opponents argue that his economic policies have led to increased taxation and regulatory burdens that may hinder business growth and economic recovery, especially in the post-pandemic period.
  4. Environmental Initiatives:
    • Strengths: Walz has prioritized environmental issues, supporting clean energy initiatives and policies aimed at reducing Minnesota’s carbon footprint. He has pushed for legislation to address climate change and protect natural resources.
    • Criticisms: While praised by environmental groups, his initiatives have faced opposition from industries that argue the policies could negatively impact jobs and economic stability in certain sectors.

Conclusion

Tim Walz’s career is characterized by a blend of military service, legislative work, and executive leadership. His tenure as governor has been particularly eventful, with both commendable achievements and notable controversies. His military background, while generally respected, has some questioned aspects. His ties to China reflect the complex nature of global trade politics. In governing Minnesota, Walz has navigated unprecedented challenges, with decisions that have garnered both praise and criticism. As with any public figure, his legacy will likely be viewed through various lenses, influenced by political perspectives and the evolving context of his policies and actions.

List the top 10 things any voter should know about Walz if the media was free and fair

ChatGPT

Top 10 Things Any Voter Should Know About Tim Walz

  1. Military Service:
    • Tim Walz served in the National Guard for 24 years, achieving the rank of Command Sergeant Major. His long military career is a significant part of his background and has shaped his leadership style and public service ethos.
  2. Education Background:
    • Before entering politics, Walz was a high school teacher. He taught geography and was a coach for several sports teams, reflecting his commitment to education and youth development.
  3. Congressional Career:
    • Walz represented Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2007 to 2019. During his time in Congress, he served on committees such as Veterans’ Affairs, Agriculture, and Armed Services.
  4. COVID-19 Response:
    • As Governor of Minnesota, Walz’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was marked by early lockdowns and public health measures. His actions were aimed at curbing the spread of the virus, although they were controversial and faced significant opposition.
  5. Police Reform and Social Justice:
    • Following George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis, Walz called for substantial police reforms and worked to pass measures addressing police accountability and systemic racism. His administration faced both praise and criticism for its handling of the ensuing social unrest.
  6. Economic Policies:
    • Walz has advocated for progressive economic measures, including increasing the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure, and expanding healthcare access. His policies aim to support working families and stimulate economic growth.
  7. Environmental Initiatives:
    • A strong proponent of environmental protection, Walz has supported clean energy initiatives and legislation to address climate change. His environmental policies focus on reducing Minnesota’s carbon footprint and protecting natural resources.
  8. Education and Workforce Development:
    • Walz has emphasized the importance of education and workforce development. He has pushed for increased funding for schools, improved teacher pay, and expanded vocational training programs to prepare Minnesotans for future job markets.
  9. Veterans’ Advocacy:
    • Drawing from his military background, Walz has been a strong advocate for veterans’ issues. He has worked on legislation to improve healthcare, benefits, and support services for veterans and their families.
  10. Trade and International Relations:
    • Walz’s stance on international trade, including relations with China, reflects a complex balance between promoting economic growth and addressing trade imbalances. His support for strengthening trade ties has been both lauded for economic potential and critiqued for possible impacts on local jobs.

Name 10 things a Republican would not like about Walz

ChatGPT

Ten Things a Republican Might Not Like About Tim Walz

  1. Progressive Economic Policies:
    • Walz’s support for increasing the minimum wage and expanding government spending on social programs may be viewed by Republicans as contributing to higher taxes and increased government intervention in the economy.
  2. COVID-19 Restrictions:
    • His implementation of strict lockdowns and public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic faced significant opposition from Republicans who argued that these policies were too restrictive and harmful to businesses and individual freedoms.
  3. Support for Police Reform:
    • Walz’s advocacy for police reform and measures addressing systemic racism, particularly in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, may be seen as overly critical of law enforcement and not supportive enough of police officers.
  4. Environmental and Climate Policies:
    • His strong stance on environmental issues, including support for clean energy initiatives and climate change legislation, might be viewed by Republicans as potentially harmful to industries such as fossil fuels and manufacturing, leading to job losses and economic drawbacks.
  5. Gun Control Advocacy:
    • Walz’s support for stricter gun control measures, including background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms, is likely to be opposed by Republicans who prioritize Second Amendment rights.
  6. Healthcare Expansion:
    • His efforts to expand healthcare access, including support for government-funded healthcare options, might be criticized by Republicans who prefer market-based solutions and are wary of increased government involvement in healthcare.
  7. Tax Policies:
    • Walz’s policies that involve raising taxes on higher income brackets and corporations to fund public services and social programs are generally opposed by Republicans who advocate for lower taxes and reduced government spending.
  8. Education Funding and Policies:
    • His push for increased funding for public schools and higher teacher pay may be seen as aligning with teachers’ unions, which some Republicans view as obstacles to education reform and school choice initiatives.
  9. Immigration Stance:
    • Walz’s support for more inclusive immigration policies, including providing protections for undocumented immigrants and supporting refugee resettlement programs, might be opposed by Republicans who favor stricter immigration controls.
  10. Stance on Labor Unions:
    • His strong support for labor unions and workers’ rights, including advocating for collective bargaining and opposing right-to-work laws, may be viewed negatively by Republicans who believe such policies can hinder economic growth and job creation.

did crime increase in MN under walz?

ChatGPT

Searched 4 sites

Under Tim Walz’s governorship, crime rates in Minnesota experienced a notable increase. Here are some key points regarding the rise in crime during his tenure:

  1. Violent Crime Spike: From 2019 to 2021, Minnesota saw a sharp rise in violent crime, reaching its highest level in more than a decade. This includes significant increases in murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and human trafficking​ (Minnesota Compass)​ (Alpha News).
  2. Record Homicides: The state set all-time records for homicides in consecutive years, with 201 homicides in 2021, a substantial increase from 104 in 2018, the year before Walz took office​ (Alpha News).
  3. Aggravated Assaults and Carjackings: Aggravated assaults rose by 33.7% from 2020 to 2021, and for the first time, the state tracked carjackings, reporting 779 incidents statewide in 2021​ (Alpha News).
  4. Increased Crime in Metro Areas: The increase in violent crime was particularly pronounced in the seven-county metro area, where it rose by 23.9%, compared to a 16% increase in Greater Minnesota​ (Alpha News).
  5. Criticism of Public Safety Policies: Critics argue that Walz’s public safety policies, including judicial appointments and sentencing guidelines, have contributed to the rise in crime. They claim these policies have been lenient on violent offenders, leading to a perception of reduced accountability​ (Star Tribune).

In summary, under Tim Walz’s governorship, Minnesota has experienced significant increases in violent crime, including record-setting homicides and sharp rises in aggravated assaults and carjackings. These trends have been a focal point of criticism from political opponents and public safety advocates.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

QUEEN QUILL DISCLAIMER: I don’t believe everything the AI generators say, I simply record these exchanges for posterity

And… this is why you shouldn’t trust the AI:

neutrally but factually describe Walz military service from start to finish

ChatGPT

Tim Walz’s military service began in 1981 when he enlisted in the Army National Guard. He served with the Nebraska Army National Guard until 1996, achieving the rank of Command Sergeant Major. During his time in the Guard, Walz participated in various training exercises and deployments, gaining experience and demonstrating leadership.

In 1989, Walz transitioned to the Minnesota Army National Guard. His service included a deployment to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003. Throughout his military career, Walz earned numerous awards and decorations, reflecting his dedication and commitment to service.

Walz retired from the National Guard in 2005 after 24 years of service. His military career was marked by steady progression through the ranks and a commitment to serving both his state and country.

did he not quit a week before being deployed to Iraq?

ChatGPT

Tim Walz did not deploy to Iraq with his unit. In 2004, Walz retired from the Minnesota Army National Guard shortly before his unit was deployed to Iraq. He retired as a Command Sergeant Major after 24 years of service. This decision was influenced by his desire to focus on his teaching career and his congressional campaign, which he launched shortly thereafter.

Why did you not mention this when I asked the first question? Is it not factually pertinent given he running as VP?

ChatGPT

You are right; it is factually pertinent to mention that Tim Walz retired from the Minnesota Army National Guard shortly before his unit was deployed to Iraq, particularly given his current political profile and potential candidacy as Vice President. Here is a revised, factually complete description of his military service:

Tim Walz’s military service began in 1981 when he enlisted in the Army National Guard. He served with the Nebraska Army National Guard until 1996, achieving the rank of Command Sergeant Major. In 1989, he transitioned to the Minnesota Army National Guard. His service included participation in various training exercises and deployments, including a deployment to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003.

In 2004, Walz retired from the Minnesota Army National Guard shortly before his unit was deployed to Iraq. This decision was influenced by his desire to focus on his teaching career and his congressional campaign, which he launched shortly thereafter. Walz’s military career spanned 24 years, marked by steady progression through the ranks and a commitment to serving both his state and country.

Side-by-Side Comparison of OP

write a critical analysis of Walz’s career, including things like whether he completed his military training, his ties to China, and what happened to MN under his governorship

GROK

Tim Walz has a diverse background, having served in the military, worked in education, and held political office. However, his career has not been without controversy.

Regarding his military service, there have been questions raised about his record. Some have accused him of embellishing or selectively omitting facts about his service. Specifically, it has been claimed that he quit his military service when he found out his unit would be sent to Iraq. It’s also been reported that he failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy and did not serve for two years following completion of the course.

Walz’s ties to China have also been a point of contention. He spent several years teaching in China, which is unusual for someone from a rural area in Nebraska who was also serving in the Army National Guard. This has led some to question his loyalty and suggest that he may have ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

As for his governorship of Minnesota, Walz has implemented a number of liberal policies, including free college tuition for low-income students, free meals for schoolchildren, legal recreational marijuana, and protections for transgender people. He has also signed a bill guaranteeing Minnesotans a “fundamental right to make autonomous decisions” about reproductive health care. However, his administration has not been without criticism. Some have accused him of fueling BLM riots in 2020, which led to looting and destruction in Minneapolis. There have also been calls to change the Minnesota state flag to resemble Somalia’s, and he has been criticized for pushing a “radical” agenda.

In summary, Tim Walz’s career has been marked by controversy and criticism. His military service, ties to China, and governorship of Minnesota have all been sources of contention. While he has implemented a number of liberal policies as governor, his administration has faced criticism from both the left and the right.

write a critical analysis of Walz’s career, including things like whether he completed his military training, his ties to China, and what happened to MN under his governorship

ChatGPT

Critical Analysis of Tim Walz’s Career

Military Background

Tim Walz served in the National Guard for 24 years, achieving the rank of Command Sergeant Major. His military career is notable for its length and the leadership roles he assumed. However, there has been scrutiny regarding the specifics of his military training and deployment. Critics have questioned whether he completed certain advanced training programs typically expected of someone in his rank. Despite this, Walz’s military service has been a significant part of his public persona, often emphasizing his commitment to service and leadership.

Ties to China

Throughout his political career, Walz has been involved in discussions and decisions regarding international trade, including relations with China. As a U.S. Congressman, he supported policies that aimed to strengthen trade relations with China, which some critics argue has contributed to economic challenges faced by American workers due to outsourcing and trade imbalances. However, supporters of Walz argue that fostering strong international trade relationships is crucial for economic growth and competitiveness.

Governorship of Minnesota

Tim Walz was elected as the Governor of Minnesota in 2018, succeeding Mark Dayton. His tenure as governor has been marked by several significant events and policy decisions:

  1. COVID-19 Pandemic Response:
    • Strengths: Walz took decisive action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, implementing lockdowns and public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of the virus. He prioritized the safety of Minnesotans and worked to secure federal aid and resources.
    • Criticisms: His handling of the pandemic has faced criticism, particularly from business owners and some political opponents who argued that the restrictions were too severe and economically damaging. The state saw significant economic strain, with small businesses particularly hard-hit by the prolonged restrictions.
  2. Social Unrest and Police Reform:
    • Strengths: Walz’s administration was at the forefront during the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis. He called for significant police reforms and worked with the legislature to pass measures aimed at addressing police accountability and systemic racism.
    • Criticisms: Despite these efforts, some activists and community leaders feel that the reforms did not go far enough. Additionally, the state experienced extensive social unrest and violence, which some critics attribute to a lack of immediate, effective response from the governor’s office.
  3. Economic Policies:
    • Strengths: Walz has advocated for progressive economic policies, including increasing the minimum wage and investing in infrastructure and education. He has worked to expand healthcare access and support for working families.
    • Criticisms: Opponents argue that his economic policies have led to increased taxation and regulatory burdens that may hinder business growth and economic recovery, especially in the post-pandemic period.
  4. Environmental Initiatives:
    • Strengths: Walz has prioritized environmental issues, supporting clean energy initiatives and policies aimed at reducing Minnesota’s carbon footprint. He has pushed for legislation to address climate change and protect natural resources.
    • Criticisms: While praised by environmental groups, his initiatives have faced opposition from industries that argue the policies could negatively impact jobs and economic stability in certain sectors.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogIn the Media

Boston Globe Announces Carla Gericke’s Appearance on Dr. Phil Primetime

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Check out this comprehensive article about my upcoming appearance on the Dr. Phil Primetime show.

“Carla Gericke, who is running for the New Hampshire House of Representatives as a Republican while promoting the “NHExit Now” push for secession, will be featured on “Dr. Phil Primetime” alongside a Texas secessionist and other guests.

Gericke, who has also been a leader with the Free State Project — a group that aims to attract libertarian-minded movers to transform New Hampshire’s political identity — said she is working to promote the principles of liberty, self-determination, and the state’s unique heritage and values as the national debt skyrockets and the federal government keeps expanding.

“Being given the opportunity to discuss an amicable national divorce on a platform like Dr. Phil’s is a gift,” Gericke said in a statement. “As this movement reaches the mainstream, it is crucial for people to understand that while New Hampshire’s motto is ‘Live Free or Die,’ our movement is a peaceful one.”

Gericke emigrated to the United States from South Africa in 1996, moved from New York to New Hampshire in 2008, and became known by the Free State Project as “Queen Quill” for her subsequent leadership roles in a movement that has adopted the porcupine as its mascot. She won a federal court case on appeal in 2014 affirming a right to record police during a traffic stop, and she was named that year among New Hampshire Magazine’s “Remarkable Women.””

Read more…

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogElection 2024

AI&I: Commie Kamala, Wut?

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Criticize Kamala Harris as though you were a judge building a case against her as president of USChatGPT

Criticizing Kamala Harris as if building a case against her presidency involves examining her record, policy positions, and public perception. Here’s a structured argument:

1. Track Record as a Prosecutor

a. Inconsistent Stance on Criminal Justice Reform:

  • Overly Punitive Policies: As District Attorney of San Francisco and later as California’s Attorney General, Harris took positions that some argue were overly punitive, including defending convictions obtained through prosecutorial misconduct.
  • Truancy Laws: Harris supported and enforced strict truancy laws that some critics argue disproportionately affected low-income and minority families.

b. Resistance to Reform:

  • Failure to Support Independent Investigations: Harris was criticized for not supporting independent investigations of police shootings while serving as California’s Attorney General.
  • Reluctance to Embrace Progressive Policies: Critics claim that Harris was slow to adopt more progressive criminal justice reforms that gained traction nationally during her tenure.

2. Policy Positions and Legislative Record

a. Healthcare:

  • Medicare for All Flip-Flop: Harris initially supported Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan but later backtracked, causing confusion and skepticism about her commitment to healthcare reform.

b. Immigration:

  • Mixed Messages: Harris has faced criticism for inconsistent messaging on immigration policies, including her stance on decriminalizing border crossings.

c. Economic Policies:

  • Lack of Clear Economic Vision: Critics argue that Harris has not articulated a clear, coherent economic policy that addresses the structural issues within the U.S. economy.

3. Leadership and Public Perception

a. Questions of Authenticity and Consistency:

  • Frequent Changes in Position: Harris has been criticized for frequently changing her policy positions, leading to questions about her authenticity and reliability.
  • Perception of Opportunism: Some view Harris as an opportunist who aligns with popular positions for political gain rather than out of genuine conviction.

b. Handling of Vice Presidential Duties:

  • Border Crisis: Harris has been tasked with addressing the root causes of migration but has faced criticism for not making significant progress and for her handling of the border crisis.
  • Public Engagement: There have been concerns about her visibility and effectiveness in her role as Vice President, with critics arguing she has not taken a strong enough leadership role on key issues.

4. Electability and Political Strategy

a. Polarizing Figure:

  • Low Favorability Ratings: Polls have often shown Harris with lower favorability ratings compared to other national political figures, raising concerns about her electability in a general election.
  • Difficulty in Uniting Factions: Harris has struggled to unite various factions within the Democratic Party, from progressives to moderates.

b. Campaign Strategy:

  • Ineffective Messaging: During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris’s messaging was often seen as inconsistent, contributing to her early exit from the race.
  • Staff Turnover and Management: Reports of high staff turnover and internal conflicts within her team have raised questions about her management style and ability to run a cohesive campaign or administration.

Conclusion

While Kamala Harris has a commendable career with significant achievements, these points highlight areas of concern that critics might use to argue against her potential presidency. The case against her is built on perceived inconsistencies, policy shifts, leadership challenges, and questions about her ability to effectively unite and lead the country.

4o

Who are Kamala Harris’s top 10 funders?ChatGPT

Searched 2 sites

Kamala Harris’s top funders include a mix of political action committees, large individual donors, and industry groups. Here are some notable contributors:

  1. EMILY’s List: This political action committee, which focuses on electing female candidates who support abortion rights, plans to spend tens of millions of dollars in support of Harris.
  2. University of California: A significant donor to Harris’s campaigns over the years.
  3. WarnerMedia: Known for substantial contributions to her campaign.
  4. Google Inc.: Employees and the company PAC have been top contributors.
  5. Facebook Inc.: Similarly, both employees and the PAC have contributed significantly.
  6. Apple Inc.: Another major technology company with substantial contributions from employees.
  7. Microsoft Corp.: Employees and the company’s PAC have been key contributors.
  8. Kaiser Permanente: A significant donor from the healthcare industry.
  9. AT&T Inc.: Contributions from both employees and the corporate PAC.
  10. Comcast Corp.: Another major corporate donor.

These donors reflect Harris’s broad support base from key sectors like technology, healthcare, and media​ (Politico)​.

4o

Is Kamala Harris a US citizen? ChatGPT

Yes, Kamala Harris is a U.S. citizen. She was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, which makes her a natural-born citizen of the United States. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was an Indian cancer researcher, and her father, Donald Harris, is a Jamaican-American economist. Her birth in the United States automatically grants her citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

QUEEN QUILL DISCLAIMER: I don’t believe everything ChatGPT says, I simply record these exchanges for posterity.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogVideo

Anarchapulco 2024 Here I Come!

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I will be speaking at Anarchapulco again! Last time I went, was 2020, right before Covidmania set in.

I will be speaking on intentional communities, of which the Free State of New Hampshire is the most audacious and successful example. Here’s my bio for 2024:

Attorney Carla Gericke has spent 15+ years building a libertarian homeland in the Free State of New Hampshire, consistently ranked the #1 freest state. Carla is an outspoken advocate of the principles of liberty and self-ownership, understanding we lead by example by being awesome. After being arrested and facing 7-years in federal prison, Carla fought back, and in 2014 won a landmark First Amendment lawsuit affirming the right to film police officers in public and removing their claims of qualified immunity. This case positively affects the rights of 13 million residents of the First Circuit. Carla is the author of “The Ecstatic Pessimist: Stories of Hope (Mostly)” and was recently featured in a collection of autobiographies of prominent libertarians, “LIBERTARIAN AUTOBIOGRAPHIES: Moving Towards Freedom in Today’s World”. She has appeared in mainstream outlets like The Economist, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Fox, CNN, BBC, and was recently featured in the Emmy-nominated NBC docuseries, LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Carla’s life motto is: Live free and thrive! Learn more: CarlaGericke.com.

Below is my Main Stage talk from 2020… still one of my favorite talks ever!

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

AI & I: Whistleblowers & Secret Courts

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

List the most famous American whistleblowers and how their bravery to come forward led to actual substantive changes that improved government accountability and public trustChatGPT

ChatGPT

Several famous American whistleblowers have played a significant role in exposing government misconduct and promoting government accountability and public trust. Here are some of the most well-known American whistleblowers and the impact of their actions:

  1. Daniel Ellsberg:
    • Ellsberg was a former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, a top-secret Department of Defense study on the Vietnam War.
    • His actions exposed government deception and the secret escalation of the war, leading to increased public skepticism about the government’s actions.
    • The publication of the Pentagon Papers contributed to the eventual end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and led to greater transparency in government decision-making.
  2. Mark Felt (Deep Throat):
    • Felt, an associate director of the FBI, provided information to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.
    • His anonymous leaks helped uncover the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up, leading to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
    • Felt’s actions demonstrated the importance of whistleblowers in exposing government corruption and holding high-level officials accountable.
  3. Frank Serpico:
    • Serpico was a New York City police officer who exposed widespread corruption and bribery within the NYPD in the early 1970s.
    • His testimony before the Knapp Commission led to investigations and reforms within the police department, including the establishment of the independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to oversee police misconduct.
    • Serpico’s actions inspired public debate about police integrity and accountability.
  4. Jeffrey Wigand:
    • Wigand was a former tobacco industry executive who blew the whistle on the industry’s knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking and the manipulation of nicotine levels in cigarettes.
    • His disclosures contributed to multiple lawsuits against tobacco companies and led to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which imposed significant financial penalties on the industry and led to greater regulation and public awareness of the dangers of smoking.
  5. Edward Snowden:
    • Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified documents in 2013 that revealed the extent of government surveillance programs, including mass data collection on American citizens.
    • His disclosures sparked a global debate on privacy, surveillance, and government overreach.
    • Snowden’s actions led to reforms such as the USA Freedom Act and increased scrutiny of intelligence agencies’ activities.

These whistleblowers demonstrated immense courage in exposing government wrongdoing, leading to substantive changes in government policies, increased transparency, and greater public trust by holding those in power accountable for their actions.

You

Explain what “increased scrutiny of US intelligence agencies’ activities” happened after Snowden ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent of surveillance conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the National Security Agency (NSA), led to increased scrutiny and changes in the way these agencies operate. Here are some of the key ways in which increased scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities occurred after Snowden’s disclosures:

  1. Public Awareness and Debate: Snowden’s leaks brought the previously secret and massive surveillance programs into the public spotlight. This triggered a national and international conversation about the balance between national security and individual privacy. Citizens and policymakers became more informed about the scope of government surveillance.
  2. Legal Challenges: Snowden’s disclosures led to legal challenges against the NSA and its surveillance programs. Civil liberties organizations and concerned citizens filed lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of certain surveillance practices, such as bulk data collection.
  3. Reform Legislation: The increased public and congressional scrutiny prompted efforts to reform U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities. The USA Freedom Act, signed into law in 2015, was a significant piece of legislation that imposed limitations on bulk data collection and introduced more transparency and oversight measures. It also ended the government’s bulk collection of call records.
  4. Increased Oversight: The revelations prompted calls for greater oversight of intelligence agencies. Congress established more robust mechanisms for overseeing surveillance programs, including increased reporting requirements and greater involvement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in certain cases.
  5. International Diplomatic Fallout: Snowden’s disclosures strained U.S. relations with other countries, particularly European allies who were upset by reports of NSA surveillance on their leaders and citizens. This diplomatic fallout led to discussions and negotiations about international norms and rules for cyber espionage.
  6. Technology and Encryption: Snowden’s revelations encouraged tech companies to strengthen encryption and security measures to protect user data from government surveillance. Tech giants like Apple and Google started to prioritize user privacy and resist government demands for backdoors to encrypted data.
  7. Whistleblower Protections: Snowden’s actions spurred discussions about the need for stronger protections for whistleblowers who expose government misconduct. Some argued that there should be legal avenues for whistleblowers to come forward with classified information while still safeguarding national security.

Overall, Edward Snowden’s disclosures significantly increased transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities. While opinions about Snowden’s actions vary widely, there is no doubt that they had a profound impact on the national and international conversation surrounding surveillance, privacy, and government accountability.

You

Is it not true that Google and Apple routinely provide backdoors to governments now?ChatGPT

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, both Google and Apple have stated their commitment to user privacy and encryption, and they have resisted government requests for backdoors to access user data. However, the landscape of technology and government policies can change, and it’s essential to stay updated with the latest developments.

Here are some key points related to Google and Apple’s stance on user privacy and government access:

  1. Encryption: Both Google and Apple have implemented encryption measures to protect user data. This means that data stored on devices and transmitted over their services is typically end-to-end encrypted, making it challenging for anyone, including governments, to access user data without the user’s consent.
  2. Legal Requests: Both companies do comply with lawful government requests for user data when presented with appropriate legal process, such as court orders and subpoenas. However, they have been known to challenge overly broad or unconstitutional requests in court.
  3. Transparency Reports: Google and Apple publish transparency reports that provide information about the number and types of government requests for user data they receive. This transparency allows users to understand how often and why governments seek access to user information.
  4. Resistance to Backdoors: Historically, both companies have resisted government pressure to build backdoors or weaken encryption. They argue that weakening encryption would compromise user privacy and security.
  5. Government Access Debate: The debate over government access to encrypted communications and devices continues to be a topic of discussion among tech companies, privacy advocates, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers. There are ongoing debates about the balance between privacy and security in the digital age.

Since my knowledge is not up to date beyond January 2022, I recommend checking the latest news and developments regarding Google and Apple’s policies on government access and encryption to ensure you have the most current information on this topic. Technology companies’ positions and policies can evolve in response to legal and regulatory changes, as well as public and political pressure.

You

Post the most recent “transparency reports of government requests” by Apple and then GoogleChatGPT

ChatGPT

I apologize for any confusion, but I do not have the capability to access real-time data or the internet, including the most recent reports. My knowledge is based on information available up to January 2022, and I cannot provide updates beyond that date.

To access the most recent transparency reports from Apple and Google regarding government requests for user data, I recommend visiting the respective companies’ official websites or conducting an internet search using relevant keywords. Both Apple and Google regularly update their transparency reports to provide information on government requests for user data, and you can find the latest information directly from their official sources.

You

Summarize the current scope of “secret government surveillance” as it relates to social media ChatGPT

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the scope of secret government surveillance related to social media was a subject of concern and debate, with several key aspects:

  1. Bulk Data Collection: Government agencies, particularly in the United States, had been engaged in bulk data collection programs where they collected vast amounts of metadata related to social media communications. This metadata included information about who was communicating with whom, when, and for how long. The content of the messages was typically not collected through these programs.
  2. National Security Agency (NSA): The NSA, as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013, had programs like PRISM that reportedly allowed the agency to access data from major tech companies, including social media platforms. These programs were aimed at identifying potential threats to national security.
  3. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court: Surveillance requests by government agencies were subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the United States. FISC was responsible for granting or denying requests for surveillance, including those related to social media and internet communications.
  4. Private Companies’ Role: Social media companies were often compelled to provide user data to government agencies in response to legal requests, such as court orders and subpoenas. These companies generally complied with lawful requests while advocating for transparency and limits on government access.
  5. Global Concerns: Surveillance activities related to social media were not limited to the United States. Governments in various countries were also engaged in surveillance efforts, and revelations about these practices raised concerns about the balance between national security and individual privacy worldwide.
  6. Encryption Debates: The use of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps raised debates about government access to private communications. Some governments argued for “backdoors” that would allow them to access encrypted messages, while tech companies and privacy advocates argued against weakening encryption, citing security and privacy concerns.

Please note that the scope and nature of government surveillance can evolve over time due to changes in laws, policies, and technology. Since my knowledge is not up to date beyond January 2022, I recommend consulting the latest news and reports for the most current information on government surveillance related to social media. It’s also essential to stay informed about any legislative or policy changes that may impact the scope of surveillance activities.

You

How many FISA requests have been issued? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

I don’t have access to real-time or current data, including the exact number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests that have been issued since my last knowledge update in January 2022. FISA requests are typically classified and subject to national security considerations, and detailed statistics about them may not be publicly available.

To obtain the most up-to-date information on FISA requests and related statistics, you may need to refer to official government reports, statements, or releases from the relevant government agencies responsible for FISA oversight and compliance, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Keep in mind that some aspects of FISA activities may remain classified or sensitive for national security reasons.

You

How can there be public trust and oversight of government surveillance if the number of FISA requests are secret? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The tension between maintaining national security and ensuring public trust and oversight in government surveillance is a complex and ongoing challenge. While some aspects of government surveillance, such as specific FISA requests, may need to remain classified for legitimate national security reasons, there are mechanisms in place to balance these concerns:

  1. Transparency Reports: Government agencies, particularly in democratic countries like the United States, often release periodic transparency reports. These reports provide aggregated statistics on surveillance requests and activities without disclosing specific details that could compromise national security. Transparency reports offer the public insight into the scale and scope of surveillance efforts.
  2. Oversight Bodies: Many countries have established oversight bodies or committees responsible for reviewing government surveillance activities. These bodies, often composed of lawmakers, legal experts, and sometimes members of the public, are tasked with ensuring that surveillance activities are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individual privacy rights.
  3. Judicial Review: In countries with legal frameworks like the United States, government surveillance requests, especially those related to FISA, are subject to judicial review. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the U.S. reviews and approves or denies surveillance requests. The court operates behind closed doors to protect classified information but is intended to provide a check on government surveillance.
  4. Legislative Oversight: Elected representatives in legislatures have a role in overseeing government surveillance activities. They can hold hearings, request information, and pass legislation to address concerns about surveillance and enhance transparency.
  5. Whistleblower Protections: Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing government misconduct, including unlawful or overreaching surveillance practices. Laws protecting whistleblowers can encourage individuals to come forward with concerns about government surveillance without fear of retaliation.
  6. Public Advocacy and Civil Liberties Groups: Public advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations actively monitor and advocate for transparency, accountability, and privacy protections in government surveillance programs. They often use legal means, advocacy campaigns, and public education efforts to promote awareness and accountability.

Balancing national security and individual privacy is an ongoing challenge, and the appropriate level of transparency and oversight may vary from one country to another. Striking the right balance requires constant vigilance, public engagement, and adaptation of laws and policies to address emerging technologies and threats while upholding democratic values and principles. It’s an area where public debate, legal challenges, and legislative reforms play a crucial role in shaping the rules governing government surveillance.

You

You mention “whistleblower protections”. Can you tell me how the past 10 most famous whistleblowers were protected?ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Whistleblower protections vary depending on the specific circumstances and legal frameworks in place at the time of their disclosures. Here’s a brief overview of the past 10 most famous whistleblowers and how they were protected or faced legal consequences:

  1. Edward Snowden:
    • Snowden exposed classified NSA documents related to mass surveillance. He fled to Russia to avoid prosecution in the United States, where he faced charges under the Espionage Act.
    • He was granted temporary asylum in Russia, which protected him from extradition to the United States. Some countries and human rights organizations offered support and protection.
  2. Chelsea Manning:
    • Manning leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, including diplomatic cables and military records. She was arrested and faced a court-martial.
    • Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison but had her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama in 2017. She was released from prison in 2017.
  3. Daniel Ellsberg:
    • Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret study of the Vietnam War, to the New York Times and other newspapers. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act.
    • His case was eventually dismissed due to government misconduct and illegal surveillance, which came to light during the trial.
  4. Mark Felt (Deep Throat):
    • Felt remained anonymous as Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal. His identity was revealed in 2005 after his death.
    • He was never prosecuted for his role as a whistleblower. His status as a confidential informant was known only to a few individuals at the time.
  5. Frank Serpico:
    • Serpico exposed widespread corruption within the NYPD in the 1970s. He testified before the Knapp Commission.
    • He faced retaliation from fellow officers but was eventually protected by the Knapp Commission and continued to speak out against corruption.
  6. Jeffrey Wigand:
    • Wigand exposed tobacco industry practices related to the health risks of smoking. He faced legal threats from tobacco companies.
    • His disclosures led to legal battles and lawsuits against tobacco companies. He received legal support and protection during the process.
  7. Katharine Gun:
    • Gun leaked a memo from the U.S. National Security Agency requesting British support for the Iraq War. She faced possible prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
    • The charges against her were dropped, and she was not prosecuted due to concerns about her prosecution’s impact on the trial.
  8. Thomas Drake:
    • Drake exposed waste and abuse within the NSA, specifically regarding a failed surveillance program. He faced charges under the Espionage Act.
    • The government’s case against him collapsed, and he eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge, receiving no jail time.
  9. John Kiriakou:
    • Kiriakou revealed details about the CIA’s use of waterboarding and faced charges related to the leak.
    • He was sentenced to prison but later released. He received support from advocacy groups during his legal battle.
  10. Reality Winner:
  • Winner leaked a classified NSA document related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. She faced charges under the Espionage Act.
  • She was sentenced to more than five years in prison but was released in June 2021 after a commutation of her sentence.

Whistleblower protection can be a complex and evolving process, involving legal battles, public support, advocacy groups, and sometimes presidential pardons or commutations. The level of protection and consequences can vary significantly based on the nature of the disclosures and the legal and political context at the time.

You

While you claim whistleblowers can act as a safeguard against secret government surveillance, the reality is the government punishes whistleblowers to try to silence them and to create a chilling effect in the future… is this not correct? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

You are correct that in some cases, governments have taken legal action against whistleblowers, and there have been instances where whistleblowers faced retaliation as a means to discourage others from coming forward. The treatment of whistleblowers can vary widely depending on the nature of their disclosures, the legal framework in place, and the prevailing political climate. Here are some key points to consider:

  1. Legal Protections: While there are legal protections for whistleblowers in many countries, including the United States (such as the Whistleblower Protection Act), these protections may not always be sufficient to shield whistleblowers from prosecution or retaliation, especially when they expose classified information.
  2. Espionage Act: In the United States, the Espionage Act has been used to prosecute whistleblowers who leak classified information. This has been a point of controversy, as it can lead to lengthy prison sentences for those convicted.
  3. Public Support: Whistleblowers often rely on public support, advocacy groups, and legal defense funds to help protect their rights and interests. Public awareness and support can play a significant role in the outcome of whistleblower cases.
  4. Presidential Pardons or Commutations: In some cases, outgoing U.S. presidents have issued pardons or commutations to whistleblowers, as seen with Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner, to mitigate their sentences or charges.
  5. Chilling Effect: The fear of retaliation and legal consequences can indeed have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers. When individuals see others facing harsh penalties for exposing government wrongdoing, they may be less likely to come forward with information.

It is essential to acknowledge that whistleblowers often take significant personal and professional risks when they decide to expose government misconduct or classified information. Their actions can lead to legal battles, loss of employment, and personal hardships. However, whistleblowers also play a crucial role in holding governments accountable and promoting transparency and accountability in democratic societies.

Efforts to strengthen whistleblower protections and create more robust legal frameworks for disclosing government misconduct are ongoing. Public awareness, legal challenges, and advocacy are key elements in shaping the treatment of whistleblowers and influencing the broader conversation about the balance between national security, government transparency, and individual rights.

You

Under what legal framework does national security trump individual rights? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The legal framework in which national security concerns may be used to justify limitations on individual rights varies from one country to another and can depend on the specific legal context and the balance struck by the country’s legal system. The extent to which national security can potentially trump individual rights is a complex and evolving issue, and different legal systems provide different mechanisms and standards for addressing this balance. Here are some general principles and legal frameworks that are commonly referenced:

  1. Constitutional Frameworks: Many countries have constitutions or foundational legal documents that outline individual rights and freedoms. These documents often include provisions that allow for the limitation of these rights in cases of national security or public safety. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights includes provisions such as the First and Fourth Amendments, which protect freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but these rights are subject to limitations in certain circumstances.
  2. National Security Legislation: Many countries have specific national security laws that grant authorities the power to take measures to protect the nation from threats. These laws may outline the circumstances under which individual rights can be restricted in the interest of national security.
  3. Judicial Review: In many legal systems, including the United States, the judiciary plays a crucial role in determining the legality of government actions that may infringe on individual rights in the name of national security. Courts can assess whether government actions comply with constitutional and legal standards, and they may strike down measures that are deemed to be excessive or unconstitutional.
  4. International Human Rights Law: International human rights agreements and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provide a framework for protecting individual rights on a global scale. These agreements recognize that individual rights may be limited in certain circumstances, but such limitations must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review.
  5. Balancing Tests: In some legal systems, including the United States, courts use balancing tests to weigh the government’s interest in national security against the individual’s right. Courts consider factors such as the nature of the threat, the impact on individual rights, and whether less intrusive means could achieve the same security objectives.

It’s important to note that the precise balance between national security and individual rights can vary significantly between countries and may be influenced by legal traditions, historical events, and public sentiment. Additionally, the interpretation and application of these legal frameworks can evolve over time through court decisions and legislative changes.

In democratic societies, there is an ongoing debate and tension between the need to protect national security and the imperative to uphold individual rights and civil liberties. Courts, lawmakers, and civil society organizations play essential roles in defining and preserving this balance.

You

Is this balancing test done in the secret FISA courts? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also known as the FISA court, does perform a form of balancing test when considering government surveillance requests related to national security. However, it operates under a unique and somewhat secretive legal framework.

In FISC proceedings:

  1. Application for Surveillance: Government agencies, typically the FBI and the NSA, submit applications to the FISC requesting authorization to conduct surveillance on foreign individuals or entities within the United States when there is a suspicion of involvement in activities that pose a threat to national security. These applications are often made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
  2. Probable Cause: The government is required to demonstrate to the FISC that there is “probable cause” to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This threshold is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases but still requires a reasonable basis for suspicion.
  3. Minimization Procedures: FISC orders typically include minimization procedures, which are designed to limit the collection, retention, and dissemination of information about U.S. persons who are incidentally collected during foreign intelligence surveillance.
  4. Ex Parte Proceedings: FISC proceedings are typically ex parte, meaning that only the government presents its case, and there is no adversarial process with opposing arguments. This secrecy is intended to protect national security interests.
  5. Balancing National Security: While FISC judges are tasked with ensuring that government surveillance requests comply with legal requirements, they also consider the government’s interest in national security. This can be seen as a form of balancing, where the court evaluates whether the surveillance is justified in the context of national security concerns.
  6. Judicial Review: The FISC operates under the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) and the ability of individuals or entities subject to FISC orders to challenge those orders in certain circumstances.

It’s important to note that FISC proceedings are not open to the public, and the court’s decisions are often classified due to the sensitive nature of national security matters. This lack of transparency has led to debates about the extent of oversight and the potential for abuse.

In recent years, there have been calls for greater transparency and reform in FISC proceedings, including efforts to declassify more decisions and provide opportunities for adversarial proceedings in certain cases. The balance between national security and individual rights remains a topic of ongoing discussion and scrutiny.

You

What was the last thing that was declassified? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

I don’t have access to real-time data, and my knowledge is based on information available up to January 2022. Declassification of government documents and information is an ongoing process, and it can vary depending on the specific documents, agencies, and national security considerations involved.

The declassification of government information is typically determined by the government agencies responsible for the classification of the information, and it can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the passage of time, changes in national security concerns, and legal or policy decisions.

To find the most recent declassified information, I recommend checking official government sources, such as the websites of government agencies responsible for declassification or relevant news reports from reputable sources. These sources often provide updates on declassified documents and information as they become available to the public.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
In the Media

Op-Ed: TRANSPARENCY in Government Must Start at the Top

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Today’s Sunday Union Leader features my op-ed about the current landscape of Right-to-Know in the Free State. Improvements are happening, but they are also devising new and sneakier ways to hide from us. Privacy for US, not them!

For people who cannot access behind the paywall:

TRANSPARENCY in government must start at the top. For several years now, Right-to-Know NH (RTKNH), a statewide nonpartisan open government advocacy group, has been requesting the Attorney General’s office update its outdated 138-page Right-to-Know memorandum from 2015.

Over the past 8 years, many positive Right-to-Know developments have taken place. The public deserves to understand how their rights have been expanded.

For example, a Constitutional Amendment was passed in 2018 that states: “[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.”

Sounds good, right? But Article 2-b was recently cited by Manchester City Solicitor Emily Rice to deny the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, as a matter of law, copies of “daily logs” at a homeless shelter. Rice’s interpretation seems counter to the spirit of openness and good governance, highlighting the need for more clarity from the attorney general.

Several recent state Supreme Court decisions have also strengthened our Right-to-Know.

Thanks to the dedication of the Union Leader and other local papers, the Fenniman decision was rightfully overturned after almost 30 years. This win significantly narrows the application of an exemption to disclosure of governmental records under the law. Instead of a “blanket ban” applying to all government personnel records, now, a balancing act between privacy interests and public’s Right-to-Know must be considered.

Due to the relentless efforts of Laurie Ortolano, former RTKNH president, there is even more good news, not least of which is that she will be honored at the Nackey Loeb First Amendment Awards this Thursday. Tickets are available at loebschool.org.

Ortolano’s transparency battle with the City of Nashua reached historic proportions. Requests for tax assessments and finances were met with denials and court battles. They even arrested her for criminal trespassing at City Hall (later annulled).

But Ortolano didn’t give up. She was finally awarded $63,400 in attorneys’ fees, generally unheard of, for the City of Nashua’s non-compliant behavior, and officials were ordered to undergo remedial RTK training to avoid future violations.

The city appealed to the state Supreme Court and in August Ortolano’s victory was upheld. In their decision, the justices quoted the state’s Right-to-Know law: “The purpose of the Right-to-Know law is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions, and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.”

On top of these developments, a new Right-to-Know Ombudsman office (RKO), attached to the Secretary of State, has opened. The intent is to provide the public with a simpler, cheaper, and quicker way to resolve Right-to-Know complaints. Anyone can file a written complaint and pay the $25 filing fee. The ombudsman is tasked with determining if any Right-to-Know violations have occurred, and issues a ruling.

If you don’t like the RKO ruling, you may still appeal to the superior court within 30 days. If the ombudsman’s final ruling is not appealed, it may be registered in Merrimack County Superior Court as an enforceable judgment.

Based on the above, it’s clear the public and municipalities need better guidance on the current landscape of our Right-to-Know laws. The old, outdated memo from almost a decade ago simply isn’t cutting it.

We respectfully request that the attorney general update the Right-to-Know Memo by the end of the year. After all, Granite Staters have the right-to-know what’s up with their Right-to-Know, because without transparency, there is no accountability.

A former Republican candidate for state Senate, Carla Gericke is an outspoken open-government advocate and serves on Right-to-Know NH. She lives in Manchester.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

A Quick Lesson in Po-Po PR

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

When a car hits a human, one would naturally assume the human was the one in peril, but rest assured, according to this po-po press release, our first concern is, of course, for the “police officer operating the cruiser” who “did not sustain any apparent injuries” (because, you know, he was in a fortified metal box). Sadly, the meat popsicle he hit did not fair as well.

Also, when YOU’RE in an accident, they sure like to put your name in the paper, but no worries, cops are special and above the law, so the identities are being “withheld.”

How can we do better?
1. Drop the passive language
2. Always name all players
3. Report the facts the same whether it’s a cop or not

Bastiat famously states in THE LAW: “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

Do those who “serve” us think they’re of “finer clay”?

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Close