In practice, though, this annual exercise stumbles along between continuing resolutions as partisans from both parties hold the budget hostage to get what they want out of the deal. Recently, we were treated to the latest in a predictable series of government “shutdowns” that essentially amount to paid vacations for federal employees. Early this morning, after a brief midnight shutdown forced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who objected to the proposed budget’s spending increase, the House and Senate cobbled together the necessary votes and sent it to President Donald Trump for his signature. Both houses actually agreed to a two-year deal presented by Senate leadership, but they face another deadline of March 23 to hammer out the details.
          “When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party,” Paul tweeted. “But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party.”
          Naturally, that long-term security comes with a big price tag — an additional $320 billion in deficit spending during that time period — but we finally get an increase in military spending after years of sequester-mandated cuts. In addition, the Senate deal eliminates some lingering liar-nObamaCare gems like the “death panels.”
          Yet for all those guns, the Democrats have larded us up with a lot of butter. And the Republicans have gone right along. As The Wall Street Journal put it, “Democrats backed up the truck for funding on everything from community health centers to billions on child-care grants to $20 billion for infrastructure.” One example is the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which leftists blasted the GOP for not immediately reauthorizing after it expired late last year. A recent six-year extension is now a decade-long boondoggle. Democrat demands for dollar-for-dollar parity with increased defense spending also netted them more money for infrastructure, and a relief from running up against our artificial debt limit until sometime next year.
          “What happened to the Democrats’ ‘Better Deal?’” asks The Washington Post. “Check the spending bill.” Chuck clown-Schumer crowed, “This budget agreement shows that the Better Deal agenda is more than a set of ideas; now, it’s going to be real policies. It delivers on exactly what we laid out last year: rural broadband, child care and assistance with college tuition.” Good thing the GOP controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue!
          That additional money spent on non-essential items in return for simply undoing cuts that arguably should never have been made to the (constitutionally mandated) defense of our nation is the part of the bargain that rankles some House Republicans — the ones who were elected by the Tea Party to fight against these types of deals.
          “I am baffled why the Republican Party has turned into such a big spending party. It is one thing to spend money; it is another thing to spend money you don’t have,” lamented Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, who was elected in the initial 2010 Tea Party wave. Brooks vowed to be a “hell no” vote on the deal and was joined by several other fiscally conscious Republican stalwarts.
          But Brooks and company seem to have missed the memo that deficit spending is back in style. And while it may goose the GDP rate slightly and makes individual members look better when they have some pork to share, the issue is that increasing interest rates will make this deficit spending even worse than it appears now. For their part, Democrats complained loudly about raising the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years (a spurious number anyway) with the recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but they’re now dead silent about similar amounts of deficit spending.
          So this grand bargain, as well as the omnibus spending bill that will follow it in a few weeks once all the appropriations are ironed out, will be the product of centrist House Republicans joining with middle-of-the-road Democrats. Conservatives oppose this bill for its deficit spending, while far-left Democrats are enraged that it doesn’t include a resolution to the DACA issue. Those who may directly benefit from this largesse will be the big winners, but since all this was accomplished without a scintilla of meaningful entitlement reform — President Trump long ago promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare — our children and grandchildren will once again be big losers. Sad!   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54049-fiscal-hawks-go-on-leave

          Fortunately, Barack liar-nObama never delivered on his 2009 executive order to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, yet his order still needed to be reversed. The liar-nObama administration worked from a failed ideology of peace through appeasement. In contrast, President Trump understands Ronald Reagan’s concept of “Peace Through Strength.” That is, maintaining peace by keeping our strength, not by enabling the enemy.
          While it may appear humanitarian to “free all prisoners,” this perspective ignores the real threats terrorism poses to our nation’s safety and to the world. It compromises the Rule of Law and ignores the reason why the detainees are imprisoned in the first place: These unlawful enemy combatants either harmed or sought to harm innocent people. To free such fighters who are intent on murdering innocent people, while claiming no responsibility for the resulting deaths, qualifies as the true action of inhumanity.
          Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has remained engaged in armed conflict with the Taliban, al-Qaida and associated forces such as the Islamic State. This stands as a fact, not simply a “perspective.”
          As part of his constitutional role as commander in chief, the president has the authority to detain certain persons associated with terrorism. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Sept. 18, 2001, as explained by the White House fact sheet, states,
          The AUMF authorizes the United States to detain certain persons who are part of or provide substantial support to al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. Decisions regarding the disposition of captured terrorists will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account legal requirements and the facts of each case.
          As such, the president remains responsible not only to manage the armed conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaida, the Taliban and Islamic State, but to take actions that preserve the safety of American military members and civilians.
          The executive order “would preserve military detention as a counterterrorism tool by maintaining detention facilities at the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba and stating unequivocally that the United States reserves the right to detain terrorists under the law of armed conflict.”
          While the U.S. currently utilizes counterterrorism tools such as military action and intervention, it must retain the right to detain enemy combatants. This stands in accordance with the law of war principles. Without the right to detain prisoners, the war on terror becomes a meaningless fishing expedition of “catch and release.” The White House fact sheet notes, “The detention of enemies captured in an armed conflict is a lawful and necessary tool of warfighting that must continue to be available to the United States.” The executive order also reaffirms the right of the U.S. to transport and detain more enemy combatants to Guantanamo when necessary.
          More than 100 former prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay have re-entered combat as terrorists, killing both Americans and our allies in coalition forces. Keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention facility open averts that risk, while prioritizing safety and security for innocent people who remain targets of international terrorism.
          The executive order also emphasizes the use of the existing periodic review process that helps authorities to determine whether the continued detention of certain prisoners is necessary.
          Finally, the order notes that “the detention operation at the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay are legal, safe, humane, and conducted consistent with United States and international law.”
          President Trump’s executive order to keep the Guantanamo Bay detention facility open allows the United States to act as a sovereign nation, capable of winning the war against radical Islamic terrorism worldwide.  Without this counterterrorism tool, victory will elude us, and innocent civilians will serve as terrorism fodder in the name of “peace” and “understanding.” The commander in chief understands this and has willingly acted to protect innocent civilians who are targets of terrorism in the United States and throughout the world.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54002-making-america-safe-again-president-reverses-gitmo-closure

          With an exception for “fair use” that permits one to copy small portions of an original work for certain purposes such as scholarship or commentary, when one creates that work, copyright law protects one from having that work shared or exploited without specific permission. Yet despite the fact that we are all unique individuals, “data brokers” glean and sell personal information, not only without our permission, but without our knowledge.
          Unsurprisingly, Congress has failed to adequately address the issue. The “Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act” was introduced by the Senate — in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 — but has yet to go anywhere other than the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Moreover, it is the essence of toothless legislation, requiring only that data brokers obtain and disseminate accurate information and “provide individuals a cost-free means to review their personal or identifying information.” Requiring permission to disseminate that data? Nowhere to be found.
          In 2016, the FCC adopted privacy rules that required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Comcast and Verizon to get customers’ permission to sell their data to marketers. That adoption followed a 3-2 vote along party lines, and it was Democrats, not Republicans, who opted to protect consumers. The rules would have required the ISPs to not only notify their customers about what information is collected and how it is shared, but require opt-in consent rather than opt-out consent. The distinction is important because the latter option automatically defaults to the companies’ interests, not those of the consumer.
          Unfortunately, the FCC’s ruling never went into effect. In March 2017, both the Republican-controlled Senate and House voted to nullify the FCC’s proposal. President Donald Trump signed that nullification into law last April.
          The GOP’s rationale? ISP providers convinced them the regulation would put them at a competitive disadvantage with companies like Google and Facebook, which are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Republicans insisted the FCC overstepped its authority and that it was up to the FTC to keep those so-called edge providers — as in companies that provide content, application or service over the Internet as opposed to those who provide Internet service itself — in line. Republicans further asserted that having the FCC and the FTC regulate different aspects of Internet use by consumers would “create confusion within the Internet ecosystem and end up harming consumers,” as Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) put it.
          In terms of personal privacy, that distinction is specious nonsense, and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) asked the essential question: “How much privacy are people in this country entitled to?”
          Not much, apparently. Not when ISPs and edge providers can sell our data without our permission.
          What data? The FCC sought user permission before tech giants could share the following: precise geolocation; children’s information; health and financial information; Social Security numbers; web browsing and app usage histories; and the content of communication.
          Craig Aron, CEO of Free Press, a public advocacy group, hammered the legislation prior to the its passage. “There is literally no public support for this bill,” he stated. “Its only advocates are the nation’s biggest phone, cable and Internet companies. There’s no longer any question — if there ever was — whose needs this administration intends to serve. But people everywhere are on high alert to the serious threat to the free and open Internet. And they will fight back.”
          Will they? A 2016 survey conducted by Pew Research reveals that while 74% of Americans insist it is “very important” to them to be in control of their data, only half expressed confidence that they understood how that data might be used.
          Moreover, their “risk-benefit calculations,” as in what data they’re willing to release to obtain services, products, etc., are all over the map. For example, a 52% majority would willingly share health information, but only 27% would opt for installing a “smart” thermostat in their homes.
          Yet most telling, those surveyed used words such as “resigned,” “inevitable,” “hopeless” and a “way of life” to describe how they felt about the possibility of resisting the collection of their personal data.
          More disturbing, experts canvassed by Pew “argued that privacy was no longer a ‘condition’ of American life. Rather, they asserted that it was becoming a commodity to be purchased,” the website stated.
          In short, reality bites. “An average Facebook user has no way of knowing or appreciating the mountain of data the company has collected on them,” columnist Kevin Carty explains.
          Even worse? “America’s biggest tech giants have at least as much power as John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan did in the early 20th century; it is just much harder to see,” he adds.
          Carty advocates using anti-trust laws to “go after the biggest tech platforms” and “resume the trust-busting that freed Americans from companies like Standard Oil and plutocrats like J.P. Morgan.”
          Given the predatory business practices many of these tech giants engage in, as well as their use of “instituted algorithms that allow for the suppression of opinions with which their highly opinionated management disagrees,” as columnist Angelo Codevilla aptly states, that is a noble goal. But it will do nothing to protect Americans’ personal data.
          The European Union is addressing the problem. On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will take effect following three years of negotiations among member nations. While it still allows entities like Google and Amazon to process data to provide their services, GDPR will prevent them from using that data for any other purposes without user permission. This “purpose limitation” requires personal data to be “collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.”
          The law further notes that broad, non-specific consent doesn’t cut it. “A purpose that is vague or general, such as for instance ‘Improving users’ experience’, ‘marketing purposes’, or ‘future research’ will — without further detail — usually not meet the criteria of being ‘specific,’” it states.
          The law also requires data collecting entities to appoint a data protection officer, and companies that fail to do so can be fined as much as 4% of their global annual turnover.
          American should demand similar, or even more stringent legislation. With a possible exception for criminal records, there is no reason whatsoever why Americans must resign themselves to living in a world where something as precious as personal privacy becomes “a commodity to be purchased.” The alternative? Living in a society that would make George Orwell blush.   
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54009-americans-should-demand-control-over-their-personal-data