Randy Fine vs. “Dual Loyalty” — Pot, Kettle, Black

2023 Florida Stands With Israel Conference

“Some men,” an old saying has it, “are sent to Washington because their hometowns want them somewhere else.”

Although Melbourne Beach, Florida isn’t US Representative Randy Fine’s hometown  — he was born in Arizona, raised in Kentucky, and subsequently managed to wear out his welcome in Massachusetts, Nevada, and Michigan before landing there — I have to think the remark explains his career in the state legislature and now Congress. He’s a generally unpleasant character with lots of stupid and bigoted ideas. Not the kind of guy you want wandering around getting into fights with the tourists during Bike Week in Daytona Beach.

Last October, Fine introduced the “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act of 2025,” which would mandate that “[n]o person, without regard to whether that person is a United States national, may be elected to the office of Representative or Senator if that person is a national of any country other than the United States.”

Not a terrible idea, you might say, but it’s got one technical problem and one PR problem.

The technical problem:

The US Constitution specifies the qualifications for election to Congress, which do not include a prohibition on “dual citizens,” and Congress doesn’t get to change those qualifications through legislation. It would take a constitutional amendment — requiring approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures — to do that.

In other words, Fine’s bill is just public virtue signaling. It’s gone approximately nowhere, apparently dead in the Committee on House Administration, which is better — or at least less tedious — than it possibly getting passed by the House, passed by the Senate, signed by the president … and thrown out by the US Supreme Court at its first challenge because it’s clearly, unambiguously, and irrefutably unconstitutional.

The PR problem is Randy Fine. He loves to talk about his bill, all the time and everywhere, especially on social media.

Sample recent tweet: “You CANNOT serve two masters. My bill makes it simple: Only Americans. Full allegiance to the United States and the United States alone. No more dual loyalty in Congress.”

Unfortunately for the PR angle, Fine spends a great deal of time and effort publicly demonstrating his own loyalty — not to the US, and not to his constituents, but to a foreign power.

In the state legislature, Fine successfully pushed legislation requiring businesses which contract with the state to demonstrate THEIR loyalty … not to the state of Florida, but to the state of Israel.

In 2023, Fine arranged to have messages inscribed on Israeli shells to be fired into Gaza: “Regards from Randy Fine.”

Right before his election to Congress, Fine confided to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, he’d  been considering a move anyway — and not to  Washington:  “He had been fully prepared to move his family to Israel in the event Kamala Harris had won the presidential election, he says.”

Since his election to the House, Fine’s agenda has remained clear: The Israeli regime must receive everything it demands from Americans, without question or objection, and the Israeli regime must never, under any circumstances, be held to any behavioral standard as a condition of receiving whatever it demands.

Can you see the problem there?

The only respect in which the “dual loyalty” Fine loves to grandstand on  isn’t a problem for Fine himself is that his own loyalty clearly isn’t “dual.” It’s not to America, Florida, his constituents or the Constitution he swore an oath to. It’s to the state of Israel.

A state that he readily can, and probably should, claim citizenship with and move to. All sane Americans and Floridians very much want him somewhere else.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Computer “Age Verification” is About Political Control, Not Child Safety

We Are Legion

Around the US, a number of state legislatures have passed, or are working to pass, various laws which would require people to “verify” their ages such that those under different ages would find themselves excluded from some or all computer and Internet access.

It all started, of course, with Internet pornography. That’s the easiest sector to boost an “it’s for the chillllllllllldren” propaganda campaign for.

It quickly escalated to social media platforms because woke rightists agree with woke leftists that the wrong words constitute violence and must be controlled “for the chillllllllllldren” (they just disagree on which words are the wrong words), and because many parents are willing to hand off their job of supervising their kids to the state, expanding the base of support for government controls.

Because California is the “authoritarian law idea? Hold my beer!” state, governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation last October which requires operating system providers to collect age information on each new user account, and provide an API that lets Internet platforms and app developers access that information so as to exclude users Gavin Newsom doesn’t think should be using those platforms and apps.

It’s almost, but not quite, funny.

It’s almost funny because it won’t take the chillllllllllldren in question more than a few minutes to figure out ways around this kind of thing. “Age verification” laws are, and always have been, political fantasy, as you know yourself if you were ever a 19-year-old college student who used a fake ID to get into a nightclub.

It’s not quite funny because it isn’t, and never was, about “the chillllllllllldren.”

There’s an old and accurate saying in the right to keep and bear arms community: “Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.” Victim disarmament (“gun control”) laws only control the behavior of those who obey laws. Those who don’t care about the government’s background check and waiting period requirements will still get guns. The people who do obey laws? They get to endure the inconvenience and endangerment, all so that politicians feel like their rings have been sufficiently kissed.

Unfortunately, lots of people obey even evil and idiotic laws. Equally unfortunately, the big players in any given industry usually find it easier and cheaper to just comply with, rather than contest, those evil and idiotic laws.

Which means that even though these “age verification” laws won’t be more than a minor inconvenience to the 13-year-old who wants to view porn, gamble, post mean tweets, the average computer user will once again just do as our rulers say, and maybe even convince himself or herself it’s “for the chillllllllllldren.” Society will become generally a little less free and a little more controlled.

All, however, is not lost. In addition to fake IDs for “age verification,” Virtual Private Networks to connect to sites/apps from areas without such laws, etc., one major computer operating system family inherently puts itself beyond the reach of those laws.

That operating system family is called Linux. It comes in hundreds of flavors (“distributions”), most of which are at least as easy to acquire, install, configure, use, and maintain as the bigger players (Microsoft Windows and Apple MacOS). Most “distributions” are built and maintained by communities of volunteers, and many of those communities have already announced they won’t comply with California’s law or others like it.

If you’re not interested in being an obedient serf, give Linux a look. And take a moment to thank the cypherpunks, hacktivists, Linux developers, and other freedom warriors who’ve been fighting — and beating — government control over encryption, cryptocurrency, and everything else for decades now.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Nearest Nickel” Makes Sense … But Why a Law?

Pile of Pennies 3 (25890504285)On May 11, a new law went into effect in Florida, “allowing” businesses to round the amounts charged for cash purchases to the nearest nickel.

Really? Nothing more important than this for our masters in Tallahassee to spend their time on?

Don’t get me wrong. The practice in question makes sense:

Last November, the US Mint stopped producing pennies for circulation. That seems like  a sound decision, since the cost of producing the one-cent coins came to nearly four cents each.

Perhaps the production cost could have been brought down by using different materials, but after more than a century of fiat currency inflation, we’re well past the point where most people can be bothered to pick a stray penny up off the sidewalk anyway.

When I was a kid, one could put a penny in a machine and get a gumball, or buy a piece of “penny candy” at the store counter. According to my handy-dandy AI assistant, those treats now cost anywhere from a nickel to a quarter each.

Because new pennies aren’t being minted (and many Americans are socking the pennies they have away as collector items), the retail sector is experiencing a penny “shortage.”  If your purchase comes to $1.98 or $5.01, and you’re paying in cash rather than with a debit card, there may not be pennies in the till to make correct change.

So, rounding. Under the Florida law, retailers can round cash purchases up or down (whichever is closest) to make that $1.98 into two dollars even, or that $5.01 into $5.00.

Very nice, very neat, and goodbye to those “take a penny, leave a penny” trays on convenience store counters. While retailers MIGHT game their pricing to make individual items come in at the “round up” point, most people don’t buy just one item anyway, so I doubt we’ll see a general price increase out of it.

But why on Earth would merchants need a law to “allow” this?

Early on, it seems reasonable for stores to put up signs notifying customers that their cash purchases will be rounded up or down to the “nearest nickel.” Customers would be free to either accept those terms or to shop elsewhere.

Over time, it would just become accepted practice, like handing over $6.00 for a gallon of gas even though the price is technically only $5.999 per gallon (I’m pricing in the likely continuing impact of the Iran fiasco).

A law “allowing” this kind of obvious, transparent, and not dishonest practice isn’t just useless, it’s damaging.

Even when framed as “voluntary” — as this one is –unnecessary laws “allowing” behaviors already unquestionably “allowed” (by common sense and conventional morality) tend to nudge  the public toward an “everything not required is forbidden” mindset in which we instinctively seek permission from our rulers for every action, trivial or momentous.

And that mindset widely adopted, leads us inexorably toward Mussolini’s definition of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

But with rounding, my two cents come to nought, don’t they?

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY