Americans Must Criticize Our Corrupt Courts

Authored by Carson Holloway via RealClearWire,

Editor’s Note: The group quota regime is a revolutionary threat which aims to overthrow the political order of the United States and the Constitution that underlies it. In its maneuvers for political power, this revolutionary enemy already operates on a set of legal and constitutional principles entirely different from those on which our country was founded. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the corrupt prosecution of President Donald Trump, and the attendant, authoritarian insistence that criticism of the machinations of “justice” is unwelcome in a democratic society.

In the wake of his conviction in a New York court, President Trump has complained that the process was rigged against him, that the whole proceeding was a corrupt effort to persecute him with a view to influencing the 2024 presidential election. In response, many of his opponents have criticized him for undermining public confidence in our system of criminal justice and thus harming our democracy—a criticism that has been magnified by many in the media.

These critics, however, are missing the point and undermining a principle that is in fact essential to preserving our republic: namely, that criticism of the justice system when it errs or overreaches is necessary to preserving freedom under the rule of law.

Those who founded our nation were aware of this necessity.

Alexander Hamilton, representing the defendant in the famous libel case People v. Croswell, warned that “the most dangerous, the most sure, the most fatal of tyrannies” operated “by selecting and sacrificing single individuals, under the mask and forms of law, by dependent and partial tribunals.”

“Against such measures,” Hamilton continued, “we ought to keep a vigilant eye and take a manly stand. Whenever they arise, we ought to resist, and resist till we have hurled the demagogues and tyrants from their imagined thrones.” No sensible American would look back on these remarks and think that, by them, Hamilton was undermining democracy.

Hamilton’s great rival, Thomas Jefferson, acted on a similar view. As president, Jefferson pardoned publishers who had been convicted under the Sedition Act of 1798. Jefferson’s course of action here was inseparable from his belief that the Act was unconstitutional and that the courts of the United States had made themselves party to serious injustices by convicting defendants under it. Indeed, the pardoning power is included in the United States Constitution, and in many state constitutions, and is used routinely, precisely because prosecutors and courts can make mistakes and sometimes even willfully abuse their power over the lives and liberties of citizens.

These dangers are also recognized in federal law. Title 18 of the United States Code prohibits and punishes “deprivation of rights under color of law.” By its very terms this provision acknowledges that sometimes those entrusted with the administration of justice are themselves guilty of behaving lawlessly and abusively. The United States Department of Justice’s website observes that this provision may be applied not only against “police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards” but also, as appropriate, against “judges, district attorneys,” and “other public officials.” This important provision is itself an acknowledgment by the government that all the proceedings of our justice system are not entitled to uncritical acceptance.

Everyone conversant with American history knows that the problem of politicized and corrupt abuses of the justice system has not disappeared in the modern era, that it continues to rear its ugly head precisely when political passions run high and communities are inflamed against leaders for whom they harbor deep animosities. In the 1960s, Alabama state authorities brought Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to trial on charges that he had committed perjury in relation to his tax filings.

This prosecution was a transparently cynical attempt to deprive an important American political and social movement of its most effective leader. In that case, however, even the Alabama jury, composed exclusively of white men, perceived the abusive character of the case and returned an acquittal. Afterwards, Dr. King thanked the jury for their “fair, honest, and just verdict” and commended the Alabama judge for the “high and noble manner” in which he had conducted the case.

If criticism of prosecutors and courts is permissible and necessary in certain circumstances, the only important question at present is whether such criticism is justified in the case of President Trump’s New York conviction. Would it be reasonable for impartial Americans today to echo Dr. King’s words and congratulate the Manhattan jury for a “fair” verdict and commend Judge Merchan for his “high and noble” handling of the case?

For an answer to that question, we need not rely on Trump or his aggrieved supporters. We need only look to the evaluation of respected CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, writing in New York Magazine: “Prosecutors Got Trump, But They Contorted the Law.”

Carson Holloway is a Washington Fellow in the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. This article was first published at TomKlingenstein.com.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 12:50

Military Draft Coming? House Passes Measure To Automatically Register Men For Selective Service

The House of Representatives on Friday approved its version of the annual defense policy bill, effectively clearing the $883.7 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to move forward in a 217-199 vote which largely fell along party lines. Only three Republicans opposed it.

A number of 'controversial' amendments are part of it, setting up a further fight with Democrats as it moves forward, including a measure empowering the National Guard to crack down on the southern border.

But among the most interesting aspects to the bill for Fiscal Year 2025 is an amendment to the NDAA which automatically registers all draft-age male U.S. residents with the Selective Service System.

File image via Fox News

This means that all able-bodied males in the country age 18-26 could potentially be drafted in the scenario of a future war declaration by Congress. The selection would be based on information from Federal databases.

While there has been a Selective Service program in effect for decades, it has long previously only been voluntary, but this new amendment will make registration automatic. The merely 'voluntary' system had been in effect since 1980 - but critics have said that leaving it up for young men to decide for themselves whether to register has resulted in a weak and ineffective system with not enough numbers.

According to more background for this new Congressional push: 

The automatic draft registration proposal was instigated by the Selective Service System (SSS) as part of its annual budget request to Congress, introduced by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), “wholeheartedly” endorsed by HASC Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), and approved by voice vote of the full committee without audible opposition. The text of Rep. Houlahan’s proposal can be read here. Her office’s press release on the proposal can be read here.

Rep. Houlahan had been one of the leading advocates of proposals in previous years to expand draft registration to women as well as men. Her latest proposal for automatic registration of men only for a military draft indicates that she is more deeply committed to militarization than to any purported feminism.

There's been a rising number of military papers and reports calling for the reinstatement of a more robust draft system of late, especially in relation to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

For example, last year the US Army War College’s academic journal included a highly disturbing essay on what lessons the US military should take away from the continuing war in Ukraine.

Wow! For the first time since 1972, the NDAA bill passed today by the House would automatically register all males age 18-26 for Selective Service in the Military. For the past 52 years, males were required to register on their own, but compliance had reportedly been lagging pic.twitter.com/RfpWrv2CtV

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 14, 2024

By far the most concerning and most relevant section of that War College essay for the average American citizen is a subsection entitled “Casualties, Replacements, and Reconstitutions” which directly states, “Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 12:15

Judge Rules Against Michigan’s Absentee Ballot Signature Presumption Rule

Authored by Austin Alonzo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (R) and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (L) wait to speak at a United Auto Workers rally after the Detroit Labor Day Parade in Detroit on Sept. 4, 2023. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

A Michigan court ruled against the state’s top election officials’ recommendations for assessing the validity of absentee ballots in what Republicans are calling a victory for election integrity.

On June 12, Judge Christopher Yates ruled that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Director of Elections Jonathan Brater didn’t follow the state’s election laws when they issued rules presuming signatures attached to absentee ballot applications and submissions were valid.

The order granted partial declaratory relief to the Republican National Committee, the Michigan Republican Party, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and others involved in the case

Judge Yates, a Michigan appellate judge also serving in the limited-jurisdiction Court of Claims, wrote in his opinion that the initial presumption of validity in signature verification of absentee ballot applications and envelopes mandated by a December 2023 guidance manual is “incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan.”

According to Judge Yates’s order, Ms. Benson issued guidance including a presumption of validity for absentee ballots and absentee ballot applications processed at the local level in 2020. The Michigan Republican Party challenged that move and ultimately won in the Court of Claims.

In December 2022, a new set of rules was issued, which included the “initial presumption of validity.” Moreover, in December 2023, Ms. Benson issued guidance to local election officials “explaining how to conduct signature comparisons on absentee-ballot applications and absentee-ballot envelopes.”

In March, the RNC and allied Republican bodies filed suit against the 2022 rules and the 2023 guidance.

According to Judge Yates’s order, the guidance manual told election officials that “voter signatures are entitled to an initial presumption of validity.” The Republicans challenged that presumption, arguing that it violates Michigan law.

Judge Yates said Ms. Benson and Mr. Brader argued the manual didn’t prescribe a presumption but rather an initial presumption.

“With apologies to Gertrude Stein, however, a presumption is a presumption is a presumption,” Judge Yates wrote. “Whether the guidance manual includes a gentle nudge instead of a hip check, it’s still a foul under Michigan law.”

After the June 13 ruling, RNC chairman Michael Whatley said in a statement that the “covert attempts to sidestep these rules were rightfully rejected by the court.”

Representatives of the Michigan Department of State and the Michigan Democratic Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Michigan voted for a Republican for the first time since 1988 in 2016 when President Donald Trump carried the Great Lakes State. In 2020, President Joe Biden won the state by about 154,000 votes, according to the Michigan Department of State.

The RNC said the court victory underscores the importance of its ongoing focus on election integrity. Under Mr. Whatley and RNC co-chair Lara Trump, Republicans are pursuing election integrity lawsuits across the country.

The party has ongoing litigation in battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

The Democratic National Committee calls the RNC’s suits “baseless lawsuits ... trying to kick eligible voters off the voter rolls and take down guidance around how clerks conduct signature matching for mail voting ballots.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 11:40

Beyond Bad: Fake Meat And Other 'Ultra Processed' Vegan Food Linked To Heart Disease, Early Death

New research suggests that ultra-processed vegan food can increase the risk of heart disease and early death, the NY Post reports, citing a new study published in The Lancet from the University of São Paulo and Imperial College London. Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) include packaged goods, drinks, cereals and ready-to-eat products that contain colors, emulsifiers, flavors and other additives - and are notoriously high in sugar, saturated fat, salt, while often being devoid of vitamins.

The researchers studied the diets of more than 118,000 Brits aged 40-69 years old found that while a plant-based diet promotes overall heart health, that only applies to fresh plant-based foods such as fruits and vegetables, as well as grains and legumes.

Researchers found that for every 10% increase in plant-based foods, the risk of death from heart disease fell by 20%. -NY Post

However when the source of plant-based food comes from UPFs, there's a 12% spike in heart-disease related deaths.

According to the study's lead author, Fernanda Rauber, both the composition and processing methods for UPFs can result in higher blood pressure and cholesterol.

"Food additives and industrial contaminants present in these foods might cause oxidative stress and inflammation, further aggravating the risks," she said, adding "Those shifting towards plant-based foods should also think about the degree of processing involved before making their choices."

Co-author Eszter Vamos said that UPFs have deceptive marketing to portray their plant-based products as healthy.

"While ultra-processed foods are often marketed as healthy foods, this large study suggests that plant-based ultra-processed foods do not seem to have protective health effects and are linked to poor health outcomes," she said.

The study found that replacing plant-based UPFs with whole foods, known to have important health and environmental benefits, decreased deaths from heart disease by 15% and reduced the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease by 7%.

Researchers claim that this study, published Monday in Lancet Regional Health, is the first to show that plant-based UPFs increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Based on their findings, the authors are urging nutritional guidelines that promote plant-based diets to include a warning to avoid UPFs. -NY Post

While the study highlights meat alternatives, British dietitian Duane Mellor pointed out that "Many foods that do not contain animal products, which includes biscuits, crisps, confectionery and soft drinks, are technically plant-based but would not be considered essential as part of a healthy diet by the majority of people."

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 11:05

Federal Judge Overturns ATF 'Pistol Brace' Rule

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A pistol stabilizing brace is seen in this undated photo. (Michael Clements/The Epoch Times)

A federal judge in Texas has overturned a rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that targeted pistol attachments known as “stabilizing braces” or “pistol braces” and treated pistols fitted with such devices as short-barreled rifles, subjecting them to various restrictions.

In a 12-page decision issued on June 13, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that the ATF’s rule that treated roughly 99 percent of pistols fitted with the braces as short-barreled rifles violated the Administrative Procedures Act’s procedural requirements because it was not a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed version of the rule.

“The Court finds that the adaptation of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons,” Judge O'Connor wrote. “First, the Defendants did not provide a detailed justification for their reversal of the agency’s longstanding position. And second, the Final Rule’s standards are impermissibly vague.”

The judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the rule vacated. The plaintiffs in this case are two individual members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Maxim Defense, and FPC.

FPC President Brandon Combs said the ATF had “lawlessly acted to turn millions of gun owners into felons.”

“FPC members should be proud of what was accomplished today. We look forward to defending this victory on appeal and up to the Supreme Court, just as we have in other cases,” Mr. Combs said in a statement.

He said he expects the defendants, which include the ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to appeal.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the ATF and DOJ with requests for comment on the ruling and whether they intend to appeal.

Background

The pistol stabilizing brace was invented more than a decade ago to assist the disabled and others who may need help shooting large-format pistols built on the AR-15 and similar platforms. The accessory attaches to the rear of the pistol and the shooter’s forearm, enabling a steadier aim while holding the firearm with one hand.

Restrictions on stabilizing braces have been the subject of intense debate after the ATF proposed them in 2020. Initially, the ATF said in several open letters that it did not consider the braces as converting pistols into short-barreled rifles but in the final rule, the agency cited changes in the braces’ design in saying they convert pistols into restricted short-barreled rifles.

In January 2023, the DOJ announced that it had submitted the final rule to the Federal Register, formalizing the regulation that President Joe Biden advocated for in April 2020 after it was found that a man killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, using a gun with a stabilizing brace.

The rule has faced pushback from Republicans and gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association, which pointed out they were originally designed for disabled veterans. The rule was also the subject of litigation that led to a preliminary injunction in April 2024—and eventually led to the June 13 ruling that vacates the rule and sets up a possible U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

The rule went into effect immediately upon publication. Any firearms with stabilizing braces or similar attachments that qualified them under the new rule as short-barreled rifles had to be registered no later than within 120 days, or modified by removing the brace and restored into a regular pistol, or turned into a local ATF office, or destroyed.

Short-barreled rifles are subject to more strict regulations under the National Firearms Act (NFA), with those found in possession of unregistered NFA firearms can face fines of up to $10,000, ten years in prison, and a felony conviction that would disqualify them from future firearm ownership.

Tim Harmsen, an Indiana-based firearms dealer, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview that, in his view, the ATF’s stabilizing brace rule was part of a broader strategy of gun control “by a thousand cuts.”

On the campaign trail and since taking office, President Biden has pledged to get tougher on guns, citing the need to curb gun-related violence.

President Biden has publicly said he would back measures that ban magazines that carry 10 rounds or more—which are common and are owned by millions of Americans—and so-called assault weapons.

The number of Americans impacted by the ATF’s brace rule is difficult to determine. The ATF estimates that 3 million pistol braces have been sold. Second Amendment advocates say the number is closer to 40 million.

Michael Clements and Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 10:30

Visualizing The World's Oldest And Youngest Countries By Median Age

The median age of a country denotes the midpoint age of a country's population - meaning that half the population is younger, and half is older.

Factors which influence this are birth rate - with a high birth rate typically leading to a younger population, and lower birthrates contributing to an older median age, as well as death rate - the number of deaths per 1,000 people. Other factors include life expectancy, migration patters, healthcare and sanitation, and economic conditions. Wealthier nations tend to have fewer children, leading to a higher median age, while developing countries tend to have higher birth rates and therefore a lower median age.

As Visual Capitalist's Pallavi Rao notes, the median age can help government and private companies plan for age-specific demand for goods and services from the resident population.

Ranked: Countries by Median Age in 2024

Monaco and Japan—two countries with high life expectancies and low birth rates—have some of the highest median ages (50+) in the world.

A high median age is indicative of an aging population. Without policy support, this can lead to economic ramifications.

Here are the median ages of 200+ countries and territories in the world.

Meanwhile, the presence of six European nations on the oldest countries list is a quick insight into the continent’s changing demographic. The UN estimates that one in four Europeans are currently aged 60 and over.

Conversely, many countries in Africa have low life expectancies and high birth rates. This results in the opposite phenomenon: lower median ages.

A low median age also has its own concerns. A higher proportion of children and adolescents can strain the education infrastructure. Without enough job growth, underemployment and unemployment can rise.

However, if managed well, low median ages can lead to a demographic dividend, where the workforce temporarily grows faster than the dependent population, increasing per capita income.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 09:55

CDC: New COVID Variant KP.3 On The Rise Across The US

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An electron microscope image shows SARS-CoV-2 (round gold objects), which causes COVID-19, emerging from cultured cells. (NIAID via The Epoch Times)

A newly discovered COVID-19 variant, KP.3, is rising to become the dominant strain of the virus across the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

KP.3 constitutes about 25 percent of all COVID-19 cases detected by the agency. It’s followed by the KP. 2 and LB. 1 variants, which make up about 22 percent and 14 percent of all cases, respectively, the data show.

The latest COVID-19 data were collected over a two-week period from May 26 to June 8. Some media outlets have referred to both the KP.2 and KP.3 variants as “FLiRT,” due to where spike proteins are located.

The Epoch Times contacted the CDC for comment on June 12.

“CDC predicts that KP.3 is growing and will become the most common SARS-CoV-2 lineage nationally,” a CDC spokesperson told several news outlets this week about the variant’s dominance. “CDC is working to better understand its potential impact on public health.”

But the data suggest that despite the increase in the KP.3 variant’s prevalence, the U.S. is currently seeing low levels of COVID-19 activity overall.

A CDC graph of COVID-19’s historic trends shows that weekly deaths are at the lowest point since the pandemic started in early 2020. Virus-linked hospitalizations are also at their lowest point, the data show.

“Most key COVID-19 indicators are showing low levels of activity nationally, therefore the total number of infections this lineage may be causing is likely low,” the CDC spokesperson said.

Andy Pekosz, a molecular microbiology professor at Johns Hopkins University, said that the KP.2 and KP.3 variants do not appear to be more or less severe than prior COVID-19 strains. Instead, most people have COVID-19 antibodies either through a previous infection or vaccines.

“The period of infectiousness for these FLiRT variants remains the same as with JN.1 and previous omicron variants: After exposure, it may take five or more days before you develop symptoms, though symptoms may appear sooner,” he said in a question and answer session that was published on the university’s website.

“You are contagious one to two days before you experience symptoms and a few days after symptoms subside. And as with previous variants, some people may have detectable live virus for up to a week after their symptoms begin, and some may experience rebound symptoms.”

COVID-19 Reports No Longer Required

Last month, the CDC said that hospitals will no longer have to report COVID-19-related hospital admissions, hospital capacity, or related information. The changes went into effect on May 1.

The old “data will be archived as of May 10, 2024, and available at United States COVID-19 Hospitalization Metrics by Jurisdiction, Timeseries,” according to a statement posted on the CDC website at the time.

But the agency still encouraged medical facilities to report COVID-19 hospitalizations and related information to the federal health agency.

“A key lesson we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is the importance of having reporting systems in place before an active emergency,” a CDC spokesperson said.

“These data have a significant and ongoing value for protecting patient health and safety as well as public health,” the statement added.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel, which authorized every previous COVID-19 vaccine that has been on the market, voted this past week to manufacture new booster shots to target strains derived from the JN.1 variant, which include KP.2 and KP.3.

A survey released earlier this year said that one in five Americans believe COVID-19 is a “major threat” to the U.S. population, a sharp decline from a high of 67 percent in the summer of 2020.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 09:20

Putin On G7 Seized Assets Plan: "Despite All The Trickery, Theft Is Still Theft"

After on Thursday Group of Seven leaders agreed at a summit in Italy to give Ukraine $50 billion utilizing interest from frozen Russian Central Bank assets, President Putin has addressed the move during a speech before his Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He once again denounced this as brazen 'threft' and described that Western leaders are trying to come up with "some kind of legal basis" for the asset freezes, "but despite all the trickery, theft is still theft and will not go unpunished."

European Council President Charles Michel had announced the day prior, "Russia has to pay." 

And President Biden had said, "I’m very pleased to share that this week the G7 signed a plan to finalize and unlock $50 billion from the proceeds of those frozen [Russian] assets, to put that money to work for Ukraine, [in] another reminder to Putin that we’re not backing down.'

Putin also warned that if the West steals Russia's sovereign assets, then anyone it is proof that "anyone" could be next.

Additionally, following up on Putin's words Alexander Bespalov, co-chair of the Investment Russia public organization, addressed the G7 plan:

"The idea of issuing any loans to Ukraine is inherently hopeless because only a person who is extremely detached from life and reality can suppose that it may win a conflict with Russia. Ukraine is already in a losing position. This is clear to everyone, and from an economic point of view there will be no growth or the capability to return loans in the next decades. So what we see is yet another attempt to establish some formal economic foundation to provide money for Ukraine’s military needs," he told Izvestia.

In Putin's remarks before diplomats, he at one point asserted that Moscow did not start the war. Instead, "In the West, the thesis that Russia started the war within the framework of a special military operation, that it is the aggressor, is constantly being repeated," he explained.

Meanwhile days ago Sen. Lindsey Graham had a 'saying the quiet part out loud' moment...

“$10-12 trillion of critical mineral assets could be used by Ukraine and the West, not given to Putin and China.”

Sen. Lindsay Graham admits to the big profits to be made in Ukraine, with the West securing “trillions” in minerals in exchange for weapons to prolong the war. pic.twitter.com/wUlASGJ7sg

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) June 10, 2024

"Therefore, it is possible to attack its territory with Western weapons. Allegedly, Ukraine defends itself and can do so," the president said. "I would like to emphasize once again that Russia did not start the war. It is the Kiev regime, after the citizens of a part of Ukraine declared their independence in accordance with international law, that started hostilities and continues them. This is aggression."

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/15/2024 - 08:45