Month: August 2024

​In a stunning turnaround, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has killed the deal that would have spared three major 9/11 defendants from the death penalty in exchange for their admissions of guilt. The Friday move came just two days after the Pentagon ignited a firestorm of controversy by announcing the plea bargain agreement — a deal that angered 9/11 victims yearning for maximum accountability, and for the revelation of new facts about the attacks.  

“I have decided that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused…responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009,” wrote Austin in a memorandum addressed to Susan Escallier, a retired Army brigadier general and military lawyer who has been overseeing the Guantanamo prosecutions. That puts potential death penalties back in the mix.  

Nearly 23 years after the attacks that killed 2,977 people and radically changed the course of history, the US government has yet to conduct a trial against 9/11 defendants who’ve been held at the US Navy base at Guantanamo, Cuba. Recent years have been consumed by pre-trial clashes over the admissibility of statements made by detainees who were subjected to the US torture regime.  

The US government has efficiently prosecuted many non-9/11 terror cases in civilian federal courts — including the one that centered on the first attack on the World Trade Center, which came in a 1993 truck bomb explosion meant to topple the towers. The Bush-Cheney regime’s decision to prosecute 9/11 defendants as “enemy combatants” via military tribunals overseen by Pentagon officers with uniformed juries sent the pursuit of justice into a quagmire. 

That would have caused enough problems, but the complexity of the 9/11 prosecutions has been compounded enormously by the Bush-Cheney regime’s decision to torture the accused. The plea bargain agreement announced Wednesday offered an opportunity to end a seemingly endless cycle of pretrial motions and discovery aimed at sorting out and potentially excluding incriminating statements made while being tortured — by opting against death penalties for what likely would have been sentences measured in thousands of years.

Of course, many Americans including family members of those killed on 9/11 understandably want to see the three defendants covered by the nixed deal — alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi — put to death. However, it should be noted that death penalties at the end of a full trial are far from assured, as defense attorneys will argue the government’s torture of their clients should be factored into the sentencing decision. Mohammad alone was waterboarded 183 times.    

While there’s something to be said for putting a relatively expeditious end to literal decades of slow-grinding “justice,” many 9/11 family members and survivors hope that full trials of the defendants will help them pursue a different avenue of justice — by illuminating links between the 9/11 plot and Saudi government officials. 

A video unsealed in federal court this week, obtained by 60 Minutes, raises new questions about Saudi Arabia’s connection to the deadly 9/11 terror attacks. @CeciliaVega reports. https://t.co/FjDmf1yOeO pic.twitter.com/CNiWYcNg90

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) June 20, 2024

The same day the plea deal was announced, 9/11 plaintiffs were in a federal courtroom in New York, where Judge George Daniels was hearing arguments over Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss a long-running civil suit that seeks to hold the kingdom liable for logistical and financial aid the hijackers appear to have received from a web of Saudi officials operating out of the Saudi embassy in Washington and the consulate in Los Angeles.  

As they’ve pursued that case at its own glacial pace, plaintiffs lawyers have had to contend not only with the Saudi government, but with the US government, which has thwarted their attempts to obtain files from the FBI’s investigations of the attacks. On Wednesday, 9/11 Justice, a grassroots group pursuing Saudi-9/11 transparency, expressed alarm over the plea arrangement. In a statement, the group’s president, Brett Eagleson, whose father was killed in the attacks, said:  

“Our primary concern remains access to these individuals for information. These plea deals should not perpetuate a system of closed-door agreements, where crucial information is hidden without giving the families of the victims the chance to learn the full truth…We urge the administration to ensure that these deals do not close the door on obtaining critical information that can shed light on Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attacks.” 

Meanwhile, jury selection in the military trial in Guantanamo isn’t expected to start until at least 2026 (!), with the trial then expected to span upwards of a year and a half.

As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied…especially for 9/11 survivors and families.  

Via ReMix News,

Roughly 40 percent of Ukraine’s electricity imports pass through the Ukrainian-Hungarian border, which means Hungary is not entirely powerless in the face of a Ukrainian blockade on oil supplies. In fact, Hungary may be forced to cut electricity to its neighbor if push comes to shove.

Olivér Hortay, head of Századvég’s climate and energy policy department, noted that Ukraine’s biggest energy problem is the electricity system. Since the start of the war, the country has lost three-quarters of its own electricity generation capacity, leading to Ukrainians having to deal with prolonged blackouts and cuts to production due to a lack of electricity.

To deal with Ukraine’s faltering electricity network, the country has been importing energy from neighboring countries.

“The proportion of electricity coming through Hungary in terms of Ukrainian imports exceeded 40-42 percent during several periods,” said Hortay, while speaking to Hungarian television channel M1.

As a result, Ukraine may suffer “serious consequences” due to its oil blockade.

He notes that the MAVIR station in Szabolcsbáka is one of the main hubs of the European and Ukrainian electricity systems. This is the only Hungarian and EU substation with 750 kV system components. Roughly 40 percent of Ukraine’s electricity imports pass through here.

Hungary and Slovakia have both sounded the alarm to Brussels about Ukraine’s action of cutting oil supplies from Russia, which flow through the Friendship pipeline. However, the EU, which is well known for its opposition to the governments in Hungary and Slovakia, has responded cooly to the complaints, saying that Ukraine does not endanger the energy supplies of the two countries.

Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó has rejected the EU’s argument and called Croatia, which is supposed to increase supplies in response to the Ukrainian blockade, an unreliable transit country.

Both Hungary and Slovakia rely on Russia for up to 80 percent of their oil supply, underlining the threat to both economies. Olivér Hortay explained that Russia’s Lukoil provides a third of the oil demand of the Hungarian Száhahalombatta refinery and 45 percent of the demand of the Bratislava refinery in Slovakia.

Gergely Gulyás, the minister in charge of the Prime Minister’s Office, called it unfair and contrary to EU agreements that Ukraine is blackmailing Hungary and Slovakia because of its pro-peace stance.

Hortay points to an existing association agreement, based on which Hungary and Slovakia initiated proceedings at the European Commission , where “literally it is stated that the parties cannot limit each other’s imports, exports and transit.”

Based on this agreement, he says it is self-evident that Ukraine’s action is illegal and that the European Commission should immediately convene a consultation forum.

The EU contends that the two nations can replace Russian oil on the Adriatic pipeline coming through Croatia

“If the loss of this does not cause a security of supply risk, it is not clear what would,” said Hortay.

He also noted that the theoretical maximum capacity of the Adriatic pipeline is 11 million tons per year, and the combined demand of the two countries is 12 million tons, and oil should also reach the Czech Republic.

A school district in Maryland is finding out just how costly virtue signaling can wind up being. 

Maryland’s largest school district in Montgomery County found out via an Inspector General’s report that implementing electric busses “led to millions of dollars in wasteful spending”, according to WTOP.

The wasteful spending was caused in part by late deliveries and maintenance issues, according to the IG report. 

The report said that at a ribbon-cutting ceremony in October 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) announced that its 326 new electric buses would save 6,500 gallons of fuel daily and cut costs by 50%.

And then reality set in. Since entering into a $168 million contract for the buses, MCPS has faced significant delays, WTOP reports.

The county’s Office of the Inspector General reported that the buses were consistently delivered late. Dozens of buses scheduled for fiscal year 2022 arrived only after Christmas, instead of at the start of the school year as required.

“MCPS’s failure to hold the contractor accountable to the terms of the contract and their decision not to include provisions to offset incurred expenses has led to millions of dollars in wasteful spending,” the IG report said. 

A similar issue occurred in fiscal year 2024. Of the 120 buses slated for delivery, only 37 arrived by the end of September, 69 between October and December, and 14 more between January and April.

The report also highlighted mechanical and charging failures, which rendered many buses inoperable for extended periods. From February 2022 to March 2024, buses failed to complete routes 280 times, with repairs taking an average of 13 days, and more than half exceeding five working days, according to WTOP. 

Consequently, in October 2023, the school board approved the purchase of 90 diesel buses for over $14.7 million to address the shortfall.

Who says government isn’t an efficient allocator of your tax dollars?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban elaborated on the global systemic transition and his country’s grand strategy within it during a lengthy speech at the Balvanyos Free Summer University and Student Camp over the weekend. The over 11,000-word English transcript was published on Monday, which the present piece will summarize for the reader’s convenience. It began with him reaffirming that it’s his Christian duty to promote peace and mocking the EU for its Orwellian “war is peace” mantra.

He then said that the Ukrainian Conflict was a “red pill” for him and proceeded to elaborate on the ten ways in which it opened his eyes to reality.

First, there have been enormous casualties on both sides, but each will continue fighting unless external stakeholders diplomatically intervene since they’re convinced that they’ll win.

Second, the US went from containing China to waging a proxy war on Russia, which pushed those two together and prompted questions about why the US would do this.  

Third, Ukraine’s resilience in spite of its objective economic and demographic weaknesses can be explained by its sense of mission that fills it with a higher purpose, which is to become the West’s eastern military frontier.

Fourth, Russia has also proven itself to be impressively resilient, and it’s nowhere near collapsing like Western leaders hubristically predicted.

Fifth, the EU has undergone fundamental changes since the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict began two and half years ago.

It now follows the US Democrats’ lead instead of retaining its strategic autonomy, and the traditional Franco-German axis is now challenged like never before by Poland, which has allied with the UK, Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Scandinavia to create a new center of power in Europe. This is actually an old Polish plan (Pilsudski’s “Intermarium” from the interwar period) adapted to contemporary conditions brought about by the Ukrainian Conflict and fully assisted by the US.

Sixth, the West’s standards are no longer universal and it’s experiencing “spiritual solitude” after the entire non-West refused to follow its lead in isolating Russia.

Seventh, the biggest problem in the world is the weakness and disintegration of the West caused by its lack of leadership and seemingly irrational policies, which is accelerating China’s rise as its global systemic challenger.

Eighth, Western Europe’s worldview is now post-national while Central Europe still believes in the sanctity of the nation-state.

This dichotomy explains the West’s seemingly irrational policies since each half of Europe is operating according to a completely different philosophy. The US is also experiencing a similar division between those like Trump who want it to remain a nation-state and his opponents who want it to become a post-national state. According to Orban, this division owes its origins to the sexual revolution and student rebellions from over half a century ago, which sought to free people from any form of collective identity.

Ninth, the West’s post-national trends are convulsing democracy and leading to friction between the elite/elitism and the people/populism.

And finally, the tenth red pill is that Western soft power/values aren’t universal but are actually counterproductive since Russia’s strongest international attraction nowadays is its resistance to LGBTQ. Orban then said that these trends are leading to the rise of the non-West, which he believes first began with China’s admission to the WTO in 2001 and might be irreversible.

Trump’s priority is to rebuild and strengthen North America, to which end he’ll squeeze the US’ European and Asian allies while negotiating better deals with China. His end game is to make the US self-sufficient in energy and raw materials so that it can stand a better chance at retaining its declining position in global affairs. The EU has two options: it can either become an “open-air museum” (passive international actor) absorbed by the US or pursue strategic autonomy in order improve its standing in the world.

What’s needed is more connectivity, a European military alliance with its own defense industry (albeit without federalization), energy self-sufficiency, reconciliation with Russia, and admitting that Ukraine won’t join the EU or NATO. It’ll return to its prior role as a buffer zone and will be lucky if it gets security guarantees in a US-Russian agreement. Poland’s power play will fail because it lacks the resources to replace Germany so Orban expects that his “Polish brothers and sisters” will return to Central Europe.  

He also considers all of these changes to be an opportunity. Developments in the US favor Hungary, but it must be careful about any deals it might offer due to the Polish precedent. Warsaw bet everything on Washington and received support for its strategic goals, but now it’s “subject to the imposition of a policy of democracy export, LGBTQ, migration and internal social transformation.” Orban ominously notes that this combination risks of the loss of Polish national identity if these trends continue unabated.

Hungary will remain in the EU, but the bloc’s East-West divisions between those that correspondingly respect the nation-state and those that are moving beyond it will widen. The EU must also accept that it’s the loser in the Ukrainian Conflict, the US will abandon this proxy war, and the EU can’t realistically pick up the tab. All the while, Hungary will rely on China for modernizing its economy and boosting its exports, which will lead to mutually beneficial outcomes.

A Hungarian grand strategy is required in order to maximally take advantage of the opportunities brought about by the ten previously described red pills and their abovementioned consequences. What’s already been decided upon since his government began work on this after the 2022 elections isn’t yet digestible and widely comprehensible by the public, and he said that it’ll take around six months for everything to become clearer for them, but he still shared the gist of what this grand strategy entails.

The first part is what he describes as connectivity, which he explained as being plugged in to both the Eastern and Western halves of the global economy. The second is sovereignty, with a focus on the economic dimension by promoting national companies on the world market, reducing debt, becoming a regional creditor, and boosting domestic production. The final part is bolstering his society’s resilience by halting demographic decline, preserving villages, and maintaining Hungary’s distinct culture.

Orban ended by explaining that all Hungarians across the world must help advance this grand strategy. The global systemic transition is expected to last another 20-25 years so the next generation will be tasked with completing its implementation. Their liberal opponents will try to offset this, but such efforts can be counteracted by recruiting young nationalists to the cause. The impression that one gets after reading through his speech in full is that Orban is this generation’s most visionary European leader.

Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

“I can’t believe how many people are negative on tariffs that are actually smart people,” President Donald Trump told Bloomberg in a June 25 interview.

“Economically, they’re phenomenal.”

Since then, a lot of smart people have rushed to the American media to say that, on the contrary, high tariffs are horrible.

Trump is right. Although these levies would increase costs to American consumers, the costs would not be nearly as great as experts say. Moreover, there are other considerations, both economic and national security, favoring raising tariffs now.

“As president, Trump shattered the long-standing Republican orthodoxy of favoring free trade,” Bloomberg noted in commentary accompanying the interview, released on July 16th: “He says he’ll go further if reelected.” Trump talked about increasing tariffs on, among others, China.

Trump happens to be right about China. In February, speaking to Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, he suggested he might impose tariffs greater than 60% on Chinese imports.

Critics from the American elite howl. “This is going to add price inflation across the board, all in the name of ‘tough guy’ election-year politics,” said Yael Ossowski of the Consumer Choice Center, in comments carried by Bloomberg.

“The long historical record demonstrates these are borne not by other countries, as Mr. Trump keeps insisting, but by American consumers and industries,” writes Steven R. Weisman of the Washington, D.C.-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, about tariffs.

The long historical record might show that, but not the immediate one. In 2018, Trump imposed additional tariffs on China and analysts warned that prices in America would rise. Smart people in America, however, forgot that China had an incentive to effectively pay the tariffs: The Chinese government and exporters absorbed 75% to 81% of the cost of the additional levies. They did so primarily through the government increasing export and other subsidies and factories accepting lower profit margins.

“The Trump tariffs were barely noticed by U.S. businesses or consumers,” long-time trade expert Alan Tonelson told Gatestone. “They certainly did not raise inflation, and they certainly did not cut growth.”

Trump’s additional tariffs topped out at 25%. Now, he is proposing even higher levies. The hit to the American consumer will undoubtedly be greater this time. “The higher tariffs are raised from current levels, the more likely disruptions will occur,” says Tonelson, also the founder of public policy blog RealityChek.

At the same time, however, the Chinese have even greater reason to shield consumers from increased costs. The problem for Xi Jinping is that China’s growth model is exhausted, and after rejecting stimulating domestic consumption, he is entirely dependent on increasing exports.

Chinese factories, from all indications, are struggling and need to keep customers. For instance, China’s Producer Price Index, which measures factory-gate prices, declined for the 21st consecutive month in June. The Wall Street Journal reports low prices have pushed many factories in China “to the brink.” With prices declining in China, American consumers will not feel the pinch of new tariffs.

Furthermore, there is one more reason why U.S. consumers will not suffer. High American tariffs will encourage factories to move out of China. When they do, any pressure on consumer prices will disappear.

This is a contest that the United States cannot lose.

In short, trade-surplus countries, such as China, cannot prevail over trade-deficit ones, such as America.

Last year, America’s merchandise trade deficit with China was $279.4 billion.

That is why, ultimately, China will have to pay the cost of tariffs that Trump — or any other American leader — may impose. Clearly, China’s regime knows this. People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s self-described mouthpiece and therefore the most authoritative publication in China, this month is arguing that America should not raise tariffs.

Yet even if American consumers were to pay more because of the tariffs, let us remember why they were imposed in the first place. Trump in 2018 invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and raised tariffs as a remedy for Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property. China steals each year somewhere in the neighborhood of a half trillion dollars of American intellectual property. Critics of tariffs, whether they make valid points or not about increased costs, have an obligation to say how they would eliminate or reduce this criminal practice through other means.

On a broader point, Americans, after more than four decades of misguided policy, have to realize that they cannot fix their lopsided trade relations with China without bearing pain. Unless they agree to become subservient to the militant Chinese state, they will have to accept the costs of remaining sovereign.

Trump’s 60% tariffs would “drastically slow” the Chinese economy, as Fortune reported this month. The hit to China would be far greater than any collateral effects in America. Experience with the 2018 tariffs is a guide. “Overall, the damage to China’s gross domestic product from the trade war was three times as high as the hit to the U.S., according to some Chinese economists,” the Wall Street Journal reported in May.

Why should Americans want to decimate the Chinese factory sector? The Communist Party of China sees the U.S. as an enemy and seeks the destruction of the American republic. The struggle, in short, is existential. China’s regime cannot wage the fight against America without American money.

So why should Americans supply the cash to their enemy?

Is a meat recession coming?

The dismal US jobs report has ignited recession fears, with some major Wall Street banks forecasting at least three 25bps interest rate cuts this year, with the first one starting in September. Recessions typically reduce household incomes and alter diets. 

One major issue with this consumer downturn is that households have already been financially crushed by elevated inflation and high interest rates over the last few years. A weakening labor market and a downshifting economy are just icing on the cake as the consumer has depleted personal savings and maxed out credit cards. 

As previously noted, the United States Department of Agriculture recently reported beef prices at the supermarket reached a record high of $5.472 a pound in June. This one-way ticket up in prices has been primarily based on a shrinking US cattle herd to the smallest size in 73 years. 

Besides the US main equity indexes getting blasted on Friday by recession fears, cattle futures in Chicago were rattled by the slowdown, sending contracts down as much as 4% – but still trading near record highs.

Fears over a “meat recession” are growing as traders see high prices and a consumer downturn as a perfect recipe for stoking demand destruction. 

Here’s more from Bloomberg: 

Cattle futures are dropping as a falling stock market prompts worries that consumers will pull back from high-priced beef. Sales of steak typically increase when equity markets rise and with stocks selling off after a weak US jobs report, prices for cattle are tracking the downturn.

Commodity research firm Hightower Report wrote in a note Friday, “There is no question the cattle market is sensitive to economic fears,” adding, “Consumer beef demand is in question.”

Authored by Ken Williams via The Epoch Times,

“Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, patriotism, and a true comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignity of American citizenship, and the meaning of equality and human dignity, including the promotion of harmonious relations … to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity, and falsehood, and to instruct them in manners and morals and the principles of a free government,” according to California Education Code 233.5.

California’s Education Codes were adopted in 1943. Over the last half century, they have varied in content and meaning as the laws of the United States, cultural attitudes, and our western civilization’s ethos have changed. As historical events direct and influence our future, however, each generation examines quintessential questions that defines our common purpose as Americans, and how we should live according to the laws created by our constitutional republic.

In March 2024, Sacramento politicians originally introduced a sensible legislative bill to help students with mental health related issues. This bill in its original language authorized the California Department of Education to support school districts to increase mental health screenings and support school districts to boost mental health programs for children in public K-12 schools.

On May 22, the bill’s language was converted to a new bill with an entirely different purpose and consequences. The new legislation was entitled the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act and signed into law on July 15.

This new law, AB 1955, will have a widespread impact on families, children, and public education. It overrides parental notification policies enacted by local schools boards that require school employees to inform parents about the wellbeing and emotional and mental health of their students.

In practice, this law prohibits all public schools from disclosing to a student’s parents’ critical gender and mental health related information. It forbids school officials in public and charter schools from disclosing information to a student’s mother and father that is related to a child’s perception of their gender identity, gender expression, or related mental health issues.

The original intent of parental notification policies were to strengthen family interpersonal dynamics and support the rights of parents. With an observed increase in child and adolescent mental illnesses, including gender dysphoria and its new subcategory Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, our society is in a mental health watershed moment, and parents need support and help. Not surprisingly, many researchers have connected these epidemiological observations to the impact of social media and social contagion. This acute mental health crisis adversely impacts family dynamics and strains interpersonal relationships in the family unit.

Unfortunately, with the new law, parental notification policies are now illegal, with school staff, teachers, administrators, and principals required to exclude from parents knowledge of their child’s serious mental health condition.

Undermining parents even more, a narrative has emerged that children with gender dysphoria are under attack by their parents and school boards. Allowing parents to be involved in their child’s gender identification, gender incongruence, and mental health concerns has been said to put these students’ lives at risk.

Californians and parents on both sides of the political spectrum disagree with this assessment. They argue that AB 1955 undermines and removes the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

In 2000, in the Troxel v. Granville case, one of many cases involving the U.S. Supreme Court that guarantees parental rights, the court pronounced, “the custodial parent has a constitutional right to determine, without undue interference by the state, how best to raise, nurture, and educate the child. The parental right stems from the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In 1979, the U.S. Supreme court decision in Parham v. J.R., concluded “jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children.” Numerous other United States Supreme Court opinions consistently support the inalienable rights to parents and the parental-rights doctrine.

In a more recent 2023 legal case (Mirabelli v. Olson) filed in the U.S. Federal District Court by two public school teachers, the court opined against a school district’s policy that restricted school staff and teachers from contacting parents about information believed to be critical to the welfare of students. The court issued a preliminary injunction and stated, “The United States Supreme Court has historically and repeatedly declared that parents have a right, grounded in the Constitution, to direct the education, health, and upbringing, and to maintain the well-being of their children.”

Thus, AB 1955 is in violation of California’s own Education Code 233.5, and historical legal precedence. Western culture and civilizations since the earliest societies have recognized that parents and not government are the final arbitrators and ultimate authorities of their children’s lives. Children require their parents’ presence in their interpersonal struggles and family challenges.

On July 16, one day after this controversial bill became law, litigation was filed, and a battle line was drawn in the Golden State over the question of who has the ultimate authority over children: parents or government agents?

The courts will decide the legal status, but I pray the American people will support and defend time-proven truths that make families strong and define our family values.

Two migrants who bit and attacked two New York City Police officers are…wait for it…back on the street, according to the New York Post. 

Manhattan prosecutors reportedly agreed to set them loose back on the streets without bail after both were arrested on Sunday for fighting with traffic cops on Eighth Avenue. 

Police confronted suspects outside the Row NYC Hotel at 700 Eighth Ave. after allegedly spotting one of them recklessly riding a moped without ID.

One migrant allegedly bit an officer while another “hurled a moped” at another officer, the report says. 

The Post report says that when they were brought into court on Monday morning, prosecutors let them walk without bail. 

The DA’s office said it “would be consenting to the defendant’s release on his own recognizance.”

One NYPD cop furiously told The Post: “What kind of message is this sending to the public? They are basically saying anyone in a blue uniform is a human piñata.”

Another officer called it “open war” on police, stating: “Today they bite and kick a cop and tomorrow they take a shot at cops. If there are no consequences they are only encouraging people to attack cops.”

A spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration said: “We don’t comment on bail decisions except to say that in cases like these in New York, Judges have discretion in making bail decisions in accordance with the law and based solely on an individualized assessment of a defendant’s risk of flight.” 

Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Hendry responded: “We’ve seen dozens of significant assaults on police officers in Manhattan this year, and there’s a clear pattern in those cases — prosecutors and judges are only doing their job when they’re in the spotlight. We will keep turning out in court to show the entire justice system that their actions are getting cops hurt and putting all New Yorkers at risk.”

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

California drivers have the worst road rage, according to a new study by Forbes.

The study surveyed 10,000 licensed drivers and compared all 50 states in nine categories. Some of the categories included drivers who force other cars off the road, drivers who exit their cars to fight with others, tailgating, and honking—each weighted on a percentage basis to equal a total score of 100.

California received 100 percent, Forbes reported.

“California drivers ranked as the most confrontational drivers across all 50 states, with a high percentage of drivers experiencing some type of road rage, including being cut off, cursed at, and tailgating,” Forbes said in a report published July 22.

The Golden State had the third-highest percentage of drivers—47.5 percent—who said another driver had cut them off on purpose, and the fourth-highest percentage—32 percent—of drivers who had been yelled at, insulted, cursed, and threatened.

The state also ranked among the top 10 for tailgating, and drivers who reported people exiting their cars to fight with them.

Arizona took the top spot last year, but dropped to 14th place in 2024, while California rose from 13th place to first.

Missouri ranked second in the United States with 99.44 percent, reporting a high percentage of drivers who had been yelled at, insulted, or threatened by another driver. The state was also second-highest for the percentage of drivers who reported being cut off by another driver.

Utah and Oklahoma came in third and fourth place.

Hawaii is home to the most polite drivers in the United States.

Driving in the United States is getting more dangerous as drivers become more confrontational. The number of violent road rage shootings across the country has surged since 2014, according to analysis of data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive.

Between 2014 and 2023, road aggression that involved shootings increased from 92 to 481—an increase of more than 400 percent, according to the archive.

The Forbes 2024 study also reported 41 percent of drivers witnessed an act of road rage in the past 12 months, and 32 percent experienced road rage from another driver.

“Aggressive driving and road rage are not only dangerous, but they can also lead to an increase in car insurance rates if they result in a serious crash or injury,” Forbes reported.

The average cost of car insurance is $2,150 a year, according to a Forbes Advisor analysis.

The survey considered 10,000 licensed U.S. drivers—at least 200 in each state—who were at least 18 years old and owned or leased at least one vehicle.

South Carolina Republican Senator and well-known hawk Lindsey Graham is salivating over the prospect of war with Iran at a moment regional tensions are boiling in the wake of Israel assassinating Hamas’ political leader in Tehran and Hezbollah’s senior military commander in Beirut.

Graham on Wednesday introduced a bill that if passed would authorize military action against Iran if Hezbollah attacks Israel. The resolution says that the Senate “asserts that efforts to deter Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran are most credible when the President keeps all options on the table, including military force.”

It would consider an all-out assault by Hezbollah to have the direct backing of Iran, and would thus authorize direct US counterattack on the Islamic Republic.

The bill further authorizes military action against Iran if the country is deemed on the cusp of achieving a nuclear bomb. Iranian officials have lately signaled a major boost in its nuclear program at key sites. Though Iran’s leaders have yet to change the country’s official nuclear doctrine of seeing the bomb as ‘unIslamic’ (while long claiming the program is only for peaceful nuclear energy purposes), Tehran’s rhetoric has shifted of late to issuing warnings that it could produce a nuke if it wanted to.

The resolution further underscores that Iran and Hezbollah shall be held responsible for “any adverse impacts on the people of Lebanon that result from an attack on the State of Israel by Hezbollah” while also urging the US governemnt to use “all diplomatic tools and power projection capabilities” to punish Israel’s fiercest regional enemies.

As for the nuclear aspect, Graham has sought to invoke an Authorization for Use of Military Force which would greenlight a Washington military response if Iran’s nuke program is developed to the point of becoming a direct national security threat to the United States.

“Iran will keep going until somebody tells them to stop,” Graham said in a press briefing this week. “It is time to put red lines on their nuclear program.”

He asserted that it is “a certainty” that if the US doesn’t quickly get tougher on Iran, it will only be a matter of weeks or months more the country achieves nuclear weapons status. “Their ability to enrich to weapons grade is now a matter of weeks, not months,” Graham said. “Their ability to weaponize the material has advanced, and it is now time for Congress to lend their voice to the proper response.”

Call me if there is ever a day when Lindsey Graham wakes up and does not want to bomb Iran. https://t.co/5Vj5Ry0K51

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) August 1, 2024

“If Hezbollah attacks Israel, my hope is that they will have one less refinery than they do today,” he continued. “It is time to hit the Ayatollah in the pocketbook. Oil refineries are the lifeblood of his regime. Without those refineries, they would not be able to fund terrorism.”

Revealingly, nothing of what Graham said urged immediate and robust peace or diplomatic efforts in the region. Congressional hawks and neocons have long had Iran in their crosshairs, in a policy effort that goes back to at least the 1990s.