Month: September 2024

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” 

– Abraham Lincoln

It is both apt and ironic that the anniversary of 9/11, which paved the way for the government to overthrow the Constitution, occurs the week before the anniversary of the day the U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.

All sides are still waging war on our constitutional freedoms, and “we the people” remain the biggest losers.

This year’s presidential election is no exception.

As Bruce Fein, the former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, warns in a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, “In November, the American people will have a choice between Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance. But they will not have a choice between an Empire and a Republic.”

In other words, the candidates on this year’s ballot do not represent a substantive choice between freedom and tyranny so much as they constitute a cosmetic choice: the packaging may vary widely, but the contents remain the same.

No matter who wins, the bureaucratic minions of the Security/Military Industrial Complex and its Police State/Deep State partners will retain their stranglehold on power.

Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris have the greatest of track records when it comes to actually respecting the rights enshrined in the Constitution, despite the rhetoric being trotted out by both sides lately regarding their so-called devotion to the rule of law.

Indeed, Trump has repeatedly called for parts of the Constitution to be terminated, while both Harris and Trump seem to view the First Amendment’s assurance of the right to free speech, political expression and protest as dangerous when used to challenge the government’s power.

This flies in the face of everything America’s founders fought to safeguard.

Those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

Unfortunately, although the Bill of Rights was adopted as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, in America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

In the 23 years since the USA Patriot Act—a massive 342-page wish list of expanded powers for the FBI and CIA—was rammed through Congress in the wake of the so-called 9/11 terror attacks, it has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments—and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well.

The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience are now considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.

The Patriot Act justified broader domestic surveillance, the logic being that if government agents knew more about each American, they could distinguish the terrorists from law-abiding citizens—no doubt a reflexive impulse shared by small-town police and federal agents alike.

This, according to Washington Post reporter Robert O’Harrow, Jr., was a fantasy that “had been brewing in the law enforcement world for a long time.” And 9/11 provided the government with the perfect excuse for conducting far-reaching surveillance and collecting mountains of information on even the most law-abiding citizen.

Federal agents and police officers are now authorized to conduct covert black bag “sneak-and-peak” searches of homes and offices while you are away and confiscate your personal property without first notifying you of their intent or their presence.

The law also granted the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library and Internet sites you’ve visited (at least 545 libraries received such demands in the first year following passage of the Patriot Act).

In the name of fighting terrorism, government officials are now permitted to monitor religious and political institutions with no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government has subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation; monitor conversations between attorneys and clients; search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without showing probable cause; and jail Americans indefinitely without a trial, among other things.

The federal government has also made liberal use of its post-9/11 powers, especially through the use (and abuse) of the nefarious national security letters, which allow the FBI to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies at the mere say-so of the government agent in charge of a local FBI office and without prior court approval.

In fact, since 9/11, we’ve been spied on by surveillance cameras, eavesdropped on by government agents, had our belongings searched, our phones tapped, our mail opened, our email monitored, our opinions questioned, our purchases scrutinized (under the USA Patriot Act, banks are required to analyze your transactions for any patterns that raise suspicion and to see if you are connected to any objectionable people), and our activities watched.

We’re also being subjected to invasive patdowns and whole-body scans of our persons and seizures of our electronic devices in the nation’s airports. We can’t even purchase certain cold medicines at the pharmacy anymore without it being reported to the government and our names being placed on a watch list.

In this way, “we the people” continue to be terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, a viral pandemic, and more to come), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called name of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and the like (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, and the courts)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

What we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Sadly, most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

Here is what it means to live in a permanent state of crisis with our freedoms locked down:

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights and speaking out against government corruption. Activists are being arrested and charged for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a so-called government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against red flag gun laws, militarized police, SWAT team raids, and government agencies armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited to the battlefield.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or encroaching on your private property unless they have evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of governmental police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise), and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts.

Thus, if there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, it’s our job to make the government play by the rules of the Constitution.

We are supposed to be the masters and they—the government and its agents—are the servants.

We the American people—the citizenry—are supposed to be the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

A healthy, representative government is hard work. It takes a citizenry that is informed about the issues, educated about how the government operates, and willing to do more than grouse and complain.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “we the people” have the power to make and break the government.

The powers-that-be want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own. They also want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day.

Yet there are 330 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice.

Tyranny wouldn’t stand a chance.

A few weeks ago, we warned that the entire Chinese experiment was on the verge of collapse because while on one hand the welfare state was crumbling due to Beijing’s stubborn insistence not to stimulate the economy at any cost (normally, it would be admirable to be so stubbornly insistent  on austerity but when austerity threatens social collapse, it may be time to reassess), this was accentuated by an explosion in social unrest as youth unemployment soared, and worker strikes surged across the nation.

While we detailed the various reasons that had pushed China to the edge of the abyss, one section was especially notable: our preview of what was the logical next step in China’s belt-tightening ways – raising the retirement age – and the obvious blowback storm it would generate.

In a key socioeconomic planning meeting concluded last month, the government vowed to improve the social security system by addressing the restrictions faced by migration workers. In response to the country’s aging population, it added that the statutory retirement age — currently 60 years for men and between 50 and 55 for women — would be raised gradually and voluntarily.

To this we added that there is, of course, zero historical record of a “centrally-planned civilization that has managed to raise the retirement age either “voluntarily” and without clashes, violence, and collapse in social cohesion, precisely the three things that Beijing fears the most.”

We concluded by quoting Yun Zhou, a social demographer and family sociologist at the University of Michigan, who warned that “for China’s urban workers, the talk of raising retirement ages is felt as a delayed, if not broken, promise of social welfare coverage” to which we counteded:

Which is precisely why Beijing will have no choice but to blink in the end, and that will mean unleashing a much delayed stimulus bazooka that likes of which have not been seen yet.

Fast-forward to today, when Beijing did just as we expected it would and, in a last ditch attempt to delay the “stimulus bazooka”,  announced it would raise the retirement age for the first time since 1978, a move that will help stem a rapid decline in the labor force but risk angering workers already wrestling with a slowing economy.

Top lawmakers endorsed a plan to delay retirement for employees by as long as five years, Xinhua News Agency reported Friday. Men will retire at 63 instead of 60. Women will retire at 55 instead of 50 for ordinary workers, and 58 instead of 55 for those in management positions. Come to think of it, it is absolutely insane that in China 50 is the retirement age for women. But now that China has finally figured out the brutal reality of its demographic implosion, the money printer comes next.

The retirement change will take place over 15 years starting January, and will allow more people to work longer. This could boost productivity to address the challenges of an aging population, although it is much more likely that all today’s decision will do is spark public anger, and add to the ire from an economy growing at the worst pace in five quarters.

“The timeline of raising the retirement age is pretty gradual. Policymakers probably have taken into account the potential negative impact and calibrated that carefully,” said Michelle Lam, China economist at Societe Generale. Actually sorry Michelle, but nobody in Beijing has calibrated anything as the coming violence will demonstrate.

Shares of companies providing health and elderly care jumped, with Shanghai Everjoy Health rising by the daily limit of 10%. Chalkis Health Industry and Youngy Health both gained more than 6%.

“People may face more health problems if the retirement age is raised. And the pressure of supporting parents may require more elderly care institutions to share the burden,” said Shen Meng

China’s retirement age had been among the world’s lowest – even below that of socialist paradise France – despite significantly increased life expectancy over the decades. A bigger tax base and delayed access to benefits will relieve the pressure on the government to fund pensions as the elderly population rapidly expands.

The retirement age hike is aimed at “adapting to the new situation of demographic development in China, and fully developing and utilizing human resources,” according to the decision by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.

The approval followed the previously reported July announcement by the ruling Communist Party that the retirement age will rise in a “voluntary, flexible manner.” Flexible? Maybe. Voluntary? No chance in hell: previous efforts to raise the threshold had failed in the face of public opposition.

The Friday decision left countless people fuming over working into an older age, as well as those who fear greater competition in the job market.

“Are you asking me, when I’m 60, to compete with young people for jobs?” a Weibo user said on the X-like social media platform, where the news was the top trending item and garnered more than 530 million views as of Friday afternoon.

Some also complained about employers’ discrimination against older job candidates, a problem that the government has long vowed to address. Authorities acknowledged the potential short-term pressure on the job market at a press briefing on Friday. Li Zhong, vice minister at the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, said the gradual pace of the change should lead to a “muted” effect on youth employment, which as everyone knows China stopped reporting last year, only to replace it with a new, “revised” data series… which also just hit a record high.

Just to make sure the outraged workers are even angrier, China’s top legislative body also ruled that starting 2030, workers will need to contribute to their pension accounts for a longer period before they’re eligible to receive payout. This requirement will increase gradually from 15 to 20 years, Bloomberg reported.

“The sustainability of the pension system may be the main consideration behind the move,” said Ding Shuang, chief economist for Greater China and North Asia at Standard Chartered. “Even though the move will increase pressure for the job market, in the long term it helps mitigate the impact from declines in the working-age population.”

Adding insult to injury, lawmakers also called on officials to actively respond to the aging population, protect workers’ rights and improve elderly care. Additionally, it empowered the State Council, China’s cabinet, to adjust these measures as needed.

In other words, absolutely nothing will happen, except for even more government workers being thrown at an unsolvable problem, and even more corruption.

As China’s life expectancy has risen, delaying retirement has become more important to offset the demographic challenges from its decades-long enforcement of a one-child policy, which left a generation of single children supporting a large elderly population. Today, the average Chinese lives to 78 from 66 four decades ago.

People aged 65 and older are expected to make up 30% of the population by around 2035 from 14.2% in 2021, according to a report by state broadcaster CCTV on Tuesday. Authorities’ efforts to encourage births have so far done little to reverse the demographic shift, with birth rate falling to a record last year.

“When I was born they said there were too many. When I gave birth they said there were too few. When I wanted to work they said I was too old. And when I retire they say I’m too young,” another Weibo user said.

Authored by Aaron Sobczak via The Mises Institute,

The legacy of 9-11 is full of misinformation and misguided policy initiatives. Rather than taking seriously the motives of the hijackers and their supporters, American politicians went head first into creating a massive surveillance state and growing the American presence overseas. What is worse is that not all of the masterminds are identified by Washington. While we know firmly that actors with connection to the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency (GIP) were at least aware of the incoming attacks on 9-11, politicians in Washington have rarely attempted to hold the Saudis responsible, and have been quick to strengthen ties between the Gulf monarchy and the United States. 

Osama bin Laden, in his Letter to the American people, laid out the reasons behind 9-11 and other instances of terror and military opposition. It is easy to condemn terrorism and to look at those who hate America as simply barbarians who don’t understand freedom, but terrorists and barbarians will exist in the world for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately for George Bush and presidents after him, the War on Terror was a complete failure, with each campaign against terror simply creating new rebel groups ready to oppose American imperialism. This game of whack-a-mole was predicted by bin Laden in his letter, saying “…then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace.”

Rather than learning lessons from the Soviets in Afghanistan, politicians in Washington jumped into Afghanistan with full force, ready to occupy and radically change the cultural makeup of the central Asian country. The goal of the United States was to go after Al Qaeda and defeat the Taliban, whom Bush asserted was responsible for harboring Al Qaeda. While the Taliban may have been powerless to stop some Al-Qaeda operatives from operating in Afghanistan, regime change in Afghanistan should have been seen as foolish and utopian from the start. The 2021 pull out of the country ended the 20 year occupation, and the following collapse of the American-supported government proved that it was an utter waste. 

Meanwhile, America is consistently a strong ally of Saudi Arabia, a nation which has funded the Taliban for years. The United States has regularly intervened on behalf of the Saudis, including the Gulf War in 1991 where we turned on our then-ally, Saddam Hussein, when he threatened Saudi oil profits. In 2015, then-President Obama, agreed to allow the United States to assist Saudi Arabia in its campaign against the Shia Houthis in Yemen. This relationship was continued by Trump, and resulted in what is widely regarded as genocide towards the Houthi people. Fast-forward to recent years, President Trump worked tirelessly to undermine Iran, Saudi Arabia’s chief enemy, while also having significant business dealings with the Saudi royal family. 

Present day, the United States is addicted to selling arms to Saudi Arabia, with President Biden announcing a $500 billion arms sale in 2023. Despite human rights abuses, ties to 9-11, and regular support for America’s enemies, Riyadh continues to enjoy high levels of support from the United States. It is likely that President Trump will renew talks surrounding his Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia if he is re-elected in 2024. The Abraham Accords are a series of agreements made between the United States, Israel, and willing Muslim-majority nations. The agreements always involve normalizing relations with Israel, millions of dollars in aid from the United States, as well as other tantalizing items. Normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel would have implications of enormous magnitude, as the Saudis carry high levels of influence not just in the Middle East, but also around the world.

It is required of the American people to never forget 9-11, but Washington hopes that the public will forget about Saudi ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and why the hijackers committed such acts of terror in the first place. Families of the victims are still pursuing answers and justice regarding the Saudi connection to 9-11, but it is unlikely that they will find peace through this avenue, as this monetary relationship is far too profitable for defense contractors.

Instead of justice, Americans were given endless wars in the Middle East, which have killed an estimated 4.5 million people. A massive surveillance state, trillions of dollars of debt, and relationships with shady foreign dictators are what the American public has inherited from the actions of the elite in Washington. It is time to hold them accountable and demand that the legacy of 9-11 be properly remembered for what it was—a deadly, completely avoidable reaction to American imperialism. Blowback is bound to occur again if politicians in DC continue to treat the world as America’s stage.

Washington has now taken its war against Russia’s state funded English language broadcaster RT to a global level, and is urging all nations to block its broadcasts and close down offices.

Already back in 2022 after being officially branded a foreign agent by the US government which resulted in major platforms dropping its programing, RT America’s offices in the US were shuttered and it was effectively booted from the country. But on Friday the Biden administration unveiled a new effort which seeks to expose RT as part of “malign global intelligence and influence operations”.

The State Department claims to possess US intelligence reports that suggest Russian intelligence is deeply embedded in RT around the world. 

“Thanks to new information, much of which originates from RT employees, we know that RT possessed cyber capabilities and engaged in covert information and influence operations and military procurement,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Friday.

US officials allege that Russian intelligence efforts utilized RT to the point of crowdfunding for military gear. “Under the cover of RT, information produced through this unit flows to Russian intelligence services, Russian media outlets, Russian mercenary groups, and other state and proxy arms of the Russian government,” Blinken said.

The alleged crowdfunding activity on behalf of the government allowed “sniper rifles, suppressors, body armor, night vision equipment, drones, radio equipment, personal weapon sights, diesel generators” to be sent to Russian units fighting in Ukraine.

Biden officials say that want to put a dent in RT’s operations globally and hope to convince allies and nations from Latin America to Europe to Asia that it is a ‘threat’ to democracy.

CNN, which was the first to report on the new State Department initiative, included the following hilarious line in its reporting:

Asked for comment by CNN, RT responded with a mocking email that read in part: “We’ve been broadcasting straight out of the KGB headquarters all this time.”

The timing of the public rollout of this major anti-RT initiative is interesting and curious to say the least, given the US is getting closer to the November election, and admin officials and the Democratic party are busy resurrecting the old ‘Russiagate’ talking points against Trump. There are also the usual same election ‘foreign interference’ warnings being loudly sounded from US officials. This has also included talk of China and Iran as supposedly meddling in significant ways.

We’ve finally crossed the Rubicon. The Biden regime wants to ban RT. Here is Jamie Rubin, who embodies the deep state more than anyone else, explaining that, unlike RT, U.S. taxpayer-funded media is totally neutral and would never parrot government propaganda. pic.twitter.com/0pXcpJiXAx

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 13, 2024

Is it a coincidence that the administration is talking about RT as if it’s 2016? We think not.

Via The Cradle

An opinion poll published on Friday showed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party would win the largest number seats in the parliament if an election were held now.

The poll, published in the Hebrew language Maariv newspaper, showed Likud winning 24 Knesset seats, against the 32 the party now holds. The National Unity Party led by former general Benny Gantz would receive 21 seats.

Though Likud would win the most seats, Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, which includes nationalist-religious and ultra-Orthodox parties, would lose any election held now, with 53 seats in the 120-seat parliament. The main opposition bloc would win 58-seats, according to the poll.

Earlier opinion polls taken after the start of the war in Gaza regularly showed Likud gaining only 16 to18 seats.

Netanyahu and Likud’s popularity fell drastically, as many Israeli voters blamed the Prime Minister for the alleged security failures of the military and intelligence apparatus on 7 October. 

Members of Hamas’ armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, breached the Gaza border fence to attack Israeli settlements and military bases imposing a siege on the strip. Qassam and other Palestinian fighters were able to take 240 captives back to Gaza.

Some 1,200 Israelis were killed during the operation. Some were killed by Hamas fighters, while many were killed by Israeli attack helicopters, tanks, and drones, per the controversial Hannibal Directive.

Netanyahu and his coalition partners, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, have refused to agree to a ceasefire deal with Hamas that would return the Israelis who are still captive in Gaza, preferring instead to continue the war that has killed a reported more than 40,000 Palestinians and destroy large swathes of the strip.

Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir established their ruling coalition following elections in late 2022. Israel’s next parliamentary election is not due until 2026.

The survey also showed Netanyahu’s personal popularity is improving. Israelis responding to the poll said they preferred Netanyahu over any alternative potential candidate apart from former prime minister Naftali Bennett, who has retired from public life.

In contrast to Likud, Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party and Smotrich’s Religious Zionism party have fallen in popularity since October 7. Both parties therefore have an incentive not to leave the government and call for early elections, Reuters reported.

New insights from the US Department of Agriculture show an optimistic forecast of improving US chicken supplies. This signals that lower supermarket prices for chicken breasts and nuggets could be ahead amid a food inflation storm. 

The USDA said in a report on Thursday that domestic broiler production is expected to reach 47.1 billion pounds this year, a 1.6% rise from 2023 figures. As of a July report, the agency expected an increase of only .8% before hiking the supply outlook for two consecutive months. 

Bloomberg pointed out that the new USDA report “suggests chicken producers are finally making some strides,” adding, “The number of eggs hatched in the US has risen by more than three percentage points since early July, while the number of chicks placed for production rose to the highest seasonal level in two years.” 

Mark Jordan, a poultry analyst with LEAP Market Analytics, told the media outlet that several hurdles that hindered poultry growth in the US “have been toggled back toward growth that was depressed for a long time.” 

Bloomberg also noted that speculation on increasing supplies has weighed on several producer stocks because of thinner margins. It added that Pilgrim’s Pride, the largest chicken producer in the US and Puerto Rico and the second-largest chicken producer in Mexico, has seen shares slide for the last six sessions—the longest losing streak in a year. Shares of Tyson Foods have also declined for four straight sessions. 

What’s bad for companies is great for consumers. Growing supplies could certainly continue weighing on chicken boneless breast retail prices. 

Sliding chicken prices will likely push cash-strapped consumers to substitute beef for chicken (sorry, Bill Gates, no one is switching real meat for your lab-grown meat). The latest news in the beef space is that US and Brazilian herd sizes are getting tighter. And retail beef prices in the US continue soaring. 

The US beef cattle herd size has collapsed to the smallest level in 73 years. 

The theme is a ‘thrifty‘ consumer that will substitute beef for chicken. Buy local and support mom-and-pop farmers (or start your own micro-farm). Stop supporting the food industrial complex of processed junk foods.

Authored by Connor O’Keefe via The Mises Institute,

In recent weeks, there have been a series of stories about the government cracking down on foreign agents allegedly working to influence the 2024 election.

First, the intelligence community linked the Iranian government to a hacking of Trump campaign documents. Then the federal government seized several websites it claims were linked to a Russian campaign to circulate disinformation—meaning deliberately spread false information.

The biggest story came last week when two employees of the Russian media organization RT—formerly Russia Today—were indicted for allegedly sending nearly $10 million to a Tennessee-based online media company.

US officials claim the scheme aimed to inject Russian government messaging across social media using conservative influencers.

Tenet Media was paying some big-name online conservatives—most of whom the DOJ admits had no knowledge of where the money was coming from—to produce content for Tenet’s YouTube channel. The indictment does allege that Tenet’s founders, Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, were aware that the Russians were providing at least some of their funding, but formal charges have not been brought against either as of yet.

Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray spoke about these cases in a press conference last Wednesday. And they warned about other covert influence campaigns from the Russian, Iranian, and Chinese governments that aim to nudge the American electorate toward their regime’s preferred candidates.

Garland and Wray clearly wanted to convey that the DOJ and the FBI—its most prominent component—stand in total opposition to government officials manipulating public opinion to serve their own ends. But the actions of the DOJ, the FBI, and the political establishment more broadly paint a very different picture.

Obviously, our government conducts the exact kind of influence campaigns they demonize these foreign regimes for carrying out here. Just as Russia has RT, the US government funds a number of media organizations—like Radio Free Europe and Voice of America—that propagate the Washington party line across the globe. Last year, Biden’s USAID administrator Samantha Power was even bragging about launching US government-funded news organizations in Hungary to, in her words, help “build independent media.”

But it’s not as if our government officials are just trying to push their preferred messaging abroad while protecting Americans from similar efforts being directed against us. They’re also using these very same influence techniques against the American public.

The recent revelation from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter to Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) provides a good example.

In the letter, Zuckerberg recounts how, in the lead-up to the 2020 election, the FBI warned his company to be on the lookout for a “Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma (the Ukrainian gas company that appointed Hunter Biden to its board).”

Not long after that, the New York Post broke its now famous story, reporting on evidence of the Biden family’s influence-peddling, obtained from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop. Concluding that that was the “Russian disinformation” operation the FBI had warned about, Meta “demoted” the story on Facebook—ensuring that few users would encounter it.

With all we know today, it’s hard to see the federal government’s conduct in the fall of 2020 as anything other than a disinformation operation of its own.

According to testimony from Laura Dehmlow, the Section Chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, the FBI agents tasked with warning social media companies about this supposed Russian disinformation operation already knew about Hunter Biden’s laptop and were already aware that it was authentic and not disinformation. The FBI had, after all, seized the laptop the year before.

The Bureau lied to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media giants for months—priming them to bury the story when it eventually came out. Then, after the New York Post published, the FBI went silent. They refused to confirm that the laptop was authentic. Five days later, fifty-one former “intelligence” officials signed an open letter arguing that the laptop was likely Russian disinformation. That allowed the rest of the political establishment to dismiss the very real story as something cooked up by the Kremlin. The authenticity of the laptop would eventually be confirmed, but not until well after the 2020 election.

So, by all indications, the FBI spread disinformation to American companies to help the rest of the political establishment quash a story that hurt the candidate they clearly liked better. A story that eight in ten Americans believe would have cost Joe Biden the election if the public knew it was true on election day.

Yet nobody in the political establishment condemns what the FBI and DOJ did. They may say they stand against election meddling, but they contradict themselves with their actions.

Our government is not trying to protect us from disinformation. They’re trying to maintain a monopoly on it.

According to a footnote in a Sept. 12 court filing, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has retracted its longstanding characterization of cryptocurrencies as “securities” and intends to use more careful language in the future. 

Specifically, as CoinTelegraph’s Alex O’Donnell reports, the retraction arose from the SEC’s ongoing lawsuit against crypto exchange Binance for allegedly offering and selling unregistered securities. In a 2023 complaint, the SEC identified 10 crypto assets on the Binance platform as “securities,” including the native tokens of Solana, Cardano (ADA) and Polygon.

The SEC “regrets any confusion” caused by its characterization of these tokens as “crypto asset securities” and “no longer uses the shorthand term,” according to the Sept. 12 filing.

“With its use of the term ‘crypto asset securities,’ the SEC is not referring to the crypto asset itself as the security,” the agency said. Instead, a token’s status as a security “consists of the full set of contracts, expectations, and understandings centered on the sales and distribution of the [crypto asset],” it said, citing language from an earlier filing.

Coinbase’s chief legal officer has been critical of the SEC. Source: Paul Grewal

The SEC asserts that even by this narrower definition, Binance remains at fault for unlawful securities offerings because the exchange’s tokens “continue to be offered and sold as investment contracts.”

The securities regulator is advancing a similar argument against crypto exchange Kraken, which the agency charged in November with “operating [a] crypto trading platform as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency.”

The regulator’s emphasis on the context around which virtual assets are sold follows its 2024 approval of Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded funds (ETF) using a legal entity structure typically associated with funds holding commodities, not securities.

The SEC is also suing Kraken for alleged securities law violations. Source: Kraken

“I’ll say it again:  somehow ETH transaction[s] HAVE changed [in] a meaningful way that the Ten Crypto Assets [referenced in the SEC’s Binance lawsuit] have not so as to avoid the agency’s clutches,” Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s chief legal officer, said in a Sept. 13 post on the X platform.

“How? That’s apparently for the [SEC] to know, and the rest of us to find out only if and when we are sued,” Grewal said. Coinbase is also being sued by the SEC for alleged violations of securities laws. 

Pressure is mounting on US financial regulators, including the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to abandon what critics describe as a high-handed and confusing approach to crypto enforcement. 

In a Sept. 4 statement, Summer Mersinger, one of the CFTC’s five commissioners, chastized the CFTC for engaging in “regulation through enforcement” and called for clearer guidance for crypto exchanges. 

“It [is] my hope that one day soon the commission would consider rulemaking, or at the very least guidance, making clear how DeFi protocols could comply with them,” Mersinger said. 

Authored by Juan Carlos Porras via RealClearFlorida,

For many Floridians, living within a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like navigating a complex web of rules and regulations that often seem more restrictive than beneficial or sometimes even predatory. A recent survey conducted by the Florida Homeowners Association Reform Coalition reveals just how pervasive this sentiment is. The poll found that a staggering 72% of respondents are dissatisfied with their HOA experiences, with a notable 65% pointing to a lack of transparency and fairness and 58% criticizing the arbitrary enforcement of rules. These figures highlight the widespread frustration felt by homeowners and the undeniable need for substantive reform.

The statute governing HOAs was untouched for twenty years and even the existing statute did almost nothing to govern HOAs beyond establishing their existence. Since my election in 2022, I have championed HOA reform starting with House Bill 919, the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights, and the most recent House Bill 1203. This latest bill seeks to enhance transparency, improve financial reporting, and establish clearer procedures for resolving disputes. It also aims to increase homeowners’ involvement in decision-making processes, aiming to empower homeowners when it comes to their community’s management.

However, while the passage of House Bill 1203 is a promising development, it’s essential to understand that far more is needed to finally resolve the HOA issue and the solution is not exclusively legislative. Even polling data suggests that while there is optimism for change, skepticism remains high. Specifically, 63% of homeowners believe that legislative reforms alone will not be sufficient to rectify the issues without robust enforcement and oversight.

One major concern is the balance of power between HOAs and homeowners. Many residents feel that HOAs wield excessive authority, often enforcing rules in ways that seem punitive rather than constructive or even selectively enforcing particular rules. The bill’s focus on procedural clarity is a positive step, but it must be reinforced by measures that enforce the desired reassessment of power dynamics within HOA governance. For example, rules governing property appearance and maintenance, while intended to maintain community standards, can sometimes lead to unnecessary conflicts, stress, and financial hardship for homeowners. Without future measures that more clearly review how power is distributed and exercised, the reforms risk being undermined by unwavering HOA Boards.

The proposed legislation includes important measures such as more detailed financial reporting requirements for HOAs. This is a crucial step, as financial transparency is often cited as a major concern among residents. Many HOAs operate with little oversight, leading to questions about how fees are utilized and whether they are justified. Improved reporting could help ensure that homeowners have a clearer understanding of how their money is being spent and provide a basis for holding HOAs accountable for mismanagement. It is critical to remember that the funds held by an HOA are made up of the monthly required dues from the residents and the Board is a steward, but not the owner, of those funds.

Another significant aspect of House Bill 1203 is its focus on dispute resolution. Clearer procedures for resolving conflicts between HOAs and homeowners are essential for reducing friction and ensuring that grievances are addressed fairly. This aligns with the poll’s finding that 59% of respondents believe better enforcement and oversight are critical for the success of any reform efforts. Effective dispute resolution mechanisms can help mitigate conflicts before they escalate, fostering a more harmonious community environment and easing tensions between the Board and the residents.

Education and advocacy also play crucial roles in the reform process. Many homeowners are unaware of their rights or lack the knowledge to effectively challenge an HOA’s decisions. By increasing educational initiatives and providing resources to help residents navigate disputes, we can empower homeowners to advocate for themselves and contribute to a more balanced HOA experience. This proactive approach can complement legislative efforts, ensuring that Florida’s homeowners are aware of their rights and powers as members of an HOA.

Despite the promising aspects of House Bill 1203, the real challenge lies in its implementation. For the reforms to have a meaningful impact, they must be supported by effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms. Policymakers and community leaders need to ensure that these new regulations are not merely symbolic but are applied consistently and fairly across all HOA-managed communities. This will require ongoing vigilance and a commitment to addressing any issues that arise as the reforms are put into practice.

Furthermore, the success of these reforms will depend on the active engagement of both homeowners and HOA boards. Homeowners must remain informed and involved in their communities, while HOA boards need to embrace the spirit of reform and work collaboratively with residents. The best way to achieve this goal is through homeowner participation which can shift Board elections, decisions, and community management as a whole. Only through a concerted effort can we hope to achieve a more equitable and functional HOA system.

In conclusion, while House Bill 1203 represents a significant step towards addressing the challenges associated with HOAs in Florida, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Greater reform will require a combination of legislative changes, effective enforcement, and community engagement. The recent polling data underscores the widespread demand for these improvements and highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to overhauling HOA governance.

As Florida moves forward, it is crucial for policymakers, community leaders, and residents to work together to ensure that these reforms result in a more balanced and fair HOA system. The goal should be to create a framework where HOAs genuinely enhance community living rather than create additional layers of frustration and bureaucracy. There are enough problems facing Florida’s homeowners during this tumultuous time. With sustained effort and collaboration, I am committed to resolving HOAs as one of those problems so that we can move closer to peace and harmony in Florida’s beautiful communities.

State Representative Juan Carlos Porras is the youngest member of the Florida House of Representatives and he is the first Gen Z member of the Florida House of Representatives. He is the proud son of Cuban exiles and is grateful for his parents’ sacrifices that allowed him to become his family’s first college graduate. He graduated from Florida International University with a Bachelors in Political Science and also runs a food distribution company specializing in trading produce from Latin America. During his first two years as a member of the Florida House of Representatives he has championed HOA reform, matters of commerce, and has passed extensive healthcare measures. 

Authored by Star Parker via The Epoch Times,

A newspaper story several years ago reported about an elementary school teacher who held elections in his class.

The students picked their candidates—one little boy competing against one little girl.

The little boy stood up before the class and shared his ideas for changes that would improve their lives. The little girl stood up and promised that everyone who voted for her would get ice cream.

The little girl won, hands down.

Maybe it’s a cute story about 10-year-olds.

But it’s far less cute if we consider that the political reality in our country today is not much different.

Two-thirds of federal spending, which now takes almost one-fourth of our GDP, are transfer payments.

As opposed to federal spending that involves direct payments to individuals or firms—like salaries or purchases made by the Department of Defense—transfer payments are payments that are automatically transferred to one set of citizens out of the federal budget, as well as funds that the federal government transfers to the states.

We’re talking about programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, refundable tax credits, Medicaid, housing, welfare, and transit.

These are automatic, mandatory transfers, which, as a percent of federal spending, have increased by about a factor of 5 since 1950.

Per the House Budget Committee, the percentage of the U.S. population enrolled in Medicaid has increased from 9.3 percent in 1975 to 24.3 percent in 2022, getting food stamps from 7.9 percent in 1975 to 12.4 percent in 2022, and the earned income tax credit from 2.9 percent in 1975 to 9.3 percent in 2021.

The oldest and largest of these programs is Social Security. Whenever I convey that Social Security comes under the heading of federal entitlements, I get irate letters from those getting Social Security telling me they worked to get their benefits.

But that isn’t the point. The point is most Americans have no choice to be or not be in the program, and once in, everything is automatic—when and how much is paid (although there is some latitude when to start receiving the benefit)—and the benefits received are from taxes paid by others.

It is important to appreciate, which most don’t, that these types of transfers were once considered unconstitutional. It was Social Security that changed the game.

Taking from Peter to pay Paul was never understood to be a constitutional authority of the federal government.

But after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, its constitutionality was challenged in the case known as Helvering v. Davis.

The court, in that case, found Social Security constitutional in a major expansion of understanding of the “general welfare” clause of the U.S. Constitution—“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes … and provide for the common Defense and general welfare.” As result of this ruling, a new understanding of “general welfare” gave Congress vast and wide new authority to tax and finance programs, even though those areas are not clearly enumerated in the Constitution as authority of the federal government.

Thus, the modern American welfare state was born, and the door was opened for politicians to promise ice cream in exchange for votes and power.

It is the main source of the explosion of federal spending, and now federal borrowing.

Change is possible. I began my career working on welfare reform.

With reform of AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and of TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the percentage of the population on welfare dropped from 5.2 percent in 1975 to 0.9 percent in 2019.

The founders envisioned a free nation under God in which the role of government is to protect life and property.

Our real challenge is to restore this mission and vision. It will make us all better off.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.