Justice System and Constitution in USA MORE Political than Judicial

 

The Supreme Court Has Never Been "politically neutral"

 Over the last 25 years PLUS, the court has become just another partisan institution. 

The Supreme Court was to devolve into just one more political institution, in an age of extreme partisanship and polarization, the fear goes, that the guardrails supporting our Constitutional system would fall away.

Andrew Jackson was open about defying the Supreme Court and firmly executed his Executive Power with the Indian Removal Act in 1830.

The Supreme Court has not just been divided along the ideological lines that always existed, but divided along partisan lines, with every justice appointed by a Democrat voting more liberally than every justice appointed by a Republican. That is far from the historical norm.

Supreme Court and Partisanship: The Supreme Court is increasingly seen as a political institution amid extreme partisanship and polarization, potentially undermining the Constitutional system.

Historical Defiance: Andrew Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court by using executive power to enforce the Indian Removal Act in 1830, exemplifying the dominance of executive authority over judicial rulings.

Perception of Partisanship: There is a growing sense that law is becoming synonymous with partisan politics, with the Supreme Court's recent decisions reflecting political motivations.

Roe v. Wade: Campaigns to appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, which were successful, highlight the political nature of judicial appointments.

Partisan Division: The Court is now divided along partisan lines, with justices appointed by Democrats voting more liberally than those appointed by Republicans, which deviates from historical norms.

Historical Enforcement: The Brown v. Board of Education case demonstrated the need for executive action and societal acceptance to enforce Supreme Court rulings, with President Eisenhower intervening to enforce desegregation.

Public Confidence Decline: Polling data shows a significant decline in public approval of the Supreme Court, with many Americans viewing it as politically motivated rather than impartial.

Historical Political Engagement: Justices in the past, such as John Jay, John Marshall, and others, were actively involved in political affairs and maintained political ambitions.

Abe Fortas Example: Justice Abe Fortas maintained close political ties with President Lyndon B. Johnson, which led to ethical concerns and his eventual resignation, prompting changes in Supreme Court conduct.

The Supreme Court has increasingly become viewed as a political institution amidst today's extreme partisanship and polarization. There is a fear that this could undermine the guardrails supporting the Constitutional system. Historically, figures like Andrew Jackson openly defied the Court, showing that executive power often triumphs over judicial rulings.

Concerns are rising that the law is now perceived as partisan politics. Although some argue that the Court is more committed to law over politics than before, others see its decisions as politically motivated, especially with campaigns influencing judicial appointments, such as the case of Roe v. Wade.

The Court's division now reflects partisan lines, a significant departure from the past when ideological differences were less pronounced. Historical cases like Brown v. Board of Education show that effective Supreme Court rulings often require executive support and societal acceptance.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has declined, with many Americans viewing it as politically driven rather than impartial. This perception is fueled by events like the text message exposure between Virginia Thomas and Mark Meadows.

The Supreme Court has never been completely apolitical. Early justices engaged in political activities, and throughout history, many justices maintained political ties and ambitions. Notable figures like Earl Warren, Hugo Black, and Abe Fortas exemplified the close relationship between the judiciary and politics.

Fortas' tenure highlighted the ethical dilemmas of such relationships, leading to his resignation and subsequent changes in Court conduct, including greater transparency and a reduction in direct political advising by justices.

This historical context reveals the complex interplay between judicial decisions, executive authority, and societal attitudes, challenging the notion of an entirely neutral and apolitical Supreme Court.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/03/the-supreme-court-has-never-been-apolitical-00022482

Canadian Taxpayer Fund Universities/Colleges Must First Benefit Canadian Citizens

The funding structure of Canadian universities and colleges is a critical aspect of the education system, with a significant portion derived from public funds contributed by both federal and provincial taxpayers. 

In the 2021/2022 academic year, a substantial sum of $22 billion was allocated from provinces, the federal government, and various grants, constituting 52.7% of the institutions' overall funding. This financial support serves as a backbone for the educational opportunities provided to Canadian students, facilitating their access to high-quality tertiary education.

However, a notable distinction exists in the allocation of these funds, as they are designated exclusively for Canadian students and not extended to international students. This stance aligns with the belief that taxpayer-funded resources should predominantly benefit citizens of the country. The argument for such exclusivity is grounded in the idea that Canadian universities and colleges, supported by taxpayers and donors, should prioritize the education of their citizens.

In light of these considerations, I propose to restrict and cap the enrollment of international students to a maximum of 15 percent, both at the provincial level and for individual institutions, which emerges as a logical extension of the principle of fairness and equity. 

By implementing such limitations, the intention is to ensure that the primary beneficiaries of tax-funded and donation-supported higher education institutions are Canadian citizens. This approach seeks to strike a balance between the educational needs of domestic and international students while upholding the responsibility of public institutions to serve the interests of their citizens.

Proponents of this viewpoint and I would argue that while international students contribute positively to the cultural diversity and economic growth of the country, the core mission of publicly funded institutions should remain focused on providing accessible and high-quality education to Canadian residents. 

The proposed enrollment cap aims to safeguard the integrity of the educational system, fostering a balanced and inclusive environment that serves the interests of both the local population and international students.

Further, it is essential to acknowledge that discussions around enrollment caps for international students involve complex considerations, including economic impacts, cultural exchange benefits, and the potential for global collaboration. Striking the right balance between inclusivity and prioritizing domestic interests requires careful deliberation and a nuanced approach to ensure the continued success and sustainability of Canada's higher education system.

FACTS: There are currently 807,750 international students across all study levels who have study permits in Canada. Of the total 807,750 study permit holders, 551,405 received a study permit in 2022 in Canada. From 2000 until 2021, the number of study permit holders has significantly increased by more than 400%.

At present, there are 2,194,087 students enrolled in universities and colleges across all provinces in Canada in total. Therefore, using this actual figure of students then here are the following percentages and numbers to consider for international students:

10% = 219,408 

15% = 329,113 

20% = 438,818

25% would equal and allow 548,522 international students out of the total existing number of 2,194,087.

Comparing the number of international students between Canada and the USA reveals a trend where Canadian citizens may be overlooked in favour of international students paying higher tuition fees. This raises concerns about our children being left behind in terms of post-secondary education placements within our taxpayer-funded universities and colleges.

In the USA, there are 16.2 million enrollments in universities and colleges, with 1,057,188 international students, constituting 6.5% of the total enrollment.

In Canada, there are 2,194,087 enrollments in universities and colleges, with 807,750 international students. This represents 36.8%, which seems disproportionately high considering our population and the available enrollment spaces for Canadian citizen students. It raises questions about the impact on opportunities for our citizens.

 

Source:

1 Statistics Canada

2  Statista - Enrollment of postsecondary students in Canada by province

3 Education Data - College Enrollment Statistics

4 Inside Higher Ed - International Enrollment

Palestine/Gaza Does Not Meet De Facto (ACTUAL) Requirements OF Statehood

 

Palestine or the land mass of Gaza, at this point and time, cannot legally be considered a state under international law.

The ICC and ICJ have made a political not legally binding decision on Israel, Palestine, or Gaza. The ICC and ICJ have ignored the requirements for granting statehood and have made decisions based solely on political ideologies and not international legal grounds.

The ICJ is known, as the World Court, a UN body for hearing disputes between states and Gaza and or Palestine are NOT States under international law.

1.         Palestine/Gaza does not meet the de facto requirements of statehood as it lacks independent control over its population, territory, government, and foreign relations. While it has some recognition and a degree of self-determination, it does not achieve de jure statehood under international law. For the ICC and ICJ to recognize Palestine/Gaza as a state/statehood prematurely it shall continue to destabilize the region further.

2.         For Gaza or Palestine to meet the legal requirements for a state/statehood first a group i.e. Hamas that is or has been designated as a terrorist organization, as a legitimate government under international law, it must “unequivocally renounce terrorism and cease all terrorist activities.” Hamas’s stated Mission is “Murder Jews; “Obliteration” of Israel. “

3.         Hamas and the Palestinian Authority must both disarm, and demobilization of all armed terrorist factions are crucial steps for even being legally considered for statehood/state and further have demonstrated significant shifts in both the group's behaviour and the perceptions of the international community.

4.         Compliance with International Law: The group must commit to and comply with international humanitarian and human rights laws and not be a terrorist organization or supporter of terrorism.

5.         While the PLO transitioned through peace processes, recognized Israel's right to exist, and gained recognition as the representative of the Palestinian people under Article 3 of the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples defines self-determination as the right of an entity to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Nowhere is it stated that the right to self-determination equals a right to statehood.  Israel has granted Palestine numerous powers in which it has obtained a great degree of self-determination.

6.         Palestine/Gaza is an autonomous entity, not a state. 

7.         The UN considers Palestine an international organization rather than a state.  States may individually recognize Palestine, but the international community as a whole does not recognize Palestine as a state.  Therefore, Palestine is not a state by de jure standards as well.

8.         A state must have the ability to engage in diplomatic and foreign relations with other states. The DOP Article XI creates an Israeli-Palestinian Economic Cooperation Committee to promote the development of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Palestine therefore cannot enter into economic agreements with other states without the approval of Israel.

9.         Section 2 of Article IX on Laws and Military Orders reiterates this point: “Both parties will review jointly laws and military orders presently in remaining spheres.” Under the terms of both the Interim Agreements and the Declaration of Principles, it is clear that the powers Palestine possesses do not extend to the realm of foreign relations.  By signing these agreements, Palestine acknowledged and accepted its inability to conduct foreign relations.  Without this fourth component, Palestine has not achieved de facto statehood.

10.       Palestine’s ability to enter foreign relations is severely limited by the Interim Accord of 1995.  Article IX, Section 5, which lays out the Powers and Responsibilities of the Palestinian Council, states that: “…the Council will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions and posts or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the appointment of or admission of diplomatic consular staff and the exercise of diplomatic relations [emphasis added].”

11.       Furthermore, the 1994 Agreement of the Gaza Strip and Jericho calls for the creation of a joint committee called the Civil Affairs and Cooperation Committee to handle civil affairs in the region. Members from both Israel and Palestine are to meet once a month to discuss civil matters including infrastructure, licensing, hospitalization, transportation and other such matters. In this agreement, Israel also states it has authority over “the Settlements, the Military Installation Area, Israelis, external security, internal security and public order” and “shall exercise its authority through its military government” in the region. This again shows that it is Israel who has the overriding authority of the area. 

12.       An entity must have a government to be considered a state.  The Encyclopedia of Public International Law states that “the government, in exercising its power, must be capable of acting independently of foreign governments.” Palestine does not possess such independence for it rules under the overarching authority of Israel.  The Declaration of Principles (DOP), which was signed by both sides, gave limited powers to the Palestinian National Authority.

13.       In UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the United Nations called for a partition of the land into both a Jewish State and an Arabic State.  Resolution 181 is often used as evidence of Palestine’s sovereign title over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, though this remains unfounded. The United Nations tried to create a state, which goes well beyond the powers granted to it by the UN Charter.  As stated in Chapter IV, Article 10, UN resolutions are only recommendations and not binding laws. Furthermore, the UN abandoned Resolution 181 with the passing of Security Council Resolutions 2428 and 3389.

14.       Palestine’s rejection of Resolution 181 that prevented its adoption. In the Palestine National Charter, Article 19 states that “The Partition of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel, are fundamentally invalid.” For decades Palestinians have declared the partition void, therefore rejecting sovereign title to the area. 

15.       By signing the Declaration of Principles (DOP) in 1993, Palestine acknowledges that the sovereign title of the West Bank and Gaza Strip had not yet been resolved.  Article V of the DOP states that future permanent status negotiations shall cover the issue of borders in the future, but as of right now, Palestine does not have sovereignty over the land. The DOP and latter agreements granted certain powers to Palestine but never sovereign title over the land.

16.       As stated by the Third U.S. Restatement of the Law, the population must be “under the control of its own government.” While Palestine has been granted many powers over its people, it is still not independent of Israeli control.

17.       Palestine does not have sovereign title over the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.  The area was granted to Israel as early as 1917 by the British in the Balfour Declaration. In the Balfour Declaration, Britain recognized the need for a Jewish state and granted the Palestinian land for this purpose.  Later Britain turned the issue of a Jewish state over to the League of Nations, but the Balfour Declaration was upheld through the Mandate for Palestine.

18.       The Permanent Court of International Justice, the UN Special Commission on Palestine, and the Council of the League continue to uphold the Mandate for Palestine.

19.       Palestine/Gaza is not officially recognized as a fully independent country by the United Nations.

20.       The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British government in 1917, did not directly address the issue of a Palestine homeland or self-determination for the people of Palestine.

21.       The Sykes-Picot Agreement, as outlined in the correspondence between Sir Edward Grey and Paul Cambon, did not specifically guarantee a homeland or nation for Palestine. And the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not directly address the issue of a Palestine homeland or self-determination for the people of Palestine or grant the people of Palestine, or any other specific region, the right to determine their future.

22.       The letters exchanged between Husayn and McMahon hinted at possible future arrangements and cooperation between the Arab leaders and the British, there were no explicit assurances of independence for the Arabs, particularly regarding Palestine. There was no explicit indication of an agreement or commitment by the Allies to grant the people of Palestine, or any other specific region, the right to determine their future. Therefore, it cannot be assumed from these letters alone that there was an international commitment by the Allies to grant such rights to the people of Palestine.

23.       The refusal by the Arab population of the mandate territory to accept Resolution 181 demonstrated that they were not interested in establishing their own state if it meant allowing the existence of a Jewish state. This opposition to acknowledging the right of a Jewish state to exist still lies at the core of the conflict.

24.       How can there be between Palestine and Israel or advance peace when none of the Arab universities has a center for teaching the thought, practice, and study of peace? When most of the publications focus on conflict rather than peacebuilding? When the educational curriculum teaches hatred, enmity, antisemitism, and death rather than celebrating life, moderation, and reconciliation? When Hamas terrorists and extremists are celebrated, and peacemakers and moderates are labelled traitors? We need to change our mindset and culture to achieve peace.

Therefore, for Gaza or Palestine to meet the legal requirements for a state/statehood first a group i.e Hamas that is or has been designated as a terrorist organization, as a legitimate government under international law, it must “unequivocally renounce terrorism and cease all terrorist activities.” Hamas’s stated Mission is “ Murder Jews; “Obliteration” of Israel. “

The ICC/! CJ in their decision was Ultra Vires under law. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 outlines the criteria for statehood, which include a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Palestine meets some of these criteria, but its full status remains contentious due to ongoing territorial disputes and the lack of a universally recognized government.

While some countries recognize Palestine as a state and has a certain level of recognition at the UN, it does not have universal recognition or full legal status as a sovereign state in the eyes of all international law or actors.

The panel overstepped its legal authority when it stated and based its ruling on agreeing with Khan’s assessment that the ICC has jurisdiction over the case since Palestine is a state party as per the ICC statute.

Palestine is NOT a State or a country therefore the ruling was Ultra Vires. (beyond the legal power or authority of the person performing an action)

Summary and Analysis

Historical Context

Post-Ottoman Empire: Following World War I, Palestine came under British rule along with other Arab nations.

British Withdrawal: Unlike other Arab states that gained independence, Palestine did not.

Balfour Declaration (1917): Britain supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

UN Involvement: The United Nations proposed a partition plan in 1947, calling for separate Israeli and Palestinian states. Israel accepted the plan and declared independence in 1948; Palestine rejected it and remains without recognized statehood.

Criteria for Statehood (Montevideo Convention)

Permanent Population:

Palestine has a permanent population with a shared culture and history residing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Controversy exists over whether this population is sufficiently governed independently, as per the Third U.S. Restatement of the Law.

 

Defined Territory:

Palestine does not have sovereign title over the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

The Balfour Declaration and subsequent mandates supported a Jewish state, complicating Palestinian claims to the land.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 proposed a partition, but this was not binding and was later abandoned.

Palestine’s land is fragmented and lacks clearly defined borders, similar to other unrecognized entities historically.

 

Government:

Palestine has limited self-governance but operates under Israeli authority.

Agreements like the Declaration of Principles (DOP) and Interim Accord outline the limited powers of the Palestinian Authority, granted by Israel.

Palestine lacks independent control over security, economy, and infrastructure.

 

Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States:

Palestine cannot independently engage in foreign relations without Israeli cooperation, as outlined in the Interim Accord.

Diplomatic limitations and the inability to form an army hinder its status as a fully independent state.

 

De Facto vs. De Jure Statehood

De Facto Statehood: Requires actual control over a permanent population, defined territory, government, and foreign relations.

Palestine does not meet these criteria due to Israeli authority and lack of independent control.

De Jure Statehood: Involves legal recognition by other states and international organizations.

Despite recognition by some states, Palestine has not achieved broad international recognition.

Organizations like the UN, WHO, and EU do not recognize Palestine as a state, only granting it Observer Status.

 

Right to Self-Determination

UN Recognition: The right to self-determination is acknowledged by the UN but does not equate to statehood.

Autonomy vs. Statehood: Palestine has autonomy in areas like education, health, and social welfare, but this does not fulfill the criteria for statehood.

The World, Neither the ICC nor ICJ Have Honeslty Confronted Iran's Support of Terrorism

Global Power Dynamics and Iran's Influence

Root Causes of Conflicts:

Financial and military support by Iran, UAE, and Egypt.

Proxy wars are driven by strategic and ideological interests.

Iran's Influence and Support:

Hezbollah:

Designation: Recognized as a terrorist organization.

Support: Substantial financial, military, and logistical aid from Iran.

Hamas:

Designation: Recognized as a terrorist organization.

Support: Funding, weapons, and training from Iran.

Houthis:

Designation: Recognized as a terrorist organization.

Support: Military aid, intelligence, and training from Iran.

The World's Broader Implications

Ideological Influence: Iran supports Shia groups to expand its ideological reach.

Proxy Conflicts: Iran backs factions to counter rivals like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Resource Competition: Conflicts over resources like oil.

Arms Trade: Fuels violence and instability.

Geopolitical Interests: Support for factions aligning with regional goals.

Humanitarian Impact: Displacement, casualties, genocide, crimes against humanity, starvation and infrastructure destruction.

Specific Regional Involvement

UAE:

Strategic interests and regional influence in Sudan and the Horn of Africa.

Egypt:

Nile water dispute and border security with Sudan.

Iran:

Expanding ideological influence and supporting factions in proxy wars.

Addressing the Issues

Diplomatic Efforts: Mediation to reduce and eliminate external interference and stop the financing

Economic Development: Reducing the appeal of armed conflict.

Regional Cooperation: Managing disputes like the Nile water issue.

Conclusion:

Iran's actions in global conflicts, through the support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, are the main drivers of regional instability, influenced by both ideological and strategic motivations. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive international cooperation, focusing on peacebuilding, disarmament, eliminating external interference and cutting off financing through their oil exports etc.

NOTE:

The ICC, based in The Hague, has been investigating Israel’s activities in Gaza for the past three years yet apparently not the activities of Hamas in Gaza since 2007?

The ICC/! CJ in their decision was Ultra Vires under law. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 outlines the criteria for statehood, which include a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Palestine meets some of these criteria, but its full status remains contentious due to ongoing territorial disputes and the lack of a universally recognized government.

While some countries recognize Palestine as a state and has a certain level of recognition at the UN, it does not have universal recognition or full legal status as a sovereign state in the eyes of all international law or actors.

The pane overstepped its legal authority when it stated and based its ruling by agreeing with Khan’s assessment that the ICC has jurisdiction over the case since Palestine is a state party as per the ICC statute.

Palestine is NOT a State or a country therefore the ruling was Ultra Vires. (beyond the legal power or authority of the person performing an action)

 

"The Law"

 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

"The Law." First published in 1850 by the great French economist and journalist, it is as clear a statement as has ever been made of the original American ideal of government, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, that the main purpose of any government is the protection of the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens.

 

Bastiat's warnings of the dire effects of legal plunder are as relevant today as when he first issued them. The system of legal plunder (which many now celebrate as "democracy"(Equity) will erase from everyone's conscience, he wrote, the distinction between justice and injustice.

 

The plundered classes will eventually figure out how to enter the political game and plunder their fellow man. Legislation will never be guided by any principles of justice, but only by brute political force.

 

The great French champion of liberty also forecast the corruption of education by the state. Those who held "government-endowed teaching positions," he wrote, would rarely criticize legal plunder lest their government endowments be ended.

 

The system of legal plunder would also greatly exaggerate the importance of politics in society. That would be a most unhealthy development as it would encourage even more citizens to seek to improve their own well-being not by producing goods and services for the marketplace but by plundering their fellow citizens through politics.

 

Bastiat was also wise enough to anticipate what modern economists call "rent-seeking" and "rent avoidance" behaviour. These two clumsy phrases refer, respectively, to the phenomena of lobbying for political favors (legal plunder), and of engaging in political activity directed at protecting oneself from being the victim of plunder seekers. (For example, the steel manufacturing industry lobbies for high tariffs on steel, whereas steel-using industries, like the automobile industry, can be expected to lobby against high tariffs on steel.)

 

The reason why modern economists are concerned about "rent-seeking" is the opportunity cost involved: the more time, effort and money that is spent by businesses on conniving to manipulate politics—merely transferring wealth—the less time is spent on producing goods and services, which increases wealth. Thus, legal plunder impoverishes the entire society even though a small (but politically influential) part of the society benefits from it.

Socialists want "to play God," Bastiat observed, anticipating all the future tyrants and despots of the world who would try to remake the world in their image, whether that image would be communism, fascism, the "glorious union," or "global democracy." Bastiat also observed that socialists wanted forced conformity; rigid regimentation of the population through pervasive regulation; forced equality of wealth; and dictatorship. As such, they were the mortal enemies of liberty.

 

"Dictatorship" need not involve an actual dictator. All that was needed, said Bastiat, was "the laws," enacted by a Congress or a Parliament, that would achieve the same effect: forced conformity.

 

Bastiat was also wise to point out that the world has far too many "great men," "fathers of their countries," etc., who in reality are usually nothing but petty tyrants with a sick and compulsive desire to rule over others. The defenders of the free society should have a healthy disrespect for all such men.

In the latter pages of "The Law" Bastiat offers the sage advice that what was really needed was "a science of economics" that would explain the harmony (or lack thereof) of a free society (as opposed to socialism). He made a major contribution to this end himself with the publication of his book, Economic Harmonies, which can be construed as a precursor to the modern literature of the Austrian School of Economics. 

There is no substitute for a solid understanding of the market order (and of the realities of politics) when it comes to combating the kinds of destructive socialistic schemes that plagued Bastiat's day as well as ours. Anyone who reads this great essay along with other free-market classics, such as Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson and Murray Rothbard's Power and Market, will possess enough intellectual ammunition to debunk the socialist fantasies of this or any other day.

A summary of "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat:

 

Purpose of the Law: The law's fundamental purpose is to protect the rights of individuals, particularly their property, liberty, and life. The law should be a collective organization of the individual right to lawful defence.

 

Legal Plunder/Equity: The concept of "legal plunder," where the law is used to benefit a few at the expense of many. This misuse, where the law is twisted to confiscate property from some to give to others must be condemned, in my view.

 

Perverted Law: When the law is perverted from its true purpose, it becomes a tool of oppression. The law is often used to impose various forms of socialism, which contradicts the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.

 

Natural Rights: Keep in mind that natural rights existed before the law. These rights include liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. And all laws must be based on these inherent rights.

 

Consequences of Legal Plunder: Seems we have forgotten the consequences when legal plunder becomes widespread. It leads to social conflict, increased government intervention, and a decline in individual responsibility and moral values.

 

Proper Role of the State: The state's role must be limited to protecting individual rights and ensuring justice. Any expansion of state powers into areas like education, labour, and welfare contradicts the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.

 

Economic Harmonies: The belief in the natural harmonies of the market, where individuals pursuing their own interests will naturally contribute to societal welfare, provided that the law respects and protects their rights.

 

Critique of Socialism: Remember that various socialist doctrines advocate for legal plunder. As socialism undermines personal responsibility and freedom by expanding the scope of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

Call for Reform: Democracy for its survival must return to the true purpose of the law—to safeguard individual rights. We all must encourage citizens to recognize and resist the perversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

 

In essence, "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat is a passionate defence of individual liberty and property rights, a critique of government overreach, and a call to restore the law to its rightful role as a protector of justice and freedom.

Trump’s Manhattan Trial Stacked Deck Against Former President By the Judge!

Judge Juan Merchan has allowed prosecutors from Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office to prove a federal campaign-finance crime against former president Donald Trump by relying on blatantly inadmissible evidence — the guilty pleas of Michael Cohen and a non-prosecution agreement David Pecker struck with the Justice Department. ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Judge's Decision: Judge Juan Merchan allowed prosecutors to use inadmissible evidence against Donald Trump, including Michael Cohen's guilty pleas and David Pecker's non-prosecution agreement.

Inadmissible Evidence:

Michael Cohen: Trump's former lawyer, pleaded guilty to two Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) felonies related to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) during the 2016 presidential campaign.

David Pecker: Former American Media Inc. CEO, entered a non-prosecution agreement for fear of indictment under FECA.

NDAs Context: The NDAs, involving payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, were arranged by Cohen, with Pecker involved in McDougal's payment and Cohen paying Daniels himself.

Legal Argument: NDAs are not campaign expenditures under FECA. They could have been relevant in many non-political contexts (e.g., to protect Trump's reputation).

Cohen's Guilty Pleas: Cohen's guilty pleas were driven by his need to avoid prison for unrelated crimes (bank fraud and tax evasion), and these pleas are legally insufficient as evidence against Trump.

Judge's Ruling on Evidence: Judge Merchan did not allow a former FEC commissioner to testify, which would have clarified the legal basis for campaign expenditures, yet allowed Cohen and Pecker, who lack expertise in election law, to testify.

Prosecutorial Strategy: The prosecution used Cohen's guilty pleas to imply Trump's guilt, despite these pleas being inadmissible against Trump. The judge allowed this strategy, which the author criticizes as unfair and prejudicial.

Conclusion: Cohen's guilty pleas are worthless as evidence and the judge's decision undermines the fairness of the trial.

Source:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/undercover-prosecutor-merchan-helps-bragg-lawlessly-stress-cohens-guilty-plea/

France and Belgium Sacrificed Jewish People "Before"

France and Belgium support the bid for arrest warrants of Israel and Hamas leaders.

 

Now today after they betrayed the Jewish people in their respective countries during WW2, they are repeating their antisemitism behaviours once again, in my view and millions of others worldwide.

 

France and Belgium during ww2 actively cooperated with Germany’s nazi Regime in rounding up and deporting 76,000 Jewish people from France alone and while Belgium's leaders and population also actively collaborated with Germany’s nazi Regime in rounding up and deporting 66,000 Jewish people from Belgium to death camps.

 

The free world and all its so-called elected leaders should be outraged at the ICC prosecutor's attempted application against the country of Israel and its leaders.

 

There is no equivalence between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas is an internationally designated Palestinian terrorist organization that has controlled Gaza since 2007 and whose explicitly stated mission is the murder of Jews and “obliteration” of Israel.

 

In 2007 it seized control of Gaza in a violent coup and launched over 18,000 mortars and rockets into Israeli communities and forced Israel to mount three major military operations to protect its citizens:

 

1. Cast Lead (Dec. 2008-to Jan. 2009)

2. Pillar of Defense (Nov. 2012)

3. Protective Edge (July 8 to August 6, 2014)

 

Hamas systematically committed war crimes in these actions, as evidenced by its tactics during Protective Edge. Hamas rockets indiscriminately targeted Israel’s population and civilian centers, a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court.

France and Belgium for the second time in a mere 82 years seem to have totally forgotten their past collaboration against the Jewish peoples:

 

From 1942 to 1944 a stream of Jewish people were rounded up by Vichy authorities, and by the end of the war, some 76,000 had been deported to Nazi concentration camps.

 

Although under the overall control of the SS, the main transit camp of Drancy, from which 63,000 people were sent to their deaths, was run by Paris's police force.

 

François Mitterand, president from 1981 until 1995, insisted France "was never involved" in the ill-treatment of its Jewish population, and it was not until Jacques Chirac in 1995 that a head of state admitted France's "inescapable guilt". It does so without forgetting the 74,150 Jewish men, women and children who were deported from France – most of whom perished.

 

France and Belgium are now showing that their leaders and country have forgotten their past collaboration actions against the Jewish people which was the same case from 1942 to 1944.

 

Also, we must remember that today and back then "The Belgian state once again has supported and adopted a docile and cooperative attitude in some very diverse, but crucial domains providing collaboration unworthy of a democracy, with a policy that once again shall be disastrous for Belgian and the Jewish peoples, in my view.

 

Unlike today back then after the end of the war, Belgian military judicial authorities decided that investigating the deportation of the Jewish people was too "delicate" to be allowed to continue.

 

That was after then and today's decision to support the ICC is another decision from Belgium and France's leaders and population of "a docile and cooperative attitude in some very diverse, but crucial domains providing collaboration unworthy of a democracy."

 

France and Belgium Sacrificed Jewish people to the Nazis Before and now they repeat that step by supporting a rogue ICC for purely political reasons.