Unmasking Civil Disobedience: Why USA and CDN Should Outlaw Masked Protesters

 

In the battle for social change, transparency and accountability are paramount. Masked protests not only obscure the true intentions of demonstrators but also undermine the foundations of civil society.

By outlawing masked protesters, the USA and Canada can reaffirm their commitment to open dialogue, peaceful dissent, and the rule of law. It is time to unmask civil disobedience and restore integrity to the democratic process.

In recent days, the sight of masked protesters especially on campuses has become increasingly common during demonstrations across North America. While the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy, the use of masks to conceal one's identity raises significant concerns. It is time for both the USA and Canada to take a stand against this practice and outlaw masked protesters.

The Symbolism of Unmasking: Protesting is a fundamental right in any democracy, a powerful tool for citizens to voice their concerns and advocate for change. However, hiding behind masks undermines the transparency and accountability essential to effective activism. By concealing their identities, masked protesters obscure their motives and evade responsibility for their actions. This anonymity not only shields individuals from consequences but also fosters an environment ripe for violence and lawlessness.

Transparency in Civil Discourse: In a democratic society, open dialogue and transparency are essential for progress. When individuals choose to protest, they should do so with integrity and courage, standing behind their beliefs without fear or shame. Masked protesters send a message of distrust and defiance, detracting from the legitimacy of their cause. Requiring protesters to show their faces is not an infringement on their rights but rather a reaffirmation of the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin civil society.

Challenges of Masked Protesters: The anonymity provided by masks emboldens individuals to engage in acts of violence and vandalism under the guise of protest. This not only endangers public safety but also undermines the credibility of legitimate grievances. Moreover, the presence of masked protesters complicates law enforcement efforts, making it difficult to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. By outlawing masked protests, the USA and Canada can send a clear message that violence and intimidation have no place in civil discourse.

Addressing Student Union Complicity: Student unions, entrusted with representing the interests of their members, must also be held accountable for their actions. Allowing and even encouraging masked protests within their ranks sets a dangerous precedent, legitimizing behaviour that undermines the very foundations of democracy. Student leaders must recognize their responsibility to uphold the values of transparency and peaceful protest, rather than condoning acts of domestic terror.

Ending the Culture of Anonymity: The proliferation of masked protesters, often characterized by anarchist ideologies and criminal behaviour, threatens the fabric of civil society. It is incumbent upon lawmakers and judicial authorities to take decisive action to curb this trend. By outlawing masked protests and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions, the USA and Canada can reaffirm their commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democracy.

Update Info:

Columbia Custodian Trapped by ‘Angry Mob’ Speaks Out

As the mob invaded Hamilton Hall in the early hours of April 30, a facilities worker was photographed pushing a demonstrator against a wall.

Later, it emerged that the protester was a 40-year-old trust fund kid named James Carlson, who owns a townhouse in Brooklyn worth $2.3 million.

The man who tried to hold him back was Mario Torres, 45, who has worked at Columbia—where the average janitor makes less than $19 an hour—for five years.

Torres was trying to “protect the building” when he ended up in an altercation with Carlson: “He had a Columbia hoodie on, and I managed to rip that hoodie off of him and expose his face.” (Carlson was later charged with five felonies, including burglary and reckless endangerment.) “I was freaking out. At that point, I’m thinking about my family. How was I gonna get out? Through the window?”

https://www.thefp.com/p/exclusive-columbia-custodian-trapped

Biden's Politics About Power and Appeasement NOT Americans First

Throughout his career, Joe Biden has opposed U.S. missile defence, and now that he is president, he could trade our defences in a deal with the Russians, Iranians or Chinese. 

That would be a dangerous mistake. The critical role of missile defence in national security strategy calls for a commitment to strengthen and expand these capabilities rather than considering them as bargaining chips in diplomatic negotiations at any time.

 

Even President Barack Obama, who was sympathetic to the idealist view of disarmament, and was caught on a hot mic talking to President Dmitry Medvedev suggesting he would negotiate on missile defence after the U.S. election, ultimately chose to not trade away missile defense with the Russians. And now the U.S. is firmly locked in a rivalry with not just one nuclear superpower, but two, and still contending with a nuclear rogue state.

 

Senator Joe Biden's and President Biden's historical positions on missile defence align more closely with political considerations than with safeguarding the American public. His political history shows that Biden has opposed missile defence initiatives, including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which most recently has proven to enhance national security and protect American citizens including its allies from missile threats.

 

Biden's political history of opposition to missile defence, as outlined by his voting records and in numerous articles, has been driven by political motives rather than a genuine concern for national security or the citizens of the United States who elected him over the years.

 

Biden's opposition to President Reagan's SDI initiative and subsequent resistance to missile defence efforts under subsequent administrations, including President George W. Bush's plans to deploy and improve homeland missile defence, are proof of instances where political considerations influenced his stance.

 

The most vocal critic of the Reagan Doctrine for an American Strategic Defense Initiative and a strong voice for putting it on the bargaining table was Sen. Joe Biden. who said, “The president’s continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”

 

The Biden and Democrats theory that missile defences might prompt an arms race between the United States and nuclear powers by degrading the certainty of “mutual vulnerability” has always been dubious. But after so many years of observing the impact of missile defences, we have mounting evidence that it is compatible with mutual offensive arms reductions. Missile defense is de-escalatory, has a deterrent effect, and most important, saves lives.

 

The missile defence system that Bush relied on in 2006, and which today provides protection for the American homeland, deployed forces, allies and friends, is based on the technology developed by the SDI program that Biden continually opposed. Had Biden had his way in the 1980s and the early 2000s, the U.S. would be vulnerable and exposed to adversaries’ missiles across the globe.

 

As far back as 1988 Joe Biden has shown Americans that he truly is unfit for office, in my view. Biden and the Democrats have always put their political standing for keeping power and getting reelected ahead of their position for the American people and its country, as history continues to show.

 

The Democrat's Opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI):

 

Opposition to SDI: The opposition to SDI primarily came from Democrats, including scientists and nuclear weapons experts. The opposition is framed as more politically motivated than based on technical or military concerns.

 

Political Context: The Democrats' opposition to SDI stemmed from broader political considerations. Democrats were already on the wrong side of economic policy, particularly about Reaganomics, and their opposition to SDI further complicated their political position.

 

Policy Stakes: SDI is portrayed as a radical departure from the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), offering a morally and practically superior alternative. However, the Democrats faced a political dilemma in responding to SDI, as endorsing it would mean ceding political ground to Reagan. as opposed to the safety of Americans.

 

Political Consequences: The success or failure of SDI would have significant political ramifications for the Democrats. If SDI succeeded, Democrats would face the challenge of admitting their opposition was wrong or persisting in their stance, which would become increasingly untenable.

 

Impact on Democrats: The political fortunes of the Democrats would be tied to the success or failure of SDI, with its success potentially detrimental to their political standing.

 

Overall, SDI was a politically charged issue that posed challenges for the Democrats, impacting both their policy positions and electoral prospects.

FACTS:

Technological Feasibility: Experts agree that the concept of basing ballistic missile interceptors in space is feasible. Advances in sensors, computing power, and networking have made the development of such a system more practical and potentially more effective than in previous decades.

Strategic Advantages: Space-based interceptors offer significant strategic advantages, particularly in engaging threats during the boost phase of missile flight. Intercepting missiles at this stage provides opportunities to pre-empt the deployment of countermeasures and ensures a higher likelihood of hitting all warheads, potentially over enemy territory.

Better Coverage and Positioning: Space-based interceptors would provide better coverage compared to ground-based systems, as they could defend against missile launches from virtually any location on Earth. Additionally, their orbital velocity offers positional advantages, reducing the distance to intercept and allowing multiple shots at incoming threats.

Dual Functionality: In addition to missile defence, space-based interceptors could potentially be used to target adversaries' satellites, countering threats to U.S. space systems and providing a defensive capability against anti-satellite weapons.

Deterrence: The development and deployment of space-based interceptors could serve as a deterrent against potential adversaries, signalling U.S. capabilities and resolve to protect against missile threats.

Sources:

https://www.csmonitor.com/1986/0609/estar.html

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/12/20/president-biden-dont-trade-away-missile-defense-with-the-russians/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Strategic-Defense-Initiative

https://www.britannica.com/topic/arms-control

http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal85-1147419

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/30/pentagon-examining-options-for-space-based-missile-interceptors

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile-defense-2020/#:~:text=Pursue%20a%20more%20robust%20and,to%20changing%20and%20emerging%20threats. 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6351380207112

 

 

Stop Taxpayer Funding for Universities and Colleges

Stopping federal and state governments from using taxpayer funding for universities has potential benefits:

 

Redistribution of Resources: Cutting government funding could redistribute resources to other areas of need, infrastructure, debt reduction and most importantly Medicare and Social Security.

 

Fiscal Responsibility: It would promote fiscal responsibility and accountability within universities, encouraging them to use their resources more efficiently and transparently.

 

Reduce Dependence on Public Funds: Encourages universities not to rely less on public funds and use their endowments and become more self-sufficient, fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in revenue generation.

 

Fairness: It addresses concerns about fairness by ensuring that wealthy institutions with substantial endowments contribute more than their fair share to society, especially when they benefit from tax-exempt status.

 

Budgetary Relief: Cutting government funding would provide budgetary relief for governments facing financial constraints, allowing funds to be allocated to other priorities such as Medicare and Social Security.

 

Here is a structured plan to strip elite universities of government funding and federal student loan dollars (taxpayer-funded) with key components ASAP.

 

Assessment of Current Funding Streams: A comprehensive review of the government funding and federal student loan dollars allocated to elite universities. This includes grants, research funding, student aid programs, and other forms of financial assistance is already available to lawmakers.

 

Establish Criteria for Elite Universities: Define criteria that determine which universities qualify as "elite." This must include factors such as endowment size, selectivity in admissions, academic reputation, research output, and financial resources.

 

Gradual Phase-Out Approach: Implement a 3-year phased approach to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate government funding and federal student loan dollars for elite universities over this 3-year predetermined timeframe. This allows universities to adjust their budgets and operations accordingly.

 

Redirect Funding to Priority Areas: Reallocate the government funding and student loan dollars saved from elite universities to prioritize areas such as border protection and reduction of debt.

 

Legislative Action: Draft and propose legislation to amend existing laws and regulations governing government funding and federal student loans to elite universities. This may involve changes to eligibility criteria, funding allocation formulas, or enforcement mechanisms.

 

Public Awareness and Support: Build public awareness and support for the plan by highlighting the rationale behind redirecting funding from elite universities to other priorities.

 

Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan and adjust as needed based on feedback and performance metrics.

 

Enforcement and Compliance: Enforce compliance with the new regulations and ensure that elite universities adhere to the revised funding guidelines. Implement penalties for non-compliance, such as fines, and loss of accreditation.

 

Long-Term Sustainability: Develop strategies to ensure the long-term sustainability of the revised funding framework, including periodic reviews, updates to eligibility criteria, and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders.

 

By following this plan, policymakers can effectively strip elite universities of government funding and federal student loan dollars while promoting equal access to education and supporting priority areas for all Americans and not elite universities and colleges.

 

REASONS and FACTS for The PLAN:

The substantial taxpayer-funded financial resources available to Ivy League universities, from federal funding along with their private and corporate donated considerable endowments, raise questions about the allocation of these funds and their impact on affordability and access to higher education.

A newly released report, by Open the Books, an organization that aims to make public spending more transparent, shed light on the enormous sums of money the federal government (taxpayers) provides to Ivy League universities — and how that money is handled.

It concluded that in the six fiscal years between 2010 and 2015, $41.59 billion of the Ivy League’s money could be traced back to taxpayer-funded payments and benefits.

To put that in perspective, the average amount of money that the eight Ivy League schools received annually over that time — $4.31 billion — exceeds the amount of money received by 16 of the 50 states.

The report also examined Ivy League endowments, some of the country's largest. Penn’s endowment for 2015 was the fourth highest, at $10.1 billion. In 2016, it climbed to $10.7 billion.

The Ivy League’s total endowment is around $120 billion, which amounts to about $2 million per undergraduate student. A sum of that size could give every Ivy League student a full ride for the next 51 years.

Between 2010 and 2015, the eight schools received $23.89 billion in federal grants $10.6 billion of which came from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health.

Other sources of grant money were the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy.

Research grants and contracts weren’t the only forms of government support for Ivy League schools. The government also provides various forms of aid grants to colleges — in the six years the report investigated, Penn received $20,362,715 for the federal work-study program and $33,155,056 in Pell Grants.

The report also showed the comparatively low state funding Penn receives. While Cornell received $98.91 million from New York in 2015, Penn received just $19,233.

Financial aid at the Ivy League schools is most often need-based, which is offered based on a student’s financial need, rather than merit. However, the available range is generous, with many schools offering a zero-parent contribution for families of a certain income.

For example, students from families with an income of less than $85,000 can attend Harvard University for free. Additionally, Dartmouth College offers a scholarship covering at least the cost of tuition for families making under $125,000[55].

The number of students offered financial support is also reassuring with 62% of Princeton University undergraduates receiving financial aid for the Class of 2025. Many Ivy League schools also offer financial aid to international students.

Further, these schools also rely on significant federal funding. For example, in 2021 Harvard received $625 million in federal funds, or approximately 67% of the school’s total sponsored revenue that year.

From the government side, student financial aid accounts for the lion’s share of federal dollars that go to colleges and universities. In 2018, 65% of the $149 billion total in federal funds received by institutions of higher education went toward federal student aid. This covers scholarships, work-study and loans given to students for their educational expenses, according to USA Facts, a nonprofit site that collects government data.

In 2018, federal money made up 14% of all college revenue. About 3.6% of total federal spending went toward higher education investments.

Colleges and universities received $1.068 trillion in revenue from federal and non-federal funding sources in 2018.

The federal government directed 65% of its $149 billion investments to federal student aid which covers scholarships, work-study and loans given to students for their educational expenses.

Harvard University received the largest federal grant: $179 million from the National Institute of Health. Columbia University received the second largest grant, $165 million, invested from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont public universities had the largest revenues from federal grant and contract investments per student enrolled in public colleges and universities.

California, Texas, and Michigan public universities were the top recipients of federal grant and contract money in 2018, receiving a quarter of federal grant and contract revenue across all public universities.

States collectively allocated $11.7 billion (or 10.2 percent) more for higher education in the 2024 fiscal year than they did in 2023, significantly outpacing the rate of inflation and more than compensating for the continuing decline in federal recovery funds distributed through state governments.

The states spent a total of $126.452 billion in 2024, up from $114.734 billion in 2023.

Other states with increases of roughly 20 percent included Nevada (19.9 percent), New Mexico (19.2 percent), North Dakota (20.1 percent), South Carolina (24.2 percent) and Utah (21.8 percent).

State support for higher education declined by 12.3 percent in Vermont and by 8.7 percent in the much larger Pennsylvania.

Sources:

https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_IvyLeagueInc_FINAL.pdf

https://shef.sheeo.org/grapevine/#about-grapevine

https://shef.sheeo.org/

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_333.20.asp

Preaching Extremism, Religious Hatred Represent Hamas's Islam of Terrorism

They are criminal jihadists misfits and thugs or self-professed radical extremist Imams and guilty of Islamic blasphemy equal to or greater than their followers of barbaric radical and criminal jihads.

 

Today around the globe, represents one of the major problems facing all civilized societies, democracies, and religions.

 

They are just as radical and barbaric as their jihads criminal killers of men women and children. They are the ones who daily propagandize their own warped and criminal interpretation of Islam.

 By preaching racial and religious hatred toward all civil societies and calling for or supporting the cowardly barbaric assignations, killings, terror, beheadings, and suicide bombings in the name of Islam against men, women and children be they Muslim or non-Muslim.

Such extremist radical Imams ignore the basic penal laws of Islam and criminally misinterpret the writings of Islam. Islamic law and teachings forbid terrorism. Terrorism is above all murder.

Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted 5:53).

If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible under Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.”

In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer (Imam) can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engage in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister or the elected head of state, as advised by the mufti or national experts (judges) of law. Not an Imam.

A true Muslim believer and follower of Islam is moderate, not an extremist, truthful, not dishonest, humble, not arrogant, dignified and decent not graceless. Where are these Imams and Muslims today?  

The vast majority of the so-called moderate Muslims who daily attend mosque are closing their eyes and not dealing with these imams and the radicalization happening right in front of them daily. It is not enough that these so-called moderate Muslims express regret while complaining about racial profiling by law enforcement.

Who is monitoring these radical Imams in North America, Europe, and the Middle East or throughout the world? Not Muslim communities or a majority of any of the so-called moderate Muslims often mentioned by the press.

Why it is that law enforcement is barred from investigating in mosques to prevent this radicalization by extremist Imams before it goes too far?

In the United States, hate speech like "Death to America" meets the criteria that justify limitations on free speech as per the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) in my view.

As it is a direct call to violence against Americans, to nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics. Thus, it can and must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence and hate speech.

Individuals in America who chant this hate slogan must be prosecuted for hate speech including speech that incites violence or poses a direct threat to public safety.

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The Criminal Syndicalism Act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

Finally, Government Agencies: National security agencies and law enforcement bodies are typically responsible for monitoring and countering extremism within their respective jurisdictions. This includes tracking radical individuals, groups, and ideologies, as well as preventing radicalization and investigating potential threats.

International Organizations: Organizations like the United Nations, Interpol, and regional bodies such as the European Union may coordinate efforts among countries to combat extremism on a global scale. They can facilitate information sharing, provide resources and expertise, and support efforts to address the root causes of radicalization.

Religious Institutions: Within the Muslim community, mainstream religious leaders and institutions play a crucial role in countering radical interpretations of Islam. They can promote moderate and tolerant teachings, engage with at-risk individuals, and provide guidance and support to prevent radicalization.

Civil Society Organizations: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, and grassroots initiatives often work directly with vulnerable communities to provide education, social services, and alternative narratives to extremist ideologies. They can play a vital role in building resilience against radicalization and promoting social cohesion.

Tech Companies: Given the significant online presence of extremist content and propaganda, technology companies have a responsibility to monitor and remove such content from their platforms. They can develop and implement algorithms and policies to identify and combat extremist material while respecting freedom of speech and expression.

Educational Institutions: Schools, universities, and religious schools can incorporate education about tolerance, critical thinking, and religious pluralism into their curricula to inoculate students against extremist ideologies.

Community Engagement: Building trust and cooperation between law enforcement agencies and local communities is essential for effective counter-radicalization efforts. Community policing, outreach programs, and initiatives that involve community members in the design and implementation of counter-extremism strategies can help foster cooperation and prevent radicalization.

Overall, combating radicalization requires a multi-faceted approach involving collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders at local, national, and international levels.

 

 

The New York's "Hush-Money" Case Against Trump UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ULTRA VIRES

 

The New York "hush-money" case against Trump should be thrown out based on constitutionality: The practice of using state business laws to enhance state laws using a federal law without prior conviction for state or federal laws is constitutionally illegal. Further far too many questions about the case and about Bragg’s path to convicting Trump — particularly of felonies — remain unanswered and most likely as per the following UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ULTRA VIRES ("beyond the powers of Bragg and New York Law.")

1. States cannot directly attach federal election laws or FEC regulations to their own state business practices laws. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

2. Federal election laws, including regulations enforced by the FEC, are established by Congress and fall under the authority of the federal government. These laws specifically pertain to federal elections, such as those for the President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

3. State business practice laws, on the other hand, regulate commercial activities, business operations, and other matters related to commerce within the state's borders. These laws are within the authority of the state government and are separate from federal election laws.

4. States cannot directly incorporate federal election laws or FEC regulations into their own state business practice laws. As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

5. Under the U.S. Constitution, states do not have the authority to directly regulate federal elections or create laws that conflict with federal election laws administered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Federal election laws are established by Congress and fall under the purview of the federal government.

6. Federal election laws, including regulations enforced by the FEC, are established by Congress and fall under the authority of the federal government. These laws specifically pertain to federal elections, such as those for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

7. State business practice laws, on the other hand, regulate commercial activities, business operations, and other matters related to commerce within the state's borders. These laws are within the authority of the state government and are separate from federal election laws.

As outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the division of powers between the federal government and the states establishes that federal laws govern federal matters, while state laws govern state matters.

Constitutionality: Any practice that violates constitutional rights, such as a defendant's constitutional rights are violated by the application of state laws enhanced by federal law without prior convictions, a court could find such practices unconstitutional.

Legal Precedent: Courts often rely on legal precedent established by prior cases to determine the constitutionality of certain practices. If there is a relevant precedent that addresses similar issues, it could guide the court's decision in the current case.

State and Federal Jurisdiction: States and the federal government have distinct jurisdictions and authority, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. While states generally have authority over their own criminal laws and procedures, they cannot violate federal constitutional rights in the process. Likewise, federal law cannot infringe upon state sovereignty or violate state constitutional rights.

Judicial Review: Ultimately, the constitutionality of a practice would be determined by the judiciary. If a defendant challenges the legality of using federal law to enhance state charges without prior convictions, a court would review the arguments and evidence presented by both parties before issuing a ruling.

 NOTE: 

An illegal proceeding and non-impartial trial resulting in an imbalance occurs when only one party is subject to a gag order while the other is free to speak. In legal proceedings, fairness and due process require that both the prosecution (or the accusers) and the defence have equal opportunities to present their case and access relevant information. Thus this New York democratic party judge was wrong when he gaged Trump and not all his accusers including the persecution and himself.

When only the defendant (Trump) is subject to a gag order, it indeed creates an unfair advantage for the prosecution. The defendant then is unable to defend themselves effectively or counter any prejudicial statements made by the prosecution or accusers outside of the courtroom. This compromises the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial.

In practice, when gag orders are imposed, they typically apply to all parties involved in the litigation to ensure that neither side gains an unfair advantage. This helps maintain the balance of power and ensures that the trial proceeds in a manner consistent with the principles of fairness and due process.

If there were concerns about prejudicial publicity or potential interference with the trial, the court must issue gag orders that apply to both the prosecution and the defence, as well as any other relevant parties. This helps safeguard the rights of all involved and promotes a fair and impartial trial. This is NOT the case in New York against the former President Trump.

Facts:

The "LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES" doctrine serves several purposes:

Fairness: It ensures that defendants aren't unfairly punished for a greater offence when the evidence only supports a lesser one.

Judicial Efficiency: It streamlines legal proceedings by allowing prosecutors to focus on proving the main charge rather than charging every possible offence.

Protection Against Double Jeopardy: It prevents defendants from being tried twice for the same offence. If a defendant is acquitted or in this case NEVER CHARGED of the greater offense, they can't be retried for the lesser offense because it's already considered included in the original charge.

The legal doctrine of lesser included offences is a fundamental aspect of criminal law. It ensures that defendants are not unfairly convicted or punished for a more serious offence when the evidence presented during trial only supports a lesser offence. This doctrine is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of defendants' rights.

In the United States, the doctrine of lesser included offences is based on the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial. The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of this doctrine in several landmark cases, including Beck v. Alabama (1980) and Schmuck v. United States (1989).

In Beck v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that when the evidence presented at trial could support a conviction on a lesser included offence, the jury must be instructed on that lesser offence. Failure to do so would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial by limiting the jury's options and potentially leading to an unjust conviction.

Similarly, in Schmuck v. United States, the Court reaffirmed the requirement for jury instructions on lesser included offences when supported by the evidence. The Court emphasized that defendants are entitled to have the jury consider all reasonable doubt in their favour, including the possibility of a lesser offence.

New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) governs procedural aspects of criminal cases, including jury instructions and trial procedures. CPL Article 300 outlines the general principles for jury trials, including instructions on lesser included offences. Specifically, CPL § 300.50 addresses jury instructions on lesser included offences, requiring judges to instruct juries on lesser offences supported by the evidence presented at trial.

New York case law further clarifies the application of the doctrine of lesser included offences in practice. Appellate court decisions often provide guidance on issues such as when jury instructions on lesser offences are warranted and what constitutes sufficient evidence to support a lesser included offence.

Overall, in New York State, the doctrine of lesser included offences operates within the framework of statutory law, court rules, and judicial precedent to ensure that defendants receive fair trials and are not convicted of more serious offences than supported by the evidence. Prosecutors, defence attorneys, and judges all play essential roles in applying this doctrine appropriately during criminal proceedings.

 

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

 

 

A Chant of "Death to America" IS a HATE CRIME under US Laws

In the United States, hate speech like "Death to America" meets the criteria that justify limitations on free speech as per the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) in my view.

 

As it is a direct call to violence against Americans, to nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics. Thus, it can and must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence and hate speech.

 

Individuals in America who chant this hate slogan must be prosecuted for hate speech including speech that incites violence or poses a direct threat to public safety.

 

Incitement to Violence: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech which directly incites lawless action or poses a clear and present danger of such action is not protected by the First Amendment. This principle comes from the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). If chanting "Death to America" is interpreted as a direct call to violence against Americans, it must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting incitement to violence.

 

True Threats: Under U.S. law, "true threats" are not protected speech. A true threat is a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to cause harm or violence. If chanting "Death to America" is interpreted as a true threat against Americans, it must be prosecuted under laws prohibiting threats.

 

Hate Crime Laws: Hate crimes involving acts calling for violence or threats i.e. death to America which is motivated by bias or prejudice must be prosecuted under federal or state hate crime laws. These laws typically enhance penalties for criminal acts committed because of the victim's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected characteristics.

 

State Laws: Some states have specific laws that criminalize certain types of hate speech or provide enhanced penalties for hate-motivated crimes. These laws vary by state and may define hate speech or hate crimes differently. For example, some states have laws specifically addressing hate speech directed at schools or certain groups.

 

Harassment Laws: Depending on the circumstances, chanting "Death to America" constitutes targeted harassment or intimidation against individuals or groups that must be prosecuted under harassment laws.

 

 Facts of the case - Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made it illegal to advocate "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Question

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The Criminal Syndicalism Act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After Iran Attacked Israel Biden Seeks Diplomatic Response

 

In recent history, we've witnessed a concerning trend fueled by the unrealistic policy of appeasement towards both terrorist entities and nations that actively support and finance terrorism. This approach, championed by the Biden administration and its leader, President Joe Biden, has failed to provide effective solutions. Instead, it has emboldened aggressors like Iran, leading to brazen attacks on Israel.

The proposal for a "united diplomatic response" to Iran's aggression rings hollow, as it risks normalizing such hostile actions between Iran and Israel. This farcical strategy finds support among certain segments of the media and their adherence to socialist ideologies, further clouding the effectiveness of our response.

Despite clear evidence of Iran's involvement in attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, totalling over 150 incidents since President Biden's inauguration, the administration has shied away from taking decisive action. Moreover, the Iranian-backed Houthi forces have escalated their aggression by targeting Israeli-affiliated shipping vessels in the Red Sea, with at least 40 vessels falling victim to these attacks.

Regrettably, the Biden administration's policy of appeasement has failed to deter such brazen acts of aggression. Even in the face of a strong condemnation by the United Nations Security Council, followed by further attacks by the Houthis, there has been a glaring absence of direct reprisals against Iran and its terrorist proxies.

This ambivalence towards Iran reflects a broader trend of isolationism and appeasement within the American Democratic political landscape, which has only deepened since President Biden's election over three years ago. The consequences of this approach are dire, with the world teetering on the brink of unprecedented turmoil and the spectre of a potential world war looming ominously.

It's evident that the weakness of President Biden's leadership, coupled with the incompetence of those surrounding him, has exacerbated these challenges. 

In my view, these conclusions are drawn from readily available facts, accessible to anyone willing to engage in thorough reading and research.