Last week, the Supreme Court rendered two decisions that are far afield from conservative thought and constitutional jurisprudence. One is fundamentally wrong and the other shows considerable dissention and perhaps confusion among the Court’s members about the Second Amendment. Do we really want a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next twenty years? First, in Moore v. US, the Court ruled that congress can tax income before it is received. In the second decision, US v. Rahimi, the Court ruled that a person can be deprived of his Second Amendment rights under a federal law that prohibits possession of firearms by people who are subject to certain protective orders. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden’s Border Crisis Comes Home to Roost) In Moore, the Court upheld the 2017 “mandatory repatriation tax,” which went after investors in primarily American-owned foreign corporations that held their assets overseas. The one-time tax was imposed on the investors in proportion to their ownership of the company and was imposed regardless of whether the person had actually received the income. In the case of the Moores, they were socked with a tax bill in excess of $14,000 despite the fact that they had not received a dime’s income from the investment. The court — divided 7-2 — ruled that the so-called “repatriation tax” was constitutional and did so by tying itself in several logical knots. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh followed the illogic of Congress. Kavanaugh wrote, “It has gone without serious question in both Congress and the federal courts that Congress can attribute the undistributed income of an entity to the entity’s shareholders or partners, and tax the shareholders or partners on their pro rata share of the entity’s undistributed income.” The correct response to that is, “yeah, so what?” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sam Alito followed a vastly different path, but still — shockingly — upheld the tax. As Barrett wrote, the answer to whether Congress can tax the appreciation of property is “no.” Barrett wrote, “The Sixteenth Amendment’s reference to income ‘derived’ from any source encompasses a requirement that income, to be taxed without apportionment, must be realized.” Barrett and Alito were right but inexplicably voted in favor of upholding the law. Think about this decision’s effect. Let’s say you bought a house ten years ago. It has probably appreciated in value and the selling price you could get is probably double what you paid for it. Under the Moore decision, Congress can pass a law taxing you on the amount your house has appreciated before you sell it. That’s totally against the logic — such as it is — of the Sixteenth Amendment and the tax laws. Let’s remember that the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to tax says, “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” It does not say that Congress has the power to tax anyone for anything unless and until the income is “derived,” i.e., actually received. Before Moore, you had to actually receive the income from selling your asset — be it your house, stocks, or whatever — before it could be taxed. No more because of Moore. It will be vastly harder to accumulate anything that resembles wealth. Moore paves the way for so-called “wealth taxes” on people who are holding their assets and not realizing any gain from their sale. The Moore decision is entirely wrong. It matters not that the Court was probably concerned that other tax laws could be upended by a contrary decision. Income taxes can only be applied when income is actually received. Shame on Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Alito for joining the libs — Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan — in upholding the “repatriation tax.” Only Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. A little over a week ago, the Court struck down the Trump-era rule that banned “bump stocks” on the basis that they effectively convert a semi-automatic gun into a machine gun. The Court found that because a bump stock still requires a pull of the trigger to fire a round — machine guns fire multiple rounds with each trigger pull — that the bump stock rule was unconstitutional. That decision makes sense in terms of firearms’ functionality. The sole dissenter in Rahimi, Clarence Thomas, wrote the earlier decision in the Bruen case. In that decision, he wrote that for a new gun control law to be valid there had to be historical precedent for it. In this case, there wasn’t one. Neither functionality nor historical precedent is the new rule under Rahimi. In the Rahimi case, the Court diverted itself from its otherwise sensible Second Amendment views to rule that a federal law — akin to state “red flag” laws — is constitutional despite the fact that there is no historical precedent for it. As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion in Rahimi, “Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue … Surety laws were, in a nutshell, a fine on certain behavior,” and “imposed a far less onerous burden” than depriving a person of his Second Amendment rights. (READ MORE: Hunter’s Laptop: The Other Story) But now, in Rahimi, it ruled by 8-1 that simply because someone is under a civil restraining order, he can be disarmed. By all means, Rahimi should have been disarmed. He’s a bad guy, having threatened that he’d shoot his girlfriend and firing a shot in an argument with her that was witnessed by others. He also, according to a Wall Street Journal report, fired one or more shots at the house of someone who bought drugs from him. Rahimi was, according to that same WSJ report, sentenced to seventy-three months in prison for possessing a firearm while under a protective order. The Constitutional question of Rahimi being disarmed arises under both the Second and Fifth Amendments. Chief Justice Roberts, in the opinion of the Court, wrote that, “An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Roberts added, “The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.” The problem comes down to how Rahimi was afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment. It is apparent that he was. As the Court’s decision recites, Rahimi was given notice and opportunity to defend against the civil protective order and even consented to it. In his lone dissent, Clarence Thomas wanted to decide the matter on the question of “whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Justice Thomas — again, the author of the Bruen “historical precedent” decision — is correct. But the fact that Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the Court skipped over the Bruen analysis to simply declare that a person can be deprived temporarily of their Second Amendment rights proves that the Second Amendment — to this court — is not as strong a guarantee of our rights as its “shall not be infringed” language should be. Every state with a “red flag” law will celebrate this decision because it affirms their ability to deprive someone of his Second Amendment rights at the whim of state judges with or without due process. These two decisions should decide the presidential election. If, as is expected, both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas retire during the next presidential term, can we risk two more Supreme Court justices like Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson? Do we really want a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next twenty years? That question answers itself. The post SCOTUS Takes Strange Turns appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

NRO Senior editor Charles C.W. Cooke informs us that according to polls taken in 1996, 2008, and 2024 there has been a striking increase in voters concerned about elderly presidential candidates. In 1996, 27 percent thought that Bob Dole at 73 was too old to run. In 2008, 20 percent thought John McCain at 71 was too old to run. Now, within five months of the November 5 election, 86 percent think President Biden is too old to run for re-election. Worse, 62 percent think that if re-elected, President Biden will die before his second term ends. Cooke calls this a “decoy presidential candidacy.” With activists on the warpath in both parties … and a cackling cipher of a vice-president … unfit to ascend to the Oval Office, the succession crisis of Summer 2024 is deepening. During G7 summit, citing diplomatic sources (who obviously would not go public and thereby create an international diplomatic incident), international press outlets reported that Biden looked distracted and lacked focus during meetings. (READ MORE from John Wohlstetter: Can America Survive Israel’s Nuclear Destruction?) The importance of settling remaining issues pertaining to presidential success can hardly be overstated. Of 45 prior presidents, nine failed to complete their term: four were assassinated; four died of natural causes; and one resigned. Of 54 prior vice-presidents, 18 did not complete their term: 17 died of natural causes, and one resigned. In the 179 years prior to the 1967 ratification of the 25th Amendment, the republic was without a vice-president for 37-3/4 years — 21 percent of the time. In my new book, Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security, I trace the history of presidential succession from the founding of the republic to the present. At the 1787 Grand Convention in Philadelphia, delegate John Dickinson framed the issue: “What is the extent of the term ‘disability’ and who is to be the judge of it?” Nothing was done in 1787, despite some discussion, because the Framers were focused on deciding what powers the new federal government was to have, and how they should be distributed. The First Congress failed to address the issue. The first presidential succession law was passed in 1792, placing the Senate president pro tem first in line, followed by the Speaker of the House. If they both defaulted, a special election would be held. After the hotly disputed election of 1800, when 36 ballots were needed to select a president, the 12th Amendment was adopted in 1804. It provided for direct vice-presidential succession “in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president.” Thus, when in 1841 President William Henry Harrison died one month into his term, Vice-President John Tyler took the helm. Such was the unsettled nature of things that there was a debate over what title the new occupant of the Oval Office would use: remain vice-president, or become acting president, new president or simply president. Fortunately for posterity, the simpler, most logical title was chosen, and Tyler was sworn in as president. When after Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson ascended, he, too, took the oath as president, making it standard practice. This confusion prevailed for 150 years, from 1787 until superseded by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, ratified January 23, 1933, but not effective until January 1937, when the new Congress assembled January 3, and the new president was inaugurated January 20. Section 3 provides: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become president. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither the President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. (Emphasis added.) In 1886 Congress passed the second presidential succession law, at the urging of President Grover Cleveland. The president pro tem and Speaker were removed from the line of succession. They were replaced by the seven members of the president’s Cabinet then extant, in order of creation. In 1947 Congress made a final revision, which still stands. The Speaker and president pro tem were re-inserted in front of the Cabinet heads, but with their order in the line of succession reversed. The presidency of Dwight Eisenhower brought into sharp relief the risks of presidential vacancy in the modern era. Ike suffered a major heart attack in 1955, a blockage in his intestine in 1956 and, later that year, a mini-stroke that left him temporarily unable to speak. Vice-president Nixon and Ike’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams, ran the administration — in contrast to the Wilson regency, openly in public view. At one point, Adams called Nixon and told him to prepare to assume the presidency in the next 24 hours. But Ike rapidly recovered. To remove uncertainty to the degree possible, in the absence of any adopted proposals for reform, Ike wrote a 1958 memorandum to his vice-president, attorney-general and secretary of state, setting forth procedures to follow in event of his inability to continue. The Eisenhower procedures carried over to the Kennedy and early Johnson years. The election of a young, apparently healthy president in 1960 had frozen reform efforts; JFK’s assassination put reform back on the table, but with 1964 an election year, Congress could only hold preliminary hearings. President Johnson went 14 months without a sitting vice-president, until Hubert Humphrey was sworn in at LBJ’s 1965 Inauguration. LBJ having made presidential succession reform a top priority, during the 1965-66 Congressional session the 25th Amendment was passed by large bipartisan majorities, and sent to the States for ratification. In February 1967, the Amendment was formally ratified. Since ratification, all succession crises to date have been successfully resolved by the 25th Amendment. Section 1 provides that if a president cannot continue for the remainder of a term, the vice-president shall become president. Section 2 provides that the new president shall nominate a vice-president, who then must be confirmed by a majority vote in the House and in the Senate. These provisions were implemented after the October 1973 resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, and after the August 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon. After Agnew’s departure, Nixon appointed Gerald Ford; after Nixon departed, Ford appointed former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. During the periods between their nominations and their confirmations — two months for Ford; four months for Rockefeller — had the president permanently left the office, House Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK) would have become Acting President. When asked about this, Albert, neither his own nor anyone else’s idea of a president, replied: “Lord, help me. I pray every night it doesn’t happen.” Section 3, covering voluntary disability, took longer to become accepted practice. President Reagan did not formally invoke the 25th Amendment after being shot, as his advisers feared that a sidelined president might tempt adversaries to take advantage. It wasn’t until 2003, when George Bush 43 had a colonoscopy, that the 25h Amendment was publicly invoked. On that and in 2007 when again Bush 43 underwent that procedure, Vice-President Cheney was Acting President for a couple hours each time. (READ MORE: The 2022 ‘Titanic’ Vote: Iceberg Ahead, or Are We Already Sinking?) As Acting President, Cheney assumed the “powers and duties” of the president, but did not hold the office of the presidency.  Only after a president permanently leaves office, can the vice-president hold the office of the presidency. No other official can hold the office upon succession, a situation which arises in event of a double vacancy of president and vice-president. Congressional officials (Speaker of the House and president pro tem of the Senate) and Cabinet officials can only act as president. With activists on the warpath … and a cackling cipher of a vice-president widely regarded as shockingly unfit to ascend to the Oval Office, the succession crisis of Summer 2024 is deepening. Which brings us to the current crisis, one that for the first time ever, involves the possible application of Section 4, covering involuntary presidential disability. In simplified form, whenever the vice-president and a majority of the Cabinet notifies Congress that the president is unable to govern as president, yet is unwilling to step aside, a battle royal begins. If the president transmits to the Congress his intention to return to the presidency, it takes a two-thirds vote in both Houses to prevent the president’s return. During the 25th Amendment debates on the Senate floor in 1965, several senators cautioned that cabals might exploit the situation for political advantage. Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), the Amendment’s sponsor, replied: I have more faith in the Congress acting in an emergency in the white heat of publicity, with the American people looking on. The last thing Congress would dare to do would be to become involved in a purely political move. For his part, Senator Sam Ervin (D-SC), noted for his scholarly knowledge of the Constitution, said: God help this nation if we ever get a House of Representatives, or a Senate, which will wait for a President to die so someone whom they love more than their country will succeed to the Presidency. Senator Ervin’s comment applies equally in cases of attempted removal of a president, either via impeachment and conviction, or by the sidelining of a president whom a majority of the public concludes was pushed aside for political gain, rather than for genuinely evident presidential inability. Comes now, 2024. A hyper-partisan legacy and social media conduct “lawfare” to prevent Donald Trump from even being able to continue his campaign; and former president Trump, for his part, inflames his opponents by making 2020’s election irregularities a central part of his campaign. Voters are deeply divided — and in large measure unhappy with the apparent choice they face this fall. Few believe that a manifestly weakened president can handle the immense daily workload of the presidency; those behind the scene resemble the clandestine regency that arose for the last 17 months of Woodrow Wilson’s second presidential term, triggered by the massive stroke Wilson suffered. Then, Wilson’s second wife, Edith Bolling Galt, along with Wilson’s personal physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, and his private secretary, Joseph Tumulty, effectively ran the government.  But many things were left undone, things only a president could do: veto bills — 28 bills became law because the president was unable to cast a veto; and appoint executive branch officials and judges. Vice-President Alfred Marshall, petrified of the First Lady, stayed on the sidelines. Secretary of State Robert Lansing tried to get Wilson to step aside, and for his pains was fired by the president. In 1919 there were neither prescribed procedures in place, nor standards for implementing them, even given Wilson’s manifest presidential inability. (READ MORE: An Outside Speaker? A Constitutionally Dubious, Bad Idea) Today, Jill Biden clearly wields the main power behind the throne. Various advisers, most of whom held senior posts under former president Obama, represent a cabal that is running the country. The president refuses to take any test for mental acuity, or for possible use of amphetamines (“uppers”) before public appearances; his schedule is notably lighter than that of his modern predecessors. The medical reports his physician has released are veritable studies in information opacity, far less extensive and detailed than those of preceding presidents. By contrast, Donald Trump, succumbing to pressure from Beltway journalists and commentators, took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, and aced it. Bottom Line The bald fact of the matter is that given the infinite gradation of mental states and physical frailty, and the extreme political risks of a challenge, no formulation for involuntary removal can satisfy. Myriad alternative schemes were carefully considered in depth during the 1956-1966 period, to no avail. Section 4 was a serious attempt to resolve what has proven during Biden’s presidential term to be an unresolvable problem. With activists on the warpath in both parties, a president whose inability is on public display and clearly getting worse, and a cackling cipher of a vice-president widely regarded as shockingly unfit to ascend to the Oval Office, the succession crisis of Summer 2024 is deepening. As our allies fret over our struggles, our adversaries seek to exploit a consequently weakened America. Put simply, absent civic virtue, a commodity increasingly rare, no provision for involuntary removal can work smoothly. One can only repair to Senator Ervin’s 1965 warning: “God help this nation.” John C. Wohlstetter is author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security(Gold Institute Press, 2024). The post The Summer 2024 Presidential Succession Crisis appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A few months back, Americans everywhere became outraged at the suggestion that the U.S. may be following Canada’s lead in recommending no more than two alcoholic drinks per week for the new Dietary Guidelines coming out for 2025-2030. This would be a significant decrease from the current guidelines that suggest limiting alcohol intake to one drink or fewer per day for both adult men and women. Those who quit drinking report more mental clarity, better sleep, improved relationships, and heightened attention and performance. Even more blasphemous to us south of the border is Canada’s warning that no amount of alcohol is safe to consume. The other week some of the country’s biggest manufacturers of spirits penned a broad-based industry letter to both HHS Secretary Becerra and USDA Secretary Vilsack raising big concerns about the Dietary Guidelines review process. In it they state, “We urge HHS and USDA to ensure an alcohol review process that includes stakeholder input and public comment opportunities and that is transparent, deliberative, science-driven, and results in guidance grounded in the preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge as required by law.” (READ MORE from Jennifer Galardi: Will Tulsi Gabbard Be Donald Trump’s VP Pick?) This comment is based on several reviews from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability along with the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services. Committee chairs James Comer and Lisa McClain wrote several letters to the USDA, HHS, and NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) outlining their concerns for the pending recommendations. Much of their complaints centered around procedural mismanagement and duplication of efforts on behalf of multiple agencies as well as the integrity of the scientific claims. In the letters, the chairs claim that there is a “continually evolving scientific debate about the risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption on individual health outcomes.” For the past four years, the left has consistently misused and abused the so-called science.  But when it comes to alcohol, the right is just as guilty in its attempts to befuddle with convoluted studies about the potential benefits of drinking. Even those who drink know they’re probably better off when they don’t, but finding the data to prove drinking is not that bad offers many a justification for making poor choices. I understand Republicans, and all freedom loving Americans, take issue with the suggestion that maybe we shouldn’t be imbibing as much as we do, especially when that “suggestion” comes from the government. After all, drinking has deep cultural roots in the United States. And these days, with our political and cultural life in such turmoil, it seems easier to drown our sorrows than to face our reality. Even the quintessential virtue signaler, Governor Gavin Newsom, admitted the need to “self-medicate periodically” and called clean and sober “one of the biggest damn mistakes this country’s every made.” That may explain the state of California over the past four years. The truth is, a few less drinks would probably do many Americans good, helping them shed some pounds while at the same time, becoming a little more sober and sane. Many may be surprised to learn that the 45th President possesses the virtue of abstinence and doesn’t touch the stuff. Which leads me to believe he exhibits more clarity on a daily basis than most politicians who subscribe to the Newsom school of thought. Trump once told a group of children at the White House “never take drugs, don’t drink alcohol, don’t smoke … enjoy your life, okay?” If we think that’s bad advice, we’re in more trouble than I thought. Just like marijuana or cocaine, alcohol is a drug. Granted, a socially acceptable drug, but a drug nonetheless and one that has significant consequences including liver dysfunction, impaired judgement, and an increased chance of a slew of chronic diseases, including significant weight gain. Unless you are in the habit of running a 5k while chugging some brewskis, alcohol will be converted to and stored as sugar. The pandemic only intensified Americans’ proclivity to hit the bottle as a way to soothe anxieties and discontent. According to the National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics, 60 percent of Americans increased their alcohol consumption during COVID-19 lockdowns. Many drinkers contest they simply become happier or more honest when they drink. Or that they need their daily drink to relax and unwind and what’s wrong with that? Fair enough, but those who consistently imbibe often don’t remember what it feels like the next day without alcohol. Those who quit drinking report more mental clarity, better sleep, improved relationships, and heightened attention and performance. (READ MORE: Roberts and Milei Set Fire to Libs at Davos) The trend of those that have become “sober curious” is on the uptick, particularly among Gen Z.  Many have voluntarily reduced their alcohol intake if not given it up completely upon experiencing the benefits of laying off the sauce. A survey found that 41 percent of Americans plan to drink less alcohol in 2024, with 24 percent of men and 31 percent of women having stopped drinking due to alcohol-related problems. I’m amazed at people who insist that alcohol doesn’t affect them at all or that drinking doesn’t alter their personality. A sober person will usually disagree with that assessment. Since that sober person is often me, I can tell you almost always, the imbiber doth protest too much. I do not suggest that any government agency dictate to its citizens how much or little to drink. However, I am also not a libertarian. Good policy can and should incentivize commendable behavior that benefits society as a whole and discourage depraved or even dangerous behavior that strains the bonds of community. A couple of drinks with friends and family can certainly strengthen the ties that bind us, but as any alcoholic will tell you, it can also destroy relationships and lives. That line can be a fine one. At the end of the day, keep in mind that the recommendations for alcohol consumption in the new 2025 guidelines are just that — recommendations. No one is coming to raid your liquor cabinet or steal your man cave keg. After years of lies, it’s refreshing to consider that our public health agencies might be trying to tell us the truth, even if it’s a bitter brew to swallow. The post Public Health Agencies: Lay off the Sauce appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The U.S. Supreme Court released a unanimous ruling on the abortion pill mifepristone on Thursday, and there’s good news and bad news. The bad news is that women will still be able to receive a dangerous drug (one designed to force a miscarriage) in their mailboxes without ever having seen a medical professional in person. The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t actually make a decision about the way the abortion pill is administered or the FDA’s lax requirements for obtaining and using the drug — it just told Alliance Defending Freedom and the doctors from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine suing the FDA that they had no standing to do so. (READ MORE from Aubrey Gulick: Elon Musk and OpenAI Are at War. Your Data Is at Stake.) But that latter piece of good news has been drowned out by the anti-life abortion advocates in the media. One NPR article recorded the “relieved” reaction of mifepristone providers who had been stockpiling the drug in case the Supreme Court decided that the FDA needed to reevaluate its safety; CNN informed readers that “[t]he ruling is a significant setback for the anti-abortion movement” (that’s “pro-life movement” to you, CNN); and the Washington Post framed it as a win for the Biden administration (although it recognized that the battle is nowhere near over yet). It’s not a win or a defeat for either side — it’s a stalemate. Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court told the pro-life movement that, if we’re going to debate mifepristone, we need a case where the doctors suing the FDA have experienced harm. They need to have skin in the game, and not just hypothetically. That’s important because we need an air-tight precedent that will last beyond the next time a Democrat appoints left-wing justices to the court. The case doesn’t deny that the conversation about mifepristone is worth having. The drug is quite risky — there have been at least 32 deaths associated with it since 2000 and many women have ended up in the emergency room with serious complications. But that hasn’t stopped the FDA from making it progressively easier in the last 20 years to receive it (it wasn’t until 2021 that patients could receive the drug in the mail without an in-person visit, which makes abortions much easier to administer in states where it isn’t legal) and from promoting it as a “safe and effective” way to obtain the death of an unborn child. One of the biggest issues with having the FDA endorse mifepristone is that it risks putting women in a position where they trust the medical establishment to get them out of a difficult situation without realizing that there are serious risks involved. This is a column dedicated to exposing artificial intelligence’s Left-wing bias and I have every intention of working ChatGPT-4o into this conversation. One of the useful things about ChatGPT (and artificial intelligence in general) is that it does a great job of capturing the mainstream narrative of any particular issue. At times it can be difficult to note the biases. When we’re talking about abortions, that’s not the case at all. Take for instance this response: Prompt: Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in the mifepristone case. Detail the controversies surrounding the use of the abortion pill and discuss the long-term impacts the ruling will have in 300 words.  ChatGPT-4o: In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in the mifepristone case, a highly contentious issue concerning the use of the abortion pill. The Court decided to keep mifepristone available while legal battles over its FDA approval continue, upholding a stay on lower court rulings that sought to impose severe restrictions on the drug. The controversy centers on the FDA’s approval and regulation of mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. Critics argue that the FDA’s decision to approve the drug and later expand its accessibility, including allowing it to be dispensed via mail, was flawed and exceeded its authority. They claim these actions neglected necessary safeguards for women’s health and statutory limits. Supporters, however, emphasize that mifepristone has been safely used for over 20 years and plays a critical role in reproductive healthcare, especially in the post-Roe v. Wade landscape where medication abortion has become increasingly vital​ (SCOTUSblog)​​ (Center for Reproductive Rights)​. The Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the status quo has significant long-term implications. If future rulings uphold the FDA’s authority, it would reaffirm the agency’s role in regulating pharmaceuticals, which is crucial for maintaining a consistent, science-based approval process. Conversely, a ruling against the FDA could set a precedent for increased judicial interference in drug approvals, potentially undermining the agency’s regulatory stability and impacting the availability of numerous medications beyond mifepristone​ (Fierce Pharma)​. Furthermore, this case highlights the ongoing national debate over abortion rights. The outcome could either secure or further restrict access to abortion services, depending on how future legal decisions unfold. This decision underscores the fragile state of reproductive rights in the U.S., with potential nationwide ramifications for women’s access to healthcare​ (Fierce Pharma)​​ (Center for Reproductive Rights)​. Usually I leave the response here and let you critique it in the comments section — but I want to point a few things first. The biggest issue with the bot’s response is in the second paragraph, where it tells us that “critics…. claim” that women’s health and statutory limits are at issue, but “[s]upporters … emphasize” mifepristone’s safety over the last 20 years. That’s a granular difference in language, but its the kind of distinction that makes an impact on the unconscious and unobservant reader. Effectively, it undermines the “critics” argument while suggesting that the “supporters” are relying on well-established fact. Let me just point out that the FDA is the one reporting those 32 deaths. The second issue has to do with sourcing. All of the sources — SCOTUS Blog, Fierce Pharma, and Center for Reproductive Rights — are left-wing or have ties to BigPharma (and therefore an interest in promoting prescription drugs). This may just end up being a reoccurring complaint of mine, but any journalist will tell you that balanced sourcing is key. (RELATED: A Quandary For Those Touting the ‘Rule of Law’) With those critiques lodged, I’ll now hand it over to readers in the comments section. What are your thoughts on the bot’s response? Is it more or less biased than you thought? And are there carefully worded phrases that could influence the unobservant reader? This is a weekly column at The American Spectator dedicated to exposing the left-wing bent of generative AI machines. If you enjoyed it and want to see what else ChatGPT comes up with, feel free to leave ideas for prompts in the comments section below! The post Victory or Defeat? The Supreme Court’s Abortion Pill Ruling Is Neither. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In 1960, Nobel-winning economist Friedrich Von Hayek said, “History is largely a history of inflation, usually inflations engineered by governments for the gain of governments.”  During the last four years, consumers have seen the price level increase cumulatively by over 15 percent due to inflation. This means that Bidenomics has added an extra $9,000 per year in expenses for the average household. Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act — a colossal $2 trillion undertaking that … did little to rescue the economy. During the previous administration — the Trump years — the Consumer Price Index (CPI) saw a mere 1 percent cumulative increase. While the Covid pandemic influenced this figure, excluding that one year, the overall price level increase still was only about 2 ½ percent. It’s important to note that inflation isn’t the price level — it’s the rate of increase in prices.  A reduction from 9 percent to 3 percent doesn’t imply a 6 percent decrease in prices; it means prices will still continue to rise at 3 percent.   As Von Hayek aptly put it, this is an inflation “engineered by governments.” (READ MORE: Biden Points the Bill (and the Blame) Elsewhere) Think of the macroeconomy as a vast circular flow. Your earnings represent a portion of your employer’s profits, and when you spend your wages, they become another’s profit. This cycle, while not exact, maintains a pretty good balance. However, when the government steps in and deficit spends — essentially paying for things with money it didn’t earn — inflation is what happens close to the circle. Most Big Government do-gooders don’t understand the connection between increased government spending and inflation, or maybe they just don’t care.  The Treasury runs a deficit when the amount it spends exceeds the amount it collects in taxes, and it borrows the difference by selling bonds. This means the government is spending money it didn’t earn through the production of goods and services. That’s why we say inflation is “too many dollars chasing too few goods.” Within three months of assuming office, Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act — a colossal $2 trillion undertaking that, despite its name, did little to rescue the economy. To put this into perspective, the total deficit spending for the entire first three years of the Trump administration was about the same amount as this single act. According to our circular flow concept, injecting such a massive amount of money into the economy without a corresponding increase in production should lead to inflation. Here are some statistics to double-check our circular flow. In the twelve months following the bill’s signing, U.S. personal income increased by 3.7 percent.  During the same period, worker productivity (output per hour) actually decreased by 1.5 percent.  Adding those together we get 5.2 percent as the total change in income per output produced.  During that same period, inflation increased by, you guessed it, 5.3 percent.  It’s funny, but not funny how that works out! But this isn’t the story we’re being sold. The Administration tells us that greedy corporations are what’s causing inflation. Corporations may be greedy, but they shouldn’t take the fall for this one. Let’s check this fake news from the Left.  If we exclude things like housing and transportation because many other variables, like interest rates and wars, affect them (i.e. they are volatile), we can focus on consumer spending — the prices for all the things you buy at, say, Walmart. Walmart is big, makes a lot of money, and seems like an excellent candidate to be a greedy corporation.  I’ll concede that things at Walmart cost more today than they did four years ago, but that doesn’t tell me if those price increases are a cause or effect of inflation.  The way we have to think about it is to question if Walmart is making more today than in the past.  Again, sure they are, but it’s not that simple.  How do we know if their higher dollar net profit is due to price gouging or the devaluation of our currency due to inflation? To really figure this out, we have to look at their return on investment.  This is how much Walmart makes in income as a percentage of what they have invested in stores, inventory, and infrastructure.  It’s akin to the percentage you earn in interest on money you have in the bank.  During the Trump years, Walmart returned a cumulative average of about 18 percent per year on its investment.  During the Biden years, it been exactly 18 percent as well.  Nothing to see here, folks! (READ MORE: Biden Gaslights America on the Economy) It’s the government causing inflation by deficit spending, not greedy corporations, and not wages rising slower than productivity.  We hear from the administration about the “war on inflation,” but you’d think if they were genuinely earnest about it, they would do something. Well, they did!  The Inflation Reduction Act was pushed through a little over a year ago, and by its name, you’d think that, finally, something was being done about rising prices.  You’d be correct — it calls for almost another $1 trillion in government spending!  What did Von Hayek say again? Kevin Cochrane is an economist, former senior banking executive, and regularly published national columnist.  He is currently a visiting professor at the University of the West Indies in Barbados and has taught economics for the past two decades in the United States. The post Inflation’s Puppeteer: The Government appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I was absolutely baseball crazy. It was 1958, I was six years old, and I was falling in love with baseball. It didn’t matter that I couldn’t play it very well. Even though I would eventually play Little League, I was good at only one thing — getting hit by the pitcher. Together with the occasional walk ,that was the only way I got on base, except for the clean single I made in my last game. Excellence speaks for itself. But it never speaks louder than when it is accomplished through contagious joy. I was falling in love even though my inherited fan interests weren’t going the right way. Those interests were: 1) rooting for the hometown team; and 2) rooting against the Yankees. Since my hometown team was the Phillies, and the Phillies were going to come in eighth out of eight that year (and the next and the next and the next); and since the Yankees won the pennant the year before and were going to win the World Series that year; it followed that I was in love with the game itself. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Civilization Means Power Used in Service to the Public) And part of the reason for that was Willie Mays. In 1958 my father took me to the ballpark for the first time. It was Philadelphia’s old Connie Mack Stadium, a hand-me-down from the Athletics, the city’s old glory team that had packed its bags for Kansas City and eventually the West Coast. Of the three games I saw there that summer, two were against the Giants. And that’s when I saw Willie Mays. The whole scene of the ballpark was exciting enough. It was a comfortable old park, no one too far away from the action. Philadelphia still had some great players from their last pennant-winning team. Robin Roberts had pinpoint control and could still win lots of games — 17 wins pitching for the cellar dwelling Phillies that year. Richie Ashburn, like Roberts, would wind up in the Hall of Fame. That year, he would lead the majors in batting average and he was s superb center fielder who made great defensive play seem the easy. But something else happened when Willie Mays came out on the field for the Giants. Your eyes went to him immediately. His overflowing energy grabbed everyone, even those crusty, belligerent Phillies fans — they sat up and took notice. He seemed almost to bounce, barely able to keep his drive channeled inside. He knew and everybody knew that he would look for every opportunity to let it loose, and if no opportunity came, he would conjure one up. Older fans there knew much more about him than my six-year-old self. Calls of “Say Hey!” came out to greet him, the Say Hey Kid, the name he was dubbed when in 1951 he arrived in New York to play with the Giants. He excelled in everything, pretty much. He was a power hitter, a four-time home run champ, and he hit for average. He was a tremendous centerfielder with great range, a preternatural ability to track the ball, and a cannon of an arm that stopped runners from taking extra bases. Already in 1954, he had nailed down the most famous fielding play in baseball history, turning his back to the plate and running down Vic Wertz’s screamer of a hit to deepest center field to preserve the Giants’ World Series sweep. And one more talent on his list: in an age in which the art of stealing bases had been nearly forgotten, he brought it back to center stage. That’s what I saw that first game. I don’t remember his fielding that day, nor do I remember how he got on base. But I vividly remember how, on base, he took his lead, making excited moves that got the Phillies tight and apprehensive of the move he was surely going to make. The funny thing was — the fans were excited. The Phillies fans, who had the worst reputation in the majors (well-deserved) and were regularly obnoxious — they came alive. It didn’t matter that he was the other team’s man. He was so alive, so totally into making something happen, so filled with the spirit of play at its highest level, that everyone responded. It was almost anti-climactic when he executed perfectly, got the jump, sprinted to the base, and made a perfect slide. And he did it again. Everybody knew he would. And he did. And the Phillies fans, the champion boo-birds of baseball, gave him cheers and applause. I saw a lot of great baseball moments. I was in Yankee Stadium with my grandfather in 1964 when Mickey Mantle hit a walk-off homerun to beat the Cardinals in Game Four of the World Series. In 1960, I had just run in from the school bus to turn on the TV and see Bill Mazeroski stride to the plate in the bottom of the 9th inning of Game Seven of the World Series, score all tied. I was as ecstatic as the Pittsburgh crowd when his legendary blast sank the mighty Yankees. I would see my favorite ballplayer, Stan the Man Musial, and experience his graciousness when he sent me an autographed picture signed to me (there’s another story there). (READ MORE: Willie Mays, the Game’s Greatest, RIP) But in that first baseball summer, the one who worked the enduring magic was Willie Mays. The pure joy and energy that he brought to his job taught a life lesson that I had little idea I was learning back then. Excellence speaks for itself. But it never speaks louder than when it is accomplished through contagious joy. When you see that, you don’t forget it. Thanks for the gift, Willie. I’ll do my best to pass it on. The post Willie’s Joy Was Contagious appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Throughout history, there have been occasional castration cults. The Heaven’s Gate cult in America believed that their “core beings” would ascend to “the next level” into a comet after they committed suicide, some members first choosing to be castrated. The Skoptsy in Russia practiced castration and mastectomy to eliminate sexual lust. There was castration in the Aravan cult. In India, the Tritiya Prakriti refers to both self-castration and homosexuality while in ancient times, the priests of Cybele castrated themselves. It is not an exaggeration to state that these professionals don’t know what the hell they’re doing. The present-day transgender movement is also a castration cult. The difference between the past and present cults is that the latter (a) uses chemical poisoning as well as physical mutilation, and, (b)  the main focus of converts is children, with schools being a recruitment ground. (READ MORE from Armando Simón: Is Illegal Immigration the ‘Great Replacement’?) The victims have mounted. From the media’s silence on people with transgender regret and the constant promotion of gender dysphoria transitioning, one would think that all transgenders are happy and well-adjusted because they changed genders. The truth is otherwise. Many persons who have gone through the procedure have subsequently regretted it. Some have retaliated against the quacks. And one study found that suicides by transgenders were higher than those individuals with gender dysphoria who had not transitioned. Remember that the same people who told us the Covid-19 virus would kill millions of otherwise healthy people, promised the “vaccine” was safe and would prevent contagion, shut down schools though children were immune, and put the country under house arrest, are the very same people who now insist transgender women are really women, support biological men competing against women in sports, encourage children to submit to sexual mutilation, and persecute and fire those who voice dissent. And just as the media promoted the lies and enforced censorship around the Covid fiasco, it has promoted the transgender cult and censored uncomfortable facts and views because it is “hate speech.” Any dissent from the cult’s ideology, as in a book, is  considered to be “violent” and must be censored. Regardless, medical malpractice is rampant in the field of “gender affirmation.” For years, pro-transgender children and their neurotic parents were told that puberty blockers had no harmful side effects. This is wrong. In the UK, as a result of the recent Cass Review, the NHS has banned puberty blockers for children. Yet, as journalist Suzanne Moore points out, “Nothing that Cass said has not been voiced before: the whistle-blowers, the detransitioners, the clinicians who left in droves let us know.” I wrote the very same thing years ago. Nor were we the only ones. As an anonymous person simply put it, “It does not take a study to KNOW this is WRONG.” Even Bill Maher pointed out the insanity of the transgender cult. As a result of the Cass Review, Belgium, Holland, England, Finland, France, Switzerland, and Scotland quickly put the brakes on puberty blockers. Not America. Which brings to mind Gad Saad’s observation: “I am amazed at people’s unwillingness to deviate from their original anchored position even if I drown you in evidence to the contrary.” But it gets worse. Much worse. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)  has for years been consulted by the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and individual doctors in the UK and Canada. Internal documents and tapes have revealed its members promoting unethical practices. Its foundation is solidly pseudoscientific, and its members are obsessed with “activism” (a polite way of saying progressive propaganda). Experimental sexual mutilation of children and those with mental disorders as well as the absence of customary informed consent is commonplace. Common also is the medical staff’s dismissal of the presence of psychological disorders, including psychosis, the minimizing of adverse effects of “gender affirming” procedures (i.e., sexual mutilations and puberty blockers), the admission of the absence of long term studies, and the euphemisms used to make the surgeries palatable to minors. It is not an exaggeration to state that these professionals don’t know what the hell they’re doing — but they are happy doing it. Mutilating children, apparently, makes them feel good. Here is a description of a procedure given by Dr. Alex Laungani, a Canadian plastic surgeon, in a closed-to-the-public presentation in September 2022 hosted by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH): It’s a lot to ask, for your body to have the vaginal cavity obliterated, the vaginal mucosa removed, the urethra lengthened, the phalloplasty done with the flap transposed, and then to do everything and then put the penile implant and all that.” More: “It would be a massive rate of infection, it would be more urinary complications, so we stage everything. We do the phallus first, then we work on the urinary tract, and then we do the implants last.” (READ MORE: This Should Be Feminists’ Worst Nightmare) In H. G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau, a group of scientists rearrange wild animals’ anatomies to eradicate their true nature and remake them into humans. This vivisection is what is going on in Canada and America. The rest of the world is saying, “No, thanks.” Armando Simón is a trilingual native of Cuba, a retired psychologist and the author of The Book of Many Books and Fables from the Americas. The post Transgender ‘Care’ in North America: The Island of Dr. Moreau appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Peak Prosperity: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Under democrat control NYC is a war zone! https://t.co/f1OOdvYrEV — Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) June 23, 2024

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: COMMENT: Marty: Hello from the UK across the pond. Nigel Farage has come out and said what you have been reporting all along – that the West started this war. You can certainly tell you are friends. REPLY: It is interesting how little intelligence exists in the mainstream media. There are just […]