Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 103

US proposes ‘bridge’ plan to extend Gaza ceasefire

US special envoy Steve Witikoff

This comes amid heightened tensions between “Israel” and Hamas, as the occupation’s ban on aid entering Gaza enters its 10th day, and as “Israel” refuses to move on to the second phase of the ceasefire deal.

The United States has put forward a “bridge” proposal aimed at extending the ceasefire in Gaza through April, beyond Ramadan and Passover, to provide additional time for negotiating a permanent end to the war, the White House announced in a statement on Friday.

According to a statement from their offices, the proposal was presented on Wednesday by US special envoy Steve Witkoff and National Security Council official Eric Trager.

The White House accused Hamas of making “entirely impractical demands” and stalling a deal that would see the extension of the ceasefire in Gaza in return for the release of a US-Israeli captive.

“Hamas is making a very bad bet that time is on its side. It is not,” said the statement.

“Hamas is well aware of the deadline, and should know that we will respond accordingly if that deadline passes,” it pointed out, emphasizing Trump’s previous vows that Hamas would “pay a severe price” for not releasing the captives.

The statement indicated that “Hamas was told in no uncertain terms that this ‘bridge’ would have to be implemented soon- and that dual US-Israeli citizen Edan Alexander would have to be released immediately,” adding, “Unfortunately, Hamas has chosen to respond by publicly claiming flexibility while privately making demands that are entirely impractical without a permanent ceasefire.”

The Palestinian group announced earlier on Friday that it was prepared to release an Israeli-American captive along with the remains of four others, following the resumption of indirect Gaza ceasefire talks with “Israel”.

This closely follows direct talks between Hamas and the United States, where the US envoy to Hamas Adam Boehler said his meetings with Hamas were “very helpful,” as “Israel” tightens its siege on Gaza.

Senior Hamas official Taher al-Nono told Reuters on March 9 that recent meetings between Hamas leaders and US captives negotiator Adam Boehler have primarily focused on the release of an American-Israeli dual national held by the group in Gaza.

Al-Nono, political advisor to the leader of Hamas, confirmed the direct talks with the US, noting that they had occurred over the past week in the Qatari capital, Doha.

“Several meetings have already taken place in Doha, focusing on releasing one of the dual-nationality prisoners. We have dealt positively and flexibly, in a way that serves the interests of the Palestinian people,” al-Nono pointed out.

He further explained that both sides had also addressed how to implement the phased agreement aimed at ending the war on Gaza.

“We informed the American delegation that we don’t oppose the release of the prisoner within the framework of these talks,” the Palestinian official noted.

Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, emphasized last week that securing the release of Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old from New Jersey believed to be the last remaining American captive held by Hamas in Gaza, was a “top priority”.

Alexander, who served as a soldier in the Israeli occupation military, has been in captivity since the outbreak of the war.

On March 8, “Israel” and Hamas indicated they were preparing for the next phase of ceasefire talks, with mediators working to extend the fragile 42-day truce that began in January.

On March 9, “Israel’s” Energy Minister, Eli Cohen, announced that he had instructed the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to cease electricity sales to Gaza, a move he claimed was aimed at pressuring Hamas to release captives.

However, the measure is unlikely to have an immediate impact, as “Israel” had already cut off the power supply to Gaza at the start of the war. It could, however, affect a wastewater treatment plant currently relying on the supply.

Al-Nono praised Witkoff for his significant role in securing the ceasefire agreement on January 19 that brought an end to the war on Gaza.

“We hope that he (Witkoff) will work to succeed in the negotiation of the second phase,” he concluded.

[…]

Via https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/us-proposes–bridge–plan-to-extend-gaza-ceasefire

Iran, Russia, China discuss Tehran’s nuclear programme at Beijing meeting

Al Jazeera

Diplomats from Iran, Russia and China are meeting in Beijing for talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme that could lead to negotiations following years of delay.

Beijing said the three countries hope to find a “diplomatic” solution to Iran’s nuclear issue, Chinese state media reported on Friday.

“In the current situation, we believe that all parties should maintain calm and restraint to avoid escalating the Iran nuclear situation, or even walking towards confrontation and conflict,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters before the meeting.

The meeting was attended by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who “exchanged views on the Iran nuclear issue and other issues of common concern,” according to Chinese media.

Donald Trump, a year into his first term as United States president in 2018, withdrew from a landmark pact Iran reached in 2015 with the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union, in which Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

Tehran continued to abide by the terms of the deal – which was considered a milestone for the administration of then-US President Barack Obama – but began slowly rolling back its commitments after Trump ended the deal.

The meeting in Beijing between the three diplomats follows a series of overtures from Trump since his return to the White House in January to resume nuclear talks with Tehran.

The US president this week sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for new talks but also warning that the US was within its rights to take military action against the country’s nuclear programme.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded that he would not negotiate with the US while being “threatened”, and Iran would not bow to US “orders” to talk.

Iran was further enraged after six of the United Nations Security Council’s 15 members – the US, France, Greece, Panama, South Korea and the United Kingdom – held a closed-door meeting this week to discuss its nuclear programme. Tehran said the meeting was a “misuse” of the UN Security Council.

Separately on Friday, Iran also slammed the US for “hypocrisy” after Washington announced new sanctions targeting its oil minister, saying they were “another clear proof of the falsity of these statements and another sign of its hostility to development”.

Ayatollah Khamenei maintains Tehran does not have or want nuclear weapons, but a recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was close to the requirements for a nuclear bomb.

[…]

Via https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/14/iran-russia-china-discuss-tehrans-nuclear-programme-at-beijing-meeting

Trump’s protectionism: Unprecedented aberration or a return to the ‘American System’?

Raphael Machado The fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.

Beyond the Ukrainian issue and the criticism of illegal immigration, the other main hallmark of Trumpism is the defense of protectionist economic measures as tools for reindustrialization, job creation, and the recovery of economic prosperity.

In concrete terms, since taking office, Donald Trump has made numerous promises to impose higher customs tariffs—and has indeed begun implementing some. The U.S. has imposed a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports (with exemptions for shipments under $800), as well as a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports.

It is well known that these tariffs will result in higher prices for American consumers—and the risk of shortages of certain products cannot be ignored—but in theory, these tariffs will serve as an incentive for American businesses to invest in the production of many goods that are currently imported. It is worth recalling that the U.S. was an industrial nation until the neoliberal era ushered in by Reagan, when the phenomenon of factories relocating to the Third World transformed American society into one centered on consumption and services.

In light of this scenario, many objections to American protectionism have been raised, particularly from the establishment of academic economists, staunch believers in “free markets.” However, despite the U.S. having established itself as the ideological pillar of liberalism, in the economic sphere, it has frequently resorted to protectionism as a tool to safeguard domestic industries.

One of the first protectionist measures in the country’s history, for example, was the Tariff of 1789, enacted during George Washington’s presidency. This tariff, which imposed duties on the importation of foreign goods, primarily aimed to generate revenue for the federal government but also served to protect nascent U.S. industries from British competition. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was one of the main advocates of protectionism during this period. Hamilton argued that the government should adopt policies to promote industrialization, including protective tariffs, subsidies, and investments in infrastructure.

This economic perspective came to be known as Hamiltonianism, and it was so successful that it influenced the German economist Friedrich List to develop his own nationalist economic theory, which in turn influenced Bismarckian industrialization.

Throughout the 19th century, protectionism became a central policy of the U.S., particularly during the period known as the “Era of American Systems.” Henry Clay, one of the leading political figures of the time, advocated for an economic system that combined protective tariffs, infrastructure investments, and a national bank to strengthen the U.S. economy.

The Tariff of 1816 was a significant milestone in this process. It established higher rates on imported manufactured goods, especially textiles and iron, to protect domestic industries. This tariff was followed by other protectionist measures, such as the Tariff of 1828, known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” which further increased import duties. Although controversial, this tariff reflected the growing support for protectionism in the industrialized North, in contrast to the opposition from the agricultural South, which relied on cheap imports and cotton exports.

During the Civil War (1861-1865), protectionism intensified. The federal government, dominated by Northern Republicans, passed a series of high tariffs to finance the war effort and protect Northern industries. After the war, protectionism remained a central policy, with tariffs such as the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which raised import duties to record levels.

In the early 20th century, protectionism continued to be a defining feature of U.S. economic policy. While the Payne-Aldrich Tariff maintained high rates, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff, passed during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, reduced some tariffs, reflecting a temporary trend toward free trade.

However, protectionism returned with force after World War I. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 raised import duties to protect U.S. industries from post-war European competition. This tariff was followed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, one of the highest in U.S. history.

It was particularly from Roosevelt’s presidency onward, and even more so after World War II, that the discourse of free trade began to dominate unequivocally in the U.S. By then, however, U.S. industry was already in a sufficiently advantageous position compared to most of its competitors and could afford to lower trade barriers.

What this historical reflection demonstrates, however, is that Trump’s economic protectionism has roots in the very history of U.S. development and is not an invention, even if protectionism is dismissed as “heterodox” by the liberal economists who dominate this sector in the academic establishment.

Trump’s objective is twofold: 1) To convince foreign companies that depend on the U.S. market to relocate production units to the country to avoid dealing with import tariffs; 2) To create a favorable environment (by reducing competition with foreign companies) for the establishment of American businesses that can undertake import substitution in numerous sectors.

All these objectives are rational, and tariffs are a historically used tool to achieve them, but they rarely work alone. Typically, they are accompanied by other measures, such as subsidies for sectors that are intended to be promoted. Conversely, many state subsidies are under scrutiny in the Trump administration, including those directed at the strategic semiconductor sector. In this sense, it is possible that the results of Trump’s tariff policy will not be as significant as those achieved by 19th-century presidents.

From outside the U.S., however, where many countries will be targeted by higher tariffs, this new trend could be advantageous insofar as it will force various countries around the world to rely less on their trade relations with the U.S., reinforcing the multipolar transition. Simultaneously, the fact that the core of liberalism is now adopting protectionist economic measures also represents a significant ideological blow to the liberal elites of countries affected by imperialism and international capitalist exploitation.

[…]

Via https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/03/15/trump-protectionism-unprecedented-aberration-or-return-to-american-system/

Amish children in NY face compulsory vaccination as court crushes religious freedom

St Vincent Times

In a chilling blow to religious freedom, Amish children in New York are now being forced to receive vaccinations against their families’ deeply held beliefs—under threat of massive fines and exclusion from their own private schools.

The ruling, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 3, 2025, marks a dark milestone in government overreach, stripping one of America’s most peaceful religious communities of their constitutional rights.

The Amish, known for their steadfast commitment to faith and self-sufficiency, have long resisted government-mandated medical interventions. For centuries, they have lived apart from modern society, rejecting outside interference in their way of life.

But under New York’s repeal of religious exemptions—a law pushed through in the wake of a 2019 measles outbreak—the Amish were given an impossible choice: violate their conscience by vaccinating their children or face crippling financial penalties and educational exile.

And now, the state has made its position brutally clear. Reports indicate that Amish families and schools have already been hit with fines totaling $118,000 for refusing to comply.

The Second Circuit’s ruling dismissed Amish objections, arguing that the repeal of religious exemptions is “neutral” and applies to all children, regardless of whether they attend public, private, or parochial schools. The court insisted that the law serves a compelling public health interest—despite carving out medical exemptions for those with a doctor’s note while denying the same protection to those with religious objections.

This double standard is glaring. The Amish aren’t asking for special treatment—they’re simply asking to be left alone to live by their faith, a right the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

Reaction to the ruling has been swift and furious. Social media has erupted with outrage, with posts on X calling it a “horrific violation of basic freedoms.” One user warned, “If they can force this on the Amish, no one’s rights are safe.” Another pointed out the hypocrisy: “New York claims it’s about safety, but they’ll let unvaccinated kids in with a doctor’s note—just not a prayer.”

This sentiment underscores a growing concern that the crackdown on religious exemptions is part of a broader effort to erode individual liberties under the guise of public health. Several states, including California, Connecticut, and Maine, have already followed New York’s lead, stripping away religious exemptions in recent years.

The targeting of the Amish is particularly egregious given their insular lifestyle. Unlike large urban communities, Amish schools are small, private, and community-run, posing minimal risk of mass disease outbreaks. Their estimated 25,000 residents in New York live largely apart from mainstream society, making the state’s public health justification for forced vaccination appear flimsy at best.

Despite this, New York officials have leaned on the 2018-2019 measles outbreak—primarily centered in other unvaccinated groups—to justify steamrolling the Amish’s rights. Critics argue this is a manufactured excuse, with the state choosing heavy-handed enforcement rather than reasonable alternatives, such as voluntary vaccination campaigns.

A Legal Precedent with Dangerous Consequences

Legal experts warn that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent. The Amish had based their challenge on Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), a Supreme Court case that upheld their right to exempt their children from compulsory high school education on religious grounds. But the Second Circuit brushed aside these arguments, claiming that mandatory vaccinations do not fundamentally alter the Amish way of life in the same way.

That reasoning, however, ignores a crucial reality: forcing a child to receive a medical intervention against their parents’ religious beliefs is a direct assault on their autonomy and identity.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with 19 other states, had filed a legal brief supporting the Amish, denouncing New York’s actions as harassment against a group that “wants only to live out their faith amongst themselves.” He warned that the state’s penalties—including reports of threats to seize Amish school property—are blatant violations of First Amendment protections. The court’s refusal to acknowledge these concerns only adds to the growing outrage.

This ruling isn’t just about public health—it’s about government control. By steamrolling religious communities into compliance, the state is setting a precedent that could soon be used against anyone who dares to defy its mandates.

This case is far from settled. Legal challenges are already in motion, and calls for Supreme Court intervention are growing louder. But one thing is clear: the Amish are now on the front lines of the battle for religious freedom in America.

Their quiet resilience in the face of tyranny is a stark reminder that when the government tramples on one group’s rights, it’s only a matter of time before it comes for the rest of us.

AOC, Sanders tell supporters to mask up for West Coast townhalls

By Deirdre Heavey Fox News

The RSVP for events in Denver and Las Vegas includes guidance that ‘masks are advised for all attendees of this event’

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said the U.S. has become an “oligarchic society” while responding to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint Congress on Tuesday evening. (Credit: Senator Bernie Sanders)

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., are taking the “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies out West next week – and advising supporters to mask up to participate.

Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox News Digital can confirm that the RSVP for the events in Denver and Las Vegas includes guidance that “masks are advised for all attendees of this event.”

A post shared by conservative podcaster Stephen L. Miller on Friday about the Denver event had many wondering why masks would be advised for an outdoor event in 2025.

Sanders did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s inquiry about the mask guidance.

“Sent from a friend. Bernie’s speaking tour is advising everyone in attendance to wear masks. This is an outdoor event,” the X post said, accompanied by a screenshot of the RSVP.

“Still trying the Covid panic politics,” the top comment said.

“Was this from the year 2020?” a content creator asked.

But another reply countered: “They don’t want the paid attendees found out.”

The reactions to the post are split, with many people online dumbfounded by the need for masks exactly five years after the COVID-19 pandemic forced shutdowns and social distancing.

Others speculated that the masks are a way to protect attendees’ identities. Masks are a common practice to protect protesters’ identities at large demonstrations, like the pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University this past year.

However, Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” events are not protests. Events in the Blue Wall states of Michigan and Wisconsin last weekend operated like a traditional campaign rally, with thousands of supporters lining up to earn a spot inside to hear the headline speaker.

Sanders announced the West Coast leg of his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Ocasio-Cortez in a social media video on Friday. The progressives will make stops in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado “to hold town meetings with working people who are profoundly disgusted with what is going on in Washington, D.C.”

“Nevada, Colorado, Arizona: You deserve public servants who show up for you. The time is now to protect the public good, advance healthcare and living wages for all, and fight against corruption. See you next week,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Friday.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the political campaign committee tasked with electing more Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives, advised against town halls following a series of protest disruptions fueled by Democrats’ discontent with President Donald Trump’s second term.

Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., began his own slew of town hall events in Republican-held congressional districts on Friday, saying if a Republican representative refused to meet with their constituents, then he would “lend a megaphone” to them.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced on Friday a revised organized effort alongside the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Association of State Democratic Committees (ASDC) and Democrat state parties to host town halls in Republican-held districts.

“Republicans in Congress know they sold out their voters by backing the Trump-Musk agenda – and now they’re terrified to be in the same room as the people who sent them to Washington,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement on Friday.

“Instead of facing their constituents, they’re running scared and hiding from the people they were elected to represent. If they won’t talk to their own voters, then Democrats will. That’s why we’ll be hosting People’s Town Halls in all 50 states across the country, starting now with vulnerable GOP-held target districts. Working families deserve to have their voices heard, even if Republicans want to ignore them,” Martin added.

The NRCC said the protests that shut down Republicans’ town hall meetings were “manufactured productions.” Fox News Digital reported last month about the coordinated effort by progressive groups protesting the Department of Government Efficiency.

MoveOn.org, which has accepted millions of dollars from billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Policy Center, announced in a press release last month that it was mobilizing resources as part of a “Congress Works for Us, Not Musk” initiative “aimed at pressuring lawmakers to fight back against the Trump-Musk agenda” at Republican town halls and offices.

In addition to the mask guidance, the flier for next Friday’s event with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez includes typical safety precautions for large public events, including a request for anyone not feeling well to stay home.”Please note: no bags, signs, or firearms are allowed. Masks are advised for all attendees of this event. Anyone experiencing a fever or other symptoms of COVID-19 is asked to stay home and not attend,” it says on the RSVP. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ended their travel mask mandate on April 18, 2022.

According to the CDC’s website, masks are still “recommended in indoor public transportation settings” and “people may choose to mask at any time.”

The website advises people who are at medium to high risk of getting very sick to wear a mask or “consider avoiding non-essential indoor activities in public where you could be exposed.”

While the CDC has maintained that masking can reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, other studies since the pandemic have brought into question the efficacy of wearing a mask.

[…]

Via https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-tell-supporters-mask-up-ahead-fighting-oligarchy-tour

 

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights? The Founding Fathers Thought So

Ryan McMaken

Columbia University student and legal US resident, Mahmoud Khalil, was arrested last week by federal agents. Although Khalil is a legal resident with a green card, and has not even been accused of any immigration-related infraction, he is being held at an immigration detention center.

The Trump administration has hinted that Khalil is guilty of some sort of non-specific “terrorist” activity, but Khalil has yet to be charged with any crime at all. Indeed, when House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked at a recent press conference what crime Khalil had committed, he couldn’t name one.

Rather, as the AP reported yesterday, “The Department of Homeland Security said Khalil was taken into custody as a result of Trump’s executive orders prohibiting antisemitism.” No specific act of violence, theft, vandalism, or fraud is named.

So, here’s the situation: a legal resident of the United States, who has not been convicted of any crime, or even facing any charges, is now in a holding cell until government agents can come up with a “crime” that they think they can get past a federal judge.

Do Non-Citizens Have Constitutional Rights?

Whatever one may conclude in the recent debate over illegal aliens—and whether or not those people have a right of due process—no one disputes that Khalil is a legal resident. Moreover, he’s a green card holder and permanent resident, and not just a visa holder.

So, does Khalil have a legal right to due process in the United States? Can the administration simply pack him off to jail because the president wishes it?

The Trump administration and its supporters have long labored under the false notion that non-citizens do not have full legal rights under the US constitution. In this, they reflect the views of Dick Cheney and other politicians of the era of the “Global War on Terror” when the executive state was forever searching for new ways to justify spying on American citizens and expanding the police state.

This idea, however, has no grounding in text of the Bill of Rights or in the thinking of American “founders” influenced by Thomas Jefferson and other opponents of a strong central American state. David Cole writes in the Thomas Jefferson Law Review:

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all “persons.” The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to “the accused.” And both the First Amendment’s protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy and liberty apply to “the people.” The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. The Court has repeatedly stated that “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. …

When noncitizens, no matter what their status, are tried for crimes, they are entitled to all of the rights that attach to the criminal process, without any distinction based on their nationality. There are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of these fundamental rights. As James Madison himself argued, those subject to the obligations of our legal system ought to be entitled to its protections.

This idea is clearly represented in the text of the Bill of Rights itself. Historian Wang Xi notes:

It is also important to note that the word “citizen” or “citizens” was not used at all in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791. The Bill of Rights used “people” five times and “person”/“persons” four times. The implication is clear: the fundamental rights to be protected here were not the rights to be granted to citizens but rights that had belonged to people before citizenship was created. These rights were beyond the reach of the (federal) government.

This last sentence is key and illustrates an important philosophical and ideological reason why the Bill of Rights rightly applies to all persons, and not only to citizens. Rights can only truly be “beyond the reach” of the federal government if they are assumed to not be voidable by the US government. If rights can be voided by revoking or denying citizenship, then federal government enjoys a big loophole when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

The early framers recognized this, and since the Bill of Rights was designed specifically by the anti-federalists to limit federal power, this disconnect between rights and citizenship helped ensure that the federal government could not do an end run around rights by simply declaring that a person was not a citizen. (Notably, in the early decades of the constitution, it was the states, not the federal government, that determined citizenship, further limiting federal power.)

This all makes perfect sense when we recognize that citizenship and natural rights are two completely different things. Citizenship is an administrative status that has no meaning outside of administrative government. “Rights,” understood as property rights or natural rights, pre-date the state and exist separate from it. True property rights are natural, and if rights are natural in their origin—i.e., people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, to use Jefferson’s phrase—then rights cannot be denied based on one’s citizenship status.

The Current Hysteria Mirrors that behind the Alien and Sedition Acts

In the centuries since the Bill of Rights was written, however, the federal government has become far more powerful than it was in the 1790s. The federal government—usually motivated by fears over “insurrectionists” and foreign threats—has invented for itself many ways that it can get around the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, those who favored an expanded federal state almost immediately set to work giving the federal government new powers to be used against resident aliens. This can be seen in the Federalist Party’s support of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the John Adams administration. The Federalists routinely played up domestic fears about French revolutionary involvement in the United States, and used this as justification for new laws allowing the President vast new powers to deport alleged enemies of the state and to silence critics. This was justified on the idea that foreign agents were undermining the United States government somehow, and therefore resident aliens ought to be stripped of their natural rights. As a result, many enemies of the Adams regime were arrested and deported, Some were even imprisoned in the United States.

Fortunately, the Jeffersonians came to power in 1801 and allowed most of the provisions of the acts to expire. For decades afterward, the federal government remained extremely limited in its powers to deny property rights based on citizenship or claims of “insurrection.” It was not until the aftermath of the US Civil War, with newly invented political crimes like “sedition,” that the Federal government was again able to significantly expand its prosecutions of alleged foreign agents. These federal powers were again greatly expanded with the widespread xenophobia that prevailed during the two World Wars.

Property Rights versus the Fake “Crime” of Federally Defined Antisemitism

The current administration’s efforts to void property rights for non-citizens is especially troubling given the political nature of the alleged crimes of Khalil. On Monday, federal official claimed Khalil was arrested to enforce the White House’s new order on “antisemitism.” On Tuesday, however, officials were claiming that Khalil was arrested for some sort of terrorism because Khalil had facilitated the distribution of “pro-Hamas propaganda.”

Either way, it seems the federal government plans to charge Khalil with some vague antisemitism charge or with the “crime” of saying pro-Hamas things. It’s hard to imagine two “crimes” that are less permissible under an honest reading of the First Amendment.

First of all, the new “crime” of antisemitism, invented by the president’s recent executive order, is nothing more than the sort of “hate crime” law that Conservatives used to revile. The president’s order says that discriminating against Jews or engaging in crimes that target Jews are a special kind of crime. Conservatives used to mock this sort of thing and rightly so. First of all, if Jewish students on campuses have been physically assaulted or their property vandalized, then the people who commit those crimes should be prosecuted for assault and vandalism. Vandalism and assault are already illegal. Moreover, “discrimination” isn’t a real crime if it doesn’t involve some sort of physical violence, fraud, or theft. Not liking a person because he or she is a member of a certain group is illogical and distasteful, but it has never been an actual violation of property rights. Non-violent “discrimination” is simply another term for “free association.”

Specific threats against the safety of any person—whether Jewish or not—are already crimes. There is no need of a special antisemitism law. Of course, the administration knows that acts of violence and vandalism are already illegal. The real purpose of the executive order is to crack down on protests against the State of Israel and virtually everyone knows this. It is clear that Khalil’s real “crime” is criticizing the State of Israel, and Trump has said as much, singling out anti-Israel protests as the only sort of protest for targeting in his executive order. If Khalil had protested anything other than the State of Israel, he’d be a free man right now.

Nor is it a real crime—i.e., a violation of property rights—to say things in support of some alleged terrorist organization. The very idea of such a thing would have struck most conscientious Americans as despotic in the extreme throughout most of the nineteenth century.

For many supporters of the administration, the fact that federal agents have arrested Khalil is enough to establish his guilt and revoke his rights. No due process is necessary. And, apparently, its not even necessary that Khalil commit any actual crimes against person or property. It’s enough that he’s a person the administration doesn’t like. So deportation awaits.

[…]

Via https://mises.org/mises-wire/do-non-citizens-have-constitutional-rights-founding-fathers-thought-so

President Trump’s Tariffs: A New Golden Age For American Aluminum Workers

Zero Hedge

President Donald Trump specialized in shattering conventional wisdom and challenging the status quo on his road to the White House in 2016. To this day, our president believes Americans are getting ripped off by unfair trade practices where country after country has gotten comfortable taking advantage of the United States due to our unparalleled generosity and wealth. So, he’s focused like a laser beam on fair trade and leveling the playing field so our manufacturing workers can compete with foreign competitors and prosper. President Trump has declared that by implementing targeted tariffs on foreign countries that hurt American workers, “our country will be extremely liquid and rich again.”

Having served as President Trump’s deputy campaign manager in 2016 and as an advisor to his campaigns in 2020 and 2024, I was delighted to see him reelected in 2024 with a huge mandate to fight for our manufacturing sector and usher in a “Golden Age” in America. Make no mistake, our 45th and 47th president is determined to finish the revolution on American trade policy that he began by fixing the mistakes of the Biden-Harris years and strengthening Section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel.

As part of the shock-and-awe action of his first one hundred days in office, President Trump signed new proclamations to bolster the fair-trade policy introduced during his historic first term in office. By elevating tariffs to 25% on aluminum and restoring the 25% levy on steel, the Trump administration is making clear that they have the backs of thousands of American aluminum and steel workers and are resolute in their mission to create a multitude of new manufacturing jobs.

While the globalists in the economic establishment and mainstream media react to targeted tariffs with their customary Trump-deranged hysteria, American manufacturers reacted with both joy and relief because President Trump is making good on another campaign promise. It must be repeated again and again – because the fake news media refuses to tell the truth – that this president supports robust trade, but it must be trade that is fair and reciprocal. This is the linchpin of the policy.

Under the “America Last” mindset of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, foreign countries were free to exploit loopholes in Section 232 to flood the domestic aluminum and steel industry with cheap products. Canada, Mexico, Australia, and Argentina locked arms with D.C. swamp creatures to secure exclusions and exemptions, to the detriment of American workers. Australia’s aluminum exports into the U.S. have increased sharply and at the same time China and Russia have used loopholes to move aluminum through Mexico and Canada to flood our market. As a result of foreign countries cheating, Alcoa announced the permanent closing of its smelter in Washington State. Other closures have included a Century Aluminum plant in Kentucky, which idled production in 2022, and Magnitude 7 Metals in Missouri, which was forced to close in 2024. 

Many globalists claim that the aluminum tariffs will raise costs for consumers. This is the same stale argument we heard in the first Trump administration; it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. The tariffs didn’t impact the amount of steel or aluminum consumed, didn’t weaken the economy, and didn’t cause massive job losses. Conversely, capacity utilization for aluminum increased during President Trump’s first term and now major investments in the steel industry have been announced. While some globalist companies attack President Trump’s targeted tariffs, some are telling their investors that “if all countries are getting a tariff, the impact for us is zero.” And while some globalist leaders who own aluminum smelters in Canada attack President Trump’s 25% tariff, the reality is that he was elected to bring back good-paying manufacturing jobs to American plants, and this is a commitment he plans to keep. As President Trump has said time and time again, America is done subsidizing Canada and the rest of the world.

Aluminum and steel manufacturing are critical to America’s defense industrial base. Continued dependence on foreign suppliers leaves us vulnerable and jeopardizes our national security interests. President Trump is putting America first, which means a do-it-all, do-it-now policy supporting domestic manufacturing, no more loopholes, no more exemptions, and no more of the failed Biden agenda. America’s “Golden Age” will only be achieved if we have a strong and stable industrial base. President Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs will help save America and make our country great again.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/political/president-trumps-tariffs-new-golden-age-american-aluminum-workers

BIRD FLU SCAM: Neither CANADA nor MEXICO Have Killed a Single Chicken Due to Bird Flu Because Mysteriously Bird Flu DOES NOT CROSS BORDERS

S D Wells

Beware of the Chicken Flu, also known as “Bird Flu,” that only happens in America because the chickens don’t have passports to travel to Canada or Mexico. No worries about the USDA or FDA visiting your chicken farm in those countries to kill off all your chickens that might have gain-of-function Fauci Chicken Flu, because it’s just an American thing right now. The Biden Regime somehow still has influence over the poultry industrial complex, and his cronies at the CDC are still pushing the sheeple to get jacked up with some neuro-destroying dirty jabs for “Bird Flu.”

It was all about decimating the food supply and driving egg prices through the roof, while fearmongering about another pandemic while injecting the masses with toxic chemicals that cause infertility, blood clots, and turbo cancer. Got questions about Bird Flu? Fake news has answers for you.

Oh yes. NBC fearmongering news would have us all believe that the only way to stop bird flu is to kill off all the diseased birds. Got to “wrangle in” that plandemic, just like Covid. Put all the birds on lockdown and mask them up ‘til we can flatten out the curve, right Fauci?

Yes, according to “federal policy,” when a bird flu “outbreak” is identified, ALL the birds must be culled. Same goes for humans, but with humans, when an “outbreak” of a lab-made virus is identified, all humans must be “culled” using mRNA jabs, kidney-killing Remdesivir, and death-in-4-days ventilators.

Bird Flu doesn’t seem to be able to cross the border in Mexico or Canada because the chickens can’t fly over Trump’s border wall

There has to be a logical reason the U.S. Bird Flu plandemic can’t seem to cross the border, and no other bordering countries have killed a single bird to have to save all the humans from sure death. Maybe Trump’s wall is too tall?

What other explanation could there be? Conspiracy theories are whirling around like a busted screen door in a hurricane. According to NBC news, “It seems like another battle keeps popping up day after day,” said Andrew Bowman, some so-called influenza “expert” (pharma shill) at Ohio State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. “I really hate saying ‘unprecedented,’ but it sure feels different than anything before.”

Sure Drew, it’s unprecedented, like nothing anyone has ever seen before. The Biden Regime killed off billions of chickens without any proof there was a breakout of Bird Flu. It was all hearsay. Which came first, the sick chicken or the gain-of-function leak from a Wuhan lab?

Is it safe to buy chickens and eggs? Are the chickens hooking up with the cows like bestiality trannies and spreading the disease to the cows? Maybe the cows are sick and Americans should stop drinking milk. If you see something, say something. Meanwhile, the FDA continues to recommend cooking your $10 egg until both the yolk and white harden to a crisp, just to be sure. Ready for that gain-of-function, avian influenza egg and cheese omelet? No?

Wait, there’s more fearmongering from fake news. Professors of medicine at pharma-funded universities across the U.S. claim, “Birds that have avian influenza die and they’re sick and they don’t lay eggs,” and “That’s where the virus is in the dairy cows,” said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, who is paid big bucks to study infectious diseases.

[…]

Via https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-13-neither-canada-nor-mexico-have-killed-chicken.html

Judge orders Trump to reinstate probationary employees

Image Source.

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

In a ruling today that was largely expected by legal analysts, but greatly upset MAGA Trump supporters, a federal judge has ruled that the firing of federal employees by the Trump Administration was illegal, allowing up to 24,000 federal employees to return to work.

Because the judge was a Bill Clinton appointee, the MAGA crowd called “foul!” and blamed the ruling on partisan politics, with many claiming that President Trump has the right to fire whomever he wants to.

But in rushing to judgment about this ruling, it is doubtful that the Trump supporters even read the judge’s ruling and the facts of the case, as Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) did not even argue this point (that Trump has a right to fire whomever he wants to), but in fact took the opposite position that Trump did not fire anyone, but instead gave “guidance” to the various agencies through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and that then the agencies themselves determined who should be fired.

The judge didn’t buy that, mainly because when he ordered the acting OMB director Charles Ezell to testify in court about this “guidance”, Trump’s legal team did not allow him to testify, and instead withdrew his “declaration” so that he did not have to testify in court and obey the judge’s summons.

The judge essentially accused the Trump Administration of lying.

A federal judge has ordered half a dozen federal agencies to “immediately” reinstate probationary employees fired last month as part of the Trump administration’s effort to rapidly shrink the federal workforce, calling the effort a “sham.”

The preliminary injunction issued from the bench Thursday by US District Judge William Alsup requires the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury to rehire the employees. The judge said that he might extend the order to cover other federal agencies at a later time.

Alsup  said he was making the ruling because he believes the Office of Personnel Management unlawfully directed the agencies earlier this year to lay off the probationary employees, who generally have been on the job for less than a year.

“The court finds that Office of Personnel Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary employees with the exception of mission critical employees,”

he said, rejecting arguments from the Justice Department that OPM merely issued “guidance” to the agencies that then led to the firings.

The judge said the order is effective immediately: “This is the order and it counts.”

The ruling came in a case brought by labor unions and others challenging OPM’s role in the firings, which affected thousands of employees and sent shockwaves through various federal agencies, some of which later rehired some of the workers.

Alsup was highly critical of the administration’s justification for firing the employees. OPM had provided agencies with a template termination letter that cited the employee’s “performance” as the reason they were being let go. But the judge said that rationale was the government’s attempt to end-run federal law setting up specific rules for reducing the federal workforce.

“The reason that OPM wanted to put this based on performance was at least in part in my judgment a gimmick to avoid the Reductions in Force Act,” the judge said.

“Because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance.”

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he added.

“That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

The decision came after Alsup unloaded on the Justice Department for not making the acting head of the Office of Personnel Management available to testify about the Trump administration’s decision to fire scores of probationary employees.

He had ordered acting OMB director Charles Ezell to testify during Thursday’s hearing, where he would likely face tough questions from attorneys representing the labor unions that are challenging his agency’s role in the firings.

But the Justice Department refused to make him available and instead withdrew a declaration Ezell submitted last month that had served as the government’s only evidence in the case.

“You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination will reveal the truth,” Alsup told DOJ attorney Kelsey Helland.

“I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.” (Source.)

[…]

In a recent interview with David Knight, Catherine Austin Fitts explains that it is easy to cut out this wasteful government spending LEGALLY, and that the current administration run by Musk Trump, has no intention of shrinking the size of government.

They just want to eliminate the public sector and move them into the private sector where they have more control over the population.

Listen to this 7-minute section from the longer interview you can find here.

It is easy to see that the agencies the Trump administration wants to eliminate in many cases are the ones investigating Musk and standing in the way of Big Tech, which is also providing all the technology for the surveillance state which we now see in Gaza and the West Bank, as these Big Tech companies, like SpaceX and Palantir, have now become rich on Government military contracts.

If Trump was truly serious about eliminating the U.S. Government debt, he could just let the federal government shut down completely, which would bring pain and suffering across the board to ALL Americans, regardless of their political biases.

But that is NOT what he wants, as is evidence from his most recent attacks against Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, who is the lone Republican in the House of Representatives who did not support the “Continuing Resolution” (CR) bill to keep funding the federal government that passed in the House yesterday.

Trump was so angry with him, that he threatened Representative Massie, stating that he would make sure he is defeated in the next primary election in his district in Kentucky.

However, Massie is far more popular than Donald Trump is in his home district, and he has been threatened before by Trump, as well as by the Israeli lobby group AIPAC, but to no avail.

In the 2024 elections, Massie got over 70% of the vote in the Republican primaries, and that was with AIPAC spending $millions to try to defeat him.

In the general election against his Democrat opponent, he won with over 99% of the vote: 278,386 to 1,130.

Massie is not going anywhere, and Trump’s attacks against him have just solidified Massie’s support and made him even more popular.

Donald Trump’s Attack on Thomas Massie Sparks Republican Pushback

President Donald Trump has received pushback from Republicans after calling for Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie to be voted out of office.

In a Monday post on Truth Social, the president said he would “lead the charge” in ousting Massie after the GOP lawmaker announced he would not support the Trump-backed government funding bill.

Massie confirmed Monday that he would not support for the short-term spending bill because it maintains federal funding at current levels without considering budget cuts overseen by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Trump later called for Massie to be ousted from office, saying he would support any challenger in a GOP primary.

Trump also compared Massie to former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, whose political career in the Republican Party collapsed after she opposed and criticized Trump for his actions surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

A number of Republican and Libertarian figures have since voiced support for Massie on social media, suggesting Trump is making a mistake by attacking the Kentucky lawmaker. (Source.)

[…]

Via https://vaccineimpact.com/2025/judge-rules-against-trumps-illegal-firing-of-federal-employees-setback-for-musks-goals-as-opposition-grows/

Why I Moved to Russia

Why I Moved to Russia

RT (2024)

Film Review

https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/599229-americans-moved-russia-life-stories/

Tofurious Maximus Crane is an independent American journalist who emigrated to Russia in 2023 because he wanted to ascertain the truth about the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine. He decided to stay after Putin liberalized immigration rules in August 2024. He interviews three other US expats about their experiences moving to Russia.

Tofurious begins by meeting with Jozef and Ann, American expats who recently moved to Russia with their six children. The couple was very concerned about gender ideology American schools were promoting without parents’ knowledge or consent. They were aware of instances where schools persuaded children as young as 12 and 13 they were the wrong gender and got them prescriptions for puberty blockers and gender altering hormones without ever notifying their parents. Joe, who is an IT manager, and Ann described feeling more relaxed in Russia, without the pervasive poverty and street violence that surrounded them in the US. Health care costs are much more reasonable in Russia and, despite sanctions, common US brands are widely available.

Jay Close was born in New York, grew up in California, and has lived in France, Australia, and Papua New Guinea. He worked as a chef for the Rolling Stones and later managed several restaurants in Moscow. At present Jay raises goats and makes heirloom cheese in the countryside near Moscow, his home for over 30 years.

Things have changed a lot since he first arrived in 1993, when the US embassy kept hassling Americans in Russia to leave. The recent US sanctions have greatly increased his business.

Tofurious also interviews Chad Hower, an American software designer and blogger granted political asylum in Russia after he refused to cooperate with the FBI in blackmailing his Russian wife’s family (who had access to classified Russian military information). He really likes Russia because there are no muggings there and no need to carry a gun.