Just as it was 67 years ago tomorrow, Jonathan Pollard’s birthday is Erev Tisha b’Av, Parashat Devarim – Shabbat Chazon. Very auspicious! I’m sure all of my readers would like to join me in wishing Yehonatan Pollard the happiest birthday of his life so far – home in Holy Yerushalayim with his dear wife, Esther.
From Tomer Devorah, here.
The justice system is rigged against the common man. It is rigged in favor of the elite.
Equality before the civil law is a thing of the past. I think it has been since about 1789. But it surely ended in 1974, when Ford pardoned Nixon.
My father was in the FBI. He was outraged. “A pardon is issued after someone is convicted. Nixon was never convicted.” I knew he was right from that point on. But I did not see the full ramifications until I read this. It ended the American tradition of equality before the law.
The Ford pardon of Nixon changed that, radically and permanently. When President Ford went on national television to explain to an angry, skeptical citizenry why the most powerful political actor would be fully immunized for the felonies he got caught committing, Ford expressly rejected the rule of law. He paid lip service to its core principle—the “law is no respecter of persons”—but then tacked on a newly concocted amendment designed to gut that principle: “but the law is a respecter of reality.”
In other words, if—in the judgment of political leaders—it’s sufficiently disruptive, divisive, or distracting to hold powerful political officials accountable under the law on equal terms with ordinary Americans, then they should be exempt and the rule of law suspended, all in the name of political harmony, of “moving on.” But of course, it will always be divisive and distracting, by definition, to prosecute the most powerful political leaders, so Ford’s rationale, predictably, created a template for elite immunity.
The author of these words, Glenn Greenwald, has just had a book published: With Liberty for Some.
The rationale for Ford’s pardon of Nixon was subsequently legitimized, and it created a precedent for shielding the most powerful elites from the consequences of their lawbreaking. The arguments Ford offered are the same ones now hauled out over and over whenever it is time to argue why the most powerful among us should not be held accountable: It’s not just for the good of the immunized criminal, but in the common good, to Look Forward, Not Backward. This direct assault on the rule of law was pioneered by the pardon of Richard Nixon.
The law now protects the law-breakers. It penalizes the whistleblowers.
3. Whistleblowers in the era of Bush and Obama have been fired, harassed, and prosecuted under statutes like the Espionage Act with a hitherto-unknown vigor, especially when their disclosures suggested that government officials committed serious crimes. Is this prosecutorial zeal driven by the same factors that have created elite immunity?
Unquestionably. Take the case of the NSA eavesdropping scandal, the clearest-cut case of criminality during the Bush years. So egregious was the wrongdoing that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing it in the New York Times. Bush officials were caught behaving in the exact way the law criminalized: eavesdropping on Americans’ communications without warrants. And the statute imposed a penalty of five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense.
Yet not a single Bush official responsible for those crimes was ever investigated, let alone prosecuted. The nation’s telecom giants, which independently broke laws written specifically to bar telecom–government cooperation in illegal spying, were retroactively immunized for their crimes by an act of Congress.
Nobody paid a price for the NSA scandal, except one person: Thomas Tamm, the mid-level DOJ lawyer who learned of the illegal program and, in an act of conscience, picked up the phone, called Lichtblau, and told him what he had learned. Unlike the criminals themselves, Tamm was investigated, harassed, rendered unemployed, forced to hire a lawyer, and ultimately driven into bankruptcy and serious psychological distress. The only person to suffer from the NSA scandal was the person who blew the whistle on it.
We see this over and over, and it’s what the Obama war on whistleblowers is all about. The only real, cognizable crime—the only one the Obama DOJ displays any real interest in punishing—is committed by those who expose elite criminality, not those who commit it.
Each new President shields his predecessor.
If anything, it’s even more unlikely that he would hold elites accountable in his second term. In November, 2008, the New York Times explained why presidents have an incentive to shield their predecessors from prosecution: “Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure.” In other words, by shielding those who came before him, Obama ensures that he can commit crimes with impunity as well. That’s why all elites—political, financial, media—are motivated to defend and preserve this lawbreaking license for their class.
The justice system is rigged. We should never forget this. The basis of liberty is an honest legal system. We no longer have one.
Continue reading on harpers.org.
Ford’s pardon is here.
From Tea Party Economist, here.
A few decades ago when I was interviewing candidates for an articling job in my law office, I met a young woman who had almost no arms, only small hands at the ends of severely shortened upper limbs. She was a victim of the drug thalidomide. The Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada says there are about a hundred such survivors still alive in Canada today, all about 60 years old now.
Thalidomide was first marketed in 1956 by a German company, Grünenthal, as an anti-flu remedy and a sedative. By 1958, it was being sold in the UK, Norway and Japan. Canada approved it in 1961, and it was even promoted as a drug to prevent morning sickness in pregnant women.
However, Grünenthal had begun receiving complaints from doctors about side effects as early as 1959, and ignoring them. Estimates say that as a result, some 15,000 babies were born alive with malformations, while thousands of miscarriages and stillbirths also occurred. The drug was withdrawn from the Canadian market in 1962.
Since then, the thalidomide tragedy has stood for the proposition that pregnant women should not consume any drug or other substance that has not been thoroughly tested for safety, and tested specifically in pregnant women to ensure that their fetuses aren’t harmed. It’s hard to imagine finding many women willing to risk their unborn children’s health in order to be experimental subjects for such safety tests, which probably explains why very few drugs are approved for use in pregnant women.
I was therefore astonished to read an article published on March 25, 2021 in two of my local newspapers, the Picton Gazette and the County Weekly News. The author, Dr. Helene Baldwin MD, apparently intended to ease women’s fears about getting the COVID-19 vaccination while pregnant.
“So far, we don’t have any evidence to suggest that vaccination poses a risk of harm to you or your pregnancy,” the article states. Later, it reiterates: “…women who want the vaccine should not be excluded based on the absence of evidence and theoretical risks as so far we do not have any data to suggest harm to mother or baby.”
Dr. Baldwin cites a recommendation by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) that COVID-19 vaccines be offered to pregnant women as soon as the vaccines become available.
The medical profession has done a complete about-face. The previous strict rule was that pregnant women should not consume any substance that hadn’t been thoroughly tested and proven safe, but the bar has now been lowered to: “Hey, go ahead because we don’t have any evidence of harm, yet.”
However, this new lower standard raises important questions, such as: who did the searching for evidence of harm, and how thoroughly did they look?
I have managed to find evidence of harm that Dr. Baldwin and SOGC appear to have overlooked. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a US government agency, maintains the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database, or VAERS for short. It’s a voluntary or “passive” system in which vaccine recipients who suspect they’ve had an adverse reaction to vaccination can, with the help of their doctors if necessary, file a report to alert others to the incident. Reports can be made by US residents or by people in other countries.
Because it’s not mandatory, most people aren’t aware of it. Even doctors seem to overlook it. Since there is no remuneration for doing so, there is little incentive for doctors to take the time necessary. Consequently, the number of adverse reactions shown in the database is severely under-reported compared to the number of adverse reactions that actually occur.
In fact, this report prepared for the US Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”
Is Tisha Be’av about fun and games?!
A public meeting was held in Lakewood this past Tuesday evening sponsored by group of Avreichim in Lakewood, for the purpose of inspiring others to move to Eretz Yisroel and establish a thriving Torah community for American B’nei Torah.
This project that began to take shape nearly 2 years ago, spearheaded by Rabbi Dovid Koleditsky Shlita, R”Y of Yeshiva Etz Chaim in Lakewood.
Initially, it was proposed to Rav Malkiel Kotler as an adjunctive community to Lakewood/BMG. Rav Kotler was greatly interested. However, the project stalled as a result of COVID 19 and all of the misfortune that followed.
However, Reb Dovid never shelved the idea and continued to research the possibility. As the idea simmered and began to take shape a prospective site emerged in the city of Acco which seemed to provide a generous opportunity that would enable both affordable housing as well as an already existing infrastructure that would provide for the establishment of Mosdos for both boys and girls.
Reb Dovid engaged the interest of Rabbi Menachem Leibowitz, who as it were was himself seriously planning a move to Eretz Yisroel with his family. Reb Menachem joined Reb Dovid’s efforts and together they created the plan that would IY”H be the framework for this promising project.
In time, Reb Dovid solicited the assistance of HaRav Gershon Sharaby in Eretz Yisroel along with his brother, well known Lakewood Askan Rabbi Avraham Sharaby, who presented both to the local municipality of Acco as well as the State Government, all of what would be needed in order to actualize this new community. In both cases the results were very successful, property areas were already earmarked, and some buildings which will be move-in-ready immediately after Succos 5782.
On Tuesday July 6 at 8:30 PM an inaugural meeting was held at Estreia Restaurant. There were over 100 people in attendance. Many from outside the Lakewood community had signed up to attend but were subverted by the storm. Additional meetings to the public are expected immediately shortly. Other meetings are currently being scheduled by request from other communities in the Tri-state area.
Many have already reached out from as far out as Los Angeles, as information of this project makes its way around the U.S.