Authored by Micaela Ricaforte via The Epoch Times,

California’s statewide teachers’ union sent a letter June 27 to the Chino Valley Unified School board criticizing its recent decision to allow only government flags on school property—and threatening to take legal action against the board if the policy is not reversed.

Chino Valley Unified School Board President Sonja Shaw speaks in support of a parental rights policy proposal at a press conference in Chino, Calif., on June 15, 2023. (California Family Council/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

The board voted 4–1 June 15 to allow only the California and U.S. flags on school property.

The California Teachers Association—with more than 300,000 members—in partnership with local union Associated Chino Teachers alleges in the letter the decision violates teachers’ right to free speech under the First Amendment as well as a state employment law.

The union also said the district further violated state employment laws because it made a decision that affected the current status quo for teachers without giving the local union proper notice or a chance to negotiate terms.

The letter asked the board to reverse its policy by July 3 or face legal action.

“In the event that the board insists on interfering with the constitutional … rights of district employees, the [union] will pursue all available legal remedies for the district’s conduct, including, but not limited to, filing a suit in Superior Court and/or an unfair practice charge with [the Public Employee Relations Board],” the letter stated.

School district Board President Sonja Shaw told The Epoch Times that administrators reached out to the local union to give them a chance to voice their concerns about the flag policy after it was first introduced on June 1.

However, she said, administrators did not meet with the union until June 28, nearly two weeks after the board voted to approve the policy.

Shaw further stated she considered the letter a “bullying tactic,” and was prepared for any legal action the unions might take.

“They think they can bully us, threatening us with lawsuits,” Shaw said.

“I’m not backing down.”

She said she believed the teachers’ unions should be focused on student academic issues.

“This has nothing to do with taking away freedom from a teacher. We all know at a workplace you have limitations and standards,” Shaw said.

“[The upset over flags] is a weird push towards things that shouldn’t be their focus, especially when our kids are dealing with learning loss and mental health issues.”

She added that most parents and residents she’d heard from supported the flag policy—and added that the letter was evidence that teachers’ unions were more concerned with pushing their own agendas than actually serving the community.

At the board meeting, Shaw gestured to the American flag and said, “This is why we’re here. This flag unites us all … the United States stands for all of us. A teacher who has to display sexuality in their classroom is a problem for me as a parent and board member.”

The meeting drew nearly 300 parents, teachers, and community members.

A parent speaks at a Chino Valley Unified School Board meeting where board members voted to block the LGBT pride flag from being displayed in classrooms in Chino, Calif., on June 15, 2023. (Screenshot via YouTube/Chino Valley Unified School Dist Board Videos)

Some who spoke during public comment thanked the board for taking the complicated issue on.

“Just as Bibles, prayer, and the Ten Commandments have been taken out of classrooms, we need to hold fast to those standards of equality and not allow a flag that represents a minority of the district population to be displayed in our classrooms or on our campuses,” said one parent. “Many students here have religious beliefs that don’t align with what the Pride flag represents … We are all Americans here … and the stars and stripes represent every single student in the district.”

Others said they were concerned that the policy would make LGBT students “unsafe.”

“This policy is incredibly damaging to our community,” said one high school student during public comment.

“Pride flags provide a symbol of hope and safety. It’s a reminder we are not alone in our struggles.”

The issue comes after several local Orange County governing boards—including the Orange Unified School Board and the city of Huntington Beach—voted this year to allow only government flags to fly on official or district property.

This year a number of US cities are replacing traditional Fourth of July fireworks with drone shows citing fire danger and air quality concerns. 

In California, firework shows in La Jolla and Ocean Beach will be replaced with high-tech drone light shows, according to NBC 7 San Diego. 

Salt Lake City, Utah, is trying an alternative way of celebrating Independence Day with its first-ever drone show. The city’s mayor, Erin Mendenhall, cited the drones will mitigate fire risk.

“As temperatures rise and fire danger increases, we must be conscientious of both our air quality and the potential for wildfires,” Mayor Mendenhall wrote in a press release. 

In neighboring Colorado, the City of Boulder has also decided to try drones this year instead of fireworks. 

“The shift from traditional fireworks to drones was not an easy decision and based on a number of factors, including increased fire danger fueled by climate change,” the City of Boulder wrote on Facebook. 

More and more metro areas are going with drone shows rather than fireworks due to sustainability reasons. 

As for Americans having backyard BBQ parties, they’re not giving up their roman candles, mortars, firecrackers, and bottle rockets anytime soon. Americans spent $370 million on pyrotechnics from China in 2020. 

Meanwhile… 

… and then there’s this. 

While metro areas are switching to drone shows, red-blooded Americans will never give up bottle rockets and mortars. They’re just too much damn fun until someone blows off a finger. 

Authored by Brian Balfour via The American Institute for Economic Research,

President Joe Biden recently trotted out the well-worn progressive complaint about the rich not paying their “fair share” of taxes.

“It’s about time the super wealthy start paying their fair share,” Biden said on June 18 to a crowd in Pennsylvania.

Claiming that billionaires “paid a lower rate than schoolteachers, than firefighters, probably anyone in this room,” Biden insisted the rich should “(J)ust pay your fair share, man.”

Missing from such conversations is just what exactly one’s “fair share” of taxes is, and how that is determined to be fair. That’s because the notion of any objective measure of taxes as being a “fair share” is a complete illusion.

Taxes are what citizens are compelled to pay in exchange for government services, like criminal justice, national defense, healthcare, education, and not to mention pork projects, war, and corporate welfare. Given this exchange of money for goods and services, one could plausibly compare the notion of a “fair share” of taxes to that of a “fair” or “just” price of commodities. 

As Murray Rothbard points out in Power and Market: Government and the Economy, the notion of a “just price” was debated by ethicists and scholars for hundreds of years. Indeed, the history of this debate can be traced back to Aristotle, who described a “just exchange” as the trading of goods of like value while deeming as immoral the exploiting of arbitrage opportunities for profit. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th Century, held a similar view, while allowing for profit from selling an item for more than you acquired it.

The Spanish Scholastics of the 16th and 17th centuries introduced to the debate the concept of subjective value, suggesting that the just price was in accordance with the valuation of the prospective buyer, in contrast to any objective value inherent within the good itself. This notion of subjective value largely carried into the present day. Because no such quantitative, universal measure of a just price could be agreed upon, “the only possible objective criterion for the just price is the market price” voluntarily agreed to by buyer and seller, according to Rothbard.

In other words, ethicists and economists for centuries grappled with the concept of a “fair price” for a good or service. Finally, a consensus was reached that the only fair price is one mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by seller and buyer.

When it comes to taxes, however, voluntary agreement is removed.

Government imposes its arbitrarily chosen tax rates by threat of force. Because mutual consent is removed from the transaction, there can be no such thing as a “fair share” of taxes.

Tax rates are largely politically motivated and arbitrarily chosen, and stacked with exemptions and penalties to help incentivize behaviors favored by the politicians writing the voluminous tax code. Regardless of the rates, there is no “fairness” to be achieved.

Some may argue that a “fair” tax share for various income groups should be proportional to the share of income earned for those groups. According to the Tax Foundation, however, the top one percent of income earners paid 42.3 percent of federal income taxes while earning 22 percent of the nation’s income.  The top ten percent earned 49.5 percent of total income while paying nearly 74 percent of all income taxes.

The average effective income tax rate for the top ten percent was 20.3 percent, more than six times the 3.1 percent rate paid by the bottom 50 percent. 

By this measure, many could argue that the rich are paying well above their “fair share,” which is why this measure is never mentioned when Biden and company are asked to specify what a “fair share” would be.

Complicating the concept of a “fair share” of taxes further still, to the extent the discussion is on income taxes, is that one’s income in any given year may not neatly categorize someone as “rich” or not.

A person’s income represents merely a snapshot in time. Of course, people move about income levels over the course of their lives. Today’s “low-income” individual may be a recent college graduate from an upper middle-class family merely working an entry-level job on her way to a lucrative career. 

Conversely, this year’s “high-income” earner may be a small business owner who struggled for decades and finally had a successful year, but still remains deep in debt. This snapshot report in no way tells us anything about the financial well-being over the lifetimes of the people being judged as rich or not. In short, simple “income” statistics often provide a misleading snapshot of citizens’ financial well-being, and therefore of how taxes really affect them.

It’s not quite so easy to look at a person’s W-2 in a given year and determine if he is “rich” and therefore must be compelled to pay a “fair share.” 

Moreover, taxes are the lifeblood of the political class.

The more taxes they extract from citizens, the greater power they hold over society and its scarce resources.

More taxes means more political favors to be doled out, voting blocs to be rewarded, and patronage networks to pay off. 

The discussion of the non-existent concept of a “fair share” of taxes should be dropped immediately and exposed for what it is: an arbitrary and artificial notion used to disguise political power grabs.

In a rare public sign of desperation, Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky is pleading for his military to “show results” ahead of the major NATO summit to be convened in Lithuania on July 11. This comes amid rumblings out of Washington that US arms to Kiev could slow or be cut if Ukrainian forces are incapable of advancing. 

Over the weekend Zelensky spoke to several journalists and addressed the past several days of headlines out of the West which have suggested the counteroffensive could be failing. He explained that “torrential rains” had “slowed down some processes quite a bit” – but that the reality still is that “every kilometer” of liberated territory and gains “costs lives”.

He urged more Western weapons while blaming that gains from last fall had been lost in part because of the late arrival of artillery. His top generals have also been complaining about lack of air superiority, while continuing to press for F-16 fighter jets.

“We stopped because we couldn’t advance. Advancing meant losing people and we had no artillery,” he asserted in the press briefing. “We are very cautious in this aspect. Fast things are not always safe.”

He then emphasized that he has a duty to his troops and to not take risks that are unnecessary: “If they tell me that two months will pass and thousands of people will die, or three months and fewer people will die, of course, I will choose the latter,” Zelensky said. “Between time and people, the most important thing is people.”

Related to the pressing urgency of more and continued Western military support, Zelensky specifically called out Republicans in US Congress. Again this comes against the backdrop of Kiev’s concerns over waning enthusiasm for the war effort out of Washington and the West at a sensitive moment of NATO’s annual summit.

He slammed the “dangerous messages coming from some Republicans” – but praised the Thursday visit of former Vice President Mike Pence. 

“Mike Pence has visited us, and he supports Ukraine. First of all, as an American, and then as a Republican,” Zelensky said. “We have bipartisan support. However, there are different messages in their circles regarding support for Ukraine. There are messages coming from some Republicans, sometimes dangerous messages, that there may be less support.”

He stressed that maintaining bipartisan support is “the most important thing for Ukraine” regardless of who wins the 2024 US presidential election. He also at one point said, “NATO without Ukraine is not NATO.” The UK has meanwhile remained the most outspoken advocate of Kiev’s entry into NATO, while Germany and the US have voiced caution and reluctance on the question of eventual full membership. 

With the NATO summit now less than ten days away, the race is on for Ukraine’s forces to “show results”.

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock this weekend, you will know that Twitter CEO Elon Musk said Saturday that the social media platform will limit how many tweets users can read due to “extreme” levels of system manipulation and data scraping.

Musk said in a statement that Twitter has applied the following temporary limits on users, with new unverified accounts limited to reading just 600 posts per day.

In yet another exercise in irony, this post achieved a record view count!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 2, 2023

Claiming the sudden change is being implemented to combat “extreme levels of data scraping and system manipulation,” Musk said the daily restrictions would eventually be raised to 8,000 posts for verified users, 800 for unverified accounts, and 400 for new unverified users.

Immediately, the socials came alive with claims of ‘free speech’ suppression etc…

Putting hard limits on reads is web 1.0 stuff.

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) July 1, 2023

OMFG pic.twitter.com/KHlJvKsv0N

— y0da_ (@totSamiy_yoda) July 1, 2023

But the irony went to ’11’…

If dying from irony were possible, it would’ve been be a massacre

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 2, 2023

So they want ‘more’ twitter not less? But we thought it was a cesspool of nazi porn?

Musk said at the time that hundreds of organizations or more were scraping Twitter data “extremely aggressively,” with a negative impact on user experience.

However, there may be more to this than ‘user experience’ deterioration, or an effort by Musk force more monetization.

Musk hinted at the ‘other’ reason in April, when he threatened to sue Microsoft, which has invested billions into OpenAI, after accusing the company of using Twitter data for training.

“They trained illegally using Twitter data. Lawsuit time,” Musk wrote on Twitter on April 19.

Which brings us to Mike Benz’s excellent discussion this morning of what may really be going on behind the scenes, that yet again – the world’s richest man could be the only one uncancellable enough to battle.

Benz begins his trek with the statement: “AI censorship is where all of the magic happens.”

He points out, the Twitter Files showed how The FBI might come in and get 22 tweets censored, but AI is how IEP (and other 3rd-party censorship groups) were able to get 22 million tweets censored.”

Before 2016, Benz explains, you could not ‘control’ the internet; but since then, there has been an “AI Censorship Deathstar” under construction, which “relies on massive scraping of Twitter data to track trending narratives, to systemically surveil, to build intelligence dossiers, and to track and turn down – all at one – communities online.”

Twitter is the best social network of all for this massive data scraping (and training) since all consumers of information are also creators.

This explicitly makes scraping data there far more important for early narrative detection and countering ‘wrongthink’ via fact-checking, Google Ad suppression, political pressure (possibly enforcing hate speech laws like Michigan just passed), or mainstream media propaganda focus.

Also, on the other side, while Musk appears to have got the ‘Trust & Safety’ censors/bannner/throttlers out of the loop, this massive data scrape allows any establishment-favored narratives to be amplified.

And it appears to be working as ChatGPT admitted it was unable to access real-time tweets this morning…

NEWS: It looks like ChatGPT’s web browser extension can no longer access Twitter’s data. https://t.co/jv0jgIQ9w3

— T(w)itter Daily News  (@TitterDaily) July 2, 2023

Which apparently pleased Musk…

Elon reacts to this news: https://t.co/tqab98Oice

— T(w)itter Daily News  (@TitterDaily) July 2, 2023

So – is this just another money-making scheme for Twitter; or is Musk really the world’s last best hope for ‘freedom’ of speech.

“You are going to see the censorship industry howl over this,” Benz concludes, and “whether Musk knows it or not, he has stepped on a rattlesnake.”

While the censorship-industry will “in a wierd way, while the boot [of Musk’s tweet-read-limit] may be cutting off some amount of openness of Twitter, it may also represent in some way, the boot of freedom.”

Watch the full Benz clip below:

Wow. Musk has no idea the DARPA rattlesnake he just stepped on by this doing this…

My take on @elonmusk’s new rate limit policy, from the lens of the censorship industry: https://t.co/AZ5SPIgHiz pic.twitter.com/Rw4KBZsT9O

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) July 1, 2023

Finally, one wonders did Musk’s move just nuke the AI-stock-boom’s 100x forward-revenue-multiple case?

Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

The economic and financial puzzle has far more pieces to it than many people think. It is difficult to understand the market short-term let alone get any kind of picture of the long-term market. The market has been going up despite a number of formidable problems forming that we will have to face in the near future. Any one of these could derail both financial markets and economic growth.  

It is important to remember that inflation is not gone. In fact, it may be difficult to control several of the factors feeding into it. The debasement of currencies due to huge government deficits, a surge in energy prices, or a fall in food production could all push inflation much higher. This is why forgetting 1980 could be a big mistake. Higher interest rates are a key tool or shall we say weapon in controlling inflation. If needed to fight inflation, they will be used.

NASDAQ is at lofty levels. The New York Fed is now pricing in a 70.8% chance of a recession, the highest since 1982. This recession may be the “worst in our lifetime,” says Mike McGlone, Macro Strategist at Bloomberg Intelligence. McGlone is looking for more than a minor correction and he is not alone. 

We tend to give the central banks far more credit than they deserve as to how much they control. Over the years the “Fed put” has skewed true price discovery by coming in and saving the stock market whenever it gets into trouble. Yes, central banks heavily influence markets and interest rates but to say they control them may be an overstatement.

Adding to the current false Alice in Wonderland landscape is a whole lot of financial engineering and tax laws that have directed investment money into stocks and away from hard assets. The financial system is not a well-oiled machine, instead, it closely resembles a cobbled-together mess. How long the divergence in various markets can continue before assets revert to more historic valuations is questionable. The one thing that is certain is this can occur rather rapidly and catch many people off guard.

The case can be made that much of the financial markets are no more than a mirage. It is an illusion generated by hope, government spending, easy money, leverage, and hype. It has been created by those that benefit from convincing people with money that investing in such schemes will bring them more wealth. The problem is that this is a cycle that has played out time and time throughout history. Sooner or later true price discovery reasserts itself and reality raises its ugly head.

This becomes apparent when economic watchers trying to compare today with other periods in the past are stymied by the fact many comparisons have become “obsolete.” For example some point to proof of less liquidity due to a dropping M2 but fail to note the M2 does not include money that is still relatively accessible such as money funds. Today a great deal of money has not “gone away” but has merely been transferred to other places. 

An Exploded Bomb Gets Few Buyers

It is a bit simplistic to think the value of all assets moves in lockstep or last. Over time the growth in both credit and debt has outpaced the growth in hard assets. Also, many hard assets have a shorter lifespan than the debt supporting them. Please consider the possibility many of the important adjustments the economy must make are lagging far behind our current “financial culture” or that the economy has evolved in a way that simply no longer works.

It could be argued we are walking on thin ice. Like many market and economic skeptics, I contend we should prepare for a major shift in asset values. Hard assets may soar in value and at the same time many intangible investments fall in value. This view of the future can be difficult to wrap your head around. Most people tend to think of things going in one direction or the other and not in both.

If indeed inflation is not gone, this means that government bonds as an investment are still problematic with long-term bonds being the worse. Usually, such bonds do not yield a “positive return” over inflation. In the short term, they may bring you about even but in the long term it is very likely bondholders will be raped and plundered by the forces of inflation. 

When people called inflation peaking last June they did it using the base effect argument. Year-over-year comparisons are a big reason inflation appears to be ebbing. In short, it simply is not going up as fast. This system also promises less favorable comparisons in coming months which will reverse the impression inflation is no longer an issue.

Regardless of what some experts claim, the inflation, stagflation, or deflation debate is not over. It would be wise to remember this game does not end and it is impossible to escape. Decades of poor-quality growth have metastasized into an economic system that is unsustainable. It has also resulted in inequality that is eating away at society. Retiring with money does not guarantee a person a happy, healthy, and carefree life.

When is all said and done, the final stage of any country’s fiat money system has proven to be inflationary.

Former President Trump was correct about France many years ago. He said, “I wouldn’t go to France. Because France is no longer France …This world better be very careful and they better get very tough and very smart.”

Trump was right about France seven years ago… h/t @rising_serpent pic.twitter.com/N5ltQSsmk6

— @amuse (@amuse) July 2, 2023

As the unrest in France sparked by the police killing of a teenager of North African descent continued for the fifth day, Paul Joseph Watson offered his view of why social unrest has quickly spread nationwide. And spoiler alert, unlike French officials who blame “social media,” PJW said, “This is what happens when you absorb millions of migrants into a European county at an accelerated rate pace — with zero plan — with zero prospects for ever integrating them.” 

All hell broke loose in France over the last few nights since the death of a 17-year-old french algerian boy shot by the police.

Twitter: @PrisonPlanet

Full video: https://t.co/1NcDUK12Q5 pic.twitter.com/5kEcI9mfCb

— PJW Shorts (@pjwshorts) June 30, 2023

Rioters burned vehicles and buildings and looted stores nationwide for the fifth consecutive night. Police arrested 719 people by the early hours of Sunday, according to the French interior ministry. 

Reuters noted the chaos was “less intense overnight” compared with the 1,300 people arrested on Friday night, suggesting riots are dying down after more than 45,000 police officers, as well as dozens of military armored vehicles, were deployed across the country to squash the violence. 

President Emmanuel Macron canceled his visit to Germany and met with officials Sunday to develop strategies to suppress some of the worst violence the country has seen since the 2018 “Yellow Vest” protests. 

Here’s footage of the chaos from last night:

🇫🇷France Riots: A building was completely destroyed by fires in Borderouge, Toulouse. pic.twitter.com/nuKBC60i4z

— Truthseeker (@Xx17965797N) July 2, 2023

#FranceRiots: CCTV captured rioters try to tear apart the fencing put around the L’Haÿ-les-Roses city hall in the Paris suburb. @VincentJeanbrun, the conservative mayor, had his family home targeted overnight in an arson attack as his wife and young children slept inside.

The… pic.twitter.com/lykc531fMb

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) July 2, 2023

Vincent Jeanbrun, mayor of the southern Paris suburb of L’Hay-les-Roses, said rioters tried to assassinate him and his family. 

“Last night, a milestone was reached in horror and ignominy. My home was attacked and my family was the victim of an assassination attempt,” he wrote on social media. 

#FranceRiots: Overnight as race riots descended into the fifth day in France, the family home of @VincentJeanbrun, Mayor of Paris suburb L’Haÿ-les-Roses, was attacked. Rioters set a car on fire & rammed it into his home, trying to burn it down. His wife & young children were… pic.twitter.com/VDzsomUpVM

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) July 2, 2023

Summary of the fifth nights of riots in France:

– 871 fires on public roads
– 577 burned vehicles
– 74 burned buildings
– 719 people arrested
– 45 police officers and gendarmes injured

🚨🚨🚨 pic.twitter.com/uLPkUATyb2

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) July 2, 2023

Watch till the end! This is an example of North African rioters involved in recent riots in France. That innocent looking teenager had a machete to use it for chopping hands of anyone trying to stop him from looting and rioting! pic.twitter.com/tTTf8Jz3Dr

— Babak Taghvaee – The Crisis Watch (@BabakTaghvaee1) July 2, 2023

Police beat back looters in Montpellier, France.

The southern coastal city is near Marseille, an epicenter of the French riots.

pic.twitter.com/adDfNVUkmC

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) July 2, 2023

🚨 FRENCH RIOTING: The town of Marseille, France is experiencing INTENSE riots tonight where criminals have raided a gun store and now armed themselves with rifles.

A Volkswagen dealer has just been looted and a MASSIVE residential building is burning TJ the ground in Lyon… pic.twitter.com/psPsWHtKa2

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 2, 2023

Meanwhile, social media reports showed violence is spreading to neighboring countries of Switzerland and Belgium. 

Tumultuous unrest that originated in France has now extended its reach to Switzerland. The waves of protests and upheaval have infiltrated Lausanne, marking an alarming escalation of the French riots’ influence.https://t.co/rBikbmmCaVpic.twitter.com/eD3SsAD2r4

— Russian Market (@runews) July 2, 2023

… and there’s this from 2017. 

And in a chilling 2021 report, 25 retired French generals warned Macron in an open letter that the country is headed for “civil war” because of the influx of migrants. So what did the president do in response? He threatened to punish active soldiers who signed an open letter, according to France 24.  

Authored by Ted Galen Carpenter via The Ron Paul Institute,

When the last US troops left the Philippines in the early 1990s, the prevailing assumption was that an extremely close military relationship between Washington and Manila would be just another relic of the Cold War. The decision by the Philippines Senate not to renew the US leases on Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base was quite emphatic. A thick layer of ash from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo made Clark unusable in any case, and public opinion in the country tended to both installations as a lingering, painful reminder of Washington’s colonial rule.

The mutual defense treaty remained intact, however, and US military and political officials soon sought to exploit Manila’s worries about the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to orchestrate a return of US forces. In particular, the Philippines’ government was deeply concerned about Beijing’s expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea – a stance that directly challenged Manila’s own claims. There were no longer any official US bases in the Philippines, but following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush’s administration responded favorably to Manila’s request to send a small contingent of troops – ostensibly to aid efforts to suppress militant Islamic rebels in the country’s southern islands. During Barack Obama’s administration, additional US military personnel began to return as part of Washington’s policy pivot to East Asia. They were given expanded access to bases that Manila controlled.

A new bilateral agreement now accelerates that process and substantially expands the scope of the US military presence. In April, the government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. announced that American forces would be stationed at four new locations. The official cover story is that the units would be available for disaster relief, but the underlying purpose is a more robust presence directed against the PRC. That point became quite clear later in April when US and Philippines forces conducted a military exercise involving more than 12,000 US troops.

The gradual return of Washington’s forces has coincided with a marked increase in US naval patrols of the South China Sea. That move was designed in part to show strong support for Manila’s territorial claims in that body of water, much to Beijing’s growing anger. Washington’s supportive stance took place, even though the government of Rodrigo Duterte seemed to take special pleasure in antagonizing US leaders, including by periodically threatening to end the alliance with the United States and adopt a pro-PRC stance.

Duterte’s loose cannon behavior did not diminish Washington’s military backing for the Philippines, and his threat ultimately proved to be hollow. Indeed, bilateral defense cooperation actually increased in July 2021 under a renewed visiting forces agreement. Military collaboration now appears to be on an especially fast track under Marcos’s friendlier administration.

Even during the tense days dealing with Duterte, Washington’s armed support for Manila regarding its territorial disputes with China did not falter. The United States ostentatiously backed Manila’s territorial claims when a confrontation between the Philippines and China broke out in March 2021 over the growing presence of PRC “fishing vessels” near the disputed Whitson Reef. The Biden administration promptly injected itself into the dispute. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphatically took Manila’s side in a statement on Twitter. “The United States stands with our ally, the Philippines, in the face of the PRC’s maritime militia amassing at Whitson Reef,” he stated.

US leaders increasingly seem to regard the Philippines as another component in an overall containment policy directed against China. Using Manila as a pawn in that strategy, though, has multiple undesirable features. It is extremely confrontational toward the PRC at a time when there is a surplus of dangerous issues, especially Taiwan, already riling Washington’s relations with Beijing. China’s government has expressed pointed warnings about enhanced US military access to bases in the Philippines. Washington’s stance threatens to entangle the United States in parochial territorial spats that have little intrinsic relevance to America’s security and well-being. No rational American should want to risk a war with the PRC over Whitson Reef or similar meager stakes.

Read News: Philippines Names 4 New Camps for US Forces Amid China Fury → https://t.co/gB3DwCAYIA 🌎 #WorldMilitaryNews pic.twitter.com/DBddW0B8OP

— World Military News (@WMilitaryNews) April 3, 2023

Instead of continuing to boost US military cooperation with Manila, US leaders need to reverse the growing troop presence. Indeed, they need to reassess the wisdom of the mutual defense treaty itself. The current situation is a classic case of an unwise, unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous entanglement on behalf of a minor foreign client. There are more than enough tripwires for the United States around the world without maintaining this one.

The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take on another major Second Amendment case, this time evaluating the constitutionality of a federal law barring gun possession by people subject to a domestic violence restraining order. 

Following years of relentless refusals to hear gun rights cases — to the point that Justice Clarence Thomas chided his peers for a “decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment” — the Supreme Court is now showing a revived appetite for questions about the right to armed self-defense.

Last year brought the enormously impactful decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that ruling, the court declared that gun control laws are only constitutional if they are “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The application of that new test has already led judges across the country to reject many gun control laws, though different outcomes have been observed as different courts evaluate similar gun laws. By taking this new case, the Supreme Court is demonstrating its interest in clarifying how the “historical tradition” test should be applied.  

Unlike many recent high-profile legal challenges to gun control measures, the case that will be heard this fall — United States v Rahimi — isn’t led by any gun-rights organizations. It also centers on a character, Zackey Rahimi, that few people across the political spectrum will sympathize with. 

In February 2020, Rahimi agreed to a civil protective order issued by a Texas court after his ex-girlfriend alleged that he assaulted her. In addition to barring Rahimi from harassing or threatening the ex-girlfriend or their child, the order explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms. 

Here’s how the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit describes Rahimi’s subsequent antics:

“Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.”

Police obtained a warrant to search his home and found a pistol and rifle. A federal grand jury indicted him for possessing a firearm while being subject to a domestic violence restraining order. Though he’d pled guilty before the Bruen decision, his constitutional appeals eventually found their way to the Fifth Circuit.

In February of this year, the Fifth Circuit panel ruled, 3-0, that the federal law at issue in the case fails to pass Bruen’s “historical tradition” test.  

In explaining that test in the Bruen decision, Justice Thomas wrote: “Analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin…So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.” 

However, federal attorneys tried in vain to find laws from the founding era that are analogous to the federal gun-ownership prohibition imposed on the subjects of domestic violence restraining orders. The lawyers also advanced a dangerous principle, telling the judges that Congress should be able to bar gun ownership by people who are deemed “irresponsible” or “non-law-abiding.”

Flatly rejecting that argument, Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote:

“The government’s proffered interpretation lacks any true limiting principle…Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

A troubling primary trait of the disputed federal law is that the domestic restraining orders that trigger a suspension of an individual’s right to gun possession do not spring from a criminal conviction, but instead from the civil justice system. In a concurring opinion, Judge James Ho wrote:

“Our Founders understood that those who commit or threaten violence against innocent law-abiding citizens may be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. They knew that arrest and incarceration naturally entails the loss of a wide range of liberties—including the loss of access to arms.

So when the government detains—and thereby disarms—a member of our community, it must do so consistent with the fundamental protections that our Constitution affords to those accused of a crime.”

Despite the soundness of the arguments against the law, this case — starring an alleged domestic abuser and maniacal shooter — promises to inflame extra passion among leftists while scaring squishy Republicans away from taking principled stances.

Depending on its scope, the decision could also have implications for the rising wave of “red flag laws” that use extreme risk protective orders to disarm individuals without due process. Get your popcorn ready for arguments this fall — and brace for fireworks next June.   

Authored by Jesse Felder via The Felder Report,

The stock market is becoming more highly concentrated than ever before…

‘In June 2015, the top 10 accounted for 17.3% of the S&P 500 market value. As of June 20, 2023, the top 10 are 31.7%.’ https://t.co/KmgVfnjeGJ by @HorizonKinetics pic.twitter.com/5Pi2GfwlNr

— Jesse Felder (@jessefelder) June 30, 2023

History suggests, however, that this may be a dangerous game…

‘1929, 1973 and the dotcom bubbles all saw sustained monetary policy tightening and a clear divergence of surging bubble stocks vs the average stock moving sideways/falling.’ https://t.co/LOOrHMs2rE by @VrntPerception

— Jesse Felder (@jessefelder) June 30, 2023

And valuations of some of the most popular Big Tech stocks may be unsustainably high…

‘To the question of whether NVIDIA could be worth $400, the answer is yes, but the odds are low. Put simply, you need another market or two, with potential similar to the AI market, where NVIDIA can wield a dominant market share to justify its pricing.’ https://t.co/dXOJ3PSRnH pic.twitter.com/qvq0gAcAS1

— Jesse Felder (@jessefelder) June 24, 2023

Meanwhile, sentiment has turned inordinately bearish on energy…

‘Speculative positioning in the U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) contract is below where it was at any time in 2020 indicating extreme bearishness, the stuff of which powerful snap-back rallies are made.’ https://t.co/tFNd0mkTlW by @Haymaker_0 pic.twitter.com/5PDhAHX9ob

— Jesse Felder (@jessefelder) June 24, 2023

But the macro case for real assets is only growing more compelling…

“Because of large deficits the U.S. Treasury will have to sell a lot of debt and it appears there will not be adequate demand for it. If that happens, it will lead to either much higher interest rates or the Fed printing a lot of money.” –@RayDalio https://t.co/rzS1sRcQnS

— Jesse Felder (@jessefelder) June 28, 2023

*  *  *

Click here to subscribe to Jesse’s free weekly newsletter and get this post delivered to your inbox each Saturday morning.