"Is that bad?" The post The band Steve Jones prefers to the Sex Pistols first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The one actually worth the replay factor. The post The only album Mark Knopfler can stand listening to first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Presidential historian Armitage Goodwin is the visiting associate teaching assistant at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson Center for Harmonious Race Relations. Here he explains his recent voting in the prestigious Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey.  As a participant in the clunkily titled 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey‚ I am aware that political bias may have contributed to‚ for instance‚ Joe Biden being listed as the 14th greatest president of all time. READ MORE: Ranking Presidents‚ Miseducating Our Children If by “bias‚” people mean one is perceived to be unfairly prejudiced in favor of one thing against another‚ that would accurately describe why I inexplicably placed Biden ahead of James Knox Polk (25th)‚ who reformed the national banking system‚ secured the Oregon territory‚ and won the Mexican-American war‚ essentially acquiring California and much of the Southwest. Biden is a superior president compared to Polk because the latter essentially stole that land from Mexicans‚ and the former now is allowing Mexicans unfettered access to it without asking for anything in return other than their votes. Biden is a truly great president and should’ve placed higher (I had him third‚ ahead of the slave-owning George Washington) because in less than three years in office‚ he saved the republic from Donald Trump‚ who ranked last (45th) and fared even worse than William Henry Harrison (41st)‚ whose accomplishments didn’t include the Abraham Accords but did include dying 31 days into his term. The distinction between Biden and Trump couldn’t be clearer. For instance‚ one of Biden’s greatest accomplishments is how he withdrew troops from Afghanistan in 2021 and deftly handled its immediate and complete collapse. He gave a stern warning to the now-ruling Taliban not to resort to their old radical-Islamist chicanery‚ or else there’d be an even sterner warning. Biden also continues to rally U.S. taxpayer dollars to support Ukraine in its struggle against Russia while wisely urging Israeli war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu to take it easy on the terrorist gang that slaughtered 1‚200 of his citizens. Had the Afghan calamity and those two wars broken out under Trump instead of Biden‚ we likely now would be fighting World War III as opposed to simply failing to get ready for it. Barack Obama came in seventh — higher than Dwight D. Eisenhower (eighth)‚ James Madison (11th) and John Adams (13th) — when many (including Obama himself) have argued he should’ve placed first. And while that is a slight stretch‚ Obama is the one president who greatly mastered the persistent use of the words “I” and “me.” Obama also won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize‚ not exactly for bringing peace to anything‚ but he did peacefully stand by when Vladimir Putin initially invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed its Crimean Peninsula and the Donbas region. Fortunately‚ Putin’s provocation occurred under Obama and not Trump‚ ensuring that a strident Obama lecture to a smirking Putin would deter him from invading Ukraine ever again until he did it again under the 14th greatest president in U.S. history. Republicans are in a snit over Biden faring better than Ronald Reagan (16th)‚ who accomplished nothing in eight years beyond revitalizing a moribund economy‚ reducing inflation from 14 percent to 2.5 percent‚ seeing more than 16 million new jobs created‚ strengthening our military‚ and facilitating the collapse of the Soviet Union and its global empire. Historians know the economy isn’t exactly roaring under Biden‚ inflation is persistently high‚ and al-Qaida’s tentacles are again spreading throughout Afghanistan when Biden vowed they wouldn’t. So‚ what accounts for Biden being an even greater president than Reagan? Democrat historians like myself hate Reagan and would‚ if we could‚ rank Mikhail Gorbachev the world’s greatest U.S. president ever. Some might call that bias‚ but if it is‚ it is only because it empowers those who are oppressed. Woodrow Wilson (15th) also rightly topped Reagan. Wilson guided the nation through the Great War‚ established the League of Nations‚ a forerunner to the august United Nations‚ and famously told civil-rights leader William Monroe Trotter in 1914 that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit‚ and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.” Now‚ Wilson’s unapologetic racism might seem detrimental to being placed relatively high on a world’s greatest list of any kind (except for world’s greatest racist)‚ but that D next to his name counts for at least five spots on a presidential-greatness scale. Case in point: Jimmy Carter (22nd) ranked higher than Polk and Calvin Coolidge (34th). To say that Carter’s stewardship over the economy was on par with Max Pruss’ piloting of the Hindenburg would be greatly insulting to Pruss‚ who did a much better job. Coolidge’s economic policies fueled the roaring ’20s (“gross domestic product (GDP) rose from $85.2 billion in 1924 to $101.4 billion in 1929”) and‚ shockingly because he was a Republican‚ liked minorities and granted citizenship to Native Americans who theretofore lacked it. Jimmy Carter created the Department of Energy while also telling citizens to turn down their thermostats. That makes him a superior president to Coolidge. Why? Because I am an expert. And Carter empowered managerial class experts like me. When you see a headline reading or hear newsreaders saying‚ “Experts say‚” they are referring to me. And as you might’ve guessed‚ I am to be taken seriously‚ and greatly so. Matt Manochio can be found on X @MattManochio. READ MORE from Matt Manochio: Don’t Mock the Los Angeles Times’ Loss Johns Hopkins Defines ‘Privilege.’ Good for It! The post An Expert Speaks: Presidential Greatness Survey Is Overly Maligned appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Unless the people I’m talking to are lawyers or professional historians‚ I’ve discovered that mentioning the words “bill of attainder” receives‚ at best‚ blank looks and‚ at worst‚ an irritated request for more information‚ typically of the form “what the hell is that”? Even lawyers often get a distant look as they struggle to remember the details of a concept that dates back to the 14th century. READ MORE: Truckers Target Trump-Hating New York Judge Yet so common was the bill of attainder in British history in pre-modern times that it was a fairly normal way of dealing with the rebellious — or‚ indeed‚ just those whom the authorities found uncongenial. And so much did the Founding Fathers dislike its use that they deemed it important enough to have its own mention in the Constitution‚ which expressly forbids it under Article I‚ Section 9‚ Clause 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” But what is this strange creature? The word “attainder” derives from the adjective “attainted‚” which was used to define individuals whose legal rights had been removed. All of them. They lost the right to own property and bear titles; they could not enter into legal agreements‚ nor could their heirs inherit from them. They were often summarily executed‚ and they forfeited all their possessions to the state‚ in this case the Crown‚ or as much of it as the rulers could get their hands on. What makes bills of attainder unique in legislation — and insupportable — is that they imposed draconian penalties on specific individuals without the need to find them guilty in a court‚ for they had lost their right to a jury trial or‚ indeed‚ any trial at all. Now‚ if this sounds hauntingly familiar in modern America‚ that’s because it should. Bills of attainder may be unconstitutional‚ but acting in ways essentially equivalent apparently is not. Consider the lawfare being directed at Trump. Only the naïve or the prejudiced could seriously believe that the indictments leveled at him would be directed at anyone else. They’re aimed at one man‚ and his first name is Donald‚ his last name Trump. Enter Judge Arthur Engoron‚ and the indictment for fraud brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. This case is astonishing on so many levels. First‚ no one is claiming injury here: Banks loaned money to Trump based on the value of his assets. Trump repaid the loan‚ with interest. The banks had not the least inclination to sue him‚ since they had suffered no injury. So why is this fraud? Well‚ because Engoron found — based on his judicial know-how‚ and little else — that Trump had overvalued his assets to get the loan. But hold on — isn’t the value of an asset based on what the market says it is‚ which includes the banks that made the loan? And didn’t the banks disregard the value Trump had put on his assets and make their own assessment on that score? Indeed‚ the “victims” testified that they were more than happy to have him as a client. He was‚ to use their word‚ a “whale” of one. But according to Engoron‚ all this doesn’t matter. He stated clearly that “materiality” — whether anyone was misled by Trump’s actions — doesn’t matter in New York law. All that matters is “the capacity or tendency to deceive.” This means that no actual deception needs to have occurred for Trump to be found guilty of it. MSNBC’s Katy Tur recently “cited an Associated Press analysis that exposed the unprecedented nature of the case and how New York’s treatment of Trump is incongruent with past cases‚” according to Blaze Media. She argued: They went back over 70 years and looked at all the cases that have been tried under this rule — [New York Civil Practice Law] 6312‚ which is used here — which doesn’t have to show harm done. That’s not the burden. You don’t have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices. There’s nobody you defrauded specifically. They went back and they looked at cases over 70 years — I believe it’s about 150 cases — and found there was no case where there was a ban on doing business where there wasn’t harm shown. And the penalties imposed by Engoron are not merely harsh. They are potentially confiscatory: Trump and his organization must pay $355 million. Trump must pay interest on this‚ which will increase the amount he owes to around $450 million. Trump is barred from “serving as an officer or director of any New York company” for three years. Trump cannot apply for loans in New York for three years. External oversight of all New York Trump companies is imposed‚ as “going forward there will be two-tiered oversight‚ an Independent Monitor and an Independent Director of Compliance‚ of the major activities that could lead to fraud.” Retired federal Judge Barbara Jones — who has no business experience at all — is mandated as independent monitor. Jones will hire an independent director of compliance‚ and she has the authority to compel Trump to sell any of his businesses if she so chooses. Essentially‚ then‚ the state of New York has seized Trump’s property without due process. On Trump’s two sons and co-defendants‚ Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.‚ are imposed fines of $4 million each. Nor is this all‚ for‚ as always‚ the devil is in the details. Trump can appeal this ruling‚ and he’s officially begun the process. But in order to appeal‚ he will have to post bond for the amount of the penalties listed in the judgment. Getting a bond for nearly half a billion dollars is going to be extremely difficult‚ especially since almost all the major financial organizations are in New York‚ and he is no longer allowed to take out loans in that state. Even if he manages it and his appeal succeeds‚ he will still lose tens of millions of dollars in fees to the bond company. If one were of a suspicious mind‚ one might surmise that Engoron imposed the most massive fines he could in order to make it as hard as possible for Trump to appeal his ruling. Surely not! Now consider how similar this is to a bill of attainder. First‚ such a bill removes the legal rights of the target. Engoron has made an appeal against his ruling as difficult as possible. Further‚ draconian penalties have been imposed on Trump without the need to find him guilty of anything in court. As with a bill of attainder‚ the target’s ability to hold offices and function is withdrawn. His property is seized and removed from his control. Finally‚ since there is no aggrieved party claiming redress‚ the Crown — the state‚ in this case — takes the wealth forfeited. His heirs are punished — not for what they did but because they are his sons. This is a bill of attainder in fact‚ if not in name. It differs only in that it comes from a court rather than a legislature. I am not the only one to share this view. As Steven Calabresi of the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law commented recently in Reason: Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States [in] 2024. In doing this‚ they have violated Trump’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech and of the press; his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law; his Fifth Amendment right not to have property taken away from him except for a public use with just compensation being paid; his Eighth Amendment right not to be made to pay an excessive fine; his Article IV‚ Section 2 right as a citizen of Florida to do[‚] make[‚] and enforce contracts in New York on the same terms as are other New Yorkers; and his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free to pursue an occupation without unnecessary and burdensome regulation. It seems that judges have found an end-run around the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder. I suppose we can only wryly comment‚ “Clever.” Anthony Tye Rodrigues is a retired academic living in Texas and the author of a book set in Britain in the later Roman Empire. His latest‚ Gemini‚ is the first published novel of a proposed trilogy. The post Engoron Goes Medieval on Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Texas and Florida Say the First Amendment Must Be Sacrificed to Save It