In August 2006, I was deeply involved in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case. It hadn’t taken long to realize that the entire case was built by a prosecutor who was willing to do whatever necessary to take the case to trial to win an election (in large part to be able to pay off his campaign debts and earn another $15,000 a year in pension pay) and mollify the local political radicals. Whether any of the charges were true seemed to be an afterthought, as people were expected to believe them no matter what the evidence might have been.
(The accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, recently went on a podcast and admitted that she fabricated the entire story. While a few conservative outlets reported it, the mainstream media, including the New York Times, which had aggressively promoted the case, ignored Mangum’s admission.)
As a criminal case, nothing pointed to guilt, as the forensic evidence, the timelines, and medical examinations of the alleged victim were strong enough to ensure an acquittal in all but Stalin’s infamous Show Trials. Yet, as I checked the New York Times the morning of August 25, 2006, there was an article claiming that the prosecution’s evidence was much stronger than most people had admitted and that the players’ defense team had been cherry-picking the evidence.
Given what we knew about the evidence at that time, the NYT’s article was stunning. Here was the self-proclaimed “Newspaper of Record” claiming that, in the final analysis, the kind of evidence that the newspaper historically had championed as proof of innocence suddenly didn’t matter. After the case totally fell apart (as it should have all along) the NYT patted itself on the back for its truly atrocious coverage. That also is not surprising. After all, the newspaper even managed to get Peter Neufeld—founder of the Innocence Project—to insinuate that the lack of DNA evidence in the lacrosse case was irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Fast forward to the aftermath of the recent presidential election, in which the legacy news media almost unanimously had declared Democrat Kamala Harris leading in the polls, something that was a surprise to the Harris campaign itself. The internal polling by her campaign always showed her either behind or briefly tied with Donald Trump. […]
— Read More: mises.org
What Would You Do If Pharmacies Couldn’t Provide You With Crucial Medications or Antibiotics?
The medication supply chain from China and India is more fragile than ever since Covid. The US is not equipped to handle our pharmaceutical needs. We’ve already seen shortages with antibiotics and other medications in recent months and pharmaceutical challenges are becoming more frequent today.
Our partners at Jase Medical offer a simple solution for Americans to be prepared in case things go south. Their “Jase Case” gives Americans emergency antibiotics they can store away while their “Jase Daily” offers a wide array of prescription drugs to treat the ailments most common to Americans.
They do this through a process that embraces medical freedom. Their secure online form allows board-certified physicians to prescribe the needed drugs. They are then delivered directly to the customer from their pharmacy network. The physicians are available to answer treatment related questions.
