The United States risks losing its pension funds in China as the regime seeks to undermine the economic base of America, according to Gregory Copley, president of the International Strategic Studies Association.

Billionaire investor Mark Mobius recently said that the Chinese regime has taken “very significant” action to prevent him from withdrawing capital from Chinese equities since his HSBC account is situated in Shanghai.

“I can’t get an explanation of why they’re doing this. It’s just amazing. They’re putting [up] all kinds of barriers,” Mobius told the Fox Business Network on March 2. “They don’t say, ‘No, you can’t get your money out,’ but they say, ‘Give us all the records from 20 years of how you’ve made this money’ and so forth. It’s crazy.”

Copley told NTD’s “China in Focus”: “There’s a global fiction abroad at the moment, which is that the economy in the People’s Republic of China is in for a soft landing. It’s not going to be that soft. It’s going to be one which has worldwide ramifications because it will cut into the pension funds, particularly of people around the world but particularly the retirees in the United States.”

BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, is the first foreign-owned company to receive a license to operate in China’s $3.5 trillion mutual fund industry, Forbes reported.

Meanwhile, many state governments in the United States have invested their pension funds with BlackRock. According to a 2021 report (pdf) from Consumers’ Research, Washington, Florida, and New York were the top three investors, investing $13.8 billion, $10.7 billion, and $9.8 billion, respectively.

Undermining the West Amid Economic Woes

According to the expert, “China is basically in a very, very weak economic position.”

“There’s no evidence that the private sector itself is stimulating growth or that there is a growth in consumer demand. Quite the contrary—people are very, very gun-shy after the events of the last couple of years, and are not spending in the way the [Chinese] Communist Party had projected,” he said.

“The major sectors of the economy, and particularly the property sector, look unlikely to revive at best.”

Copley said China is heavily dependent on food imports. In 2022, China imported more than 85 percent of its soybeans (95 million tons), mainly from the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.

And thus, he said, it’s hard for China to build up an internal marketplace that “will be enough to stimulate economic growth and operations.”

Copley said he believes that Chinese leader Xi Jinping has realized that economically and strategically outgrowing the West, particularly the United States, is now very difficult.

“So he must resort to undermining the economic and strategic base of his adversaries, particularly the United States,” Copley said.

“So the view is, if China cannot grow strategically enough to defeat the West, then the West must be reduced by indirect means economically, politically, and so on, so that the West becomes economically deprived and politically unstable.

“And so that’s really the very, very poor option base which Xi Jinping has available to him.”

Deterring Invasion of Taiwan

Copley said that Xi could launch an invasion of Taiwan to shift blame for the country’s economic turmoil and urge the United States and its allies to take steps to deter it.

“The United States needs to demonstrate a greater physical commitment to supporting the Taiwanese Republic of China forces,” he said.

“Other countries, such as Australia, must show more open support militarily for Taiwan.

“It’s critical that the United States and its allies show real resolve in letting Xi Jinping know that an open war is not an option which is viable, and showing that an open war is something that he absolutely will lose, and it will cost him his party and probably his life.”

Andrew Moran and Frank Fang contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A class action suit filed in California alleges LG Electronics USA, Inc. sold gas range stoves in the United States without properly notifying customers of toxic emissions prior to their purchases.

The suit comes as the industry faces attacks and efficiency proposals by the Biden administration that would remove up to half the current gas range ovens on the U.S. market.

A California woman who purchased an LG gas stove from Costco in October 2022 claims in the suit that she was unaware of the “risks” associated with the product before purchasing.

“Ms. Sherzai relied on the representations on the marketing materials disclosing risks,” read the lawsuit. “The marketing materials did not disclose or warn that the product emitted harmful pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides. Thus, at the time of purchase, Plaintiff was unaware that the product emitted harmful pollutants such as nitrogen oxide.”

According to the latest court docket, LG has not yet responded to the claims in the suit.

John Taylor, senior vice president of LG Electronics USA, Inc. said in an email to The Epoch Times, “as a matter of policy, LG Electronics USA doesn’t generally comment on pending legal matters such as this.”

Claims of False Advertising and More

The California woman in the suit (pdf) alleges LG committed several crimes including violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, along with breach of implied warranty, violation of state consumer protection statutes, breach of implied warranties on behalf of plaintiff and the nationwide class, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment.

She claims the suit on behalf of other customers who purchased qualifying LG ranges while living in the United States during the applicable time frame.

“There are tens or hundreds of thousands of class members,” attorneys wrote in the suit. “The precise number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time.” Attorneys say members of the proposed suit “can be identified through public notice.”

The woman, Ms. Sherzai, alleges gas stoves are linked to respiratory illness and that LG knew of the risk without properly notifying customers of risks.

To make her case, attorneys point to “recent studies,” including one by Consumer Reports that says “gases can worsen asthma and other lung diseases.”

They go on to cite Bloomberg as stating gas stoves “emit air pollutants … at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions.”

Bloomberg cites reports from the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society.

Court documents claim about 40 percent of American households use natural gas stoves daily to cook in their homes.

Other claims cited by the plaintiffs in the suit claim nitrogen oxides are emitted which can be “hazardous to human health.”

A Harvard University Health article cited states, “A recent study published by researchers at Stanford calculated that emission of nitrogen dioxide from certain gas burners or ovens rose above the standard set for outdoors by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within a few minutes.”

Other claims by Sherzai are that nitrogen oxide exposure is linked to cardiovascular effects, diabetes, poor birth outcomes, cancer, cognitive issues among children, and asthma.

Claims LG Knew of Defects

“Since the 1980s, the natural gas industry—of which Defendant is a constituent—has worried that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission would regulate gas stove emissions due to indoor air quality concerns,” the suit stated.

“Like other makers of gas stoves, Defendant monitors and keeps track of research on the health effects of its products. This is diligence that large companies like Defendant routinely do when selling a consumer product. Defendant is aware of the fact that its products emit harmful pollutants. It is further aware that use of gas stoves increases the rates of respiratory illness in adults and children.”

Sherzai claims LG could have implemented available technologies to reduce alleged danger to consumers, including jet-powered infrared gas-range burners.

“Another design proposed in the 1980s was the use of a flame insert, which cuts the nitrous oxides emissions ‘more than 40 percent’ when the burner is turned on high, and even more at low burner settings,” plaintiffs allege. “Despite this, Defendant failed to use an alternative design to avoid these harms and reduce harmful pollutants from gas stoves.”

Claims of Failure to Warn and Overcharging Consumers

Sherzai and attorneys claim LG should have warned its customers of the pollutant risks.

“While Defendant is aware of the harmful health effects of gas cooking, everyday consumers are unaware of these risks,” attorneys for Sherzai wrote. “Consumers shopping for a new oven, range, or stove have very little information about the health risks of gas appliances. Consumers remain unaware because nothing on Defendant’s packaging or labels suggest that the gas stoves regularly emit pollutants that are harmful to human health. Further, the labels and warnings do not mention any risk of nitrogen oxides.”

Sherzai also said in the suit that if customers knew of the “defective design” of LG gas ovens the price would drop “dramatically.” She also alleged through attorneys she would have paid “significantly less” for the product “had she known that it emitted harmful pollutants.”

“If consumers knew the truth, demand for Defendant’s prices would drop, and Defendant could not sell their products at current prices. In addition, the defective design of gas stoves reduces their value. Consumers pay for a stove that is safe for home cooking, but receive a less valuable stove—one with a defective design that carries significant (and undisclosed) air pollution risks.”

Plaintiffs in the suit seek a jury trial as well as damages, restitution, and other costs or relief as determined by the Court.

Biden Administration Latest Action on Gas Ranges

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) this week advanced a request for information on gas stove hazards after it was filed by a commissioner who has floated banning the appliances.

The agency announced on March 1 that it’s seeking information from the public “on chronic chemical hazards from gas ranges.”

The commission released a draft public notice on the request for information but hasn’t released the final notice, which should be published in the Federal Register this month, a commission spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.

Zachary Stieber and Allen Zhong contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has assumed control of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) to protect depositors from losing all of their money after it was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.

Federal banking regulators on March 10 took custody of the country’s 16th largest bank, which was a top lender for American tech and life sciences firms and start-ups, according to a press release.

The collapse of the California bank is the largest bank failure since Washington Mutual in 2008, during the last major bank crisis.

The FDIC set up a so-called bridge bank, the Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB), and as the receiver, transferred all of the insured deposits of SVB there and so all insured assets, up to the $250,000 coverage limit, are safe and will be accessible to depositors starting March 13.

Although the main office and all branches of SVB will reopen at the beginning of next week, the DINB will now control and manage its operations.

The official coverage limit is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category, so some depositors could potentially have more than $250,000 insured.

However, the FDIC added that it “will pay uninsured depositors an advance dividend within the next week” and will receive a receivership certificate for the remaining amount of their uninsured funds.

Future dividend payments may be made to uninsured depositors, while the FDIC sells off the assets of SVB.

“The failure of @SVB_Financial could destroy an important long-term driver of the economy as VC-backed companies rely on SVB for loans and holding their operating cash,” warned Pershing Square CEO Bill Ackman in a tweet just before the bank failure.  

Silicon Valley Lender Was In Trouble For Some Time

It is unverified how much money was pulled out of SVB yesterday after its announcement of a $2.25 billion share sale plan sparked a run on the bank.

The massive interest rate hikes over the past year have caused the value of its bonds to fall, particularly those that take many years to mature, and forced the bank to reinvest the proceeds from its sales into shorter-term assets.

SVB suffered significant losses on its portfolio, which was heavily invested in U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, all of which have taken a beating.

The bank’s shares fell more than 60 percent after its March 8 announcement, wiping out $9.4 billion in market value.

Executives publicly stated that they would dump $21 billion worth of holdings at a $1.75 billion loss, while raising $500 million from venture firm General Atlantic to cover rapidly declining customer deposits and bond losses to save the firm.

General Atlantic has yet to make a comment, only hours after announcing an agreement to invest $500 million in the now-failed bank.

SVB CEO Greg Becker told clients earlier this week to “stay calm. That’s my ask. We’ve been there for 40 years, supporting you, supporting the portfolio companies, supporting venture capitalists.”

However, many depositors, along with many of their venture capital backers, panicked and pulled their money out anyway.

Top venture capital firms like Coatue and Founders Fund encouraged portfolio companies to strongly consider pulling money out of SVB, while Sequoia Capital reiterated its diversification strategy after concerns grew over the bank’s stability.

The California lender had approximately $209 billion in total assets and $175 billion in deposits at the end of 2022.

However, the FDIC said that its current deposit total at this time is “undetermined.”

The amount of insured and uninsured deposits was undetermined at the time of closing and will be determined once the FDIC obtains additional information from the bank and customers.

Economists Hope Fed Will Slow Down Interest Rate Hikes After Bank Failure.

The news of SVB’s failure may cause banks to be more reluctant to offer loans, including rival lenders that are flush with new deposits.

Some economists hope that the news will discourage the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates higher.

The number of investors saying that the likelihood of the central bank would enact a 50-basis-point rate increase, declined today, but the February jobs report could be another factor.

“Lots of chatter today about the possibility of generalized U.S. banking system stress due to SVB troubles. Three summary things on this: While the U.S. banking system as a whole is solid, and it is, that does not mean that every bank is,” stated economist Mohamed A. El-Erian in a tweet.

“Due to the volatility in yields after the prior protracted period of leverage-enabling policy, the most vulnerable currently are those vulnerable to both interest rate and credit risk. Contagion risk and the systemic threat can be easily contained by careful balance sheet management and avoiding more policy mistakes,” he added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Billionaire Bill Gates dismissed the possibility of people making significant changes to their lifestyle, like giving up meat and becoming vegetarians for the sake of countering the alleged effects of climate change.

“I don’t think we can count on people living a impoverished lifestyle as a solution to climate change,” Gates said at an event in India on March 1. “You know, meat consumption in India will be less … That’s wonderful. Will all Indians become vegetarians? Will all Americans become vegetarians? I wouldn’t want to count on it. Anybody who wants to evangelize that, they’re welcome to. I won’t resist in any way.”

Gates had earlier pushed for rich nations to adopt 100 percent synthetic beef that is made from plant proteins like beans or peas, carbs like potato starch, fats like canola or coconut oil, minerals, and flavorings.

In an online interaction on Reddit in January, Gates pushed for the widespread adoption of plant-based meat products.

“For people who want to go Vegan that is great but I don’t think most people will do that. There are companies making ‘beef’ in new ways and people working to still use cows but reduce the methane emissions,” he wrote.

“I have backed a number of innovators in this space including Beyond and Impossible and Memphis. I think eventually these products will be very good even though their share is small today.”

Gates’ push to move away from meat consumption and adopt plant-based alternatives comes as he is busy buying up farmland in America.

According to a July 2022 letter sent by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) seeking Gates’ testimony regarding his farm purchases, the Microsoft founder is the “largest private farmland owner” in the United States, owning more than 270,000 acres of farmland in 19 states.

Energy Consumption

At the India event, Gates also talked about energy consumption. He pointed out that if governments are willing to implement tough laws, air conditioning can simply be banned, which would be “good for the climate.” However, he admitted that this would not happen as a warmer climate will keep raising the demand for cooling.

“But as India gets warmer and warmer, I’m betting the demand for air condition is going to skyrocket. The country that has the most air conditioning by far is the United States. Even Europe doesn’t have what we have. And so, as it gets hotter, you know, you demand more electricity, which if it’s not green, then you’re in a positive feedback loop,” he said.

Gates also pointed out that most of the demand for more energy, cement, and steel is coming from middle-income nations like India, “where even if you stop at, say a quarter of American energy intensity, that climate change is very, very dramatic.”

The Microsoft co-founder also suggested that even when the United States uses “half as much energy per person,” it would be “unjust” to ask India to maintain consumption at its current level.

According to Our World in Data, energy use per person in the United States was 76,634 kilowatt-hours in 2021, which is close to 11 times India’s energy consumption of 6,992 kilowatt-hours per capita.

Climate Change Agenda

Last year, Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, claimed that climate change is based on false narratives.

In an email obtained by The Epoch Times, Moore, who left the organization back in 1986, said that Greenpeace was “hijacked” by the political left when they became aware of the money and power involved in the environment movement.

“The ‘environmental’ movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement,” Moore stated. “They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.”

In June last year, the independent foundation Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) received signatures from over 1,100 scientists and professionals worldwide for its World Climate Declaration (WCD) stating that there is no climate emergency.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Marcel Crok, the founder of CLINTEL, said that even if it is accepted that carbon dioxide is the main driver of current climate change, there still is no “climate emergency”

“We simply state that all evidence so far indicates that the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature [are] not harmful for us or for nature and therefore the climate hysteria surrounding the topic is totally unjustified [and] that the ‘cure’—getting rid of fossil fuels asap and replacing them with renewables—probably will be worse than the ‘disease’ [climate change].”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Policy change would quash oil and gas production, environmentalists argue

Joe Biden’s 2024 budget would eliminate tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry, a move that environmental groups say would cripple oil and gas production in the United States.

The provision comes as U.S. families recover from months of record-high gas prices under Biden. The average price for a gallon of gas in the United States last summer exceeded $5 for the first time in history, and while that number has since dropped to $3.47, the national gas average was just $2.39 when Biden took office.

Biden responded to those sky-high prices by urging oil and gas companies to increase production. Ending fossil fuel tax breaks, however, would force those companies to do the opposite, environmental groups have long argued. Greenpeace—a left-wing group working to “address the climate crisis” and transform America’s “racist” economy—said in 2021 that the elimination of just one oil and gas tax break “would reduce new oil drilling by 25 percent.” Such a dip in supply would prompt higher gas prices, Biden asserted last year. “If we want lower gas prices, we need to have more oil supply right now,” the Democrat said.

Biden touted his budget in a series of Thursday tweets, calling it a “blue-collar blueprint” that would “make our economy work for the middle class again.” But the oil and gas extraction industry employs nearly 150,000 Americans—jobs that are some of the highest-paid blue-collar positions in the country.

The White House did not return a request for comment.

Biden’s push to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks marks the second time this week alone that the Democrat’s administration has targeted the fossil fuel industry. Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed a rule that could force coal plants to close—just months earlier, the White House walked back comments from Biden pledging to shut down coal plants “all across America.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

EPA restrictions would impose new compliance costs on coal plants, which could force them to close

 Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed a rule that could force coal plants to close—just months after the White House walked back Biden’s vow to shut down coal plants “all across America.”

The proposed rule strengthens EPA regulations that require coal plants to filter certain metals out of their wastewater before release, a mandate that would likely require plant operators to invest in technology upgrades to comply. Those compliance costs, the Washington Post reported, could accelerate the phasing out of coal power by pushing plants to “shut down or switch to burning natural gas” rather than pay the increased costs under the rule. Coal power was the second-largest source of electricity in the United States in 2021, generating roughly 22 percent of the nation’s total output, according to Energy Information Administration data.

While the EPA’s announcement does not mention carbon emissions, the rule’s potential impact reflects the intensity with which the Biden administration is working to fight climate change. It also flies in the face of White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s insistence that the administration is not targeting coal plants.

Jean-Pierre in November walked back anti-coal comments from Biden, who said during a San Diego rally that the administration would be “shutting these [coal] plants down all across America and having wind and solar power.” Biden, Jean-Pierre insisted, comes from “coal country” and was not threatening the industry’s workers but rather observing the economic reality of the impending energy transition. “The president’s words, we believe, were twisted,” Jean-Pierre said.

The coal industry, which employed more than 120,000 Americans in 2021, disagreed. Coal industry group America’s Power, for example, assailed Biden’s “call to shut down coal power plants,” saying a switch from coal to wind power would cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion dollars. Now, the EPA’s proposed rule could expedite that transition.

The White House did not return a request for comment.

This is far from the first time the Biden administration has contradicted itself on energy policy. Climate czar John Kerry on Tuesday attacked oil and gas companies for announcing plans to increase production, an action that Biden for months has urged those companies to take.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Reducing its $9 trillion balance sheet will likely slow economy further

Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee on March 7, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell said he is prepared to accelerate interest rate hikes as economic growth and labor shortages continue to fuel inflation.

Meanwhile, the Fed is still sitting atop a massive $8.4 trillion portfolio of bonds it bought through economic stimulus programs. This portfolio now needs to be liquidated as the Fed shifts from stimulus to a more restrictive monetary policy to fight inflation.

“The latest economic data have come in stronger than expected, which suggests that the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated,” Powell told Senators, signaling that the Fed may return to 50-basis-point rate hikes this year.

As of March 7, the Fed funds short-term rate was 4.57 percent.

Alongside the Fed’s interest rate actions is the hangover of its unprecedented bond-buying spree that started during the 2008 mortgage crisis and then accelerated during the covid pandemic.

The Fed’s balance sheet ballooned from less than $1 trillion in August 2008 to a record $9 trillion in April 2022.

This effort to prop up a reeling economy by buying bonds and injecting cash into the economy is called quantitative easing (QE).

When the Fed first engaged in QE in 2008, it was “one of the then-unconventional monetary policy tools the Fed employed in reaction to the Great Recession,” according to a Federal Reserve report.

“With its return during the pandemic, QE seems to have become a more routine part of the Fed’s crisis toolkit.”

The Fed engaged in quantitative easing as an experiment when its other tool to stimulate the economy, reducing short-term interest rates via the banking system, hit its limit; short-term rates in 2008 approached zero.

The central bank embarked on the bond-buying spree to try to drive down longer-term interest rates in bond markets as well.

Then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke quipped that “the problem with QE is it works in practice, but it doesn’t work in theory.” The Fed had reason to believe quantitative easing would stimulate the economy but economists disagreed on its magnitude.

Reversing Bond Buying

Now that policy goals have turned to fighting inflation, the Fed has shifted its bond purchase program into reverse.

As of February, the Fed has reduced its holdings to $8.4 trillion; it has been progressively shrinking them each month since September 2022 in a process known as quantitative tightening (QT).

Still, it has a long way to go as it has only unloaded 5 percent of what it acquired.

What this balance sheet reduction means is that there is a second dynamic at play, which has only just started and that will add to the interest rate hikes the Fed is conducting to cool down America’s economy.

Removing the Fed, which had been the dominant buyer of bonds in its stimulus days, from bond markets will reduce demand, driving bond prices down and pushing interest rates up.

How much and how fast this will slow economic growth remains uncertain for two reasons. First, the Fed has never had such a large accumulation of assets to unload; secondly, it is getting rid of them in a variable way.

Upon announcing the shift from QE to QT, Powell stated, “I would just stress how uncertain the effect is of shrinking the balance sheet.”

According to the Fed report, “There is still debate among economists over how and how well [QE] works. And when it comes to the reverse process of shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet, typically referred to as quantitative tightening [QT], economists know even less.”

Rather than simply sell off assets, the Fed has been allowing them to mature with caps on how much they will roll over, William Luther, director of the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project, told The Epoch Times.

“What they’re doing is they have a cap of $60 billion in treasuries and $35 billion in mortgage-backed securities, and that is the most they will roll over in a given month,” Luther said. “So if there are $65 billion in treasuries that mature, they’re going to roll over $60 billion and reduce their asset holdings by $5 billion.”

‘Volatility For Bond Markets’

“Because it has this roll-off scheme when a lot of treasuries or mortgage-backed securities mature in that month, you get a big reduction in the balance sheet and correspondingly, a big reduction in the demand for those assets on the open market, because the Fed is a big player in these markets,” Luther said.

“So that’s a source of volatility for bond markets that we don’t usually have.”

At the same time, despite the Fed steadily increasing short-term rates, the real interest rates, calculated as interest rates minus inflation, just recently crossed into positive territory, meaning that they are above inflation.

According to the Fed, the real interest rate as of February is 1.58 percent.

This is some marginal good news for savers as, for the first time since 2009, with rare exceptions, they can earn a small positive return on their savings over what they lose to inflation. This has brought fixed-income investments back into vogue as investors once again see positive returns from low-risk securities like U.S. treasury bonds.

“It’s always tempting in situations like this to say, ‘Well there is this silver lining,’” Luther said. “But if it would have been possible to avoid this inflation fiasco and the higher interest rates that bringing down inflation requires, certainly we would have preferred that.

“We’re worse off as Americans, on average, having gone through this high inflation and disinflation period than we would have been if inflation had just been stable and predictable.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Fishermen question apparent contradictions between whale conservation, offshore wind proponents

SWAN’S ISLAND, Maine—For more than 200 years, the Joyce family has weathered storms, the troughs and crests of the economy, and the inherent danger of working on the ocean to draw its living from the sea.

They wouldn’t have it any other way.

“I’ve always been immersed in this,” eighth-generation lobsterman Jason Joyce told The Epoch Times.

But after a lifetime of contending with nature, the lobstermen say they face new adversaries who threaten to end their way of life. Offshore wind corporations, with the backing of the federal government, plan to anchor towering windmills in the waters where they fish.

The wind corporations have, for years, funded environmental groups, which, in turn, have accused the lobstermen of endangering the North Atlantic right whale.

“They’ve been after us for 25 years now,” Galen “Sput” Staples, Joyce’s neighbor and a fellow lobsterman, told The Epoch Times.

Swan’s Island is roughly 80 square miles of hilly, forested land with a small harbor, picturesque homes, and an automated lighthouse.

Situated about six miles off the coast, the island is only accessible by ferry. The only hotel is the Harbor Watch Inn. The management advises customers to pick up groceries before catching the ferry, as there are no restaurants on the island.

Joyce and his fellow lobstermen gather in the Swan’s Island Fishermens Co-op most mornings for bad coffee and good talk.

Most learned their trade from their fathers and grandfathers; all have stories of setting their first traps as boys.

They grew up in the business working as “stern men” on their family’s boats until they could purchase their own. Some fish full-time, and some work side jobs. None of the lobstermen in the co-op can fathom doing anything else.

By law, Maine lobstermen are owner–operators. No corporate factory boats are fishing for Maine lobsters. Instead, the lobsters are caught by small craft, usually crewed by fewer than five people. That promotes conservation because a small operator is less likely to cut corners and risk his entire business, Joyce said.

But it also makes them easy targets for corporate interests who want to control the sea.

“We’re the little guy. We can’t fight back,” Staples said.

The lobstermen’s main tools have changed little since James Joyce dropped his traps in 1806. James would likely be able to captain Jason’s boat after just a little training. Today’s lobstermen use a trap, a buoy, and a line to connect the two, just as their ancestors did. This assembly is called a “haul.”

The lobsterman baits the trap and drops it to the bottom of the sea. The buoy marks the trap’s location and identifies who set it. The line connecting the buoy to the trap enables the lobsterman to retrieve the trap. And that line is the crux of the accusation by the environmental groups.

A host of wildlife conservation and environmental groups, along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service, are calling to eliminate those lines to protect the North Atlantic right whale.

The NOAA claims that a significant factor in whale mortality is human encounters. According to the agency, the whales become tangled in the lobster trap lines, hindering movement and causing injuries that can lead to death.

The NOAA website reports that 97 right whales have had dangerous and sometimes lethal encounters with humans since 2017.

Of that number, 36 were killed, 22 were severely injured, and 38 received survivable injuries. Government agencies and environmental groups responded by springing into action.

Of the 36 deaths documented by NOAA, only nine involved entanglements. And of those, not a single one was linked to Maine lobster gear.

Environmental and animal rights groups have mounted campaigns to save the right whale that have generally portrayed the seafood industry and the lobstermen as hostile to it. As a result, in November 2022, Whole Foods decided to stop selling Maine lobster in its stores.

The grocery chain stated that it made the decision based on information from California-based Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch and the London-based Marine Stewardship Council.

Both groups claimed that the method of fishing for lobster is unsustainable and endangers whales.

The National Marine Fisheries Service began issuing regulations to save the whales.

Lobstermen were required to use nonfloating lines on their traps to reduce the chance of entanglement. If a buoy becomes separated from a line, the line will sink to the bottom, reducing the possibility that a whale or some other animal will become entangled.

It also virtually ensures the lobsterman will lose that trap.

Lobstermen are also required to use “weak links” in their lines. These are sections designed to separate if too much pressure is placed on them. The idea is for a whale to be able to pull itself free if it becomes entangled.

Then, the government wrote rules requiring all lobstermen to increase the number of traps on each haul. The logic behind this rule is that more traps on each line mean fewer lines in the water.

These rules are part of a 10-year plan to require lobstermen to reduce the risk to whales by 98 percent by 2024.

According to the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, its members have done their best to comply with the rules because they want to be good stewards of the environment; however, they say a 98 percent reduction is an impossible goal.

The association sued to block the government’s plan but lost its lawsuit.

Maine’s U.S. congressional delegation inserted a provision into the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill that delays the rule until December 2028 and recently a move has been made to repeal that section of the bill.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking Democratic member and former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, on Feb. 27 introduced the “Restoring Effective Science-based Conservation Under Environmental Laws Protecting Whales Act of 2023,” or the “RESCUE Whales Act.”

A spokesman from Grijalva’s office said there’s no need for the delay in enforcing the 98 percent reduction requirement, since the omnibus bill also provides funding to assist lobstermen in transitioning to new, ropeless fishing gear.

“We want to continue to incentivize the deployment of this technology and get it in the water as quickly as possible, which is why Rep. Grijalva championed the passage of $20 million in funding in the FY 2023 omnibus to help transition the lobster fishing industry to ropeless gear,” Jason Johnson, Grijalva’s communications director, wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.

However, the lobstermen say that ropeless technology hasn’t been widely tested and is very expensive.

Joyce said Grijalva should probably be focused on issues closer to home.

“Why don’t you introduce a bill to assist the enforcement needs of Cochise County [Arizona] Sheriff Mark Dannels in managing your border and leave Maine Lobstermen alone as we continue to maintain a perfect record of zero right whale deaths ever, and zero entanglements since 2004,” Joyce wrote in response to Johnson’s email.

Joyce and his fellow lobstermen don’t dispute NOAA’s whale numbers, but they say those numbers don’t tell the whole story. The lobstermen claim that the government ignores scientific evidence that right whale migration patterns have changed and the whales are moving further away from Maine.

“Simply put—the federal government is wrongly holding Maine lobstermen accountable for the decline of the right whale population,” the Maine Lobstermen’s Association website reads. “Its plan will end the Maine lobster fishery but won’t save right whales.”

Amid all this, the offshore wind lobby has entered the fray.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, has voiced support for her state’s lobster industry. But she also plans for Maine to get 100 percent of its electricity from “green” energy sources by 2040. A major element of her plan is offshore wind.

The Biden administration is also pushing ahead with its plan to promote offshore wind, and the Gulf of Maine, where the lobstermen of Swan’s Island live and work, is part of that plan, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

In August 2022, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced a “request for interest” to assess interest in the development of commercial wind energy leases within a 13.7-million-acre area in the Gulf of Maine, according to the Department of the Interior. It has already invested $80 million to collect baseline information in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Maine.

The lobstermen say windmills would ruin their fishing grounds, decimate their industry, and pose a more significant hazard to whales.

However, Mills says that the two can coexist.

Developments further down the Eastern Seaboard are raising questions about the effect that windmills would have on the ocean and sea life even before the first windmills are operational.

Since December 2022, at least 25 whales have turned up dead on beaches in New York and New Jersey. Whales also have washed ashore in Maryland and Virginia.

Some say the deaths have coincided with seismic surveys for offshore windmill construction; there is concern that sound from the testing interferes with whales’ ability to navigate and may damage their ears.

Three congressmen and more than a dozen mayors whose coastal districts are near offshore wind energy sites are calling for a moratorium on new Atlantic Coast projects until a thorough investigation into a recent spate of whale deaths can rule out wind farm activity as the cause.

The NOAA and pro-offshore wind factions say there’s no evidence of any connection between testing for offshore wind development and whale deaths. However, that’s not to say there’s no effect at all.

During a media teleconference on Jan. 18, representatives from the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management took questions from reporters about whale deaths and the offshore wind work.

One of the speakers acknowledged that the testing might have some effect, although he said it wasn’t connected to mortality.

“I think the way we’ve been describing it … it has the potential to have a behavioral influence,” said Brian Hooker, biology team lead with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Office of Renewable Energy Programs. “And that’s what’s the very effect that we anticipate could occur.”

Benjamin Laws, deputy chief for the permits and conservation division for NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources, was quick to interject.

“Well, I just want to be unambiguous, there is no information that would support any suggestion that any of the equipment that’s being used in support of wind development for these site characterization surveys could directly lead to the death of a whale,” Laws said.

Environmentalists have raised concerns about seismic testing in the oil industry for years. But seismic equipment used by offshore wind interests differs from that in the oil industry, according to Erica Staaterman of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Center for Marine Acoustics.

Offshore wind equipment is smaller, quieter, and more focused than that used by oil and gas, she said.

“So, for example, many of them are used for very short periods of time with a long quiet time in between. So that means that they’re only on for several milliseconds, and then for about 15 seconds, it would be quiet,” Staaterman told reporters.

Scientists are investigating the recent whale deaths and will continue doing so, NOAA spokesperson Lauren Gaches said in a statement to The Epoch Times. She said there’s no conclusive evidence that seismic surveys caused any deaths.

“Strandings and inconclusive necropsies have occurred long before offshore wind was a factor, so correlating the two now is not based in science,” Gaches wrote. “Necropsies can take weeks to months to complete the tissue sample analyses, so that work remains underway.”

Joyce noted that many environmental groups that have been critical of lobster traps are silent regarding surveying. Some have even voiced support, saying that offshore wind development is necessary to counteract climate change.

He’s curious how a temporary line from a lobster trap is a hazard to whales, while permanent underwater cables, pilings, and related infrastructure for hundreds of offshore windmills aren’t an issue.

According to a report by the “Save Right Whales Coalition,” there may be more than climate change concerns behind the environmentalists’ position.

The group is a coalition of people along the East Coast who are concerned about offshore wind development’s impact on the ocean and their coastal communities. The group published its report, “Conflicts of Interest: Environmental Organizations Take Offshore Wind Industry Money,” on its webpage.

“A recent investigation found many conservation groups accept millions of dollars in donations from the offshore wind industry,” the group wrote.

Danish wind energy company Orsted Global donated $500,000 to U.S.-based nonprofit Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in 2018, according to the latter’s website.

The following November, the institute announced that it was “excited to use Department of Energy funds to make offshore wind more sustainable.”

Orsted, along with energy company Eversource, donated $1.25 million to Mystic Aquarium, a marine aquarium in Connecticut, according to Eversource’s website. Eversource serves customers in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.

Mystic Aquarium reportedly used the funds to build a state-of-the-art exhibit and finance media projects promoting wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources.

“In November 2021, the aquarium developed a video titled ‘The Promise of Offshore Wind,’ with Orsted listed as a ‘supporter’ in the credits,” the report reads.

Federal Agencies Involved

In 1984, the federal government founded the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as a 501(c)(3) corporation to connect public projects with private financing to preserve wildlife and habitat.

In 2019 and 2020, energy company Avangrid Renewables gave between $100,000 and$499,999 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the report states.

According to a statement on its website, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation entered an agreement in 2021 with U.S.-based wind company Apex Clean Energy. Under the agreement, Apex would donate to the foundation $1,000 per megawatt of generating capacity that Apex commercializes, and the foundation would match the donation dollar-for-dollar to finance grants.

On its website, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation includes a link to a program to protect whales from entanglement in fishing gear but makes no mention of possible threats from the offshore wind industry, according to the report.

‘You Guys Aren’t Concerned About Whales at All’

While the local activists may be motivated by good intentions, Sawyer Spencer—a lifelong lobsterman and a regular at the co-op—doubts the motivations of the moneyed interests. He told the co-op gathering that his view was summed up by a fisherman he saw quoted on a local news broadcast.

“He said, ‘You guys aren’t concerned about the whales at all,’” Sawyer said.

Samuel Joy is a 30-something island native and the son of a minister who has spent his life lobstering.

One cold February morning, Joy built new lobster traps in front of a wood-burning stove as his 4-year-old son Elias played with building blocks, and Joyce, his father-in-law, watched from a chair near the stove.

Joy is an amiable, friendly man with dark hair and a calm demeanor. Like the other lobstermen who spoke with The Epoch Times, he said he’s all for conserving whales and wants to preserve the environment. He also wants to maintain the life and work that he loves.

“I’ve been fishing every summer since I was 5 years old. I want to give [Elias] as much opportunity as I had when I was a kid,” he said.

Joy says that he’s cautiously optimistic and is quick to answer when asked if he would recommend that a young man consider lobstering as a vocation.

“Just fish until they make you stop,” he said.

Sawyer said the negative effect of implementing the whale regulations and establishing offshore wind farms would extend beyond just displacing the lobstermen. Considering the ancillary jobs connected to lobstering, the economic impact could devastate the coastal communities and beyond.

“The whole state of Maine is going to be displaced,” Sawyer said. “What we’re doing is trying to survive.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Just what we need…fake mass vaccination that does more harm than good. After all, chickens contribute a huge amount to climate change, right? [US Patriot]

The Biden administration is considering the mass vaccination of the poultry population in response to an ongoing outbreak of avian flu that has killed off millions of birds and has helped spike egg and poultry costs.

There are some existing vaccines for farm birds, but U.S. Agriculture Department spokesman Mike Stepien told The New York Times that no vaccination effort has been authorized and the department is unsure if the existing vaccines will be effective against the current strain of H5N1 bird flu. Erica Spackman, a researcher for the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, told the newspaper that scientists are researching new vaccine candidates to help curb the ongoing bird flu outbreak.

Thus far, the Biden administration has made no decision to impose a poultry vaccine mandate.

“There are a range of options the United States regularly considers when there is any outbreak that could affect the security and safety of the United States’ food supply,” the White House National Security Council told news outlets on Monday. “Right now, we are focused on promoting and enhancing high-impact biosafety practices and procedures.”

Instead of a bird flu vaccine program, many farmers have instead been culling millions of their livestock. At least 52.3 million birds were killed off throughout the United States in 2022.

“The Department of Agriculture continues to respond quickly whenever the virus is detected among bird populations,” the National Security Council said on Monday.

Bird Flu Risks

Bird flu can be deadly. An 11-year-old girl in Cambodia died last month after becoming infected with H5N1.

Bird flu can spread to humans through direct contact between a person and a farm bird or between a person and a contaminated surface. Bird flu contaminants can also spread through droplets or dust particles that a farm bird could kick up when it flaps its wings.

For now, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention assesses that the risk of H5N1 spreading to humans remains low. That said, disease researchers have heightened concerns over growing numbers of infections among wild birds and some mammal species and the possibility the virus could evolve to spread more easily between people.

Vaccine Program Would Have Trade-Offs

Vaccinating millions of farm birds could be a complicated endeavor, and while a vaccine program may be able to slow or prevent the spread of the bird flu, it could also trigger trade bans.

“We don’t have any assurance that any of our trading partners would accept our products if we began vaccinating any birds,” Julie Gauthier, the USDA veterinary service’s assistant director for poultry health, told Lancaster Farming in October.

While a vaccine program might help farmers to prevent disease outbreaks and preserve more of their livestock and poultry products, the costs of the program might outweigh the international trade regulations a vaccine program could trigger.

The United States is the world’s largest producer of poultry meat, accounting for about 17 percent of the global output, according to United Nations data.

The United States exported an average of $4.4 billion worth of poultry meat annually between 2017 and 2021.

Other countries are also considering a new poultry vaccine program to counteract the H5N1 bird flu.

Professor Ian Brown, who is advising the United Kingdom government’s response to the bird flu, recently told the newspaper i that the UK is also considering a new vaccine program. Brown said such a vaccination program “represents quite a big change, because vaccination is prohibited in the U.K. in poultry.”

“So it has to be carefully balanced, but obviously with the changing risk, looking at vaccination as one component of a control program is obviously prudent,” Brown added.

The European Union already has a poultry vaccine ready to respond to H5N1. The European Commission announced animals and goods can flow between businesses and zones where vaccinations have taken place, beginning on March 12.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

From NTD News

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Says European investigations must conclude before conclusions are drawn and ‘follow-on actions’ potentially taken

The New York Times has reported that U.S. intelligence sources believe the September 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage may have been the work of a pro-Ukrainian group made up of Russian or Ukrainian nationals. Yet on March 7, a spokesman for the National Security Council (NSC) offered guarded answers to questions about the reports.

The NSC’s John Kirby said Germany, Sweden, and Denmark are still investigating the causes of those leaks, which disrupted a formerly crucial conduit of energy between Russia and Europe in the midst of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

“I’m just not going to get ahead of that investigative work,” Kirby told reporters.

White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said much the same when asked by a reporter on March 7 about whether the Times’ story had come up in President Biden’s meeting with German Chancellor Olof Scholz.

“I’m just not gonna go beyond the readout that we provided on Friday with the chancellor’s visit here,” she added.

Russia had reduced and eventually cut off the flow of natural gas through the Nord Stream system in the months preceding the attack.

Germany on March 7 said it was aware of the report but is still at work on its own investigation.

The NSC spokesman was also asked whether the possible involvement of a pro-Ukraine group could compromise U.S. relations with Germany, which has struck a more neutral stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict than many other European nations. Germany has historically relied on Russia for a significant percentage of its oil and gas, thanks in recent years to the Nord Stream network.

“We do believe, and the president has said this, that it was an act of sabotage. But we need to let these investigations conclude. And only then should we be looking at what follow-on actions might or might not be appropriate,” Kirby responded.

Reporting on the possible involvement of a pro-Ukraine group has said that no evidence links those actions with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy or other officials in the government.

According to the New York Times, the sabotage was not carried out with the aid of any British or American nationals.

The Epoch Times has not been able to independently confirm these reports.

Notably, the Times’ narrative comes just weeks after veteran U.S. journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the leak was the result of a “covert sea operation” allegedly by the United States.

An aide for Zelenskyy said Ukraine’s government was “absolutely not involved,” adding that the government had no additional knowledge on the incident.

In addition, Russia has not yet confirmed the reported findings from U.S. intel sources.

The Epoch Times has sought comment from the Russian government and Gazprom, the state-owned energy company that operates Nord Stream.

High-profile independent journalists have voiced skepticism about the latest disclosures from U.S. intelligence sources, suggesting it is unlikely the United States was ignorant of such an undertaking, or that U.S. operatives were not somehow involved.

“Ukraine has virtually no Navy, but according to the new narrative, some ‘pro-Ukrainian’ randos took it upon themselves ‘without the approval of Zelensky’ to sail to Denmark and blow up nordstream in the deep sea,” wrote journalist Jordan Schachtel on Twitter.

“Two options: Either we helped Ukraine blow up the Nordstream pipeline…or we didn’t, found out later and continued to provide tens of billions to an ‘ally’ which finds it preferable to risk great power conflict and draw us in,” Breaking Points’ Saagar Enjeti said on Twitter. “Not sure which is worse.”

Reuters contributed to this reporting

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A left-wing activist group this week launched a campaign to label Federalist Society chairman Leonard Leo as the head of a “dark money network.” The group may not have a leg to stand on, considering the millions of dollars it receives in untraceable, dark money donations. 

Accountable.US on Monday unveiled a website dedicated to painting Leo as “the real Mr. MAGA,” a shady figure wielding dark money to change the American judiciary. But the group is at the heart of the exact kind of network it decries. Since 2019, Accountable.US has taken nearly $9 million from the New Venture Fund, a nonprofit that funds progressive causes without disclosing its donors, according to tax filings. The group is part of a network of progressive groups funded by the progressive billionaire George Soros, which seeks to pack the Supreme Court to dilute the votes of conservative justices.

This is the latest example of Democratic groups complaining about dark money while raking it in themselves. According to the New York Times, the largest Democrat-aligned dark money organizations spent more than $1.5 billion in 2020, compared with $900 million for Republican dark money groups. 

Progressive groups have increasingly set their sights on Leo over his advocacy for conservative judges in the federal judiciary and Supreme Court. Activists also blame Leo, the former vice president of the influential Federalist Society, for laying the groundwork to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

But the New Venture Fund has given millions of dollars to groups like Demand Justice, which has led calls to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court in order to dilute the votes of conservative justices. The fund and its related organizations, including Arabella Advisors and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, do not disclose their donors. But some prominent Democratic donors have disclosed their contributions to the organizations—including Soros, who has contributed around $35 million to the New Venture Fund since 2020. 

While Accountable.US accuses Leo of carrying out former president Donald Trump’s “MAGA agenda,” the activists behind the progressive nonprofit recently launched the Congressional Integrity Project, an initiative to defend the Biden administration against congressional oversight and against investigations into President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s foreign business dealings. 

The Congressional Integrity Project, which has received $1.5 million in donations from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, has colluded with the White House and members of Congress to stifle congressional investigations into the Biden administration and into the Biden family’s business dealings. According to one report, the Congressional Integrity Project has coordinated with Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, to stymie the Republican probes. 

The Congressional Integrity Project hosted a conference call with reporters last Friday to tout the release of a dossier from House Judiciary Committee Democrats that smears three former FBI agents-turned-whistleblowers who say the bureau unfairly targets conservative groups. It is unclear if the group helped with the dossier. 

Accountable.US did not respond to a request for comment. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

REVIEW: ‘The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us’

What do Ray Kurzweil and Greta Thunberg have in common? On the surface, not very much. One is an American computer scientist and futurist famous as a prophet of “the singularity”—the moment when the line between man and machine disappears and our brains get an ever-improving software upgrade. Another is a Swedish teenager who made a name for herself by ditching school and shouting at world leaders about climate change.

To Adam Kirsch, though, they are connected in a profound way. Both are part of a phenomenon after which he has named a short new book: The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us. Kurzweil and Thunberg, argues Kirsch, belong to a disparate group that “from Silicon Valley boardrooms to rural communities to academic philosophy departments” is considering a revolutionary and novel idea: “that the end of humanity’s reign on Earth is imminent and that we should welcome it.”

This “turn against human primacy” takes two forms. One is “Anthropocene antihumanism,” a “radical response to … ecological crisis” that rejects the philosophical notion of “humanity’s traditional role as Earth’s protagonist, the most important being in creation.” The other is transhumanism, a glorification of technological progress according to which “the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens.”

These notions seem less fringe by the day. Climate doomsaying is, increasingly, par for the course in much of the media, with predictions of our imminent extinction becoming so common as to have lost their power to shock. And while we roll our eyes at Mark Zuckerberg’s cartoonish Metaverse and ask ChatGPT to tell us bad jokes, it’s hard to shake the feeling that we’re in the midst of a fundamental change in our relationship with machines. We slip further and further into our screens, blurring the line between the virtual and the real. That may not be transhumanism, but it is a step in that direction, and our age’s most powerful tech titans, from Zuckerberg to Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, take the idea seriously.

With The Revolt Against Humanity, Kirsch, a poet, literary critic, and editor of the Wall Street Journal‘s weekend Review section, has produced pen portraits of these twin ideas and their potentially far-reaching moral and political consequences.

Kirsch explains convincingly why these ideas aren’t like what has come before them. Take the environmental anti-humanists, for example. Their doomsaying has a lot in common with the apocalyptic fears of nuclear wipeout that were common during the Cold War and have made an unwelcome comeback in recent years. Both are warnings about humankind’s own folly leading to its—and the planet’s—demise. But, as Kirsch explains, the climate-change doomsayers have a “more radically unsettling” warning: “It means humanity is endangered not by our acknowledged vices, such as hatred and violence, but by pursuing aims that we ordinarily consider good and natural: prosperity, comfort, increase of our kind. The Bible gives the negative commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ as well as the positive commandment ‘be fruitful and multiply,’ and traditionally they have gone together. But if being fruitful and multiplying starts to be seen as itself a form of killing, since it deprives future generations and other species of irreplaceable resources, then the flourishing of humanity can no longer be seen as simply good.”

Kirsch approaches these ideas as an even-handed skeptic; he is clearly disturbed by their implications, but does his best to understand their proponents on their own terms. That said, he does allow himself to have fun with the more amusingly out-there elements in the antihumanist rebellion. There’s Timothy Morton, for example: an adherent of “object-oriented ontology,” or OOO. He urges greater solidarity with “non-human people,” meaning not just animals but also plants and random objects like rocks. Or Patricia MacCormack, a philosopher who peddles a worldview so dark it is hard to take seriously. She has claimed to be “deeply saddened that there has never managed to be an annihilation of the human species, in spite of plague and war.”

I doubt slogans like “rocks have feelings too” or “let’s all die” have especially widespread appeal. Thankfully. But don’t let these fringe cases encourage an already understandable temptation not to take the antihumanists too seriously. Kirsch appears aware of this urge to dismiss climate alarmism as, well, alarmism, and transhumanists’ predictions of our cyborg future as science fiction. He urges more serious engagement.

And it is here where The Revolt Against Humanity is so persuasive. When faced with, say, the growing trend of millennials saying they aren’t having children because of climate change, or predictions of species-transforming technological revolution just over the horizon, it is easy to be cynical: to assume that you have encountered glib hyperbole, not a serious worldview.

Kirsch understands that reaction: “Neither the sun nor death can be looked at with a steady eye, said La Rochefoucauld. The disappearance of the human race belongs in the same category. We can acknowledge that it’s bound to happen someday, but the possibility that the day might be tomorrow, or 10 years from now, is hard to contemplate. That instinctive reaction contributes to an air of unreality that surrounds many of the ideas in this book. Calls for the disappearance of humanity are hard to understand other than rhetorically. It’s natural to assume that transhumanism is just a dramatic way of calling attention to the promise of a new technology, while Anthropocene antihumanism is really environmentalism in a hurry.”

But Kirsch warns us not to fall into the trap of dismissing a set of beliefs just because they rest on a prediction that you think is wide of the mark. After all, many world-changing religious traditions have made predictions of an end of humanity that have not borne out. As Kirsch points out, “In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells his followers that the world is going to end in their lifetime. … This proved not to be true—at least not in any straightforward sense—but the promise still changed the world.”

Kirsch is not the first author to draw comparisons between climate-change doomsaying or transhumanist tech-utopianism and traditional religions. He subscribes to the idea that these movements “appeal to the people who are committed to science and reason, yet yearn for clarity and purpose of an absolute moral imperative.” This promise of enlightened sacrifice, Kirsch argues, is what makes the revolt against humanity so potent.

When Kirsch points out the differences between these voguish ideas and older theology, he offers disturbing new insights. Many religious traditions predict an end of humanity, but they offer something more: “Rather than simply vanishing, we will be physically and spiritually transformed.” Contrast that with the modern idea of human extinction, which “implies that our disappearance will change nothing. The planet and the universe will go on in exactly the same way after humanity ceases to exist, except that other animals and planets will have a better chance to flourish. The death of the human race is as cosmically meaningless as the death of an individual, since both are soon swallowed up by oblivion.”

That is a disturbing foundation on which to construct a worldview. And even if it proves to be an incorrect prediction, Kirsch is utterly convincing in his argument that this set of beliefs can nonetheless upend our politics, economics, technology, and culture.

The Revolt Against Humanity: Imagining a Future Without Us
by Adam Kirsch
Columbia Global Reports, 104 pp., $15.99

Oliver Wiseman is deputy editor of the Spectator World, the U.S. edition of the world’s oldest magazine.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Solar sales, nonprofits, and local governments likely to benefit

Since the Inflation Reduction Act allocated $60 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to accelerate environmental justice work, the EPA has been busy figuring out how to spend it.

Some $32 billion will be broken into grant programs with at least 40 percent of that money ($12.8 billion) going to projects that advance equity for racial minorities and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, EPA documents show.

The specifics of how the money will be spent are being decided now, as the EPA considers public comment and prepares the parameters for applications, which are expected to open in the summer of 2023.

Broadly, the $32 billion includes $5 billion for Climate Pollution Reduction Grants and nearly $27 billion for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).

Solar Bucks

Within the $27 billion, the Zero-Emissions Technologies Program will award $7 billion in competitive grants to “provide financial and technical assistance to projects that deploy residential and community solar, associated storage technologies, and related upgrades,” the EPA website says. Up to 60 grants are expected to be awarded through this program.

Funding priorities for the $20 billion will be described in an upcoming Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Unlike a typical grant program, the EPA will not provide grants directly to projects. Instead, it will give grants to eligible states, tribes, territories, municipalities, and nonprofits, and those grantees will then provide loans, grants, and other forms of financial and technical assistance to eligible projects.

Communities, small businesses, and individual households will be able to seek funding from these grantees and the indirect recipients the grantees fund, such as community development financial institutions and credit unions.

This program “will support the creation of high-paying jobs. EPA expects to award between 2 and 15 grants through this program,” according to the website.

Upon the announcement of the GGRF in mid-February, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the $27 billion would leverage public and private investments in clean energy projects for the underserved, and it would likely result in the largest-ever federal investment in rooftop and community solar projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

Unelected Nonprofits Managing Tax Dollars

The Climate Pollution Reduction Grants include $550 million for the EPA’s new Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking program, which will go to up to 11 entities to serve as grantmakers to community-based projects that reduce pollution.

Grantmakers will be community-based nonprofit organizations or partnerships between nonprofits and universities or tribal nations.

The grantmakers will each be given $50 million in taxpayer money, and each will use some of those funds to develop its own simplified process for grant application “so that organizations that historically have faced barriers to receiving funding can more seamlessly apply for grants that address environmental harms and risks,” the EPA said in a statement about the program.

Then the Grantmakers will begin awarding subgrants to community-based organizations that they choose, no later than early 2024.

Pricey Planning

The $5 billion in Climate Pollution Reduction Grants the EPA announced this week is a two-phase plan.

First, $250 million will be split among all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Each is eligible to receive $3 million to write a plan to cut climate pollution. Participation will require each state government to develop or update a detailed climate action plan. The policies that come out of those action plans may be felt by consumers. States have until March 31 to opt in to this grant.

This $250 million also includes funding for each of the 67 most populous metropolitan areas in the country. They are eligible to receive $1 million each for plans to tackle climate pollution locally.

Once the climate plans are written, phase two is $4.6 billion to be spent on implementation of those plans.

More for Nonprofits

In January, the EPA announced $100 million for Environmental Justice Grants, including $30 million in funding directly to community-based nonprofit organizations with $5 million reserved for small community-based nonprofit organizations with five or fewer full-time employees.

The EPA will make 50 awards of $500,000 and 30 awards of $150,000.

Details of what the money will do depends on the applications (due April 10) that come in from the nonprofits. The EPA will give special consideration to these focus areas: projects addressing climate change, disaster resiliency, and/or emergency preparedness; projects located in or benefitting rural areas; and projects conducting Health Impact Assessments.

“Every American deserves access to clean air and water—no matter their zip code, the color of their skin or the size of their paycheck,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement when the funding was announced. “Access to clean air and clean water isn’t only an environmental issue—it’s a matter of health and safety, systemic racism and persistent discrimination against those in low-income communities. I’m hopeful that today, we’re making important advances toward ending this crisis.”

Congressional Oversight

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, sent a Feb. 27 letter to the EPA (pdf), asking for assistance in conducting oversight of the environmental justice (EJ) grants.

The letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan requests documents, information, and a staff-level briefing to ensure that the EPA is mitigating the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer resources.

The EPA has until March 13 to produce the documents.

“The EPA’s own case studies for EJ grant programs demonstrate weak standards for grantees to practically address environmental concerns,” the letter says, adding that grantees failed to clearly
define health or environmental concerns, articulate intended results, and continued to engage in activities that may not be effective and “did logically lead to the desired environmental and/or public health [result].”

“Oversight mechanisms in these programs are lacking, and adequate metrics for applicants must be imposed to avoid funneling money into vague projects that will enable a $100 million slush fund for far-left organizations,” the letter said.

“Along with ill-defined issuance metrics for grant programs, the sheer volume of money flowing through the EPA, prompts review of the agency’s ability to properly manage its rapidly inflated budget. The EPA’s total budgetary resources in FY2021 were approximately $17.2 billion, skyrocketing to $76.5 billion in FY2022. The agency must account for its ability to effectively prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funding that has more than quadrupled within the span of a year.”

The Epoch Times contacted Regan for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The House on Feb. 28 passed a resolution by a vote of 216-204 disapproving of a Department of Labor (DOL) rule allowing retirement plan managers to take environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into account when making investment decisions.

The investment plan for retirement funds that collectively invest $12 trillion on behalf of 152 million Americans has been criticized by Republican lawmakers who claim the DOL regulation “politicizes” investing by allowing fund managers to pursue liberal causes.

The measure is now headed to the Senate, where Republicans hope to gather enough support to pass it as early as Wednesday. If the law gets put to Joe Biden’s desk, the White House has warned that he would veto it.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) submitted the bipartisan resolution of disapproval last month. The legislation has the support of all Republican senators, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), and more than 100 groups.

Barr said on the House floor that since Biden took office his administration has “waged a war on American energy production.”

He said that ESG funds carry higher fees and are less diversified than non-ESG funds. “Twenty-one percent of investors don’t even know what ESG stands for,” Barr said.

But Democrats argued that Republicans were tying the hands of capitalists by not promoting the Biden-backed plan.

Rep Sean Casten (D-Ill.) weighed in saying that Republicans “talk a good game” about personal freedom but are essentially taking the freedom of individual investors with the resolution.

“If you all are afraid of free markets … If you want to force your constituents to invest in proven losers, then please vote for this resolution,” Casten said on the House floor.

The White House said Monday that Biden would veto the bill if it came to his desk.

“The rule reflects what successful marketplace investors already know—there is an extensive body of evidence that environmental, social, and governance factors can have material impacts on certain markets, industries, and companies,” the White House said in a statement.

The measure will need just a simple majority to pass the Senate, where Democrats have a 51-49 majority. Republicans hope for a vote of at least 50-49 in favor of the measure given Manchin’s support and Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) recent absence due to a hospitalization.

“I’ll be proud to support this commonsense measure later this week,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a floor speech.

Sen. Braun is bringing the resolution under the Congressional Review Act, which bypasses the Senate’s “filibuster” rule that requires the support of 60 senators to pass most legislation.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Dem’s Interior Department quietly updates data, debunks White House talking point on gas prices

In his quest to shift blame for rising gas prices, Joe Biden accused oil companies of “sitting on nearly 9,000 unused but approved” drilling permits. Now, his own administration is acknowledging that’s wrong.

Biden’s Interior Department quietly updated its list of unused permits to reflect a much lower figure: 6,600, E&E News reported Monday. The department, which manages oil and gas drilling on federal land, blamed the change on a “reporting discrepancy.”

The revelation comes as a blow to Biden as he attempts to defend himself from Republican critics, who argue that the Democrat is “attacking American energy” and raising gas prices by slowing fossil fuel production. Biden routinely responded to that charge by accusing oil and gas companies of “sitting on nearly 9,000 unused but approved permits for production on federal lands,” a talking point that is now debunked. Under Biden, new oil leasing has slowed to its lowest level since World War II, with the Democrat only approving court-ordered or congressionally mandated leases.

In addition to Biden, top administration officials such as National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and former White House press secretary Jen Psaki have used the 9,000-permit talking point to argue that the oil and gas industry has “plenty of opportunities … to drill here in the United States.” The American Petroleum Institute admonished the administration for its “inaccurate and misleading numbers” and called on Biden to “support American production.”

“It is time for the administration to end the finger-pointing and instead support American production with a comprehensive strategy for American energy development—one that includes a final five-year program for offshore leasing and quarterly onshore lease sales,” the institute said in a statement.

The White House did not return a request for comment.

Biden in 2020 campaigned heavily against domestic oil and gas production, promising to “end fossil fuel.” The Democrat went on to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and implement a moratorium on new gas leases within days of taking office. Gas prices later reached record highs—in June 2022, the average price for a gallon of gas in the United States hit $5 for the first time ever.

The Biden campaign’s crusade against fossil fuels—which helped the Democrat appeal to young liberal voters—has made many U.S. oil companies wary of investing in new drilling operations given the long-term political risk, the Washington Post reported last year. Those companies—which determine their drilling plans more than a year in advance—have also faced labor shortages under Biden, with the oil industry comprising roughly 12,400 fewer workers last year than it did prior to the coronavirus pandemic.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The push to electrify everything in our lives in the name of lower emissions has always seemed a bit optimistic, given the nation’s rickety and increasingly dodgy electric grid. 

But there’s another, more troubling, menace to the grid that exceeds its mechanical shortcomings. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, vandalism aimed at transformers, substations and power lines is on the rise across the country.

And these aren’t your garden variety vandals out to make a mess. There seems to be an intention to destroy infrastructure behind a growing number of these attacks:

Brian Harrell, former assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security, said there has lately been a notable increase in conversations among extremists about targeting critical infrastructure.

“These groups are talking to each other, and they’re learning from each other,” he said. “It gets a lot of people’s attention when you start turning off the lights, and I think that’s what they’re craving.”

Kooks, cranks, would-be terrorists…they really don’t care about electric vehicles or appliances. They are interested in causing maximum disruption and harm.

The electric grid just happens to be one way for them to do it. A Brookings Institution report on domestic terrorism notes that a North Carolina incident in which two transformers were attacked and power was disrupted for more than 40,000 people gave:

…important lessons about the persistence of domestic terrorism, the vulnerability of U.S. infrastructure to attacks, and the need for imaginative counterterror efforts against a diversifying threat that includes new perpetrators and targets.

The same report also notes that some groups intent on spreading harm have actively “encouraged attacks against the energy infrastructure sector as being ‘sitting ducks, worthy prey’ and ‘largely unprotected and often in remote locations.’”

Since 9/11, governments and law enforcement have understood that foreign terrorists were keen on inflicting damage on critical infrastructure – everything from refineries to dams to the electric grid. It very much looks like domestic terror groups are reading from the same script, using similar tactics.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

Joe Biden and his administration are attempting to develop an “authoritarian-style” and “surveillance-style” digital U.S. dollar through executive orders, warned House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on Feb. 28.

The four-term congressman recently introduced the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act to prohibit “unelected bureaucrats” in Washington from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) that critics argue could diminish Americans’ financial privacy rights.

The bill, which has several Republican co-sponsors, including Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), would also ensure that the Federal Reserve is held accountable in its research and development of a digital dollar.

“The consequences, if we get it wrong, are far too serious,” Emmer said at a news conference. “The Biden administration is currently itching to create a digital authoritarian-style, surveillance-style digital dollar through an executive order.”

The bill, Emmer says, would restrict the central bank from issuing a CBDC or using a CBDC to implement monetary policy and control the national economy.

He added that efforts to digitize the U.S. dollar need to be transparent and protect Americans’ right to financial privacy. Developing a digital version of the greenback must enhance financial inclusion, ensure transactions are efficient, and refrain from threatening Americans’ privacy or sovereignty.

“We need these common-sense guardrails to prevent unelected bureaucrats here in Washington from sacrificing Americans’ right to financial privacy,” he said. “We do not want to emulate the CCP. We should not be taking our direction from the Communist Party of China.”

In March 2022, Biden signed an executive order that requested the Federal Reserve to continue its ongoing CBDC research, experimentation, and evaluation to determine the benefits and risks of a digital dollar.

Bullish on a CBDC?

Over the past couple of years, the Fed and the Treasury Department have published several CBDC-related reports.

Speaking at a panel discussion hosted by the Bank for International Settlements in March 2022, Fed Chair Jerome Powell outlined his four qualifications to support a digital dollar: privacy, verifiable, intermediated, and widely accepted as a means of payment.

For now, the central bank hasn’t decided on issuing a CBDC or how to implement a system, but policymakers and researchers are assessing the technology, says Michael Neal, executive vice president and head of markets at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

“We are actively conducting research and technical investigations into both retail and wholesale CBDC designs to improve our understanding of the risks and opportunities inherent to a U.S. dollar CBDC,” Neal stated at a February event in New York.

In November 2022, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a group of major banks, including Citigroup and Wells Fargo, launched a 12-week pilot project that tested using digital tokens, which represented digital dollars. The purpose of the proof-of-concept program was to research a regulated liability network whereby financial institutions issue tokens that function as clients’ deposits that are settled on a central bank reserve on a shared distributed ledger.

The Fed Bank of San Francisco recently posted a job opening for a “senior application developer–digital currency.” The position would involve helping the regional central bank design and institute systems necessary for CBDC research.

“Given the dollar’s important role, Federal Reserve System seeks to further understand the cost and benefits of the potential technologies for central bank digital currencies, and how the system better understand this emerging field,” the San Francisco Fed Bank wrote.

Central banks worldwide have started exploring CBDCs as these entities try to catch up with China after the world’s second-largest economy introduced its Digital Currency Electronic Payment, also known as an e-yuan, in April 2021.

The Bank of England confirmed that it’s looking into CBDCs. But Deputy Governor Jon Cunliffe revealed to a Treasury Select Committee Hearing on Feb. 28 that the central bank doesn’t currently possess the technical skills to issue a digital version of the pound.

“But to move to the next stage, which would be to build a working prototype, to test in a simulated environment and then you’d be into testing in a live environment, then implementation. This next phase is designed to put us in a position to do that,” Cunliffe stated.

Last year, the Reserve Bank of India created two CBDC pilots in multiple cities nationwide, with thousands of customers and businesses testing the e-rupee.

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) announced (pdf) that it would begin a pilot program in April to experiment with using a digital yen. The program would consist of simulating transactions with private companies in a controlled environment.

“Our hope is that the pilot program will lead to improved designs through discussion with private businesses,” BOJ Executive Director Shinichi Uchida, adding that these efforts would ensure the BOJ would be prepared in the event the federal government chose to adopt and issue a digital yen.

It has been estimated that roughly 100 nations, accounting for approximately 95 percent of global GDP, are exploring a CBDC. In May 2020, there were just 35.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

On Tuesday, Feb. 28, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding challenges on the legality of the Biden administration’s contested program to forgive billions of dollars in federally-backed student loan debt. Confirmation that the High Court would hear the case came on Dec. 1, 2022.

The Biden administration announced the three-pronged Student Debt Relief program in a Fact Sheet on Aug. 24, 2022, just a little over two months before the Nov. 8, 2022, midterm elections. As previously reported by The Epoch Times, some suggested the program was one of several efforts to “buy votes.”

“Virtually every legal scholar that I have spoken to has said that the president of the United States really doesn’t have the authority to do this, and the people at the White House and Domestic Policy Council know that,” Tom Basile told The Epoch Times. “But they also know they couldn’t get it through Congress so they figure they would do this and let people believe they were going to be able to do this.”

Basile also suggested that this wasn’t the first time the Biden administration has pushed for a program they knew would face legal challenges so they could make Republicans “look like the bad guys by trying to uphold the rule of law.”

“They knew it would be litigated,” Basile noted, adding that the move is “very similar” to what the administration did with the eviction moratorium.

Basile, best known as the host of the Newsmax program “America Right Now,” is an adjunct professor at Fordham University and a member of the New York State Bar Association.

Because of the legal challenges, the Biden administration was forced to delay the implementation of his plan several times.

The Arguments

There are currently two legal challenges to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.

Republicans and conservative groups argue that Biden doesn’t have the power to cancel consumer debt without Congressional approval and that the policy itself is harmful.

In September, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Biden’s program, if implemented, would cost U.S. taxpayers around $400 billion—a figure that critics say underestimates the scope of the cost that will actually settle upon the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers.

In the meantime, the Biden administration insists that it is acting within the law, arguing that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. Secretary of Education the authority to waive regulations related to student loans during national emergencies. The United States has been operating under an Emergency Declaration due to COVID since March 13, 2020.

READ MORE

House Republicans Introduce Bill to ‘Terminate’ COVID-19 Health Emergency

Biden v. Nebraska

On Sept. 29, 2022, Republican attorneys general in six states—Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina—filed a challenge (pdf), asking the Supreme Court to consider the legality of the Biden administration’s student debt relief program, asserting that the plan exceeds the Secretary of Education’s authority.

While the six states allege that Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan exceeds the Secretary of Education’s authority, the Biden administration argues that the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003 authorizes the secretary to waive or modify statutes during or in the aftermath of national emergencies—provides the Secretary of Education the authority to implement the debt relief program.

The Eighth Circuit ruled that Missouri does have standing, based on harm that would be suffered by the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a loan provider created by Missouri statute. Plaintiffs further argue that the forgiveness program could harm state tax revenues and diminish investments tied to student loans. Plaintiffs further argue that the secretary’s action is not authorized by statute because the economic conditions used to justify the student loan forgiveness plan are not sufficiently connected to the COVID-19 emergency and that its purpose is to keep certain borrowers from suffering further financial trouble in relation to their student loans.

As stated in the White House’s fact sheet, an objective of the plan is to: “Advance racial equity.”

“By targeting relief to borrowers with the highest economic need, the Administration’s actions are likely to help narrow the racial wealth gap,” the Biden administration explained, alleging that, “Black students are more likely to have to borrow for school and more likely to take out larger loans,” and that “Black borrowers are twice as likely to have received Pell Grants compared to their white peers. Other borrowers of color are also more likely than their peers to receive Pell Grants.”

Due to these reasons, the plaintiffs are asking the court to shut down the program, asserting that it is unconstitutional and “not remotely tailored to address the effects of the pandemic on federal student loan borrowers.”

Department of Education v. Brown

On Oct. 10, 2022, a separate lawsuit (pdf) was filed in the state of Texas on behalf of two student-loan borrowers, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, who argue that “the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedures exist for good reason: to ensure that unelected administrators, who are not directly accountable to the populace, are forced to justify their quasi-legislative rulemaking before an informed and skeptical public.”

“Nothing in this Act shall be held to diminish the con­stitutional rights of any person or to limit or repeal additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law,” the statute clarifies. “Except as otherwise required by law, all requirements or privileges relating to evidence or procedure shall apply equally to agencies and persons. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof is held invalid, the remainder of this Act or other applications of such provision shall not be affected.”

It is further argued that the Biden administration failed to follow federal law when it rolled out its debt-forgiveness plan. Federal law (pdf) requires that government agencies allow at least 30 days after publication of a program for the public to submit “written data, views, or arguments” regarding the proposed rule.

“Instead of providing notice and seeking comment from the public, the Department hammered out the critical details of the Program in secret and with an eye toward securing debt forgiveness in time for the November election,” the Republican AGs argue in the brief.

“Along the way, the Department made numerous arbitrary decisions about the Program, including which individuals will receive debt forgiveness, how much of their debt will be forgiven, and which types of debt will qualify for the Program.”

White House Responds

In a legal brief filed in January 2022, the Biden administration defended itself, insisting that the HEROES Act of 2003 authorizes the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to” student aid programs when “necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

“To protect student-loan borrowers affected by a national emergency from student-debt-related financial harm, Congress provided the Secretary of Education with authority to waive or modify statutory and regulatory provisions governing their student-loan obligations under specified conditions,” the administration contends. “In August 2022, the Secretary announced a plan to use that statutory authority to provide targeted debt relief to millions of student-loan borrowers suffering the continuing economic fallout of an unprecedented global pandemic.”

However, John Boehner, Howard “Buck” McKeon, and John Kline—the former Republican House members who drafted the HEROES Act—filed an amicus brief (pdf) asserting that, by passing the measure, “Congress never intended anything like the loan cancellation effort underway here.”

“Despite the staggering scope of this regulatory action, it was taken with breathtaking informality and opacity,” the brief clarified. “The Department did not undertake the notice-and-comment process required for rulemaking, much less solicit any public input. It did not even issue a formal order or directive setting out its cancellation program. Instead, it issued a press release on August 12th along with two legal memoranda providing its justifications, and, later, a hastily created a FAQ section on its website.”

On Sept. 27, 2022, attorneys for Frank Garrison filed another complaint against the U.S. Department of Education (pdf), arguing that the HEROES Act only authorizes the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to” student aid programs when “necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

“Importantly, to qualify for such a waiver or modification, individuals must reside or be employed in a ‘disaster area’ as declared by a federal, state, or local official in connection with a national emergency,” the brief explains, insisting that “concluding that the entire nation is a ‘disaster area’ because of the COVID pandemic, the administration claims that the Secretary of Education has the power to ‘automatically’ issue blanket loan forgiveness to 8 million borrowers …”

Dozens of organizations and individuals, including civil rights groups, labor unions, legal experts, and state governments, filed amicus briefs or “friend of the court” documents in support of the Biden administration’s plan.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases are expected before the end of June. Considering the High Court’s 6-3 conservative-leaning majority, some speculate that Biden’s program will be struck down. Others suggest the Biden administration will lose the battle because the merits of the case against the legality of the program is strong.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Dem megadonors Bill Gates and Laurene Powell Jobs see green energy investments flooded with taxpayer cash

 Joe Biden’s taxpayer-funded push to build a “clean energy economy” is benefiting the left’s most prominent billionaire megadonors, including Bill Gates and Laurene Powell Jobs, a Washington Free Beacon analysis found.

Biden’s Energy Department has in the last two months announced nearly $3 billion in loans to two electric battery companies, Redwood Materials and Ioneer, which are backed by seed funding from Gates, Jobs, and other left-wing billionaires. Now those billionaires, who have poured millions into the effort to win Democrats power in Washington, are likely set to see a handsome profit from their initial investment. Ioneer, for example, won a $700 million loan from Biden and saw its stock price increase by 33 percent after the announcement.

Biden’s Energy Department is funding Redwood and Ioneer through its Loan Programs Office, which is no stranger to controversy. Under former president Barack Obama, the office approved a $529 million loan to electric car manufacturer Fisker, which declared bankruptcy in 2013 and was subsequently sold to China. The office was largely dormant following Fisker’s taxpayer-funded failure—until Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act funded it to the tune of more than $300 billion. Congressional Republicans such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) warned that the money would create a “green energy slush fund”—predictions that are now proving true.

Biden’s green energy grants are going to groups funded by the same people who poured money into dark money groups that helped get Biden elected. In July 2021, Redwood raised $700 million from a “carefully selected group of strategic investors,” including Gates and Powell Jobs, who participated in the fundraising round through their investment firms. Ioneer, meanwhile, boasts Texas billionaire John Arnold as a major shareholder, according to an October SEC filing. In 2020, Gates sent $127 million to a liberal dark money network working to elect Democrats, while Powell Jobs gave left-wing candidates and political groups more than $2 million. Arnold is also active in liberal dark money circles—he gave one such group $13.5 million from 2016-2020.

The Energy Department did not return a request for comment. An Ioneer spokesman told the Free Beacon the company is “grateful for the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office’s conditional commitment” but did not return questions on whether its influential investors helped it obtain that loan commitment. A Redwood spokeswoman said the company managed the loan application process “internally” but did not elaborate further.

Gates launched his green energy investment fund, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, in 2016. A who’s who of deep-pocketed Democrats are tied to the fund: Arnold and fellow liberal billionaire John Doerr serve alongside Gates on its board, while failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is an investor. Doerr is a top Obama foundation donor, and Bloomberg contributed more than $152 million to Democratic causes in 2020.

Powell Jobs’s investment group, Emerson Collective, is much more secretive. Bloomberg in 2019 described it as a “quiet force in Silicon Valley” that operates “in near-total secrecy” thanks to Powell Jobs’s “penchant for anonymous giving.” Still, some of the multibillionaire Apple widow’s investments make public waves—Powell Jobs used Emerson Collective to become the majority owner of the Atlantic in 2017.

For Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, Redwood and Ioneer’s billionaire backers are proof that the companies shouldn’t need taxpayer funds to advance their operations.

“It’s just remarkable that people who have such enormous wealth, cumulatively in the hundreds of billions of dollars, need the taxpayers to take the financial risk of their ventures,” Turner told the Free Beacon. “If these are such good and sound investments, why don’t they use their own cash?”

Neither Breakthrough Energy Ventures nor Emerson Collective returned requests for comment.

This is far from the first time Biden’s efforts to advance green energy have benefited his donors. The Democrat last year awarded thousands of acres of public land to a solar energy company whose top executive helped him raise millions of dollars. The Biden administration has also publicly promoted green energy companies whose investors and board members led Clean Energy for Biden, a political group made up of “clean energy business and policy leaders” that raised Biden millions of dollars. The group went on to push the Senate to pass the Inflation Reduction Act under the name “Clean Energy for America.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Despite the Biden administration‘s claims that domestic energy production must be shut down, largely in Republican states, due to the “climate crisis,” federal documents reveal one state has seen an explosion of oil drilling permits — Interior Secretary Deb Haaland‘s home state of New Mexico.

U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, is now questioning how the Biden administration can site potential greenhouse gas emissions to oppose oil drilling in his state while issuing permits to increase oil production exponentially in New Mexico, the point where it now produces more oil than Alaska.

Since Biden took office in 2021, New Mexico has received 52 percent of all drilling permits from Haaland’s Interior Department. Haaland has been speculated as a future candidate for U.S. Senate in New Mexico.

But while drilling has increased exponentially in New Mexico, Haaland has blocked drilling in other states, even contacting banks to order them not to finance drilling in states like Alaska.

Sullivan called out Haaland by name on the Senate floor in a speech noting Haaland’s interference and opposition to an energy development project in his state while drilling explodes in her state.

As Sullivan stated above:

Here is something else that is frustrating, in my view, even scandalous–even scandalous. Our media won’t ever report on this, but I am going to try again.

The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. OK. That is interesting. Guess which State–my State can’t get barely a lease. We beg. We make speeches. We fly dozens of people into DC to get leases on the Federal lands in my State to move forward. Guess which State has gotten, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, more than half of all Federal permits to drill on Federal lands? Do you think it is Alaska? No. Is it Texas? My friend from Texas is here. It is not Texas. It is not North Dakota. It is not any of those places. Guess which it is. Oh, my goodness. It is New Mexico–New Mexico. Isn’t that an interesting story for somebody? The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. The senior Senator from New Mexico is from New Mexico, obviously, and they are getting all of the leases. They are getting all of the leases.

Here is the thing. New Mexico is on a tear in terms of producing oil. Now, look, I have nothing against that. The country needs it. The country needs it. But look at these numbers. These are millions of barrels. Red is New Mexico. Gray is Alaska. We are kind of steady. We need more oil. New Mexico is in red. Look at that. Holy cow. It is through the roof–through the roof. And guess what is coming with all of that production. Greenhouse gas emissions through the roof in New Mexico. Where is the reporting on that topic?

You know, sometimes the media likes to talk about “climate bombs” in the country. I don’t really like the phrase. I think it is silly. But if there is a climate bomb from the production of oil in America, it is right there. It is right there.

Again, I think it is fine that this State is doing well. It is good for the country, and it is good for the workers in New Mexico. But what I don’t like is the rank hypocrisy. The media is always focusing on Alaska, on our production. Yet look at this: There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill, which were approved during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, in New Mexico. Yes, that is right–over 9,000–while my State can barely get 1. And 52 percent of all permits to drill in the country are in New Mexico.

The Secretary is from New Mexico. Where is that story? Where is that story? The Secretary of the Interior has been shutting down Alaska energy production while approving massive drilling activity in her own State, and the media won’t touch that story with a 10,000-foot pole.

New Mexico has increased production by 700,000 barrels a day since 2019. They are at 1.7 million barrels a day. My State is at about 500,000, and we are trying to increase. Where is that story?

You know, the senior Senator from New Mexico is always trying to shut down any oil development in Alaska. I have talked about it on the floor. I am not going to go into it a lot here, but he has gone to extreme measures, like writing banks and insurance companies and saying: Don’t invest in Alaska. But it is “drill, baby, drill” in New Mexico. No one writes that story, and I think it is hypocritical, too, because the greenhouse gas emissions in that State are going through the roof.

So there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. In my State, my constituents–the Native people, the working people–just want the most environmentally sensitive project in the world, which is the Willow Project, to keep our economy going and to help our country. That is all we want.

I think, given what the Secretary of the Interior is doing for her own State–like I said, “drill, baby, drill,” with a climate bomb in New Mexico–it is time to finalize the Willow Project according to the scientists and the final EIS that was granted by the Biden administration 2 weeks ago and not use political muscle and political power to kill a project in my State when this blue State is drilling like crazy and producing like crazy.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

An efficiency proposal by the Department of Energy (DOE) would block half of current gas cooking appliances from the U.S. market, an analysis by the federal agency shows.

The DOE proposed a maximum annual gas consumption of 1,204 thousand British thermal units (kBtu), also known as the EL 2 standard, for all gas cooking tops. If that rule is finalized, only half of those appliances that are currently on the market would be able to meet the new standard.

The department “estimates that nearly half of the total gas cooking top market currently achieves EL 2 and therefore would not be impacted by the proposed standard, if finalized,” DOE stated in an updated analysis (pdf).

The department issued the updated analysis mainly because it excluded certain types of gas cooking tops in the previous analysis that was published on Feb. 1 (pdf).

The governmental agency includes gas cooking tops with high input rate (HIR) burners in the new analysis.

The market share of qualified products expands substantially because all products with HIR can meet the new standard, according to the DOE.

The new rule would take effect three years after it’s adopted.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stated that it’s “very concerned” about the direction of the DOE.

“They have released the most stringent proposal for gas ranges, which only a sliver of the market can meet,” Jill Notini, industry spokesperson for AHAM, told The Epoch Times. “It’s very concerning what they’re doing with gas products. We believe that there should be consumer choice and that consumers should be able to make a decision on whether they would like to purchase a gas or electric product.

“Clearly, the Department of Energy’s intentions are to eliminate gas products from the market. And they should just say that instead of releasing a deceptive and flawed analysis to justify their proposal.”

AHAM, a trade association that represents the manufacturers of household appliances sold in the United States, doesn’t trust the DOE’s analysis and is carrying out its own analysis.

The results of the proposed regulation could be much worse than the DOE stated, according to the AHAM.

“What we believe is that products right now in the market would need significant redesign in order to meet the proposed levels,” Notini said.

The trade association’s officials said “everything is on the table” when asked if they plan to take legal action against the proposed regulation.

Rulemaking and Lawsuit

The DOE initiated the rulemaking process of potential regulation on gas cooking tops in 2014 and proposed standards in September 2016. The 2016 standard sets the maximum annual gas consumption at 924.4 kBtu.

However, former President Donald Trump’s Energy Department halted the rulemaking process in December 2020, in the final months of his administration.

The rulemaking process has been disputed in the courts, as six organizations, including some environmental groups and some blue states, filed two separate lawsuits in an attempt to force the Trump administration to regulate the gas cooking tops.

AHAM was one of the plaintiff intervenors in both cases.

In September 2022, a U.S. district judge ordered the DOE to issue regulations on conventional cooking products or determine that no regulation is needed by Jan. 31, 2024.

The Biden administration resumed the rulemaking process by issuing the Feb. 1 proposed rule.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

For a little while there, it looked as if Sen. Joe Manchin was going to come through. The moderate Democrat refused to support Biden’s most radical, and costly, plans. But just before the 2022 Midterms, Manchin caved. He supported a toxic spending bill that will raise taxes and hurt working Americans.

It seems that has not gone over well with the folks back home, a state full of conservatives. His approval began to tank and it doesn’t look like it’s getting better. But the man doesn’t seem to have learned his lesson. Because despite the fact that West Virginia’s main industry is coal, Manchin vowed to join Biden in this insane ban.

From Breitbart:

On Wednesday’s broadcast of West Virginia MetroNews’ “Talkline with Hoppy Kercheval,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that completely getting off of fossil fuels “might be doable” by 2050, but we won’t be able to do so “unless we have something like the Inflation Reduction Act that’s investing in the technologies.” Manchin also touted investments in “all the proven technologies that we know should work.”

This is pretty bad, for Manchin. The moderate senator tried to defend his support for the falsely named “Inflation Reduction Act.” The bill, which does not lower inflation, is really a massive spending spree on “green” technology.

It is yet another bailout from Biden to the failing green energy sector–which has failed to produce viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Joe Manchin seems to be trying to justify his betrayal of West Virginia, but he only made matters worse when he said getting rid of fossil fuels was “doable” thanks to Biden’s bloated tax bill.

Hey, Manchin! Did you forget that your state depends on the coal industry? West Virginia’s economy depends on fossil fuels. Does Manchin really believe the state can transition into some other industry by 2050?

It looks more and more like Manchin’s just a useless yes-man, who cowardly does whatever his party tells him to do. No longer do we have an independent moderate who puts his neck out for the people of West Virginia, and America.

Instead, Manchin is cowering to crooked Democrats who are hell-bent on destroying the U.S. economy. Biden shut down our energy independence, to help give China an upper hand. Manchin is helping it along, talking about ending fossil fuels for “green” alternatives that break down in the snow.

Nice, guy.

Key Takeaway:

• Joe Manchin tried to defend his support of Biden’s spending spree.
• He said he supported getting rid of fossil fuels, saying it was “doable.”
• Manchin turned on his home state, which relies on the coal industry.

Source: Breitbart

AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE BENEFITS OF RATIONING, ALONG WITH STRICTER REGULATIONS, WOULD BE REQUIRED CONDITION THE PUBLIC.

Is World War II-style rationing the answer to the planet’s “climate crisis”?

That’s the question posed in a new study by academics from the University of Leeds, England. You won’t be surprised to learn the answer is ‘yes’: rationing of various commodities, including fuel and meat, is on the cards.

The authors believe a rationing scheme would be more equitable than individual allowances, because unlike carbon taxes and carbon-credit schemes – both of which have been proposed in response to climate change – rationing would not allow the rich to “buy their way out”.

A rationing scheme could also have broader applications, the researchers claim. “The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change,” says joint lead author Dr Nathan Wood, “but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues – such as the current energy crisis.”

He added:

“The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices rising steeply and leaving vulnerable groups unable to pay their bills. Currently, those living in energy poverty cannot use anywhere near their fair share of energy supply, whereas the richest in society are free to use as much energy as they can afford.”

Although the study is nothing more than a piece of research at this stage, that could change very quickly, especially as we near 2030, a key date for the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Accords. It is already clear that the world will not meet its commitments.

15 MINUTE CITIES.

New schemes are already being implemented to limit personal mobility and consumption, and there will surely be more to come. Recent proposals for so-called “15-minute cities” have drawn widespread criticism across the world, including in cities such as Oxford, where pilot tests are due to take place.

From 2024, Oxford will be divided into a series of six separate “neighbourhoods” by the local council, with car-travel between them heavily restricted and subject to fines if unauthorised.

Residents of the city will be able to apply for special permits to allow them to drive into other neighbourhoods for up to 100 days a year. Otherwise, they must use public transport, bike or walk in order to move from one neighbourhood to another.

At the same time, the anxiety and catastrophism about the effects of climate change is increasing, or being increased. At the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos a few weeks ago, “climate migration” was one of the main talking-points.

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) January 19, 2023

Al Gore, in a blustering speech, suggested the West would soon be overwhelmed by 1.5 billion migrants fleeing the effects of climate change, who would make it impossible for individual nations to govern themselves normally. Some, such as WEF-approved author Gaia Vince, are claiming that we must encourage these migrants to come here right now, to minimise their suffering.

MUST READ: RAW EGG NATIONALIST: The World Has a Plastic Problem, as New Study Into ‘Plasticosis’ Disease Reveals.

There is also alarm about the prospect of private geoengineering, after an American startup, Make Sunsets, announced it had released helium balloons containing reactive gas in an attempt to cool the earth. A number of pilot releases took place in Mexico in April last year. Although the Mexican government has now moved to prevent further releases within its territory, Make Sunsets has vowed to continue with its crowdfunded project, and the technology it used is cheap and readily available, virtually guaranteeing that other groups will try to emulate it, with unknown consequences for the environment.

HOW CLIMATE RATIONING COULD WORK. 

The inspiration for the proposed measures comes from the rationing that took place during the Second World War, especially in countries like Britain, where there were severe restrictions on consumption of a wide range of commodities and resources to aid the war effort. In Britain, rationing outlived the war, and only came to an end eight years later, in 1953.

Researchers note that compulsory food rationing was more popular than voluntary changes to behaviour when resources became scarce. Also, despite shortages, rates of malnutrition actually went down in Britain during the Second World War.

One of the main problems, according to the aforementioned new paper, is that people today just don’t understand the scarcity they are facing in the way that Britons did seventy years ago. A world of instant gratification and consumer goods at the touch of a button is not conducive to a sense of deprivation or urgency about scarce resources.

Dr Rob Lawlor, joint lead author, said: “There is a limit to how much we can emit if we are to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. In this sense, the scarcity is very real.”

The authors of the study believe rationing wouldn’t be the first step, however. An information campaign to promote the benefits of rationing, along with stricter regulations, would be required condition the public over further restrictions. Such a campaign appears to have already begun.

Initial regulation would focus on the “biggest polluters”, such as international travel, the fossil-fuel industries, as well as farming. This would help to create scarcity in “products that harm the planet”, and rationing could then gradually be brought in to meet people’s basic needs in a “fair” manner.

MUST READ: RAW EGG NATIONALIST: The World Has a Plastic Problem, as New Study Into ‘Plasticosis’ Disease Reveals.

Rationing could be regulated through the use of a carbon allowance, using “carbon cards” that function like bank cards but track and limit usage of all commodities. Or, alternatively, the government could simply ration particular goods, such as flights, petrol, and meat.

Rationing, they claim, could speed up the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and sustainable lifestyles and infrastructure. Rationing petrol, for instance, might drive government investment in low-carbon methods of transport, such as rail and tram systems. Price controls on rationed goods would also “prevent prices from rising with increased demand, benefiting those with the least money,” they say, in an almost total negation of the entire basis of market economics, and endorsement of state control of resources.

WHAT CHOICE?

Once again, it seems choice won’t be a factor in whether we change our lifestyles to suit the climate-change narrative. This is already particularly evident with regard to consumption of animal products, as plant-based alternatives and new proteins fail to attract consumers on the basis of their taste or the health claims made about them.

Alternative mechanisms to get people to stop eating meat, including enhanced social pressure, inflation and even direct government intervention – a meat tax? – are now the preferred methods of advocates of fake foods, rather than making their own products desirable or tasty or just not hideous.

Nobody will make rationing desirable, but it can be made necessary. Just look at what’s happened to eggs as a result of the ongoing “eggflation” saga. In many stores, purchases of eggs have had to be limited, due to artificial scarcity, mainly as a result of punitive measures to combat avian flu but also due to a spate of mysterious fires and fertility problems affecting egg producers. There’s no reason why artificial scarcity on a grand scale could not be created. Such an experiment is already being trialled on the Dutch farmers, who are being expropriated at a rate that would make Robert Mugabe blush.

Although the rationing scheme proposed in the new study is just that – a proposal – it’s likely to be a matter of when and not if. Some form of personal carbon allowance will be introduced to curb our individual consumption: governments have been talking about them for nearly twenty years, at least. The real question we should be asking ourselves, then, is, how can we fight back? We will have to find a way to make our representatives realise that they are the ones with no choice, not us. And disregard our wishes at your peril.

Ford’s new deal with a Chinese electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturer has triggered bipartisan concern over economic and national security risks.

The iconic American automaker on Feb. 13 announced that a new $3.5 billion plant will be built in Marshall, Michigan, 100 miles west of Detroit, to produce lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, better known as LFP, a type of battery cheaper but less energy-dense than the nickel-cobalt-manganese chemistry that currently dominates the market.

A wholly owned subsidiary will own the factory and employ the workers, Ford said, while China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. (CATL), under a licensing agreement, will provide the EV battery technology, some equipment, and workers. CATL is the world’s largest manufacturer of EV batteries, known for its dominance in LFP batteries.

The deal came amid heightened concern across the political spectrum over the Chinese regime’s efforts to subvert the United States to overtake it both economically and militarily. The deal was announced not long after the United States shot down a Chinese spy balloon that had hovered over sensitive military sites across the country, drawing widespread outrage.

While Ford and Michigan officials have touted the deal as an economic boon for the state, with Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, saying the expected creation of 2,500 jobs will “build on Michigan’s economic momentum,” others have expressed alarm over the U.S. automaker’s collaboration with a Chinese firm, given the communist regime’s ultimate ambitions to supplant American industries in the global market.

That’s the reason Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, late last year pulled the commonwealth out of the bid for housing the factory.

Youngkin called Ford’s battery plant a “Trojan horse” for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to undermine U.S. efforts to strengthen the American auto industry.

“While Ford is an iconic American company, it became clear that this proposal would serve as a front for the Chinese Communist Party, which could compromise our economic security and Virginians’ personal privacy,” Youngkin’s spokesperson previously told The Epoch Times in an email.

Tax Credits

Ford expects production to begin in 2026, with the plant estimated to produce enough batteries for 400,000 EVs each year. Ford will introduce LFP batteries on Mustang Mach-E this year and on the F-150 Lightning in 2024, using CATL batteries from China, before the plant opens in Michigan in three years’ time.

The automaker expects that the deal will benefit from federal tax credits for EVs under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Under the new law, customers of EV vehicles can receive up to $7,500 in “clean vehicle credit,” with the amount dependent on whether the vehicle, batteries, and battery components are made and sourced from the United States.

This credit won’t be available for vehicles with components manufactured or assembled by a “foreign entity of concern,” generally a reference to China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

Ford expects that buyers would initially be eligible for half of the $7,500 in tax credits, with the possibility of getting the full amount over time based on where the firm sources battery minerals. The Treasury Department has said it would release the proposed guidance on “foreign entity of concern” and other terms in March.

A more lucrative tax credit, however, is the new advanced manufacturing tax credit for manufacturers at $45 per kilowatt-hour tied to EV battery cells and modules. Ford confirmed to The Epoch Times that it expected the new battery plant to qualify for the production tax credit, although the amount has yet to be determined. Unlike the credit for consumers, the IRA’s production tax credit doesn’t have a “foreign entity of concern” exclusion clause.

According to Nick Iacovella, a spokesperson for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), the production tax credit amount for the battery plant could reach $1 billion, depending on the exact terms of the licensing agreement, given the factory’s annual capacity of 35 gigawatt-hours, or 35 million kilowatt-hours. CPA is an advocacy organization representing exclusively manufacturers that have productions in the United States. Ford is not a member of the CPA.

A partner at a global law firm in Washington who specializes in national security litigation said that the underlying viability of the deal rested on access to the IRA tax credit. Therefore, Ford would have structured the arrangement in a way to ensure eligibility and thus the ability to pay CATL with pots of money that would not have been available without the tax credit.

In this way, the lawyer believes that the arrangement is in effect a joint venture.

“At the end of the day, [CATL] is a Chinese company with Chinese nationals and ties to the Chinese Communist Party. And they are going to be working here in the United States under the cover of Ford, one of the most iconic U.S. brands in the world, even though the behavior, the technology transfer, and the financial incentives are all the same as if it were Ford and CATL working side by side in a 50-50 joint venture,” the attorney source told The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity, as his firm does business in China.

Diana​ Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Washington think tank Heritage Foundation, said that regardless of the tax credit amount, “it is still a misuse of American taxpayer funds” because “these credits were intended to go to United States operations, not Chinese operations.”

“The biggest national security concern is that we are becoming dependent on China for an important element of our transportation,” Furchtgott-Roth told The Epoch Times.

“President Biden and the state of California and other states have aspirational goals of 100 percent sales of electric vehicles in 2035. And if China continues to dominate the electric battery market, then we are going to be dependent on China for an important component of our transportation.”

Aided by the CCP

Under Beijing’s national industrial plan, known as “Made in China 2025,” the communist regime aims to dominate global high-tech manufacturing, and EV battery technology is one such strategic industry.

China’s cabinet-like State Council currently has a 15-year development plan for the new energy automobile industry until 2035, after executing an initial eight-year plan from 2012 to 2020. Deep integration into the global supply chain is mentioned in the plan’s “fundamental principles” section.

CATL currently supplies automakers such as General Motors, Ford, and Tesla. The Chinese battery giant is an offshoot of another tech company, Amperex Technology Ltd. (ATL), founded by CATL Chairman Zeng Yuqun in 1999.

ATL made batteries for laptops and MP3 players using technology licensed from U.S. companies, according to a Quartz report. After being acquired by a Japanese company, TDK, in 2005, ATL pivoted toward smartphone batteries. Zeng continued managing ATL post-acquisition.

In 2006, ATL began to look at EV batteries. And again, the company acquired technology licenses from the United States for a jumpstart, according to Quartz. The company was thrust onto the national stage in China as a battery supplier for the electric buses showcased during the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

After that, Zeng decided to focus on car batteries and launched CATL in 2011. CATL is completely independent from ATL, which remains in the TDK group.

Without foreign competition, CATL rose to dominance in China, where most of the world’s electric cars have been sold since 2015. No foreign providers had access to the Chinese EV battery market before June 2019.

In 2015, when the Chinese regime introduced a list of government-recommended automobile battery suppliers, CATL was at the top position.

In 2017, CATL took the world’s top spot in global EV battery market share at 18 percent, having risen from below 7 percent in 2015, according to Seoul-based market research firm SNE Research (pdf). It has been the top leader since, occupying 37 percent of the global market share in 2022.

During the same years of enjoying a shielded competitive environment, CATL also received generous capital injections through the Chinese regime’s subsidy programs. When CATL went public on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in 2018, it disclosed in its prospectus (pdf) that it had received a total of 1 billion yuan ($155 million) from 2015 to 2017 in subsidies from central and local authorities.

These subsidies are a drop in the ocean in the regime’s overall financial assistance to the domestic EV industry. According to a July 2018 report by Chinese state-run publication The Time Weekly, Beijing provided the industry with subsidies of at least 59 billion yuan ($8.6 billion) in 2015 and 83 billion yuan ($12.1 billion) in 2016, based on incomplete central government data and the publication’s estimates.

Since 2018, Zeng has served as a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a political advisory body to the communist regime. Earlier this year, Zeng’s committee membership was extended for another five years, until 2028.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) calls the CPPCC a “patriot united front organization,” a reference to the regime’s “United Front” system that involves a network of bodies that seek to expand the Party’s influence both inside and outside of China.

In 2016, Zeng was awarded the lifetime title of “state council expert with special allowance,” one of the CCP’s highest-level recognitions for technical expertise.

Ford Deal Boosts CATL

With Ford’s adoption of LFP batteries, a technology monopolized by Chinese producers is one step closer to dominating the global market.

Batteries with nickel-cobalt-manganese chemistry, better known as NCM, are currently used by most EVs outside of China.

While cheaper, LFP batteries’ energy density is about 70 percent of NCM batteries’, meaning fewer miles traveled with one full charge. NCM batteries also perform better in cold temperatures and when carrying heavier loads. However, LFP batteries have a longer lifespan, allowing more than 2,000 charge cycles, compared with NCMs’ 1,000 to 2,000 cycles.

For LFP batteries to dominate the global market, Chinese automakers and Tesla, which use LFP, would need to start exporting en masse, or Western carmakers, such as Ford, would need to introduce LFP in their entry-level EV models, according to a December report by Adamas Intelligence, a critical minerals market research firm.

Before its agreement with CATL, Ford had been relying on NCM technology for its EVs.

The Ford–CATL deal happened at a time when access to cheaper EV batteries was essential to revamping the 120-year-old brand.

Last week, Ford halted the production and shipment of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup after it confirmed that a defective battery caused one of the vehicles to catch fire earlier this month. The company said it believed it had identified the root cause of the problem and would need to adjust the truck’s battery production process. A South Korean company supplied the battery at issue.

“Ford is trying desperately to get ahead in the EV space. So for them having issues already coming off the [F-150 Lightning] line as we’re talking about integrating the Chinese Communist Party technology into their upcoming lines, it’s kind of a rocky foundation to start on,” said a U.S. state official who has investigated the Ford–CATL deal. The official spoke to The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity because the person wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

The production halt came a day after Ford announced its partnership with CATL and two weeks after its disappointing fourth-quarter earnings release. At the earnings call, Ford CEO Jim Farley told analysts that the company’s $2 billion loss in 2022 was due to “cost and especially continued supply chain issues.” “These are the simple facts, and to say I’m frustrated is an understatement because the year could have been so much more for us at Ford,” he added.

At a conference last week, Ford chief financial officer John Lawler said that the company’s annual cost is about $7 billion to $8 billion higher than its traditional competitors’. Hence, having access to cheaper EV batteries is critical to Ford’s transformation, and LFP is the cheaper choice.

The state official, like others, raised concerns that CATL might lead Ford down a path that would mean more supply chain dependence on China and loss of global competitiveness in the long run.

“This [LFP battery chemistry] isn’t really the direction that we’re going in other parts of the American market. And so, the question is, why is Ford partnering in this manner on something that isn’t the direction that others are taking?”

Bipartisan Concerns

While the CCP’s media outlets have hailed the Ford deal as an “international marriage” announced on Valentine’s Day local time, U.S. officials worry about the implications of the new partnership.

“These autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles are at the very heart of ‘Made in China 2025,’ which is Beijing’s economic policy to dominate the world in tech—not just compete, but to dominate the world in tech and become a sole supplier of leading tech, robotics, EVs in the world,” former national security adviser Robert O’Brien told The Epoch Times.

“Ford is now becoming a partner in ‘China 2025.’”

On the same day as Ford’s announcement of the deal, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called for an immediate review of the licensing agreement by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a federal panel tasked with scrutinizing foreign acquisitions for national security risks.

In a letter to the secretaries of the Treasury, Energy, and Transportation departments, Rubio sought pledges from the Biden administration not to funnel federal dollars to CATL, a state-supported entity that he called a “CCP national champion.” He also asked the administration to provide answers on whether CATL has obtained U.S. technology illicitly, the company’s potential ties to the CCP military, and any involvement it may have with forced labor.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, also expressed concerns.

“Senator Manchin has been clear about his grave concerns about vehicle supply chain reliance on China,” a spokesperson told Politico last week. “Ford has serious questions to answer before Senator Manchin can fully evaluate the business partnership.”

On Feb. 16, Bloomberg reported that Beijing intended to scrutinize the Ford–CATL agreement, wary that Ford might somehow obtain CATL’s battery technology. In response, Senate Intelligence Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) called Beijing’s move “ironic,” demonstrating the regime’s “hypocrisy” given the CCP’s own extensive track record of economic espionage.

“I have huge concerns about the Chinese Communist Party’s influence on many of the companies that come from China,” Warner said in a January interview with the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “[The] CCP has the ability to override any company in China, and those companies in China have to be responsible to the Communist Party, not their shareholders, not their customers.”

Iacovella, of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, echoed this sentiment.

“Basically, any Chinese company can be weaponized against the United States by the Chinese government,” Iacovella said.

Iacovella said the CCP has strategically selected industries—battery technology being one of them—that are critical to the 21st-century economy, and it has “developed a very complex and quite successful plan to dominate the global supply chain for those industries.”

“China is trying to control and monopolize all of those industries to the detriment of the United States so that we become wholly dependent on them. In a sense, this is economic warfare,” he said.

“So this brings us back to the taxpayer question, why would we have taxpayers subsidizing those efforts through tax credits? And that’s the key issue here.”

CATL didn’t respond to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Just last year, the once Golden State boasted a surplus of $100 billion. That’s quite a chunk of change, huh? If you or I had that kind of scratch, how long would it take to spend it? Probably a lifetime or more. Few companies have that kind of money on hand. Yet California enjoyed a staggeringly large sum of money in 2022.

But guess what? All that cash is gone. Yep, totally wiped out. Far-left California managed to fritter away $100 billion in surplus (meaning, extra cash). Gavin Newsom, the do-nothing governor, warned that this year they would be in the red by a shocking $22.5 billion. But now, we are learning he low-balled the number.

From Fox News:

California’s budget deficit may be billions of dollars larger than the already big number predicted by Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, raising concerns about the Golden State’s fiscal future…

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), a government agency that analyzes the budget for the state legislature, estimates in a report published last week that Newsom’s forecast undershot the mark by about $7 billion, thanks to about $10 billion less in tax revenues than expected.

Wow. If a CEO had wasted $100 billion in one year, not only would he be fired, but he’d be in jail. Yet the crooks that run socialist California burned through that much money in a year and are now facing a massive deficit. All their big government spending will put them in the red $7 billion more than what Newsom was predicting.

Part of the reason was because the state came up short $10 billion in tax revenues. I’m sure that was in no way caused by the hundreds of thousands of residents who fled California–thanks to Newsom’s’ failed leadership?

Why is California in so much trouble? Well, for one thing, it is spending tax dollars on free healthcare for illegal immigrants. It is driving away businesses with high taxes, idiotic environmental regulations, and other limits that are killing industries.

Residents are fleeing because the cost of living far extends what they can earn. California’s gas prices are through the roof. They’ve banned fossil fuels, so electricity prices are sky-high. In some cities, homelessness is out of control thanks to legalized drugs and stupid policies that make housing too expensive.

I can go on, but that should give a good picture. California is being driven into the ground by idiots who have no clue how to lead. Democrats thought they can burn through taxpayer dollars, supporting whatever braindead leftist idea they had, and suffer no consequences.

But they don’t have COVID money to fall back on anymore. And this massive deficit is going to drown the state.

The people who are going to suffer the most, though? Hard-working Americans. They always get the brunt of the left’s evil.

Key Takeaways:

• Experts reveal California’s deficit is worse than Newsom predicted.
• The state is facing a lack of $29.5 billion, thanks to Democrats’ reckless spending.
• Last year, the state had a $100 billion surplus, but wasted it all.

Source: Fox News

New York City officials auctioned $224 million worth of COVID-19 medical equipment for just $500,000, including never-used ventilators as scrap metal.

Much of the supplies are brand new and unopened, receiving a return of five cents on the dollar in taxpayer money. Many items have failed to attract buyers, according to The City.

The ventilators, 3,000 in total, were commissioned in April 2020 by then-mayor Bill de Blasio (D.) for $12 million. They sold to a scrap metal dealer for less than $25,000. De Blasio called their purchase a “story about doing the impossible.”

It took 28 truckloads to move the unused devices, which were sold as “non-functioning medical equipment.”

The auction comes as President Joe Biden plans to let lapse the federal government’s COVID public health emergency on May 11.

“Thankfully, New Yorkers and our heroic frontline medical workers came together to avert some of the worst-case scenarios,” said Nick Benson, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), about the auctioned goods.

City officials were concerned that the public would find out about the rock-bottom auctions, saying New Yorkers would ask “about the city’s over-buying during COVID,” according to an internal government email obtained by The City.

Companies sold products to the city for inflated prices and now prices continue to be reduced, The City reported:

A Pennsylvania limited liability corporation called LVLM Distribution got paid $5.6 million for “hospital isolation gowns/masks,” and last month DCAS offered up a lot of 97,850 of their gowns for $1,000. DCAS got zero bids and put the same lot up again last week, dropping the opening price to $280.

That’s a fraction of a penny per gown.

DCAS originally signed a $5.7 million contract to buy millions of isolation gowns from a men’s fashion store based in Jersey City called Faded Royalty. Ultimately the firm was paid only $263,000 for whatever gowns they were able to deliver, and last fall DCAS began auctioning them off.

In the first auction, DCAS tried to sell about 176,000 Faded Royalty gowns for $64,000—about $2.75 per gown. It’s not clear what happened since DCAS officials wouldn’t say, but at a second auction, DCAS’s new opening bid was $1,000 for 98,175 Faded Royalty gowns—about a penny per gown.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

GOP’s REIN IN Act would require Biden admin to report executive orders’ inflationary impact

House Republicans are taking aim at Joe Biden’s inflationary executive orders, holding a vote on legislation next week that would curb the president’s ability to implement costly proposals.

The bill, Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation (REIN IN) Act, would require the Biden administration to report the inflationary effects of executive orders before Biden issues them, Fox News reported. The legislation, introduced by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), would apply to orders resulting in an annual cost of $1 billion or more.

Republicans cited a number of inflationary executive orders issued by Biden, such as the Keystone XL pipeline shutdown, climate policies that hinder domestic energy production, and Biden’s $400 billion student loan bailout.

“Joe Biden and his administration have doubled down on their Far-Left tax and spend agenda that has continued to exacerbate this inflation crisis,” said Stefanik. She emphasized the need to check the Biden administration’s “reckless policies fueling inflation.”

Consumer prices were up an annual rate of 6.4 percent in January, the Labor Department reported last week, up from 1.4 percent when Biden took office.

The proposed bill follows Biden’s controversially labeled Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which focused primarily on enacting left-wing environmental policies. Biden celebrated the legislation in a speech in September 2022, calling it “the single most important legislation passed in [this] Congress to combat inflation and one of the most significant laws in our nation’s history.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Ford is using Chinese parts and labor at new battery plant, still expects to cash in on Biden tax credits

When President Joe Biden pushed through nearly $400 billion in “green energy” subsidies last summer, he said the massive federal spending would help America compete with China. But auto giant Ford announced plans this week to use Biden’s tax credits to make electric vehicle batteries with Chinese workers and technology.

Ford announced last week it is investing $3.5 billion to build a Michigan factory that will produce EV batteries in partnership with Chinese battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited. The Chinese firm is not only providing technology but also sending equipment and workers to help build and run the factory, according to Ford.

Biden promised that his massive climate spending package, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, would give the United States the ability “to compete with China for the future.” The law, which Democrats pushed through Congress along party lines, has provisions that bar companies from qualifying for tax credits if any EV battery components were manufactured by a “foreign entity of concern,” a provision aimed at quelling concerns that China will benefit.

But Ford expressed confidence Monday that its EV battery plant, 100 miles west of Detroit, will qualify for some of the Inflation Reduction Act’s lucrative federal tax breaks. The company emphasized that it owns 100 percent of the factory because the deal with the Chinese firm is structured as a licensing agreement rather than as a joint venture, meaning Ford’s Chinese partner does not have direct ownership.

That means Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act could end up sending taxpayer money to America’s biggest global adversary. The U.S. auto giant’s reliance on the foreign firm reflects China’s iron grip on the green energy supply chain—which has plagued the White House’s efforts at “catalyzing America’s clean energy economy” with federal subsidies.

Ford said the Chinese partnership is necessary to “build more EVs faster” and that battery technology and materials are “always imported.“

Ford’s announcement of the Michigan factory came after Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin (R.) in January withdrew his state from negotiations to host the plant. The Republican said he would not use taxpayer funds to “recruit Ford as a front for China.”

Ford is working behind the scenes to build political support for the factory, the Washington Free Beacon has learned. The company urged at least two Republican Senate offices to publicly support the factory, but many Republicans on Capitol Hill remain unconvinced.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), the chairwoman of the House Energy Committee, told the Free Beacon that Ford’s agreement with a Chinese company “raises a lot of questions.”

“Creating American jobs and strengthening our energy security is vital, and the U.S. should be able to do this while minimizing China’s involvement,” Rogers said.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) on Tuesday called on the Biden administration to review Ford’s Chinese licensing deal, saying it “will only deepen U.S. reliance on the Chinese Communist Party for battery tech, and is likely designed to make the factory eligible for Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits.”

China’s Communist government has over the years showered Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited, with investments, subsidies, and favorable regulations. Zeng Yuqun, the company’s CEO and now the world’s biggest EV battery maker, also served on a Chinese Communist Party advisory committee, Fox News reported.

Whether the Ford factory ultimately qualifies for Inflation Reduction Act subsidies depends on guidelines that the Treasury Department is expected to issue in March, said Mercatus Center senior research fellow Christine McDaniel. Ford, which did not respond to a request for comment, has been lobbying the Biden administration for months to ease the law’s restrictions on Chinese batteries and battery materials.

Meanwhile, Biden administration officials and congressional Democrats voiced support for the factory.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Monday on Twitter that “bringing advanced manufacturing capabilities from overseas to the United States is key to our competitiveness, will stimulate our economy, and create[s] good-paying American jobs.”

Sen. Gary Peters (D., Mich.) said in a statement Monday that the Ford factory is “an example of how Michigan can lead in strengthening our supply chains & national security by making this technology here at home—so we don’t need to import it from China.” Peters did not mention Ford’s Chinese partner on the project.

Still, Ford’s Chinese partnership isn’t just attracting scrutiny from Republicans. Democratic senator Joe Manchin (W.Va.) is demanding Ford provide him with the contract detailing the licensing deal, an ask the Democrat says Ford is cooperating with.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Washington, D.C. – The Democrats‘ main objective is to spend money. It’s the glue that holds the groups that put them into office together. Everyone who helps them gets a piece. Everyone who gets in the way gets run over.

The worst part of all, though, is the inability to hold those responsible for allowing this to continue year after year, decade after decade, accountable for their abuse not just of the process but the law. The way the Democrats spend to keep alive a system of spoils that keeps them in power undermines both the democratic process and the rule of law.

Doubt me? Try reading the landmark 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974. In it, the Democrats set down a plan for spending that is devoid, not just of common sense but of virtually any mechanism to put a brake on how the federal government spends money.

It’s led to a mess, especially since the Reagan years when the Democrats in the House, led by then-Speaker Thomas P. ‘Tip’ O’Neill, Jr., threw the requirements of the Budget Act out the window. It’s all been downhill since then, as one provision of the act after another has been discarded.

According to the federal budget law, the Biden FY2024 budget plan should have been delivered to Capitol Hill no later than February 6, 2023. It wasn’t – maybe because the president was too busy traveling the United States telling lies about GOP intentions regarding Social Security and Medicare to make sure his staff met the deadline. So far, the White House hasn’t even sent a “save the date” card to let Congress know when to expect it.

That doesn’t sit well with Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall or Georgia GOP Congressman Buddy Carter, who introduced on February 7 two bills intended to put teeth in the deadlines established by the budget act regarding the submission of the president’s budget.

The first, the Presidential Accountability for Yearly Submission of the United States’ Budget Act – which Marshall and Carter are calling the “Paystub Act” – requires that all political appointees’ salary payments be withheld until the presidential budget is submitted. The second, the Presidential Budget Accountability Act, withholds the funds needed to pay for presidential travel, official entertainment and other expense account items if the president fails to submit a timely budget to Congress.

Neither act would apply until 2025, but both hit home hard on the point that the deadlines established by a prior Congress in prior legislation are not advisory. They are the law.

“Disregard for the budget submission deadline is part of a larger culture of disrespect for our nation’s laws coming from the Oval Office,” Marshall said in a release announcing the introduction of the two bills. “Presidents need to be held accountable for seemingly forgetting or just not caring about timely budget submissions, or else the American people will continue to see their elected officials left out of important funding discussions and forced to vote on massive, last-minute Omnibus spending packages like we saw last December.”

Indeed, that image of late-night big dollar deals crafted inside the U.S. Capitol without the input of the American people or most members of Congress, as described by Marshall, seems more and more to be the rule rather than the exception.

Carter was equally severe in his criticism of the way Congress and the White House have ignored the laws governing the federal budgetary process.

“Without an enforcement mechanism in place, budget deadlines are mere suggestions. Like households and businesses across the country, the United States government cannot function properly without a budget – look no further than the $31 trillion in national debt for proof,” Carter said.

The proposals he and Marshall put forward, he added, would “send a message to the American people that balancing the budget is our top priority.”

As a tool for fighting inflation, which the national polls all say is at or near the top of the concerns of most American votes, balancing the budget would do a lot. Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, something the Biden-era COVID relief and alleged inflation-fighting measures both facilitated to the tune of trillions.

Even former Obama economist Jason Furman agrees. Speaking on CNBC, he debunked Biden’s talking points on inflation: “Nothing in this number gives me comfort,” he said. “This inflation issue is real. I don’t think it is going away anytime soon, and I think anyone who is overly calm about it is making me nervous.”

Whether he includes Biden – whose Tuesday statement about the CPI was eerily cheerful – among those he considers overly calm isn’t clear.

What is clear is that the economy is headed into another rough patch, meaning Marshall and Carter may have tapped into something, especially since, year over year, the growth in real wages is down into negative territory for the 22nd straight month.

“With government spending out of control, persistent inflation, and interest rates on the rise, we need to return to a responsible budgeting process now more than ever. It is up to Presidents – both current and future – to initiate the budget process on time by letting Congress know where their administration’s spending priorities lie,” Marshall said.

The Biden administration holds the record for the latest submission of a presidential budget in modern history. Nevertheless, with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, even a simple and direct bill like the PAYSTUB Act is unlikely to go anywhere. It’s not that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is afraid of embarrassing the White House, which is what passing this bill would do. No, Schumer is afraid of antagonizing the federal workforce who, even though they are not covered by the provisions of the act because they are not appointees, could interpret it as the leading wedge of a campaign to hold all federal workers accountable for their performance on the job. That’s not something their unions – which are among the most generous contributors to the Democrat’s national political machine – could allow, even if most government workers are dedicated, hard-working guardians of the public’s interest. The bad apples that do exist, and they do, have made the barrel an easy target at a time when the populist impulse among the American electorate runs strong. Still, even if it doesn’t pass, the Marshall-Carter plan is a good first step toward the recognition that the budget process doesn’t work because it’s designed to be unworkable and unenforceable and needs to be replaced by something that priorities thrift and growth over profligacy and pelf.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

The Department of Energy‘s recent step to begin the process of banning gas stoves, taken directly against strongly expressed contrary public sentiment, again shows that President Biden, climate czar John Kerry and their climate policy allies are authoritarians.

The climate authoritarians have made vast progress in regulatorily strangling American fossil fuel production, transport and use because opponents with power and influence too often have appeased them instead of directly challenging them.

This appeasement has helped make far too many of their assertions about global warming and CO2 emissions widely accepted.

A critical and mostly ignored fact, however, is that Biden and other climate authoritarians are climate science deniers.

Biden, for example, recently repeated his favorite assertion regarding global warming, stating that it “is the single most existential threat to humanity we have ever faced, including nuclear weapons.”

Climate science data show just the opposite – global warming has been saving millions of lives.

A May 2015 study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, by 22 scientists from around the world, found – after examining “the largest dataset ever collected to assess temperature-health associations,” over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012 – that cooler temperatures caused over 17 times more deaths than warmer temperatures.

A similar July 2021 study, also published in The Lancet, reported that cooler temperatures killed 9 times more people than warmer temperatures.

This means that as the planet has warmed by 1.05 degree Celsius on average since 1880 (as calculated by NASA), warmer temperatures have been saving millions of lives.

Consistent with these studies, a 2017 statement signed by over 300 scientists, including Richard Lindzen of MIT and William Happer of Princeton, states that a quarter century of observations “show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign.”

The scientists’ statement also makes the fundamental point regarding CO2, which each of us exhales with every breath: “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.”

Instead of following climate science data, the climate authoritarians rely on UN climate models that Obama Department of Energy Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin shows in his book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” are so speculative and unreliable that they have been unable even to reproduce the 20^th century’s temperature changes.

Reams of scientific data also eviscerate the climate authoritarians’ repeated declarations that global warming and increased CO2 emissions cause more and deadlier natural disasters.

Data from EM-DAT – The International Disaster Database presented by The University of Oxford’s Hannah Ritchie, Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser show that since 1920, as the planet has warmed and CO2 emissions have increased – and as world population has quadrupled – average deaths per year from natural disasters have decreased by over 90 percent.

What about hurricanes? Read this NOAA report, updated on December 29, 2022: “there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts. The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.”

The NOAA report goes further and states in bold: “We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.”

Fire data make a similar point. Data from the Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, Remote Sensing of Environment, and Earth’s Future, environmental statistician Bjorn Lomberg has noted, show that the percentage of global land burned per year in 1905-2021 has been declining.

And let’s not forget Al Gore’s famous claims about vastly higher ocean sea levels. “When averaged over all of the world’s oceans, absolute sea level has risen at an average rate of 0.06 inches per year from 1880 to 2013,” an EPA report updated on August 1, 2022 states, including a slightly increased rate since 1993 of “0.12 to 0.14 inches per year.” Note that even the recent increased rate requires 7 to 8 years to reach a single inch higher.

This and so much more climate data show that the climate authoritarians’ claims and their dangerous and damaging policies are scientifically wrong. It is late, but not yet too late, to stop them – but stopping them requires rejecting appeasement and instead directly confronting them about the fundamental facts of climate science.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

The last time this many Americans said they’re worse off was during the Great Recession

Fifty percent of all Americans say they’re financially worse off than they were a year ago, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.

This kind of negative response is rare, Gallup noted, having asked the question since 1976. The last time so many Americans said they were worse off was during the Great Recession in 2008 and 2009.

By contrast, only 35 percent said they’re better off this year—a result suggestive of “challenging economic times,” the pollster noted.

The findings “follow a year of persistent high inflation” under President Joe Biden, with “the highest inflation rates since 1982.” Inflation under Biden has soared to unprecedented levels, with egg prices skyrocketing 60 percent and experts widely expecting a stock market collapse.

Biden has attempted to put a happy face on economic fears, claiming during his Tuesday State of the Union address that inflation is “coming down.”

While all income groups say they’re worse off, low-income Americans say the weak economy has hit them particularly hard. Sixty-one percent of low-income respondents told Gallup they’re worse off than a year ago. They may find their situation worsening in the year ahead: The IRS, which has received $80 billion in new funding thanks to Biden, is five times more likely to audit poorer Americans, the Washington Free Beacon has reported.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

What’s Happening:

Recently, we learned about how Sen. Joe Manchin sided with Senate Republicans to defy Joe Biden’s latest “woke” move. The White House is trying to force investors to put your retirement money into left-wing sources, also known as “ESG.” This is yet another way Democrats are trying to politicize every aspect of our lives.

The West Virginia Democrat joined with Senate Republicans to pass a bill blocking Biden’s move. It will take some work, though, to stop Biden’s latest socialist scheme–which could result in the loss of your retirement fund. And now, over 100 organizations and top leaders have come out in response to Manchin’s decision.

From Fox News:

More than 100 conservative leaders and groups organized by former Vice President Mike Pence’s political advocacy group are backing a new resolution from Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., that would block a move by the Biden administration to promote a “woke capital agenda.” […]

“According to research from the University of Chicago, mutual funds scoring highly on ESG factors are constantly outperformed by funds rated lowest for ESG,” the letter states. “Moreover, 85 percent of the country does not even know what ‘ESG’ is, and therefore would not be aware of the financial risks their retirement account managers are subjecting them to when they actively pursue ESG investment decisions.”

Soon after Sen. Manchin came out in defiance of Biden’s latest scheme, over 100 groups joined forces to back him. Advancing American Freedom, a movement organized by former Vice President Pence, issued a demand to Congress to stop Biden’s woke move. The letter has been signed by over 100 conservative groups.

They explained that mutual funds that invested heavily in ESG sources underperform. Gee, imagine that? Money thrown at socialist causes don’t have a good ROI!? Mutual funds that instead focus on investing in industries that, you know, actually make money see a much better return.

The ESG movement is just an attempt to politicize the investment world. Biden and his socialist goons are trying to force banks to throw money at “green,” “social,” and “big government” issues. All of which don’t provide strong returns for investors. But Biden doesn’t care if you lose money. He is only interested in pandering to the radical left.

But the only way to stop this scheme is if Congress passes a bill stopping Biden. The crooked Democrat is sure to veto any bill, so a veto-proof majority will have to do it. Manchin might be the first Democrat to defy Biden’s woke plans, but he can’t be the last.

Key Takeaways:

• Over 100 organizations demanded Congress defy Biden’s ESG scheme.
• This comes after Democrat Joe Manchin sided with Republicans to block Biden’s plan.
• Biden wants to force retirement funds to invest in “woke” causes, which will lead to losses.

Source: Fox News

What’s Happening:

It’s no secret that Biden is trying to end America’s fossil fuel industry. He is letting gas prices skyrocket, so you will be convinced to buy an expensive electric car. His crooked administration is even trying to outlaw gas stoves, so you’ll have to buy a terrible electric one. But how is America going to produce enough electricity without fossil fuels?

It can’t. That’s what Biden refuses to admit. So, his administration is scrambling to expand less-than-reliable “alternative” sources of energy, like solar and wind. Of course, solar stops being useful on a cloudy day. And now, giant wind turbines put out to sea are creating yet another disaster. This one is truly reprehensible.

From The Post Millennial:

A 35-foot-long humpback whale named Luna who washed ashore last week on Nassau County, New York’s Lido Beach is the latest in a worrying trend of marine mammals dying along the east coast.

A letter sent by a dozen New Jersey mayors to federal and state officials last week calls for an immediate moratorium on offshore wind farms, which have increased to satisfy the Biden administration’s green agenda.

Wow, this is bad. Of course, wind “farming” has ramped up ever since Biden put a bullet in American oil and gas. But now we are finding out that all those ugly turbines, stuck out in the middle of the ocean, are killing whales.

According to reports, the incredibly loud turbines are interfering with whales’ echolocation. Every third grader can tell you that many sea creatures, including whales and dolphins, use sound to move through the water. Yet these “green” morons (who claim they love the environment) built thousands of extremely loud turbines, disrupting ocean wildlife.

And now, whales are getting disoriented and are ending up dead on the shore. Great job, Biden. You are such a failure of a president, you are killing whales!

It’s so bad that New Jersey mayors are demanding these turbines be shut down until a proper investigation can be done. How stupid do you have to be to rush out wind turbines, without researching how it will affect the animal life?

Democrats tried to oppose Trump’s border wall, claiming it would disrupt animals along the border. Yet they are literally killing whales with their crappy wind turbines. Which, as you can imagine, barely provide enough electricity to make them worthwhile.

I’m sure Biden will in no way admit responsibility for this disaster. But we will do it for him. This is Biden’s fault. He shut down our oil and gas, forcing states to rush out these terrible turbines. He is the one forcing Americans to hastily and improperly “transition” to green energy.

How many more animals need to die needlessly before Congress does something?

Key Takeaways:

• Wind turbines in the ocean are causing whales to wash up on the shore.
• States ramped up turbine use after Biden shut down American fossil fuels.
• New Jersey mayors are demanding these turbines be shut down until an investigation can be conducted.

Source: The Post Millennial

China, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Turkey have poured millions of dollars into the University of Delaware since the school launched the Biden Institute, President Joe Biden’s domestic policy think tank led by his sister, according to U.S. Department of Education records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Since the Biden Institute was established in 2017, the University of Delaware has received $6,704,250 in funding from China, $23,610,996 from Saudi Arabia, $2,513,646 from Oman and $1,673,847 from Turkey, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education.

News of the funding comes as lawmakers have called for an investigation into President Joe Biden’s private papers housed at the University of Delaware, after federal authorities uncovered classified documents at Biden’s home and at the Penn Biden Center, the president’s other foreign-policy-focused think tank at the University of Pennsylvania. It also comes as the University of Pennsylvania has faced questions from Congress about foreign donations it received after launching the Penn Biden Center.

The University of Delaware has declined to disclose the Biden Institute’s donors and told the Free Beacon in 2020 that these records are not subject to public information laws because the Biden Institute is privately funded.

Government watchdogs said the University of Delaware’s secrecy over the Biden Institute’s funding raises questions about whether any foreign funds have gone to the think tank, which is chaired by Biden’s sister, Valerie Biden Owens, and has employed some of his top aides and political allies.

“The secrecy surrounding the suspected foreign funding of the Biden Institute at the University of Delaware is on a par with that of the Penn Biden Center of the University of Pennsylvania,” said Paul Kamenar, counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center, an ethics watchdog group that has investigated both think tanks. “The House oversight committees need to uncover the dark money sources in both cases, particularly from China.”

In late January, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) called on the FBI and the Department of Justice to search 1,875 boxes of records that Biden donated to the University of Delaware library in 2012, which are closed to the public.

Cruz said officials need to know if any “additional classified documents are in those records.”

“Given Biden’s pattern, we should have zero reason [to] have any confidence that there are not multiple classified documents,” Cruz said on his podcast.

Biden, who spent decades representing Delaware in the Senate, has a long relationship with the university. The University of Delaware is home to the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy & Administration, which established the Biden Institute—a think tank focused on domestic policy—in 2017.

In January, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul (R., Texas) launched an inquiry into foreign funding to the University of Pennsylvania, which received $61 million from Chinese funders in the three years after the Penn Biden Center was launched in 2017, the Free Beacon reported in 2021. Since Biden’s inauguration, the university has accepted an additional $14 million from unnamed donors in China and Hong Kong, according to Department of Education records.

The University of Pennsylvania told the Free Beacon that none of the donations were specifically earmarked for the Penn Biden Center and said the think tank is funded through the school’s general budget.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) on Monday called on President Joe Biden to find “common ground” with Republicans to find a “responsible” debt limit increase that avoids a default or cuts to Medicare and social security.

In a speech at the Capitol, McCarthy said both parties must agree to end “blank checks for runaway spending” and find a reasonable debt limit, arguing future generations deserve better than high debt and inflation.

“Washington fell for a financial fad,” McCarthy said. “That the national debt doesn’t matter.”

The press conference comes a day before Biden’s State of the Union address, during which the president is expected to discuss the clash over the debt ceiling. The two met last week to discuss the issue, and McCarthy said he is expecting a call from Biden to arrange another meeting.

The United States hit its limit of $31.4 trillion last month and is unable to borrow more money until a new ceiling is agreed upon. The Treasury Department has advised Congress to use special funding maneuvers to avoid a default until June.

McCarthy said Republicans will negotiate and seek common ground. He pointed to remarks by then-vice president Biden who negotiated a debt ceiling increase in 2011. “You can’t govern without negotiating,” Biden said at the time.

“As a senator, you voted against raising the debt ceiling, Mr. President,” McCarthy said, referring to a 2006 vote by Biden against a GOP bill to raise the limit.  “Surely we both agree that the national debt is too high.”

McCarthy noted that Democrats increased annual discretionary spending by $400 billion in the last four years. “They took our nation’s credit card, spent like crazy, and left us in deep debt,” he said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Supreme Court should disallow Joe Biden’s sweeping plan to partially forgive student loans, former House Speaker John Boehner and former Reps. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) and John Kline (R-Minn.) told the court.

Biden introduced the plan in August 2022 in a move that critics decried as a constitutionally dubious attempt to shore up Democrats’ fortunes ahead of the November 2022 congressional elections. While the Congressional Budget Office said the plan could cost about $400 billion, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania estimates the price tag could exceed $1 trillion.

About 26 million people reportedly applied under the program before courts blocked it last year. Of those 26 million, 16 million were reportedly approved before the government stopped accepting applications.

Boehner, an Ohio Republican who left Congress in 2015, said the plan is unlawful and that the Biden administration failed to follow proper procedures in its rush to finalize debt relief before last year’s elections.

The comments came in a friend-of-the-court brief in Biden v. Nebraska filed on Feb. 2 (pdf), which was joined by McKeon and Kline, who crafted the loan relief legislation the president says empowers him to grant debt relief. McKeon left Congress in 2015; Kline left in 2017.

“Despite the staggering scope of this regulatory action, it was taken with breathtaking informality and opacity,” Boehner and the other two lawmakers said.

The Department of Education “did not undertake the notice-and-comment process required for rulemaking, much less solicit any public input.”

The agency “did not even issue a formal order or directive setting out its cancellation program. Instead, it issued a press release on August 24th along with two legal memoranda providing its justifications, and, later, a hastily created [Frequently Asked Questions] section on its website.”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, Biden v. Nebraska, on Feb. 28. A separate but related case, known as Department of Education v. Brown, will be heard the same day. The debt relief program was already blocked by lower federal courts.

The department claims it has the authority to move forward with the debt relief proposal, which would cancel as much as $20,000 in loan principal for 40 million borrowers, under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).

The government put a pause on student loan payments and interest during the recent pandemic but then claimed in 2022 that the pandemic gave it emergency authority under the law to proceed with partial loan forgiveness. Republicans, who took the majority in the House of Representatives in January, say the emergencies aren’t justified and should be ended sooner.

In a move that could undermine the government’s legal arguments in the Supreme Court case, Biden’s Office of Management and Budget said on Jan. 30 that on May 11, it would end the national emergency and the public health emergency, which were declared by the Trump administration three years ago. Those two official emergencies enabled federal agencies to exercise expansive powers in managing the government’s response to the COVID-19 virus.

Biden sparked confusion on Jan. 31 when he told a reporter that the COVID-19 emergency “will end when the Supreme Court ends it.” White House officials didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for clarification of the president’s comment.

Boehner, McKeon, and Kline, who were all involved in the passage of the HEROES Act, said the statute was enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks to provide student loan relief to military service members and their families but was never intended to be used to cancel debts en masse.

The three former lawmakers said in the brief filed on their behalf by Pacific Legal Foundation that they “know perhaps better [than] anyone why the Department’s justification is wholly at odds with the Act’s text, the context in which it was passed, and what has always been understood to be the limits of the Act’s reach.”

“As they know, firsthand, Congress did not, and surely could not, have ever expected the Act to be misused and distorted by the Department in the policy now before this Court.”

The purpose of the HEROES Act is “to repay the brave Americans who endure great personal hardship in service to their country with a modest protection against the distractions of administrative obligations arising from their student loans,” the brief stated.

But the lawmakers said they didn’t intend “to empower the Secretary [of Education] to radically change the student loan system itself, much less absolve borrowers who haven’t suffered hardship from the responsibilities they took on as borrowers.”

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar took the opposite tack in a previous court filing (pdf).

She said that “the entire purpose of the HEROES Act is to authorize the Secretary to grant student-loan-related relief to at-risk borrowers because of a national emergency–precisely what the Secretary did here.”

Other opponents of the Biden plan, including 17 states, 128 members of the House of Representatives, and 43 senators, have also filed briefs.

In January, the NAACP, as well as the American Federation of Teachers, American Association of University Professors, and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, filed briefs supporting the Biden administration’s position.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Senior legislator Wang Yi has urged China to maintain ‘active, one-step-ahead position’ over US on climate change

A deep-pocketed green energy group working to ban gas stoves in the United States counts as a top adviser a Chinese government official who has urged his nation to compete with America on climate change.

Climate Imperative, a green nonprofit with a nearly $1 billion budget thanks to funding from billionaires Laurene Powell Jobs and John Doerr, lists Chinese Academy of Sciences professor Wang Yi as a member of its advisory council. The group does not disclose, however, that Wang also serves in China’s legislature, the National People’s Congress. Wang even sits on the Congress’s Standing Committee, according to a Chinese environmental research group to which he belongs. That committee consists of government insiders who wield state power to accomplish Communist Party goals when the full Congress is not in session.

With Wang as an adviser, Climate Imperative has awarded grants to the Building Decarbonization Coalition, another green nonprofit that works to “transition to clean buildings that don’t run on gas.” Climate Imperative executive director Bruce Nilles, meanwhile, in December outlined his goal to get “methane gas out of homes and buildings.” “It turns out that fossil fuels and humans don’t actually coexist very well,” Nilles said.

It’s unclear how much Wang has influenced Climate Imperative in the group’s bid to do away with natural gas. Climate Imperative, which did not return a request for comment, says its advisers provide “independent, expert advice” to the group and do not “endorse or approve specific grants.” Still, Climate Imperative is far from the only influential green group to partner with the Chinese. The Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado-based nonprofit that published a controversial December study attributing 13 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases to gas-stove use, for years worked with China’s National Development and Reform Commission to implement an “economy-wide transformation” away from oil and gas, the Washington Free Beacon reported in January.

In addition to his role as a Climate Imperative adviser, Wang advises the Chinese government on climate change through the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED), a CCP-approved group that provides “policy recommendations to the Chinese government on environment and development.” As a CCICED council member, Wang in a September 2020 policy report called climate change the “highlight of Sino-U.S. relations” and argued that if U.S. “efforts to combat climate change prevail,” China will lose its “active, one-step-ahead position in global climate governance.” As a result, Wang and his coauthors wrote, China should pursue “strategic competition” with the United States on climate change and “engage in dialogue and exchange with relevant U.S. entities.”

Wang appears to be affiliated with the China Association for Promoting Democracy, a minor political party under the direction of the Communist Party that represents academics and holds seven seats on the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. One expert of China’s political system stressed that despite its name, the China Association for Promoting Democracy is not free from the CCP’s grips.

“They are subservient to the CCP,” the expert, who spoke on background to discuss the issue candidly, told the Free Beacon. “The idea is that they create these spin-off groups that are designed to appear to be independent in some kind of way from the CCP, when they’re actually controlled and directed by the CCP.”

Wang’s ties to the CCP are also shown through his status as a CCICED member. The council’s chairman is First Vice Premier Han Zheng, who from 2017 to 2022 served on the CCP’s Politburo Standing Committee, which consists of the party’s six highest-ranking leaders underneath President Xi Jinping.

Climate Imperative launched publicly in December 2021 with an annual budget of $180 million over five years, Axios reported. Given the group’s new status, it has not yet published tax forms with the Internal Revenue Service, meaning it is not known exactly how much funding the group has received from Powell Jobs and Doerr. The “majority” of the group’s sizable budget, however, comes from the two billionaires, according to energy reporter Robert Bryce.

Calls from green energy groups such as Climate Imperative and the Rocky Mountain Institute to ban gas stoves have intensified with President Joe Biden in the White House. Those calls gained serious traction within the federal government in January, when Biden-appointed Consumer Product Safety commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. told Bloomberg that “any option is on the table” when it comes to combating the “hidden hazard” of gas stoves. “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

While the White House walked back those comments amid intense public backlash, green energy groups are moving full steam ahead in their crusade against natural gas. “More than 12 percent of U.S. childhood asthma is preventable,” the Rocky Mountain Institute tweeted in January, “if we remove gas stoves from homes and move towards electric stoves instead.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) modified the regulatory definition of a sport utility vehicle (SUV) to make more vehicles eligible for an electric vehicle (EV) tax credit of up to $7,500.

In a notice issued on Feb. 3, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury jointly changed the vehicle classification standard by which vans, SUVs, pickup trucks, and some other vehicles are defined, making more models eligible for federal tax credits.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) made SUVs priced at up to $80,000 eligible for the EV tax credit, while cars, sedans, and wagons could only qualify if they were priced at up to $55,000.

The changes mean vehicles that automakers consider crossover SUVs now qualify for the credit.

“Some vehicles that were previously subject to the $55,000 MSRP limitation are now classified as SUVs and therefore get the benefit of the $80,000 MSRP limitation,” the IRS said in a statement, referring to the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), not the actual price paid.

For example, this means that the retail price cap for eligibility for the tax credit is raised from $55,000 to $80,000 for models like GM’s Cadillac Lyriq, Tesla’s five-seat Model Y, and Ford Mustang Mach-E. (A complete list of new qualifying clean vehicles can be found here.)

“A very good decision that clears up some EV tax credit confusion and instantly helps customers shopping today (and tomorrow) for an electric crossover or SUV,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of Alliance for Automotive Innovation, in a statement.

The new qualifications apply to vehicles bought and placed in service on Jan. 1, 2023, or later. For vehicles bought before that date, there are separate qualifying criteria.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk complained in January that tax rules for EVs were “messed up,” with the five-seat version of Tesla’s Model Y not considered an SUV but the seven-seat version considered as one.

The new rules have introduced consistency, making both Tesla models SUVs for purposes of the tax credit.

Details

The IRS and Treasury Department have revised the vehicle classification standard to use the consumer-friendly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fuel Economy Labeling standard instead of the EPA CAFE standard, making it simpler for consumers to identify vehicles that meet the MSRP cap requirements.

Vehicles whose class includes “sports utility vehicle,” “pickup truck,” or “van” on the fuel economy label or on FuelEconomy.gov are considered an SUV, pickup truck, or van, respectively, for the purpose of EV tax credits.

This includes the following vehicle classes, for which the the $80,000 MSRP limit applies:

• small sport utility vehicle
• standard sport utility vehicle
• small pickup truck
• standard pickup truck
• minivan
• van

For tax credit eligible vehicles that are not in one of the classes in the list above, the $55,000 MSRP cap applies.

According to the IRS’s new guidelines, the MSRP for new eligible EVs may not exceed the following amounts for the following vehicle types:

https://subs.theepochtimes.com/template/show?tid=cc3f343f-227c-4eec-8289-8d2fe30e4467&sid=www.theepochtimes.com&v=5&ck=JTdCJTIyZXBvY2hfdXNlcl9pZCUyMiUzQSUyMnVzZXJfOWRmZTU0NmQ1NzNjODBjMTQwZTY3NTgwMTA2ZWQ5NTU2YjY2YzRjZCUyMiUyQyUyMmVwb2NoX3Nlc3Npb25pZCUyMiUzQSUyMk1kdjRkcDNDWEFiX3Roc201SXFQaGhzZmExV19CVjYwbUlIU24wcFgxQUpoUEdqTzFCSHhnMTBLaHlBdHVMSUNfZlJBSUZtWCUyQkFiU3p6SE9PTlhpbUU4MllpdkFqRWRheHo4ejVPSDRDaURJMTA1TWlkSjBvQWNkV3lrJTNEJTIyJTJDJTIyZXBvY2hfdG9rZW4lMjIlM0ElMjJleUpoYkdjaU9pSlNVekkxTmlJc0luUjVjQ0k2SWtwWFZDSjkuZXlKbGVIQWlPakUzTVRBeE9EUXlOelVzSWxSdmEyVnVWSGx3WlNJNklteGxkbVZzTVNJc0lrNWhiV1VpT2lKMWMyVnlYemxrWm1VMU5EWmtOVGN6WXpnd1l6RTBNR1UyTnpVNE1ERXdObVZrT1RVMU5tSTJObU0wWTJRaWZRLkROWGF5TFR1TW5ndllNRC04ZEVId0x2SzA1NEt5LWR1ZHJJdEl0eFhNLUhVd2d3ZU5KNHZiVUxiX1NBcVBTbTBLYURCZkc0bTMtejR3UWVxT0tWV0FzcTJqUC1RWWpsN3htcE5WQ000RnhhQ0QyWmw5a1ZhcFpxZnZnUkMxZXA5OUhoV0pLNUM3Z2FlWk54U3hGbjdtRC04MzM4UWVMR2UzbXdlaGoxWjVvTSUyMiUyQyUyMmVwb2NoX3N1YnNjcmliZWQlMjIlM0ElMjIlMjIlN0Q=&pl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Firs-changes-definition-of-suv-making-more-vehicles-eligible-for-tax-credits_5031450.html%3Futm_source%3DMorningbrief%26src_src%3DMorningbrief%26utm_campaign%3Dmb-2023-02-05%26src_cmp%3Dmb-2023-02-05%26utm_medium%3Demail%26est%3DOoSuUOUCrqxw443U5EtSQ48PL0zgAeCq9UVS9S%252FQD9E9xKCxvG38%252FcuR95%252BthrG9mg%253D%253D&u=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&tn=newsletter_widget&dna=%7B%22u_s%22%3A%22Morningbrief%22%2C%22u_c%22%3A%22mb-2023-02-05%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22pid%22%3A%22anon017f-0a0d-4dc0-8787-12a5c87814b6%22%2C%22uid%22%3A%22user_9dfe546d573c80c140e67580106ed9556b66c4cd%22%2C%22x%22%3A%22737-190-607%22%2C%22vt%22%3A0%2C%22g1%22%3A%22us%22%2C%22g2%22%3A%22md%22%7D&source=morning-bell&email=walkerboh2112%40msn.com

• vans—$80,000
• sport utility vehicles—$80,000
• pickup trucks—$80,000
• other—$55,000

Vehicles whose MSRP exceeds the limitation for that specific vehicle type are not eligible for the tax credit.

The IRS says that all vehicles that were classified as an SUV, van, or pickup truck, for purposes of the new clean vehicle tax credit prior to the Feb. 3rd classification update, continue to be subject to the same $80,000 MSRP cap.

For those vehicles that are now classified as SUVs and are subject to the higher limit, taxpayers should get a seller’s report.

Specifically, a seller must provide to both the taxpayer and the IRS a report that contains the following information:

• name and taxpayer identification number of the seller
• name and taxpayer identification number of the taxpayer
• vehicle identification number of the new clean vehicle
• battery capacity of the new clean vehicle
• verification that the taxpayer is the original user of the new clean vehicle
• the date of the sale and the sales price of the vehicle
• maximum credit allowable for the new clean vehicle being sold
• for sales after Dec. 31, 2023, the amount of any transfer credit applied to purchase
• a declaration under penalties of perjury from the seller

Normally, sellers must provide the report no later than the purchase date of the vehicle. But for vehicles that were previously ineligible, but under the revised rules are eligible, taxpayers can ask sellers to provide the reports after the purchase date.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

House Republicans announced Thursday they are investigating Joe Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry over his secret meetings with the Chinese Communist government.

House Oversight and Accountability Committee chairman James Comer (R., Ky.), who is leading the investigation, in a letter accused Kerry of making “secret agreements” with foreign governments such as China that harm U.S. national security.

“To date, you have failed to respond to any of our requests,” Comer said. “Yet, you continue to engage in activities that could undermine our economic health, skirt congressional authority, and threaten foreign policy under the guise of climate advocacy.”

The letter points to an interview Kerry gave in May 2022 in which he claimed to have worked with the Chinese to form a group to combat greenhouse gases. Kerry, who has flown more than 180,000 miles as climate czar, has until Feb. 16 to comply with the document requests.

Kerry ignored Republican questions when they were in the minority, Fox News reported.

The investigation announcement comes as a Chinese spy balloon was spotted this week floating over nuclear sites in Montana. Biden declined to shoot down the balloon, prompting backlash from Republicans who say Biden is jeopardizing national security.

Comer said he wants the documents related to Kerry’s secret meetings with China in order to “understand” the climate envoy’s “role and provide necessary transparency.”

“As a member of the President’s cabinet, you should be representing the United States’ interests,” the letter said. “Your statements, however, consistently show disregard for American national security and taxpayer dollars.”

Kerry is the first person to hold the climate envoy position. It is within the State Department and has a budget of $13.9 million. Kerry has not responded to the letter.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Joe Biden claimed last month that a law designed to help veterans pay for their education empowers him to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. But former members of Congress who helped pass that law say the president is overstepping his authority and attempting “to radically change the student loan system.”

Former House speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) and former Reps. Howard McKeon (R., Calif.) and John Kline (R., Minn.) said Biden is using the 2003 HEROES Act, which allows the Education Department to offer waivers to student financial aid recipients during a “national emergency,” as a “pretext” to cancel $500 billion in loans, according to an amicus brief filed Friday at the Supreme Court. Both Republicans and Democrats, they say, acknowledged the law was not meant to “absolve borrowers who haven’t suffered hardship from the responsibilities they took on as borrowers.” Instead, it was meant to aid service members in paying off student loans during the Iraq war.

“Public service, almost by definition, involves sacrifice,” they wrote. “But as lawmakers, [we] wanted to repay the brave Americans who endure great personal hardship in service to their country with a modest protection against the distractions of administrative obligations arising from their student loans.”

In January, Biden’s Justice Department petitioned the Court, saying the law gave Education Secretary Miguel Cardona “clear authorization” to cancel the student debt. The administration argues the coronavirus pandemic constitutes a “national emergency”—an argument which the authors of the HEROES bill reject, saying the phrase referred directly to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Neither the White House nor the Department of Education responded to a request for comment.

The cancellation could cost as much as $1 trillion over 10 years, the Penn Wharton Budget Model predicts. Former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman has called the plan “indefensible” and “reckless.”

The Justice Department appealed after a series of lower courts’ rulings rejected the debt cancellation move, arguing “economically vulnerable borrowers” had been left in “limbo.” Biden pledged the debt forgiveness as part of his 2020 presidential campaign.

The former lawmakers filed the amicus brief with Pacific Legal Foundation for Biden v. Nebraska and Dept. of Education v. Brown, two cases before the Court that concern the debt cancellation. The group noted in a press release that Biden’s Education Department did not follow typical rulemaking guidelines for federal agencies before moving to cancel the debt.

“The Biden administration’s use of the HEROES Act as a legal pretext for its debt cancellation has always been a farce,” said Caleb Kruckenberg, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “The authors of the law confirm that fact.”

Republican-led states and other conservative legal groups also sued the Biden administration over its student debt gambit. The Court will hear oral arguments for both cases on Feb. 28.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Celebrity superstars who leveraged their fame to endorse digital assets like cryptocurrencies and nonfungible tokens (NFTs) face a series of civil lawsuits by investors who lost fortunes when the sizzling bull run for all things crypto iced over and those assets plunged in price.

From movie stars to celebrity athletes, many have found themselves named in lawsuits over their promotion of since-failed virtual asset projects.

The lawsuits make a range of claims, including violations of unfair competition laws and civil conspiracy, with some under federal law and others under state laws, which stipulate various legal requirements for the promotion of financial products.

While the details of the cases vary, their thrust is encapsulated in an article from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which cautions that endorsing investments without disclosing compensation is illegal. According to the Securities Act of 1933, anyone who touts a security must disclose the fact that they’re getting paid to endorse it.

“Celebrities and others are using social media networks to encourage the public to purchase stocks and other investments. These endorsements may be unlawful if they do not disclose the nature, source, and amount of any compensation paid, directly or indirectly, by the company in exchange for the endorsement,” the article states.

The SEC has sharpened its focus on digital assets amid a remarkable explosion in interest in the space.

“Crypto markets have exploded in recent years, with retail investors bearing the brunt of abuses in this space. Meanwhile, cyber-related threats continue to pose existential risks to our financial markets and participants,” Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said in a statement.

In May 2022, the agency nearly doubled the size of its crypto enforcement unit to 50 positions and ramped up activity.

The SEC brought a record number of crypto-related enforcement actions in 2022, up around 50 percent compared to 2021, according to a report released by consulting firm Cornerstone Research.

The Cornerstone Research report found that the SEC brought a total of 30 enforcement actions in 2022, consisting of six administrative proceedings and 24 litigation actions in federal courts.

Madonna

One of the lawsuits (pdf), which lists Madonna among the dozen or so celebrity defendants, targets technology company Yuga Labs, which develops NFTs.

The suit alleges violations of California state consumer protection regulations and federal securities laws when the celebrities allegedly promoted the NFT project Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) in exchange for compensation—but without identifying it as a paid endorsement.

Madonna, who promoted the tokens in media interviews and on social media, received a BAYC NFT worth almost $500,000 as compensation, according to the complaint.

Star-struck investors were attracted by the promise that “joining the club”—i.e., buying one of the BAYC tokens—would provide them with access to events, benefits, and “lucrative investment opportunities,” the complaint states.

“Unsuspecting investors” bought the tokens at “drastically inflated prices,” only to be hit later with “staggering losses.”

A representative for Yuga Labs told media outlets in a statement that the lawsuit is meritless and that the company never paid anyone to promote the NFTs.

Madonna’s representative told media outlets that she paid for her Bored Ape token. The case remains ongoing.

Are NFTs Securities?

Some experts say that for the lawsuit to be successful, the NFTs must pass the U.S. Supreme Court-created “Howey test,” which is a securities law standard for determining something an “investment contract” and therefore a “security.”

For an asset or arrangement to be deemed security, it must be an investment of money, be in a common enterprise, represent a reasonable expectation of profits, and be derived from the efforts of others.

“Courts have not yet addressed whether they are securities, and the SEC has not taken a clear position on the question,” O’Melveny & Myers LLP, a California-based multinational law firm, said in a memo on NFTs and their legal status.

Alma Angotti, a former senior enforcer with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, told Artnet News that she believes that some NFTs might be securities and that the SEC and the courts would apply the Howey test to them before making a determination.

“If [Yuga Labs] was essentially selling the product as an investment that would increase in value based on efforts of the company, then a court may find it a security,” Angotti told the outlet.

On the other hand, if Yuga Labs was selling their NFTs based on the idea that they may increase in value just because people find them appealing, then regulators probably won’t deem them securities, she added.

“But it still could be fraud if they made misrepresentations,” Angotti added.

Other Lawsuits

Another lawsuit (pdf), whose named defendants include NFL quarterback Tom Brady, is focused on A-lister endorsements of the defunct crypto platform FTX.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Florida securities and consumer protection laws by not disclosing their financial arrangements with FTX to endorse the trading platform.

The lawsuit argues that FTX yield-bearing accounts fall under the SEC umbrella for securities. Specifically, it claims that by engaging with the platform, customers of FTX were trading “unregistered securities” and the celebrity endorsers should have disclosed that they were “paid exorbitant sums of money to peddle FTX to the nation.”

Brady’s attorney has declined to comment on the case, which is ongoing.

Meanwhile, FTX founder Sam Bankman Fried faces civil and criminal charges for what is alleged to be one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.

Another case, which was dismissed in December 2022, saw celebrity Kim Kardashian and boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. named as defendants over their promotion of the cryptocurrency EthereumMax, which rode a wave of celebrity-fueled popularity before plummeting in value.

The judge explained the dismissal by saying that the plaintiffs didn’t provide enough evidence that the celebrity defendants meant to mislead investors.

“While the law certainly places limits on those advertisers, it also expects investors to act reasonably before basing their bets on the zeitgeist of the moment,” Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, said in a court document.

Kardashian’s lawyer told media outlets that his client is “pleased with the court’s well-reasoned decision.”

The reality TV star earlier agreed to pay $1.26 million to settle SEC charges that she plugged EthereumMax without disclosing that she was paid $250,000 to publish a post on Instagram about the token.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Florida attracted the most refugees from high tax states in 2022

Recent data shows that Americans are fleeing high-tax states, and a vast number of them are headed for Florida.

A report released on Jan. 30 by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) shows that 26 states saw more people moving in than out. The rest saw people leaving for other states. The top five states, attracting the largest number of new residents, were Florida (318,855), Texas (230,961), North Carolina (99,796), South Carolina (84,030), and Tennessee (81,646).

Conversely, the five states that lost the most residents were California (-343,230), New York (-299,557), Illinois (-141,656), New Jersey (-64,231), and Massachusetts (-57,292).

A map (pdf) composed by Americans for Tax Reform shows that, of the five states that drew in the most residents, all had Republican-controlled legislatures, and all but North Carolina had Republican governors. Of the five states that lost the most residents, Democrats controlled all but Massachusetts, which had a Republican governor and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

Data released by the Census Bureau confirmed that Florida was the fastest-growing state in the country in 2022, with an annual population increase of 1.9 percent.

NAR report author Nadia Evangelou noted that 2022 “was the first time since 1957 that Florida’s population grew faster than anywhere else across the United States.” The southern region of the Sunshine State—which over 9 million of Florida’s residents call home—also continues to be the most populated and is seeing the fastest growth.

The Taxes

Data compiled by The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy non-profit, shows that New Yorkers faced the highest burden in 2022, with 15.9 percent of the net product in the state going to state and local taxes. California’s tax rate was 13.5 percent. Illinois had a tax rate of 12.9 percent. New Jersey’s tax rate was 13.2 percent and the tax rate for Massachusetts was 11.5 percent.

While Florida’s overall tax rate was 9.1 percent, the Sunshine State is one of nine states that have no individual income tax. Texas is another. So is Tennessee.

There were some additional tax breaks enjoyed throughout Florida in 2022.

Florida’s legislature passed a bill, signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 6, 2022, that provided residents with 10 sales tax holidays.

From July 25, 2022, to Aug. 7, 2022, the state’s Back-To-School Tax Holiday (pdf) provided tax breaks on items like clothing, school supplies, learning aids, and computers. Tax-free items during the May 28, 2022, to June 10, 2022, Disaster Preparedness Tax Holiday period (pdf) included things like portable generators, portable self-powered light sources, non-electric food storage coolers, and supplies required for the evacuation of pets. During the Freedom Week Tax Holiday (pdf) that ran from July 1, 2022, to July 7, 2022, taxes were eliminated on retail items related to boating, water activities, camping, fishing, and general outdoor activities. Taxes were also eliminated for tickets to live music events, movies, and entry fees for museums, state parks, and the ballet.

In 2022, Floridians also enjoyed a Tool Time sales tax exemption (pdf), and a Children’s Books sales tax exemption (pdf). They are also currently enjoying a year-long Baby and Toddler Clothing and Children’s Diapers sales tax exemption (pdf), a year-long Energy Star sales tax exemption (pdf), and a two-year Impact-resistant Windows and Doors sales tax exemption (pdf). In addition, the Florida Motor Fuel Tax Relief Act of 2022 (pdf) reduced the price of motor fuel in the Sunshine State by 25 cents per gallon during the entire month of October.

Florida’s homeowners also received tax breaks. The Save Our Homes Act (pdf) provides homestead exemptions to Florida’s homeowners, decreasing the property’s taxable value by as much as $50,000.

Florida’s business owners have tax breaks as well.

Florida’s business-related tax breaks provide another incentive to move to the Sunshine State. The state does not impose corporate income tax on limited partnerships or subchapter S-corporations. There is no corporate franchise tax on capital stock and no property tax on business inventories or goods that are in transit for up to 180 days.

Other business tax benefits include Florida’s Capital Investment Tax Credit (pdf)—a credit of up to 5 percent against the corporate income tax, available for up to 20 years—available to attract high-impact, capital-intensive industries, such as silicon technology, transportation industries, or solar panel manufacturing facilities. The Research and Development Tax Credit Program provides corporate income tax credits to eligible businesses for certain research expenses in areas such as aviation and aerospace, nanotechnology, and cloud information technology.

The Jobs

According to the NAR report, the populous areas in the Sunbelt that saw high growth in 2022 shared a common characteristic: “a robust job market recovery after the pandemic.”

Florida is no exception: the state is known for its robust jobs market. Unless they are independently wealthy or retired with benefits, people need an income to spend money and to subsequently enjoy the tax break incentives and tax holiday benefits.

Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows Florida had an unemployment rate of 2.5 percent at the end of December 2022, down from 2.7 percent recorded five months earlier in July. BLS data shows the national average in December of 2022 was 3.5 percent.

By way of contrast, New York saw an unemployment rate of 4.3 percent, which has remained virtually unchanged since July 2022. Illinois had an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent, up from the July 2022 rate of 4.4 percent. California’s unemployment rate was 4.1 percent, an increase from the July rate of 3.9 percent.

Housing

Closely tied to taxes and jobs is the housing market. The NAR report noted that 46 percent of moves in 2021 were made for housing-related reasons, an increase of six percentage points from 2020. Although moves slowed in 2022, the report notes that affordability continues to be “the primary reason that people continue to relocate from … big city centers to less dense and more affordable areas.”

Based on NAR’s 2022 data, Evangelou concluded that many people are leaving states like California and New York because they are looking for “a better neighborhood, cheaper housing and … a newer/better/larger home.” Post-pandemic, she concluded, “migration trends only go one way and affect every area’s demographics.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

U.S. companies were involved in at least 37 percent of the total investment transactions in China’s artificial intelligence (AI) sector between 2015 and 2021, according to a new report.

The report (pdf), published by the Georgetown University Center for Security and Emerging Technology, found that $40.2 billion in investment transactions into Chinese AI companies had U.S. backing, although it was unclear what percentage of that amount was made by U.S. investors or their overseas counterparts.

The venture capital (VC) was given to 251 Chinese AI companies, primarily at angel, seed, and pre-seed stages of investment.

There are risks with such investments, the report noted, as they’re generally accompanied by other intangible benefits in which U.S. expertise is delivered to China-based companies.

“While Crunchbase data suggests that U.S. outbound investment into Chinese AI companies is limited, such financial activity, commercial linkages, and the tacit expertise that transfers from U.S.-based funders to target companies in China’s booming AI ecosystem carry implications that extend beyond the business sector,” the report states.

“Earlier stage VC investments in particular can provide intangible benefits beyond capital, including mentorship and coaching, name recognition, and networking opportunities. As such, U.S. outbound investment in Chinese technology, and particularly AI, merits additional attention and tracking.”

US Firms Fund Chinese AI Companies

U.S. investments in China-based AI companies have come under fire in recent years because of the amount of control exercised over such companies by China’s communist regime.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a single-party state, has implemented several laws that require China-based companies to make all data in their possession available to the regime upon request.

This means that any data or technologies developed by China-based companies with U.S. backing could be directly used by the CCP to improve upon its military capabilities, in line with the regime’s “military-civil fusion” strategy.

Moreover, such investments directly fuel China’s efforts to overtake the United States as the leading technological power.

This is demonstrated by the value of the investments being made by U.S. sources into China’s AI companies. Whereas investment transactions involving U.S. funding sources only made up 17 percent of the total number of transactions made, those transactions accounted for 37 percent of the total funding value of all such transactions, according to the report.

Notably, the U.S. investments also include major funding for Chinese companies whose research could tangibly benefit the Chinese military’s pursuit of AI and autonomous systems.

“Some of the largest investments include Goldman Sachs’s solo investment in 1KMXC, an AI-enabled robotics company, as well as an investment by three U.S.-based VC firms in Geek+, an autonomous mobile robot company,” the report states.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Industrial policy is all the rage in official policy circles, with the U.S. leading the way owing to the comically ill-named “Inflation Reduction Act.” It’s a good time to be a statist and an even better time to be a private company looking for a hefty dose of corporate welfare.

But as with all welfare/protectionist schemes, the IRA has caused a ruckus with the past masters of state-sponsored capitalism, the European Union. The EU’s bureaucrats are deeply worried that the lure of American taxpayer dollars will prove too great for European conglomerates to resist.

The EUcrats complain that our government’s income redistribution schemes are “toxic.” And on one level, this is correct. Government has, at best, a checkered past when it comes to picking winners and losers. Worse is the practice of subsidizing private companies to conduct business they would either do on their own – accepting both the risks and the rewards – or not do because the risks couldn’t justify the costs.

It’s economically inefficient (and downright wasteful). And not a little immoral.

The EU’s obvious response to America’s corporate welfare scheme would be to make doing business in Europe less costly, more efficient and more market-centered.

It looks like Europe will instead listen to the pleas of its own (apparently) welfare-starved corporations…and Sen. Joe Manchin…and go the full Joe Biden:

The EU is considering policies that…include a plan to relax government-subsidy rules and are broadly expected to focus on the same clean-tech sectors as the U.S. legislation.

In other words, a trans-Atlantic fight over who can be the most generous corporate sugar daddy.

And taxpayers on both sides of the water will foot the (increasingly) hefty bills for all of it.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

What’s Happening:

There is a reason Joe Biden refuses to end the COVID public health emergency. This “crisis” gives him power to demand huge sums of money from the American public. All in the name of battling a disease that has been around for nearly three years.

But we need to ask, where is all that money going? Since 2020, the federal government has churned out $4.6 trillion in debt spending to “battle” COVID. Yet a new report has come out from the Government Accountability Office. And not only has billions of dollars in COVID money been stolen by fraudsters. But Biden’s administration has done little to even stop it.

From Daily Wire:

Not only did the glut of coronavirus-tied bailouts likely result in billions of dollars of fraud, but it happened because government agencies in many cases did not take even basic steps to prevent it, and in other cases have declined to try to claw back improper payments…

Three years after the pandemic began, rampant fraud turned out to be very much a reality.

How bad is it? Well, buckle up. The GAO’s report lists several areas where the government did nothing to stop fraudsters from stealing your money. The first one was unemployment fraud. Unemployment programs across the country already give out checks to undeserving people. But the report found that at least $163 billion in pandemic payments were given to cheats and liars.

Then there were the Paycheck Protect Program payouts. We’ve already learned, many times, of how people cheated this hastily put-together program. This program was set up by the Small Business Administration–which didn’t even set up an anti-fraud measure until after money was going out. Billions of dollars were given to cheats–and that money has not been recovered.

To make matters worse, as this money was going out Congress removed legal requirements that could have policed fraud from their COVID spending bills. That’s right, when Democrats were in power, they went out of their way to help fraudsters cheat the government.

It goes on and on from there. Clearly, Democrats have been using COVID as an excuse to throw away billions of Americans’ dollars. Much of that money is gone forever. Plenty of it Joe funneled to his donors and special interest groups. Of course, he doesn’t want this gravy train to end–even if it bankrupts our country.

But he’s going to have a hard time dealing with this report.

Key Takeaways:

• The Government Accountability Office released a report blasting Biden and Congress over COVID spending.
• The government did not do anything to prevent fraudsters from stealing billions.
• Congress went out of its way to prevent agencies from policing COVID funds.

Source: Daily Wire

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.) paid her daughter nearly $200,000 in campaign funds during the 2022 cycle, adding to a decades-long million-dollar operation between the mother and daughter.

In total, Karen Waters has received more than $1.2 million for ad services in the past two decades from her mother’s and other California Democrats’ campaigns, according to Fox News. The younger Waters’s business creates so-called slate mailers, which promote a list of candidates running for different offices.

Waters is not new to questionable money dealings. She long defended Democratic megadonor Sam Bankman-Fried, who dished out at least $40 million to Democratic groups and lawmakers in the 2022 cycle. She praised Bankman-Fried, who faces charges of money laundering and financial fraud, for being “candid” about the downfall of crypto exchange FTX.

Several prominent Democrats have contributed to the Waters operation. Vice President Kamala Harris paid tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds between 2010 and 2016 to appear on the slate mailings. Gov. Gavin Newsom has also paid Waters more than $40,000.

The practice is not common at the national level and critics say it hints at corruption, Fox News reported:

The practice is highly unusual on the federal level, and Waters appears to be the only national politician using it to grab committee cash. Slate mailers, however, are commonplace in her home state of California, though critics say it involves deceptive practices over one campaign paying another for a politician’s backing in an election.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Senators grilled the Department of Energy over a $200 million grant to a China-based lithium battery company during a hearing on Thursday, as department officials admitted they are still conducting a “due diligence review” of the business months after announcing the award.

The DOE’s testimony to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday comes as the DOE has faced scrutiny from lawmakers over the proposed grant to Microvast, after the Washington Free Beacon reported on financial records that revealed the company’s operations are primarily based in China and the Chinese government “exerts substantial influence” over its business activities.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), the ranking Republican on the committee, brought a large placard to the hearing that quoted from Microvast’s Securities and Exchange Commission report, in which the company disclosed its extensive involvement in China.

“The company states, and it’s right here on the board behind me, that it is under the ‘substantial influence’—the ‘substantial influence’—of the People’s Republic of China, the PRC,” said Barrasso, noting that the term “PRC” was “mentioned 471 times in the company’s filings.”

“Did anyone at DOE actually do their homework?” Barrasso asked. “Did you know if anyone actually bothered to read this?”

The DOE grant program is funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which included specific provisions from Congress to prevent federal funds from going to China’s battery industry. The DOE has defended the award, saying that Microvast is a “majority U.S.-owned company, traded on NASDAQ,” and “headquartered in Stafford, Texas.”

The committee’s chairman, Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), told DOE deputy secretary David Turk that the committee has “some concerns” about Microvast and asked about the “DOE’s process for vetting applicants to ensure that we’re not giving our best ideas to China and funding them to be able to take advantage of it in their marketplace, along with ours.”

Turk said that Microvast hasn’t yet received the money and that the grant is still in the negotiation process. He said the DOE is working with U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct an “extended due diligence process” of all grantees, including Microvast.

Turk also noted that finding battery companies without extensive ties in China was a challenge.

“Unfortunately … the vast majority of battery manufacturing is in China right now. And a lot of that [intellectual property] is in China right now,” said Turk.

Barrasso, who last month sent a letter to the DOE asking for more details on the grant, said he was concerned about the department’s response, which stated that the DOE was carrying out a “thorough post-selection, risk-based, due-diligence review.”

“Makes you wonder why we don’t make those [determinations] before, as opposed to after the decision,” said Barrasso. “Why wouldn’t we assess the risk before making a grant decision on something like this?”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

What’s Happening:

Sen. Joe Manchin might be a fair-weathered friend to Republicans. But at least, once and a while, he does the right thing. He opposed some of the left’s most shocking moves in recent years. Including, refusing to end the filibuster so Democrats could hijack our elections and push insane spending.

Manchin even said running for president in 2024 wasn’t “off the table.” And now, it looks like he’s defying Joe and the Democrats yet again. Biden is poised to hatch a scheme that will destroy your investments and retirement savings. That’s right, he’s after that too. But Manchin joined with Senate Republicans to shut old Joe down.

From Fox News:

Every Republican senator and Democrat Joe Manchin are introducing legislation that they hope will terminate the Biden administration’s new environment, social and governance (ESG) rule, which they say “politicizes” the retirement savings for 152 million Americans…

“President Biden is jeopardizing retirement savings for millions of Americans for a political agenda,” Braun told Fox News Digital.

Joe Biden is pushing ESG onto Americans’ investment and retirement accounts. Oh, don’t know what ESG is? Buckle up. ESG or “environmental, social, and governance,” is the left’s attempt at making investments leftist.

Big banks have been infiltrated by socialists to force them to dump billions of dollars into far-left investments. Instead of investing money in good places, you know, where there is a return, banks have been losing billions by investing in “green” and other social causes.

And now, Biden is trying to force your retirement planner to put your hard-earned funds into investments that will tank. All so the left can virtue signal a little bit more.

It’s hard to not think that this is the left’s attempt at destroying the backbone of the American economy: investments. Socialists, after all, hate capitalism. So, why not destroy it? ESG investments erode confidence in our markets and ensure billions are lost on bad investments.

Meanwhile, the companies that receive these investments pocket that cash. You? Not so much.

So, Sen. Joe Manchin is the only Democrat who joined with Republicans to push a bill to stop this rule. It has a good chance at passing the House, where Republicans have the majority. But Manchin will have to convince some of his liberal colleagues to support it, if it has a chance at passing in the Senate.

Even then, crazy old Joe will try to veto it. Don’t be surprised if this is taken to court.

Key Takeaways:

• Joe Manchin joined with Republicans to oppose Biden’s latest woke scheme.
• Biden is forcing retirement accounts to invest in ESG programs, which could destroy millions of Americans’ retirements.

Source: Fox News

If there’s a poster child for 2022’s historic inflation, it ought to be an egg. This valuable source of nutrients has never been pricier.

In December 2022, a dozen eggs cost $4.25 on average, up from less than $1.80 a year prior, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The good news is, the prices are expected to drop. The bad news is, they’re unlikely to drop back to pre-2022 levels.

There are several reasons why.

Bird Flu

The year 2022 was marked by outbreaks of avian influenza that prompted a mass culling of poultry, especially in March and April when farmers had to cull more than 27 million egg-laying hens. With further losses over the September–December period, the avian flu cost egg farmers more than 43 million birds last year—more than 13 percent of the country’s egg-laying flock.

The current H5N1 bird flu strain, Gs/GD highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) or Goose/Guangdong HPAI, appears to be particularly virulent. Avian flu is spread by wild birds, especially water birds, but usually doesn’t kill the carriers. This strain, however, has been reported as killing an unusual number of wild birds and even infecting mammals, leading to some concerns that it may infect humans.

Farmers have responded to the virus by trying to increase biosecurity in their operations. They also immediately started to raise more chickens to replenish their flocks, but the process is expensive because they have to house and feed the young chicks for four to five months before they start to lay eggs.

Coinciding with the outbreaks, from March to May, eggs went up in price to $2.80 per dozen from about $2 per dozen and then from September to December to $4.20 per dozen from about $2.90 per dozen.

Contrary to some reporting, there was never a national shortage of eggs. While the culling caused some supply disruptions, overall, there were plenty of eggs available. The industry started the year with a particularly high stockpile of more than 600 million eggs. Throughout the year, it has never once dropped below 400 million—several days’ worth of national egg consumption, according to weekly data collected by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Farmers have also managed to increase the number of eggs they get from each hen by about 2 percent and finished the year having produced almost 93 billion eggs, only about 3 percent down from the year before, according to USDA (pdf).

Supplies were further supported by a 40 percent drop in egg exports and a 30 percent hike in imports.

Over the past few weeks, stockpiles have started to grow again, signaling that prices should drop. However, prices may remain elevated.

Inflation

There are some indices that eggs won’t return to the prices they were a year ago. 2022’s historic inflation, which has since eased to 6.5 percent after having reached 9 percent in June 2022, means that farmers need to pay more for everything, from chicken feed to electricity and fuel. Those prices may come down, especially if the economy sinks into a recession, but it isn’t clear when and by how much.

Fuel prices have dropped in recent months due to the Chinese economy being decimated first by its draconian “zero-COVID” lockdowns and then by the disease itself. Diesel, however, has remained stubbornly expensive—up about 25 percent from a year ago.

On the other hand, egg producers have been able to drastically raise prices with what apparently minimal punishment by the market—Americans have largely been willing to pay. Even as egg prices rose by 120 percent in 2022, December-to-December, Americans finished the year by eating about 277 eggs each on average, only about three eggs less than in 2021.

A part of the reason is that other food prices have also inflated, leaving consumers with few options.

“While the table-egg production was affected by repeated cases of HPAI, the demand for eggs remained strong throughout the year, adding additional pressure to prices,” the USDA stated in a January industry report. “This is partially because eggs are a staple product with few substitutes. Moreover, for much of the year, they represented the lowest cost protein alternative.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government pumped trillions of newly minted dollars into the economy without a commensurate increase in productivity. Many economists have argued that prices have increased writ large to balance out the extra money supply.

In this line of reasoning, eggs, or other staple products for that matter, won’t easily become cheap again—there are simply too many dollars chasing them.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Hint: She’s the one who doesn’t want to rip out your gas stove

So, the impetus behind cancelling gas stoves is to prevent asthma in kids, yet the same administration is about to declare a health emergency to allow for abortions; is forcing transgenderism on all kids; is promoting sex change operations for kids; and recommended Covid vaccinations down to toddler age, even though there was absolutely no need to do so as the vaccine is ineffective on kids [US Patriot]

On paper, Dr. Julie Goodman is exactly the kind of seasoned scientific expert the New York Times would typically venerate.  

She received her Ph.D. in toxicology from Johns Hopkins University. She taught at Harvard’s School of Public Health. She served as a cancer prevention fellow at the National Cancer Institute. And she’s now affiliated with both the American College of Epidemiology and the Academy of Toxicological Sciences. She believes in “the science.” 

There’s just one problem. Goodman doesn’t think the federal government should come into your home and rip out your gas stove. In her (expert) opinion, studies linking the suddenly controversial appliance to childhood asthma are flawed. They don’t justify dramatic action. 

Goodman’s evidence-based conclusions made her, understandably, an attractive resource to the gas industry’s lobbying arm, which has paid her to testify on its behalf. It’s a tale as old as time, but news to the New York Times, which published a hit piece on Sunday arguing that Goodman is little more than a gas industry shill posing as an “independent scientist.”

The Times has of course demonstrated less interest in ferreting out the conflicts of interest behind the groups producing the studies suggesting gas stoves are to blame for a host of maladies. 

Take the Rocky Mountain Institute, the green energy group behind the now-infamous report attributing 13 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases to gas-stove use. That study, the Times says in the same Sunday piece, is the “solid” work of unbiased “experts.”

Our colleagues Collin Anderson and Joseph Simonson have reported on the Rocky Mountain Institute’s agenda. It boasts of its attempt to drive an “economy-wide transformation” away from oil and gas in the name of the “climate crisis” and is led by green energy executives who stand to profit from such a transformation. 

That is information you won’t glean from a paper whose primary business—aside from recipes, Wordle, and negotiating pay raises with its union—is mediocre political axe-grinding. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Professor of psychology and public speaker Jordan Peterson has announced the formation of an international consortium that would serve as a kind of populist alternative to the elitist World Economic Forum (WEF) and provide a countervailing force against globalist aims and narratives.

Peterson laid out his plan in an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, telling him that an inaugural event of the group is being planned for the cusp of October/November 2023 in London.

Around 2,000 business, cultural, and political figures will be invited to take part in the consortium, he said, adding that he wants the discussions open to the public and membership in the organization to be as broad as possible.

That would put participation at a similar scale to the WEF’s recent meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which amassed around 2,700 international leaders, Wall Street executives, central bankers, and celebrities.

Peterson said that a core idea of the consortium—which does not yet have an official name—will be to provide an “alternative vision of the future … an alternative to that kind of apocalyptic narrative that’s being put forward, at least implicitly, by organizations like the WEF.”

‘Year of the Polycrisis’

Critics have argued that the WEF uses scare tactics and paints a dire picture of the future to justify proposed solutions, such as the Great Reset.

For instance, ahead of this year’s WEF meeting, the group declared 2023 the “Year of the Polycrisis,” laying out an extensive matrix of threats, with a strong focus on the supposed emergency of climate change that critics have lambasted as unfounded alarmism.

The Great Reset, which has been associated with the controversial slogan “you’ll have nothing and you’ll be happy,” puts forward a top-down approach to managing various threats that include rejigging capitalism to distribute its benefits more evenly and strengthening the global architecture of multinational institutions.

Critics of the Great Reset say it’s an attempt by international organizations to undermine national sovereignty by centralizing power and decision-making at the expense of individual freedoms and local communities.

There are also concerns that the solutions the scheme proposes involve a high degree of economic interventionism by governments and social engineering by global elites who want to impose progressive values and beliefs on traditional-minded populations.

As an alternative to what he described as the WEF’s “apocalyptic narratives,” Peterson said the consortium wants instead to “put forward a vision that’s enticing and inviting.”

“Imagine you can have the world you want” with “none of this Malthusian Limits to Growth nonsense.”

The Malthusian Limits to Growth is a concept based on the notion that population growth will eventually outstrip the food supply, leading to widespread famine, disease, and death.

A key criticism of the idea includes that it’s overly simplistic and fails to account for the complex interplay of food production, population, and technological advancement. It’s also inconsistent with historical data, as the model’s dire predictions have failed to pass despite a growing global population, as food production has kept pace through advancements in technology and agriculture.

“We get our act together,” Peterson said, “and everyone can have enough—and maybe more than enough.

“There is no limit to the abundance the natural world can produce,” he added.

Core Ideas of Peterson’s Consortium

Peterson listed some of the core ideas that will be discussed at the October/November 2023 meeting, including enhancing energy production and distribution, protecting individual freedoms against tyranny, and pushing back against falling birth rates with pro-family policies.

“You don’t get to save the planet by making energy prices so expensive that no one poor can afford them. That’s off the table,” he said, adding that the development of alternative sources of energy would be welcome but “you don’t get to impose your utopian vision in the service of your narcissism on the poor.

“We’re going to try to make the poor rich—try to alleviate poverty,” he said.

Experts have criticized agendas like the Green New Deal for pushing technologically immature solutions by government dictates and subsidies, making energy less reliable and more expensive, with a disproportionate impact on the poor.

Peterson said a key discussion point of the consortium will be how to obtain “energy and resources at the lowest possible cost, as rapidly as possible, to the largest number of people around the world.”

Another is to look at ways to manage governance in order to “stop the march of something like pathological gigantism,” which he described as big and growing power by a combination of corporate, governmental, and media in what he described as a kind of “corrupt collusion.”

He also said that discussions would involve exploring a “pro-human” view of stewardship.

“How do we prioritize our attempts to establish our states and our international relationships properly, so that we prioritize human well-being” in a way that’s in harmony with nature to the extent possible, while avoiding the trappings of the Malthusian idea that there are too many “mouths on the planet to feed and that you’re evil if you just think about having children.”

Further, Peterson said the consortium will explore policies that would counteract falling birth rates by encouraging stable, two-parent families that are “child-centered.”

“In the West, because we’re very immature, we think that the purpose of a marriage is the happiness of the people who are involved in the marriage, the husband and the wife. And that’s just not the purpose of marriage at all,” Peterson said.

“The purpose is long-term facilitation of their psychological and spiritual development and the establishment of an environment that’s beneficial to children,” he added.

He also touched on the primacy of voluntary cooperation among members of societies, rather than top-down coercion.

“One story is power rules everything,” he said. “But that’s not a very good story. It’s a very pathological story.”

Peterson argued that taking responsibility at the most local level is key to preventing the rise of tyranny. He said this is based on the idea that personal responsibility should be taken at each step of oneself, family, community, state, and nation.

“The idea is you have to produce a hierarchy of responsibility, distributed responsibility, as an antithesis to tyranny,” which Peterson suggested could be a model for good governance.

He said this idea is rooted in Western tradition and is an antidote to the notion that power is the only factor that rules.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

LanzaTech has raked in $12 million in taxpayer funds since inking deal with China-run energy giant Sinopec

The Biden administration sent another $1.6 million to a Beijing-backed green energy company even after Republicans warned the administration that the investment “impacts the national security of the United States.”

Joe Biden’s Energy Department on Thursday announced the seven-figure award to LanzaTech, a carbon capture company that in April 2021 inked a partnership with Sinopec Capital, the clean energy investment arm of a Chinese state-owned oil conglomerate. This is not the first time the department has showered LanzaTech with taxpayer cash—the company received more than $10 million in grant payments in the months after it partnered with China, the Washington Free Beacon reported in December.

Those payments alarmed Senate Republicans, with Wyoming’s John Barrasso urging Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in a December letter to stop “making the same mistake of enriching China’s technological efforts at the expense of taxpayers.” “The awarding of these grants and loans,” Barrasso wrote, “directly impacts the national security of the United States.” Arkansas’s Tom Cotton similarly implored the Biden administration to stop “handing millions of taxpayer dollars to a Chinese-backed company” and instead encourage “American energy production and energy independence.”

Biden’s Energy Department, however, failed to heed the warnings. For Barrasso, the department’s decision to stand by LanzaTech is “outrageous” given the company’s “direct ties to communist China.”

“This isn’t about protecting the environment,” Barrasso told the Free Beacon. “The White House is using its far-left climate policies as an excuse to send taxpayer money to help countries that hate us.”

Biden’s latest LanzaTech grant could prompt additional inquiries from congressional Republicans, who are threatening to subpoena environmental groups over ties to China and Russia. “If there’s evidence the Chinese government is funding their actions, we have to go after them,” House Natural Resources chair Bruce Westerman (R., Ark.) said in December. “I don’t care what kind of group they are.”

The Energy Department told the Free Beacon that “like Ranking Member Barrasso,” it “is interested in ensuring investments maximize benefits for the nation.” Still, the department has chosen to funnel millions in public funds to LanzaTech despite the company’s federal financial disclosures, which note “that the Chinese government may intervene or influence our operations at any time.” LanzaTech’s filings also acknowledge that the company’s partnerships with Sinopec and other Chinese entities could bring “complications” and “restrictions” should the United States bring “sanctions on certain Chinese individuals.”

Beyond LanzaTech’s relationship with Sinopec, the company has raised millions from CITIC Capital, a subsidiary of China’s largest state-run conglomerate. LanzaTech’s board of directors includes Bo Ren, who worked at CITIC’s brokerage arm.

The Biden administration’s affinity with LanzaTech may be explained by the company’s deep political connections to top Democrats. LanzaTech counts billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla as a top investor—Khosla in 2008 led then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s India policy team and hosted glitzy fundraisers for the Democrat. Jim Messina, Obama’s former deputy chief of staff and campaign manager, went on to join LanzaTech’s board in 2013.

Sets out plan to keep today’s ‘polycrisis’ from becoming tomorrow’s climate ‘catastrophe’

The climate and social justice movement is seeking to rebrand itself from a progressive ideology to a prudent tool for risk management. This not only allows it to frame its bleak vision of the future as a safety measure; it also allows its corporate and Wall Street adherents to claim that they’re not pursuing a political agenda at shareholders’ expense but rather managing risk on their behalf.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) laid out the latest chapter of its crisis-management plan in its 2023 Global Risks Report. The report sketched out short-term risks under the heading “Today’s Crisis,” and long-term threats described as “Tomorrow’s Catastrophe.” Topping the short-term list are the “energy supply crisis,” the “cost of living crisis,” and the “food supply crisis”; in the longer term, however, climate change is the apex threat.

Underscoring this narrative, former Vice President Al Gore told attendees that the accumulated amount of CO2 emissions in our atmosphere “is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released from 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every single day on the earth. That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers and the rain bombs and sucking the moisture out of the land.”

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres echoed these remarks, declaring that the production of fossil fuels was “inconsistent with human survival.”

WEF Founder Klaus Schwab spoke in more pedestrian terms but nonetheless declared that this is a moment of “unprecedented multiple crises.” The WEF has designated 2023 as the “Year of the Polycrisis.”

‘Net Zero’

The Global Risks Report states that shortages of energy and food, and the consequent “cost of living crisis,” are primarily the result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The solution, says the WEF, is accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar and reaching “net zero” emissions on schedule, which will help resolve shortages, bring down inflation, and stabilize the climate. But some are skeptical.

“That is downright laughable,” Joel Griffith, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times. “We know that the inflation that we see right now is a combination of massive money printing—the central banks have had the printing presses on high speed in order to fund massive government expansions over the past 2 1/2 years—and the COVID impact that they mentioned.”

Regarding COVID-19, however, “these are the world leaders gathered [in Davos] that embraced those shutdowns,” Griffith said. “Thankfully, they did not fully implement net zero; if they would have implemented net zero carbon emissions reductions, the energy crisis would have been even worse.”

A recent survey indicated that 20 percent of Americans are struggling this year to pay their electricity bills, which have increased on average up to 23 percent compared to the prior year. In one of the worst-hit regions, a Massachusetts utility informed residents in November 2022 that their electricity rates would be going up by 64 percent. Conditions in many countries that don’t have America’s abundance of oil, gas, and coal are significantly worse.

Transformation Road Map

Currently, about 84 percent of the world’s energy is generated by oil, gas, and coal. Wind and solar, despite decades of subsidies and regulatory support, still account for less than 5 percent of energy consumed. Despite heavy investments to build wind and solar capacity, their intermittent nature means that they’re useable for generating electricity only about one-third of the time in an average year.

Contrary to WEF predictions, National Geographic reported in 2021 that “disasters related to weather and climate have become less deadly over time.” While warning readers that the trend could always reverse, the report conceded that over the past 50 years, “the number of deaths tied to those disasters has dropped nearly threefold.”

Analyzing per-capita weather-related deaths from 2000 to 2010, a report by the Reason Foundation stated that “the worldwide death rate from weather happenings has dropped over 98 percent since the 1920s.”

Regarding the “food shortage crisis,” the WEF issued a joint report (pdf) with Bain & Company, a management consultancy, titled “Food, Nature, and Health Transitions,” which found that “food systems are no longer fit for purpose—they need transforming.”

“Food and agriculture collectively account for more than 30% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and over 80% of deforestation and biodiversity loss around the world,” the report states. Consequently, “every country needs to develop and implement an integrated food systems transformation roadmap.”

The report identified “five dimensions of food system success,” which included not only the goals of producing food but also equity, biodiversity, climate adaptation, and healthy diets. Arguing that farmers, governments, and corporations must collaborate on this transformation, the report noted that diets must also change.

“Consumers in higher-income countries typically choose diets that are too high in foods with large environmental footprints, such as red meat,” the WEF wrote, arguing that governments can shift peoples’ eating habits through a combination of taxation, subsidies, regulations, and “consumer communication.”

‘Transition Risk’

Taking the WEF’s climate-risk assessment to heart, the Biden administration has transformed all federal agencies in line with President Joe Biden’s executive order upon assuming office that stated, “It is the policy of my Administration to organize and deploy the full capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis.” Biden’s directive declared that “we face a climate crisis that threatens our people and communities, public health and economy, and, starkly, our ability to live on planet Earth.”

This has often resulted in federal agencies being directed away from their original purpose toward goals that are often outside their legal mandate, such as the FBI’s new initiative for “climate justice.” One of the more far-reaching measures is a new rule by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was established to protect everyday investors from securities fraud, to fight climate change. The rule requires that all listed companies produce audited reports detailing their CO2 emissions, those of their suppliers, and those of their customers, as well as how they plan to mitigate those risks.

Asset managers rely on government regulations such as these to justify the view that “transition risk” is among the primary risks facing companies today. BlackRock justified prioritizing climate risk in an August 2022 letter (pdf) to state attorneys general on the grounds that “governments representing over 90% of global GDP have committed to move to net-zero in the coming decades.”

“Transition risk really boils down to the idea that future changes in law or regulation are going to reduce the value of investments,” Jonathan Berry, a partner at Boyden Gray & Associates, told The Epoch Times. “In one sense, transition risk is a trivially obvious concept—of course, you need to think about the possibility of future legal changes when evaluating the wisdom of an investment—but the SEC and the institutional investors’ use of that concept always points to transition risks that the progressive left specifically cares about.

“If transition risks were being used objectively, we would be hearing more about the risk that the United States is going to decouple from China and all of the risks to supply chains that’s going to pose, rather than going to net zero. It’s easier to imagine that we might further distance ourselves from China than that we are going to hasten to actually implement the Paris Accords.”

What Biden called “this incredible transition” to wind, solar, and electric cars will increase our dependence on China, which controls many of the mines where minerals are extracted and has a dominant position in refining those minerals and manufacturing them into batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. Fossil fuels, by contrast, are plentiful in the United States and can not only supply our energy needs but also supply export markets where other countries are struggling to meet the ever-increasing demand. This could prove an opportunity, rather than a risk.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A coalition of 25 states is suing the Biden administration over a Department of Labor (DOL) rule that affects millions of retirement accounts, the attorneys general of multiple states involved in the lawsuit announced on Wednesday.

The new rule set to take effect on Jan. 30 allows 401(k) managers to invest clients’ money in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds, a move that 25 states argue violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

According to the lawsuit, the rule puts at risk the retirement savings accounts of 152 million workers, or two-thirds of the U.S. population, totaling $12 trillion in assets, in the name of promoting the Biden administration’s climate agenda.

It does this, the states argue, by making changes to the rule that authorizes fund managers (fiduciaries) to consider and promote “nonpecuniary benefits” (benefits not related to money or financial gain) when making investment decisions.

“Contrary to Congress’s clear intent, these changes make it easier for fiduciaries to act with mixed motives. They also make it harder for beneficiaries to police such conduct,” the lawsuit states (pdf).

The 25 states argue in the lawsuit that the Supreme Court concluded that ERISA requires fund managers to put the financial benefits of investments first and not any nonpecuniary benefits. The lawsuit also contends that the high court directly tied the term “benefits” to “income” and doesn’t cover nonpecuniary benefits.

ESG Investment Strategies ‘Impose a Leftist Social and Economic Agenda’

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said ESG investment strategies are not designed to maximize financial returns for clients.

“Rather, they have been concocted entirely to impose a leftist social and economic agenda that cannot otherwise be implemented through the ballot box,” he said in a statement on Wednesday.

ESG funds generally invest in companies that oppose fossil fuels, support unionization, and stress gender and racial diversity over merit, even if it results in a lower return for the client. ERISA is in place to safeguard American workers’ retirement savings and ensure that fund managers make investments with the highest potential return for their clients.

Rokita has been a vocal critic of ESG investing and has taken several actions to combat it, including issuing an official advisory opinion clarifying that Indiana and its investment managers must prioritize the financial interests of state employees and retirees, refraining from using investment strategies guided or influenced by ESG considerations.

The Indiana attorney general said he’s also investigating three of the largest investment managers, saying that “woke big businesses are collaborating with their leftist allies to subvert the will of the people.”

“That’s contrary to the letter and spirit of the law,” he said.

The 25 states participating in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

States Argue the Rule Harms

The states argue that the new rule will lead to a decrease in specific tax revenue from retirement distributions, thereby causing a loss of tax revenue for the states.

Further, the states claim the rule will harm the economic well-being of their residents and will result in reduced investment in the fossil fuel industry, which will decrease revenue, employment, and overall economic activity because several of the states, such as Louisiana, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, have significant oil and gas deposits.

“Some impacts from reduced investment in the fossil fuel industry will be difficult or impossible to reverse, such that the harm is irreparable,” the lawsuit states. “Even if those impacts could be reduced to monetary harm, damages resulting from the 2022 Rule are presumably not recoverable as a result of the federal government’s sovereign immunity, such that those damages would be an irreparable harm.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the new rule “an affront to every American concerned about their retirement account.”

“The fact that the Biden Administration is now opting to risk the financial security of working-class Americans to advance a woke political agenda is insulting and illegal,” he said in a statement on Wednesday. “For generations, federal law has required that fiduciaries place their clients’ financial interests at the forefront, and I intend to fight the Biden Administration in court to ensure that they cannot put hard-working Americans’ retirement savings at risk.”

Rule Change

President Joe Biden issued executive orders in January and May 2021 directing government agencies to review regulations put in place by the Trump administration, including those on ESG investments.

The DOL began reviewing the 2020 regulations on ESG investments in March 2021 and announced it would not enforce them during the review. The DOL proposed a new rule change in October 2021, which the lawsuit argues is different from the 2020 regulation in several ways.

The new rule eliminates the objective pecuniary/nonpecuniary standard in the 2020 rule and instead formally incorporates subjective ESG concepts into the ERISA regulations, according to the lawsuit. In addition, the new rule doesn’t provide any definition or advice on what constitutes an ESG factor.

The new rule also undermines a fund manager’s prudence obligations, the lawsuit claims. Instead of focusing on an investment’s risk and return, a fund manager could consider the economic effects of climate change and other ESG factors in their analysis of the particular investment or investment course of action.

Citing the preamble to the new rule, the lawsuit states that the new rule tells fund managers to consider multiple factors when analyzing the risk and return of investments, such as “the potential risks and opportunities related to climate change,” the makeup of a company’s leadership, and the company’s efforts toward diversity and inclusion within their workforce.

The Epoch Times contacted the DOL for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Yeah. Dems are really concerned about safety: Defund the police; open borders; lenient sentencing; abortion up to birth; transgender surgery for minors; Ukraine war; refunding the Taliban…Shall I go on?

Diversity is important when it comes to power. Putting the US on all electric with an aging grid is a recipe for disaster, which is what Biden wants as he brings the country to ruin on behalf of China. If nothing else, we are beholden to China for EV batteries, despite the issues with mining the materials and the inability to put out fires on any EV. The same batteries have taken down airliners.

It’s also a way to ensure his billionaire constituents get all the money for the electric cars/appliances as well as the money from the electric utilities, which his scumbag financiers are buying up rapidly. [US Patriot]

Earlier this month, Biden’s Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that it opposed gas stoves and was looking at ways to eliminate them, prompting an outcry over the coming ban. But climate scolds aren’t just looking to ban your gas stove, America. They have a long list of other appliances they want canceled, too.

On Jan. 9, the CPSC pointed out that about 35 percent of U.S. households use gas stoves, and then warned of the dangers of their use.

CPSC commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. presented research from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health that claimed that gas stoves are a “hidden hazard,” and added that “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

My guiding duty is protecting consumer health and safety. Gas stoves can emit dangerous level of toxic chemicals – even when not in use – and @USCPSC will consider all approaches to regulation. Thank you @AriNatter and @business for excellent journalism. https://t.co/hjJCPWmBP7

— Commissioner Rich Trumka Jr. (@TrumkaCPSC) January 9, 2023

Trending:

First Photos of Fetterman in Hospital Revealed, But There’s 1 Major Problem

After the expected ruckus was kicked up by those who found this latest autocratic outrage to be a bit too much, the CPSC rushed out a followup statement saying, “The Commission has not proposed regulatory action at this time. Commission staff also continues to work with voluntary standards organizations to examine gas stove emissions and address potential hazards.”

The key words are “at this time.”

The nanny state move was further complicated by the fact that the study, used by CPSC, warning that gas stoves promote asthma in kids was partly funded by RMI, a group that seeks to “accelerate the clean energy transition,” and was co-authored by Brady Seals, the manager of RMI’s Carbon-Free Buildings arm, which aims to retrofit buildings with electric appliances.

In turn, RMI, which used the study to promote stove electrification, has received at least $1 million in donations from Breakthrough Energy, a “green energy” investment firm founded by Bill Gates, as well as the Bezos Earth Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies, according to the 2022 RMI donors report.

Is Biden ruining America?Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In addition, Trumka had been trying and failing to get gas stoves banned outright since October, according to the Washington Examiner.

Not much bias there, huh?

And it’s all part of Joe Biden’s drive to end the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels, of course.

Then the hypocrisy of it all went viral when images of Jill Biden, Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez using gas stoves in their homes hit social media.

Biden will ban gas stoves for normal people. Not for elites. This is Soviet America: Rules for thee, not for me. https://t.co/whpXuFBtxy

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) January 10, 2023

Related:

Spate of Whale Strandings Near Offshore Wind Projects Becoming Impossible to Ignore – But Feds Still Deny Link

I’m certain you’re right pic.twitter.com/mTCEo1TtuB

— Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) January 11, 2023

But gas stoves aren’t the only thing climate scolds and the radicals in the Biden administration want to take away from us all. There is a growing list of other modern conveniences these advocates of stone age living want to destroy.

The Democrats and their extremist climate change allies want to take away items from nearly every room of our homes, according to Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“There’s bad news for almost every room in the house,” Lieberman told Fox News Digital. “Climate activists and the Biden administration want homeowners to stop using natural gas and to electrify everything. That would affect appliances that come in natural gas and electric versions such as stoves, but also heating systems and water heaters.

“So, there are efforts underway to tilt the balance in favor of electric versions even though natural gas is considerably cheaper on a per-unit energy basis. It makes sense to give consumers that choice rather than force them towards electric.”

To name just a few things Biden wants banned, Fox noted, the list includes “water heaters, furnaces, clothes washers, dishwashers, ceiling fans, microwave ovens and shower heads,” all in order to push his unattainable net-zero climate goals.

In 2022 alone, the Biden administration pushed out more than 110 new regulations to strangle products extreme climate activists don’t like.

But Lieberman noted that if advanced appliances were what everyone wants, they’d “sell themselves” and the iron boot of government mandates wouldn’t be necessary.

“I think there are some real problems from a consumer’s standpoint when you start to reduce choices — I would say that you’re never doing consumers a favor when you’re reducing choices and forcing them to take eco-friendly models which will be on the market regardless,” Lieberman said. “The question is: Do we want mandates that force that choice on everyone, especially when it’s the more expensive option upfront?”

The only thing consumers will find with this avalanche of restrictive regulations is higher prices on their appliances and goods.

Warnock received a tax-free $7,417 monthly housing allowance from his church in his last term

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D., Ga.), who received a lucrative monthly housing allowance from his church during his first term in the Senate, will soon reside in a luxurious Capitol Hill townhouse as tenants of his ministry’s low-income apartment building continue to live in squalor.

At first glance, the $1,149,000 Washington, D.C., townhouse that Warnock purchased on Jan. 4 appears to be outside his means. The Georgia Democrat took out a $549,000 loan on the property, real estate records show, indicating Warnock put down a massive $600,000 down payment on the home. Warnock owned assets valued between $654,000 and $1,353,000 at the end of 2021, the bulk of which was tied up in his church’s pension plan. He also owed up to $600,000 on his Atlanta home in 2021, according to his latest available financial disclosures.

Fortunately for Warnock, he was also the beneficiary of a tax-free, $7,417 monthly housing allowance in 2021 from Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he continues to preach on occasion. The church also owns a pest-infected subsidized apartment building in Atlanta that moved to evict residents during the pandemic for as little as $28.55 in past-due rent, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Ebenezer Baptist Church structured Warnock’s housing allowance as an employment benefit so that he could bypass the Senate’s $29,595 outside income limitation in 2021. It’s not known at this time if the church helped finance Warnock’s new Capitol Hill townhouse. Ebenezer did not return a request for comment.

Warnock’s new home is situated less than two miles away from the Capitol and comes equipped with a brand-new gourmet kitchen, a wine refrigerator, and a private backyard patio. The four-bedroom, four-bathroom home provides the “rare opportunity to experience a life of leisure and comfort,” a listing for the property boasts.

The townhouse also comes with a separate basement unit cordoned off with its own living area, bedroom, and bathroom. The Free Beacon inquired how much Warnock will rent his basement unit for. The senator’s office did not respond.

Warnock’s financial ties to the church and its low-income apartment became a sticking point for the Democrat during his reelection campaign in 2022. Warnock claimed during a debate with Republican challenger Herschel Walker that there had been no evictions from the building, but court records showed otherwise. Fulton County marshals carried out two court-ordered evictions on residents at the church’s property during the pandemic, one in August 2020 and the other in February 2022.

Warnock’s church owns 99 percent of the Columbia Tower apartment building in Atlanta through a network of shell companies linked to a charity that identifies the senator as its principal officer. The church tapped Columbia Residential, one of the nation’s leading eviction-filers, to manage the property on its behalf. The building is plagued by pests, maintenance problems, and filth, residents told the Free Beacon.

Columbia Residential dropped its eviction cases against five of the building’s residents a few days before Warnock’s runoff election in December, but only after the Free Beacon reported that it had been trying to evict a Vietnam War veteran who had already paid his back rent.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

“NEVER UNDERESTIMATE JOE’S ABILITY TO F*CK THINGS UP,” AS OBAMA ONCE WARNED US.

Low unemployment, moderating inflation, a teetering housing market, and unprecedented household debt all combine to drive economists to tarot cards, animal sacrifice, and Ouija boards to make their next predictions. Deconstructing and reconstructing the issues help gain an understanding of where the economy will go in 2023.

Unemployment.

Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent in December 2022 – almost full employment.  The layoffs are starting, however, driven by tech companies. Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Amazon, Salesforce, and Vimeo have announced a combined layoff of nearly 50,000 employees.

Strong unemployment numbers drove television pundits to claim that the U.S. will avoid recession in 2023. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan however claimed, of a recession, “if it comes, won’t be as bad a s people fear.” Moynihan said he expects the “U.S. economy to contract by just 1% for the first three quarters of 2023, then return to positive growth.”

Many recessions begin when unemployment is relatively low, today’s unemployment situation looks very much like the situation before the 1969-1970 recession, which started with the unemployment rate at 3.5 perecnt.  The 1969-1970 recession was induced by the Fed as it raised rates to try and cool inflation, driven by government spending. The recession lasted 11 months and GDP was only reduced by 0.8 percent.

Inflation.

The December consumer price inflation (CPI) numbers saw the rate of annual inflation decrease from 7.1 percent in November 2022 to 6.5 percent.  The decrease in the growth of inflation was driven by a decrease in the price of gas and used cars. Necessities such as food, shelter, and fuel oil, however, were all up, with fuel oil up 41.5 percent year-over-year, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Simply put, prices are still going up, but not as fast as in previous months. And, the price of gas has been increasing throughout the new year, which does not bode well for January’s CPI report. Per the travel club AAA, the “national average retail price (of gasoline) was at $3.32 per gallon,” on January 17, approximately 17 cents higher than a month ago.

Housing.

The housing market continues to teeter on the brink of collapse, with only the learnings from the housing crisis of 2008 keeping the market afloat. The sales of existing homes in the U.S. slowed “for the 11^th consecutive month in December as higher mortgage rates, surging inflation and steep home prices sapped consumer demand from the housing market.  Existing home sales are down 34 percent when compared to December 2021.” This is despite the fact that mortgage rates are at their lowest levels since September 2022.

People continue to back out of signed mortgage contracts at record rates as well. About 60,000 home purchase agreements fell through in October 2022 (the latest data available) according to Redfin, the most since Redfin started tracking that data in 2013.

The lessons learned from the previous housing crisis are the only reason we have not yet seen a collapse of the housing market.

Subprime mortgages are virtually non-existent. In Q2 2022, only three percent of “newly originated mortgages were originated to subprime borrowers, a sharp contrast to the 13% average between 2003-2007,” according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In the run-up to the 2008 housing crisis, approximately 35 percent of mortgages generated were adjustable rate, including 80 percent of subprime mortgages. In September 2022, adjustable rate mortgages represented only 9 percent of mortgage originations. With so many people sitting on fixed rate mortgages with relatively low interest rates, the inventory of available housing for sale has stayed low, which has kept prices high, saving the market… for now.

Household Debt.

Household debt grew at the fastest rate in 15 years in Q3 2022, driven by increases in credit card usage and mortgage balances, per the Federal Reserve. Collective household debt was at $16.5 trillion, an increase of 2.2 percent from Q1 2022 and 8.3 percent from 2021.

The average credit card user was carrying a balance of nearly $5,500 in the fall of 2022, up 13 percent from 2021, and half of credit card users are carrying debt from month-to-month at a time when credit card interest rates are at near all-time high. More than a third of households used credit cards or loans to cover spending on necessities in September 2022, an increase of 19.3 percent from the previous year.

What does is it all mean? 

As the talking heads on the various cable financial news networks continue to talk the economy into recession, the data does actually point that way in 2023. History teaches that this recession should be short and mild. In the words of former president, Barack Obama, however, “never underestimate Joe’s [Biden] ability to f*ck things up.”  If Republicans in the House do take a firmer stand on the debt ceiling, spending, and taxes, and give Biden his wish list of spending, the recession will be long and painful.

So, $190 billion to teach transgenderism, ESG, DEI, Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter (even though more blacks die at the hands of other blacks than at any other time), Defund the Police, etc. [US Patriot]

The federal government poured $190 billion into state coffers in 2020 and 2021 to help schools deal with the effects of COVID-19 on the nation’s education system.

While some school districts quickly spent the funds on things such as tutoring, teacher salaries, school bus Wi-Fi, and new HVAC systems, other districts have struggled to determine the best use for the money to meet federal program deadlines.

As the first of three spending deadlines approaches, a report examines the way the nation’s largest school districts have used the money so far and how much remains unspent.

Relief Funding for Education

As the rate of COVID-19 infections rose in early 2020, Congress created the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) to help the nation prepare for the threat to school operations.

ESSER was expanded twice over the following 12 months, reaching a total of nearly $190 billion. The allocations became known as ESSER I, ESSER II, and ESSER III.

ESSER I, which provided $13.2 billion to schools, was authorized in March 2020 through the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act to provide emergency relief for schools dealing with the coronavirus.

ESSER II added $54.3 billion in December 2020 through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act.

ESSER III expanded the fund by $122 billion in March 2021 through the American Rescue Plan Act to help safely reopen and sustain school operations and address problems in the student population caused by the disruption.

Funds were allocated to the states based on plans approved by the Department of Education. Amounts for each state were determined using the formula for Title I funding, which provides federal aid based on the percentage of children from low-income families.

Nonprofit private schools are eligible for ESSER funding through the local education agency in which they operate, usually a public school district.

By the end of 2021, state education agencies had received the largest single federal allocation for K-12 education in the nation’s history, more than three times the federal budget for education in 2019 and amounting to some $3,700 per student.

Ninety percent of that amount was to be passed through to local agencies, creating a $171 billion windfall for the country’s roughly 98,000 public and 32,000 private schools.

Targeting Problems

From 2020 through 2022, teacher shortages, school closures, quarantines, and remote learning took a toll on both educational achievement and student well-being.

The Nation’s Report Card, a periodic rating of student performance, showed a large drop in learning between 2019 and 2022.

Fourth-grade reading scores fell to 217 from 221 during that time, reaching their lowest level since 1998. Eighth-grade math scores dropped to 236 from 241.

The learning loss in math during that period was greater than that reported for children evacuated after Hurricane Katrina, according to the Brookings Institute.

Since returning to full-time instruction, schools have reported increased emotional and behavioral problems in students.

The first rounds of ESSER funding were intended to help schools prepare for and operate through the height of the pandemic, and the $122 billion in ESSER III funding was intended to address these and other problems resulting from the disruption in education during the early part of the pandemic.

Broad Local Discretion

ESSER funding guidelines are broad, leaving local agencies significant discretion to tailor spending to the needs of their schools and students.

According to the Department of Education, allowable activities could include providing mental health services to students who have suffered trauma or programs to re-engage students who had become uninterested in learning, even if that trauma or disengagement predated the pandemic.

Other potential uses include addressing digital equity and access, implementing new curriculums, expanding summer learning and enrichment programs, and providing support for families with disabled children.

Recruiting and retaining staff, including hiring teachers, improving compensation, and offering retention bonuses are allowed uses of the funds.

Some improvements to school buildings, including new construction, can be funded through ESSER if they involve removing unhealthy conditions from the learning environment, especially by improving air quality. Modifications could include new roofing, plumbing repairs, and radon or asbestos remediation.

Nearly any educational expense that can be linked to problems arising from COVID-19 and its aftermath could qualify.

For example, the COVID recovery plan for Vermont’s Winooski School District includes both $2.8 million for increased staffing and $4.4 million to replace HVAC systems.

ESSER III Spending Surveyed

A report produced by Burbio, a school data tracking organization, examines the spending plans for ESSER III funds from 6,000 of the nation’s largest school districts. Those districts received $92 billion in ESSER III funding, or about 75 percent of the total, and include 83 percent of the nation’s K–12 students.

The largest target of ESSER III funds so far is academic intervention to bring learning to pre-2020 levels or higher; that category accounted for 31 percent of ESSER III spending plans in the districts surveyed.

Planned interventions included after-school and extended day programs, which are slated for the highest level of funding at $6.5 billion. Another $1.7 billion is designated for tutoring programs, $1.6 billion to purchase instructional materials, and $1.9 billion for professional development for teachers.

The remainder targets a variety of instructional purposes, including early childhood programs, software, student assessments, and social and emotional learning.

Staffing and retention was the next-highest spending category at 23 percent of the total. Facilities and operations accounted for 22 percent of the total.

Technology items amounted to 9 percent of the planned spending, mental and physical health programs for 7 percent, and the remainder was on miscellaneous categories including nutrition programs, bus Wi-Fi, water bottle filling stations, and athletic facilities.

Spending Challenges for Administrators

Some state and local agencies have moved quickly to make use of their federal COVID-19 relief funds, while others have been slower to spend the money.

Texas moved fast enough in using COVID-19 relief funds to trigger a mandatory federal review.

The Texas governor’s office withdrew its entire $307 million allotment of the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER) on June 26, 2020. GEER is a federal education relief program similar to ESSER. Though no wrongdoing was discovered, the state voluntarily returned $68.7 million that hadn’t yet been awarded to grantees.

In other cases, local authorities have been slower to spend relief funds.

Administrative challenges, staffing problems, and the lack of strategic planning and operational capacity caused problems for more than 90 percent of school administrators, according to a McKinsey & Company report.

About $45 billion of the $190 billion total ESSER funds had been spent by November 2021, the report said.

By early December 2022, approximately, one year after ESSER III funds were released to the states, the school districts surveyed by Burbio had spent less than 25 percent of their allotment.

ESSER funds have an expiration date, the first being Jan. 28. So school districts must use or lose the remaining $145 billion in less than two years.

That spending is regular federal funding for K–12 education, which amounts to more than $60 billion a year, according to education data.

“Districts are experiencing pressure to spend quickly and also produce strong results. This leaves little time to think strategically about how to allocate these funds to maximize their impact,” an unnamed writer from the education consulting firm Afton wrote.

For ESSER I funds, school districts had to “obligate” the money, meaning contract to spend it by Sept. 30, 2022, and spend it within 120 days after.

ESSER II funds must be obligated by Sept. 30, 2023, and spent by Jan. 28, 2024.

ESSER III funds must be obligated by Sept. 30, 2024, and spent by Jan. 28, 2025.

School districts can apply for a 180-day extension on each spending deadline.

Oklahoma returned $919,000 in 2021 because it missed the deadline for transferring those funds to local education agencies. The state also returned $1.5 million in funds designated for a tutoring program but were left over at its conclusion and another $420,000 that had been designated for a virtual learning program but not used.

A Financial Cliff

Some experts see a looming crisis for some school districts as enrollment trends down and the end of ESSER approaches.

While ESSER spending must relate to the impact of the coronavirus, guidelines are generous enough to allow spending on things that might be considered normal expenses, such as computers and teacher salaries.

“Any strategic leader recognizes the danger of allocating one-time funds for recurring operating costs, such as teachers’ salaries or instructional positions. If district leaders come to rely on this surplus of funds, they will be confronted with a deficit if the money isn’t available in the next year or two,” the Afton blog stated.

The New York City Department of Education has used a share of its $7 billion in federal relief funds for new or expanded programs that may not be sustainable without ESSER funding, according to a report by Advocates for Children of New York.

Those programs include a plan to double K–3 enrollment, expand access to summer enrichment programs, and increase the number of community schools.

New York mayor Eric Adams announced this month that he will delay cutting $80 million in funding for the city’s schools, which have seen a sharp decline in enrollment in recent years.

Nationwide K–12 enrollment in public schools dropped by 1.4 million between fall 2019 and fall 2020.

These trends could spell trouble for school districts over the next two to three years.

“The looming prospect of a ‘fiscal cliff’ when the stimulus funding expires, along with longer-term declining enrollment trends, could create financial challenges for some districts down the road,” according to an article by McKinsey & Company, a management consulting firm.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Bill and Melinda Gates and Ford Foundations funded projects at Chinese universities, government agencies

Two of America’s largest liberal nonprofits, the Bill and Melinda Gates and Ford Foundations, funneled $39 million to China in 2021—money that in some cases went to Chinese government agencies and universities that conduct military research.

The Gates Foundation, according to its latest IRS disclosure, sent nearly $30 million to Chinese organizations in 2021, including $2.5 million to the communist nation’s National Health Commission and $1.4 million to its Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. The Ford Foundation, meanwhile, sent $9.3 million to China in 2021—recipients included three public universities that are overseen by the Chinese government’s defense industry agency.

Both the Gates and Ford Foundations have long boasted of their work to influence policy and advance technology in China. But the foundations’ partnerships with Chinese Communist Party-controlled entities—including some that work with China’s military—is raising eyebrows among U.S. lawmakers and China experts, who argue that the CCP’s iron grip on the nation means the party is likely to hijack data that advances its interests.

“If the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that we need to heavily scrutinize every American dollar that goes to CCP-affiliated entities,” Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.), who is set to chair a House select committee tasked with countering China, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Any American foundation contributing to causes that advance CCP-aligned interests in the developing world has serious questions to answer.”

Neither the Gates nor Ford Foundations returned requests for comment.

While both foundations appear committed to continue funding Chinese projects, many U.S. researchers are reevaluating their work in the communist nation over fears of aiding China’s military. American and German scientists, for example, partnered with researchers at China’s Peking University to release a 2020 study on robotic fish. Such robots can be used militarily as underwater unmanned vehicles, Newsweek reported last week, and two of the study’s co-authors work with the Chinese research facility tasked with developing hypersonic weapons. The Gates and Ford Foundations combined to send Peking University more than $1.7 million in 2021, tax filings show.

The Gates Foundation labeled most of its grants to Chinese government agencies and universities—including the $2.5 million it sent to China’s National Health Commission—as supporting “global health and development public awareness and analysis.” The Ford Foundation’s Chinese grants cover a wider range of issues, such as climate change, education, and finance. One $150,000 Ford Foundation grant to Beijing Normal University funds research on Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, a CCP tool to subjugate foreign nations through direct infrastructure investment.

While the two foundations’ Chinese grants largely differ in purpose, both nonprofits sent funding to public universities that are tied to China’s military and national defense industry. The Gates and Ford Foundations, for example, combined in 2021 to give nearly $3.5 million to Peking University, Tsinghua University, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University—universities that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute designates as “high risk” or “very high risk” due to their “high level[s] of defense research” and alleged involvement in foreign cyber attacks. All three universities, according to the institute, are under the supervision of China’s State Administration of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense, which aims to deepen university involvement in the defense sector. 

The foundations in 2021 also sent nearly $500,000 to Beijing Normal University, which has worked with the Chinese government to develop military vehicles, according to a 2021 Foundation for Defense of Democracies report. The university in June 2021 also hosted a two-week military training session.

For American Foreign Policy Council fellow Michael Sobolik, the Gates and Ford Foundations’ China grants “work directly against America’s national security interests.”

“The Ford Foundation is funding research for Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative, the Party’s strategy to overtake America. Meanwhile, Bill Gates funded global health projects inside China while protecting the CCP from accountability,” Sobolik told the Free Beacon. “It is simply unacceptable for Americans to aid our adversary, yet this embarrassing behavior remains persistent and pervasive—from professional sports and universities to Wall Street and wealthy foundations.”

This is not the first time Gates has faced criticism for partnering with questionable Chinese entities. From November 2018 to March 2019, Microsoft—the tech giant Gates cofounded in 1975—published three papers with researchers at China’s National University of Defense Technology, which the Chinese military controls. One of those papers described a new artificial intelligence method to “recreate detailed environmental maps by analyzing human faces, which experts say could have clear applications for surveillance and censorship,” Financial Times reported. 

Gates also vehemently defended China’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, which saw the communist nation cover up the virus when it first emerged in Wuhan in December 2019. For Gates, any criticism of that cover up was “a distraction,” and “unfair.” “China did a lot of things right at the beginning,” the billionaire said during an April 2020 CNN interview.

Beyond the millions of dollars the Gates and Ford Foundations sent to China, the two nonprofits are known for their staunch support of liberal dark money groups. The foundations in 2021 combined to send more than $85 million to left-wing nonprofits managed by Arabella Advisors, a Washington, D.C., consulting firm that oversees a massive dark money network. That network pumped tens of millions of dollars into the 2020 election to help Democrats, money that came from anonymous liberal megadonors.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Electric vehicle (EV) “mania” might be at an end, or, at a minimum, easing down, according to research, as concerns about supply chains, lithium sourcing, inflation, and more affect production capacities while customer demand decelerates globally, as evidenced by industry leader Tesla cutting prices in order to increase sales.

In Europe, EV car manufacturers are slowing production due to uncertainties around lithium supply for batteries as well as electric vehicles proving to be expensive for the middle class, according to a Jan. 18 Institute for Energy Research (IER) post. This year, Europe is expected to output 12 million cars, which is a million less than earlier estimates.

The average price of an EV in Europe during the first half of 2022 was 55,821 euros, up by over 14 percent from 48,942 euros in 2015, according to a report by automotive market research firm JATO. An EV in Europe is 27 percent more expensive than a gasoline car. These factors raise an affordability challenge for the sector in a region where EV-adoption is generally more accepted than in North America.

The issue of lithium sourcing, as a challenge for EVs becoming mainstream, was highlighted by geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan in September last year.

“The lithium comes from one place, and it’s all processed in China. So, just building the alternate processing infrastructure … and by the way, we have to invade Russia too … just to get the materials to do EVs at scale is just laughable for the next decade,” he said at the time.

Meanwhile, in the UK, production estimates for electric cars and vans in 2025 have been reduced from 360,000 to 280,000. Consumers in the UK are worried about the operating costs of EVs since the average cost of charging an electric car has risen by 58 percent since last May.

In the United States, sales of electric cars rose in 2022 by 66 percent compared to the overall decline in auto sales of roughly 8 percent.

The IER believes that “the EV mania may be over or at least slowing” down given interest rate hikes, supply chain shortages, inflation, and restriction on tax credits.

“While some politicians are following in California’s footsteps by banning gasoline-powered vehicles and President [Joe] Biden has a goal for 50 percent of new car sales in 2030 to be electric, those feats may not be attainable due to problems in manufacturing and selling of electric vehicles,” the IER said.

“Range and performance problems still exist making consumers wary. And with escalating electric rates, operating costs may not be less than those for gasoline vehicles as Europe is seeing.”

An analysis by The Wall Street Journal in December shows that drivers of Tesla’s Model 3 had to pay 18.46 euros at a Tesla supercharger station in Europe for a 100-mile drive.

In contrast, drivers in Germany had to shell out a slightly lower 18.31 euros to drive the same distance on a Honda Civic 4-door, which is the Tesla Model 3’s combustion engine equivalent.

Global EV Sales, Tesla Price Cuts

A KPMG survey of more than 910 auto executives conducted last year found that expectations of worldwide EV sales have tempered.

In 2021, auto execs were “very optimistic” about the prospects of global EV sales, expecting the vehicles to capture as much as 70 percent market share by 2030. But in the 2022 survey, the expected market share plummeted to 40 percent at most.

“The closer the expert is to the customer, the lower the EV share expectations seem to be,” says the report. “For example, U.S. executives say car dealers expect EVs to capture 22 percent of the market by 2030, eight percentage points less than OEMs predict,” referring to the original equipment manufacturers.

Tesla has cut prices of its cars by up to 20 percent in Europe and the United States in a bid to boost demand. By doing so, the company is sacrificing some of its profits to raise sales volume.

By reducing prices, some of the lower tier electric car models being sold in the United States will qualify for federal tax credits worth $7,500.

Restricting EV Sales in America

In the United States, some states are seeking to restrict the sale of EV’s. In Wyoming, six Republican lawmakers are pushing to phase out the sale of new electric vehicles by 2035 to protect its oil and gas industries as well as to preserve crucial resources.

In a recently introduced bill, the lawmakers note that allowing the proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will seriously affect the state’s economy as well as its communities.

Moreover, the batteries used in the EVs contain critical minerals needed in many other applications. The domestic supply of these minerals is limited and at “risk of disruption,” the bill stated.

In addition to that, these critical minerals are “are not easily recyclable or disposable, meaning that municipal landfills in Wyoming and elsewhere will be required to develop practices to dispose of these minerals in a safe and responsible manner,” the bill adds.

In California, the local administration is pushing for greater use of EVs. However, the state’s poor power infrastructure is raising a question about the possibility of such a transition. In September, California’s electric grid regulator had asked people to avoid charging their EVs so as to avoid outages.

EVs are also seen as some of the least reliable vehicles sold in the United States. According to the Consumer Reports 2022 Annual Auto Reliability survey published in November that looked at 24 auto brands, hybrid vehicles and mid-sized or large and gas-powered sedans are seen as among the most reliable vehicles sold in the country.

In contrast, full-size pickup trucks and electric vehicles were seen as problematic. Owners of EVs reported issues with electric motors, batteries, and charging systems. Out of the 11 EV models in the survey, only four had average or better than average predicted reliability.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Google parent Alphabet Inc.’s CEO sent a note to employees Friday announcing the elimination of 12,000 jobs, as a response to economic changes over the past two years.

The move—coming two days after a similar number of job cuts from Microsoft—will affect both U.S. and overseas employees.

“Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth. To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today,” Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote.

‘Difficult Economic Cycles’

Alphabet’s layoffs followed a review of its people and priorities, leading to a workforce reduction hitting various geographies, Pichai said. Among those losing their jobs are recruiters, corporate staff, and people working on engineering and product teams.

For the U.S. layoffs, the tech giant will provide a severance package and for overseas employees they will follow local practices.

“As an almost 25-year-old company, we’re bound to go through difficult economic cycles. These are important moments to sharpen our focus, reengineer our cost base, and direct our talent and capital to our highest priorities,” he wrote.

Echoing Microsoft’s announcement, Pichai talked about the company’s focus on artificial intelligence. This reflects renewed competition between the tech giants sparked by Microsoft’s growing partnership with the San Francisco startup OpenAI.

“We have a substantial opportunity in front of us with AI across our products and are prepared to approach it boldly and responsibly,” he wrote.

The 12,000 jobs amount to 6 percent of Alphabet’s workforce. Pichai became CEO of Alphabet and Google in 2019.

Amazon announced it is cutting 18,000 positions in January, along with Facebook parent Meta’s layoff of 11,000 people announced late last year.

Economic Turbulence

Susannah Streeter, an analyst with Hargreaves Lansdown, said advertising, the key business underpinning Google’s search engine and YouTube, was not immune to economic turbulence.

“Ad growth has come off the boil, a sharp contrast from the busy days of the post-pandemic re-opening which saw a surge in consumer spending,” she said. The company faces competitive and regulatory threats as well, she said.

It was unclear if Alphabet would take a one-time financial charge related to the job cuts. Microsoft’s severance packages, lease consolidation, and hardware-lineup changes will cost the company more than $1 billion, it said earlier this week.

More than 38,000 tech-industry workers have faced layoffs this year alone, after nearly 155,000 lost their jobs in 2022, tracking website Layoffs.fyi stated.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A far-left Washington, D.C., councilwoman wants the city to pay up to $1,200 per person to residents who buy electric bicycles, WUSA9 reported this week.

Under the bill introduced by Democratic councilwoman Brooke Pinto, a D.C. resident who earns below 80 percent of the median family income could receive “up to $1,200” to pay for an electric bike. Residents who earn 80 percent or more of the median income could receive up to $500.

The bill may be good news for Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a prolific bicycle-rider who was infamously caught riding a D.C. communal bike. Buttigieg has received extensive criticism for his job performance, notably going on paid child leave during the supply-chain crisis and vacationing in Portugal during critical rail contract negotiations. Under his leadership, his department has prioritized “diversity, equity, and inclusion” measures, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

While Pinto touted electric bikes as “an environmentally friendly way to more easily get around the city,” D.C. residents may not feel safe riding around in the open air. The city in 2021 saw the highest murder rate in almost 20 years and is still facing a scourge of carjackings.

Pinto and her fellow council members this month nevertheless overhauled the city’s criminal code, reducing “sentences for carjackings, robberies, and gun-related felonies,” the Free Beacon reported. The overhaul was too radical even for Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser and the liberal Washington Post. Pinto, however, vocally supported the move as “more just, equitable, and clear.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

News outlets slammed Trump-era plans to use public land for energy projects

Because sub-light particles with no mass have “tons” of energy, right? Dumb @$$e$!! [US Patriot]

The media have been largely silent on a Biden administration energy project that one conservationist said would be “armageddon” for public lands. It’s a far cry from how reporters covered similar proposals under former president Donald Trump.

In December 2022, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced that her department would expedite plans to build solar energy farms across tens of thousands of untouched public land in 11 Western states. The announcement has garnered little to no national attention, save for the occasional report that the Biden administration is expanding renewable energy production.

National outlets took a far more critical approach to Trump-era land use proposals. “Where Will Trump’s War on Public Lands End?” the New Yorker wondered in 2017. The following year, a New York Times headline lamented that a “Trump Drilling Plan Threatens 9 Million Acres of Sage Grouse Habitat.” The coverage gap indicates a media bias, not just against Trump, but also for green energy.

The Biden administration’s plan would expand on an Obama-era agreement that spurred solar developments in six southwestern states, some of which piqued the ire of locals and environmentalists. The Bureau of Land Management now wants to relax the initial deal’s development restrictions and expand solar developments into five additional states.

A Nevada conservationist who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on condition of anonymity said that a planned 26,000 acre solar farm in the state’s desert has residents worried. “It’s armageddon for those of us who live out here,” he said, noting that the massive solar farms are an eyesore for nearby residents and also emit heat and blinding glares.

Mainstream media outlets generally embrace renewable energy projects favored by Democrats and progressive activists. While these groups demonize fossil fuels, they often overlook the downsides of green energy projects, including solar farms. Building utility-scale solar factories requires taking over vast swaths of land, while “farms” of solar panels disrupt animal grazing habits, destroy small wildlife habits, and harm vegetation. Around 6,000 birds are incinerated each year by the heat-reflecting panels at just one solar project in the Mojave Desert.

Nowhere are the downsides of solar energy clearer than in California, which draws roughly a third of its power from renewable sources. Californians have seen electricity prices skyrocket nearly 70 percent since 2010, as the state started its big embrace of solar energy. California households pay nearly 83 percent more than the average for homes elsewhere in the United States. Last summer saw rolling blackouts for the first time in 20 years, as the grid buckled under the strain of air conditioning use during a heat wave.

Solar panels themselves are fraught with problems. Many of these units are made with nonrenewable, rare earth minerals. Some are manufactured in Chinese factories that rely on forced labor. And discarded solar panels are leaking toxic waste into California’s landfills.

The Bureau of Land Management did not respond to requests for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Despite the international community’s pledge to depend on renewable energy to achieve its net-zero emissions goal by 2050, the world will need oil and gas for the next 50 years, according to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

While speaking in an interview with CNBC in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 19, Dimon warned that if the global economy abandoned fossil fuels altogether, there would be a “calamity” and “global depression.”

“We need oil and gas. We need cheaper oil for 50 years. It’s 100 million barrels a day that are used by the world to heat, fuel, feed people,” he said.

In response to host Joe Kernen, who noted that “true climate zealots want to end it now,” Dimon replied, “You then have a calamity, a global depression.”

This isn’t the first time that Dimon has championed the need for oil and gas and lamented about public policymakers trying to shift away from fossil fuels.

In October 2022, he told CNBC that the U.S. government is “getting energy completely wrong.” Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began, President Vladimir Putin would inevitably turn off the gas and send crude oil prices higher, Dimon said.

As energy prices soared in 2022, many poorer nations turned to dirtier fuel sources, including coal-fired power plants.

“We have a longer-term problem now, which is the world is not producing enough oil and gas to reduce coal, make the transition, create security for people. So I would put it in the critical category, and this should be treated almost as a matter of war at this point,” he said.

During an appearance before the House of Representatives in September 2022, Dimon was asked if his bank maintains “a policy against funding new oil and gas products.”

“Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America,” he said.

“We aren’t getting this one right,” Dimon said. “You’ve all seen it because of the high price of oil and gas, particularly for the rest of the world. So you’ve seen everyone going back to coal, not just poor nations like India and China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but also wealthy nations like Germany, the Netherlands, and France.

“We’ve all learned that energy supply globally is not secure. It’s still precarious.”

Estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) show that global coal consumption rose by 1.2 percent in 2022, surpassing 8 billion tons in a single year for the first time and topping a previous record made in 2013.

A report from the China Electricity Council suggests that the world’s second-largest economy will add 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power output this year, up 75 percent from a year ago. In 2022, China produced an all-time high of 4.5 billion tons of coal, up 9 percent from the previous year.

Is Dimon Right?

Although many countries have pledged to wean themselves off of crude oil and natural gas in the coming decades, a growing number of reports from prominent organizations concede that oil will remain a significant form of energy through 2050 worldwide.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) published its Annual Energy Outlook in March 2022 (pdf) and predicted that global energy demand would increase by 47 percent. But while the growth in renewables will increase by 2050, oil will still be the top source, as well as natural gas and coal.

“We do see a lot of impact from the growth in renewables and such in reducing carbon intensity,” Chris Namovicz, EIA’s Electricity, Coal, and Renewables Modeling Team lead, said in the outlook. “That being said, demand is still growing, and there are still portions of demand that are most economically satisfied through burning of fossil fuels.”

Gasoline will also remain the primary transportation fuel.

In October 2022, the IEA projected that oil and gas would maintain their energy dominance, even in the group’s net-zero carbon scenario. Last year, oil and gas supplied more than half of the world’s energy needs. By 2050, they’ll continue to provide 47 percent of global energy consumption.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) recently forecasted that crude oil, natural gas, and coal will remain critical global energy sources by 2045.

“Long-term non-OECD demand is expected to increase by 24 mb/d [million barrels per day], driven by an expanding middle class, high population growth, and stronger economic growth potential,” OPEC stated in its report. “As a result, global oil demand is projected to increase by 12.9 mb/d, rising to 109.8 mb/d in 2045.”

According to a McKinsey report, even in an “accelerated energy-transition scenario,” the oil and gas sector will need new production levels of 23 million barrels per day to satisfy worldwide demand after 2030.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A majority of Americans support Republicans’ efforts to block the Biden administration from hiring 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service employees, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of voters want Congress to reverse the hiring, which Democrats funded last year with $80 billion in spending through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, polling conducted by the Convention of States/Trafalgar Group found. In their first act in the majority, House Republicans last week voted to rescind nearly $71 billion in funding for the IRS expansion, which would more than double the size of the agency and make it larger than the Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and Border Patrol combined.

While 84 percent of Republicans oppose the expansion, according to the poll, more than a quarter of Democratic voters also oppose the hiring spree.

While the White House defended the IRS overhaul, saying the agency would target the ultra-wealthy, the Biden administration is expected to target small businesses and freelancers in an effort to bring in more than $200 billion in revenue. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that 78 to 90 percent of new revenue from the hirings would come from families making less than $200,000 per year.

Poor Americans faced a far greater chance of being audited by the IRS in 2022 than other income groups, the Washington Free Beacon reported:

In fact, no group faced as much scrutiny from the IRS as those who made below $25,000, the university’s data-gathering center found. Among families that benefited from the earned income tax credit, a rebate on income and payroll taxes made available to the nation’s poorest families, 1.27 percent were audited. The IRS in 2022 audited just 0.19 percent of the vast majority of taxpayers, meaning the poorest families were at least 550 percent more likely to have the IRS knock on their door than the average filer.

The Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to kill the House Republicans’ bill to defund the IRS.

Update Jan. 20 1:05 p.m.: This article was updated to include the fact that the poll was conducted by the Convention of States/Trafalgar Group.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Davos summit doubles down on ESG policies amid shortages, inflation, and rising dissent

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) 53rd annual meeting of political leaders, corporate executives, and activists in Davos, Switzerland, will focus on rededicating its members to a progressive climate and social-justice agenda in the midst of what is described as “unprecedented multiple crises,” founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said.

“The theme of our meeting … is cooperation in a fragmented world,” Schwab stated. In what the WEF calls the “Year of the Polycrisis,” he declared that “economic, environmental, social, and geopolitical crises are converging and conflating, creating an extremely versatile and uncertain future.”

“We are all stuck in a crisis mindset,” he warned, but reassured attendees that “the annual meeting at Davos shall try to make sure that leaders do not remain trapped in this crisis mindset but develop a longer-term, constructive perspective to shape the future in more sustainable, more inclusive, and more resilient way.”

The summit, which began on Jan. 16, features a record turnout from many of the most powerful government and corporate officials. Some 379 public officials are attending, including 30 heads of state, 56 finance ministers, 19 central bank governors, and 39 heads of global organizations, including the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. About 1,500 executives from 700 companies, including 600 CEOs from the world’s largest corporations, may be attending.

“We have the key players globally,” said Borge Brende, one of several WEF managing directors, “to create collaboration even in this fractured world.” He also noted that the WEF is expecting “a high-level Chinese delegation.”

This year’s agenda includes doubling down on the transition to renewable energy, the codification of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards to make compliance more measurable, “social and green jobs for building inclusive and sustainable economies,” and “diversity equity and inclusion [DEI] lighthouses,” and a global risks report.

“How do we build the inclusive, sustainable, and resilient growth?” asked Saadia Zahidi, managing director of the WEF. “A group of leaders from the public and private sector will be coming together to address exactly that question, designing a framework, and starting to align around that new agenda.”

Zahidi said attendees will also be setting policy regarding the “human capital agenda. Without adequate investments in skilling and in education, none of these opportunities can really play out, nor will we have the kind of societal resilience that is needed to be prepared for future inevitable shocks,” she said. “So we’ll have a meeting of the reskilling revolution champions.”

Regarding the “polycrisis,” the WEF assembled an extensive matrix of threats facing the world. The top five short-term risks were the “cost-of-living crisis, natural disasters and extreme weather, geo-economic confrontation, failure to mitigate climate change, and erosion of social cohesion and societal polarization.” The report noted that, looking farther ahead, “the top four most severe risks over the next 10 years are all environmental.”

Regarding DEI, the report stated that despite $7.5 billion being spent on DEI reeducation programs, which will increase to $15.4 billion by 2026, “the pandemic has caused a generational loss in gender equality, increasing the projected time to reach global parity from 100 to 132 years.”

Global Ambitions on the Line

Whereas previous WEF summits faced little outside opposition, this year’s summit may well be taking place in what Schwab called a more “fragmented” world. The fragmentation includes not only the Russia–Ukraine war and rising tensions between the United States and China but also dissent within the countries that have pledged allegiance to the WEF agenda.

What had been a unified, behind-the-scenes consensus in support of the WEF’s ESG agenda has recently been brought to light and challenged, particularly in the United States, where conservative states have pushed back with anti-ESG legislation, boycotts, anti-trust investigations, and lawsuits.

“All these elites come in to the World Economic Forum and basically their vision is they run everything and everybody else is just a serf,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said. He added that the WEF’s energy and social-justice agenda is “really weakening Western society and Western values. But underlying a lot of that is the CCP [Chinese Communist Party].”

Europe also has been experiencing some friction. In Italy, the conservative Brothers of Italy party swept into power last fall under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, whose acceptance speech as prime minister was censored by YouTube, allegedly “in error.” Meanwhile, in Sweden, a conservative coalition led by the Moderate Party won a majority in parliament.

Much of the resistance to WEF’s global ambitions stems from the fact that people are now beginning to feel the effects of the ESG agenda. Its concerted effort against fossil fuels has led to shortages and price hikes, which have flowed through to other industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation, and, ultimately, led to record inflation in grocery stores and at the gas pump.

Inflation was further fueled by trillions in progressive government spending on social programs, stimulus payments, and renewable energy subsidies. This flood of dollars and euros chasing fewer available goods compelled central banks, particularly the U.S. Federal Reserve, to hike interest rates throughout 2022, driving up the cost of debt and threatening to send the world economy into recession.

WEF managing director Mirek Dusek conceded that these issues had put the ESG agenda on the defensive.

“We’ve been deploying a lot of defensive measure in response to some of these cascading crises that have been manifesting themselves in the international system,” Dusek said. “So how do we go on the front foot and really articulate and implement vision-driven, future-oriented business strategies and governmental policies that can help us be more resilient in the future?”

Along these lines, the Davos summit also seeks to reinforce the narrative that these problems are mainly the result of climate change.

“Climate change and ecosystem collapse are the biggest threats to humanity,” WEF managing director Gim Huay Neo stated. Her five areas of focus are “getting to net zero, building a nature-positive economy, regenerating food, water and ocean systems, circular use of resources, and finally addressing waste and pollution.”

ESG Backlash

This past year brought more evidence that the ESG ranks may be faltering. Asset managers BlackRock and State Street, which signed pledges to compel companies whose shares they owned to move toward net-zero emissions, flatly denied in December 2022 at a Texas state senate hearing that they ever used their power as shareholders to influence management toward ESG goals. At the same time, Vanguard, the third of the “Big Three” asset managers, withdrew from its membership in the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (NZAM).

Facing inquiries and boycotts from other conservative states regarding discrimination against fossil fuel companies, most Wall Street banks also expressed their support for the oil and gas industry and touted the billions they had invested in the industry. And while the United States under the Biden administration has spent heavily on subsidies for wind, solar, and electric cars, and thrown up numerous regulatory hurdles for the fossil fuel industry, the courts have often checked the efforts of the federal bureaucracy to set industrial policy. Most notably, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency stated that only Congress can make laws on such weighty issues.

Nonetheless, Schwab praised the “rising role of the state” in private industry and stated: “The World Economic Forum is, as you know, the international organization for public–private cooperation, and public–private cooperations becomes even more essential today.” But there may be headwinds regarding this cooperation as well.

I guess there’s value to having a mixed government & commercial forum of some kind. WEF does kinda give me the willies though, but I’m sure everything is fine 👀.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 16, 2023

Concerns about government and corporations collaborating too closely were heightened by recent revelations that the FBI appears to have colluded with Twitter to censor news reports that could have hurt President Joe Biden’s election campaign. This week’s Davos guest list includes FBI Director Christopher Wray and U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, though it is unclear what contribution America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies will make to what is ostensibly an economic conference.

There are also increasing doubts about expanding the state’s role into industrial policy and directing energy production, following Europe’s narrow escape from energy rationing this winter thanks only to unseasonably warm weather. Nor was the reputation of government experts enhanced by the devastating mismanagement of the COVID-19 epidemic, including lockdowns, censorship, and an attempt to force companies to fire employees who refused the vaccine.

The 2023 agenda is a departure from the 2021 WEF summit, the theme of which was “the Great Reset,” a term that has since fallen out of favor with its authors.

This year, the WEF highlights the need to “restore trust,” but it remains to be seen whether this means strengthening ties among those on the guest list or also includes the trust of the wider public, which appears to have no role or vote in the decisions made at Davos.

“I guess there’s value to having a mixed government and commercial forum of some kind,” billionaire industrialist CEO Elon Musk stated in a tweet regarding the summit. “The WEF does kind of give me the willies though, but I’m sure everything is fine …”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

DelBene owns a stake in low-income apartment that has raised rents 55 percent since she invested

Democratic congresswoman Suzan DelBene (Wash.) has bemoaned rising rents and built a reputation as an advocate of federal housing subsidies. But the newly minted chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has also turned a tidy profit on a low-income apartment building subsidized by the same policies she supports in Washington.

DelBene, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, holds a stake in a Seattle apartment building that receives an annual $1,065,246 Low Income Housing Tax Credit, part of a federal program she has championed in Congress. The building has upped its rents by at least 55 percent since DelBene invested in the property in 2014, and the value of her investment in the property has since risen in-kind by a factor of at least two, according to her financial disclosure statements.

The Washington State lawmaker isn’t the first progressive in Congress to reap profits from a low-income apartment building. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D., Ga.) was hammered during his reelection bid in 2022 following a Washington Free Beacon report that revealed his church owns an apartment complex in Atlanta that moved to evict residents during the pandemic for as little as $28.55 in unpaid rent.

DelBene holds her stake in the Balfour Place Apartments through Balfour Place Investors, an LLC she has disclosed in each of her financial disclosures filed since 2014 as a “co-investment in multi-family housing building located in Seattle, Washington.” An attorney representing Balfour Place Investors and two other business entities identified DelBene’s LLC as one of the owners of the apartment building in a June 2016 letter to a Seattle city planner. Seattle real estate records also identify the LLC as an owner of the building.

DelBene’s investment in the property has become substantially more valuable since 2014, when she valued her stake in Balfour Place Investors between $250,001 and $500,000. In 2021, her latest available financial disclosure, the value of her investment ballooned to between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000. She has also received between $80,000 and $265,000 in interest payments from the LLC since 2014, her financial disclosures show.

Seattle’s appraised value of the property has more than doubled in recent years, going from $22.7 million in 2014 to $54.2 million in 2022. The price to rent a room at Balfour Place has also risen substantially. Income-restricted studio apartments at the building started at $892 a month in 2014. That same room now runs for at least $1,379 a month.

All the while, DelBene has bemoaned rising rents across the country and has established herself as an outspoken champion of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. In November, DelBene led a group of 54 members of Congress urging House leadership to enact changes to the program to finance the construction and repair of 1.5 million affordable homes. She praised President Joe Biden in October for paying lip service to her proposal, but the measure was ultimately left out of the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill passed in December.

Unlike some of her far-left colleagues in the House, DelBene has not accused landlords of playing a role in hiking up rent prices. In fact, she called for diverting federal funds to support landlords during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

“With 1 in 5 renters struggling to keep up with their rent payments, we must do more to support renters & landlords,” she tweeted in March 2021.

A spokesperson for DelBene defended the congresswoman’s support of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, saying the initiative is designed to “incentivize private investment in affordable housing developments, which otherwise would not be financially viable.”

‘Congresswoman DelBene is a strong proponent of affordable housing and is the lead sponsor of the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act that would create an estimated 66,000 additional affordable homes in Washington state (1.9 million nationally),” the spokesperson said. “There is strong bipartisan support for more affordable housing in Congress. In the most recent Congress, the legislation had 207 cosponsors.”

DelBene’s office did not answer specific questions about her investment in Balfour Place.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) reintroduced on Jan. 10 his Federal Reserve Transparency Act in the House of Representatives, an annual tradition for the congressman. Dubbed the “Audit the Fed” bill, the legislation is an evolved iteration of a bill put forth by former congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) back in 1983.

“It’s official!” Massi wrote in a tweet  on Tuesday afternoon. “I just reintroduced my bipartisan bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR 24.”

It’s official! I just reintroduced my bipartisan bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR 24. #auditthefed pic.twitter.com/KxXj3JK4hp

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) January 10, 2023

Massie’s bill would “require a full audit of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve system and the Federal Reserve banks.”

Paul’s original bill, despite being introduced in the early 1980s, did not receive a vote in the House until 2012, where it passed 337–98 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to hold a senatorial vote on the legislation despite having advocating for a Federal Reserve audit earlier in his career.

The rationale behind the initiative, espoused by free market conservatives like Paul and Massie—who blame the U.S. central bank for its role in the country’s economic instability—is that transparency would better allow the public to prepare for and avoid financial crises.

“I’ve been talking about it for decades and arguing that we had a financial system that was very friable, very vulnerable, and it was the Fed that was creating the bubbles,” said Paul during a speech at the CATO Institute in 2009. “Therefore, we should be looking into it and preventing these problems rather than waiting for a cataclysmic financial crisis to hit.”

Rep. Massie has echoed similar sentiments in the recent past and offered criticisms of his own as to why the public deserves more insight in the central bank.

“The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many privileges of government agencies while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being largely insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests,” Massie said during a speech on the House floor in 2014. “The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO [Government Accountability Office] is prohibited from auditing these agreements.”

The GAO periodically conducts reviews of the Federal Reserve, but these are not full-scale audits and do not include arrangements made with foreign counterparts. Massie’s bill would require the comptroller general, the head of the GAO, to conduct a full audit of the Fed.

Acting Fed Chair Jerome Powell also stressed the importance of transparency at a symposium in Stockholm, Sweden, on Tuesday.

“With independence comes the responsibility to provide the transparency that enables effective oversight by Congress, which, in turn, supports the Fed’s democratic legitimacy,” said the central banker, adding that the Federal Reserve has made substantial progress on that front. “Over the past several decades, we have steadily broadened our efforts to provide meaningful transparency.”

Powell has cautioned against the “audit the Fed” movement in years past, however, saying it could impose undue political pressure on monetary policy.

Critics of the proposal say that U.S. central bankers are already sufficiently audited. Though not conducted by the comptroller general, the Fed is audited annually by an independent public accounting firm retained by the office of the inspector general.

According to a former trader on the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Trading Desk, Joseph Wang, nearly all of the central bank’s financial activities are disclosed to the public, though often with a lag. That said, Wang acknowledged there are certain obfuscated areas.

“One thing that might be of interest to the public is the Fed’s new FIMA [Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration] repo facility, where it lends money to foreign central banks and governments against Treasury collateral,” he told The Epoch Times. “The borrowers of that facility are not disclosed, but even governments not necessarily friendly to the United States could borrow through it.”

Massie is not the only member of Congress carrying the Ron Paul torch. Paul’s son, Rand, a U.S. senator from Kentucky, continues to advocate for more central bank transparency, introducing bills similar to Massie’s in the Senate in recent years.

In a 2017 interview with Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, Rand Paul was asked why Americans should want to audit the central bank, to which he replied, “I think an easier question is why wouldn’t we want to audit the Fed? It’s about transparency. It’s about knowing what your government does.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

In addition to leading a federal tax probe into Hunter Biden, Maryland-based U.S. Attorney David Weiss has been asked by a watchdog group to look into several eyebrow-raising anonymous China-originated donations to the University of Pennsylvania.

According to the New York Post, the Virginia-based National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a government watchdog outfit, wants to know about several donations made in 2018, which is when the prestigious university opened a Biden-centric think tank called the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, or Penn Biden Center for short.

The watchdog group filed a 12-page complaint in October 2020, in which it asked Weiss to “investigate the Truman National Security Project, the University of Pennsylvania and its Penn Biden Center to determine whether they violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act for engaging in political activities on behalf of Burisma and Chinese interests.”

“We’ve asked … Weiss to pursue the larger network of individuals and institutions who benefited from millions doled out by foreign interests connected to Hunter Biden’s work in China and Ukraine,” NLPC Tom Anderson said, according to the Post.

The NLPC believes the donations to UPenn “may have been earmarked to promote Chinese interests and thus trigger registration as foreign agent,” according to its news release.

Trending:

Twitter Users Notice Something Strange with Putin’s Feet in New Video: ‘Not Normal’

News of the watchdog’s request has become highly relevant once again as President Joe Biden faces increasing scrutiny over a batch of classified documents discovered at the Penn Biden Center.

The sheer volume of communist Chinese cash donated to the home of the Penn Biden Center is astronomical.

From 2014 through the summer of 2019, the Ivy League school collected a whopping $54.6 million in donations from China. Some $23.1 million of that total came from anonymous donations, which poured in beginning in 2016.

Notably, a sizeable chunk of the anonymous Chinese donations came after the university announced the formation of the Penn Biden Center in 2017. Biden, who had just finished his White House term with former President Barack Obama, was named the leader of the UPenn-based think tank.

Perhaps the most fascinating tidbit from the report is that the anonymous Chinese donors seemed especially interested in transferring large donations in 2018, which happened to be the same time the Penn Biden Center officially opened its doors. That year, a $14.5 million anonymous donation was received, with a total of $15.8 million in anonymous Chinese donations received.

While it can’t be confirmed that the Penn Biden Center was the direct recipient of any of the funds, anonymous or identified, the timing has many interested parties extremely curious.

It should be noted that many of the Chinese donations were received during a time when Hunter Biden was wheeling and dealing across the globe, with what seemed to be a particular interest in making deals with communist China, likely using his powerful, politically-connected father to seal those shady transactions.

“U.S. Attorney Weiss should pursue the larger Biden family influence-selling operation without any political pressure from the Merrick Garland Justice Department,” said NLPC’s counsel Paul Kamenar, who drafted the original complaint.

Stephen MacCarthy, a University of Pennsylvania spokesman, denied that the Penn Biden Center ever received donated funds, the Post reported.

Related:

As Biden Rants About Corporations Needing to Pay Their Fair Share, House GOP Levels Him with Brutal Tweet

“The Penn Biden Center has never solicited or received any gifts from any Chinese or other foreign entity. In fact, the University has never solicited any gifts for the Center,” McCarthy said.

While he remained firm in his denials, the Post noted that McCarthy wouldn’t detail how the Chinese donations were used at the university.

Some on social media have raised questions regarding the recent discovery of classified documents in a closet at the Penn Biden Center, wondering if those classified documents might have been placed there for more ominous reasons.

“Were the Biden classified docs found at Penn U guarded 24/7, who had access? Why did Penn receive 54 million from Chinese donors and did they have access to the docs? Biden was VP and had NO declassification authority, TRUMP DID. Who’s the criminal? #BidenClassifiedDocuments,” one Twitter user wrote.

Were the Biden classified docs found at Penn U guarded 24/7, who had access? Why did Penn receive 54 million from Chinese donors and did they have access to the docs? Biden was VP and had NO declassification authority, TRUMP DID.

Who’s the criminal?#BidenClassifiedDocuments

— Scott Bales (@duckmansasylum) January 10, 2023

While it’s probably a little too early to travel too far down that road, there are clearly a growing number of questions that need answers. The American public has a right to know.

Crypto exchange FTX has more than $5 billion in cash and liquid cryptocurrencies and securities, an attorney for the beleaguered company confirmed on Wednesday.

The Sam Bankman-Fried-founded company filed for bankruptcy in November and U.S. prosecutors have accused Bankman-Fried of orchestrating fraudulent activity that may have cost investors, customers, and lenders billions of dollars. Attorneys and advisers overseeing the bankrupt company are now trying to recover funds to repay creditors.

“We have located over $5 billion of cash, liquid cryptocurrency, and liquid investment securities measured at petition date value. Our holdings are so large relative to the total supply that our positions cannot be sold without substantially affecting the market for the token,” Andy Dietderich, an attorney for FTX, told a Delaware judge.

Dietderich also said that the company plans to sell non-strategic investments that had a book value of $4.6 billion, although the company’s books have been described as unreliable.

The $5 billion recovery is in connection to “any value to holdings of dozens of illiquid cryptocurrency tokens, where our holdings are so large relative to the total supply that our positions cannot be sold without substantially affecting the market for the token,” FTX attorney Adam Landis told the court Wednesday, reported CNBC.

The total that FTX owes to its creditors following its collapse and subsequent bankruptcy is not clear. In bankruptcy filings two months ago, the company’s management said that between $1 billion and $10 billion could be owed.

Weeks after the firm declared bankruptcy, Bankman-Fried was charged by U.S. prosecutors with allegedly masterminding a scheme to defraud customers and for allegedly making illegal political contributions. Reports say that the company overwhelmingly favored Democrat candidates and causes over Republican ones amid calls for some candidates to return those donations.

This month, Bankman-Fried pleaded not guilty on all criminal charges related to the fallout of the exchange. Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York previously formed an FTX taskforce to “trace and recover” missing customer funds and handle investigations in connection to the collapse.

Bankman-Fried, a crypto mogul also known as SBF, is accused of stealing billions of dollars in FTX customer deposits to support his Alameda Research hedge fund, buy real estate, and issue millions of dollars in aforementioned political donations. He could face as long as 115 years in prison if convicted on all the charges, prosecutors have said.

In December, he was extradited from the Bahamas, where his company was based, after reportedly spending several days in a notorious Bahamian jail. During a later hearing, he was released to his parent’s home in Palo Alto, California, on a $250 million bond.

Lawyers for Bankman-Fried have said his parents, who co-signed the bond, have been receiving physical threats since FTX’s collapse, and that other co-signers might face similar harassment unless their names were kept secret. On Tuesday, the judge also imposed a new bail condition, saying Bankman-Fried cannot access FTX or Alameda assets.

The prosecution’s case against Bankman-Fried was strengthened weeks ago after two of his former associates, Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang, pleaded guilty to federal charges and agreed to cooperate. Ellison had served as the head of Alameda while Wang was FTX’s chief technology officer before the two companies collapsed.

Just days before he was charged, the FTX founder struck an apparently somber tone during a Wall Street Journal interview, saying that he could not account for billions in lost funds. He also wasn’t sure whether he violated FTX’s terms.

“I don’t know of a violation of the terms of use,” Bankman-Fried conceded in December’s interview. “I don’t know every line of the terms of use. I can’t confidently say there wasn’t, but I don’t know of one.”

“I ask myself a lot how I made a series of mistakes that seem—they don’t just seem dumb,” said Bankman-Fried, who gave an interview to the paper from his former home in the Bahamas. “They seem like the type of mistakes I could see myself having ridiculed someone else for having made.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Treasury Department authorizations make it easier for dollars to be allocated in conflict zones

Biden Treasury Department authorizations, announced late last year, rolled back safeguards on U.S. humanitarian aid, a move that is likely to pave the way for millions in taxpayer dollars to reach “designated terrorists, human rights abusers, and violent authoritarian regimes,” according to a congressional foreign policy leader.

The authorizations, which will make it easier for aid dollars to be allocated in conflict zones and areas where terrorist activity is taking place are generating concerns in Congress. Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the incoming chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that in its rush to push aid dollars out the door, the Biden administration is relaxing longstanding safeguards meant to stop taxpayer aid from enriching malign regimes and terrorism supporters.

“By relaxing longstanding basic restrictions on the provision of aid to countries subject to U.S. sanctions, [the] action by the Biden administration increases the likelihood some of our assistance funding will go to designated terrorists, human rights abusers, and violent authoritarian regimes,” McCaul said in a statement. “I urge the administration to reverse this decision.”

As part of this recalibration, the Treasury Department issued authorizations that will inject U.S. taxpayer dollars into areas that have historically been subject to strict sanctions, including in China, Cuba, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Iran, and other conflict areas, according to congressional officials who reviewed the new initiative.

The Treasury Department changes, these sources said, remove longstanding restrictions that prevent U.S. aid from being injected into sanctioned areas. To skirt these restrictions, the United States will funnel taxpayer dollars to United Nations organizations working in these conflict zones.

The aid policy also protects U.N. organizations from repercussions should U.S. aid dollars end up in the hands of terrorists or other sanctioned entities, like the Taliban or Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to one congressional official tracking the matter.

Samantha Power, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) administrator, acknowledged in a statement issued late last year that the new aid practices will grant blanket immunity to organizations operating in conflict areas.

The changes, Power said, “will mitigate the legal risks our partners face when working in conflict-plagued regions and will provide assurance to financial institutions and other private sector actors that they can continue supporting legitimate humanitarian programs without fear of running afoul of U.S. sanctions.”

State Department spokesman Ned Price described the effort as “one of the most important updates to our sanctions policy in years.” Ultimately, Price said during a Dec. 20 press briefing, the loosened restrictions will “help ensure sanctions do not unduly impact humanitarian conditions around the world.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken maintained the United States will work to prevent aid dollars from reaching terrorists and malign regimes, saying in a statement that the new regulations “safeguards to prevent abuse or diversion, make our sanctions clearer, stronger, and more effective and streamlined.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Just 1 percent of those making $1 million per year in income faced a regular audit

Poor people faced a significantly higher chance in 2022 of being audited by Joe Biden’s IRS than both rich and middle-class earners, according to a Syracuse University study.

In fact, no group faced as much scrutiny from the IRS as those who made below $25,000, the university’s data-gathering center found. Among families that benefited from the earned income tax credit, a rebate on income and payroll taxes made available to the nation’s poorest families, 1.27 percent were audited. The IRS in 2022 audited just 0.19 percent of the vast majority of taxpayers, meaning the poorest families were at least 550 percent more likely to have the IRS knock on their door than the average filer.

These families were also more likely to receive a regular audit by the IRS than families that reported over $1 million in income, of which just over 1 percent faced regular audits. In total, the IRS audited a total 626,204 taxpayers out of more than 164 million in the 2022 fiscal year. The bulk of those audits were of filers in the lowest income group.

The new data raise questions about the IRS’s auditing strategy as it stands to benefit from $80 billion in new funding that the Biden administration plans to use for new hires. Republicans have alleged that despite White House promises to the contrary, middle-class and poor Americans will face more audits due to the 87,000 new IRS employees the agency plans to hire.

The agency does not publicly disclose its auditing data. Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan data gathering and distribution organization, went to court to obtain the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. How the IRS decides exactly whom it will audit is largely a mystery.

“Answering this question remains a key challenge that Danny Werfel faces if confirmed as the new IRS commissioner,” the authors of the report write, referring to Biden’s nominee to lead the revenue service. “One of his first orders of business should be lifting this secrecy curtain. He needs to put in its place a full and detailed transparency program to keep the public informed on how these new funds are being applied in the selection of taxpayers for stepped up audits.”

“Republicans have attacked funding for the IRS for years in an effort to protect wealthy tax cheats, who are responsible for $163 billion in tax evasion per year,” a White House spokesman told the Washington Free Beacon. “President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which is only beginning to rebuild enforcement for wealthy Americans, will finally force wealthy tax cheats to pay their fair share while making it easier for working Americans to get their tax refunds.”

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment.

Then-IRS commissioner Charles Rettig testified before Congress last August that the IRS would not increase audits of households earning less than $400,000 if it received the additional funding sought by Biden. Democrats have long claimed that part of the reason the IRS audits poor households so frequently is because it lacks resources to go after wealthy tax cheats, who can afford lawyers and accountants.

“These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans,” Rettig said at the time.

A Congressional Budget Office report last year concluded that the IRS will collect billions of dollars from auditing low- and middle-income Americans, thanks to the new staff funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. The report found that audits of taxpayers making under $400,000 will account for $20 billion in additional revenue.

The IRS has faced accusations, including from its own internal watchdog, that its auditing practices discriminate against low-income earners. The National Taxpayer Service stated in its 2021 annual report that the IRS is focused on sending as many audits as possible rather than customer service.

“Lower-income taxpayers … are not assigned a single point of contact and have a hard time reaching the IRS,” the watchdog’s report said. “The IRS often closes its audits without any contact from the taxpayer. This creates additional downstream consequences for these taxpayers and the IRS.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Arizona will divest its pension fund from BlackRock over the asset manager’s shift toward left-wing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, the state’s treasurer said in a Thursday statement.

Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R.) said BlackRock has “moved from a traditional asset manager to a political action committee,” causing Arizona in February to start divesting “more than $543 million from BlackRock money market funds.” The Grand Canyon State also reduced its “direct exposure to BlackRock by 97 percent this year.”

Arizona is not the first state to pull its assets from BlackRock. Florida chief financial officer Jimmy Patronis (R.) this month divested his state’s assets from the company, saying BlackRock focuses more on ESG than on producing returns for Floridians. BlackRock was one of many left-leaning companies to invest in the cryptocurrency firm FTX, which went bankrupt last month. FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, a Democratic megadonor who pledged $1 billion to the party’s candidates in the midterms, is now under federal investigation for defrauding investors.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, meanwhile, faces an investigation led by 19 state attorneys general for prioritizing “left-wing political initiatives over shareholder returns,” the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Yee in her statement also calls out Fink’s politicization of the company. According to Arizona’s Investment Risk Management Committee, Fink dictates that businesses “follow his personal political beliefs,” Yee said.

The Arizona treasurer said she will “continue to fight back against the dangerous path of companies pushing their social issues and wokeism.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

American households’ real wealth fell $13.5 trillion in the first three quarters of 2022, according to a MarketWatch report.

The 8.6 percent drop from January to September is the second fastest decline on record, behind the financial crisis of 2008/2009. Record-high inflation under the Biden administration is causing a decrease in the purchasing power of assets and liabilities, MarketWatch reports:

Nominal net worth fell 4.6% to $143.3 trillion, as the market value of assets fell by $6 trillion and liabilities rose by about $900 billion. Households’ balance sheets—assets minus liabilities—were propped up by a 10% increase in home equity, which is the greatest source of wealth for most American families.

But the loss in real wealth from January through September was about twice as large as the nominal loss—$13.5 trillion in current dollars—after accounting for the rapid inflation experienced this year. Inflation makes both debts and liabilities worth less in terms of purchasing power.

Real household wealth, after adjusting for inflation, was 10 percent higher than it was in late 2019.

The price of stocks, which have lost about 25 percent of their value, outpaced gains in real estate values in the third quarter, a financial report released Friday by the Federal Reserve showed. The Federal Reserve’s report put the nominal wealth loss at $6.8 trillion.

‘I don’t think we’re about to lose control of inflation,’ Yellen said last year, before US lost control of inflation

Treasury secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday that she expects “much lower inflation” within the next year. But the Cabinet appointee has been consistently—and baselessly—optimistic about inflation since she joined the Biden administration.

“I believe by the end of next year you will see much lower inflation, if there’s not an unanticipated shock,” Yellen said in a Sunday appearance on 60 Minutes. The secretary cited reductions in shipping costs and delivery lags as evidence that high prices will soon be in the rearview.

Yellen made virtually the same prediction last year, when inflation was at a troubling 5.4 percent. “I don’t think we’re about to lose control of inflation,” Yellen said in October 2021, suggesting the resolution of supply chain issues would tame inflation within a year. By June 2022, however, inflation had surged to a 40-year high of 9.1 percent.

In May 2021, less than two months after Congress passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Yellen predicted there wasn’t “going to be an inflationary problem” at all because President Joe Biden’s spending plans were “relatively small relative to the size of the economy,” an argument that put her in lockstep with White House officials. Economists, however, have concluded that the American Rescue Plan significantly contributed to inflation.

Yellen offered a mea culpa for her inaccurate predictions in June, admitting she “was wrong … about the path that inflation would take.”

Biden was similarly unsuccessful in accurately predicting inflation rates. The president in July 2021 declared that “no serious economist” is “suggesting there’s unchecked inflation on the way.”

SOURCE: Washington Free Beacon

Household wealth in the United States fell by its second-fastest pace in history in the first three quarters of the year, but was buoyed by a positive performance in real estate, according to a Dec. 9 report by the U.S. Federal Reserve.

“The net worth of households and nonprofit organizations declined $0.4 trillion to $143.3 trillion in the third quarter. The value of stocks on the household balance sheet declined by $1.9 trillion, while the value of real estate increased by $0.7 trillion,” according to the Financial Accounts of the United States – Z.1 report.

Overall, there has been a net worth decline of about $6.84 trillion in the first three quarters of 2022, compared to the $18.78 trillion gain in 2021 and the $14.80 trillion in growth in 2020.

However, once inflation is accounted for, the loss of real wealth during the first three quarters stands twice as large at $13.5 trillion in current dollars, according to an analysis by MarketWatch. The 8.6 percent tumble in real worth in the three quarters is the second-fastest decline on record since 1959, surpassed only by the fall seen during the financial crisis of 2008–09.

The fall in household wealth coincides with a decrease in personal savings rate. Between January and October this year, the personal savings rate has more than halved, from 4.7 to 2.3 percent, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Last year, it peaked at 26.3 percent in March.

Annualized inflation has remained at or above 7.5 percent for each month of 2022.

Debt Buildup, Financial Difficulties

While the value of household wealth declined in the third quarter, household debt grew by 6.3 percent during the period. Non-mortgage consumer credit rose by 7 percent, while home mortgage debt grew by 6.6 percent.

Between the end of December 2021 and September 2022, the total debt outstanding among households and nonprofits grew from $17.94 trillion to $18.84 trillion, an increase of more than 5 percent. Falling wealth and savings combined with rising debt levels usually indicate a tougher financial situation for households.

According to a recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS, a survey and market research firm, 49 percent of Americans believe their financial condition is worse off when compared to a year ago. The proportion of people who say their finances have become worse over the year was at 55 percent, higher than the 33 percent in the December 2021 poll.

The issue of cost of living was seen as a major problem, with 93 percent saying that they are somewhat concerned by it.

A Gallup poll published this month found that 55 percent of respondents are facing financial hardship due to rising prices, with 13 percent saying they face “severe” hardship.

While 77 percent of lower-income groups admitted to inflation-induced hardship in their households, this figure stood at 60 percent among middle-income groups and 42 percent among those in the upper-income category.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

New York governor Kathy Hochul has directed state to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) has for weeks remained silent about pro-abortion activists firebombing a pro-life pregnancy center in her state. But when pro-life activists allegedly disrupted services at a Brooklyn Planned Parenthood, the Democrat condemned the “intimidation” from “anti-abortion extremists.”

“This is a shameful attempt to prevent New Yorkers from exercising their fundamental right to access reproductive care,” Hochul tweeted Thursday after New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) announced that pro-life activists harassed employees at a city Planned Parenthood clinic. “They won’t win.”

That reaction was a stark contrast with her muted response to a June incident in which pro-abortion activists firebombed a Buffalo, N.Y., pregnancy center that does not offer abortion services. The pregnancy center was also vandalized with graffiti that read “Jane was here,” a tagline for the extremist pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge, which has vowed to attack similar pregnancy centers across the country. The Democrat has yet to comment on the attack. The governor’s office, meanwhile, told a local news outlet that Hochul “condemns violence of any kind.”

Hochul’s statement comes as Democrats look to crack down on the pregnancy centers following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Just weeks after the Buffalo attack, Hochul signed a bill into law that directs state authorities to investigate pregnancy centers that do not perform abortions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has accused the facilities of “torturing” women and said the government should “shut them down all around the country.”

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

New York Democrats have increased efforts to target pro-life activists in recent years. As attorney general, James filed a lawsuit against a Brooklyn pastor, as well as his followers, who protested outside of an abortion clinic in the city. Her office deployed private investigators and hidden cameras to spy on these pro-life activists but later dropped the lawsuit in November. James has a pending lawsuit against pro-life activists who protested at another Planned Parenthood in the state.

The pregnancy center bill Hochul signed directs the state’s commissioner of health to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers because they do not provide abortions, including a probe into whether these pregnancy centers provide a “comprehensive range of reproductive and sexual health care services.”

Hochul has received $9,750 from Planned Parenthood and its associated PACs between her 2014 campaign for lieutenant governor and her current gubernatorial reelection campaign.

The attack on CompassCare, the pregnancy center in Buffalo, is part of a larger trend of violence against pro-life institutions following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. There have been 93 attacks on pro-life groups since May, according to the Catholic News Agency. A majority of these attacks were against pregnancy centers.

Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, said he has received no assistance from his state’s government after the attack on his clinic.

“It appears Governor Hochul and the N.Y. Legislature are only interested in protecting those who agree with them and bullying those who don’t,” Harden said.

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) has for weeks remained silent about pro-abortion activists firebombing a pro-life pregnancy center in her state. But when pro-life activists allegedly disrupted services at a Brooklyn Planned Parenthood, the Democrat condemned the “intimidation” from “anti-abortion extremists.”

“This is a shameful attempt to prevent New Yorkers from exercising their fundamental right to access reproductive care,” Hochul tweeted Thursday after New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) announced that pro-life activists harassed employees at a city Planned Parenthood clinic. “They won’t win.”

That reaction was a stark contrast with her muted response to a June incident in which pro-abortion activists firebombed a Buffalo, N.Y., pregnancy center that does not offer abortion services. The pregnancy center was also vandalized with graffiti that read “Jane was here,” a tagline for the extremist pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge, which has vowed to attack similar pregnancy centers across the country. The Democrat has yet to comment on the attack. The governor’s office, meanwhile, told a local news outlet that Hochul “condemns violence of any kind.”

Hochul’s statement comes as Democrats look to crack down on the pregnancy centers following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Just weeks after the Buffalo attack, Hochul signed a bill into law that directs state authorities to investigate pregnancy centers that do not perform abortions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has accused the facilities of “torturing” women and said the government should “shut them down all around the country.”

Hochul’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

New York Democrats have increased efforts to target pro-life activists in recent years. As attorney general, James filed a lawsuit against a Brooklyn pastor, as well as his followers, who protested outside of an abortion clinic in the city. Her office deployed private investigators and hidden cameras to spy on these pro-life activists but later dropped the lawsuit in November. James has a pending lawsuit against pro-life activists who protested at another Planned Parenthood in the state.

The pregnancy center bill Hochul signed directs the state’s commissioner of health to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers because they do not provide abortions, including a probe into whether these pregnancy centers provide a “comprehensive range of reproductive and sexual health care services.”

Hochul has received $9,750 from Planned Parenthood and its associated PACs between her 2014 campaign for lieutenant governor and her current gubernatorial reelection campaign.

The attack on CompassCare, the pregnancy center in Buffalo, is part of a larger trend of violence against pro-life institutions following the overturn of Roe v. Wade. There have been 93 attacks on pro-life groups since May, according to the Catholic News Agency. A majority of these attacks were against pregnancy centers.

Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, said he has received no assistance from his state’s government after the attack on his clinic.

“It appears Governor Hochul and the N.Y. Legislature are only interested in protecting those who agree with them and bullying those who don’t,” Harden said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Austin Independent School District course says gender is ‘innermost concept of self as male, female, neither or both’

Instead of ruining life for everyone, just send these kids to a special needs facility. We do this for rowdy kids and ones with handicaps like autism. Enough of the attack on children and parents by Marxist enemies of the state (AKA Teachers’ Unions, teachers). They are guilty of child abuse and treason. [US Patriot]

A Texas school district encouraged K-12 teachers to take paid time off, at taxpayer expense, to take a course on “how to create supportive learning environments for LGBTQIA+” students as young as five years old.

The Austin Independent School District’s course material, obtained through a public information request, defined gender identity as the “innermost concept of self as male, female, neither or both,” calling it “one’s authentic identity.” The course also provided an example of a girl who questions her gender identity and asked how teachers should properly respond.

“A 14-year-old youth, who recently asked to be called Ronnie not Veronica, discloses to you a desire to go by ‘they’ pronouns,” one PowerPoint slide read. “Ronnie wants to cut their hair short but isn’t sure how their parents will react, making them feel anxious. Ronnie is also stressed because while they have been dating Julie and ‘came out as a lesbian’ in 7th grade, they have started to have feelings for Ted, who identifies as male, and this is confusing for them.”

The Austin public school district did not respond to a request for comment on the substance of the training course.

The district pushed the teacher training amid a series of fights nationwide over whether students should be taught about gender identity and transgenderism. The Free Beacon reported last year that these debates over sex education at the local level are fueled by liberal advocacy groups that push public schools to promote gender ideology to elementary students. One district spiked a sex education plan in Nebraska after parents discovered it was secretly advised by a Planned Parenthood activist, the Free Beacon reported.

The Austin public school district sparked controversy in June when it defied orders from Texas attorney general Ken Paxton (R.), who labeled its pride parade as “human sexuality instruction,” which requires parents to approve their children’s participation. The district rejected Paxton’s claim and followed through with the parade without parental approval.

The “Be a Beacon” gender course is run by Out Youth, which in a February Facebook post claimed that so-called gender-affirming care for transgender children “saves lives.” The training course cited resources from two prominent LGBT groups that also support children receiving puberty blockers and hormone treatment. The presentation cited a book titled, The Transgender Child: A Handbook for Families and Professionals.

“Are you, or parts of you, both? How do you know?” the course asked teachers. “If your anatomy changed overnight to the opposite sex, would it change who you feel yourself to be?”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Sean Casten holds up to $500,000 in company that is expected to benefit from Democrats’ so-called Inflation Reduction Act

Illinois Democrat Sean Casten is very happy with his party’s “historic” green energy spending. His latest financial disclosure may show why: The congressman holds up to $500,000 in a green energy company that will likely benefit from the spending.

Casten has spent much of the last week touting Democrats’ so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which is not expected to have “any measurable impact on inflation” but does funnel nearly $400 billion toward green energy initiatives. Casten in a statement last week called that spending “a historic win for American families and for the future of our planet.” It could also be a historic win for Casten’s investment portfolio.

That’s because Casten, according to a financial disclosure he filed last week, holds between $250,000 and $500,000 in Greenleaf Power, a Sacramento-based green energy company that sells “carbon-neutral electricity” to utility companies. The Casten-backed green energy bill contains specific provisions that are likely to benefit Greenleaf. The legislation, for example, allocates roughly $30 billion toward “grant and loan programs for states and electric utilities” that obtain “clean electricity” like that offered by Greenleaf. The bill also provides generous tax credits to property owners who install equipment to harness alternative energy sources such as biomass, in which Greenleaf specializes.

Still, none of Casten’s many statements touting the Inflation Reduction Act’s green energy spending disclose the Democrat’s six-figure stake in Greenleaf, which brought Casten up to $50,000 in “partnership income” in 2021 alone. Casten’s decision to fixate on Democrats’ work to “fight climate change,” meanwhile, may prove to be shortsighted as the congressman faces a competitive reelection campaign against Republican Keith Pekau. Only 35 percent of U.S. adults are “extremely or very concerned” about the effects of climate change, down from 44 percent just three years ago, according to an Associated Press poll.

Power the Future founder and executive director Daniel Turner called it a “shame that the American people are going to be on the hook” for “provisions that enrich this member of Congress.” He also argued that the “green energy” Greenleaf produces from biomass is not truly “green”—the company generates electricity by burning wood, a far cry from the wind and solar energy Casten has touted in the past.

“It just shows you the political motives behind this piece of legislation,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “The fact that we consider biomass clean is really laughable, because biomass is really just burning trees. So why are we proud of that?”

Casten did not return a request for comment. The Democrat’s latest financial disclosure provides some clarity on his Greenleaf holding, as the congressman’s prior disclosure listed Greenleaf but claimed the asset had no value. Casten filed that 2020 disclosure as he urged Congress to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on “tax credits for clean energy.” In one case, Casten went as far as to attack fellow congressional Democrat Joe Manchin after the West Virginia senator expressed opposition toward the spending.

“We’re trying to drive a car into the future,” Casten said during an September 2021 MSNBC interview. “With all due respect to Mr. Manchin, until we’re lining up to take off the emergency brake this car ain’t driving very fast. It’s certainly not driving as fast as it needs to, and that’s the pressure we as Democrats have to keep focused on.” Casten’s past clean energy spending advocacy also excluded any mention of his Greenleaf investment.

Beyond the American public’s waning concern about climate change, it’s unclear if the Inflation Reduction Act, which Joe Biden signed into law on Tuesday, will have a sizable impact on climate change. A climate scientist who led an independent analysis of the package told the Associated Press the legislation will reduce global warming “not a lot.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Data suggests ‘economic weakness will intensify and spread more broadly’

America’s recessionary drumbeat just got louder as a key economic gauge from the Conference Board dropped for the fifth month in a row, weighed down by a slowing job market, weak manufacturing new orders, and deep consumer pessimism.

The Leading Economic Index (LEI) for the United States, which is a forward-looking gauge designed to predict business cycle shifts including recessions, fell by 0.4 percent in July, following a 0.7 percent drop in June, the Conference Board said on Aug. 18.

“The U.S. LEI declined for the fifth consecutive month in July, suggesting recession risks are rising in the near term,” Ataman Ozyildirim, senior director for economics at the Conference Board, said in a statement.

While the U.S. economy met the common rule-of-thumb definition for a recession when gross domestic product (GDP) printed negative for two quarters in a row earlier this year, recessions are formally called by a panel of economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). They use a broader definition than the two-quarter rule, relying on a wide range of indicators, including the labor market, which has remained on a relatively solid footing.

The Biden administration has seized on the NBER’s criteria for declaring a downturn, insisting that the economy isn’t in a recession, with White House officials often citing labor market strength—though there are signs that it’s cooling.

Even though unemployment is at 3.5 percent and the latest non-farm payrolls report showed U.S. employers adding a forecast-beating 528,000 in July, a growing number of U.S. corporations have announced hiring freezes or layoffs, while the number of Americans filing for unemployment insurance has been slowly trending up.

Mild or Severe Recession?

The slowing labor market was one of the factors singled out by Ozyildirim in his comments on the LEI’s fifth consecutive monthly slump.

“Consumer pessimism and equity market volatility as well as slowing labor markets, housing construction, and manufacturing new orders suggest that economic weakness will intensify and spread more broadly throughout the US economy,” he said, adding that the Conference Board projects that the U.S. economy won’t grow in the third quarter and “could tip into a short but mild recession by the end of the year or early 2023.”

While the view that America’s recession will be short and mild has its advocates, economist Nouriel Roubini, who got the nickname “Dr. Doom” after correctly predicting the 2007–08 financial crisis, calls that view “delusional.”

Roubini said in a recent interview on Bloomberg TV that he believes persistently high inflation will force the Fed to keep monetary settings tight, which will tip the U.S. economy into a “severe recession and a severe debt and financial crisis” that will be long-lasting.

Similarly, former President Donald Trump recently warned that, unless the country changes course in key areas—including energy policy—he believes something worse than a recession is on the horizon.

“Not recession. Recession’s a nice word. We’re going to have a much bigger problem than recession,” Trump said at a rally in Arizona at the end of July. “We’ll have a depression.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Once again, Woke clearly does not equate to Awake. [US Patriot]

The flood of illegal immigrants and drugs coming over the U.S.–Mexico border constitutes an “invasion,” a majority of respondents to a new poll say.

Respondents were asked to label the statement, “The U.S. is experiencing an invasion at the southern border” as completely or somewhat true, completely false, or don’t know.

More than half, or 54 percent, said it’s true. Republicans were much more likely to say the statement is true, with 76 percent agreeing compared to 40 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of respondents.

Democrats were most likely to say the statement was completely false, and independents were most likely to say they don’t know.

Under Joe Biden, the United States has recorded unprecedented numbers of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border. Due to relaxed immigration enforcement policies, many illegal aliens have been released into the U.S. interior, while deportations have plunged.

Amid the immigration crisis, a number of Texas counties have declared the situation an “invasion,” including Parker County. Officials also cited drugs being brought across the border.

Seven out of 10 Republicans in the new poll said the drugs being brought over the border are responsible for the increase in drug overdoses in America, along with 35 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of independents.

‘Open Border Policy’

A majority of Republicans also agreed with the statement the United States is implementing “an open border policy” along the border.

A person’s main source of news impacted their choices, pollsters found. Republicans who watched Fox News, for instance, were more likely to describe the border crisis as an invasion than those who have a different primary source.

Fox regularly reports from the border, including showing footage of migrants crossing the border between ports of entries, which makes them illegal immigrants.

The most cited source of news for Democrats and independents was ABC/NBC/CBS, while Republicans were most likely to source from Fox.

Respondents were also divided by political affiliation when answering whether there are enough immigrants in America already.

Six out of 10 Republicans agreed, versus 30 percent of Democrats and 37 percent of independents.

Democrats were the most likely to say immigrants are an important part of the American identity. Seventy-four percent agreed, compared to 49 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents.

Most Republicans, meanwhile, agreed with the statement that there is a “deep state,” or embedded political class, working to open the borders to more immigrants. Compared to 19 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of independents, 58 percent of Republicans agreed.

The NPR-Ipsos poll (pdf) was conducted online on July 28 and July 29. The sample of 1,116 adults included 516 Democrats, 317 Republicans, and 141 independents. (Now we know the reasons the poll only came up with 54% [US Patriot])

The margin of error was plus/minus 5.1 percentage points.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Since receiving Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, Bonnie Eisenberg experienced relapse of her breast cancer 8 years after being in remission.

The 73-year-old was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer in 2012. After successful treatment, she had been in remission since 2014.

Ever since then, her doctor has measured tumor marker levels in her body to monitor for relapse.

Tumor markers are usually proteins that indicate possible tumor or cancer growth. High levels of tumor markers may indicate cancer but it is not definitive.

There are many markers that can be tested, but the one that her doctor particularly focused on was the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), a tumor marker common to cancers of the breast, colon and rectum, prostate, ovary, lung, thyroid, and liver.

Since 2014, Eisenberg dutifully took monthly CEA tests along with others. The tests continuously returned with numbers in the normal range, which her doctor said was from 0 to 4.0 ng/mL.

Eisenberg’s average CEA results had been at 0.4 ng/mL, indicating her cancer was under control.

“Everything’s been going fine,” Eisenberg told The Epoch Times, “I was one of his best patients. He never worried about me.”

However, that changed after she got vaccinated. She received her first Moderna shot in January 2021 and experienced various common adverse effects including fever, shakes, “you name it, I had it,” she said.

That month, her CEA test rose to 3.7 ng/mL.

However, since it was still within the normal range, both Eisenberg and her doctor were not concerned.

After all, tumor cells are not limited to cancer patients. It is a known fact that everyone can have cancerous cells; what matters is whether the immune system can keep the cancer in check.

Eisenberg took her second shot in February 2021 and again suffered the same adverse effects.

Her CEA numbers jumped to 5.2 ng/mL that month.

This took her out of the normal range. Yet because Eisenberg has been such a stable patient, and because her result was so close to the normal range, both she and her doctor dismissed the results.

“Maybe I should have been a little more on the doctor. Since I was so good. We weren’t really that concerned about it.”

Boosters became available in October 2021. Eisenberg was not happy to take it given her previous adverse reactions, but she and her husband took it anyway. She experienced the same terrible adverse reactions.

In October 2021 and December 2021, she had CEA tests taken.

On Dec. 13, 2021 at 8 o’clock in morning, she received a call from her doctor. He was very concerned.

“When you’re getting a phone call that early in the morning, something’s wrong. He says to me: ‘Bonnie, we have to scan you.’ What’s the matter? [I asked]. My mark was up to 17.6 [ng/mL]—I was in trouble.”

Eisenberg was immediately sent for a CAT scan, as well as MRI and PET scans.

On the PET scans, it showed that her previously dormant breast cancer has “metastasized,” meaning that it has spread to locations outside the breast.

“When he hit me with this, even now … it’s just a very hard thing to accept. It’s just something that should have never taken place.”

“[The cancer] went to all my bones … it didn’t go to any of my body organs, but it was over every bone you could think of. On the PET scan I lit up like a Christmas tree.”

A metastasizing breast cancer would automatically put her in stage 4, the worst stage for cancers.

Eisenberg is convinced that the vaccine is responsible for her cancer recurrence. The increase in CEA levels correlated well with her vaccine timeline, and she is adamant that she will not get any more vaccinations, fearing that she will really die from it.

In the same month (December 2021), Eisenberg started targeted therapy. The main medication she takes for her cancer costs about $14,000 a month “but I just have a little copayment coverage for it.”

She also has a hormone blocker as well as a monthly injection of denosumab ($3,000 each) to prevent bone fractures. Luckily, her insurance covers the cost of denosumab.

Eisenberg has responded very well to her drugs, and her cancer is back in remission now.

Since she started treatment again, her CEA numbers dropped from 4.7 in January 2022 to below 1 ng/mL in June 2022. Her numbers are just like how she was before vaccination.

The bright spots representing cancer cells are also gone on her new PET scans.

Nonetheless, things have not returned to normal; the drug side effects Eisenberg complains of are likely to accompany her for the rest of her life.

“I have to be on [medication] for the rest of my life. I can’t stop it … he [the doctor] can lower the milligrams and stuff like that … but you always have to be watched. What I have is not going away.”

Her breast cancer medication reduces white blood cell counts, significantly weakening her immune system and puts her at risk of infections. This new worry hangs on Eisenberg’s mind, and in crowded places, she feels compelled to put on a face mask.

The drug also causes her hair to thin, and as a “hair girl,” Eisenberg is bothered by the reality that she can no longer straighten her hair.

The denosumab injections can also cause loss of bone mass leading to eventual breakdown. Eisenberg is glad to have greater intervals introduced between each injection and possible reduced dosages for her medications.

Given her stage 4 relapse, Eisenberg is considered fortunate to be back in remission.

Eisenberg shared her experience with other women also in remission who have not been recommended to do monthly tests, or women who responded very poorly to potent breast cancer treatments.

She hopes that her story will be able to help others so that the same does not happen to them.

“Whatever erupted inside me from the shot, something happened because they don’t even know what it does to the immune system … [the doctors, people at Moderna] don’t even know; there’s no answers. Nobody has any answers. I don’t care who you talk to. You’re not gonna get an answer. They don’t know.”

“There’s possibly other girls like me now. They don’t even know what’s happening inside them because if they’re not tested properly, they’re not going to know.”

In the history of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a total of 93 breast cancer cases have been reported as an adverse effect of a vaccine, of which 77 of the cases are reported after COVID-19 vaccines.

What Current Research Shows Us

The current research suggests the COVID shots altered the innate immune system, which is likely to alter the adaptive immune system.

Within the body, we have the innate immune cells that are quick-acting, inflammatory, and target all foreign molecules the same way.

Some of these innate immune cells will eventually activate adaptive immune cells, called the T and B cells. These cells begin to work a few days after infection and require activation from innate immune cells to function properly. These T and B cells target infections and cancers through specific and varied pathways. They create an immune memory afterwards so that the immune system will be able to act faster the next time.

Innate Immune System Alterations: Interferons

Interferons (IFN) are antiviral proteins.  There are three major types: type I, II, and III, categorized based on the receptors each IFN binds to.

One of the most important IFN is type 1 IFN; it acts globally, targeting many tissues and organs to protect from infections, autoimmune diseases, as well as cancers.

Studies show that they are particularly important in the early response to infection and cancer.

“Impaired type I IFN signaling is linked to many disease risks, most notably cancer, as type 1 IFN signaling suppresses proliferation of both viruses and cancer cells by arresting the cell cycle,” the authors, led by Dr. Stephanie Seneff from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote.

IFN-alpha and IFN-beta are type 1 IFNs; these molecules alert other cells of a virus or cancer, and also stop infected and cancerous cells from proliferating, causing diseased cells to die.

However, research on spike protein and mRNA vaccines suggests that IFN-alpha action may be impaired when exposed to spike protein.

A study that exposed human cells to spike protein DNA to induce the cell to produce spike protein found that the cell shipped out the spike protein with two forms of microRNAs (miRNAs) that inhibited molecules that activated IFN-alpha/beta.

miRNA are short strands of RNA molecules that bind to the DNA in cells and can therefore regulate cell activity. These two miRNA inhibited an essential protein that activates the IFN-alpha/beta pathway. This implies that vaccinated individuals will have a reduced IFN-alpha/beta response and poorer immune clearance.

Seneff said that the reduced symptoms in the vaccinated are likely because of this reduced pathway, since the initial symptoms of COVID-19 are caused by actions of the interferon action. This is why many vaccinated individuals are getting infected with rebound symptoms.

“[The vaccinated] don’t get the symptoms … don’t feel as sick, but actually, you’re spreading the disease like crazy because you’re not fighting it off.”

This also means that the virus will stick around in vaccinated individuals for longer, and if the disease is not cleared after a long period of time, it can cause severe disease down the line.

This hypothesis also concordant with hospitalization and mortality rates in New South Wales, an Australian state where over 95 percent of the population has been fully vaccinated, with many people receiving one or two boosters.

Hospitalitization rates and mortality rates are significantly higher in the boosted and fully vaccinated cohort, with lower rates in the unvaccinated and patients that have only received one dose.

Reduced T-Cell Response

T-cells and B-cells are adaptive immune cells, meaning that they engage in specific and targeted attacks rather than attacking all foreign invaders the same way, which is what innate immune cells do.

Both cell types are very powerful, but both need to be activated first through innate immune system pathways to develop strong, specified attacks.

Killer T-cells engage in close combat with diseased and cancerous cells by punching holes into them whereas B plasma cells work long-range, releasing antibodies into fluids in the body to surround and neutralize toxins, bacteria, and viruses. B-cells also play a role in cancer, though their function and importance are not well understood.

T-cells have been extensively studied for the important role they play in cancer by killing cancer cells directly. The activity of T-cells have often been used to predict disease outcomes in cancer patients.

However, recent studies have shown that innate immune function has been altered in those injected with the COVID shots. A preprint study found receptors that activate T-cell action, including TLR7/8 (toll like receptors 7 and 8), are reduced in vaccinated individuals.

Further, a Chinese study of people who have been vaccinated with the spike protein-inducing COVID-19 shots found that gene activity for what proteins and pathways are turned on and off have changed across most immune cells.

This raises questions about our traditional understanding of the innate immune cell to T-cell activation pathway and whether vaccinated individuals will have an immune system that responds similarly to how it was before vaccination.

The study found T-cell activity was reduced as well as an increased inflammatory response in the immediate weeks following vaccination, which, in the long-term, puts people at risk for cancer.

“These data suggested that after vaccination, at least by day 28, other than generation of neutralizing antibodies, people’s immune systems, including those of lymphocytes (T-cells, B-cells, natural killer cells) and monocytes (innate immune cells), were perhaps in a more vulnerable state,” the authors wrote.

These findings overlap with pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole’s observations at his medical laboratory, Cole Diagnostics.

Related Coverage

Dr. Ryan Cole: Alarming Cancer Trend Suggests COVID-19 Vaccines Alter Natural Immune Response

Cole told Jan Jekielek on American Thought Leaders that after vaccinations started rolling out in the older population, he noticed the reappearance of Molluscum contagiosum, a parapoxvirus that most people get in childhood and is kept in check by the immune system from the teenage years onward.

Though the uptick is unusual, as Cole saw more cases he grew concerned that the vaccines may be driving a form of “immune dysregulation,” meaning a possible breakdown to established immune controls. Since these viruses are normally kept in check by T-cells, which also keep cancers in check, a loss of immune memory against viruses could be a sign of loss of control in cancers.

“About a month or two later, all of a sudden there are certain types of cancers that I commonly see in the laboratory, after 500,000 patients … I started seeing endometrial cancers go up and there’s certain type … Melanomas, I started seeing thicker and earlier as well.”

Since then he has shared his findings in other lectures and found that other doctors and nurses around the world have made similar observations of increased rates of cancer cases.

An analysis by The Expose on VAERS data also indicated an uptick of cancer after COVID-19 vaccines by 143,233 percent.

Developing Cancer After Vaccination

In addition to cancers relapsing, there are also cases of sudden cancer development in previously cancer-free people after vaccination.

Cheryl Rolf shared her late husband John Rolf’s experience with a sudden onset of esophageal cancer within a month or two after vaccination.

“He was vaccinated with the first vaccine March 1st of 2021, and then the second vaccine on March 29th,” Cheryl Rolf, his wife told The Epoch Times during a phone call.

A few days after his second vaccination, John, who had always been healthy, started to cough, and soon he would sporadically choke on his food, and “that gradually increased in frequency over time.”

In August, John’s doctor sent him for a scan, showing suspicious growth at the base of the esophagus, and by late August, John was diagnosed with stage 3 esophageal cancer.

“The oncologist said he marked [John] curative,” Rolf said. “He planned for him [John] to fully recover from this.”

Esophageal cancer is a rarer form of cancer that predominantly affects men aged 45 to 70. Smoking, long-term heavy consumption of alcohol, bile reflux, nerve problems in the esophagus, and obesity are all risks of esophageal cancer.

Considering John’s age of 68 years at the time, he was at risk. However, he had no medical or family history of cancer. He also did not have stomach reflux, nor did he smoke, and only drank alcohol occasionally. He was not obese.

In early September, John started his chemo and radiotherapy and it was a particularly tortuous experience for him.

John’s trouble with swallowing soon worsened, coupled with nausea and an altered sense of taste from chemo, he soon “seemed to have given up trying to eat or drink.”

“[John] was supposed to be taking more food and fluids in—he was getting some in—but he was also spitting up an awful lot of yellow phlegm … he couldn’t just drink things like you and I do. He gets to take a sip and try to get it down.”

Dehydration and weight loss meant that he also needed hydration once every three days.

John finished his treatment regimen in mid-October 2021 and doctors planned for him to make a physical recovery from the therapy, gain his strength back, and then remove his tumor through surgery.

However, on Oct. 25, three days after he received his last hydrofusion, John passed away in his sleep.

“I got up and he said ‘I want to sleep some more’ and he didn’t get up. I went and looked [later] and he had passed away.”

Rolf called 911 and moved John onto his back and gave compressions until the paramedics came, but John was gone.

“It was a horrific experience.”

Fourteen cases of esophageal cancers have been reported to VAERS in total for all vaccines, of which one included metastatic cancer (stage 4). Eleven esophageal cancer cases were reported as an adverse event of COVID-19 vaccine, including the single stage 4 cancer case.

Multiple Myeloma After mRNA Vaccination

Stanley Pruszynski also shared his wife’s sudden development of multiple myeloma after two doses of the COVID-19 Moderna vaccine.

Multiple myeloma is a “cancer in the blood … there’s no cure for it because you can’t cure blood cancer,” Pruszynski said.

It affects immune cells, making patients particularly at risk of dying from infections.

The majority of multiple myeloma patients in remission relapses in a few years, and most will later succumb to complications of the disease, particularly infections.

Pruszynski’s wife, Bonnie, then 69 years old, has been very healthy throughout her life. She was adopted into her family, therefore it is unknown if her family has a medical history of cancers, but she had no medical history of previous cancers.

Pruszynski said that Bonnie was very fit. The two would go on walks of five miles a day, and usually it would be him who would want to take a break.

However, two weeks after her second Moderna dose in February, Bonnie developed flu symptoms with constant coughing and night sweats and would get little sleep.

These symptoms persisted and medication did little to improve her condition. She began to feel weak and would ask for breaks on walks before Pruszynski did. She was often scared, she would fall and need to hold onto the walls when navigating their apartment.

In April, Bonnie fell and was taken to the emergency room.

On admission, her hemoglobin level was so low that she was given a blood transfusion.

“They [doctors] tried running some blood tests; the blood wasn’t separating properly to do the testing … well, it turns out that it was because of her hemoglobin levels,” Pruszynski said.

In June, Bonnie was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and started chemotherapy. She started stem cell therapy in December 2021 and spent Christmas in the hospital.

Stem cell therapy is a dangerous yet ambitious therapy to reset the immune system.

First, stem cells will be harvested from the body and stored. The other white blood cells in the body will then be wiped out, often using chemo and radiotherapy. Once the immune system is obliterated, the stem cells will be transferred back into the body to restart the immune system anew.

Bonnie’s fatigue improved and her cancer went into remission, but she still feels weak. The two now walk a quarter of a mile a day, compared to the five miles they used to.

Bonnie now works remotely with reduced hours. Pruszynski estimates that her salary is likely halved.

Pruszynski said that Bonnie has had high blood protein levels for many years. This condition can be a precursor to diseases and often comes with symptoms, though Bonnie was not affected.

Pruszynski therefore suspects that the vaccine, particularly the spike protein it generates, which is known to be toxic, may have triggered something in Bonnie’s immune system leading to blood cancer.

“They give her an estimate of maybe five to 10 years, maybe less. They don’t really know. They don’t have a clue but eventually it will kill her.”

There are a total of 89 multiple myeloma cases reported to VAERS, including plasma multiple myeloma, recurrent myeloma, and recurrent plasma multiple myeloma for all vaccines, and 65 of the cases were reported for COVID-19 vaccines.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Cases of the polio virus are re-emerging across the world, including in the U.S., and appear to be attributed to strains of the virus resulting from vaccination.

In July, A 20-year-old man residing in New York was diagnosed with polio, resulting in paralysis in his legs. While mainstream media outlets covered the story, journalists and commentators exploited the incident, blaming it on an individual’s decision to not receive a polio vaccine.

As Dr. Leana Wen, a notorious advocate for face masks and placing restrictions on people who opted out of receiving a COVID-19 jab, wrote in The Washington Post:

“Because of low vaccination rates, polio is back and appears to be spreading in at least one part of the country. Other vaccine-preventable diseases will also reemerge unless we take urgent steps to reverse this tragic trend. In July, an unvaccinated 20-year-old man residing in Rockland County, N.Y., was diagnosed with polio, which resulted in paralysis in his legs.”

Similarly, NBC News ran a story alleging the case was directly linked to low vaccination rates titled: “Polio Vaccination Rate For 2-year-olds is as Low as 37% in Parts of N.Y. County Where Paralysis Case Was Found.”

“Polio has been circulating for months in New York City area and poses an ongoing risk to the unvaccinated, CDC says,” reads the headline of another CNBC story.

The New York man, however, was actually infected with a type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus, a result of an oral polio vaccine, according to the New York State Department of Health.

The vaccine responsible for crippling the individual is what’s known as a “live-attenuated vaccine,” which in contrast to inactivated vaccines, retains the ability to become more deadly and infectious if mutates while replicating. The virus can then be shed into the environment, enabling it to infect vulnerable individuals.

Despite the re-emergence of polio being triggered by a vaccine, health officials and mainstream media outlets have continued to push vaccination as the solution to a potential outbreak.

“‘Silent’ spread of polio in New York drives CDC to consider additional vaccinations for some people,” claimed CNN.

In other words, the re-emergent case of polio being used by journalists and public health agencies to push vaccination is actually a direct result of an individual receiving a polio vaccine.

Dr. Robert Malone on Aug. 19 sued the Washington Post, alleging statements in an article about him were defamatory.

The Jan. 24 article says Malone offered “misinformation” when he said during a speech that the COVID-19 vaccines “are not working” against the Omicron virus variant.

As proof, the paper linked to studies by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from January that found a booster shot on top of a primary series was protecting well against severe disease. The studies were published in the agency’s quasi-journal, which has a stated goal of being aligned with the agency’s messaging. The centers have repeatedly promoted COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic.

Later in the speech, Malone said that the vaccines “do not prevent Omicron infection, viral replication, or spread to others.” That quote was not included in the Post’s article.

“I said nothing about disease and death at that point in time,” Malone told The Epoch Times, accusing the Post of taking a “selective misquote” and using the CDC study to contest an assertion he never made.

The Post did not respond to a request for comment while an automatic message from the article’s author, Timothy Bella, said he’s on parental leave until December. Bella provided no evidence in the article that the vaccines were protecting against Omicron infection.

An interview request from Bella to Malone before the article was written, reviewed by The Epoch Times, shows Bella telling Malone that “I have respect for you and your body of work” and that he hoped to “shadow you” during Malone’s time in Washington, where the doctor delivered the speech at a protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Ten Statements

Ten of the statements in the article were defamatory, including the statement that Malone’s claims have been “discredited;” that Malone during the speech “repeated the falsehoods that have garnered him legions of followers;” and that Malone’s claims are “not only wrong, but also dangerous,” according to the 19-page suit, filed in federal court in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“The qualities WaPo disparaged—Dr. Malone’s honesty, veracity, integrity, competence, judgment, morals and ethics as a licensed medical doctor and scientist—are peculiarly valuable to Dr. Malone and are absolutely necessary in the practice and profession of any medical doctor and scientist. WaPo ascribes to Dr. Malone conduct, characteristics and conditions, including fraud, disinformation, misinformation, deception and dishonesty, that would adversely affect his fitness to be a medical professional and to conduct the business of a medical doctor,” the suit states.

“Dr. Malone’s statements concerning COVID-19 and the purported ‘vaccines’ were 100% factually accurate. He has never committed fraud on [sic] engaged in any medical disinformation or misinformation. Further, the so-called ‘vaccines’ do not work, as is abundantly clear from both the scientific and anecdotal evidence to date,” it also says.

Malone previously served the Post with a written notice threatening legal action if it did not retract and/or correct the allegedly defamatory statements, but it refused to make any retractions or corrections, according to the filing.

Malone has also threatened to sue other media outlets, including the New York Times, but decided to start with the Post because the case “is really straightforward,” he said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The media has been hiding economic reports over the last few weeks. As we get closer to the midterms, they will be doing what they can to protect Democrats.

But Americans continue to suffer from inflation, high gas prices, and other stains on their wallets. And now, another sign has come out that the recession is already on us.

From Washington Examiner:

Housing starts measure the annualized change in the number of new residential buildings that began construction. Last month, they declined by a hefty 9.6% to a 1.45 million annualized rate after posting slight gains in June, according to a Tuesday report from the Commerce Department.

If the rising price of ground beef or unleaded regular didn’t tip you off that the economy isn’t great, this will.

The number of housing starts in July fell a steep 9.6%. This number measures how many new residential buildings begin construction.

Even a slight drop suggests a weakening economy. The housing market is always the first industry to suffer in a recession (or a depression).

When things are bad, people cut back on spending. The bigger expenses, like houses and cars, are cut first.

Then everything else quickly follows. These cutbacks force companies to make cuts themselves. In some cases, they lay off as many workers as possible.

So, this number is much more important than you might realize. New housing products dropped last month.

That’s consistent with other numbers that have come out recently. Inflation is hitting construction, as everything is costing more.

The housing bubble from 2020 long burst. Americans don’t want to risk moving or buying a new home, because it’s just too expensive.

The rest will come shortly, whether Biden believes it or not.

UPDATE: And just in, now housing sales just smashed through the floor. From CNBC:

Sales of previously owned homes fell nearly 6% in July compared with June, according to a monthly report from the National Association of Realtors.

Sales dropped about 20% from the same month a year ago.

“In terms of economic impact we are surely in a housing recession because builders are not building,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the Realtors.

The fallout from Biden’s leadership just keeps piling up, folks.

SOURCE: The Patriot Journal

In a master-level stroke of inversion, former President Donald Trump has found a new use for his ability to all but ensure the success of Republican candidates.

On Wednesday via Truth Social, Trump unleashed his “endorsements” against three Democrats: Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who is campaigning for New York’s 10th Congressional District, Carolyn Maloney of New York and Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Both Maloney and Nadler are competing for a redrawn 12th Congressional District.

Based upon context, these “endorsements” from Trump can be considered to be either darkly disingenuous or delivered sarcastically with a proverbial wink to his supporters. Judge for yourself.

On Truth Social, Trump wrote first about Goldman, “Lawyer Dan Goldman is running for Congress, NY-10, and it is my great honor to Strongly Endorse him. I do this not because of the fact that he headed up the Impeachment Committee and lost, but because he was honorable, fair, and highly intelligent. While it was my honor to beat him, and beat him badly, Dan Goldman has a wonderful future ahead….”

“….He will be very compassionate and compromising to those within the Republican Party, and will do everything possible to make sure they have a fair chance at winning against the Radical Left Democrats, who he knows are destroying our Country. I would like to thank Dan for fighting so hard for America, and for working so tirelessly to stop “Trump.” He was not easy to beat, but winning against him made me realize just how very talented I am!” he continued.

Trump suggested that Goldman will be a moderate “very compassionate and compromising to those within the Republican Party” a damning descriptor in the uber-radicalized far-left of the 2022 Democrat party.

Minutes later, a similar “endorsement” for Maloney, with some kind words for her opponent Nadler appeared on Trump’s account.

“A vote for Carolyn Maloney in NY-12 is a vote for the future! She is a kind and wonderful person, who has always said terrific things about me, and will support me no matter what I do, just as I supported her very early on. She begged for a check with no quid pro quo, and I gave it to her. In fact, I gave her many….”

According to the Federal Elections Commission, Trump did in fact donate to Maloney’s campaign in 1993, 1994, 1998, 2006 and again in 2009 for a total of $4,000.

He continued and even took aim at Jerry Nadler. “….On the other hand, Jerry Nadler is likewise a hard driving man of the people, whose energy and attention to detail is unlike anyone else in Congress. He is high energy, sharp, quick-witted, and bright. You can’t go wrong with either, but Carolyn Maloney is the better man. She will lead our Country into a very GREEN and prosperous future. Carolyn has my Complete and Total Endorsement, she will never let our Conservative Movement down!”

The highlight of the snarky message is definitely the combined swipe at both Maloney and Nadler, “You can’t go wrong with either, but Carolyn Maloney is the better man.”

Naturally, Goldman and Maloney both vehemently rejected the “endorsement” from the 45th President. Goldman’s campaign attempted to turn the joke around on Trump in a statement reported by The Blaze.

Mike Franken also took money from disgraced former senator Al Franken

Iowa Democratic Senate candidate Mike Franken pledged to run for office “without taking one dime of corporate PAC money.” That promise didn’t preclude him from taking thousands from corporate-funded groups.

“I don’t take any corporate PAC money,” Franken said in June. “Not a penny.” But that same month, the Iowa Democrat received $5,000 from Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D., Va.) Common Ground PAC, which accepted donations from Pfizer, Capital One, and Amazon. Franken took $2,500 from Sen. Mark Kelly’s (D., Ariz.) Liftoff PAC, which is funded by the National Association of Realtors, and another $2,500 from Sen. Tina Smith’s (D., Minn.) Velvet Hammer PAC, which boasts contributions from Wells Fargo, Delta Air Lines, and Goldman Sachs.

The donations could spell trouble for the Senate candidate, who has decried “corporate greed” and accused incumbent Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) of being beholden to “corporate donors.”

The Senate candidate also took $2,500 from disgraced former Democratic senator Al Franken’s Midwest Values PAC. The ex-comedian resigned in 2018 following accusations of sexual harassment, but said last year he is open to running again for office. His PAC raised hundreds of thousands of dollars even after his departure.

A Franken campaign spokesman said the candidate “has never taken a dime from corporate PACs.” He did not comment on any other corporate donations.

Franken, a retired Navy vice admiral, came under fire in July when he said he “did not serve” to defend the rights of people who criticize Joe Biden. He is the third Iowa Democrat to skirt a self-imposed corporate PAC donation ban after Rep. Cindy Axne and Abby Finkenauer, whom Franken bested during the Senate primary.

Finkenauer lost by 15 points in June during the Democratic primary to Franken, who was defeated in 2020 by failed Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield. Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) beat Greenfield in the general election by 6 points, though the Democrat raised twice as much money for her campaign.

Franken raked in $1.7 million during the last fundraising period, outraising Grassley by more than two to one. The Republican still holds more cash in hand, and won his last election by a nearly 25-point margin.

Grassley campaign manager Matt Dailer told the Washington Free Beacon that Franken should either return the donations or “admit his pledge was nothing more than a hollow stunt.”

“Mike Franken hasn’t even been elected to office and he’s already breaking his word to Iowans,” Dailer said. “He can make up any excuse he wants, but Iowans see through his dishonest word games.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Column: The Biden administration’s desperate quest for an Iran Deal projects weakness

“Justice Dept. Charges Iranian in Plot to Kill John Bolton“

—New York Times, August 10, 2022

“Salman Rushdie is attacked onstage in Western New York“

—New York Times, August 12, 2022

“After 16 Months, Some Glimmers of Optimism About Iran Nuclear Deal“

—New York Times, August 16, 2022

This is where you’d put a confused face emoji.

Why? Because one of the above headlines is unlike the others. The first two stories reveal the nature of the Iranian regime—a gang of criminal theocrats that since 1979 has spread chaos and murder throughout the world. The third headline reveals the gullibility of Western politicians and diplomats who, despite never-ending reminders of the Islamic Republic’s aims and capacities, persist in trying to appease it.

Negotiations to revive the Iran nuclear deal have been taking place in Vienna since April 2021. They have gone nowhere. Yet the Biden administration insists on playing a starring role in this diplomatic farce. Nothing that happens in the outside world penetrates the bubble where the diplomats reside.

Some history:

• Iran refused to speak to the United States directly. We obliged. The talks are indirect—a sign of American weakness.

• Ali Khamenei ensured that his potential successor, Ebrahim Raisi, a hardline cleric sanctioned by the United States, was “elected” president last summer. Not only did we continue negotiations. We are also now debating whether to provide Raisi an entry visa so he can spout regime propaganda at the U.N. General Assembly next month.

• America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, one year old this week, seriously undermined our credibility and our security. It weakened our influence in the Greater Middle East. Yet Biden didn’t change his foreign policy. He doubled down on his Iran gambit.

• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last February was a hinge of history—a moment when, we have been told, “everything” changed. Everything but the Iran negotiations. Russia, despite its outlaw status on the international stage, continues to serve as Iran’s intermediary. Maybe we should take the hint?

All this happened in the months before the Bolton assassination plot and the attack on Rushdie. And those violations of U.S. sovereignty and rule of law are related to Iranian malfeasance. The Justice Department charged a member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for attempting to hire a hit man who would target the former U.S. national security adviser. Rushdie’s assailant may have been in contact with the IRGC, as well, and was unquestionably inspired by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s first Supreme Ruler, Ayatollah Khomenei, who called for the British-American novelist’s death in 1989.

And what, you ask, does Iran continue to demand of the United States as a condition for reentry into the nuclear deal? In a piece for CNBC headlined, “A renewed Iran nuclear deal appears closer than ever. Here are the final sticking points,” Natasha Turak writes, “Iran wants the Biden administration to remove its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from its [i.e., America’s] designated terrorist list, which so far Washington seems unwilling to do.”

Imagine that.

Biden would be committing political seppuku if he removes the IRGC from the terror list. Even he can see the danger there. He’d be handing the beleaguered Republicans an issue in the final months before the midterms. It has the potential to taint media coverage of his supposed diplomatic triumph.

The IRGC “sticking point” is politically troubling. Another sticking point is impossible. Iran wants the United States to guarantee that future presidents will abide by the deal. However, the only constitutional way to do this would be to submit the nuclear agreement to the Senate for treaty confirmation. Of course, Biden can’t do that, because the treaty would fail. Leaving Biden at an impasse.

One he refuses to acknowledge. Perhaps the Biden team is now so full of themselves after a string of legislative victories at home that they are ready to make additional concessions to get what they mistakenly believe will be a victory abroad. The press will love this narrative, of Biden going from strength to strength and win to win, no matter the costs to U.S. security and stability in the Persian Gulf and Shiite Crescent.

Another scenario is that, while neither Iran nor America agrees to this latest proposal, the talks continue intermittently because they serve each party’s goals. Iran is using this time to build its nuclear infrastructure. America doesn’t want to face the hard choices that follow from a recognition that diplomacy has failed.

That is why all peace processes or arms control negotiations continue despite the evidence that they achieve nothing. The process itself becomes an end for the West. Meanwhile, the process serves as cover for the West’s enemies.

“We have a miserable, bipartisan track record of not responding to Iranian aggression and terrorism,” Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies observed the other day. Biden has an opportunity to correct the record by demonstrating American strength in response to Iranian outrages. It’s an opportunity he won’t take.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is reacting to the recording-breaking number of illegal immigrants walking through the southern border.

The world’s richest person was replying to reporting from Fox News’s Bill Melugin, who posted on Twitter drone footage of a group of hundreds of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border at Eagle Pass, Texas, into the United States.

In his post, Melugin cited Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics showing border agents to have encountered 400,000 illegal immigrants so far in the Del Rio sector in fiscal year 2022 (since October 2021), a number that’s already more than double the total number of encounters in fiscal year 2021. This number doesn’t include “gotaways”—illegal crossers who evaded apprehension.

Strange that this receives very little attention in the media

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 14, 2022

“Strange that this receives very little attention in the media,” Musk wrote in response to Melugin on Aug. 14.

Musk, a self-portrayed political moderate and a design engineer by trade, has shared his perspective with his 100 million-plus followers on a wide range of issues beyond cars and rockets.

The billionaire’s comments on the border crisis, for example, were the latest in his series of criticism of the current administration and the Democratic Party in general; others include his comments on the influence of labor unions on the Democratic party, the Spygate collusion scandal involving Clinton-affiliated Democrats, and the Biden White House’s alleged sidelining of Tesla’s role in the electric vehicle market.

The Bigger Picture

The backstory to the exchange between Musk and Melugin features an ever-increasing surge in illegal immigration, overextended Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resources, and an administration that actively strives to undo Trump-era “America First” immigration policies.

Eagle Pass is only one of the regions along the southwest border where hundreds of illegal immigrants pour into the United States. From the beginning of fiscal year 2022 on Oct. 1, 2021, to early August this year, border patrol agents apprehended 1.8 million illegal crossers. That’s more than the population of Phoenix, Arizona, the fifth-most populous city in the country, and about 40 percent higher than the total number of apprehensions in the previous fiscal year.

BORDER: Border Patrol agents organize hundreds of illegal immigrants who have streamed across the border from Mexico near Eagle Pass, Texas, on May 20. pic.twitter.com/ftZyyhfTc0

— Charlotte Cuthbertson (@charlottecuthbo) May 21, 2022

The head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), meanwhile, insists that the border is secure, while the Biden administration is kept busy by legal disputes with border states about key Trump migration policies.

One of the policies that the Biden administration began pulling back—following a Supreme Court decision that ruled in its favor—was the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required non-Mexican migrants seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico for processing.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration will continue to enforce the Trump-era immigration and public health policy known as Title 42, a policy instated as a COVID-19 countermeasure that allowed the United States to quickly expel migrants who unlawfully entered the United States and bypassed health screening in the process. A judge blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to lift Title 42 in May.

Another legal battle that will be consequential to border security will play out in the Supreme Court in the fourth quarter of this year, when the highest court will hear a case on whether Biden’s immigration enforcement guidelines constitute executive agency overreach. In July, the Supreme Court allowed a federal judge in Texas to block the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines that, according to the border states’ prosecutors, limit the ability of border agents to detain and deport illegal aliens.

“The Biden Admin’s border record is an absolute failure,” Chad Wolf, former acting DHS secretary in the Trump administration, wrote on Twitter on Aug. 17, following reports of anonymous CBP sources saying that a record-setting 2 million illegal crossers were apprehended since the beginning of fiscal year 2022.

“I encourage Republicans next year to enact strong oversight in this area – specifically how DHS leadership executed an intentional plan to endanger migrants and American communities by refusing to enforce the law,” Wolf wrote.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Thanks to the Inflamatory Reinforcement Act, the poor and conservative will be attacked by the weaponized IRS. This regime sucks so much Chinese wienerschnitzel their eyes are fully white. [US Patriot]

The IRS audited 197 low-income families for every high-wealth family in 2019, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—a number that some experts expected to climb under an IRS turbocharged with more money and manpower.

Over the next decade, the Democrat’s new “Inflation Reduction Act” will provide the IRS with 87,000 new agents and $80 billion in funding, with nearly $46 billion earmarked for enforcement.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax and spend bill is projected to bring in $203.7 billion in revenue from 2022 to 2031.

Joe Biden’s administration has promised no new taxes or audits on households making less than $400,000 per year.

But experts say that promise may be hard to keep.

A previous CBO analysis using a similar funding plan featured in the Inflation Reduction Act found audit rates would be restored to levels around 10 years ago. The analysis showed the audit rates would rise for all taxpayers, but the ones with higher incomes would face the biggest increase.

The oldest data available in the 2022 GAO report released this year were from 2010. That’s when the IRS was better funded and staffed with some 95,000 full-time employees.

From 2010–2019, the IRS audited 0.9 percent across all income groups compared to 0.25 percent now.

Rachel Greszler, a budget and entitlements senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times that even returning to the 2010 audit levels for those making more than $400,000 per year, would still fall short of the IRS’s revenue goal.

“My rough estimate shows that returning to the 2010 audit levels for all income groups would only generate a little over 20 percent of the bills’ estimated enforcement revenues in 2031,” she said.

In her commentary on the Heritage Foundation’s website Aug. 12, Greszler wrote the numbers don’t add up using 2019 data either without the lower- and middle-class.

Even increasing recent audit rates 30-fold for taxpayers making over $400,000—including 100 percent audit rates on taxpayers with incomes over $10 million—still would fall more than 20 percent short of raising the estimated $35.3 billion in new revenues by 2031, she wrote.

So it stands to reason that taxpayers can expect audit rates more like those about a decade ago.

GAO statistics show a larger number of audits in 2010 for taxpayers in the $0–$24,999 tax bracket than the high wealth households. About 579,000 audits were performed on the lowest tax bracket in 2010, compared to 197,000 in 2019.

Yet for the wealthy, high wealth audits of $10 million or more stood at 2,800 in 2010, dipping to 1,000 in 2019.

While a higher percentage of high wealthy households is audited more than poor ones, the lower class sees more audits overall.

A better-funded IRS in 2010 audited the poor much more aggressively than the super wealthy—at a rate of 207 to 1.

In recent years, the IRS audited taxpayers with incomes below $25,000 and those with incomes of $500,000 or more at higher-than-average rates. But, audit rates have dropped for all income levels—with audit rates falling the most for taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more, according to the GAO report.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which is a scaled-down version of Build Back Better negotiated by Democrats Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), took Republicans by surprise. The measure passed the Democratic-controlled Senate and Congress last week through a reconciliation process.

Alarm bells sounded for Republicans after Democrats shot down an amendment to the bill proposed by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) to protect the working class from more audits. Crapo’s amendment stipulated that none of the funds from the Inflation Reduction Act could be used to audit taxpayers making under $400,000 a year. Still, all 50 Democrats in the Senate voted against it.

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said CBO calculated the monetary impact of Crapo’s amendment. Calculations confirmed that had lower- and middle-income taxpayers been protected by the amendment, revenue in the Democrats’ bill would have been reduced by at least $20 billion.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen attempted to clear up “misinformation” about the bill in a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig. She wrote new resources allocated to the IRS “shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels.”

However, her directive isn’t included in the bill, meaning it won’t have the power of law. Tax experts and analysis from the nonpartisan scorekeeper at the CBO indicate Yellen’s promise will likely be broken if the IRS sticks to its income expectations.

“Again, this has no teeth behind it,” said Preston Brashers, a senior tax policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation.

Brashers said it would take time for the audits to start rolling, increasing as the tax agency adds tens of thousands of new agents. Proponents of the bill say a large number of those 87,000 employees will fill jobs lost through attrition, but Brashers said it appears that the agency will almost double in size.

In a press release, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) estimated that the Democrats’ bill would amount to 1.2 million new audits of taxpayers per year. Over 710,000 of these audits would fall on Americans who earn $75,000 a year or less.

“If you’re an American worker making $75,000 a year, you are 4x more likely to see a tax hike from this bill than any tax relief at all. You’re hitting middle class families directly and through higher energy prices as well,” Brady wrote on the Ways and Means GOP Twitter feed.

Audits of Least Resistance

Another taxpayer category likely to be audited more is rural, low-income households claiming an Earned Income Tax Credit, according to the IRS.

Those who claim the EITC credits often make mistakes or don’t understand the rules, which makes auditing these returns low-hanging fruit for the IRS because they don’t require many man hours. The opposite is true of audits of wealthy families who can afford accountants and lawyers.

A much larger number of returns claiming EITC credits are audited compared to the wealthiest households. In 2019, the number of audits of low-income families claiming the EITC credit compared to high wealth audits of $10 million or more was 205 to 1.

In 2010, that ratio was somewhat lower at 177 to 1. However, the number of EITC audits was much greater at 496,000 in 2010 compared to 205,000 audits in 2019.

These refundable credits can provide a sizable refund if the taxpayers are qualified.

Families with three or more children can receive a maximum of $6,242, and households making under $21,000 without children can receive a maximum of $503, according to a 2016 GAO report on refundable tax credits.

James R. McTigue, a director in the GAO’s strategic issues team, told The Epoch Times the IRS and members of Congress are concerned about fraud when it comes to EITC credits because of their value. Tax prep businesses may also give low-income taxpayers bad advice, triggering more audits.

“So the IRS does audit those claiming the EITC credit at a slightly higher rate than they do for people in those lower income categories,” he said.

The GAO report noted that audits of the lowest-income taxpayers, particularly those claiming the EITC, resulted in higher amounts of recommended additional tax per audit hour, compared to all income groups except for the highest-income taxpayers.

But the premise that the IRS isn’t performing well due to lack of funding seems false based on recent revenue numbers, Brashers said, adding that new technology should make the agency more efficient even with lower full time positions.

Tax revenue is on track to reach a whopping 19.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2022, he said.

“The truth of the matter is we are on pace for the second highest year as a percentage of GDP for taxes,” Brashers added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

WORKING AMERICANS ARE SUFFERING TREMENDOUSLY AT THIS TIME OF “ZERO INFLATION.”

Biden claimed on Wednesday, August 10 that, “today we received news that our economy had zero percent inflation in the month of July – zero percent,” despite the fact that the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the measure of inflation, was up 8.5 percent versus July 2021.  While the CPI was down from its 9.1 percent June number, it is still extremely high, and certainly not zero.

The decrease in acceleration of the inflation rate was driven primarily by a decrease in gas prices. Per Bloomberg, “while a drop in gasoline prices is good news for Americans, their cost of living is still painfully high, forcing many to load up on credit cards and drain savings.”  Per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the price of gasoline dropped 7.7 percent in July, but is still up 44 percent for the twelve months ending July 2022, with all energy commodities up 44.9 percent.

On the day the CPI numbers were released (August 10), the national average for a gallon of gas was $4.03, down from record highs of $5.02 per gallon, but significantly higher than the August 2019 average of $2.70 per gallon.  That is nearly $80 more a month to fill-up a 15-gallon tank on a weekly basis, nearly $1,000 more per year.  

The Biden administration has taken credit for the decrease in the price of gas – even though the stated reason for the original increase in the price of gas was the “Putin Price Hike.”  The decrease in the price of gas is actually due to a reduction in demand, as Americans put off summer driving vacations, something many can no longer afford. In addition, the futures markets are worried about the US economy and a further decline in demand as the recession continues to take hold of the economy.  The strong dollar has also helped to drive down demand as well.

So, if the price of gas is down, what is driving 8.5 percent inflation? The two primary drivers are the cost of food and the cost of housing.

The “food at home category, which tracks the cost of groceries, surged 13.1% over the last year, the most significant increase since March 1979.”  This food inflation is hitting basic staples, not just champagne and caviar. Staples such as eggs are up 38 percent, chicken is up 16.6 percent, milk 15.6 percent, potatoes 13.3 percent, rice 12.7 percent, and fresh fruits and vegetables 8.2 percent.

The cost of shelter also continues to rise. “Shelter costs – which account for roughly one-third of the CPI…have climbed 5.7%” over the past year, the fastest since February 1991.

The impact on working-class Americans has been devastating, and the headlines are misleading. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “nonfarm payroll employment rose by 528,000 in July and the unemployment rate edged down to 3.5%.”  The corporate media tells us that this is a huge success for Biden.  However, if you dig into the numbers, it is not all good news.  There are two disturbing statistics contained in the BLS report:

• “The labor force participation rate, at 62.1%, and the employment-population ratio, at 60.8%… remain below their February 2020 values.”
• “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons increased by 303,000 to 3.9 million in July.  The rise reflected the increase in the number of persons whose hours were cut due to slack work or business conditions.”

This means that fewer people are participating in the workforce, which drives the unemployment rate down. And 3.9 million Americans are working at least two jobs just to make ends meet. This is unacceptable in the United States.

The impact of the poorly performing economy is starting to show in the data.

“Midyear 2022 U.S. foreclosure filings hit 164,581,” an increase of 153 percent from the same time period a year ago. In addition, car repossessions are exploding. According to Barron’s, vehicle repossessions have doubled among “prime” borrows, which includes “borrowers with good credit scores.” According to the same article, “most of the loans on recently repossessed cars originated in 2020 and 2021,” showing that much of the COVID stimulus money was spent on cars people could not afford.

Sadly, it doesn’t stop there. “An estimated 34 million US consumers, or roughly 13%, spent more than they earned in the past six months, underscoring how Americans are having difficulty managing their finances amid decades-high inflation.”  

According to the same article, 55.6 percent of Americans have less than $5,000 in savings.This also helps to explain the rapid growth in US consumer borrowing.

“US consumer borrowing surged in June, reflecting a jump in credit card balances and a record increase in non-revolving lending that includes auto and school loans.” The same report showed that “revolving credit outstanding, which includes credit cards, increased $14.8 billion. Non-revolving credit increases $25.4 billion.”

To summarize, we are in a situation where Americans are working multiple jobs, spending more than they earn, losing their homes and cars, eroding their savings, and borrowing more than ever. All of this at a time when, according to Biden, “we have zero inflation.”

It is likely to get even worse. The Federal Reserve is expected to “stick with hawkish rate hikes until data show further slowing in inflation,” with an increase of 50 or 75 basis points likely in September. This will make the exploding credit card debt more expensive to pay as interest rates rise and adjustable-rate mortgages more expensive, which will cause more foreclosures.

Working Americans are suffering tremendously at this time of “zero inflation.”

Ignoring other causes of depression has left millions of Americans without truly effective treatment

“Lexapro appears to relieve the symptoms of depression and anxiety by increasing serotonin,” says an ad on the Bonkers Institute, a website that archives drug ads and also satirizes pharma claims and shaky science.

“Zoloft works to correct a chemical imbalance in the brain which may be related to symptoms of depression,” another ad says.

“Paxil CR blocks serotonin from being reabsorbed back into the sending nerve cell. This process increases the availability of serotonin to the receiving nerve cell and may help message [depression] transmission return to normal,” a third ad says.

As many Epoch Times readers may have heard, the serotonin “chemical imbalance” theory of depression was recently put to rest by a group of University College London (UCL) scientists in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. After reviewing decades of research, there’s no evidence that serotonin levels or serotonin activity are responsible for depression, they wrote.In other words, the theory that was the basis for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants and their tremendously profitable franchise was false.

While the theory has been questioned by scientists for decades, the Molecular Psychiatry research seems to be the final nail in the coffin for the theory—a technical knockout.

“The popularity of the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory of depression has coincided with a huge increase in the use of antidepressants,” said the article’s lead author, Joanna Moncrieff, a professor of psychiatry at UCL. “Prescriptions for antidepressants have risen dramatically since the 1990s.

“Thousands of people suffer from side effects of antidepressants, including the severe withdrawal effects that can occur when people try to stop them, yet prescription rates continue to rise.

“We believe this situation has been driven partly by the false belief that depression is due to a chemical imbalance. It is high time to inform the public that this belief is not grounded in science.”

A Powerful Drug Franchise

It’s hard to overestimate the medical, financial, and sociological consequences of the chemical imbalance theory, which propelled the 1987 FDA approval of the SSRI antidepressant Prozac and which is still followed to this day. Several years ago, Harvard Health Publishing estimated that about 1 in 4 American women in their 40s and 50s were taking antidepressants.

Thanks to direct-to-consumer marketing (or “mongering,” as some say) about depression, people with life problems or occasional bad moods absorbed the chemical imbalance messaging, diagnosed themselves with depression, and presented themselves to doctors’ offices.

Family, job, health, money, or housing problems were no longer a reason for feeling down or defeated, suggested aggressive SSRI advertising campaigns; if you were depressed, you had a chemical imbalance—regardless of whatever else may have accounted for your depression (such as the loss of meaning and social connection often observed in modern society).

Whereas the antidepressants that preceded SSRIs, some called monoamine oxidase inhibitors, were connected to neurotransmitters in the brain such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine, SSRIs reduced the chemistry to a simple problem-solution equation, which the public readily bought. Thanks to the new chemical imbalance of serotonin theory of depression, drugmakers had a formidable new franchise; doctors, a ready-made, patient-pleasing tool; the media, reliable new advertisers; and Wall Street, hot new stocks—all almost overnight. Worldwide sales of SSRIs have been estimated to soar as high as $18.29 billion by 2027.

Response From Mainstream Medicine

Psychiatrists and the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which is highly funded by drugmakers—70 percent of authors of the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition were drugmaker funded, as reported by ABC news—were among the first to push back against the Molecular Psychiatry article. Chief among protestations were “we never promoted the ‘chemical imbalance’ theory”—no, you let drug makers do that, cynics might say—and “no one really understands why or how antidepressants work.”

The “third rail” for drugmaker-funded practitioners is the suggestion that mental illness may not be from physical conditions at all. As Mark Horowitz, co-author of the Molecular Psychiatry article, put it, “One interesting aspect in the studies we examined was how strong an effect adverse life events played in depression, suggesting low mood is a response to people’s lives and cannot be boiled down to a simple chemical equation.”

If depression comes from stress, trauma, grief, loneliness, and social conditions such as poverty, as Horowitz suggests, it wouldn’t be amenable to medication treatment. Worse, if it weren’t a permanent chemical imbalance as the serotonin theory of depression implies, it wouldn’t turn into lifelong medication prescriptions, which drugmakers seek and treasure the most.

“Although viewing depression as a biological disorder may seem like it would reduce stigma, in fact, research has shown the opposite, and also that people who believe their own depression is due to a chemical imbalance are more pessimistic about their chances of recovery,” Moncrieff said.

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who has been called the Conscience of Psychiatry, elaborated on this idea to The Epoch Times:

“Since the ancient Greeks, physicians have wanted to believe the mental and emotional distress must have biological origins. That allowed them to include ‘mental diseases’ within their specialty.

“With the development of massive drug company involvement in routine psychiatric practice during the advent of the antipsychotic drugs in 1954, drug companies also began pushing the biochemical and biological basis of human experiences such as anxiety, depression, manic-depression (now bipolar-disorder), and schizophrenia.

“Then, in the late 1980s, in anticipation of the approval of Prozac for depression by the FDA, Eli Lilly and Company conducted an international advertising campaign claiming that depression is caused by a biochemical imbalance in serotonin. It was apparent from the start that this was pure fantasy.

“In my books and scientific articles as far back as 1983, I pointed out the continuing truth that there are no known biochemical imbalances in the brains of mental patients until they are put there by the neurotoxic effects of all psychiatric drugs.

“Now, a review article by British psychiatrist Johanna Moncrieff has reconfirmed that research fails to show any connection between depression and abnormalities in serotonin metabolism in the brain. No so-called ‘mental illnesses’ are known to be genetic or biochemical in origin—it’s all medical and pharmaceutical company hype.”

Breggin and his wife, Ginger, wrote the new book “COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.”

Don’t Stop SSRIs Abruptly, Warn Both Sides

Whether they believe SSRIs are specious and over-prescribed or valuable treatments, clinicians warn patients not to stop the drugs abruptly.

In 2018, The New York Times exposed that SSRI antidepressants can be difficult to quit and downright addictive (though drugmakers prefer to call the addiction effects a “discontinuation syndrome”). Some patients say they weren’t warned by their doctors that they may be indefinitely parked on the drugs because of the side effects such as dizziness, nausea, headache, and brain zaps that they experience when trying to stop the drugs, the newspaper reported.

Brian, a 29-year-old Chicagoan who asked not to give his last name, said that he has remained on an SSRI antidepressant for years despite his wish to quit.

“Every time I try to stop, I get something that feels like an electrical current in my head, and I can’t do it,” he said.

The NY Times article drew a huge backlash from psychiatrists. “By amplifying the social media echo chamber, the article creates the unfortunate impression that most patients are forced to continue antidepressants out of fear of withdrawal rather than out of prevention of recurrence,” read a letter to the editor signed by a group of 39 psychiatrists, who termed depression as “chronic” and “undertreated.” At least 35 of the letter signers were affiliated with Columbia Universityʼs College of Physicians and Surgeons, an institution that received a $250 million gift from former Merck CEO Roy Vagelos and his wife, Diana, in 2017.

Since their original marketing, SSRI antidepressants are also now known to increase bone loss and fracture risk, as well as the risk of the dreaded intestinal condition of Clostridium difficile.

Then, Why Do SSRIs Work?

It’s generally agreed that SSRI antidepressants sometimes work, though not impressively, and not for all patients. But why? According to a follow-up paper by Moncrieff and Horowitz, “Any drug that changes normal brain activity is likely to have some impact on mood, and … by virtue of changing brain chemistry, antidepressants also produce changes to normal mental activity and experiences.”

Antidepressants also cause numbing of the moods, the researchers say—“including not just sadness and anxiety but welcome emotions like happiness and joy”—which can reduce depression scores, making the drugs appear to be effective.

A paper in the Springer journal Inflammopharmacology suggests a possible SSRI mechanism could be decreasing “neuroinflammation [in the brain] through multiple mechanisms including the reduction of blood or tissue cytokines or regulating complex inflammatory pathways.”

Whatever the explanation, it remains true that other methods to treat depression, including exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy, have proven efficacy with additional benefits and no side effects.

A Final Irony

Even as the premise through which millions of Americans were put on psychoactive drugs has been demolished, raising questions about the interface between medical care and misleading drug marketing, some news outlets have sought to politicize the contretemps.

Many media outlets went on the attack after Fox News host Tucker Carlson said: “First, we were told that SSRIs would save lives. Now, we learn they don’t actually work as intended. In fact, the whole idea behind the drug was completely wrong. And yet—and here is the best part—people are ignoring this news, and the drugs are still being prescribed.”

Rolling Stone magazine published a hit piece portraying Moncrieff as a conspiracy nut with a history of criticizing the over-medication of mental conditions and attributing some mass shootings to psychoactive drugs. The article, “Who Is the Psychiatrist Behind the Antidepressant Study Taking Over Right-Wing Media?”, reveals the 180-degree turn that progressive outlets have taken toward drugmakers since COVID-19—forgiving and forgetting original distrust of corporatism, capitalism, monopolies, and the drugmaker-caused opioid scourge—in order to be able to demonize rivals.

Meanwhile, millions on SSRI antidepressants now face the prospect of quitting.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

White House COVID-19 czar Ashish Jha on Tuesday admitted that the six-foot social distancing rule that was implemented in early 2020 isn’t actually effective.

Over the past several years, “a lot of time” was spent “talking about six feet of distance, 15 minutes of being together. We realize that’s actually not the right way to think about this,” he said during a White House briefing on COVID-19.

“That’s not the most accurate way to think about this,” Jha said, adding that it is about “the quality of air you’re breathing around you.”

In a crowded indoor area with poor ventilation, people can “get infected” with COVID-19 “in minutes,” Jha said, adding that being outdoors you can be “outside for long periods of time” and not get infected.

Jha made those comments in regards to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) having relaxed guidelines around COVID-19. That included dropping the six-foot social distancing rule.

The agency last week rescinded a number of rules and made key updates to its recommendations, now stating that unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals should essentially be treated the same, while explicitly saying that those with a prior infection have protection against severe illness.

Starting in early 2020, federal health agencies issued a recommendation that people keep at least six feet of distance away from one another. Health departments, businesses, corporations, and schools across the United States then adopted the rule, leading to restrictions such as capacity limits and lockdowns.

‘Nobody Knows’

A former administration for the Food and Drug Administration, Scott Gottlieb, revealed in late 2021 that the six-foot rule was made up.

“Nobody knows where it came from,” Gottlieb, a Pfizer board member, told CBS News. “Most people assume that the six feet of distance, the recommendation for keeping six feet apart, comes out of some old studies related to flu, where droplets don’t travel more than six feet.”

The CDC, he said, initially recommended a 10-foot rule, and the six-foot rule was a compromise between the federal health agency and Trump administration officials.

“So the compromise was around six feet. Now imagine if that detail had leaked out. Everyone would have said, ‘This is the White House politically interfering with the CDC’s judgment.’ The CDC said 10 feet, it should be 10 feet, but 10 feet was no more right than six feet and ultimately became three feet,” Gottlieb remarked.

The CDC also said in its update that it’s no longer recommending unvaccinated people to quarantine after exposure. Unvaccinated people who have been in close contact with an infected person aren’t advised to go through a five-day quarantine period if they haven’t tested positive or shown symptoms, according to the revised guidelines.

Regardless of vaccination status, according to the CDC, “you should isolate from others when you have COVID-19” or are “sick and suspect that you have COVID-19 but do not yet have test results.” Previously, the CDC said fully vaccinated people who were exposed could skip the quarantine period.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump suggested that the Jan. 6 committee should be dissolved, following the defeat of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) in a GOP primary on Aug. 16, calling the vote a “referendum” and that “the people have spoken.”

“Congratulations to Harriet Hageman on her great and very decisive WIN in Wyoming. This is a wonderful result for America, and a complete rebuke of the Unselect Committee of political Hacks and Thugs,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Aug. 16.

“Liz Cheney should be ashamed of herself, the way she acted, and her spiteful, sanctimonious words and actions towards others,” Trump continued. “Now she can finally disappear into the depths of political oblivion where, I am sure, she will be much happier than she is right now.”

“Thank you WYOMING!” Trump added.

Cheney was defeated by Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman, a natural resources attorney from Fort Laramie. As of early Wednesday morning, the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office reported (pdf) that Hageman garnered 113,025 votes, compared to Cheney’s 49,316.

The result was not unexpected, considering that nearly 70 percent of Wyoming residents voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Cheney is one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump and serves as the co-chair of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.

The third-term incumbent from Wyoming is the fourth Republican who voted for Trump’s impeachment to be defeated by candidates endorsed by the former president. The other three are Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), and Tom Rice (R-S.C.).

“I assume that with the very big Liz Cheney loss, far bigger than had ever been anticipated, the January 6th Committee of political Hacks and Thugs will quickly begin the beautiful process of DISSOLUTION?” Trump wrote in another Truth Social post on Tuesday.

“This was a referendum on the never ending Witch Hunt. The people have spoken!” Trump added.

During her concession speech on Tuesday, Cheney called out Trump directly.

“I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Donald Trump is never anywhere near the Oval Office and I mean it. I love my country more,” she said. “This primary election is over. But now the real work begins.”

Writing on Truth Social, Trump said Cheney’s speech was “uninspiring.”

“Liz Cheney’s uninspiring concession speech, in front of a ‘tiny’ crowd in the Great State of Wyoming, focused on her belief that the 2020 Presidential Election was not, despite massive and conclusive evidence to the contrary, Rigged & Stolen,” Trump wrote. “It was, and that’s not even counting the fact that many election changes, in numerous States, were not approved by State Legislatures, an absolute must.”

Hageman will now face Democratic nominee Lynnette Grey Bull in the Nov. 8 general election, in the fight for Wyoming’s lone seat in the House of Representatives.

Several GOP lawmakers have welcomed Hageman’s victory on Tuesday.

“Congratulations to Harriet Hageman on her massive Republican primary victory in Wyoming over Nancy Pelosi’s puppet Liz Cheney. I was proud to join President Trump and Leader Kevin McCarthy in endorsing Harriet,” House GOP Conference Chairwoman Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a statement.

“Harriet is a true America First patriot who will restore the people of Wyoming’s voice, which Liz Cheney had long forgotten,” Stefanik continued. “I cannot wait for Harriet to join Republicans in Congress so that we can stay laser-focused on our work to save America. ”

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, echoed Trump’s comment about the Jan. 6 committee.

“Tonight was not just a defeat for Liz Cheney, but a massive rejection of the sham ‘Jan 6’ witch hunt Committee and the authoritarian politics of the DC establishment,” Miller wrote on Twitter. “Congrats to my friend Harriet Hageman, President Trump & the MAGA movement!”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Joe Biden is set to cancel $3.9 billion in student loans, announcing that the federal government will discharge all remaining federal student loans for students who attended the ITT Technical Institute.

The student loan borrowers who attended the now-defunct institute will receive a discharge through “borrower defense to repayment” according to Forbes and do not need to apply to have their loans canceled.

“It is time for student borrowers to stop shouldering the burden from ITT’s years of lies and false promises. The evidence shows that for years, ITT’s leaders intentionally misled students about the quality of their programs in order to profit off federal student loan programs, with no regard for the hardship this would cause,” Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona said.

“The Biden-Harris Administration will continue to stand up for borrowers who’ve been cheated by their colleges while working to strengthen oversight and enforcement to protect today’s students from similar deception and abuse.”

The ITT Technical Institute was a well-known private technical institute based in Indiana with approximately 140 satellite campuses all over the United States. The institute operated until announcing on Sept. 6, 2016, that it would “discontinue academic operations at all of its ITT Technical Institutes permanently”.

Since taking the White House in 2021 Biden has canceled almost $32 billion in student loans, essentially subsidizing the educational expenses of a combined 1.8 million borrowers spread across “borrower defense to student loan repayment and school closures,” “public service loan forgiveness” and “total or permanent disability”.

Democrats continue to call for Biden to “#CancelStudentDebt“, a move that conservatives believe would obfuscate the transfer of debt from the individual borrowers to the American taxpayer.

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jaypal of Washington urged Biden to cancel all student debt.

Student loan payments are set to resume in 16 days. With the stroke of a pen, @POTUS can bring relief to millions of people across the country. Let’s get it done.

— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) August 15, 2022

Representative Cori Bush of Missouri also joined the refrain.

Right now, millions of people are living in limbo, unsure if student loan payments will resume in 16 days. Canceling student debt would provide immense relief to numerous borrowers.@POTUS, now is the time. #CancelStudentDebt

— Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) August 15, 2022

Conversely, Republicans have heavily criticized student loan forgiveness.

“Expansive student loan forgiveness does nothing to solve the problems in higher education and exacerbates the economic disaster fueled by the President’s lack of fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said according to Forbes.

Revolving Door: Biden Adviser Forced to Divest Stock Portfolio, Recuse Herself from Decisions Involving Corporate Clients

“Time and again, Biden operates as if he can issue any decree he wants on student loan forgiveness, even if it means exercising authority that he does not have.”

In an Op-Ed for Fox News, Foxx and Sen. Richard Burr, also of North Carolina, wrote, “By caving to progressives, Biden is breaking his promise to over 100 million taxpayers without student debt who are subsidizing this boondoggle.”

They pointed the finger squarely at their Democrat colleagues in Congress, “Yet, when in the position to actually legislate, House and Senate Democrats are (un)surprisingly quiet on student loan debt. Rather than do their jobs, top Democrats are asking the president to do their dirty work for them, calling for an additional extension through the end of the year and debt forgiveness by executive fiat.”

The GOP legislators also voiced concerns that the proposed student loan cancelation would “easily push inflation above 9 percent” back in April when the piece was written.

Inflation hit 9.1 percent in June before pulling back slightly to 8.5 percent in July, according to Trading Economics.

central pillar of the just-passed Inflation Reduction Act is $80 billion going to the IRS to hire some 87,000 new agents, doubling the current force, to chase down U.S. taxpayers who allegedly are not meeting their tax obligations.

The rationale is we have a large national budget deficit — that is, government is bringing in less money than it spends — so a larger army of IRS agents chasing down tax deadbeats will help solve our nation’s fiscal problems.

But part of this same new law in which U.S. taxpayers are asked to spend $80 billion to hire more IRS agents to shake down their neighbors who are supposedly not paying their fair share, there is $430 billion in new government spending, a large portion of which is earmarked for green energy projects of various shapes and forms.

At the same time that we’re expanding our army of tax collectors, we continue to expand government and spending at an even faster pace.

The Congressional Budget Office has just released its latest Long-Term Budget Outlook, and here we get a broader picture of the problem.

According to the report, “From 1972 to 2021, total federal outlays averaged 21% of GDP; over 2022-2052 period, such outlays are projected to average 26% of GDP.”

The Congressional Budget Office projects that government will take on average 5% more from our national economy in the next 30 years than it did on average over the last 50 years.

Looking at our GDP in 2022, roughly $25 trillion, at 26% of GDP, government spending will be over a trillion dollars more than it would have been at 21%.

A trillion dollars more in spending on average per year, with another 87,000 IRS agents running after taxpayers to make sure they pay up.

So, the bigger army of tax collectors is about helping raise money to finance ongoing expansion of government and increasing control of government over the lives of private Americans.

Why, as someone whose business is trying to improve the lives of low-income Americans, do I care about this?

Turning pages forward in the CBO report, we get to the really shocking information.

From 1992 to 2021, per CBO, the average growth of the U.S. economy was 2.4% per year. CBO projects that from 2022 to 2052 the average growth of the U.S. economy will be 1.7% per year.

This should shock every American, and it’s getting hardly any attention.

The more our national economy is controlled by government and politicians, the more sluggish will be growth of our economy.

It stands to reason. Growth comes from entrepreneurs, work, creativity. More government means less of all these things and slower growth.

Slower growth means lower income and less opportunity.

Anyone who cares about helping those who want to get ahead in America should be cheering for faster growth and less government rather than more government and slower growth.

Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane has pointed out that from 1950 to 2000, the U.S. economy grew at 3.5% per year. Real income per person went from $16,000 in 1950 to $50,000 in 2000. If the economy grew from 1950 to 2000 at 2% instead of 3.5%, notes Cochrane, income in 2000 would have risen to just $23,000 rather than $50,000.

It’s why, as someone who cares about helping low-income Americans get ahead and improve their lot, I care about a growing dynamic economy, not a bloated, sclerotic economy controlled by politicians and Washington special interests.

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act takes matters in the exact opposite direction in which we should be going. Pretending to care about the nation’s fiscal imbalances while adding $430 billion in new spending, all of it driven and defined by Washington special interests, is the problem, not the solution.

SOURCE: Right and Free

Border security group supports Republican over Dem challenger Mandela Barnes

A leading border security advocacy group is throwing its support behind Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) in his reelection bid, citing the lawmaker’s “unique insight into the root cause of the out-of-control flood of illegal immigrants and deadly drugs into our country.”

The National Border Patrol Council, an advocacy group comprised of some 18,000 Border Patrol agents, said Johnson—a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee—”has devoted more time and attention to securing our border than virtually any other member of Congress,” according to a statement by the group provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

Johnson is facing a tough reelection battle in Wisconsin as Democrats try to flip the seat for challenger Mandela Barnes, the state’s far-left lieutenant governor, who is being bankrolled by anti-police groups. In an election cycle where the porous southern border is likely to galvanize voters, Johnson’s endorsement by the National Border Patrol Council could help tip the scales in his favor.

“The National Border Patrol Council has personally witnessed Senator Johnson’s dedication to and care for all Wisconsinites,” the group said in its statement. “Wisconsin and America need Senator Johnson’s strong voice, caring spirit, and leadership in the U.S. Senate, which is why we are proud to endorse Senator Johnson to continue to be your advocate.”

Johnson, the group said, was instrumental in Operation Safe Return, a bipartisan federal program initiated in 2019 that humanely deported illegals back to their countries of origin. The program was used as a model by the Department of Homeland Security when it developed its own programs to reduce the flow of undocumented children and families into America.

“By reducing the number of illegal border crossers, Senator Johnson was instrumental in allowing law enforcement to target criminal cartels and their profit,” the group said.

Johnson is one of the most vocal proponents for increased border security and policies that will help stem the flow of undocumented migrants into the United States. Apprehensions at the border have crossed 4,000 per day on Biden’s watch, according to figures published by Customs and Border Protection. The crisis has spiraled as drug cartels exploit children and families seeking to illegally enter America, leading to an increase in rape, crime, and other instances of abuse. Nearly 8,000 illegals are believed to be crossing the border each day, according to Johnson.

Experts expect two million illegal immigrant encounters in this fiscal year, according to research published Tuesday by the Republican National Committee.

“President Biden completely dismantled the very policies that had ended the surge. The border is now in a crisis that far exceeds anything during the previous administrations and the media is silent,” Johnson’s office said in an analysis published on his website.

Johnson has organized congressional trips to the border, most recently in July. The senator met with law enforcement officials to discuss the challenges they face, and he also spent time with local landowners to discuss the fallout they are facing due to the rising number of illegals.

“Open borders, a flood of illegal immigrants, a flood of deadly drugs, 40-year high inflation, record gasoline prices—these things didn’t just happen,” Johnson said during a press conference at the time. “These are the direct result of [Biden’s] policies. But if you look very closely at this chart, we pretty well had the border solved. That’s just another tragedy here. We had this problem fixed until Democrat presidential candidates started talking about the fact they would not deport and they would offer illegal immigrants free health care.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

House candidate scrubs radical views from campaign site after bitter primary fight

South Texas Democrat Michelle Vallejo won a bitter primary fight by embracing a slew of far-left policies. Now, the congressional hopeful is abandoning those progressive positions as she approaches a difficult general election campaign.

Vallejo emerged from a tight primary runoff in Texas’s 15th Congressional District in May, defeating fellow Democrat Ruben Ramirez by just 30 votes. At the time, the self-described “progressive small business owner” was openly touting her support for Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee, and student debt cancellation—policy positions that landed her endorsements from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.). Vallejo’s campaign site also expressed resentment for America’s “racist criminal legal system” and called to protect “trans and queer South Texans.”

But now, as Vallejo faces an uphill general election battle against Republican Monica De La Cruz, she’s running away from the same policies that helped her attract liberal primary voters just a few months ago. Between late July and mid August, internet archives show, the Democrat updated her campaign site to remove all mentions of “Medicare For All,” a “federal jobs guarantee program,” and the need to “forgive all student loan debt.” Vallejo’s “LGBTQ+ Justice” section, meanwhile, no longer includes the word “trans,” and the Democrat’s border policy blurb now calls to invest in the same immigration enforcement system she used to call “racist.”

Vallejo’s campaign site overhaul is an obvious attempt from the progressive Democrat to rebrand herself as a moderate as she runs in a newly drawn district that President Donald Trump won by nearly 3 points. It’s also an implicit admission that the Democratic Party’s liberal wing has become too “woke” for many South Texas Hispanics—a development that Republicans say has helped them make inroads in the Rio Grande Valley, a historic Democratic stronghold.

Still, Vallejo’s decision to abandon the progressive positions that defined her primary campaign could divide the district’s Democratic voters with November fast approaching. In addition to Warren and Jayapal, Vallejo earned a primary election endorsement from Lupe Votes, a liberal South Texas group that supports Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, and other progressive policies. Texas College Democrats also backed Vallejo ahead of the May primary, citing the Democrat’s “unapologetically progressive campaign.” Neither of those groups returned requests for comment. Vallejo’s campaign also did not return a request for comment.

As a whole, almost none of Vallejo’s pre-primary policy “priorities” made it to her general election campaign site.

The Democrat’s health care section used to be titled “Health Care for All” and included explicit support for a “single-payer universal healthcare system.” That section is now labeled “Affordable High Quality Health Care” and replaces the call for Medicare for All with a watered-down pledge to “expand Medicare.”

Similarly, Vallejo removed the word “climate” from her energy policy header. She also replaced her support for a Green New Deal-esque “federal jobs guarantee”—which would cost up to $44.6 trillion—with a line touting the “bipartisan infrastructure law that will bring billions of dollars to South Texas.”

Vallejo also touts her newfound bipartisan bonafides in her updated policy sections on the southern border and Second Amendment.

Her “Immigration” policy blurb—which used to be titled “Embracing the Border + Immigration Justice”—no longer attacks America’s “racist criminal legal system” and calls to “pass a pathway to Citizenship for all 11 million undocumented Americans.” Instead, it states the need to make “an investment in border infrastructure” and only naturalize illegal immigrants “who have worked hard, followed the law and contributed to their communities.” Vallejo added a line to her “End Gun Violence” section, meanwhile, that ensures voters that the Democrat “grew up shooting at gun ranges and hunting on family ranches” and “strongly supports the bipartisan gun safety bill written by Texas Sen. John Cornyn.”

Beyond the border and gun rights, Vallejo’s “LGBTQ+ Justice” policy portion once said “lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer South Texans deserve equal protection and justice.” It now reads, “Every South Texan deserves equal protection and justice.” Furthermore, Vallejo’s new segment on “Affordable Education” was once titled “Free Public College and Trade School + Eliminating Student Debt.” The Democrat’s updated version no longer calls to “forgive all student debt,” but it does note that Vallejo is “still paying off her student loans,” which she acquired as an Ivy League student at Columbia University in New York City.

There is one policy position, however, that Vallejo is standing by after her primary win. Both her old and new issue pages stress the need to “end mandatory minimum sentencing, cash bail, solitary confinement, private prisons, qualified immunity, and prioritizing investing in mental health resources and services for our community.”

Vallejo’s decision to abandon her public support for various left-wing policies comes after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee added the South Texas congressional hopeful to its “Red to Blue” program, which “arms top-tier candidates with organizational and fundraising support to help them continue to develop strong campaigns and win in November.” It’s unclear if the group had a hand in Vallejo’s flip-flopping, as the DCCC did not return a request for comment.

Vallejo will face De La Cruz in November. The Republican in 2020 narrowly lost to incumbent Democrat Vicente Gonzalez in a closer-than-expected race—Gonzalez subsequently opted to run in a nearby district that is more solidly blue. De La Cruz, who describes herself as a “proud small business owner” and “woman of strong faith,” has raised $2.9 million to Vallejo’s $700,000.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

John Bridgeland worked on Obama White House council, cheered Biden victory

On the campaign trail, Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio) touts the endorsement of a man named John Bridgeland as evidence of his cross-party appeal.

There are just a few details the congressman leaves out, at least when he’s trying to win over voters in his increasingly red state: Bridgeland worked in the Obama administration, celebrated Joe Biden’s election, and cofounded a nonprofit dedicated to remaking policing.

The founder of “Republicans for Tim Ryan,” Bridgeland has worked on left-wing policy initiatives for years. Former president Barack Obama in 2010 appointed Bridgeland to the White House Council for Community Solutions. Bridgeland also cofounded a firm, COVID Collaborative, that works with the Biden administration on vaccine messaging. In December 2020, Bridgeland wrote an op-ed for the website of Maria Shriver, a Democratic activist and member of the Kennedy family, about how he was “so encouraged” by Biden’s win.

Democrats touting endorsements from nominal Republicans who routinely attack the Republican Party is a familiar strategy. Lawmakers who have been rubber stamps for Biden’s agenda, such as Ryan, are hoping that voters forget their records. Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.), who is running in a competitive race this cycle, recently released a list of endorsements from Republicans, several of whom work for the the Lincoln Project, an activist group dedicated to electing Democrats but helmed by individuals who once considered themselves Republicans. 

Bridgeland’s endorsement comes as Ryan seeks to separate himself from the president. Biden’s approval rating is 23 points underwater in Ohio—a state that former president Donald Trump won twice. When Biden traveled to Ohio for a speech last month, Ryan scheduled campaign stops hundreds of miles away.

Ryan shared Bridgeland’s endorsement on Twitter and wrote he was “proud” to have Bridgeland on his “team.”

“Republicans for Ryan is a platform for Republicans to sign up to help Tim Ryan. I am a registered Republican and vote in Republican primaries and in general elections,” Bridgeland told the Free Beacon. “I believe in limited, effective government, … civil society and the nonprofit and private sectors, and respecting both individual rights and responsibilities.”

Bridgeland worked from the mid-1990s to 2003 as a senior official in then-representative Rob Portman’s (R., Ohio) office and in former president George W. Bush’s administration. In an op-ed for a local Ohio newspaper, Bridgeland wrote that he supports Ryan’s “love of our democracy” and “many of his policies.”

Bridgeland attacked Ryan’s Republican Senate challenger, J.D. Vance, as “lacking the energy of the U.S. senator he is trying to replace—Rob Portman.” Portman endorsed Vance immediately after Vance in May won the Republican nomination.

Bridgeland’s endorsement of Ryan was leaked to Politico days prior as part of a story about the Ryan campaign’s strategy of appealing to Republican voters. That story also featured Bridgeland speaking favorably about Ryan and how Ryan could make inroads with Republican voters in Ohio. Missing from Politico‘s story was any mention of Bridgeland’s work since he left the Bush administration in 2003.

Ryan did not respond to a request for comment.

Other than Bridgeland, no appointees with experience in Republican politics were appointed to Obama’s White House community solutions council. There, Bridgeland worked alongside the likes of Laurene Powell Jobs and Jon Bon Jovi to provide advice to the president on “innovative community solutions and civic participation by all Americans.”

Bridgeland later cofounded ACT NOW, a nonprofit that works “to reimagine ‘public safety’ … and eliminate the root causes of systemic racism.” ACT NOW’s staff includes Ray C. Kelly, who in 2018 received an award from George Soros’s Open Society Institute-Baltimore.

According to internal voter data obtained by the Free Beacon, Bridgeland voted in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. A June column he wrote for the Cincinnati Enquirer called for new gun control measures. The column also touted his work with a group called the People’s Filibuster for Gun Safety. That group, according to its website, partners with left-wing nonprofits such as the Anti-Defamation League and March for Our Lives to pass gun-control legislation.

Bridgeland’s cheerleading for Biden appears out of step with Republican voters. Following Biden’s State of the Union address in March, Bridgeland celebrated the speech as passionate and “articulating values and ideas that transcend our divisions.” A Reuters poll released Aug. 9 found 86 percent of self-identified Republicans disapprove of Biden.

Ryan will face Vance in November. There is little high-quality polling of the race available, although most political analysts believe Vance is the favorite. Portman’s seat has been held by a Republican since 1999.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Oregon Democrat warned that wealthy business owners could abuse the loan program. Financial disclosures suggest his wife did just that.

Oregon Democratic senator Ron Wyden warned early in the pandemic that wealthy business owners could abuse the Paycheck Protection Program. Financial disclosures suggest his wife did just that.

Nancy Bass Wyden, the multimillionaire owner of New York’s Strand bookstore, received $2.7 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans between 2020 and 2021 and nonetheless went on to lay off 180 employees. Small businesses were eligible for the federally forgiven loans on the condition that they used a majority of the funds to keep employees on the payroll. In October 2020, Bass Wyden told CBS News that the Strand would not rehire many of those employees and that the store would “have to give back part of the loan due to the forgiveness rules.”

But as of September of last year, the federal government had forgiven both loans, ProPublica reported. The Small Business Administration declined to comment and the Strand did not respond to the Washington Free Beacon’s requests for comments on the loans.

The Paycheck Protection Program came under fire in 2020 for shelling out millions to billionaire real estate investors. Other family members of Democrats also got in line for handouts, including the multimillionaire father of then-Senate candidate Jon Ossoff (D.) who scored as much as $1 million from the program. Businesses like the Strand were able to line their pockets and lay off dozens of workers without rehiring them as long as 60 percent of the money went to payroll expenses.

Wyden and a group of senators pushed then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Small Business Administrator Jovita Carranza in April 2020 “to develop strong supervisory mechanisms to identify instances of unjust enrichment” for the program.

“Every loan that provides a windfall for an applicant who does not truly need it results in one fewer loan made to a struggling small business owner whose employees could be truly helped by this funding,” the senators wrote in a letter.

Wyden’s wife refused to rehire many of the employees she fired even after the Strand received its PPP loans, leaving the bookstore “woefully understaffed,” according to the union that represents the workers. She pleaded with the public to purchase more books in late 2020, saying the store’s revenue had plummeted 70 percent and that loans and cash reserves were “depleted.” The Strand said it was “impossible” to rehire all staff even with the paycheck loan boost.

“The limited sales we make now plus the PPP loan are the only things keeping our staff paid,” a Strand spokesman told Vulture in March 2021. “So until in-store sales bounce back, this is the best we can do.”

Bass Wyden earned as much as $3 million in book sales during the layoffs, according to her husband’s annual financial disclosures. The Oregonian reported in 2011 the couple’s net worth is between $12 million and $56 million.

The couple purchased millions of dollars’ worth of stock in 2020 that appreciated substantially following lockdowns, including as much as $600,000 in shares of Amazon, a prime competitor with independent bookstores.

An inspector general’s report in May found many Americans took advantage of the PPP loans as the Small Business Administration had no plan to counter fraud. One former U.S. attorney dubbed the program “the biggest fraud in a generation.”

Bass Wyden inherited the Strand from her father Ben Bass. Her children are next in line to take control of the 90-year-old bookstore next, according to the Strand’s website.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon