Tobacco-Free Future – Moving Forward Or Backwards?
In France, a new ban limiting smoking in several public outdoor places went into effect on July 1, marking a major step for the country once known as a nation of smokers.
Bhutan, the Himalayan nation, was the world’s first officially smoke-free country when it outlawed the import and sale of tobacco in 2004. Bhutan has become famous for its different approach to governance, which has been admired in the West, for example calculating gross national happiness or mandating that 60% of the country remain forested. But even the remote nation that cited Buddhist teachings as a reason for its tobacco ban has not been immune to outside influence and axed the majority of its ban in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic to stop smugglers which were spreading the disease. Since then, the country’s government has decided not to reinstate and instead focus on education and cessasion programs, as the ban did not actually lower smoking rates and instead created an environment free of warnings around the tobacco which was still available illegally.
More recently, New Zealand attempted to raise a smoke-free generation from 2027 onwards by not allowing anyone born in 2009 or later to legally purchase cigarettes once they turned 18, alongside many other anti-tobacco measures. The country’s approach was that of a more gradual phase-out rather than a sudden ban but its merits won’t be tested as a change in government prompted the law enacted in 2022 to be scrapped despite reportedly having widespread public support. A new conservative coalition government decided to change course after coming to power in 2023, reportedly at the request of the populist New Zealand First party. Tobacco revenue was consecutively tied to new tax cuts. This highlights another area of concern with tobacco bans and phase-outs: the cost of prevention and tax revenue losses in the short term, even though these are expected to be offset by lower public healthcare costs. However, the United Kingdom is currently mulling a similar ban that is yet to be enacted but enjoys government and public support as of now.
The New Zealand government meanwhile said that it remained committed to creating a smoke-free nation nevertheless. Several countries, including Portugal, Canada and Australia, have set similar goals, typically aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5 percent or less in the next five to 15 years. The EU, for example, has set this date to 2040. One popular rule to inch closer to this goal has been to further limit smoking in public outdoor areas like restaurant and bar patios, beaches, parks, natural areas or even inner city streets. The aforementioned countries, sometimes on a state level, have introduced bans like these, as have several other nations around the world. Cities have also followed suit and a well-reported ban went into effect in Milan at the beginning of the year, outlawing smoking anywhere near other people, similar to the law in place in Costa Rica.
The WHO concludes that more than 6 billion people, or around 75 percent of the world population, are now covered by some kind of tobacco control measure, including graphic warnings on cigarette packages, increases in taxation, advertising bans and programs that help people quit smoking. According to the organization, less than 20 percent of the world population currently smokes, down from more than 32 percent in the year 2000. 80 percent of these people are located in middle or low income countries and are more likely males as smoking continues to be the biggest cause of preventable death globally.
Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, a lawyer described as far-left, is poised to become a new judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany’s top court, and it is very bad news for Germany’s conservatives. This new development could significantly increase the chances that a ban on the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party actually passes through the court.
The governing coalition, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democrats (CDU), has agreed on the SPD candidate, who has gained public attention for her strong opinions. The news comes after the SPD voted on an AfD ban in a unanimous motion at the end of their three-day party congress last week.
Brosius-Gersdorf is on record that she wants a ban on the AfD, saying: “We are a resilient democracy. We have safeguards against anti-constitutional parties.”
A year ago, on the ZDF talk show “Markus Lanz” on July 25, 2024, Brosius-Gersdorf controversially expressed regret that an AfD ban “would not eliminate its supporters.”
When Lanz, puzzled, asked, “You don’t want to eliminate people?”, she replied, “Of course not.” However, she insisted on the possibility of depriving AfD members of their basic rights, including the right to be elected, stating, “We have the ability to deprive individuals of their basic rights.”
Following her expected appointment to Karlsruhe, where the Constitutional Court is headquartered, Brosius-Gersdorf is also considered a frontrunner for the position of President of the Federal Constitutional Court. That means the court, made up of 16 judges, would be led by the far-left judge, which could prove catastrophic for not only the AfD, but also present a major problem for libertarians, supporters of free speech, and social conservatives.
Governments come and go, but Brosius-Gersdorf will be in her position for a very long time, and she will wield enormous power.
Beyond her stance on the AfD, she was a strong advocate for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, arguing in 2021 that the German constitution, the Basic Law, already suggested that this would be a necessity. She wrote, “One can even consider whether there is now a constitutional obligation to introduce mandatory vaccination.” Furthermore, she stated, “It is the state’s responsibility to effectively protect the vast majority of the population, who have been voluntarily vaccinated, from their health (…) continuing to be threatened by the unvaccinated.”
Notably, it turned out that vaccination did not stop the spread of the illness, a contention by numerous health authorities that turned out to be absolutely false.
Her statements about mandatory vaccination have already led CDU Bundestag member Saskia Ludwig to declare Brosius-Gersdorf “unelectable” on Tuesday.
Unwählbar! Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf: „Es ist Aufgabe des Staates, die große Mehrheit der Bevölkerung, die freiwillig geimpft ist, wirksam davor zu schützen, dass ihre Gesundheit…weiterhin von Ungeimpften bedroht wird.“ #BVerfGhttps://t.co/DF2Si5gH4Qpic.twitter.com/WiEAm88QbM
There are other areas where Brosius-Gersdorf could prove a bane to conservatives and the right in Germany, including on social issues.
The designated constitutional judge has also called for the German Basic Law to adopt “gender-appropriate” language, as reported by German media outlet Apollo News. She argued that the generic masculine, as standard language, leads to “a conceptual underrepresentation of women,” and that the state is obligated to “choose a form of expression that does justice to the fundamental rights of women and persons of diverse genders, as well as to the constitution.”
This has to do with the German language, which has masculine and feminine words, and in many cases, there is an emphasis on the masculine form, which many German feminists reject as outdated.
It remains unclear why the CDU would back this candidate. Following protests from the SPD and the Greens, the CDU/CSU withdrew their nomination of conservative Federal Administrative Court judge Robert Seegmüller for the Federal Constitutional Court. They are now putting forward Federal Labor Court judge Günter Spinner. The SPD is also nominating Munich professor Ann-Katrin Kaufhold. For these candidates to be elected, the coalition factions, the SPD and the CDU/CSU, require a two-thirds majority, meaning the Greens and the Left Party must also agree.
Brosius-Gersdorf represents a serious obstacle to not only the AfD, but also the CDU on a range of issues. The CDU, for instance, has taken issue with gendered language, which is a hot cultural topic in Germany. If the CDU backs this candidate, it is likely to pay the price for years to come.
Before any potential AfD ban, the Bundestag must first vote to pass a ban proposal. So far, the CDU has rejected such a ban, with Chancellor Merz stating that it reeked of eliminating a political rival. Other top CDU officials have rejected a ban. However, if the CDU comes around to the idea, the Constitutional Court may be much more willing to pass such a ban under the potential leadership of Brosius-Gersdorf.
“Buckle The F**k Up”: Trumpworld Rages At GOP Holdouts After Tax Bill Stalls In House
Update (0018ET): Wednesday night came and went without the House GOP advancing the ‘Big Beautiful Bill Act’ to the floor for debate, after roughly a dozen Republicans stood their ground.
As such, things have officially gotten ugly – with longtime Trump aides Jason Miller and Chris LaCivita telling the holdouts that they can either vote with Trump, “or you can vote with the Democrats.”
“Buckle the fuck up,” said Miller, adding It’s a binary choice”
Top White House aide Stephen Miller, meanwhile, demanded that Republicans “stand with Trump” to show loyalty to the man who had peen persecuted by “the communist left.”
Earlier in the evening, a procedural vote on adopting the rule for floor consideration of the Big Beautiful Bill was open for more than 2.5 hours, as Speaker Mike Johnson scrambled convince the holdouts to vote yes.
Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert indicated she’s sticking with her fellow Freedom Caucus members on any rule vote.
“Not tonight,” she said, before several of the hard-liners huddled again, this time in Johnson’s office. -Politico
Rep. Thomas Massie told the NY Times that he switched his vote to ‘no’ on the rule because if it ends up being the only vote on the BBB, he doesn’t want to be on record as having voted for it.
“If it goes down, I can’t be a yes,” said Massie, who’s been a hard ‘no’ on the bill for weeks. That said, his comments seem to indicate that if his party is able to advance the procedural measure, he’d switch back and support bringing up the bill.
Needless to say, July 4th looks like a pipe dream from here – then again, we’ve seen these grifting gasbags shake a tail like nobody’s business when vacation is on the line.
* * *
Stay tuned… and maybe buy a hat or our personal favorite Anza knife?
Update (2300ET): A dramatic scene is unfolding on the House floor, as four Republicans have voted ‘nay’ on the Senate-revised version of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ – when House Speaker Mike Johnson could only afford three.
According to Fox News‘ Chad Pergram; ‘A 216-216 tie loses by rule. Dems got all of their members there and stuck together GOP needs to flip 1 mbr so long as other Republicans don’t vote no.’
So now the question is; will someone flip?
FOUR Republicans are voting against the rule vote: Reps. Andrew Clyde, Victoria Spartz, Keith Self, and Brian Fitzpatrick.
The first three often vote against rules, that block moving the bill forward. But Fitzpatrick, a moderate in a district Harris won, is a surprise.
— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaReports) July 3, 2025
* * *
Update (1450ET): Are we having fun yet? Major divisions within the House threaten to derail the Big Beautiful Bill, with Speaker Mike Johnson struggling to overcome resistance by fiscal conservatives.
Earlier in the day the House appeared ready to hold a test vote, however several conservative Republicans raised objections – suggesting that Johnson might not have the votes to move forward, given that he can only afford a handful of defections on the measure.
As of midday, at least two Republicans were a hard ‘no’ on the bill in its current form.
Meanwhile Rep. Thomas Massie says he has the votes to block it…
Thomas Massie enthusiastically tells me he has a “vote bloc of 10” Republican members who are NO’s on the Senate’s reconciliation bill.
President Trump, meanwhile, met with holdouts at the White House as Democrats and Republicans argued over the merits of the bill on the House floor.
At the end of the day, Johnson has little room for maneuvering – as any changes to the bill would send it back to the Senate for further deliberation that could drag on for weeks.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus are livid over measures added to the Senate that increases costs.
“The Senate doesn’t get to be the final say on everything. We’ve got to work this out,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Wednesday morning, adding that there are enough Republicans “right now” who wanted to reopen the bill and don’t care about the July 4 recess deadline.
More moderate Republicans objected to Medicaid cuts approved by the Senate that went deeper than the House’s May iteration.
* * *
After months of grinding negotiations, late-night Senate rewrites, and bruising intra-party fights, House Republicans are careening toward a moment of reckoning. Speaker Mike Johnson is pressing ahead this week with a vote on the party’s massive reconciliation package — a cornerstone of President Donald J. Trump’s second-term agenda — but signs of fracture within the Republican conference threaten to derail the plan just hours before the vote.
The legislation, a multi-trillion-dollar tax-and-spending overhaul, is the product of months of backroom dealing between House and Senate Republicans. If passed, it would represent the most significant domestic achievement of Trump’s presidency to date. But GOP leaders now face resistance from both flanks of their party, from hardline conservatives warning of fiscal betrayal, and moderates fearing political blowback over health care cuts.
“We’re working through everybody’s concerns and letting them know this is the best possible product we can produce,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning, conceding that he does not yet have the votes to pass even the procedural rule required to begin debate on the bill.
🚨Speaker Johnson this morning acknowledges he doesn’t have the votes to pass the rule yet —
“we’re working on all that right now” he tells @nicholaswu12
“working through everybody’s concerns and letting them know this is the best possible product we can produce.” https://t.co/W4jOpQ2ldF
The House is scheduled to reconvene at 9 a.m. today, with leadership aiming to move the legislation before the July 4 recess. But on Tuesday night, Johnson and his team were still scrambling. Members of the GOP whip team expressed alarm over the number of “no” votes on their tally sheets — including from lawmakers they had assumed were in support.
Two conservative members of the Rules Committee, Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, voted against advancing the bill Tuesday night, a warning sign of trouble ahead. A procedural vote, initially slated for Wednesday, may be delayed to Thursday due to both political uncertainty and widespread travel delays caused by thunderstorms snarling flights into Washington.
“We have fifty-one-and-a-half million foreign born people in this country,” Roy told Punchbowl News. “You clamp down on illegal immigration, which is what the president is doing, but you need to limit, slash and refocus legal immigration… legal immigration is part of the problem.”
Even Speaker Johnson admitted during a Fox News appearance Tuesday night that the vote might slip another day.
Hardliners Dig In
A cluster of House Freedom Caucus members are threatening to tank the bill, saying Johnson has abandoned the House’s original budget framework, one that paired $2 trillion in spending cuts with $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. The Senate-passed version, they argue, compromises too much.
FACT: The Senate OBBB increases deficits and violates the terms of the budget deal in the House.
FACT: The Senate OBBB guts the strong provisions to terminate the “green new scam” subsidies in the House bill.
FACT: The Senate OBBB removes key provisions we put in the bill to stop illegal aliens from getting Medicaid.
FACT: The Senate OBBB removes key provisions we put in the bill to stop taxpayer funding of transgender surgeries.
FACT: We can amend it, send it back, fix it, & pass both the tax cut extensions AND border provisions we all want to pass.
Happy to stay here every day until we get it right.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) said publicly that the bill is unlikely to pass “as is” and expressed agreement with Elon Musk, who labeled the proposal “bad.” Roy, meanwhile, raised alarm over the bill’s deficit projections. Norman has signaled he will vote no on both the rule and the bill itself.
Adding to the drama is a pro-Trump super PAC now running attack ads against Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a frequent critic of the bill. And Sen. Thom Tillis’ (R-N.C.) unexpected retirement announcement — after opposing the Senate version — sent a ripple of caution through GOP ranks.
Moderates Waver
It’s not just the right causing trouble for Johnson. Several moderates from swing districts are voicing concerns over the bill’s Medicaid cuts and repeal of clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who represents a district Trump lost in 2020, is seen as a possible “no” vote due to Medicaid and energy concerns. Rep. David Valadao of California and Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, both vulnerable members, are also being watched closely. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC), the only practicing physician in Congress, has demanded guarantees that the bill’s $50 billion rural hospital fund will benefit struggling institutions like those in his district. “I actually still practice and take care of patients,” Murphy said. “The district that I represent is one of the poorest in the country.”
NC Rep. GREG MURPHY airing big concerns w/ the reconciliation bill this morning:
“I’m having a hard time getting the point where I can support the Senate package”
MURPHY says he needs “real guarantees” on how $50B rural hospital fund will be spent & that money will go to poor…
Reps. Glenn Grothman and Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin have also raised alarms over the bill’s impact on rural hospitals. And several newly elected members, including Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania, have raised similar concerns about Medicaid provisions.
Leadership Strategy: Trump at the Center
With time running short, House Republican leaders, including Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Whip Tom Emmer, are leaning heavily on Trump’s influence to lock in support. The president is scheduled to meet privately today with key GOP factions, including members of the House Freedom Caucus, to try and close the deal, Bloomberg reports. Johnson will remain at the Capitol holding separate meetings with undecided members.
The message from leadership: This may not be the bill Republicans dreamed of, but it’s the only one that can pass. “Despite what House Republicans hoped to see in this bill, this is what they face now. And it’s time to put it up for a vote,” one senior aide said.
As Punchbowl notes further, inside leadership circles, some are questioning whether the rule, let alone the final bill. can be passed.
Democrats, meanwhile…
House Democrats are unified in opposition and eager to tie the legislation to Republican vulnerabilities in the upcoming midterm elections.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Punchbowl that the bill would haunt “every single swing-seat Republican” who votes for it. He pointed to steep Medicaid reductions and threats to rural health care access as political liabilities. “The American people do not trust the Republican Party with respect to health care,” Jeffries said. “The whole enterprise is a toxic scheme.”
On Thursday, Jeffries is expected to deliver a roughly one-hour speech on the House floor, a so-called “Magic Minute,” to lay out Democrats’ objections.
The stakes for Johnson and Trump could not be higher.
In its term just ended, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) may regulate weapons parts kits as “firearms.” The case was Bondi v. VanDerStok. It also is called the “ghost gun case.”
Under a congressional statute known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, “weapons” are subject to regulation as “firearms.” Weapons parts kits typically include most or all of the components necessary to build a gun, although the purchaser generally supplies the tools and, if necessary, a magazine.
The ATF argued that such kits are “weapons” and therefore “firearms.”
Strictly speaking, the only issue before the court was whether these kits fit within the statute’s meaning of the word “weapon.” The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was not under consideration—at least not directly.
Here’s what the Gun Control Act says: A “firearm” includes (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
Thus, the statute authorized the ATF to regulate:
weapons
“starter guns”—a particular kind of incomplete weapon
specifically listed weapon parts: frames, receivers, and mufflers/silencers (more properly called “suppressors”)
destructive devices.
The kits generally do not include completed frames, completed receivers, or completed suppressors. Nor are they, by themselves, “destructive devices.” But the court ruled that they do qualify as “weapons.”
The vote among the justices was seven to two. The court’s opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. This division illustrates once again a point I have made many times before: The current Supreme Court is a very split bench. It is not, as the mass media often claim, one with a “6–3 conservative majority.”
A key part of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion placed the word “weapon” into a technical class of words called “artifact nouns.” Justice Gorsuch pointed out that sometimes people refer to an unfinished artifact as if it were finished. Thus, an author might refer to his unfinished manuscript as “my novel.” In like manner, a “weapon” could include an unfinished kit that is more than merely a random collection of parts.
Problems With the Court’s Conclusion
In my view, the majority opinion was erroneous on several levels.
First: The foremost rule for reading a statute is to seek the intent of the legislature that adopted it. In the case of the Gun Control Act, you try to reconstruct the intent of Congress when it passed the law in 1968. There does not appear to be any history suggesting that Congress intended to include assembly kits in the definition of “weapon.”
Second: Another rule of interpretation is that in seeking the legislature’s intent, you should examine the normal meaning of key words in the statute when the statute was adopted. But the normal 1968 dictionary definition of “weapon” was “an instrument of offensive or defensive combat … [such] as a club, sword, gun, or grenade.” It did not include unfinished products—which is one reason Congress had to list those components (such as frames) that it did wish to include in the meaning of “weapon.”
Third: In construing a word or phrase in a statute, you also look at the context. Part of the context is the other language around the word or phrase.
As you can see from the portion of the statute quoted above, it does include some components (frames, receivers, suppressors). It also includes one category of incomplete weapon (starter guns). But it leaves out all others. A very well-recognized rule of interpretation tells us that when a law lists certain items, the law implicitly excludes others. Consequently, other components and unfinished instruments—including kits—are not covered.
Fourth: Another way of examining a statute’s context is to examine any law or law the statute superseded or supplemented. The 1968 Gun Control Act replaced an earlier law called the Federal Firearms Act. The Federal Firearms Act did cover component parts: It defined a “firearm” as “any weapon … designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive … or any part or parts of such weapon.”
When passing the 1968 Gun Control Act, Congress could have continued regulation of “parts,” but it specifically chose not to do so. This also tells us that assembly kits are not “weapons” under the Gun Control Act.
Fifth: When construing a statute, you also apply legal rules and definitions that are so common that lawmakers presumably know about them. In VanDerStok, Justice Gorsuch relied on a specific category of words known as “artifact nouns.” But the phrase “artifact noun” was previously unknown to the law—a fact I verified by searching in the best-known legal database. It was not a category of which Congress was necessarily aware.
For all these reasons, the court should have concluded that the Gun Control Act’s definition of “weapon” does not include gun assembly kits. The ATF exceeded its power by trying to regulate something it had no authority to regulate.
What the Court Did
In 1968, only experts with specialized equipment could assemble guns. Weapons parts kits, along with the necessary assembly tools, became widespread only after the Gun Control Act was adopted. It appears that the court was trying to update the 57-year-old statute to meet modern conditions.
But updating federal statutes is not the job of appointed-for-life judges. It is a job for democratically-elected members of Congress. Under the Constitution, only Congress—not the judiciary—possesses what the Constitution calls “the legislative Power.”
Interpreting the Constitution
The ruling in VanDerStok shows how a court can amend a statute by changing the normal rules for interpreting it.
Justice Gorsuch is an outstanding jurist and usually does not make this kind of mistake. However, writers on the Constitution frequently do—that is, they invent new rules of interpretation to “prove” the Constitution says what they want it to say.
But the Founders wrote and adopted the Constitution with the understanding that it was to be applied using the rules of interpretation prevailing in their own day and, for the most part, still prevailing now. Moreover, Congress and state legislatures enact laws relying on the same assumption. Only by following normal rules of interpretation can judges be faithful to the law. When a court distorts those rules, it distorts the law.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Queens Driving School Busted For Running Bribe-for-License Scam For Illegal Immigrants
A Queens driving school bribed DMV employees to illegally fast-track driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants—many of whom couldn’t drive or speak English—according to Staten Island prosecutors.
T&E Driving School allegedly took cash from Chinese immigrants and paid off DMV examiners in Staten Island to skip required road tests, District Attorney Michael McMahon said Tuesday at a press conference announcing “Operation Road Test”, a joint investigation with Homeland Security and state officials, according to the NY Post.
“Our investigation found that T&E Driving School blatantly flouted the laws and procedures that are necessary to ensure the public safety on the road,” said George Ioannidis, assistant special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in New York.
“As alleged, T&E utilized social media and strategic advertising to target exploited members of the Chinese community and guaranteed individual driver’s licenses regardless of their immigration status, language, and even their ability to operate a vehicle,” he added. “Moreover, these individuals were those who did not speak or understand English and may have believed that they all were taking necessary and legitimate steps.”
The scheme involved T&E owner Weixian Tan, secretary Weiwen Tan, employee Winnie Yang, and school driver Wenfeng Yang, who allegedly paid DMV examiners Aji Idicula, Tianna Rose Andolina, and Edward Tarik Queen to fraudulently approve licenses.
The NY Post writes that the examiners reportedly rubber-stamped applicants without administering road tests. “The number of tests given by an individual examiner can be about 1,500 a year,” said McMahon. “Two out of the three examiners have been working for four or five years, so we think this is just the tip of the iceberg.”
According to prosecutors, at least two dozen suspects are in custody, with another unnamed DMV employee included in a 49-page indictment. “We think that we are going to find hundreds if not thousands of people that have been part of this scam,” McMahon said.
He described the operation as “corrosively corrupt” and said DMV employees “brazenly betrayed their oaths of office.”
The defendants, facing charges of fraud, tampering, and theft, were arraigned and released without bail under New York’s 2019 bail reform laws. However, they were ordered to surrender their passports.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy struck a blow at radical LGBTQ activism as “Pride Month” ended.
Duffy sent a letter to all 50 state governors, the D.C. mayor, and Puerto Rico’s governor, a letter which he also shared with The Daily Signal. Trump’s transportation secretary told the governors to work on removing distractions, including woke political symbols, from roads and intersections.
In the letter, Duffy wrote, “Roads are for safety, not political messages or artwork. Today I am calling on governors in every state to ensure that roadways, intersections, and crosswalks are kept free of distractions.”
He added, “Far too many Americans die each year to [sic] traffic fatalities to take our eye off the ball.” He assured the governors that the Transportation Department “stands ready to help communities across the country make their roads safer and easier to navigate.” Just this June, a Rhode Island man was reportedly arrested for leaving skidmarks on a rainbow crosswalk. Hopefully, Duffy’s new guidance will help the man as his case moves forward.
Duffy’s letter is part of the effort to push the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe Arterials for Everyone through Reliable Operations and Distraction-Reducing Strategies, or SAFE ROADS, initiative, Daily Signal explained.
Last year, 39,345 people died on our country’s roads, which represented a decrease of 3.8% from 2023, but Duffy understandably labeled it an “unacceptable” number.
🚨EXCLUSIVE
Transportation @SecDuffy sends a letter to all 50 states (plus DC & Puerto Rico) urging them to prioritize safety over political statements.
“The SAFE ROADS national initiative will focus on the non-freeway arterials within your state, including safety and operation at intersections and along segments, consistent and recognizable traffic control devices including crosswalk and intersection markings, and orderly use of the right-of-way that is kept free from distractions,” Duffy wrote. “These routes are where more than half of roadway fatalities in America occur and deserve enhanced attention.” This ban includes rainbow crosswalks.
Duffy asks that “within 60 days” each state’s department of transportation “develop a list of arterial segments, including intersections, with the highest safety, operational, or compliance concerns that will be addressed by the end of Fiscal Year 2026” (from Oct. 1, 2025, to Sept. 30, 2026). He asks state departments to submit these lists to the Federal Highway Administration’s office in each state.
Duffy concluded, “With our shared goals of moving people and goods safely and efficiently, we can make the expectation that all Americans make it home safely and on-time a reality.”
Too many leftist cities have tried to turn roads into political statements about race and sexuality. Philadelphia, Hollywood, San Francisco, Atlanta, and Milwaukee are among the cities that have put in Pride rainbow crosswalks. It’s excellent that Duffy is aiming to put a stop to it.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
China Erodes US AI Supremacy As Chatbot Race Defines Path To 2030 Dominance
Former PBOC Deputy Governor Zhu Min recently warned of a coming tsunami of domestic AI innovation, predicting that China could see 100 breakthroughs of the same magnitude as DeepSeek over the next 18 months. The rise of DeepSeek—a powerful, low-cost alternative to OpenAI’s ChatGPT—has ignited a bull market in Chinese tech stocks and positioned itself as a serious contender in the deepening AI arms race between Washington and Beijing. As the world slides into an increasingly fractured and dangerous bipolar order, the battle for AI supremacy is shaping up to define who controls the 2030s.
A Wall Street Journal report adds new details to China’s rapid rise as a serious challenger to the U.S. in the deepening technological Cold War—one that is expected to intensify significantly by the end of the decade. The report highlights how DeepSeek and e-commerce giant Alibaba are steadily gaining market share across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, with chatbot adoption spreading from banks and research desks to commercial enterprises and academia.
OpenAI’s Sam Altman should be concerned about intensifying competition…
HSBC and Standard Chartered have begun testing DeepSeek’s models internally, according to people familiar with the matter. Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, recently installed DeepSeek in its main data center.
Even major American cloud service providers such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google offer DeepSeek to customers, despite the White House banning use of the company’s app on some government devices over data-security concerns.-WSJ
Still, ChatGPT remains the global gold standard, thanks to advanced computing semiconductors, cutting-edge research, and strong access to financial capital. According to data from Sensor Tower, ChatGPT is the world’s premier chatbot, with 910 million global downloads—far surpassing DeepSeek’s 125 million.
This intensifying competition is forcing countries to choose between U.S. and Chinese chatbots. Microsoft President Brad Smith recently warned, “The No. 1 factor that will define whether the U.S. or China wins this race is whose technology is most broadly adopted in the rest of the world,” adding, “Whoever gets there first will be difficult to supplant.”
US investors have pulled back on funding China’s AI complex…
Washington’s chip restrictions have cost American companies billions (e.g., Nvidia’s blocked chip sales), while Beijing invests in domestic chip production. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently thanked President Trump for rolling back chip restrictions, ensuring the chipmaker remains a dominant player.
Besides AI, Morgan Stanley analysts laid out the emerging Quantum computing race between the West and the East.
All in all, the global adoption of Chinese AI could reduce U.S. influence worldwide and increase the risks of Chinese Communist Party propaganda operations on consumer-facing apps.
The battle for digital AI supremacy is well underway, and the next dominant chatbot may not be Western-made. Those who lead in AI and the production of low-cost, advanced weapons—such as drones and hypersonic missiles—will shape the global balance of power in the 2030s and beyond.
A federal judge on July 2 ruled against a Trump administration directive that blocked foreign nationals who cross the U.S.–Mexico border illegally from seeking asylum. The White House has touted historically low border crossings in recent weeks.
In an order issued on July 2, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that the Trump administration overstepped its authority and bypassed immigration law.
The president cannot “adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,” Moss wrote in the order.
Soon after taking office in January, Trump declared that an invasion exists along the U.S.–Mexico border and that individuals who are seeking to cross are “engaged in the invasion” along the border.
“Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans,” the Jan. 20 proclamation stated.
Some of these individuals are also “engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities,” the proclamation stated. “Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and several other groups in February sought to challenge Trump’s asylum ban, arguing it violated U.S. laws and international treaties.
Moss ruled that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the Constitution allows the president and administration officials to have the “sweeping authority” that was claimed in the Jan. 20 invasion proclamation.
In the order, the judge wrote:
“Although the Court recognizes that the judiciary should not lightly intervene in the affairs of the Executive Branch and that implementing the immigration laws presents supreme challenges, the Court is unpersuaded that requiring Defendants to return to the processes that Congress required and that applied just a few months ago would cause Defendants irreparable harm.
“Although enjoining the President from exercising an exclusive constitutional prerogative might, standing alone, give rise to irreparable injury, requiring the Agency Defendants to comply with the law as Congress enacted … would not.”
Since taking office, Trump has made border security a priority and has sought to deport significant numbers of illegal immigrants, although portions of his agenda have faced some legal setbacks.
The judge said he would stay the effective date of his order for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal.
Moss’s decision was criticized by Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller in a post on social media platform X soon after it was handed down. Miller said the order is an attempt to supersede last week’s Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions in a separate case.
“To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global ”class“ entitled to admission into the United States,” Miller wrote.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which encompasses U.S. immigration enforcement and border agencies, has said that border crossings are at an all time low.
Customs and Border Protection officials in June had the lowest number of apprehensions nationwide in the agency’s history, DHS said in a statement. About 25,000 illegal immigrants were arrested at the border, 12 percent fewer than the previous record set in February 2025, it said on July 2.
That figure is also 89 percent lower than the monthly average of apprehensions made between 2021 and 2024, under the prior administration, DHS said.-
Delhi Bans Fuel for Older Vehicles in Pollution Crackdown
Starting July 1, Delhi has enforced a strict ban on refueling older vehicles as part of a broader effort to reduce air pollution, according to the Economic Times.
Under the new rule, petrol vehicles older than 15 years and diesel vehicles over 10 years are prohibited from buying fuel at any petrol pump in the capital. This measure is aimed at removing End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) from circulation, which are considered major contributors to Delhi’s worsening air quality.
To ensure compliance, the government has deployed surveillance systems and enforcement personnel across the city. Those caught violating the rule face heavy penalties: ₹10,000 for four-wheelers and ₹5,000 for two-wheelers. Authorities may also impound or scrap vehicles found flouting the ban.
Officials claim the step is necessary for public health and environmental sustainability. However, the policy has drawn criticism from residents and vehicle owners, who argue that the infrastructure and public alternatives are not yet sufficient to support such a drastic move.
Critics have taken to social media to express their frustration, with one user commenting, “No decent footpath but rules like Sweden,” highlighting the perceived gap between European-level regulations and India’s local infrastructure readiness.
The Economic Times writes that despite the backlash, the Delhi government maintains that the policy is essential to curb pollution from outdated, high-emission vehicles and says it is a step toward cleaner urban transport.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem related a bizarre event to the media during the press conference for the new “Alligator Alcatraz” deportee holding facility, telling reporters that an illegal alien, suspected to be a cannibal, attempted to eat himself during a recent deportation flight.
Noem claimed that US Marshals deputies reported to her that the flight had to be halted before take off as the man caused serious self harm and had to receive immediate medical treatment.
“They said that they had detained a cannibal and put him on a plane to take him home. And while they had him in his seat, he started to eat himself, and they had to get him off and get him medical attention,” Noem said during the briefing with President Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
🚨 WTF?! Kristi Noem just revealed one of the illegals they arrested was a cannibal who began to EAT HIMSELF on a deportation flight
“These are the kind of deranged individuals that are on our streets in America that we’re trying to target and get out of our country because they are so deranged they don’t belong here,” the DHS secretary further urged.
“They shouldn’t be walking the streets with our children, and they shouldn’t be living in the communities with our families who just want to… raise their children to grow up and get a job, and to live the American dream,” she added.
Noem suggested that the new “Alligator Alcatraz” facility should be replicated in other states around the country.
“I hope my phone rings off the hook from governors calling and saying, ‘How can we do what Florida just did? How can we do exactly what they did?’” she emphasised.
Noem also urged that “President Trump is upholding freedom by what he is doing,” adding “I’m calling out you, CNN. I’m calling you out because you lie every single day about what these operations are.”
“We are going after murderers and rapists, and traffickers, and drug dealers and getting them off the streets and getting them out of this country because Joe Biden let the worst of the worst come in,” Noem asserted.
…why do Democrats want cannibal, criminal, illegal aliens living in American family’s neighborhoods?
Zero people, including Democrats, want to live next to someone like that.
They PRETEND they love everyone, while building walls around their own homes to keep criminals out.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
