Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

There’s a Tesla in my neighborhood with a bumper sticker that seems to be begging people not to key the car. “I bought this car before I knew that Elon was crazy,” it says.

Fascinating message there. Is it a protest, plea, or both? The car is brilliant, obviously and the guy loves it. But these days, driving a Tesla comes with implied messaging, due entirely to Musk’s political actions.

Elite liberals were buying this car for years as a status symbol of their love of the planet. Then everything changed. Now they are experiencing something like an existential crisis. That’s because a movement has emerged among elites who have turned against it.

Then began a campaign of violence against property. Marauding gangs have attacked dealerships and vigilantes have vandalized cars and trucks all over the country. It’s revealed a point about the political left that has heretofore been only suspected: it harbors a violent streak that is alarming, even terrifying.

This idea that we are what we buy—that our purchases are not just about the products but a judgment for or against the companies that make them—seems rather new as a mass phenomenon. We saw it in the mass consumer boycott of Bud Light.

These violent actions, however, go far beyond a buyers’ boycott. No one in a free enterprise system objects to declining to buy. It’s another matter to lash out at others for their decisions.

The political actions of the CEO dragged the company into a difficult relationship with the main customers of the product. There seems to be no question that this is the reason for the dramatic fall in both sales and the company’s stock price.

EV sales otherwise seem to be on the rise, while Tesla has experienced disproportionate losses at the tail end of a very contentious election followed by the CEO’s actions that have attempted to gut the civil service.

The fall has been so stinging that Elon is stepping back from politics to focus again on bolstering his company and reputation. Certainly he seems to have become less outspoken than he was a few months back. The markets seem to have humbled him into going back to business and staying out of the political muck.

His project called DOGE will live on, and I suspect that he will ultimately be vindicated. For now, however, he is taking it on the chin. His early estimate of saving $2 trillion with cuts kept being pared back given court judgements and impossible bureaucracy. It now stands at $150 billion, much of which will be lost in litigation fees. It’s a terrible realization: if Musk could not do it, even with the full confidence of the U.S. president, can it even be done?

Ever since Musk distinguished himself as the most prominent corporate voice against lockdowns, I’ve paid careful attention to his political migration. He was a conventional corporate liberal not too long ago, say 10 years ago. His experience during COVID changed him. This was when governments around the country and the world said they and they alone would decide which companies would open and which would close. Understandably, he came to believe that civilization was under attack and swore he would do something about it.

He promised to keep his factories open even as the rest of the world was shutting down. He moved his company out of California and his corporate registrations out of Delaware in protest against what was happening. The sudden dawning of his political enlightenment mutated into a serious attack on a range of government and corporate policies that mitigate against merit in hiring and promotion. He turned on “woke”—also in part due to private family struggles that hurt him deeply.

Elon eventually put his money where his mouth was. He decided to buy a heavily censored and deeply propagandistic Twitter and turn it into the much freer X that drove forward public narratives which contributed mightily to Trump’s victory in 2024. In so doing, he fired 4 out of 5 employees in the wildly bloated staff and dramatically changed the platform to become the world’s most popular news and social media application.

Those actions earned him a great deal of influence over policy in the new administration. He was tasked with doing to the government what he had done at Twitter: clean it up, refresh it to become more effective and efficient, and bring some degree of transparency to government finance.

Musk had some success. That said, changing government is much harder than changing a private company over which you are CEO. He has had wide influence within the Trump administration, but not as much as perhaps he had hoped. He wanted budget cuts and worked within established parameters to get them, even fully gutting several terrible sources of corruption like USAID.

My judgment on his role is that Musk’s activities here have been absolutely heroic. He helped restore free speech. He has cleaned up some waste and fraud. He has streamlined some processes of government. He has set a new standard for accounting, personnel, and accounting. DOGE will go on without him.

Also, it is not generally understood how xAI or Grok broke an emergent monopoly in artificial intelligence, shattering OpenAI’s hopes for a monopoly once it let go of its non profit status. Grok made that impossible. Even now, Musk’s Grok AI engine ranks very high in all side-to-side comparisons of AI tools, and certainly excels in its user interface.

Musk is very easily the leader in autonomous driving, which could revolutionize transportation on many fronts. And he does it all with open-source technology.

I’m not a Tesla owner and I’ve written many articles with grave doubts about EVs in general. That said, I’m for consumer choice. If you think he makes a better car, great. Buy it and drive it. He has been very clear, too, that he is against all mandates, subsidies, and even patent protections, which is quite remarkable. In general, I would say that he has behaved throughout with notable scrupulosity.

Further, he threw himself into politics with the best of motives. He wanted to end censorship. He wanted to stop the corruption. He wanted to fix government finances. He has been sincere throughout and performed extraordinary deeds. He was not only not paid for his service; he has been punished financially for what he has done.

This entire episode prompts a kind of reflection on the role of public life, courage, and doing what is right. Musk truly attempted to make a difference. He was courageous. He took on huge financial risks in buying Twitter that seem to have paid off. He risked the status of all of his companies when he threw in with Trump’s campaign. He could have played it safe but chose a different path.

Why did he risk it all? Because he strongly believed it was the right thing to do. This is a beautiful thing to see in our cynical times. There is an element of tragedy in how his sacrifices have not been rewarded but rather punished.

What message does this send to the business culture at large? It says: do not stick your neck out to stand up for what is right. Instead, be more compliant and agreeable with whomever or whatever is in power. That’s the best way to protect the bottom line.

This is an unfortunate signal for business in general. It’s extremely rare that someone so accomplished in enterprise would stand up for what is right and true. He deserves the gratitude of everyone who believes in free speech and freedom generally. Arguably, his actions saved both from grave danger. He was and is paying a heavy price for doing this.

What might he have done differently? He might have some thoughts on that but the general theme is that he did the right thing when it mattered the most. I seriously doubt that he would change anything about his big decisions.

As for the bumper sticker on the Tesla that attacks Musk, it’s truly pathetic, an act of cowardice, whatever the motive. In multiple ways, he has been the benefactor of us all. Is every hero doomed to live a thankless life in these times? Maybe. But they will prevail in the end.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

If you blinked during Tuesday’s Health and Human Services Department press conference on the agency’s plans to ban artificial dyes, you may have missed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. teasing his next target.

Kennedy announced plans to target pharmaceutical additives, signaling he is getting ready to fire his opening salvo against Big Pharma.

A reporter asked, “I’m wondering if there’s any pharmaceutical additives that you’d like to eliminate?” prompting laughter from the audience.

“We’re gonna start on that next,” the HHS secretary replied, offering no further details on his plans.

REPORTER: “I’m wondering if there’s any pharmaceutical additives that you’d like to eliminate?”

RFK JR: “We’re gonna start on that next.” pic.twitter.com/FWx41wKquK

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) April 23, 2025

Kennedy on Tuesday unveiled a plan to eliminate eight artificial food dyes and colorings from the U.S. food supply by the end of next year, committing to collaborate with food companies to ensure a smooth transition and remove these additives from products.

Kennedy, pioneer of the Make America Healthy Again movement, has long criticized Big Pharma, vowing to hold the industry accountable for what he calls rampant corruption and profiteering. Kennedy has accused pharmaceutical giants of manipulating federal agencies like the FDA and seeks to curb direct-to-consumer advertising that he says taints media. Kennedy also plans to scrutinize vaccine safety. He was one of the most outspoke critics of the COVID vaccine and government-instituted lockdowns.

“I just want to urge all of you, it’s not the time to stop; it’s the time to redouble your efforts, because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle,” Kennedy said. “And four years from now, we’re going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go to the grocery store.”

ABC News reports:

Federal officials are taking steps to pull the authorization for two rarely used synthetic food colorings — Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B — within the coming months. In addition, the six other petroleum-based dyes that federal health agencies are seeking to eliminate by the end of next year are Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2.

The FDA is also taking steps to authorize four new natural color additives, officials announced Tuesday.

The plan, however, is contingent on an “understanding” with major food companies that they will voluntarily remove them to meet consumer demand, Kennedy said Tuesday.

“There’s no need to have a regulation or a statute when companies are volunteering to do it,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said. “We are going to use every tool in the toolbox to make sure this gets done to the best of our abilities.”

“For the last 50 years, American children have increasingly been living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals,” Makary added. 

When the fast food joints start closing, it’s usually not a great indicator for the economy. 

Jack in the Box plans to close up to 200 underperforming locations, aiming to bolster its balance sheet amid declining consumer spending.

The San Diego-based chain also announced it’s exploring a sale of its struggling Del Taco brand, according to CBS News. Most closures will target older, low-performing stores, with up to 120 shutting down by year’s end and the rest phasing out based on franchise terms.

Starting in 2026, the company expects to maintain a 1% annual closure rate.

The CBS News report says that Jack in the Box hasn’t released its 2025 closure list but says more details are coming in August. The move is part of a push to cut debt and improve finances.

“Jack in the Box has gotten away from some of the core characteristics that have made it a successful driver of shareholder value in the past and it’s time we return to those basics,” said CEO Lance Tucker.

Second-quarter sales fell 4.4% at Jack in the Box and 3.6% at Del Taco. The company’s stock has tumbled 57% over the past year.

Broader industry headwinds persist. McDonald’s CEO admitted its “value leadership gap has shrunk,” while U.S. consumer sentiment dropped for a fourth straight month in April amid economic worries and tariff fears.

Authored by Corinne Clark Barron via American Greatness,

By now, you’ve probably seen the clip that launched a thousand self-righteous Instagram reels. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dared to say something uncomfortable about autism—specifically, the profound kind—and the internet lost its collective mind.

Here’s what he said:

“Autism destroys family. And more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, our children. And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. We have to recognize we are doing this to our children and we need to put an end to it.”

It doesn’t take a genius—or even a full listen—to understand that he was referring to severe, nonverbal, profoundly disabling autism. Not quirky software engineers or brilliant kids who need a little extra support in school. And yet, the outrage machine went into overdrive. Moms on X and Instagram rushed to share glowing tributes to their high-functioning children on the spectrum, explaining how autism is their family’s greatest blessing. And you know what? That’s beautiful. But that’s also not what RFK was talking about.

This wasn’t a sweeping statement about every autistic person. 

It was a serious moment about a serious public health issue. But as usual, nuance doesn’t fit into a TikTok soundbite.

The backlash wasn’t just misplaced—it was manipulative. 

All these people who claim to be champions of neurodiversity suddenly can’t tolerate a conversation about the darker, more painful realities many families face. They took a statement meant to elevate the need for answers and twisted it into a personal insult.

And here’s where it gets rich: many of the loudest critics belong to the same liberal cohort that routinely defends aborting children with Down syndrome or other detectable conditions. 

We’re supposed to believe they’re the defenders of all life now? Spare me.

These libs will write a tearful thread about autism acceptance, then turn around and shout down anyone who dares to ask why so many children are being diagnosed with it in the first place.

The truth is, they don’t want a solution. They want a platform. They want to be seen as more compassionate than you, especially if it means ignoring the moms who are absolutely drowning trying to care for a nonverbal 12-year-old who can’t sleep through the night, can’t be left alone, and may never live independently. RFK was speaking to those parents. The ones who love their kids desperately but who are desperate for answers too.

If RFK had gone the other direction and said, “Autism isn’t a big deal,” these same people would be screaming that he wasn’t taking the challenges of raising autistic children seriously. 

It’s not about the message—it’s about being mad. 

These people are outrage machines running on bad faith and buzzwords.

RFK didn’t say anything cruel. He said something real. And in politics today, that’s more offensive than anything else.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

We’ve talked about higher education before, but now it’s come into sharper focus with the Trump administration’s deadlock with Harvard University over its unwillingness or inability—whatever term we like to use—to meet the administration’s demands that it ensures an antisemitic-free campus that does not allow people to disrupt classes. 

It doesn’t use race, after the Supreme Court decision that went against Harvard and said that affirmative action was no longer legal.

Columbia had the same type of disagreement, other campuses are.

I don’t think it’s a wise thing for them to get into a fight with the federal government.

If they are dependent on federal funding, these big private marquee universities—Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Duke—and they want federal money, then the federal government is going to ask for some transparency. And we, the public, really don’t know much about it.

It’s like a rock, a traditional rock on moist ground. You don’t wanna turn it over because there’s going to be things underneath there that you would better not—it would be better not to be seen. And that’s what the public is going to learn about higher education.

Now, what do I mean? I mean loans. 

These universities are raising tuition higher than the rate of inflation. And that started when the federal government said, “We will ensure these loans for students.” 

Once that happened, the moral hazard shifted away from the university. 

So, they have been gouging students for room and board.

I’ll give you an example. 

Hillsdale College, its room, board, and tuition is about $45,000 a year. It takes no money. 

Harvard gets about $9 billion in total. Its room, board, and tuition is about $95,000. 

Same with Stanford. They’re about double what Hillsdale charges. And one of the reasons is that they’re so dependent on federal money and therefore they can spend like drunken sailors.

Remember, of that 1.7, about 10%, 8% are nonperforming and about maybe 14% are late. The public doesn’t know all that. But they’re paying for it—especially kids, the half of the cohort 18 to 30 that’s not going to college, they’re subsidizing this university boondoggle.

The second thing is the university doesn’t really obey the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. If you get accused of particular crimes as a student, faculty member, let’s say, sexual harassment or untoward speech, hate speech—whatever the term they use—it’s very unlikely you’re going to get Fourth and Fifth, maybe Sixth Amendment protection. That is, you’re not going to have an open hearing. You’re not going to be tried by a jury of your peers. You’re not going to necessarily have legal counsel. You’re not necessarily going to know who your accusers are.

The affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court outlawed the use of race in admissions. And we have civil rights statutes that also do that. But the universities do something funny. They have safe spaces. They have theme houses. And they have auxiliary graduations. But the common denominator, they’re predicated on race. So, a black theme house, a Latino theme house has almost very few people.

Nobody would want a European, so-called white theme house or an alternate white graduation. And you would say, “Why not, Victor?” Because it would be considered racist, I suppose.

But at Stanford, only 22% of the student body is white. Are they going to say, “Well, we’re one of the minorities now. Why don’t we do this?” That’s where it will lead if you enhance tribalism.

There’s no intellectual diversity. The National Association of Scholars did a study not long ago. They found not one of the 133 faculty members at Bryn Mawr was a Republican. At Williams, I think they found one or two. They found a lot of elite universities where there was nobody who openly acknowledged that they were a Republican.

There are a couple of other things that are disturbing too. And that is the universities get individual faculty grants—Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health. And usually, in most private foundations, the university is not following their model.

What I mean is, a private scholar at a think tank, they might deduct 15% for the use of the phone or office that they would get out of that federal grant. But universities like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, they can go from 40% to 50% to 60% and they’re relying on that multimillion-dollar—I guess we’d call it—price gouging from the federal government.

And finally, these universities don’t have multimillion-dollar endowments anymore. They have multibillion-dollar—$30 billion, Stanford $53 billion. And they’re predicated—the income—on that. And sometimes they get almost 10%. They’re very good in investing. This $5 or $6 or $7 or $4 billion a year in income is tax-free, for the most part. Tax-free. And that’s predicated that they’re nonpolitical, they’re nonpartisan. But when you look at the makeup of the faculty and the use of race and gender, contrary to federal law, you can see they’re very partisan.

So, let me just sum up. 

Does the university really want to get in a fight with the Trump administration and then bring all of this information about their endowments; their lack of intellectual diversity; their segregation; their lack of due process for people who undergo inquiries or accusations; their separate racial graduations, safe spaces, theme houses; the use of student loans? 

I don’t think they want to do that. The public would be shocked. And it’s a losing proposition.

If I were the presidents of these major universities, I would do this: I would make a deal with the Trump administration. 

And I would welcome it because then I would tell my radical students, “You can’t wear a mask. I’d like you to, but the federal government won’t let me.” Or, “We can’t have racially segregated dorms anymore, theme houses. I’d like to, but it’s against the law.” And that would be their way out.

Is that going to happen? I don’t think so. And I think we’re going to see some accountability. And the universities are not going to like the consequences.

For many years now the narrative on California is that it is a country unto itself and it generates so many tax dollars the federal government and red states should be throwing a garden party in its honor.  In reality, California is not a “donor state” as the Rockefeller Institute claims.  It can’t even support itself, let alone bolster the rest of the country.

This problem has become more evident in the past year as Los Angeles hits a budget deficit of a billion dollars and, the state government doesn’t have the funds to help the city recover because of it’s own $68 billion deficit.

In response to the lack of aid from the state or federal government, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass unveiled a proposed $13.9 billion municipal budget for fiscal year 2025-26, which includes more than 1,600 layoffs and the consolidation of four city departments in an effort to eliminate the overdraft.  Though LA employs around 50,000 people in total and the layoffs might seem minor in comparison, the city’s expansive programs require employee growth this year, not cuts. 

Furthermore, it is likely that the 1600 fired workers are just the beginning.  The city removed at least 2000 positions from its employee roster at the end of last year and is already moving to make cuts to existing workers.

It’s no coincidence that LA is in fiscal trouble in 2025, and it’s not only because of the $2 billion in damages associated with the recent wildfires.  After decades of decadent debt spending CA is deeply dependent on federal funds.  Federal budget cuts and the shutdown of agencies like USAID are having far reaching consequences, especially in progressive states with a heavy emphasis on socialized programs.  

For example, the federal Department of Health and Human Services recently terminated $12 billion in grants intended for infectious disease response, mental health services and other public health issues.  At least $1 billion of this cash was supposed to go to California in 2025.  Covid money is funneled into various health departments and other projects and California was the biggest recipient of pandemic funds by far with over $77.8 billion received through the state government and over $600 billion in total relief.  Some critics argue that covid relief in California was wrongly exploited as a financial boon for various state agencies, politicians and employees.

Now the pandemic funding is finally cut off after 5 years.  $45 million of the $1 billion lost was supposed to go to Los Angeles. 

The LAPD is also losing over $10 million due to federal funding cuts.  The agency and city officials are trying to sort out the potential impact of being cut-off from millions of dollars in law enforcement and homeland security grants, following the US Justice Department’s announcement such programs would be suspended for any municipality that considered itself a so-called, “sanctuary city,” that bars local officers from playing a role in immigration enforcement.

The Orange County Register reported last month that Orange County will lose out on more than $68 million in federal earmarks for 2025, money that was previously approved for community projects.

California schools have been warned by the Trump Administration that if they don’t stop instituting DEI programs and indoctrination, they will lose at up to $16 billion in funding, with $1.26 billion of that going to the Los Angeles Unified School District.

The sheer enormity of federal funds floating around California should be taken into account, but also the fact that despite access to so much money California and LA are still facing a massive budget shortfalls.  The chances of this dilemma being solved through layoffs and department consolidation is next to nil.  The real root of the problem is policy driven; Democrat welfare programs, social programs and their open border mentality have resulted in a never ending drain on their finances, slowing destroying what was once one of the greatest states in the nation.

As California spends over half its budget providing 15 million residents with Medi-cal coverage – a substantial portion of whom are ‘undocumented,’ one state Democrat has proposed new legislation that would allow college students to sleep in their vehicles as the Golden State grapples with a worsening homeless crisis. 

Left-wing Assemblymember Corey Jackson introduced a bill mandating that California State University chancellors and community college district governing boards collaborate with basic needs coordinators and campus security to establish an overnight parking program by late 2026, Fox News reports.

“This bill confronts a harsh reality to many of our students who are sleeping in their vehicles or other displaced settings as they are unable to find affordable housing, and that’s jeopardizing their education,” the California Democrat said. “What I am proposing is practical, immediate relief, overnight parking programs that turn campus lots into safe, temporary havens while the state works on lasting solutions.”

“We are in a housing crisis. We are in a homelessness crisis, and it’s not an either or approach. It’s a both and all of the above approach,” he added.

The Community College League of California released a survey revealing that three in five California community college students face housing insecurity, with one in four experiencing homelessness.

While America is the home of the free (or at least it used to be) and sleeping in one’s car should be one’s prerogative, the bill raises questions about California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) handling of his state’s housing affordability.

Fox News reports:

Newsom’s office, citing 2024 records, stressed that homelessness is increasing nationwide by more than 18%, while California’s national trend is closer to 3%, lower than 40 other states. Newsom also touted the state’s more than 71,000 year-round shelter beds, which a spokesperson said is double the amount created during the 5-year period prior to the Newsom administration.

Unsurprisingly, California Republicans are not fans of the proposal and say California Democrats should focus on solving the root of the issue.

“After wrecking affordability in California, Democrats have nothing left but bad ideas,” California Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher said in a statement to Fox News. “They’re now proposing to let students sleep in cars because they can’t fix the housing crisis they created. This isn’t innovation. It’s desperation from a party that spent decades raising costs, blocking new housing and wasting billions on programs that failed. Letting students live in parking lots isn’t a solution. It’s proof their policies have completely collapsed.”

Fox News contributor Hugh Hewitt had this to say about the plan: “The problem in California is there are not enough homes and apartments. It’s a supply problem created over 50 years of no-growth, left-wing policies that are anti-housing. The solution is not to create homeless encampments, and each one of these will become that. People are going to enroll in the community college for 18 bucks a credit, and then they’re going to put their car in the community college parking lot.”

Newsom’s office, when reached for comment, refused to weigh in on the bill: “California is bucking not only national increases but reversing long-term trends in the state from decades of inaction prior to this administration. California’s progress in addressing homelessness is outperforming the nation.”

*  *   *

Sneak Peek: New offerings at ZeroHedge Store… 

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“In order for a system to be stabIe, it requires negative feedback, also known as consequences.”

– Barrie Drain

“Fighting fascism,” for the American Jacobins who lead the Democratic Party, means opposing any attempt to flush the corruption out of the entrenched bureaucracy, just as their pet phrase “our democracy” actually refers to the matrix of grift and despotic activism that drives their political operating system. That is exactly how and why the USAID was so crucial to spread captured taxpayer spoils as NGO salaries for the gender studies grads to play “activist,” so as to inflict their special brand of sadistic power madness over the land — to keep the game going.

Now, USAID is scattered to the winds and all they have left is their installed base of federal judges and the horde of lawfare lawyers who feed them bogus cases to halt the remaining work of Mr. Trump’s executive branch clean-up operation.

Remember: Robespierre, leader of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, was a lawyer. 

Their version of defending “our democracy” in 1793 was the Reign of Terror that sent at least 17,000 political opponents to the guillotine.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is the Democrats’ Robespierre. He is promising his own reign of terror when his party recaptures Congress in the 2026 “midterm” election.

Norm Eisen is his chief lawyer and legal strategist. His sole aim is recapture power in order to restore the Democrats’ sadistic regime of thought-control and the money-flows that feed it. That’s where things stand for the moment. You can sense how this tension is tending toward something that looks like civil war.

Someone needs to investigate the relationship between the lawfare squad and the judges to see how closely they worked together.

It appears that Norm would write prosecution memos, articles, etc., (as well as go on CNN) to act as an analyst when in reality he was running the… pic.twitter.com/hdkDggzlt4

— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) March 24, 2025

The game now is to goad President Trump into any kind of executive action in defiance of this legal insurrection that would subject him to impeachment after January 2027, when a new Congress is seated, theoretically with a Democratic majority. There are several flaws in the Raskin / Eisen plan-of-action. One is their supposition that the Democratic Party is popular enough to win a Congressional majority in 2026, or that they will enjoy the installed devices of electoral cheating to achieve victory no matter what.

The party is currently blundering wildly in support of obviously insane actions that a vast majority voters oppose, such as stopping the deportation of illegal immigrants, allowing men to compete in women’s sports, and opposing proof of citizenship in federal elections. Which is to say that the voters are onto exactly how crazy and destructive the Democratic Party has become.

The question is: what can be done about this lawfare insurrection. An easy solution would be for Congress to pass a law restricting the power of federal judges to issue orders that affect the nation as a whole outside their own designated districts. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley has introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025. Grassley argues that nationwide injunctions, which allow a single district judge to block federal policies across the country, represent judicial overreach and disrupt the constitutional balance of powers.

In the House, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) has introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (HR 1526, passed on April 9) to complement Sen. Grassley’s bill. The Constitution is somewhat vague about the composition of a federal judiciary below the Supreme Court, and essentially leaves the matter to Congress to set parameters for the power of federal judges. Congress can also alter or abolish districts, such as the DC federal district from which so much partisan Democratic Party lawfare has emanated under political activist Judges James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, and Beryl Howell (all of them involved in the sadistic prosecutions of J-6 defendants).

The bills from each house next must go through a reconciliation process that boils them down to a single piece of legislation that can be sent to Mr. Trump for the presidential signature. The House passage is likely assured. The hang-up is that under Senate rules, the Democrats could mount a filibuster that would require 60 votes to break. The Republicans only control the chamber by a 53 to 47 majority, and no Democrats have signaled any intention to vote in favor of such a bill. In any case, the entire process would take months and might not succeed at all.

A much simpler remedy would be for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to rule in any of a number of cases now on their docket that the lawfare antics of the federal judges amount to interference with an independent executive branch — in short, that the judiciary can’t usurp the executive powers of the President, which include the conduct of foreign policy, the ability to manage personnel in executive agencies, and certain issues around the spending of taxpayer dollars.

A different sort of remedy would be the application by the DOJ of federal statute 18 USC 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States against Norm Eisen and his colleagues-in-lawfare for attempting to maliciously bury the executive branch in litigation for the purpose of nullifying the executive powers of the president. Beyond all that is the abyss: a nullified election, a paralyzed chief executive, and a constitutional crisis that has the potential to lead to civil violence. The Democrats seem willing to go there, perhaps even avid for it.

The Jacobins of 1793 were mad for blood, too, and they spilled a whole lot of it. By the summer of 1794, the blood was finally spouting out of their own necks. . . and then the Jacobin reign of terror came to a sudden and complete end. Heed their example.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on April 23 did not deny that he’s considering removing COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood vaccination schedule.

“We need to ask questions and we need to consult with parents, we need to give people informed consent, and we shouldn’t be making recommendations that are not good for the population,” Kennedy said during an appearance on Fox News.

Politico, citing anonymous sources, reported this week that Kennedy is mulling the removal of COVID-19 shots from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s schedule for children.

An official with the Department of Health and Human Services, which Kennedy heads, told The Epoch Times in an email that “no final decision has been made.”

The CDC, which is part of the department, did not return an inquiry.

Kennedy said on Fox that President Donald Trump does not believe that any person should be required to receive a vaccine, and noted that all vaccines carry risks.

“The COVID vaccine, the recommendation for kids was always dubious,” Kennedy said. 

“And it was dubious because kids had almost no risk for COVID-19. Some kids—certain kids that had very profound morbidities—may have a slight risk. Most kids don’t, so why are we giving this to tens of millions of kids? Because the vaccine itself does have profound risks.”

Kennedy noted that established side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine include a form of heart inflammation called myocarditis and a related condition called pericarditis. He also pointed out that 15 vaccinated participants in Pfizer’s clinical trial died, compared with 14 participants who did not receive the company’s vaccine.

Three COVID-19 vaccines are currently available for use in the United States: one from Pfizer, one from Moderna, and one from Novavax.

Advisers to the CDC recommended in 2022 that the agency add COVID-19 vaccines to the schedule, concluding that the benefits of the shots outweighed the risks. The CDC in 2023 added them to the schedule.

According to the schedule, all children who have never received a COVID-19 vaccine should receive at least one dose, depending on their age, while those who have received a vaccine in the past should receive at least one additional dose. Unlike many vaccines on the schedule, the COVID-19 vaccine has not been made compulsory for school attendance in states.

Kennedy said during his confirmation hearings, “I recommend that children follow the CDC schedule, and I will support the CDC schedule when I get in there if I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician, who had been considering voting against Kennedy, said in a speech on the Senate floor that Kennedy committed to maintaining the vaccine schedule without changes. Cassidy later wrote on social media platform X that the commitment “never precluded him from conducting sound scientific research” and that he was “confident any reputable review will further confirm settled science of the safety and efficacy of the childhood vaccine schedule.”

Only 13 percent of children have received one of the COVID-19 vaccines with the 2024–2025 formula, according to CDC data.

Children could still get a COVID-19 vaccine if it is removed from the schedule, but insurance may not pay for it if the removal happens.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), also a physician, wrote on X, “Secretary Kennedy would be well within his right to reverse the CDC’s Covid-19 vaccine recommendation for children.” 

Harris said he has been concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children “were based on politics rather than science.”

The CDC’s advisers recently discussed telling the agency to narrow its COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. The advisers plan to convene again over the summer to weigh the matter.

Jessica Adams, a former officer with the Food and Drug Administration, said on X that she supports updating the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations but that having the advisers back a change “would be helpful for the full public to embrace this move.”