Authored by Megan Brenan via Gallup,

Although Americans remain more likely to say their sympathies in the Middle East situation are with the Israelis rather than the Palestinians, the 46% expressing support for Israel is the lowest in 25 years of Gallup’s annual tracking of this measure on its World Affairs survey. The previous 51% low point in this trend of Americans’ sympathy for Israelis was recorded both last year and in 2001.

At the same time, the 33% of U.S. adults who now say they sympathize with the Palestinians is up six percentage points from last year and the highest reading by two points.

The latest reading is from a Gallup poll conducted Feb. 3-16, during which the temporary ceasefire and hostage exchange between Israel and Hamas that started in mid-January continued. The poll began one day before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s White House visit that included a joint press conference with President Donald Trump. During that press event on Feb. 4, Trump expressed his intent for the U.S. to own and redevelop the Gaza Strip.

The February poll also finds that 40% of U.S adults approve of Trump’s handling of the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians, which trails his overall job approval rating of 45%. Partisans are sharply divided in their job ratings of Trump, and they also hold different views of Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to view Israel favorably (83% vs. 33%, respectively), while Democrats view the Palestinian Territories more favorably than Republicans do (45% vs. 18%).

Republicans More Sympathetic to Israelis, Democrats to Palestinians

Partisans’ sympathies in the Middle East situation follow a pattern similar to their favorable ratings of the two countries. That is, Republicans broadly sympathize with the Israelis (75%) over the Palestinians (10%), while Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians over the Israelis by a nearly 3-to-1 ratio (59% vs. 21%). Independents’ sympathies are similar to the national averages.

Republicans and independents have consistently backed the Israelis since 2001, though independents’ support for the Israelis is now at its lowest in World Affairs surveys by one point. 

Democrats also sided with the Israelis until 2022, when roughly equal shares said they sympathized with each side. Since then, Democrats have supported the Palestinians.

Initially, Democrats’ declining sympathy for the Israelis was seemingly the result of disapproval of the nation’s right-leaning political leadership under Netanyahu. However, it has fallen further in the past two years. In February 2023, Democrats’ sympathies for the Israelis dipped to 38%, while the reading for Palestinians jumped 11 points to 49%, marking the first time Palestinian sympathies prevailed among this group.

Eight months later, on Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing over 1,000 Israelis and taking nearly 250 as hostages. Democrats’ sympathy for the Palestinian people had dipped six points by the following February. One year later, as a humanitarian crisis persists in Gaza, Democrats’ sympathy for the Palestinians is up 16 points, marking the first time it has reached the majority level.

Americans Continue to Support a Two-State Solution in the Middle East

For years, a core tenet of Middle East peace proposals has been the so-called “two-state solution,” which would entail the creation of a Palestinian state. Gallup has measured Americans’ views on this since 1999. Since then, more Americans have supported than opposed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and that continues today. Currently, 55% are in favor and 31% opposed, while 14% do not have an opinion.

The latest 55% of U.S. adults who favor establishing a Palestinian state is in line with readings since 2020, which have ranged from 52% to 55%. Before that, Americans were still more in favor of an independent Palestinian state than opposed, but support was mostly below the majority level. Support and opposition were most similar to each other in 2015 and 2017.

Majorities of Democrats, Independents Support Independent Palestinian State

Given their majority-level sympathy for the Palestinians, it follows that Democrats are also broadly supportive of an independent Palestinian state. About three-quarters of Democrats, 76%, are in favor of such a state, compared with 53% of independents. While 41% of Republicans support a Palestinian state, 49% are opposed.

Democrats’ support for a Palestinian state has been trending upward since 2021, whereas independents’ has been relatively steady over the same period. Republicans’ support is up 15 points after dropping sharply last year.

Bottom Line

Americans’ sympathies with the Israelis continue to decline, largely because of Democrats’ dwindling support for the Israelis in the long-standing conflict with the Palestinians. Republicans remain overwhelmingly sympathetic toward the Israelis.

Meanwhile, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is still supported by a majority of Americans, though by far more Democrats than Republicans. Discussion of a two-state approach for achieving peace in the region is largely on hold following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as world leaders wrestle with how Israel’s safety will be secured after the war, what role Hamas will play in Gaza and how the West Bank will be governed.

SpaceX canceled Monday’s Starship/Super Heavy test flight (Flight Test 8) after failing to resolve technical issues with the mega-rocket in the final minute of the countdown. Now, Elon Musk’s rocket company has announced that Flight Test 8 has been rescheduled for Thursday evening. 

“Counting down to Starship’s eighth flight test. Weather looks favorable at the pad, and the 60-minute launch window opens at 5:30 p.m. CT,” SpaceX wrote on X late in the afternoon. 

Counting down to Starship’s eighth flight test. Weather looks favorable at the pad and the 60-minute launch window opens at 5:30 p.m. CT → https://t.co/alyJTRtOIP pic.twitter.com/EWUCtBhojH

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) March 6, 2025

*  *  * 

Just over six weeks after SpaceX’s Starship-Super Heavy Flight Test 7 lifted off from Boca Chica, Texas, ending in a dramatic spectacle—the massive booster successfully caught by ‘Chopsticks’ while Starship itself was lost in a fireball over the Atlantic Ocean—Elon Musk’s space company is set to conduct Flight Test 8 of the world’s largest rocket this evening. 

Starship’s launch window opens at 1730 local time at SpaceX’s Starbase facility in south Texas. The primary goal of this launch is to test Starship’s ability to deploy Starlink “simulator” satellites into low Earth orbit. 

Summary of Flight Test 8:

Launch Details:

• Scheduled for Monday, March 3

• 60-minute launch window opens at 5:30 p.m. CT

• Live webcast starts 40 minutes before liftoff on SpaceX’s X account and X TV app

Post-Flight 7 Investigation & Upgrades [upgrades made after Flight Test 7’s firey demise of Starship]: 

• Hardware and operational changes made to increase upper stage reliability

• Forward flap upgrades reduce reentry heating exposure

• Propulsion system enhancements include a 25% increase in propellant volume

• Avionics system redesigned for added capability and redundancy

Flight Objectives:

• Follows same suborbital trajectory as previous missions

• First payload deployment test (four Starlink simulators)

• Multiple reentry experiments to improve upper stage return and catch capabilities

• Super Heavy booster launch, return, and catch attempt

Key Experiments & Tests:

• Starlink simulators to be deployed, but expected to burn up on reentry

• Single Raptor engine relight in space test planned

• Reentry stress tests: Tiles removed to test vulnerable areas, Metallic tile alternatives tested, including active cooling, and Structural stress tests on rear flaps at max reentry pressure.

• Catch fitting thermal performance test

• Radar sensor accuracy tests on chopsticks for improved vehicle retrieval

Super Heavy Booster Enhancements:

• Upgraded avionics, including a more powerful flight computer

• Improved power/network distribution and smart batteries

Booster Return & Catch Criteria:

• Safety measures in place: Healthy systems required on booster tower and Final manual command needed from Flight Director before boostback burn. 

• If conditions are not met, booster will soft splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico

The crypto-based online betting marketplace Polymarket has nine bets on today’s test flight, including the following: Will “Chopsticks catch Super Heavy?” Those odds stand at 78%. 

Watch Test Flight 8 Here:  

. . . 

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

A record number of U.S. CEOs departed from their companies in January, with the share of interim leaders being hired by businesses seeing a big surge, according to a report from global outplacement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

“The number of CEO changes at U.S. companies fell 3 percent in January to 222 from 230 exits in December,” the company said in the March 4 report. 

“It is up 14 percent from 194 CEO exits recorded in the first month of 2024.” 

The January figure “was the highest for the month since Challenger began tracking CEO turnover in 2002. The previous record for January occurred in 2020, when 219 CEOs left during the month.”

Andrew Challenger, senior vice president of the business, said that “due to the ongoing political and economic uncertainty, many companies may find now to be a prudent time to change leadership.”

The largest turnover was seen among the government/nonprofit sector where 51 CEO transitions took place in January.

This was followed by technology, health care/products, entertainment/leisure, financial, services, and hospitals sectors, each of which saw CEO exits in double digits.

Region-wise, the West saw the biggest number of executives leaving companies at 72 departures for January, followed by the East, South, and Midwest.

Some of the top reasons for CEO exits include deciding to retire, pursuing new opportunities, and completion of the interim period.

The report found that interim leadership soared in January this year, with 19 percent of new leaders named in the month assigned on an interim basis. This is up from 6 percent share a year back.

“Companies are grappling with the actions of a new administration that is cutting federal spending and eliminating contracts while market fluctuations and new technologies continue to roil company plans. It makes sense to name someone on a temporary basis,” said Challenger.

However, interim leaders come “with steep costs,” he added. “Teams often struggle to coalesce under interim leadership due to the uncertainty surrounding it—how long the tenure will last, whether the leader can effectively manage the existing team, and how team members will be evaluated or retained.”

While CEO exits are high, optimism among executives about the state of the U.S. economy remains elevated, according to a recent survey from The Conference Board.

The think tank’s “Measure of CEO Confidence” hit the highest level in three years, suggesting that executives were moving from the cautious optimism of last year to “confident optimism.”

“There was a notable increase in the share of CEOs expecting to increase investment plans and a decline in the share expecting to downsize investment plans,” said Stephanie Guichard, senior economist of global indicators at The Conference Board.

The high confidence among executives comes as the new Trump administration has made boosting the business environment in the United States a priority.

President Donald Trump said that a new shipbuilding office is set to be created in the White House, providing the sector with fresh tax incentives.

“To boost our defense industrial base, we are also going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial shipbuilding and military shipbuilding,” said the president.

The Department of the Treasury recently announced it will no longer enforce an ownership reporting requirement for businesses that was criticized as being too burdensome. The rule impacted an estimated 34 million small-business owners.

Anal contusions by day, ‘thick-assed’ rap video girl by night.

A seven-year NYPD veteran in the Special Victim’s Unit (SVU) has come under fire after her appearance in a viral rap video, where she pole dances in a bra and G-string while being showered with cash, according to the Daily Mail.

The video, ‘Doin That’ by S-Quire, features detective Melissa Mercado, 28, who can be seen gyrating as Mr. Quire raps: “Ass is thick. Just want to smash it quick,” adding “I like the way she doin that, the way she sliding up the pole, the way she doin that, the way she drop it to the floor.”

Indeed.

The dancer isn’t named in the video, but fellow NYPD officers recognized her earlier this week, sharing snickering comments as they circulated a link to the video.

Mercado did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for comment, but seconds after a message was left on her phone her social media pages were taken down. The NYPD did not respond to repeated requests for comment. 

…

Posted in February, Doin That has garnered millions of views on social media, including 1.2 million on YouTube where it was posted by World Star Hip Hop, and 1.1 million on S-Quire’s Instagram page.

It’s also made his young temptress in the video the talk of the NYPD, where rank and file cops have shared not just the video but also other thirst-trap photos Mercado has posted of herself on Instagram and Facebook.

The detective, the mom of a young boy, took down her Instagram page earlier this week as her steamy performance went viral. –Daily Mail

Watch:

Was Mercado undercover?

When the Mail reached Mr. Quire for comment, he was like ‘wut?’

“I didn’t know what she did for a living,” he told the outlet, laughing. “She doesn’t seem like a detective. When you think of detectives, you think of Special Victims Unit on the TV.”

“This is interesting. I’m kind of blown away,” he added. “I don’t know what to say about Honeybee at this point. Ah, Honeybee, Honeybee, Honeybee.”

Retired NYPD officer and lawyer Eric Sanders said that Mercado’s actions are “inconsistent with the values and professional standards the public expects from law enforcement – especially those entrusted with investigating sensitive cases involving special victims,” adding “The department must conduct a thorough review of this detective’s conduct, caseload, and overall fitness for duty to ensure accountability and maintain public confidence in its officers.”

*  *  *

Anza Knives are back In Stock! We just got a huge delivery.

Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back, lifetime guarantee. If you’re looking for a great daily carry, check this one out.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Is the era of rounding up government or academic “experts” to declare their support or opposition to ongoing controversies over?

Public declarations by Anthony Fauci and his associates to follow their “expertise” or “science” did not work out well and persuaded few.

Recall the 1,200 partisan healthcare “professionals” of June 2020 who flipped to assure us that it was mysteriously now medically OK to break quarantines—but only if to publicly protest during the post-George Floyd unrest.

Do we remember the “70 arms control and nuclear experts?” In 2015, they were collected by Obama subordinates to convince America to embrace the flawed administration’s so-called Iran Deal.

In 2021, “Seventeen recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences” assured there would follow no inflation from the Biden administration’s massive borrowing and spending.

Hyperinflation followed.

Most recently, five former Secretaries of Defense—William Perry, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, and Lloyd Austin—co-authored a public letter to Congress. They blasted the Trump administration’s dismissals from command of several generals—including the current chairman of the joint chiefs, General C. Q. Brown Jr.

They argued that such firings were political and thus would weaken the military and depress recruitment. As a result, they demanded congressional investigations.

Oversight of anything in government is always welcomed. But there are a number of inconsistencies in the letter that unfortunately diminish the force of its argument.

First, firing generals is hardly new. Many presidents have relieved commanding officers—even wartime combat theater commanders—without much, if any, explanation.

Consider just one recent pre-Trump presidency—the tenure of Barack Obama. He fired Gen. David McKiernan as commander of all American troops in Afghanistan. And he did so without much explanation.

No president had dismissed such a wartime theater commander since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1950.

Obama then fired his replacement Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Obama also dismissed, arguably quite unfairly, one of the signees of the current letter, Gen. James Mattis, from his directorship of U.S. Central Command—without any coherent or convincing explanation.

In all three cases, the Obama replacement generals did not display any record of improvement over their fired and often gifted predecessors.

Obama, for reasons both good and bad, also approved the firings of Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, an aircraft carrier group commander. The list of Obama’s dismissals goes on and on: Air Force Major Michael Carey, Vice Adm. Tim Giardina—and most controversially Army Gen. Michael Flynn who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014

Firing generals or appointees who do not agree with the visions or strategies or even the politics of the commander in chief is thus somewhat routine.

So, for example, is the political firing of appointees to non-partisan defense advisory boards. President Biden fired 18 such nonpartisan appointees to service academy boards—without explanation. President Obama, upon entering the White House, fired almost the entire board of the nonpartisan American Battle Monuments Commission without cause—and replaced them with ideologically akin appointees.

Second, as for worries about recruitment, one might counter that the recent curtailment of DEI ideological fixations is already beginning to restore previously anemic recruitment to near-record single-day sign-ups.

The Pentagon in the past was not always completely candid about either shortfalls in recruitment or the reasons for such reduced signups. Some would argue that it was near suicidal to drum out some 8,500 veteran officers and enlisted men for refusing the COVID-19 vaccinations, the vast majority of whom had acquired natural immunity from the virus. Now the military concedes they are sorely needed and is inviting them to reenlist.

Pentagon data that increasingly is calibrated in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation, have also shown that in recent years, white males, who serve and die—asymmetrically to their demographics—in combat theaters, have shied away from the military, and disproportionally account for general recruitment shortfalls.

One likely explanation is that they apparently felt that inordinate political Pentagon DEI emphases and public congressional commentary from Pentagon brass about supposed endemic “white privilege” or purported racist cabals were aimed at them. In 2021, Secretary of Defense Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley seemed to weigh in before Congress on highly political and polarizing matters of critical race theory—even connecting the January 6 demonstrations to supposed “whiteness”, opining on “white rage,” and recommending the controversial racialist works of Ibram X. Kendi.

Politics in the Pentagon predated the current Trump administration.

Third, the Pentagon over the last four years does need a shake-up, given the humiliation in Afghanistan, the greatest disaster in a half-century since the 1975 flight from the embassy roof in Saigon. Confusion reigned over the Chinese military and likely spy balloon that nearly traversed the continental U.S. with impunity. The U.S. failed to respond promptly and disproportionally to several Iranian-connected terrorist attacks on U.S. military installations in Iran, Jordan, and Syria. And the Houthis brazenly disrupted Red Sea international maritime traffic with near exemption for months.

Because of the Biden administration’s poor decisions, the U.S. military seemed to have lost much of its previous deterrence in key international waterways such as the Red Sea, the South China Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz.

Recruitment until recently was stagnant. Stockpiles of key munitions were dangerously low. And the U.S. had not found any strategic resolution after interventions in Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya.

Moreover, since the beginning of outside military audits in 2017, the Pentagon had flunked all three in succession.

Fourth, over the last decade there have been flurries of all sorts of professionals’ letters—from military, economic, and political “experts” decrying the particular policies of the administration in power. Most do not resonate since many of their criticisms would be equally applicable to other administrations of the opposite party and thus fairly or not, are deemed political.

In the past, several retired generals have weighed in contrary to the uniform code of military justice, by blasting their commander-in-chief as a Mussolini-like character, a liar, comparable to the architect of the Birkenau death camp at Auschwitz, and indeed in need of removal “the sooner the better.”

The recent past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, contrary to the law, inserted himself into the chain of command. He quite improperly contacted his Chinese military counterpart to warn him about a supposedly dangerously erratic President Trump. And in recent retirement, he claimed the ex-president—and now current president—was a “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous man to the country.” That seems a fairly politicized thing to do.

Fifth, some of the signees themselves have come under bipartisan criticism. Former secretary of State Leon Panetta was one of the 51 signees in October 2020 who falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop had all the “hallmarks” of a Russian influencing campaign.

It had none.

We know that because the laptop at the time was in the possession of the FBI, which had already internally authenticated its contents. Panetta has since refused to apologize for what might be legitimately called a “disinformation” letter.

Remember, the partisan letter was solicited by Biden campaign advisor Antony Blinken, soon-to-be-secretary of state, to arm candidate Biden in the upcoming and last debate of 2020 with some sort of defense against the incriminating contents of the laptop.

It was promoted by clearly partisan former interim CIA Director Michael Morrell and retired military partisans such as Gens. James Clapper and Michael Hayden as well as former CIA Director John Brennan.

Because the letter was timed to the final 2020 debate in the last weeks of the election, and because it was known at the time to be patently false, but passed off by Biden as authenticated by “authorities”, it may well have played a pivotal role in determining the outcome.

Other signees themselves were relieved as defense secretaries by presidents of both parties, whether fairly or not—including Chuck Hagel and Jim Mattis. Signee Lloyd Austin weathered calls for his resignation when for several days he was veritably AWOL, undergoing a serious medical procedure, without informing his superior, the Command-in-Chief.

The point is not to criticize the critics, but rather to bring some humility into the conversation that the firings of defense secretaries, high-ranking military officers, and appointees to military advisory boards predated Donald Trump, as did the politicalization of the military.

The current secretary of defense Pete Hegseth believes he is depoliticizing a previously unduly politicized military, not further weaponizing it.

Whether that proves an accurate diagnosis can be adjudicated in the upcoming months by a number of barometers:

Will the Pentagon for the first time in recent years soon pass an outside audit?

Will current restorative surges in recruitment be sustained and more than meet formerly unmet targeted enlistments?

Will currently envisioned defense cuts target the unnecessary programs that hamper battle efficacy or instead harm operational ability?

Will lost deterrence return to the U.S?

Will there be more or fewer theater-wide wars, such as those in Ukraine and the Middle East?

Will the Pentagon procurement pivot from traditional military systems and platforms, following lessons in the Middle East and Ukraine, in order to emphasize drones, and cheaper and more numerous munitions?

And lastly and most importantly, will the generals who replaced those fired prove more adroit in defending U.S. interests and less political—or less so?

The realities that follow from these firings, not necessarily the firings themselves, or the anger at them, will answer those questions.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Elon Musk, who is advising President Donald Trump on reducing government waste and downsizing the federal workforce, has called for privatizing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and passenger rail operator Amtrak.

“I think logically, we should privatize anything that can reasonably be privatized,” Musk said at a March 5 Morgan Stanley conference.

“I think we should privatize the Post Office and Amtrak for example.”

Amtrak, a government-owned company created in 1970, reported an adjusted operating loss of $705 million in the prior fiscal year.

USPS, also government-owned, has accumulated over $100 billion in losses since 2007, including $9.5 billion in the 12 months ending Sept. 30, 2024.

Neither Amtrak nor USPS responded to requests for comment on Musk’s remarks by publication time.

The National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) voiced opposition to Musk’s idea of privatizing USPS, emphasizing the service’s public mission.

“A friendly reminder on behalf of every American who depends on USPS (including 51.5 million rural addresses): It’s called universal service, not ‘as much as possible’ service,” NALC wrote in a post on X. “And we’ll #FightLikeHell to protect it.”

Trump has previously suggested that the USPS could be privatized, a move that would allow for more flexibility in pricing and labor negotiations.

During Trump’s first term, his administration proposed a restructuring plan for USPS, citing “extremely high” fixed costs and an inability to support its financial obligations. The plan highlighted over $100 billion in unfunded liabilities, a decade of consecutive losses, and a growing capital investment backlog.

“A privatized Postal Service would have a substantially lower cost structure, be able to adapt to changing customer needs and make business decisions free from political interference, and have access to private capital markets to fund operational improvements without burdening taxpayers,” the proposal stated.

Last month, Trump said he was considering merging USPS with the Commerce Department, a move that Democrats said would violate federal law.

Calling USPS “a tremendous loser for the country,” Trump said the objective of such a move would be to have a “post office that works well and doesn’t lose massive amounts of money.”

Democrats have consistently opposed privatization efforts, warning that changes to USPS operations could disproportionately impact rural communities and those dependent on postal services for essential goods and medication.

Trump has also repeatedly pushed to cut Amtrak’s federal funding, which totaled approximately $2.4 billion last year. His past budget proposals sought to reduce Amtrak’s funding by 40–50 percent and eliminate long-distance routes, arguing that resources should be redirected to higher-traffic corridors.

Musk, comparing U.S. rail service to China’s high-speed system, criticized Amtrak as a “sad situation,” saying, “It will leave you with a very bad impression of America.”

Update (1445ET): Despite his shots at Trudeau earlier in the day, which suggested he would ice the Canadians out of their USMCA exemption, President Trump just confirmed he will also exempt compliant goods from our neighbor to the north.

As Bloomberg reports, President Donald Trump will exempt Mexican and Canadian goods covered by the North American trade agreement known as USMCA from his 25% tariffs, offering major reprieves to the US’s two largest trading partners.

The pause on the tariffs, which are related to illegal immigration and fentanyl tracking, will expire on April 2, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. That is the date when the president is expected to start unveiling plans for so-called reciprocal duties on nations around the world as well as sector-specific duties.

“Hopefully Mexico and Canada will have done a good enough job on fentanyl that this part of the conversation will be off the table” when the new tariffs kick in, Lutnick said in a statement.

The White House estimates that 62% of Canadian imports will still be subject to the tariffs, most of which are energy products that are being tariffed at a 10% rate, and half of goods coming from Mexico. 

A White House official cautioned those proportions could change as importers rush to comply with the new rules.

Trump decided to pare back the tariffs after speaking to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and auto company executives.

As a reminder, we are at a critical level on the Trump Tariff 1.0 analog…

Will it be different this time?

*  *  *

Update (1130ET): President Trump has confirmed what Howard Lutnick hinted at earlier. In a Truth Social post, Trump noted that Mexico ()not Canada) will be exampt from tariffs on USMCA-compliant goods until April 2nd…

After speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, I have agreed that Mexico will not be required to pay Tariffs on anything that falls under the USMCA Agreement. 

This Agreement is until April 2nd. 

I did this as an accommodation, and out of respect for, President Sheinbaum. 

Our relationship has been a very good one, and we are working hard, together, on the Border, both in terms of stopping Illegal Aliens from entering the United States and, likewise, stopping Fentanyl. 

Thank you to President Sheinbaum for your hard work and cooperation!

Sheinbaum replied, thanking the US president:

The peso surged up to two-wekek highs…

What happens on April 3rd?

*  *  *

US equity markets are rebounding off yesterday’s lows following remarks by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC that raise the potential fdor exemptions for any goods that are USMCA-compliant:

Trump will decide Thursday on the scope of a one-month exemption on 25% tariffs imposed this month on the US’s two largest trading partners, Lutnick said in an interview with CNBC.

“I think it’s likely it will cover all USMCA-compliant goods and services,” he said.

This comes on the day when the trade balance data shows a record trade deficit overall (as imports surged to front-run tariffs)…

Lutnick said he and Trump would be speaking with their Mexican counterparts later Thursday and that both Mexico and Canada “offered us an enormous amount of work on fentanyl.”

The knee-jerk reaction was positive – erasing around half of this morning’s selloff…

The question is – will these be temporary exemptions… or will Trump change his mind again?

The Trump administration has freed millions of businesses from a red-tape chore concocted primarily by Democrats: On Sunday, the Treasury Department announced it would not enforce a rule requiring businesses to file beneficial ownership reports with an obscure federal agency. The move came only a day after Elon Musk responded to an X user’s plea for intervention on the issue, replying, “I can look into it.”   

Intended to thwart money-laundering and other financial crimes facilitated by shell companies, the beneficial ownership information (BOI) rule would have put the ownership information of more than 32 million entities in a US Treasury database, with no exemption for even the smallest. Business owners were supposed to report each beneficial owner’s name, birthdate and address to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) — and upload an image of a drivers license, passport or other acceptable form of identification.  

Now, however, the Treasury says it will not enforce the rule, and will issue a proposed rule-making that would confine the rule’s scope to foreign reporting companies. “This is a victory for common sense,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.  “Today’s action is part of President Trump’s bold agenda to unleash American prosperity by reining in burdensome regulations, in particular for small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy.” 

Sunday’s Treasury announcement came just a day after comedian and conservative influencer Terrence K. Williams used X to beg Elon Musk to intervene and help kill the rule. “I can look into it,” Musk replied. 

I can look into it

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 2, 2025

The BOI rule, which sprang from 2019’s Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), was already in some jeopardy. As the Jan 1, 2025 deadline loomed, a federal judge in December issued a nationwide injunction barring its enforcement, based on the substantial likelihood the rule would be found unconstitutional; corporate regulation is traditionally a matter for the individual states. 

The Wall Street Journal called the Treasury move only a “half-victory for small business”: As long as it remains law under the CTA, the requirement could conceivably spring back to life under a future Democratic administration, provided the courts don’t put a dagger in it. “Instead of relying on the unknown outcome of litigation, Republicans can use their majorities in Congress to repeal this needless burden on small business,” wrote the Journal’s editorial board.

Elon this is very Humble of you. Thank you and President Trump for looking into BOI

The Beneficial Ownership Information Rule was going to crush small business owners

The government wanted to help small businesses owners by threatening to arrest & fine us for not filling out… https://t.co/XA0zYLdd21

— Terrence K. Williams (@w_terrence) March 3, 2025

The rule was poorly-publicized, exposing small business owners to onerous penalties for a duty most didn’t even know they had. Punishment for noncompliance would have ranged from civil fines of up to $591 a day to criminal consequences of up to $250,000 and a five-year prison term. Compliance would have had its own costs: FinCEN itself estimated that compliance would cost $22.7 billion in the first year alone, and then $5.6 billion in subsequent years into perpetuity. 

Supporters of the rule condemned Treasury’s announcement, and predicted the end-run around a provision of the CTA won’t stand.  “Hollowing out the Corporate Transparency Act is an unconstitutional subversion of Congress’ intent that will not survive judicial scrutiny,” said Ian Gary, executive director of the FACT Coalition. 

President Trump heralded the nixing of the requirement. “This Biden rule has been an absolute disaster for Small Businesses Nationwide,” he said on Truth Social. “The economic menace of BOI reporting will soon be no more.”

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal appeals court ruled on March 3 against Amish people who challenged New York state’s repeal of religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Amish did not show violations of their constitutional rights.

The law enacting the repeal “is neutral on its face” and “does not target or affirmatively prohibit religious practices,” the unanimous panel said in a per curiam ruling. “The law simply applies New York’s school immunization requirements to all schoolchildren who do not qualify for the law’s medical exemption.”

The panel consisted of U.S. Circuit Judges Jose Cabranes, Eunice Lee, and Richard Wesley.

For years, New York allowed religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements, which include vaccination for measles, polio, and pertussis.

Lawmakers approved an amendment to the state’s public health law in 2019 following a measles outbreak that spread partly among unvaccinated children. The amendment removed the ability to seek and receive a religious exemption. Now, only a medical exemption is available, provided that a doctor certifies that a vaccine “may be detrimental to a child’s health.”

Amish parents and schools sued New York state in 2023, alleging that the repeal of the religious exemption violated their constitutional rights, including their First Amendment right to free expression.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford ruled against the plaintiffs in 2024. She pointed to a Second Circuit decision that upheld Connecticut’s law pertaining to vaccination requirements for schoolchildren, which, she wrote, “ is not materially different from New York’s.” The Second Circuit ruled that not allowing religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates was a reasonable way to protect public health.

“However colorable Plaintiffs’ claims may have been at the outset of this action, this Court is bound by the Second Circuit’s intervening decision,” Wolford said.

In their appeal, the Amish argued that the law was motivated by discrimination, pointing to statements made by lawmakers.

The Second Circuit judges disagreed.

The judges said that while a small number of legislators may have offered such statements, the Amish did not show that a sizable portion of legislators held those views. Instead, many legislators put forth statements in support of religious freedom, and about 40 percent of each legislative chamber voted against the repeal.

The judges also rejected arguments that the medical exemption to the vaccination requirements means that New York state is treating secular conduct more favorably than religious beliefs. They said the medical exemption is more narrow because it requires a doctor’s determination that a specific vaccine would be detrimental to a child’s health, and it must be reissued on an annual basis. The religious exemption covered the duration of a child’s time in school and applied to all required vaccines.

“The religious exemption’s sweep had a far greater ability to undermine the State’s interest in preventing the spread of disease,” they said.

Elon Musk revealed on a recent Joe Rogan podcast that SpaceX offered to rescue the stranded Boeing Starliner astronauts on the International Space Station last year, but the Biden administration rejected the offer “for political reasons.” Musk claimed, “There is no way they’re going to make anyone supporting Trump look good” ahead of the November presidential elections. 

“We offered to bring them back early – this offer was rejected by the Biden administration”0

Joe: “Why?”

Elon: “Political reasons. There is no way they’re going to make someone supporting Trump look good.”pic.twitter.com/QXVbpDPgKr

— Donna Marie (@sabback) March 6, 2025

Fast forward to Tuesday, a Washington Post journalist asked the stranded astronauts, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, if the Biden administration rejected Musk’s space rescue offer ahead of the election.

Wilmore responded: “I can only say that Mr. Musk, what he says is absolutely factual…” He noted that the exact reasons behind the offer being rejected were unknown to him or Williams. 

… and the WaPo journalist was crushed by Wilmore’s response, validating Musk’s claims. 

NEW: Astronaut says Elon Musk is “absolutely factual” after a WaPo reporter asked him about how Musk said his rescue efforts were denied for political reasons.

Musk was condemned by the media for making the comment but it appears the astronauts agree.

Reporter: “Elon Musk has… pic.twitter.com/Qeb8sF8gnT

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 6, 2025

The big revelation by Wilmore, plus Musk’s comments, paints the Biden-Harris administration as reckless for jeopardizing the lives of two of America’s top astronauts. 

Musk commented about this on X:

The astronauts were only supposed to be up there for 8 days and now have been there for 8 months. SpaceX could have sent up another Dragon and brought them home 6 months ago, but the Biden White House (not NASA) refused to allow it. President Trump asked to bring them back as soon as possible and we are doing so.

The astronauts were only supposed to be up there for 8 days and now have been there for 8 months.

SpaceX could have sent up another Dragon and brought them home 6 months ago, but the Biden White House (not NASA) refused to allow it.

President Trump asked to bring them back as… https://t.co/BVsHRn2Ocf

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 5, 2025

Bill Ackman chimed in on the conversation:

So not only did Biden not invite @elonmusk to the White House EV summit, Biden would not let Elon retrieve the astronauts from the Space Station. When a president puts our astronauts at risk for his own political benefit, we have reached a new low point in presidential history.

Once again, the Biden-Harris regime stands accused of prioritizing a corrupt political party first over national well-being, this time at the expense of two astronauts who have remained in space for 7.5 months longer than initially anticipated. 

We could see this playing out a mile away. We said last August:  “Additionally, it’s an election year for the Biden administration, which has been on a crusade against Trump and his supporters, but also is very anti-Musk. Any rescue mission by SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft is undesirable news flow for Democrats.”